Tax repeal could hurt conservation efforts

A while back I said something to the effect that in order for hunting to survive, or at the very least resemble something that we are familiar with and desire to partake in, we as hunters would have to begin to be politically active. I didn’t mean walking around banging pots and pans, carrying signs, chanting slogans, and wearing tights and tie-dyed shirts. I meant paying attention and sending an email once in a while to remind politicians that we hunters vote and are paying attention.

Just before Independence Day weekend, word of one of the things hunters need to pay attention to started coming out; US House Bill HR 8167 repealing the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937.

Passed with a bi-partisan vote during the Great Depression, the act created an excise tax on new firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. The money raised from this tax funds wildlife conservation and only that. Meaning since 1937 hunters have paid for wildlife conservation, both for game and non-game species. The lion’s share of this money comes from ammunition used for the shooting of clay pigeons in trap, skeet, sporting clays, and such.

The tax is collected by the manufacture of equipment or ammunition. It adds ten or eleven percent to the manufactures price to the wholesaler. The stated reason for the HR 8167 called, “The Return to Constitutional Rights Act” by the sponsor Georgia Congressmen Andrew Clyde, is that it is an infringement upon Second Amendment Rights.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation tells us firearm sales are at an all-time high. So you see I’m puzzled by how this tax is so onerous that it infringes upon Second Amendment Rights. I can see how HR 8167 might wreck the reason I own firearms in the first place.

Wisconsin receives a lot of money each year in Pittman-Robertson funds. The money can be used for wildlife management, research, hunter and fisher education, and shooting ranges. The cost of a Wisconsin Hunters Education class to a student has been $10 for a long time. Fifteen years ago the cost of the book and pamphlets provided to the student to learn was about $25 per student. The $10 fee covers ammunition, other supplies, and administration cost.

Congressmen Clyde stated that the Pittman- Robertson Act “weaponizes taxation” and that conservationists are confused, suggesting leftover money from leases of onshore and offshore oil and gas drilling could be used to fund wildlife conservation. What the sponsor and co-sponsors of this bill, two of whom are from Wisconsin, aren’t saying is that they know this would leave a $200 million dollar shortfall for wildlife conservation, and as we all know there isn’t a whole lot of drilling for oil going on right now.

I never met a tax that I didn’t hate. That said, I understand that all things cost money. There is no free lunch, someone must pay the piper. We, as hunters, have shouldered the burden for wildlife conservation for 85 years now. Hunters before us created wildlife conservation over a century ago. This North American model exceeds anything else anywhere on the rest of the planet – largely funded by the Pittman-Robertson Act.

HR 8167 also repeals the Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950 that does the same on certain types of fishing equipment like fishing poles. This act allocates the dollars collected to fishing conservation. This leaves another $200 million dollar shortfall across the country for wildlife conservation. This clearly points to HR 8167’s creation not being motivated by a protection of Second Amendment Rights. That’s just what they are saying it is because protection of Second Amendment Rights is a hot topic right now.

I suspect that whatever the reason for HR 8167 actually is, it isn’t anything as honorable as protecting our Second Amendment Rights. If it was, all those confused national conservation organizations out there wouldn’t have been blindsided by this and wouldn’t be lining up against it. And the NRA would have their shoulder squarely behind it and that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Given the makeup of the House of Representatives right now, this just could be political grandstanding. But with over 50 co-sponsors, it has a serious nature. Hunters will need to pay attention and evaluate this fully if it advances.

Now we’ve heard, but there are still fish to catch and they won’t catch themselves. So go catch some.

THROUGH A

DECOY’S

E

YE

CHUCK K OLAR LOCAL OUTDOORSMAN