Repealing Pittman-Robertson Act

wind gypsy

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
5,412
Been a running point now that many of the people who spout their contributions to conservation via pittman robertson and their chosen politicians would vehemently oppose the act if it were introduced today. Here's proof.

Wonder if the NRA is in support of this?
 

ResearchinStuff

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
443
Location
PA
Thsis is pretty clearly the wrong direction to go, the bill needs ammended so the non-consumptive users of the land also contribute, not repealed. Properly worded, it wouldn't target guns/ammo at all, and our unalienable rights would be protected too.
 

texans42

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
1,937
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. We got some real geniuses that we've elected....

First I think it goes no where second, I think what they are doing is brilliant even if it’s not why they intended too.

Current law or even taxes for the most time are irrelevant in one’s day to day lives until it’s brought up front and center.

How many Americans have a clue how much PR brings in much less how, or what it even does. Maybe is a good thing to see some of the left gun control nuts argue for the tax publicly, hopefully they stop there though and don’t threaten SCOTUS or shoot up a baseball practice

There are people on Rokslide that still think REI is a conservativion company and spend all their revenue on conservativion projects while arguing gun companies and sportsman fought against the PR tax.

Vista outdoors via virtue of their holding does more for conservation in one year then REI in 15 years via P&R
 
Last edited:

wind gypsy

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
5,412
First I think it goes no where second, I think what they are doing is brilliant even if it’s not why they intended too.

Current law or even taxes for the most time are irrelevant in one’s day to day lives until it’s brought up front and center.

How many Americans have a clue how much PR brings in much less how, or what it even does. Maybe is a good thing to see some of the left gun control nuts argue for the tax publicly, hopefully they stop there though and don’t threaten SCOTUS or shoot up a baseball practice

There are people on Rokslide that still think REI is a conservativion company and spend all their revenue on conservativion projects while arguing gun companies and sportsman fought against the PR tax.

Vista outdoors via virtue of their holding does more for conservation in one year then REI in 15 years via P&R

Maybe I missed your point but what good comes out of watching the left argue for a tax on guns and ammo? Making guns and ammo more expensive is already one of their tactics, why wouldn't they argue for it if it also has the the conservation funding benefits?
 
Last edited:

wind gypsy

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
5,412
To the earlier question of what is the NRA's stance.. Found this gem of an NRA article supporting P-R from 2001. Even a quote from Reagan thrown in there! What an illustration on the decay of politics over the past 20 years. Would love to see if the NRA stands by these feelings now a days in opposition to the 50-some republican representatives (probably with high grades from the NRA) that sponsored this steaming pile.


It may be hard to believe today, but in the 1930s the sighting of even one whitetail deer was a notable event. Encroachment of humans on habitat and over-hunting without regulation had caused populations of many game species to plummet rapidly. Today, however, the nationwide deer population is nearly 20 million strong.

Contrary to the belief of recently spawned animal extremist groups, hunters and sportsmen have been and continue to be the primary players in the effort to protect the game which they hunt. Conservation tactics such as carefully regulated hunting, habitat acquisition and species transplants contributed to bring populations back to healthy levels.

While the tool for hunting is usually the gun or bow, the vehicle which actually transforms money into habitat, ecological study into proven conservation tactics, and the idea of harmony between nature and society into reality is the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Who fuels this vehicle? Sportsmen.

Sponsored by Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Congressman A. Willis Robertson of Virginia and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Sept. 2, 1937, the Pittman-Robertson Act created a 10% excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition. A few years later the tax became 11%.

The tens of millions of dollars generated by Pittman-Robertson each year were mandated to go back into state and local organizations to increase game populations, expand habitat and train hunters. As the money kept piling up, a repeal bill was drawn to relieve sportsmen from the financial burden of the excise tax. However, because dramatic results could be seen nationwide, sportsmen insisted on keeping the tax in place.

The generated revenues from Pittman-Robertson were placed in a special trust under the control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and were to be allotted to state wildlife conservation programs for wildlife restoration and to ensure the future of hunting sports. The trust was to be kept separate from the general fund, meaning the monies were not to be part of the accounted annual budget. Translated, this cuts red tape and produces positive results for wildlife when overseen by honest officials.

For years the Pittman-Robertson Act functioned soundly--generating $150 million in funds each year--and, more importantly, produced results. Numerous species including migratory birds (ducks and geese), elk, deer, antelope, wild turkey and many other species were rescued from the endangered list and are now not only surviving, but thriving. Pittman-Robertson was a rare legislative model for efficiency and a godsend for hunters and animals alike.

However, in recent years, notably during the Clinton Administration, evidence surfaced that the sportsman`s conservation trust funds were being mismanaged.

NRA board member and sportsman, U.S. Representative Don Young (R-Alaska), felt it was time to act.

Representative Young held hearings to question the authorities in charge in an effort to correct the system. Thereafter, he introduced the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000 which precisely re-defines what USFWS can spend the excise taxes on and in what manner the monies can be spent. The NRA backed bill passed the House 423-2 and became law on Nov. 1, 2000.

Today, Pittman-Robertson is back on track, supplying wildlife with vast amounts of habitat, resources and practical ecological study, while supplying hunters with game to hunt and eat, thus ensuring necessary funds never run dry. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that through these special taxes and license fees, America`s sportsmen contribute $3.5 million each day to wildlife conservation.

Perhaps President Ronald Reagan stated it best at the Pittman-Robertson 50th Anniversary when he said: "Those who pay the freight are those who purchase firearms, ammunition, and, in recent years, archery equipment."

Edit: another with a positive Pittman robertson spin from 2017.
 
Last edited:

texans42

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
1,937
Maybe I missed your point but what good comes out of watching the left argue for a tax on guns and ammo? Making guns and ammo more expensive is already one of their tactics, why wouldn't they argue for it if it also has the the conservation funding benefits?
Be more of the awareness that the tax exists and it’s purpose. How many people know it exist.

Hell most people didn’t know land and conservation fund and now act existed until Trump made it permanent
 

chinook907

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Oct 1, 2014
Messages
100
Among other things, interesting/confusing.

The House just passed a significant amendment to P-R a couple weeks ago (RAWA-Recovering America's Wildlife Act), that adds 1.3B a year for work on let's call them, species of concern. Where the additional monies would come from is still unclear, but no one is talking about bumping up the existing excise taxes within P-R to pay for it.

The Senate version of RAWA has not been voted on yet.
 

Dos XX

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Messages
253
Tax on guns, and maybe ammo, by anti-gun city/state governments has been tried, and struck down by the courts. I think the intent by the antis was to make the purchase and use of guns more expensive, thus reducing the amount of guns and ammos being bought. In a way, the PR could be construed as doing the same thing. I am not against PR by any means. But the logic that allows one and not the other could be a little funky?

Is this possibly a defensive move to keep antis from using this precedent in that manner? Remember the press release you are reading was written by someone in the media. How deep do think they dug into it?

 

BuckeyeRifleman

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
631
Location
Ohio
This is nothing but virtue signaling. It’s not going anywhere. It’s the same as Republicans voting to repeal Obamacare.

For the record I still don’t like it speaks to the ignorance of those proposing and cosponsoring it.
 

wind gypsy

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
5,412
Newberg posted that NSSF is lobbying AGAINST this. That says a lot about how prized PR is when a trade organization lobbies to KEEP an 11% tax on it's members sales.
 

gabenzeke

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
578
Literally the only tax that isn't theft.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
 

Yoder

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
250
I see the point. Hunters buy a rifle, shoot a hundred rounds a year if they are diligent. Most probably shoot less than 20. Gun enthusiasts shoot thousands of rounds a year and buy multiple guns. Many of them could care less about hunting or wildlife. These people pay the bulk of the taxes.
 

ODB

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
2,825
Location
N.F.D.
Thsis is pretty clearly the wrong direction to go, the bill needs ammended so the non-consumptive users of the land also contribute, not repealed. Properly worded, it wouldn't target guns/ammo at all, and our unalienable rights would be protected too.

Get enough non-consumptive users paying taxes and all the sudden they will want to drive the policy.

Be careful what you ask for.
 
Top