Most politicians detest tax dollars that are kept out of their reach.
They despise a padlock on the cookie jar. Any money that is dumped into the “general fund” can be generally wasted, squandered on do-nothing projects, or slipped into nonsense studies without creating much of a furor. Taxes that are collected but kept out of the sausage-making trough are very unpopular in the halls of Congress.
So it comes as no real surprise that some in Washington D.C. have put the Pittman-Robertson Act in their bureaucratic crosshairs. This legislation, passed in 1937, has been generating big stacks of Benjamins for more than 80 years, and give the authors a boatload of credit — the act was worded carefully so there was a strict prohibition on diverting the funds created by Pittman-Robertson for anything other than its original intended purpose — so no renaming bridges, no boondoggles like Solyndra, and no $600 toilet seats.
Pittman-Robertson— also known as “The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act” — placed an excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition in order to raise funds to benefit wildlife conservation. It also prohibited the money states collected in license fees paid by hunters from being skimmed off — those dollars can only be used for the operation and administration of state fish and game departments.
This landmark conservation legislation has been enhanced and strengthened over the years by the 1950 Sport Fish Restoration Act, which placed an excise tax on fishing rods, tackle, and electric motors, and it also collects a portion of the federal fuel tax on gasoline used in motorboats.
To date, the two acts operate under the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program umbrella and they have collected more than $25.5 billion to dole out to the states. It should be obvious that, with Pittman-Robertson as its foundation, this legislation has been incredibly effective.
Since its inception, more than $14 billion has been collected from Puttman-Robertson's 11 percent tax on the wholesale price for long guns and ammunition and the 10 percent tax for handguns, and that money has been returned to the states.
The Department of the Treasury hands the funds over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the dollars are apportioned to state wildlife agencies to be used in hunter education programs, conservation efforts that restore and enhance wildlife habitat, and for the operation of archery ranges and shooting ranges. States are typically required to provide 25 percent of the funds for various conservation projects, with up to 75 percent coming from Pittman-Robertson.
What Pittman-Robertson created is this ideal user-pays connection between the consumer and those that hunt or take part in the shooting sports. The hunters and participants in the shooting sports pay for increased opportunities to enjoy those very things, paying a bit more with each purchase in order to protect, expand, and enhance the hunting, shooting, and conservation heritage in the U.S.
Now comes a move orchestrated by Congressman Andrew Clyde from Georgia that would put the fillet knife to Pittman-Robertson. Clyde, who owns a nationwide firearms business that has two stores in Georgia, is one of the driving forces behind a measure that would eliminate the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition, ending 85 years of Pittman-Robertson.
Clyde's “Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now” (RETURN) Constitutional Rights Act uses the Bill of Rights as the foundation for justifying the end of Pittman-Robertson.
“The Bill of Rights enumerates rights to which the government cannot infringe. Unquestionably, infringement exists when the government taxes those rights to limit the people's ability to exercise them,” Clyde said in a statement posted on his website. He considers Pittman-Robertson an “assault” on the Second Amendment and the weaponization of tax law.
“I firmly believe that no American should be taxed on their enumerated rights, which is why I intend to stop the Left’s tyranny in its tracks by eliminating the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition,” Clyde said.
To make up for the critical funding for conservation programs that the end of Pittman-Robertson would bring, Clyde proposes redirecting from the abyss of the general fund un-allocated lease revenue generated by onshore and offshore energy development on federal lands. While the Pittman-Robertson taxes are clear-cut and easy to calculate, that “un-allocated lease revenue generated by onshore and offshore energy” is one very murky fish bowl.
For most conservationists, hunters, and those in the shooting sports, Clyde fired the shot heard 'round the outdoors world. His proposed legislation, which has been co-sponsored by nearly 60 additional representatives, has been roundly condemned by the big hitters in the habitat and conservation realm, and the rank-and-file hunters, anglers, wildlife watchers, and those in the shooting sports.
“We cannot more strongly denounce the RETURN Act and its misguided aims to dismantle the Pittman-Robertson Act,” said Aaron Kindle, director of sporting advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, while adding that in 2021 along, Pittman-Robertson provided $1.5 billion in funding for state wildlife agencies.
“The Pittman-Robertson Act is a universally renowned conservation success story and has helped us create the North American model for wildlife conservation that has made our nation the envy of the world. The RETURN Act would undercut one of the most important ways responsible hunters and anglers have helped wildlife thrive for future generations for nearly a century.”
Kindle also laid down the gauntlet for Clyde and any other congressional types that have chosen to target Pittman-Robertson. He said wiping out this historically beneficial legislation would come at a time when the conservation ranks see the greatest need. The tenor of those words has been echoed by conservationists and wildlife managers from across the country.
Justin Tomei from the Michigan United Conservation Clubs called it “A generationally foolish idea,” noting that such a repeal would deprive conservation work in Michigan of about $20 million annually.
“The PR dollars account for about a quarter of the DNR Wildlife Division budget and are used for hunter education, wildlife management and habitat restoration,” Tomei said. “This legislation, thankfully, has the combined weight of common sense and the entire conservation community against it.”
Rob Drieslein wrote in Ohio Outdoor News that Clyde's bill “would gut arguably the most important natural resources funding mechanism on the planet,” adding that “the act has been regarded as massively successful.”
This seems like one of those unique moments when birders, wildlife watchers, duck hunters, skeet shooters, deer hunters, trap shooters, elk hunters, and everyone else in the habitat/conservation collective will grab the torches and pitch forks and march together. When bad ideas emerge in the public square, they need to be greeted with such strength and unity.
First Published July 16, 2022, 11:00 a.m.
