Flyfish4ever
Active member
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
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
