NEW PROPOSED BILL AIMS TO REPEAL PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT
Turkeys For Tomorrow encourages everyone to TAKE ACTION TODAY and protect conservation and your freedom to hunt! Use the link below and OPPOSE this Anti-Conservation Bill in Congress Now!
HTTPS://ACT.SAFARICLUB.ORG/PASJ8UF (HTTPS://act.safariclub.org/PASJ8UF)
FOR 85 YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES, THE FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT, HAS RAISED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR WILDLIFE RESEARCH AND HABITAT ACQUISITION. THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT, WHICH IS FUNDED BY A 10 TO 11 PERCENT EXCISE TAX ON HUNTING GEAR, INCLUDING FIREARMS, IS ARGUABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF CONSERVATION FUNDING IN THE UNITED STATES.
H.R. 8167, Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia has taken aim at Pittman-Robertson's current funding in the name of Second Amendment rights.
Recently, Congressman Andrew Clyde (GA-R) introduced the RETURN (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act. The bill is named the "RETURN (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act of 2022". It would eliminate the excise tax on guns, ammunition, and archery tackle that fund Pittman-Robertson. He introduced the bill on June 22, 2022, with the support of 53 co-sponsors.
According to Safari Club International "This bill would eliminate a primary funding source for state fish and wildlife agencies. Since 1937, The Pittman-Robertson Act has put $15 billion towards wildlife conservation, hunter recruitment, construction of public shooting ranges and other activities. In fact, the excise tax directed by Pittman-Robertson generated more than $1 billion in funding last year alone."
Turkeys For Tomorrow states, "The Pittman-Robertson Act provides the fuel for the most successful conservation initiative on the planet, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. This self imposed tax on hunting goods has provided 15 billion dollars for wildlife management."
TFT ENCOURAGES ALL HUNTERS AND CONSERVATIONISTS TO LOUDLY EXPRESS THEIR DISAPPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL 8167 IMMEDIATELY! IF NOT HUNTERS, IF NOT YOU, WHO WILL?
TFT and other NGOs feel The Pittman-Robertson American System of Conservation funding is a system that works for hunters, states, and wildlife. "With anti-hunting sentiment growing culturally in the United States, the last thing Congress should do is remove the hunter-funded system of conservation." – SCI
According to Field and Stream "Clyde also wants to repeal the $200 tax on Class III guns and believes any state and local sales taxes on guns are illegal. In addition to eliminating the excise tax on guns and ammunition, Clyde's bill also would remove taxes on fishing rods and limit taxes on outboard motors and tackle boxes to a 3 percent rate. He proposes to use "unallocated funds" from leases from on- and offshore energy exploitation on federal lands. Those funds are collected by the Department of the Interior and total between $6 and nearly $12 billion a year depending on the level of leasing. The energy lease revenues, which tend to fluctuate widely, are already divided among other competing needs, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund."
Conservationists and hunters alike led the original effort to create the Pittman-Robertson funding system during the Great Depression. If we do not take a stand against H.R. 8167, our country's state wildlife agencies, and critical conservation organizations will find themselves in severe financial jeopardy.
Check out the co sponsors, usuall cast of blowhards.
It's hard to be against a tax break, but we need the funds from this tax to be there and be used as intended.
Thank you for the heads up. As a retired State Wildlife administrator I can tell you this news was enough to make me literally gasp. This funding is the heart beat of many state and federal wildlife agencies. It's passing would be crippling and utterly destroy much of the game management in the United States. I am beyond words and I wish I could say this was a total shock, but I have learned to expect extreme idiocy out of this bunch of delusional bastards in our house of representatives. You bet I'll share with my representative!
I doubt they will give up any funding! Imagine if they did and charged it to the REI crowd, they would lose their !
The fact the tax includes guns and ammo is crucial to the shooting sports and gun rights!
Leave it to'em to screw up one of the FEW things that works as intended.
I just wrote my congressman. But he's a lame duck so who knows if he'll act on it.
Boys I can't believe a Georgia republican congressman Andrew Clyde is that ignorant! Please contact your congressman, congresswomen, and senators to show your displeasure and ask them to uphold the Pittman-Robertson Act which has been solely funded by sportsman for years.
Just sent an email to my US Representative. Thanks for the heads up.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I was just reading this this morning, I can't believe that a Republican isactually doing this, what an idiot.
Sent from my moto g pure using Tapatalk
Quote from: Sir-diealot on July 02, 2022, 03:57:59 PM
I was just reading this this morning, I can't believe that a Republican isactually doing this, what an idiot.
Sent from my moto g pure using Tapatalk
Without jumping into a larger political conversation, there are 58 cosponsors to this bill and they're all Republicans (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors?s=1&r=3&overview=closed&fbclid=IwAR2eyMOO7QMXiF0FBlVtqobvu3WsUNVwC9VMZr36SYj8UDNXyf-s8fHMR2w).
The truth is that any time public lands are placed on the chopping block, the end game of this legislation, it's at the hands of Republican representatives. Think Jason Chaffetz a few years back trying to sell off all that land in Utah and effectively ruining his own political career. Hell, think about Senator Mike Lee in Utah earlier this year trying to sell off all that BLM land. Regardless of your greater politics, that's where the threat on public lands always comes from. Always.
Anyhow, here's a link to the bill with a super helpful link at the side to contact your rep. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167?fbclid=IwAR3UBApKGx3HKBjItcLHP595CByEgqSLQ9hKJpD0oAH_OiXIcm9yVxE4Ny8
Pittman-Robertson has carried the load of conservation for 85 years. It's one of the most effective pieces of legislation in our history. It makes up roughly 80% of all conservation dollars in this country annually, last year alone to the tune of $1.5B. I beg you to write your reps this Fourth Of July weekend.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you TFT, thank you, Chester, the link was very helpful, hopefully this bill will be defeated.
Quote from: JeffC on July 03, 2022, 10:43:17 AM
Thank you TFT, thank you, Chester, the link was very helpful, hopefully this bill will be defeated.
From everything I've been told it'll be dead in the water. But that doesn't mean we should sit idly by. We have to actively head this stuff off every time they try. And we should certainly let every one of those politicians involved know that we haven't forgotten and will not forget at the next election cycle. The vast majority of recreational shooters and sportsmen are conservative which means they're constituents of the people who keep pushing this garbage year after year. That to say, hold their feet to the fire. You are their electorate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chester thanks for the links. I just looked at the list of all the cosponsors and we have a bunch of idiots from different states 1 from Tennessee Scott DesJarlais, Georgia has a bunch, I think Kentucky has 1, Alabama has 1 so on and so on. Do you self a favor and check out all the sponsors. I don't know what they are thinking. Maybe silent anti gunners?
I ended up emailing my representative, but in all honesty I feel like this has no chance of passing. Dems control the house and any republican whose an outdoorsman would realize that this would be a tremendous blow to game and land management.
As far as this proposed "backpack tax" they mentioned. I'd like to hear other folks opinions on it. My thing is I'm happy with sportsman funding wildlife and wildland conservation rather than pot smokers, hikers, and campers due to the fact it could then potentially give them a seat at the table to discuss how funds are used and how land use is utilized and all that sort of stuff which could be in opposition to the beliefs and values of sportsmen.
Thanks for posting! I just went to "Howl For Wildlife" and sent this in via their setup. It's kind of like hitting the easy button to speak up on these type of issues. The site is well worth checkout if interested.
Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on July 03, 2022, 09:15:59 AM
Quote from: Sir-diealot on July 02, 2022, 03:57:59 PM
I was just reading this this morning, I can't believe that a Republican isactually doing this, what an idiot.
Sent from my moto g pure using Tapatalk
Without jumping into a larger political conversation, there are 58 cosponsors to this bill and they're all Republicans (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors?s=1&r=3&overview=closed&fbclid=IwAR2eyMOO7QMXiF0FBlVtqobvu3WsUNVwC9VMZr36SYj8UDNXyf-s8fHMR2w).
The truth is that any time public lands are placed on the chopping block, the end game of this legislation, it's at the hands of Republican representatives. Think Jason Chaffetz a few years back trying to sell off all that land in Utah and effectively ruining his own political career. Hell, think about Senator Mike Lee in Utah earlier this year trying to sell off all that BLM land. Regardless of your greater politics, that's where the threat on public lands always comes from. Always.
Anyhow, here's a link to the bill with a super helpful link at the side to contact your rep. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167?fbclid=IwAR3UBApKGx3HKBjItcLHP595CByEgqSLQ9hKJpD0oAH_OiXIcm9yVxE4Ny8
Pittman-Robertson has carried the load of conservation for 85 years. It's one of the most effective pieces of legislation in our history. It makes up roughly 80% of all conservation dollars in this country annually, last year alone to the tune of $1.5B. I beg you to write your reps this Fourth Of July weekend.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately true... I remember when Chaffetz did that, and it did pretty much end him.
The republican politicians are fixated on privatization. In theory, if you sold the public parcel that is maybe getting neglected by the state, to someone that was going to cherish the property and practice healthy wildlife management then that is good overall for the habitat. The problem is selling it to a corporation that's going to liquidate the resources and destroy the habitat, which unfortunately... that's who's got the $$ to buy, and probably who's been whispering in there ear to sell off in the first place.
To clarify, I'm not by any means for the selling of public and I wish states would acquire more. Just trying to explain why it always seem that it's republicans selling off land.
Just a theory...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The sell off of public land has been a Republican Party idea since James Watt in the Reagan admiration. If I remember correctly the idea was even a party plank in the Bush era. It has been widely discussed in the West over the last 40 years.
Think some are confusing selling public lands with giving BLM management to states rather then the Feds. While there are some that want to "sell public land" most just want states to manage the land not BLM.
For many western states there are chunks of public land everywhere. Some ranch's will surround a big piece of BLM land. For decades (Centuries?) ranchers used this land freely, treated it like there own.
Then Feds put a stop to it. Over time wanted everyone to pay leasing fee. Put regulations around how land could be used. Of course "environmentalist" wanted to completely stop ranching, mining, timbering on public lands. Some want all access stopped, just open space for nature. So the battle began.
If you want to know more google Sagebrush Rebellion.
But to the OP, I contacted my congressman. We need to keep Pittman–Robertson Act in tact.
But I do believe, as others have mentioned, we need to expand it. To tax more then hunting & fishing gear. Everyone using the land needs to contribute.
Agreed. We need to keep the P-R program intact. We also need to make sure public lands stay public,...regardless of the politics involved in either case.
Quote from: GobbleNut on July 09, 2022, 10:21:03 AM
Agreed. We need to keep the P-R program intact. We also need to make sure public lands stay public,...regardless of the politics involved in either case.
This for sure, and other recreational users also need to pay their share.
Quote from: the Ward on July 10, 2022, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: GobbleNut on July 09, 2022, 10:21:03 AM
Agreed. We need to keep the P-R program intact. We also need to make sure public lands stay public,...regardless of the politics involved in either case.
This for sure, and other recreational users also need to pay their share.
While I totally agree with this, as others have pointed out in the past, the "fly in the ointment" with making the non-consumptive-user public pay their share is that it opens the door for them to have their "fair share" of say in how our public lands are managed. Unfortunately, that does not necessarily bode well for us consumptive users since we are greatly outnumbered by those other folks.
At least, the way it is set up now with sportsmen footing the bill (with regards to P-R funding,...and also the Dingell-Johnson Act for fishermen), we have a justification for our current stance that "we are paying the bills, so we should have more say in matters of wildlife management",...and specifically with regards to the use of hunting as a management tool for wildlife. (One needs to look no further than the on-going debates about hunting on National Wildlife Refuges to see what happens when consumptive and non-consumptive groups are lumped together in the decision-making process)
The "trick", if you will, to solving the potential dilemma of the above, is to have totally separate funding mechanisms in place for each user group, both of which address similar problems while at the same time keeping them separate and distinct in terms of policy making. I am pretty certain there are some such programs already in existence, but I don't keep up with those enough to know how well they work or how much funding they provide for actual wildlife and conservation efforts.
Quote from: GobbleNut on July 10, 2022, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: the Ward on July 10, 2022, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: GobbleNut on July 09, 2022, 10:21:03 AM
Agreed. We need to keep the P-R program intact. We also need to make sure public lands stay public,...regardless of the politics involved in either case.
This for sure, and other recreational users also need to pay their share.
While I totally agree with this, as others have pointed out in the past, the "fly in the ointment" with making the non-consumptive-user public pay their share is that it opens the door for them to have their "fair share" of say in how our public lands are managed. Unfortunately, that does not necessarily bode well for us consumptive users since we are greatly outnumbered by those other folks.
At least, the way it is set up now with sportsmen footing the bill (with regards to P-R funding,...and also the Dingell-Johnson Act for fishermen), we have a justification for our current stance that "we are paying the bills, so we should have more say in matters of wildlife management",...and specifically with regards to the use of hunting as a management tool for wildlife. (One needs to look no further than the on-going debates about hunting on National Wildlife Refuges to see what happens when consumptive and non-consumptive groups are lumped together in the decision-making process)
The "trick", if you will, to solving the potential dilemma of the above, is to have totally separate funding mechanisms in place for each user group, both of which address similar problems while at the same time keeping them separate and distinct in terms of policy making. I am pretty certain there are some such programs already in existence, but I don't keep up with those enough to know how well they work or how much funding they provide for actual wildlife and conservation efforts.
Good post. While true, some of these groups still have some pull without equal contributions. It would be nice if we could form alliances with some of them for our mutual benefit, and that of preserving public land use.
I disagree with letting the others into the mix of helping pay for usage! If we let them in then eventually the tree huggers will take over we need to leave everything like it is this is one of the only things left that is not broke in our country. The way I see it the one's for this must be primed to make a lot of money. If any of my representatives or senators vote for this I will vote against them from now on!
As usual a public law that actually works and 53 Republicans want to tear it up. We have to defeat this travesty and we can start by voting these bums out of office. :z-twocents: