Bill to Amend Pittman Robertson Act (PRA)

It kind of sounds like by repealing the taxes on firearms and ammunition that there will be less total money collected. Possibly a lot of money? I know for a fact that most, if not all, of state fish and wildlife agencies receive a significant amount of their yearly revenue from Pittman Robertson Excise Taxes and have relied on it ever since it was started. This in turn could bring budget cuts and less Conservation Officers in the field enforcing game and fish laws and things like that! Not good in my opinion! Most fish and wildlife agencies are underfunded to begin with. According to records, the Pittman Robertson Act was started in 1937 and has paid out over 11 billion dollars to state F and W agencies: paying out 629 million alone in 2017

In my opinion the Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act was one of the best things that happened for the true sportsman. It has greatly contributed to the generous amount of game and fish we have enjoyed for a long time.
 
One of the great things about hunting licenses and PR money is that it's not a tax so much as a user fee, and those users generally take great pride in the resources they are supporting.

He's trying to grab headlines in an election year.
 
The bill text says the funds will now come from one of three places, the Treasury, or two Acts I've never heard of but they sound like oil/energy lease money, to the tune of 800 million dollars. I haven't sorted it all out but it seems to take away the argument that sportsman fund conservation when we defend ourselves.

Eric
 
And with the push toward green energy, do you see money from oil / gas leases increasing. Any time government starts messing with funding I get a knot in my stomach
 
This is a "tax" widely accepted by hunters and shooters.
And as noted, this supports all of our Wildlife agencies.
This bill is a solution for problem that does not exist.
Nothing more than grandstanding for the fall elections, the name itself is ridiculous.
 
A major point of discussion with state fish and wildlife agencies is that wildlife departments currently have lots of money for staff and projects because gun and ammo sales have been up for more than a decade, increasing Pittman-Robertson funds that go to state agencies for wildlife management. They have not had corresponding increases in funding on the fisheries side from the Wallop-Breaux/Dingell-Johnson excise tax on fishing gear. As a result, at least in my state, fisheries biologists are spread a lot thinner than their wildlife equivalents. Cutting or eliminating Pittman Robertson would have a huge impact on state wildlife departments funding for both game and non-game wildlife staff and projects.
 
I just sent an email to my representative opposing this bill.
 
In Washington State our hunting and fishing fee's go into the state general fund and they reallocate funds for the WDFW. It's a complete racket and why all the money brought in by hunting and fishing isn't used exclusively for hunting & fishing enhancement is unfortunate. The state brought in nearly $320 million and $90 million was budgeted for WDFW.
 
Last edited:
I have not heard of the Act and I suspect it is a reaction to the House passing the Recovering America's Wildlife Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2773/text which is now in the Senate for consideration. This bill has strong support from the state wildlife agencies and many conservation groups. This bill would allocate money to the states from several different sources for fish and wildlife conservation activities.

Since there is a lot of nuance to funding fish and wildlife conservation, here is a short and easy to understand summary, https://www.fishwildlife.org/afwa-informs/resources/american-system-conservation-funding. In short, as I am sure all of you know, America's sportsman and women fund conservation of fish and wildlife through purchases of licenses, permits, and excise taxes on sporting goods associated with hunting and fishing. This successful funding model is the envy of the world. One thing to keep in mind, that a significant portion of the excise taxes are paid by non-hunters but the tax funds go to support conservation.

Tony, if the Washington legislature is diverting license fees away from WDFW then it is in violation of the Pittman-Robertson Act. If Washington was found to be "in diversion" then WDFW would not be eligible to get any PR or DJ funding. I'd like to hear more about what you say is going on with license sales in Washington.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see some transparency on it. You know when politicians find large pools of money, they figure out ways to ear mark it or ways to funnel money out of it in all sorts of ways. I just wish I could trust that the money was truly going to where it was supposed to go. I wouldn?t be surprised if some of these politicians? setup dummy Corps., just to award the contracts to in order to funnel the money back to special interests of theirs or personal ties. Politicians find ways to corrupt the process.
 
Contacted my representatives to oppose this as well.

Have always been proud that through hunters we have been the driving force for conservation and losing the Pittman Robertson Act would be a tragedy to hunter's legacy.
 
Being retired I don?t keep up with all of the outdoor proposed legislation but upon checking on this bill I would urge all sportsmen and women to contact their legislators and tell them to reject this bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top