would you oppose an increase in the tax for Pittman-Robertson?

[Flyfish4ever]

This is just a food for thought question.

For those who do not know, in 1937, in the peak of the great depression, the Pittman-Robertson act was passed and was done so at the request of many sportsmen. the act took an existing 11% excise tax on all long guns and ammunition as well as 10% on pistols from the US Department of the Treasury and redirected it to the department of the interior where it is redirected to states for research and conservation projects. my question is this: would you oppose an increase in this tax? do you think that this tax could be better handled by 501(c)3 organizations than in the hands of the federal government?

Personally, I would not oppose an increase on the handguns or ammunition, however i would also like to see it expanded to include things that not only sportsmen are using, because not only sportsmen are the ones who are benefiting from the tax. I would like to see the tax stretched to include things like camping and hiking equipment so that backpackers and campers would also be able to take advantage of seeing the benefits in the wildlife they get to experience and see when enjoying their activities.

in a perfect world this is what the tax would look like to me:
Changes to existing law:
20% of the tax money is reserved for grants specifically for non-profit wildlife and habitat conservation organizations, whether it be RMEF, Trout Unlimited, Quail Forever, CalTrout, etc.
1% increase on the tax from handguns

I would also add that the tax money allocation is requried to include fisheries and restoration of fisheries (such as removal of Lake trout in Yellowstone Lake, or work on the New Zealand Mud Snails in streams throughout the US)


NEW
11% on air rifles
8% on fishing rods, reels, hooks, line, flies, lures, etc.
5% tax on tents, sleeping bags, cots, and outdoor backpacks (I know i am missing a ton of items here but i think this would be a great start)
2% on Camouflage clothing
2% on outdoor oriented clothing (IE North face, Patagonia, Etc.)


I understand that this might irritate people, and i do not intend to create an issue, I just would like to know what your thoughts are on the idea.

Thanks for reading,
Matt

 

[JohnCushman]

I would pay it in a heartbeat.

 

[TOGIE]

wouldn't bother me

throw mountain bikes on the list, and climbing equipment, and cross country skis

additional edit: i would add, i think this money is pretty well handled by the feds and it's distribution to the states from what i've learned. but perhaps more of this money should go to counties perhaps, or it should be granted to local government projects or programs that have incentives for habitat restoration and/or conservation. of course, most of those projects have state game and fish agencies in involved and the money probably flows towards such stuff anyway. maybe i'd like to know, how much PR money goes to management vs. conservation and habitat? should more of it be funneled towards that?

 

[Flyfish4ever]

wouldn't bother me

throw mountain bikes on the list, and climbing equipment, and cross country skis

I like that idea, but i feel like there would be heavy pushback from these groups as the money does not go toward trail work.

 

[TOGIE]

I like that idea, but i feel like there would be heavy pushback from these groups as the money does not go toward trail work.

oh yeah, i think there is heavy pushback already from them regardless of how the money would be used, as the idea has been floated before them already

and imagine there would be heavy push back from the lions share of modern sportsmen for an increase unfortunately; considering the blowback you see when a state raises their application fee 5 bucks, or raises NR licenses 20 bucks

 

[406LIFE]

I say leave PR alone and create a new backpack tax. If it doubles up on something, thats ok.

 

[Doublecluck]

How about we just expand on what’s taxed, dirt bikes, mountain bikes, snowboards, skis, recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, off road parts, boats, building permits, drones, cross country shoes, backpacks, tents, camping supplies, etc. today it would seem development/loss of habitat are more of threat to wild things and wild places more than joe bob and his ought six. time for others to share the burden.

 

[rtraverdavis]

Definitely would not oppose new taxes on other outdoor rec goods.

 

[mtmuley]

Tax E-bikes big time. mtmuley

 

[belshawelk]

Tax E-bikes big time. mtmuley

to me anything used on public land, could be taxed. E bikes, quads/side side( on the off road stamp). However it need to go into the PR so it cant be used for non sportsman/public land use.

I would pay on the other items listed.

 

[JohnCushman]

I do agree that anyone who uses public land should pay in. Mountain bikers and atv's and other groups have free run at trails and don't put anything forth for their upkeep, but it somehow is always hunters that are stuck with that bill.

 

[rwc101]

A lot of mountain bike groups contribute tons of man hours to maintaining trail systems on public lands. I would pay PR type taxes on my cycling equipment in a heartbeat.

 

[TOGIE]

I do agree that anyone who uses public land should pay in. Mountain bikers and atv's and other groups have free run at trails and don't put anything forth for their upkeep, but it somehow is always hunters that are stuck with that bill.

i agree, but don't know how true it is that only hunters pay for trail maintenance. there quite a few non profits that partner with the forest service to volunteer labor to upkeep trails. and isn't it federal forest service budget dollars that fund the forest service for the trail management programs anyway?

 

[JLS]

I think a few points of clarification are needed here. Trail maintenance, road maintenance/expansion/decommissioning, etc. are not projects funded via PR monies. Public land agencies aren't funded through PR money, they are funded through the US budget appropriations bills. PR monies are allocated to state fish and wildlife agencies and can only be used for wildlife management, hunter education, and shooting ranges. They can be used for purchase of wildlife areas/winter range. They can't be used for law enforcement. Taxing e-bikes and such through PR would not increase funding for enforcement efforts relative to travel plans, seasonal land closures, etc.

 

[Flyfish4ever]

I think a few points of clarification are needed here. Trail maintenance, road maintenance/expansion/decommissioning, etc. are not projects funded via PR monies. Public land agencies aren't funded through PR money, they are funded through the US budget appropriations bills. PR monies are allocated to state fish and wildlife agencies and can only be used for wildlife management, hunter education, and shooting ranges. They can be used for purchase of wildlife areas/winter range. They can't be used for law enforcement. Taxing e-bikes and such through PR would not increase funding for enforcement efforts relative to travel plans, seasonal land closures, etc.

thank you for clarifying before i could. PR money in essence goes 100% toward wildlife and does not do anything in terms of improving things used for outdoor activities, with the exception of wildlife

 

[Nick87]

I'd be all in. I live in Illinois so it would be nice to see something taxed more that isnt a complete waste of my money.

 

[Doublecluck]

I think a few points of clarification are needed here. Trail maintenance, road maintenance/expansion/decommissioning, etc. are not projects funded via PR monies. Public land agencies aren't funded through PR money, they are funded through the US budget appropriations bills. PR monies are allocated to state fish and wildlife agencies and can only be used for wildlife management, hunter education, and shooting ranges. They can be used for purchase of wildlife areas/winter range. They can't be used for law enforcement. Taxing e-bikes and such through PR would not increase funding for enforcement efforts relative to travel plans, seasonal land closures, etc.

Exactly,

Also to clarify my comment, only 15-18% of people who own guns and buy ammunition hunt. Therefore a large portion of PR funds are coming from non consumptive users. Wildlife agencies manage wildlife in the trust of the people, that’s all people, not just those who hunt and not just those who buy guns/ammo. More and more and in seemingly more states the faces are changing at the table of those who are entrusted to manage our wildlife. More and more hunting policy is being determined by those who don’t hunt. It’s not that I like it, it’s just the way it is. So great if a cat lady or photographer don’t want me shooting a wolf on the border of Yellowstone, and they got a equal seat at the table, tax their camera, tax their cat to help pay for managing that wildlife.

As usual, just thinking out loud..

 

[JLS]

Wildlife agencies manage wildlife in the trust of the people, that’s all people, not just those who hunt

An uncomfortable truth....

 

[Straight Arrow]

Exactly,

Also to clarify my comment, only 15-18% of people who own guns and buy ammunition hunt. Therefore a large portion of PR funds are coming from non consumptive users. Wildlife agencies manage wildlife in the trust of the people, that’s all people, not just those who hunt and not just those who buy guns/ammo. More and more and in seemingly more states the faces are changing at the table of those who are entrusted to manage our wildlife. More and more hunting policy is being determined by those who don’t hunt. It’s not that I like it, it’s just the way it is. So great if a cat lady or photographer don’t want me shooting a wolf on the border of Yellowstone, and they got a equal seat at the table, tax their camera, tax their cat to help pay for managing that wildlife.

As usual, just thinking out loud..

You post valid points. However, I'm confident even those who purchase firearms, ammunition and such are not opposed to hunting and likely support it. On the other hand, many of the others you point to who don't necessarily support hunting and if given the "equal seat at the table" visa vie by paying PR taxes ... then their influence will increase through a true vested interest. So my point is ... be careful who you invite to sit at the PR table. (ie: camera holding wolf watchers, ebikers, ATV groups, snowmobile clubs, etal.)

 

[mtmuley]

You post valid points. However, I'm confident even those who purchase firearms, ammunition and such are not opposed to hunting and likely support it. On the other hand, many of the others you point to who don't necessarily support hunting and if given the "equal seat at the table" visa vie by paying PR taxes ... then their influence will increase through a true vested interest. So my point is ... be careful who you invite to sit at the PR table. (ie: camera holding wolf watchers, ebikers, ATV groups, snowmobile clubs, etal.)

Hmmmm. Good point. mtmuley