https://www.fieldandstream.com/conservation/bill-repeal-pittman-robertson/ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors
timberdoodle's Link
DanaC's Link
"Last week Andrew Clyde (R-GA) introduced the RETURN (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act to eliminate the 11 percent federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition that funds conservation in America. Clyde’s argument is that the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition threaten Second Amendment rights."
JL's Link
Attached is his website.
For example, Connecticut for many years was not distinguishing how much gas tax funds were due to the Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees hunters and fishermen, who buy gas for primarily boating, and just dumping it into the "General Fund" where it was, let's say misspent. Having been caught at it things changed, but I doubt completely.
1.5 billion to the penny goes where? If it stops coming in, where it has gone will squeal, and there might be a few surprises.
Yes, the intent of the PR is all good and fine, but who's in change of the bookkeeping? The same people who are unaccountable for ANYTHING, and the lying bas-turds get away with it scot-free.
JL's Link
Where Does All that Pittman-Robertson Tax Money Really Go?
Ben O'Brien Jan 2, 2019
During the Great Depression, on February 3, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the very first North American Wildlife Conference, which gathered over 2,000 conservationists in Washington, D.C. It was a bold move for the President, and a turning point for who pays for what in the conservation world.
“My purpose is to bring together individuals, organizations, and agencies interested in the restoration and conservation of wildlife resources,” President Roosevelt said in his opening remarks. Speakers at the conference also came from Mexico and Canada, presenting a united front on the idea of conserving lands, waters and wildlife.
“Units in the federation will include such members as sportsmen’s clubs, nature leagues, conservation associations, farm groups, garden clubs and others interested in wildlife conservation and restoration,” F. A. Silcox, chief of the forest service, wrote in a press release.
President Roosevelt called for constructive proposals and concrete action, pushing his colleagues to do more than simply make speeches. After meeting for four days, the newly dubbed “wildlife conservation movement” outlined their goals. The second of which was to acquire for the purpose of conservation “adequate financial support from public funds.”
A year later, in 1937, President Roosevelt signed into law the “Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act” which amazingly went from introduction to signature in just 93 days. The monumental piece of legislation was dubbed the Pittman-Robertson Act after the lead sponsors of the bill, Sen. Key Pittman (NV) and Rep. Absalom Willis Robertson (VA).
The bill would set up a system in which the already existing 11 percent excise taxes on the sale of firearms and ammunition would be directed to the United States Fish & Wildlife Service to fund all the necessary programs designed to meet the goals of the new ideals of conservation. Among them were wildlife refuges, wildlife research, private and public habitat management and public access to land through land acquisition and easements. Decades later, hunter education and things like public target ranges became beneficiaries of the funds.
As time passed and the hunting and shooting sports evolved, several amendments were required to update the legislation, including an 11 percent tax on archery gear and a 10 percent tax on handguns and handgun ammo.
Pittman-Robertson was part of a sweeping reform that defined the era and remains a bedrock of the “user pays, public benefits” principle that has defined modern conservation.
What Does it Mean Today? According to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, in 2017 alone, state fish and wildlife agencies received over $629 million from Pittman-Robertson funds. The program has contributed over $11 billion since its inception.
The excise tax revenue from Pittman-Robertson obviously doesn’t come from sportsmen alone. There are millions of non-hunters that buy guns, ammo and archery equipment. Nonetheless, their taxes get thrown into the pot.
This is great news for wildlife. Even if there continues to be a precipitous fall in hunting participation as has been reported in recent years, those losses can be combated with more purchases at the gun counter. At least there are options to keep states well funded, and there is always hope that all Americans care about our wild animals and are willing at some level to pay up.
Nowadays, purchasers of guns, ammo, bows and arrows are not presented with the excise tax they pay on their receipts. The tax is paid for by the manufacturers directly to the federal government. Companies like Vista Outdoors, owners of brands like Savage, Federal Premium, CCI and more paid over $87 million to Pittman-Robertson funds in 2017.
Consumers are not informed of the excise tax in hunting regulation handbooks or the like. Chances are there is a large part of the hunting population paying for conservation that has no clue.
That brings us to the two questions every taxpayer asks at some point: Where is my money going and how does it get there?
To get some perspective on that it’s important to follow the money.
It’s essential to realize that the producer, manufacturer or importer pays the tax on the wholesale price of the products subject to program funding. Those companies or individuals provide the payment that is then collected by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau on firearms or the Internal Revenue Service on archery products. The funds are then deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Account, which is run by the USFWS. The USFWS places the tax revenue in what is called the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund and then distributes funds to the states via a special formula.
The formula basically has a system of filters and stipulations in order to determine how each dollar of the pot might be spent.
First, one-half of the excise tax on pistols is set aside to cover the costs of what is known as “basic hunter education,” which means safety programs and everything that it costs to have and maintain them. An additional $8 million goes to “enhanced hunter education,” which includes things like public target ranges.
Next, another $3 million is appropriated to projects that require cooperation between multiple states.
After a few other stipulations are considered, the remaining funds are divided in half based on overall land area and paid hunting licenses per state as compared to the number of hunters nationally.
Texas scores high in both these categories, so for example, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department takes the average of $16 million per year that comes from Pittman-Robertson funds and puts it back into conservation. This supports working with landowners to set and adhere to goals for habitat.
This all wraps up in one pretty fine package. The consumptive user pays a tax, the federal government collects that tax and then thoughtfully distributes that money back to the states. The states make sure that they have an educated group of hunters that have a place to hunt and animals to pursue.
JL's Link
Bill to funnel $1.4 billion into fish & wildlife programs passes U.S. House, heads to Senate
UPDATED: Fri., June 17, 2022
By Eric Barker The Lewiston Tribune
LEWISTON – A bill that could deliver much-needed funding to state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and moves on to the Senate for consideration.
The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act was approved 231-190 Tuesday. Rep. Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho’s 2nd Congressional District, co-sponsored the legislation and voted in favor of it. His fellow Republican, Rep. Russ Fulcher from Idaho’s 1st Congressional District, voted no. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican representing Eastern Washington, also voted no.
If approved by the Senate and signed by President Joe Biden, the bill that amends the popular Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act would direct the annual distribution of $1.3 billion from the U.S. Treasury to state wildlife agencies and $97.5 million to tribal wildlife agencies.
Although the formula is subject to change based on Senate action, as it stands now, Idaho would receive an estimated $18 million annually and Washington $21 million. The states would continue to receive traditional Pittman-Robertson funding that distributes federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition to state and tribal wildlife agencies.
Brian Brooks, executive director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, called the bill a “generational investment” in fish and wildlife conservation. Many fish and wildlife agencies, such as the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, are funded largely by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and tags and a share of excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment. Some, like the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, also receive a portion of state general funds.
Wildlife agencies often struggle to fund the entire suite of needed habitat restoration and species conservation activities that fall under their authority – especially those associated with species that are not hunted and fished and don’t have dedicated sources of funding. In a stop-gap measure they often divert money from dedicated funding sources to help “nongame” species and meet their mandate of protecting all fish and wildlife species.
“This is a way for everybody else who enjoys wildlife and benefits from their existence to pay for their conservation,” Brooks said. “Sportsmen have been doing it forever. We all love fish and wildlife, yet only sportsmen are funding (management and conservation).”
The bill directs the funding be prioritized toward species that already are under or are at risk of ending up under the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act. Jim Fredericks, deputy director of Idaho Fish and Game, said the legislation, if passed, will help prevent future listings under the ESA and the restrictive regulations that often accompany them.
“It would bring significantly more money to Idaho for proactive fish and wildlife conservation and some of the species that haven’t benefited from traditional sources of funding,” he said. “One of the purposes of the legislation is to provide resources to keep species off the endangered species list. So its potential is not just to be a real benefit for wildlife in Idaho but the people of Idaho as well.”
Simpson said in a statement that he was pleased to help advance a bill originally co-authored and co-sponsored by the late Don Young, a Republican congressman from Alaska.
“Healthy and diverse wildlife populations in Idaho provide environmental and economic benefits, and by ensuring we have robust populations of fish and wildlife we are making a long-term investment in the future for anglers and hunters,” he said. “I’m proud that the House of Representatives came together in a bipartisan fashion to support this measure that one of America’s great fishermen and hunters led before his passing.”
A spokesperson for McMorris Rodgers said inflation and high gas prices led to her opposition.
“While Cathy supports the goal of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, she believes spending another $1.4 billion with no plans to pay for it is irresponsible at this time and will only make our economic crisis worse,” said Kyle VonEnde, McMorris Rodgers’ communications director.
An earlier version of the legislation tapped a small portion of the royalties that companies pay to pump oil and gas from federal lands to pay for the bill. That language was removed in 2019. Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, both Republicans from Idaho, said through representatives that they support conservation but want the bill’s spending to be offset with cuts to other programs.
Sen. Patty Murray supports the bill and said in a statement to the Tribune that Washington’s diverse mix of species including salmon and northern spotted owls make the state special.
“This legislation is critical to repairing harm done to our environment and reaffirming our commitment to defending habitats for our fish and wildlife. We owe it to our kids and future generations to get this done, so I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to send this bill to the President’s desk.”
The legislation has been around since at least 2016 but has not yet made it through Congress, despite the accumulation of more than 140 co-sponsors. Conservation organizations have been lobbying for the bill since its inception and celebrated Tuesday’s passage, even though the bill is not yet law.
“House passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act is a defining victory for wildlife, habitat, outdoor recreation, and our economy, because we know that heading off wildlife threats is more effective – and costs less – than taking emergency action,” said Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, in a news release.
Brooks, of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, noted that some of the funding can be used on species pursued by hunters and anglers. For example, animals like sage-grouse and white sturgeon are on Idaho’s list of “species of greatest conservation need.” But the list, with more than 250 animals, also includes critters like the northern Idaho ground squirrel, Pacific lamprey and common loon. More often than not, Brooks said those species share habitat with animals pursued by hunters and anglers.
“It’s going to directly benefit those species and indirectly more sportsmen’s dollars will be freed up for management of game species,” Brooks said.
In Washington, wildlife managers estimate that less than 5% of the work called for in the state’s wildlife action plan that targets species of greatest conservation is being funded. That includes efforts to help iconic species like salmon, steelhead and southern resident killer whales. But also on the list are lesser-known animals like pygmy rabbits, fisher and wolverines.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind called the bill’s approval by the House “a major step forward for fish and wildlife and an affirmation of the importance of conservation.
“This historic legislation will be a game changer in Washington – enabling proactive conservation of fish and wildlife species and their habitats. We hope that the Senate will act swiftly and pass Recovering America’s Wildlife Act into law so that the department, our partners, and Washington’s tribes can get to work.”
I personally like P-R just the way it is and view with suspicion any attempt to alter it or divert its funds, if only on the basis of precedent. Good intentions are paving blocks...
And that's what the fox guarding the hen house tells the chickens when he says, "Don't worry, you're all safe here!" LOL!
Sorry Stix, if there's a "U S", or a "FED" in front of an alphabet agency's name, I no longer trust them. ZERO accountability.
"If anyone doesn't want to bother to read the article, I'll sum it up: 230 years ago, when people still used whale blubber for lighting & it took a minute to re-load a rifle, a bunch of white slave owners wrote some stuff to enable standing state militias to be armed to 1) put down tax uprisings, 2) put down slave uprisings, or 3) both (along with providing for the "importation of persons", counting certain people as less than full voting persons, etc). 230 years later, when a semi-automatic rifle with high round magazines can shoot 60? rounds/minute? we've decided the founders were so omniscient that nothing they wrote two centuries ago could have been wrong, the well regulated militia clause does not pertain, and everyone has a god given right to get as many 100 round/minute guns as possible, just in case. Now, rather than do anything constructive to keep kids from getting shot in schools, or people from getting shot in super markets, or anything reasonable, 59 rocket surgeons suckling at the fear mongering teat of the NRA decided the best thing to do is try to screw a successful 85 year old model for funding wildlife management or habitat rather than potentially risk any sort of increased gun regulation or tax, reasonable or not."
So if the 2A is not transcendent through the ages, re-write what you posted, in quill and parchment, have it delivered by horse to surrounding communities, where it can then be posted in the town square for all to read. You know.... 1A applying to the 1790's
SMFH...
Big Fin's Link
As with most modern hunting organizations, conservation has meanings applicable to their mission statements. Yet stick it in hunters backs when it comes time to fight for true conservation.
It kills me to see hunters who openly support conservation with consequences that hurt hunting in the long run. But, it happens. Pretty regular occurrence in todays world.
BINGO TG! And why in hell should you be? You're accountable to NO ONE. And if you do get called out, you just make **** up as you go to suit whatever your needs are at that moment. Who's going to question it? The media? LMAO!!
Did I miss the answer to my question or is it simply that nobody has the answer.
I can trust that the NRA has good intentions, but do they have all the facts?
