Wapiti Warrior
New member
This year is the 75th anniversary of the Pittman-Robertson Act, which was used to help restore wildlife.
FYI
FYI
Pittman-Robertson Act
- Thread starter Wapiti Warrior
- Start date
Hunters and Anglers remain the only group of consumptive or non-consumptive users who fund wildlife management through a voluntary excise tax.
I wonder how difficult it would be to get this passed in this era? The conservation of wildlife and natural resources was one of the cornerstones of TR's campaign 100 years ago after the Republican Party kicked him to the Curb. So many of the fights that TR took on and won are being fought again today. Same players, different names.
PR and D/J-W/B have been a huge boon to all wildlife species, not just those we hunt and fish for. We need more thoughtful legislation like this.
Cheers to forward thinking folks!
I wonder how difficult it would be to get this passed in this era? The conservation of wildlife and natural resources was one of the cornerstones of TR's campaign 100 years ago after the Republican Party kicked him to the Curb. So many of the fights that TR took on and won are being fought again today. Same players, different names.
PR and D/J-W/B have been a huge boon to all wildlife species, not just those we hunt and fish for. We need more thoughtful legislation like this.
Cheers to forward thinking folks!
Kind of funny how historically conservation was not a partisan issue. Or at least history does not show it to be such. It was more an urban or rural issue.
Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican President, then independent. Pittman and Robertson were both Democrats. Both sides of the aisle were advocates for conservation. I think that was because we were a more rural country and the connection to the land made it easier to see the daily importance of conservation in the face of a growing population.
Also is the 75th anniversary of Ducks Unlimited this year. Probably not a coincidence that a lot of conservation policies and groups took hold during the Dust Bowl years of the Dirty '30s. If ever there was a time that the country realized the importance of conservation, that seemed to be the period of awareness.
Now, since wildlife is abundant relative to those years, I suspect most hunters coming to the fold could easily think it has always been that way. I think it is incumbent upon us as hunters to tell story to our new members, along with telling the story to society as a whole, a society that benefits greatly from the work of hunters.
If you study the conservation history, the word conservation was not even part of the common vernacular until Theodore Roosevelt took office following the assasination of McKinley. His journals make it clear that he wanted to inspire a "conservation ethic" among the people. Following his Presidency, conservation became a mainstream idea, and from that, grew the seeds of the conservation movement we see today.
I do not consider the environmental movement part of the conservation movement. I never let them get by with calling themselves "conservation groups." To be a "conservation group" you have to complete some task that gives you claim to the name. To date, I have yet to see one of those groups do anything in the name of conservation.
As Ben Lamb pointed out, hunters and anglers are the ones doing the work, writing the checks, donating the time, and taxing ourselves. Not bragging, just stating facts.
Those other "wanna be" groups had their chance in the late 1990's with a bill called CARA, which would have allowed for a similar tax on their equipment to be part of the conservation funding mechanism. As you can imagine, the screaming and yelling by those who would now be asked to pay for part of the frieght, killed the bill. Further proof that they are not "conservationists."
Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican President, then independent. Pittman and Robertson were both Democrats. Both sides of the aisle were advocates for conservation. I think that was because we were a more rural country and the connection to the land made it easier to see the daily importance of conservation in the face of a growing population.
Also is the 75th anniversary of Ducks Unlimited this year. Probably not a coincidence that a lot of conservation policies and groups took hold during the Dust Bowl years of the Dirty '30s. If ever there was a time that the country realized the importance of conservation, that seemed to be the period of awareness.
Now, since wildlife is abundant relative to those years, I suspect most hunters coming to the fold could easily think it has always been that way. I think it is incumbent upon us as hunters to tell story to our new members, along with telling the story to society as a whole, a society that benefits greatly from the work of hunters.
If you study the conservation history, the word conservation was not even part of the common vernacular until Theodore Roosevelt took office following the assasination of McKinley. His journals make it clear that he wanted to inspire a "conservation ethic" among the people. Following his Presidency, conservation became a mainstream idea, and from that, grew the seeds of the conservation movement we see today.
I do not consider the environmental movement part of the conservation movement. I never let them get by with calling themselves "conservation groups." To be a "conservation group" you have to complete some task that gives you claim to the name. To date, I have yet to see one of those groups do anything in the name of conservation.
As Ben Lamb pointed out, hunters and anglers are the ones doing the work, writing the checks, donating the time, and taxing ourselves. Not bragging, just stating facts.
Those other "wanna be" groups had their chance in the late 1990's with a bill called CARA, which would have allowed for a similar tax on their equipment to be part of the conservation funding mechanism. As you can imagine, the screaming and yelling by those who would now be asked to pay for part of the frieght, killed the bill. Further proof that they are not "conservationists."
onpoint
Well-known member
don't forget the mantra....."all taxes bad"....drink the koolaid....
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"One source shows hunters spending around ten billion dollars a year on everything they need for their hunting trips.[1] A different source found that hunters spend between 2.8 and 5.2 billion dollars a year on taxable merchandise.[8] This generates between 177 and 324 million dollars a year in P-R money.[8]
Another source estimated that hunters contribute about three and a half million dollars a day to conservation by purchasing taxable items and hunting licenses.[4]
One study showed an extremely high Return on Investment for firearm manufacturers; 823% to 1588% depending on the year.[8]"
If we don't have habitat, we don't just not have animals...we don't have hunters either. We are shrinking in numbers, but we continue to spend!
"One source shows hunters spending around ten billion dollars a year on everything they need for their hunting trips.[1] A different source found that hunters spend between 2.8 and 5.2 billion dollars a year on taxable merchandise.[8] This generates between 177 and 324 million dollars a year in P-R money.[8]
Another source estimated that hunters contribute about three and a half million dollars a day to conservation by purchasing taxable items and hunting licenses.[4]
One study showed an extremely high Return on Investment for firearm manufacturers; 823% to 1588% depending on the year.[8]"
If we don't have habitat, we don't just not have animals...we don't have hunters either. We are shrinking in numbers, but we continue to spend!
Last edited:
Similar threads
