I became aware of H.R. 8167 this morning. Rep. Rosendate has signed onto the bill a long with several other Republicans. This is defunding the Pittman Robertson Act. The hunters had is place in I believe 1937 to fund for wildlife. So we need to write our Congressman to get this stop. I have already this morning done so.
H.R. 8167 Pittman Robertson Act.
- Thread starter Mike Matteson
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
If it passes there will no longer be any need to support the tax. I assume they are planning to keep the tax in place and raid the fund? Forgive me, I haven't read the bill
Write your congressman and Senator to stop it.
I imagine if the government does not keep it, the retailers will.
The Pittman Robertson Act pays for things like hunter education and is responsible for the restoration of the whitetail deer, wild turkey, and wood duck just to mention a few things it has accomplished.
Last edited:
There are 50 republicans co-sponsoring the bill. Its all being done in the name of the 2nd amendment which is the trigger to get them all behind it. They don't care about the consequences.
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
I know what it does. Last year there was a bill in the Arkansas legislature to eliminate pretty much nullify all Federal gun laws.
(SB298 passed the Arkansas Senate and is being sent to the House. If this goes through it will be a huge win for gun rights in Arkansas. It basically forbids the enforcement of any unconstitutional federal gun laws passed and in the future. ). This failed the House. The reason it failed is because of intense lobbying by the Arkansas Game and Fish. They were afraid they would lose their Federal Funding from the Pittman Robertson Act. If the Fed eliminates the funding, which I doubt, This will come alive again and become law for the courts to decide. Most likely the Supreme one. In my 64 years I cannot name a Federal program that lost its funding. The FWS will not stand for a massive funding cut any more than any other ABC Federal agency. What would change is anti's would have a much greater say in how the money is spent, and the most likely outcome IMO is we would see millions of acres of Federal land closed to hunting and fishing. They would say they didn't have the funding to support the roads, etc. But you can bet your last bullet the agency won't have to lay off a single employee.
l
Except that the money is sent to the states for things like wildlife restoration, fisheries restoration, hunter education, and state run shooting ranges. The feds aren't being defunded, the states are so you are correct that no federal employee will lose their job. I live in TN and we have more deer and turkey than has ever existed in the area since the beginning of time. We have more wood ducks than we ever had. Cut throat trout are have been reintroduced in the state. Black bears were released on the plateau. Thats all due to the Pittman Robertson Act. We are trying to restore the elk to the state. I guess that's all over with if they are successful. Hopefully, enough outdoorsmen will recognize what the downstream effects of this will be and not just assume this really has anything to do with protecting your 2nd amendment rights. How is this tax a violation of your 2nd amendment rights? For any outdoorsman who supports this, it is the epitome of the phrase "cut off one's nose to spite one's face". It probably the only tax in existence where the money is actually going where we want it to and we are all reaping the rewards.
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
Actually, it is SUPPOSED to fund the Federal Refuge System, but I agree with you, and we are few. The act taxes a vast array of sporting goods, not just guns. Hunters are for the tax, 2nd A supporters that do not hunt, someone buying binos to watch a football game, etc. not so much. I'm sure if the funding was eliminated our State would come up with a scheme to replace it. The State isn't in the business of laying off employees either. It would be either a general tax, which I'm against, or an increase in license fees, which I am for. Today our Game and Fish is funded solely through this and Fed money. They don't answer to anyone but hunters and fishermen. I kinda like it that way. The antis have no standing here and no voice. Whatever happens we need to keep it that way.
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
Here is what I AM for: Repeal the Pittman Robertson Act. Let the State levy the same tax on sporting goods. They get to keep the money for the Game and Fish without being blackmailed by the feds to get it back. Then pass SB298 into law and tell them to pound sand. I would be just giddy and so would everyone else that lives here. I can think of a long list of things we could do along the same path..... Problem is, it will never pass. When was the last time you saw a Federal tax eliminated?
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
Here is something else to consider. The Fed taxes the manufacturer. They add the tax to their costs and mark the whole unit up to the Distributor. They then mark it up to the dealer and the dealer marks the unit up also. The consumer pays a lot more than 20% for the tax. A lot more, maybe 40% all in, but the Fed only gets 20% of the manufacturing cost. If the State got 20% of the retail price, consumers would pay less and the Game and fish would get a lot more...... See how this works? Problem is I am just dreaming. It would never happen.
We have about the same thing in Montana. The problem is just shows how dumb the congressmen are. They a lot of time don't know the different from hole in the ground and a A-hole.
So we need to get everybody to write there Senators, and Congressmen to drop there support H.R. 8167. I am surprise that the NRA and other haven't picked this up too. I have already sent a letter to our one congressman, and both Senators.
The left or the Democrats Communisis are trying to destroy everything. We need to get the word out. No to H.R.8167.
Except the states aren't going to levy the same taxes on sporting goods. That is never going to happen and all the programs that it funded in the states will end. You may see a price increase in licensing but not in taxes. I doubt they would be able to cover the loss without raising the cost so high that no one can afford a licensee. Arkansas will lose $15 million a year. Tennessee will lose $24 million a year. Montana will lose $24 million a year. States like Texas and Alaska will lose over $40 million a year. The last thing a state politician wants to do is raise taxes because it can be a political death sentence. I pray that you are correct in that the new bill will never pass and the Pittman Robertson Act is never repealed. 7 republicans have already pulled out because of pressures from hunters.
I am not sure what you mean you say its SUPPOSED to fund the Federal Refuge System. Are you suggesting that its only supposed to be used for that because I have not read that anywhere? Everything I have read says that money is for the states.
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
I think I outlined some very sound reasoning above TO repeal it. But we are discussing something that won;t happen, the Federal Government actually, willingly, giving up power over the States. No need to write anybody, just showmanship to appease a group they can beg for donations when it fails. They will claim they COULD have got it done if there were just more of them and they could raise more money. They think we are so stupid. Don't fall for it guys.
Just because the manufacturer charges an additional 11% does not mean the distributor will double that and then the retailer doubles it again. That means that if they repeal it, everything will drop 40% and the states could charge 20%, give it to Fish and Game and save us money. Thats fairies and unicorns right there. For one, its not going to drop 40% and if it did and the state took 20%, they certainly are not going to give it all to Fish and Game. The reality is that Fish and Game would have to do without the money. They would have to cancel all the programs and all of the people in those programs would lose their jobs. Thats the reality.
