THE “RETURN ACT” GUTS PITTMAN-ROBERTSON & WILDLIFE CONSERVATION and would Ultimately destroy hunting!

luckyluciano2

FNG
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
22

THE “RETURN ACT” GUTS PITTMAN-ROBERTSON & WILDLIFE CONSERVATION​

My_project_%2827%29.png

THE GOOD

Hunters and conservationists throughout North America know the stories. They know about the unlikely and timely alliances that made our model of wildlife conservation the envy of the entire world.

While unregulated market hunting nearly decimated North America’s big game species in the lead up to the 20th century, it was the forward-thinking efforts of American sportsmen and women that ultimately righted the ship and brought many of our nearly depleted game populations surging back to life.

The narrative is wide-reaching and includes such conservation luminaries as Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Lacey, George Bird Grinnell, and Aldo Leopold, just to name a few. But one of the most consequential characters in the saga that gave us the rich legacy of hunting and fishing that we still enjoy today was depression era President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In 1937, FDR—spurred on by a host of legendary conservationists working in both the private and the public sector—enacted a piece of legislation known as the Pittman-Robertson Act or the Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937.

This revolutionary act of Congress redirected already existing excise taxes on firearms and ammunition out of federal coffers and into the hands of the state wildlife agencies tasked with protecting and preserving America’s wildlife for the benefit of future generations. As its alternate name suggests, it restored wildlife populations that had been completely pilfered and ensured the continued existence of these species for generations to come.

In the years since, Pittman-Robertson funds have become the lifeblood of American conservation. The money comes not just from firearm and ammo sales but also from similar taxes on archery equipment, fishing tackle, and boat fuel. And it funds the critical boots-on-ground work that keeps the animals we love to hunt on the landscape and the fish we love to pursue in the rivers and lakes they call home.

According to the Department of the Interior, Pittman-Robertson generated nearly $1 billion in 2020 alone. The success of Pittman-Roberston and the important funding that it has produced in the 85 years since it was passed is cause for celebration, but it is also something that hunters, anglers, and conservationists around the world must fight to safeguard and protect.


THE BAD

Last Wednesday, Pittman-Robertson was directly attacked by a Georgia Congressman named Andrew Clyde and 58 of his congressional colleagues. This attack took the form of an act that Clyde introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives, one that the north Georgia politician hopes will “eliminate the excise tax on firearms and ammunition” as well as archery equipment and fishing supplies. In so doing, Clyde’s bill would decimate the critical funds that make hunting and fishing possible in the United States. He says he’d make up for the staggering losses that his bill would bring about (again, $1 billion in revenue from Pittman-Robertson in 2020 alone) by pulling from the pool of federal tax revenue that comes from offshore oil and gas drilling.

Clyde, who owns two Georgia gun stores and contracts with the federal government and many state governments for the sale of guns and ammo, says the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes that keep America’s hunting and fishing heritage alive are an infringement on constitutional rights. In a recent press release about his act, which he’s calling RETURN (Repeal Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act, he calls Pittman-Robertson “a dangerous opportunity for the government to weaponize taxation.”

Hunters, anglers, and conservationists beg to differ. They know that Pittman-Robertson represents one of the greatest opportunities for sound wildlife management that the world has ever seen. In an unprecedented time of economic turmoil, it brought together some of the best conservation minds in history and gave America’s wildlife a sustainable funding source that continues to thrive today. In our current era of stifling political division, it is hard to imagine a group of politicians coming together to create something so fundamentally important to the continued existence of wildlife in America as was the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937.

But the unlikely story behind America’s wildlife recovery that so many hunters and anglers hold close to their hearts is clearly lost on Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde and his 58 Republican co-sponsors. By signing their names to this ill-advised piece of legislation, these politicians have made a clear statement: they want to see these critical conservation funds gutted—American wildlife be damned.


TIME TO HOWL

If you disagree with this plan, now is the time to let your Congressman, the House Natural Resources Committee and Rep. Andrew Clyde know about it. Let them know that you won’t sit idly by as they attempt to trash the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation with this dangerous political stunt.

TAKE ACTION
 

Bluto

WKR
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
526
People. Please write your congressman on this. Yes, it seems futile. Yes, you’ll get some BS automated response. But piles of contact on the same issue does make a difference.

Without individuals, there can’t be a pile.
 

Sea Wolf

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
196
Location
Elk, Ca
It's hard to accept that a US congressman is against P-R like that. Being a gun store owner and running a campaign against a program like P-R smells a little like conflict of interest.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
1,953
People. Please write your congressman on this. Yes, it seems futile. Yes, you’ll get some BS automated response. But piles of contact on the same issue does make a difference.

Without individuals, there can’t be a pile.
I wrote to mine and I received a letter explaining the why this is good bill. Rs toting the party line...folks wonder why I don't subscribe to a 2 party system.
 

TSAMP

WKR
Joined
Jul 16, 2019
Messages
1,633
So my reading comprehension may be off. But I gather they want to remove the taxation on these outdoor specific goods (yay less taxes, were talking pennies though) and reallocate tax already collected by oil and gas drilling to the wildlife?

I think the primary concern would be that now we as outdoorsman are more beholden to oil&gas and those funds are surely more easily diverted to non wildlife related functions compared to the more self funded model that exists today.

My opinion is leave the PR alone and lessen my taxes elsewhere, where it'd be more substantial if you'd like to help.

Seems like they're trying to find a problem for a solution they dreamed up..
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2023
Messages
41
Location
Upper Michigan

THE “RETURN ACT” GUTS PITTMAN-ROBERTSON & WILDLIFE CONSERVATION​

My_project_%2827%29.png

THE GOOD

Hunters and conservationists throughout North America know the stories. They know about the unlikely and timely alliances that made our model of wildlife conservation the envy of the entire world.

While unregulated market hunting nearly decimated North America’s big game species in the lead up to the 20th century, it was the forward-thinking efforts of American sportsmen and women that ultimately righted the ship and brought many of our nearly depleted game populations surging back to life.

The narrative is wide-reaching and includes such conservation luminaries as Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Lacey, George Bird Grinnell, and Aldo Leopold, just to name a few. But one of the most consequential characters in the saga that gave us the rich legacy of hunting and fishing that we still enjoy today was depression era President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In 1937, FDR—spurred on by a host of legendary conservationists working in both the private and the public sector—enacted a piece of legislation known as the Pittman-Robertson Act or the Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937.

This revolutionary act of Congress redirected already existing excise taxes on firearms and ammunition out of federal coffers and into the hands of the state wildlife agencies tasked with protecting and preserving America’s wildlife for the benefit of future generations. As its alternate name suggests, it restored wildlife populations that had been completely pilfered and ensured the continued existence of these species for generations to come.

In the years since, Pittman-Robertson funds have become the lifeblood of American conservation. The money comes not just from firearm and ammo sales but also from similar taxes on archery equipment, fishing tackle, and boat fuel. And it funds the critical boots-on-ground work that keeps the animals we love to hunt on the landscape and the fish we love to pursue in the rivers and lakes they call home.

According to the Department of the Interior, Pittman-Robertson generated nearly $1 billion in 2020 alone. The success of Pittman-Roberston and the important funding that it has produced in the 85 years since it was passed is cause for celebration, but it is also something that hunters, anglers, and conservationists around the world must fight to safeguard and protect.


THE BAD

Last Wednesday, Pittman-Robertson was directly attacked by a Georgia Congressman named Andrew Clyde and 58 of his congressional colleagues. This attack took the form of an act that Clyde introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives, one that the north Georgia politician hopes will “eliminate the excise tax on firearms and ammunition” as well as archery equipment and fishing supplies. In so doing, Clyde’s bill would decimate the critical funds that make hunting and fishing possible in the United States. He says he’d make up for the staggering losses that his bill would bring about (again, $1 billion in revenue from Pittman-Robertson in 2020 alone) by pulling from the pool of federal tax revenue that comes from offshore oil and gas drilling.

Clyde, who owns two Georgia gun stores and contracts with the federal government and many state governments for the sale of guns and ammo, says the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes that keep America’s hunting and fishing heritage alive are an infringement on constitutional rights. In a recent press release about his act, which he’s calling RETURN (Repeal Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act, he calls Pittman-Robertson “a dangerous opportunity for the government to weaponize taxation.”

Hunters, anglers, and conservationists beg to differ. They know that Pittman-Robertson represents one of the greatest opportunities for sound wildlife management that the world has ever seen. In an unprecedented time of economic turmoil, it brought together some of the best conservation minds in history and gave America’s wildlife a sustainable funding source that continues to thrive today. In our current era of stifling political division, it is hard to imagine a group of politicians coming together to create something so fundamentally important to the continued existence of wildlife in America as was the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937.

But the unlikely story behind America’s wildlife recovery that so many hunters and anglers hold close to their hearts is clearly lost on Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde and his 58 Republican co-sponsors. By signing their names to this ill-advised piece of legislation, these politicians have made a clear statement: they want to see these critical conservation funds gutted—American wildlife be damned.


TIME TO HOWL

If you disagree with this plan, now is the time to let your Congressman, the House Natural Resources Committee and Rep. Andrew Clyde know about it. Let them know that you won’t sit idly by as they attempt to trash the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation with this dangerous political stunt.

TAKE ACTION
A couple points of clarification. First, fishing equipment is not covered under the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Act (Pittman Robertson). Rather those taxes were assessed under a separate piece of legislation (The Dingle Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act) passed in 1950. As such repealing PR would not change the tax assessed on those items and would not impact the money to the States’ Fish agencies.

Second, and more importantly, PR dollars are distributed to the States based upon a formula that considers the size of each State (square miles) and the number of licensed hunters within each State. For some States, those dollars (which can be used only toward the management of furred and feathered species) constitute a substantial amount of the annual budget for the State Wildlife agency. As an example, in Michigan PR dollars generally equal about 50% of the Wildlife Division budget. Losing those dollars would be a monumental hit to the agency’s ability to provide the services upon which the Hunter community relies.

Before contacting your Representatives, it may well be worth the effort of contacting your Wildlife agency and learning how much the lose of PR dollars would impact the management programs in your State. Then, you can educate your Representative as to what their vote really means. Because, in truth, most of them probably don’t know.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
1,953
Before contacting your Representatives, it may well be worth the effort of contacting your Wildlife agency and learning how much the lose of PR dollars would impact the management programs in your State. Then, you can educate your Representative as to what their vote really means. Because, in truth, most of them probably don’t know.
I don't think my rep knows or cares..based on form letter he is voting along party lines. Granted there is only one district between the asshat that sponsored this bill and my Rep...I did respond and let him know I appreciated him sharing his position and I would be supporting his challenger the next time he is up for re-election.
 

Hnthrdr

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
3,436
Location
The West
I went in. This congressman parading around like this is some great 2A thing…. nope! We want the tax we want the voice we want the conservation, plenty of other stuff we can look for tax cuts on. P-R is not one of them
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2023
Messages
41
Location
Upper Michigan
Completely agree. The follow up question is who would benefit from this bill?

It isn’t the hunting community because, as you point out, they would lose both their voice and many of their management programs.

It probably isn’t the recreational shooter because, in the current market, it is unlikely the retail shops would lower the price of firearms, ammo, and components proportional to the tax reduction.

I suspect the retail gun shops would recognize an opportunity to increase profits by 11% without any sales tag mark ups. I’ve read comments from others that the bill sponsor owns a firearm retail shop? …Just asking the questions.
 

Hnthrdr

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
3,436
Location
The West
Completely agree. The follow up question is who would benefit from this bill?

It isn’t the hunting community because, as you point out, they would lose both their voice and many of their management programs.

It probably isn’t the recreational shooter because, in the current market, it is unlikely the retail shops would lower the price of firearms, ammo, and components proportional to the tax reduction.

I suspect the retail gun shops would recognize an opportunity to increase profits by 11% without any sales tag mark ups. I’ve read comments from others that the bill sponsor owns a firearm retail shop? …Just asking the questions.
Instant 11% increase in profits for doing nothing is huge, also a short sighted and stupid move
 

Blammo

FNG
Joined
Feb 27, 2023
Messages
25
Nice Post. Thanks for all the info. Seems like this has worked well for many decades. So why poilicians need to try & change this is beyong me...
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2023
Messages
17
I never thought that I wouldn't be able to trust a politician that wasn't after more tax dollars... We live in crazy times...
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
1,592
It's hard to accept that a US congressman is against P-R like that. Being a gun store owner and running a campaign against a program like P-R smells a little like conflict of interest.
Sounds to me like he has figured out a way to, shall we say line his pockets a bit.
 
Top