NON-HUNTING GUN OWNERS FUNDING THE FUTURE OF HUNTING
Hunters, Shooters, and PR Money
By Bill Schneider, 4-05-07
 |
|
 | |
|
If you ever enter the endless debate over the ethics of hunting, the first thing you hear is the hunter reminding the anti-hunter who pays the bills. It usually goes something like this: “We hunters pay for wildlife conservation with our license fees and excise taxes, and you enjoy wild nature without paying for it.”
That used to be totally true; now, it’s only half-true. Hunters still pay for wildlife management and conservation with their license fees and some excise tax revenue, but now, gun owners who don’t hunt--and might despise hunters--might pay the majority of the excise taxes. In some cases, no doubt, shooters believe they receive little in return except grief.
For most people, PR means public relations. For athletes, it means personal record. But for hunters and shooters, it means Pitman-Robertson, the names of two senators who sponsored federal legislation that might have saved hunting.
Back in 1937, Congress passed what’s officially called the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, but in practice, it’s referred to as the Pitman-Robertson Act after it’s two primary sponsors. For 70 years, “PR money” has been common vernacular around state wildlife agencies and sporting organizations.
The Pitman-Robertson Act placed an 11 percent excise tax on “sporting arms and ammunition,” which includes re-loading equipment, but excludes only “machine guns and short-barreled shotguns.” In 1970, Congress amended the Act to place a 10 percent tax on handguns and archery equipment, part of which goes to hunter education and to develop shooting ranges for archers and all gun owners, not just hunters.
Gun and archery manufacturers, with some exceptions, supported these taxes. Yes, an industry supported taxes on its own products--and benefited greatly from it.
Most avid hunters and gun owners know about PR money, but some don’t because it’s sort of a stealth tax. The manufacturers pay it on the wholesale price of their products, and It never shows up on the receipt or bill of sale. I have talked to some hunters who have hunted for many years and were unaware of it.
The Internal Revenue Service collects PR money puts it in the U.S. Treasury. Then, it goes to state wildlife agencies, which match the PR money with state license fees and pay for wildlife research, management and habitat acquisition. The states get three PR dollars for every dollar of license fees.
This is hardly chump change. According to Nicholas Throckmorton of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency in charge of apportioning out the money, more than $5 billion has been raised for wildlife restoration and matched with about $1.3 billion in license fees since the Act passed. That’s enough to pay for about six weeks of the Trillion Dollar War in Iraq.
The FWS uses a formula laid out in the Act, based on land area of the state and number of hunting licenses sold, to apportion the money. In 2006, Arizona received $5.6 million, Colorado $6.2 million, Idaho $4.5 million, Montana, $6.3 million, New Mexico $4.7 million, Oregon $5.4 million, Utah, $3.9 million, Washington $4.5 million, and Wyoming $4.2 million, Because of their bigness, Alaska and Texas top the list with about $10 million, but even Rhode Island received $1.4 million.
The Pitman-Robertson Act probably did more for wildlife, and not only major game species, but all wildlife, than any other single piece of legislation ever passed. In almost every state, major game species are now at or near the highest possible level, if not overpopulated, often higher than when Lewis and Clark made their epic journey.
And habitat protected for game species serves non-game species just as well, so credit, in part, PR money and gun owners next time you enjoy watching loons or butterflies or bluebirds or any other non-hunted wildlife.
Indeed, the law worked out just fine for wildlife and hunters, but not in the way Senators Pitman and Robertson expected. If they were alive today, I doubt they would be surprised by the tremendous positive impact the Act has had on wildlife restoration, but they might be by who’s paying most of the bills for it.
Nowadays, most gun owners don’t hunt, and they buy more guns and much more ammo than hunters do, so the majority of the money pouring into the PR coffers comes from non-hunting gun owners. A large portion comes in from sales of pistols and revolvers, for example, which are rarely used for hunting. I asked the FWS and the National Shooting Sports Foundation for exact figures, but it’s difficult to find because the IRS does not track whether the taxes come from traditional hunting firearms or other guns.
Again, this exact figure is impossible to find, but it’s safe to assume that back in the 1930s and 1940s, we had the opposite situation. Back then, I’m sure the majority of the PR money came from hunters.
During my recent and lengthy NewWest.net comment sections on columns covering gun issues (here and here), I learned, much to my surprise, that many shooters consider hunters an adversary. They call us “Elmer Fudds” and blame us for being soft and letting the “Brady Bunch” use us to take away their rights, such as the right to have assault weapons or to defeat self-defense or concealed weapon laws and so-called “no retreat” laws that allow individuals to protect themselves with guns even if not directly threatened.
What an irony! Non-hunting gun owners contribute the bulk of the excise taxes spent on wildlife restoration so hunters can hunt, even though they might consider Elmer Fudds the enemy.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Yes, there are "shooters" that have issues with hunters just as thier are hunters that have issues with "shooters". My problems lies with the idea that EVERY "shooter" has an issue with hunters or visa versa.
The fact of the matter is that - at least in Montana - most people who own guns are BOTH. Take me for example. Yes, I own guns. Yes I own guns that are not necessarily for hunting (though I could certainly use most of them for hunting). Does that mean I am a "shooter"? If you answered yes, you are both incorrect and arbitrarily labeling me as being in the "shooter" camp. In fact, I also hunt and have hunted off and on since I was 12.
This kind of divisive stereotype is one of the major reasons that bullshit legislation (like the AWB) get passed.
The other stereotype is that anyone with guns thinks the way that the NRA (or any other gun rights group) thinks. Again, Bullshit. In the circle of friends I have that shoot, hunt or do both, only one (out of dozens) really buys into the NRA as an objective source of information or believes that the NRA truly reflects our personal views. Hell, I am a member of the NRA (I joined for a number of reasons including getting information for my gunsmithing) but I do not for second agree with some of thier lobbying or the tactics they use.
Zumbo was a perfect example. I completely disagreed with what he said but I also believe that the NRA and others went WAY too far in "correcting" him. In some ways, the NRA can be just as divisive as this kind of article.
Instead of trying to divide the people who own and shoot guns with blanket and stereotypical statements, this information could certainly have been presented in a different way.
That said, I did find the article interesting. I knew about the tax, but I didn't know the history behind it. Thank you for the information.
Moorcat
Shooter, Hunter and Gunsmith
Your last sentence starts with "Non-hunting gun owners contribute the bulk of the excise taxes spent on wildlife restoration so hunters can hunt" when in your own words you say "I asked the FWS and the National Shooting Sports Foundation for exact figures, but it’s difficult to find because the IRS does not track whether the taxes come from traditional hunting firearms or other guns."
How did you come to this conclusion when the evidence, in your own words, doesn't exist?
I do appreciate the information, as I wasn't aware of most of it. However before pointing the ugly stick at something, perhaps you should sniff it first.
I'm a hunter, and a shooter--one feeds the other, one brought me into the other.
"Shooters" who consider hunters their adversaries are not being very smart. They are being silly. Silliness is very common these days. (I think our citizens cultivate it by watching Fox television, where a media group promotes the idea that the US is divided, so that, in the stalemate/power vacuum that is created by that illusion, the Murdochs and their allies can run things profitably and unopposed.)
You did not mention that a percentage of PR money goes to promote shooting and shooting ranges, education,etc--
I don't usually link to my own work, but we had a figure for PR funds of about $200 million in this story I wrote-
http://www.nature.org/magazine/autumn2006/features/art18601.html
You did not mention the most effective conservation tool in US history--the Duck Stamps. The stamps are not a divisive issue--but sales are declining. Waterfowl and other bird lovers-especially the nonhunting community, need to step up and purchase them -state and federal duck stamps--every year. Money from duck stamps purchased the wildlife refuges where they believe the ivorybill is still living, among other triumphs. The story linked above has a section on duck stamps.
You suggest that because some shooters seem to despise hunters, that they also despise the idea that their taxes will support wildlife. That seems like a mean-spirited assumption. I know quite a few folks in the tactical firearms training community, and most of them like wildlife and have no problem with the PR taxes going to support habitat.
You’ve read the comments of a few angry and rather silly individuals who call hunters “Fudds” and created a movement. Why?
I commented with my feelings on further gun control measures in one of your previous stories, so I won't go into that again. Suffice it to say that I think we have plenty of gun control laws already. Concealed carry laws that enable citizens to defend themselves from criminals, and laws that allow them to freely trade in legal firearms amongst themselves...
I believe in all of those. Same goes with what you called the "so-called" no retreat laws...nahh, I don't want the law telling me I have to grab my children and run out of my house if a deranged nutball jumps in the window...this ain't England--yet.
The rights of "shooters" to have what you keep calling "assault rifles" are not, as you wrote "their" rights. That right belongs to all of us. Why the divisive nomenclature?
Why is everybody dodging the idea that a good military firearm--okay- a weapon-- is what the 2nd Amendment was talking about?
Weapons in the hands of free citizens who know how to use them can indeed be a check to tyranny. It can also lead to citizens who are more prepared for military service in the defense of their country. Sgt. York, and the tens of thousands of other American "shooters" who broke the back of Nazi Germany were pretty handy weren't they? I was watching some new DVDs called "embedded 1945" -- the men and women liberated from Buchenwald looked pretty glad to see the "shooters." The German civilians that Patton brought in to clean the concentration camps up looked pretty dismayed. They looked like they really wished that they had protested the plans of their government just a bit more. Maybe they wished they had been hunters and shooters with some good weapons so that they could have resisted the storm troopers a bit more effectively. Uh, oh, we’re not supposed to talk about stuff like that anymore are we? We are so much more enlightened now. The world is much more peaceful and people work out their differences in much more friendly ways.
Who knows? I suggest that we support the venerable old Civilian Marksman Program. There's no divisiveness there. They shoot the M-1 A1, a fine old rifle, suitable for hunting or defense or just the art and craft of marksmanship.
Check them out:
http://www.odcmp.com/
There's plenty to be divided about in this world. The Pittman-Robertson Act is not really one of them.
Hal
http://www.nature.org/magazine/autumn2006/features/art18621.html
The federal aid to sport fisheries program was called the Dingell-Johnson Bill of July 1,1950 and provisions are similar and administered by the USFWS.
Of importance here is productive game populations and public access to that resource. Without public land and water access the desire to hunt and fish will decline and will drastically impact the wildlife conservation effort. Also 'privatization' of the wildlife and fisheries resource goes 'against the grain' of both PR and DJ.This was descibed best from a paper of Dr. Giest. We must all work towards public land and water access to the public fish & wildlife resources. Thanks Bill............. good article.
Thanks for the in-depth info on the PR and DJ funds-- they are a remarkable and far-sighted pair of bills....irreplaceable and ingenious in their conception. Also uniquely American ideas.
if you are still checking this thread, could you tell me where to find the V. Geist paper that you mention?
Hal
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070405/ap_on_re_us/preserve_shootings;_ylt=A0WTUdAfCRVGuxkBICms0NUE
There's no division between "shooters" and "hunters," just between those clueless about the incrementalism of gun control efforts and those who dang well know better. So those with a clue tend to come down pretty hard on those who SHOULD have a clue.
Your "discussion" of this issue was really not germane to Pittman-Robertson.
And I notice neither you nor Hal mention the Palmyra Atoll fiasco, a jillion dollars for a TNC administered program someplace where ducks don't go and the other avian species will never be hunted.
Most armed, most free.
"Why is everybody dodging the idea that a good military firearm--okay- a weapon-- is what the 2nd Amendment was talking about?
Weapons in the hands of free citizens who know how to use them can indeed be a check to tyranny. It can also lead to citizens who are more prepared for military service in the defense of their country. Sgt. York, and the tens of thousands of other American "shooters" who broke the back of Nazi Germany were pretty handy weren't they? I was watching some new DVDs called "embedded 1945" -- the men and women liberated from Buchenwald looked pretty glad to see the "shooters." The German civilians that Patton brought in to clean the concentration camps up looked pretty dismayed. They looked like they really wished that they had protested the plans of their government just a bit more. Maybe they wished they had been hunters and shooters with some good weapons so that they could have resisted the storm troopers a bit more effectively. Uh, oh, we’re not supposed to talk about stuff like that anymore are we? We are so much more enlightened now. The world is much more peaceful and people work out their differences in much more friendly ways."
History repeats itself because of memories too short-lived ...
That raises the issue of the ongoing pogrom in the West the past two decades. Census showed that in my county, 15,000 long time residents left and 19,000 newbies showed up over a five-year span, I think 2000-5.
The departures were, of course, those of the shared Western mind, disemployed or at least taxed to death, replaced by a potpourri of amenity and "lifestyle" migrants escaping the perfection of wherever they came from. They of course never stop reminding us reactionaries how perfect things would be if only....
I realize I'll probably never really exercise my Second Amendment rights, but you can be dang sure I WILL adhere to the principle.
I think the book with the details is one by Stephen Halbrook, I'm not sure. But the Uprising lasted for a couple months, while the Nazi garrison had to be enlarged until they could invade and seize the ghetto, confiscate the guns, and then resume the slaughter unchecked by any pesky kikes with guns that might harm good Aryan broodstock.
That took Kraut troops away from other "duties" -- or in my view, other war crimes, as long as the Jews held out. I wish I knew right off hand how many soldiers were diverted, IIRC it was over two thousand. That testifies to the threat of a possible rifle in every window.
The Jews knew about the camps, knew they were screwed no matter what, so some of them decided to die like men. And, by golly, they did.
I guess what it all boils down to is the sick fact that most of us cold-dead-hands types, with an awareness of history, aren't too crazy about a possible repeat -- ever.
And for those who think I'm nuts...hey, you liberals, please answer me, do you really trust Bush? He stole the election, eh? He lied, people died? Well, golly gee, so did Adolf.
How are you going to react if this NEXT presidential election is a bit, um, er, "funny?"
Truly, what is a rational reaction to the corruption of the political process, perceived or not? To hedge your bets, of course. That's why I am of the position that the entire Bill of Rights deserves appropriate respect from both ends of the spectrum.
So, to honor the origin of this thread, we AIN'T talking duck hunting. Bill wrongly conflated the two, and here we are.
will somehow be infuriated by "their" gun and ammo tax money going to suppport wildlife and hunting is just ridiculous..a ploy to create some kind of controversy where none exists.
On the other hand, way out in the super-fun country of tangent land, we found one of the only places where Dave Skinner and I agree on something wholeheartedly, and got the chance to talk about the Warsaw ghetto, one of history's great tales of turning the tables on the oppressors! Yaaaay, Dave!
Hal
So I guess the Bush Administration converted you just as the Klintons did me?
Actually, BACK TO THE TOPIC, Hal raises another point that Bill kind of missed, a real dung pile that he would have been perfectly justified in stirring.
The PR tax, 11 percent excise, has been expanded somewhat to cover optics and other ancillaries. That raises the specter of "nonconsumptive" wildlife users having a significant wildlife "buy," which is not pretty.
I remember back in the latter 90s when I was in Colorado and the anti-niks were screaming about public wildlife and how the "public" -- translate that to the reality, radical animal rightists -- had the right to manage wildlife via referendum.
The justification was the nongame checkoff on Colorado tax returns. Well, I ran the numbers averaged across the sportsman population and the general population. Average hookie gunnie spent 32 bucks a year; average everyone else spent 10.4 cents. Now, who had the bigger buy-in on that basis? PETA in Boulder.
There may come a point when some smart activist runs the P-R or D-J numbers and learns that non-hunters are carrying the wildlife resource. At that time, there will be, um, heck to pay.
So, going back to your TNC article, I am really ambivalent about people buying duck stamps just to look. That might lead to, well, just looking. And that, in my humble view, would suck.
His intention was simply to stir controversy about the issue, and drive traffic to this web site.
Wonderful piece of marketing. Keep up the good work. I'm sure your advertisers feel they are getting their money's worth!
If you’re up for a challenge, look through the extensive comments on my three recent columns about gun issues. Then, you might agree with what I’m saying.
I don't know how many people think like this, but some shooters, non-hunting gun owners, whatever, are not at all happy with we hunters. Since most gun owners don’t hunt and some of them certainly aren’t feeling warm and fuzzy about the “Elmer Fudds,” it seems ironic to me that non-hunting gun owners pay most of the PR excise taxes--and that this is an unexpected outcome of the Pitman-Robertson Act.
Nobody said this was controversial, and actually, I hope it doesn’t become controversial, but it seems interesting. And as far as I know, nobody has reported on this, which what I do, try to write about issues that haven’t already been ground into dust by the outdoor media.
Bill
There have been two major attempts that I know of to place PR/DJ-type excise taxes on other recreational products, such as backpacks, hiking boots, granola bars, optics, outdoor guidebooks, maps, etc. etc., but in both cases, most manufacturers strongly opposed the taxes and they failed. The most recent effort, called Teaming For Wildlife to raise money for non-game wildlife programs, is still technically alive, but going nowhere fast, and it will not succeed without industry support. This is why the manufacturers of hunting and fishing equipment were so incredibly far-sighted in supporting the excise taxes.
Bill
You state in your reply "non-hunting gun owners pay most of the PR excise taxes", when any hard numbers on the issue simply don't exist.
Are you going to suggest you have a "Gut Feeling", or are you going to provide the reference/source information so that it can be corroborated?
I think the CARA (Conservation and Reinvestment Act) was supposed to put a tax on optics and backpacks, etc, to establish a revenue stream for non-game wildlife and habitat conservation. CARA got beat down (I may be wrong, but I think it was the outdoor products industry that lobbied against it), leaving the hunters and fishermen and shooters holding the bag, which they have all been glad to hold, as far as I can tell. I'd like to know more about CARA and why it failed.
Hal
As I said in the article, it can't be confirmed because the IRS doesn't track the source of the moeny. I am making the assumption that since most gun owners don't hunt, and recreational shooters commonly buy more firearms and ammo than many hunters, that the majority of money going into the PR fund comes from non-hunting gun owners.
Bill
Passed in 1937. The P-R act required state legislatures to pass enabling legislation. The Montana Legislature firest defeated the bill because of opposition from livestock interests who feared competition from a wildlife-based economic entity. It passed in the next legislature after the newly formed Montana Wildlife Federation got its guns lined up to support the bill.
All efforts to get non-hunters to help pay for wildlife conservation have failed. There have been several attempts CARA beging the latest. Hal got that about right. I'm sure P-R could not pass in Congress today because it would be a "tax increase." Hunters can't be too self-congratulatory, however, the latest group to dodge the conservation bill is gunmakers who make small numbers of custom firearms. That bill died in Congress three years ago with the help of Max Baucus under the banner of keeping government off the back of small business owners.
Reality is that wild life and wild places cannot exist in a human dominated world without a human support system. To this point in history the money trail of that support system leads directly to the hunters' door and away from the non-hunter.
Dumping tax burdens on somebody else is a hallowed American tradition, but hunters are shrinking in number, and I cannot believe that non-hunters will suddenly discover either the character or the guts to provide actual support.
As always, talk is cheap - follow the money.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/04/10/news/state/74-grants.txt
"Montana will receive more than $15 million in federal grants to fund conservation efforts, shooting ranges and hunter education.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced the funding as part of more than $600 million awarded to 56 state and territorial wildlife agencies. It comes from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration programs.
The money is made available through a formula based on a state's land and water area, inland waters and the number of hunting and fish license holders.
It is primarily used to manage wildlife; stock fish; conduct habitat research, surveys and inventories; build boat ramps and fishing piers; and administer hunter education.
Federal assistance funds pay up to 75 percent of the cost of eligible projects. States must contribute at least 25 percent."
What are federal and state agencies doing these days about access to the public fish and wildlife resources? Very little, it's easier to close roads then open them or make new roads around the rich and famous private lands blocking access to our streams /rivers and public land. The rich and famous want to privatize our fish & wildlife resources and we are letting them.They want more wilderness over the fence with their locked gates and red signs. Less access means less money in the PR program you can count on that. Will FWP raise hunting license fees for us when less hunters are out there ? We shall see. Been going up with less animals to hunt. Maybe we need an article here on access to our big game resource for public hunting and what is going on these day's. I don't think PR money can be used for shooting ranges.I think that is LWCF money and public land under Public Purpose Act withdrawal. I favor the shooting ranges if they are truely public most now are shooting clubs who want a high dues and you need reservations to shoot.
LW writes: " Hunters are a disease affecting and hurting mother nature, and anti-wolf people are just jokers who just want attention and should be stopped. Heck if i were president i would ban hunting and put an end to anti-wolf people...Wolves are not wildlife terrorists or illegal immigrants. hunters and poachers are known as wildlife terrorists. That is a fact."
Lone Wolf also comments here at NW from time to time. What he and others of his ilk don't realize is that hunting is THE major factor in protecting a species. One need only look to Africa to see how hunting dollars have brought back wildlife.
I did as you suggested and looked at the other gun lines you suggested we look over. You wrote several times in your related columns that you have a lot to learn. That you do.
Your perception that "shooters" think "hunters" suck is way, way off the mark, and your assertion that shooters may not want to pay for wildlife management is grossly speculative and not justified by your baseline facts.
I am pretty much a shooter, having only had a couple over-the-counter deer hunts over the years when the chance and free time coincided, but my support of wildlife policy control by the hunters and CONSERVATIONISTS (old meaning) who paid, and paid, and paid, to nurture and harvest the resource while showering free benefits on the watching public, is unequivocal. Period.
The "hunters" who create an issue here are part of a relatively small faction, about a fifth of all hookandbulleteers (that's Dave Petersen's translation, in an essay Wildlands CPR published), the environmentalists who happen to hunt.
Furthermore, the "hunter and angler" schema is not a spontaneous uprising, but a deliberately created dog-and-pony funded by Pew through Trout Unlimited and the so-called Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
The Outdoor Writers flapdoodle in Spokane about NRA and Sierra Club that led traditionalists such as Zumbo to split from the greens such as Pat Wray is part and parcel of the same thing.
Blaine Harden of the Washington Post (no fan of the NRA or gun rights) jumped all over the Spokane brouhaha, right? So is it any coincidence at all that a year later, Pat Wray is Blaine's go-to guy for a nasty sound bite about the NRA lynching Jim Zumbo? Naw, it's just the best spin money can buy, or get for free from a fully-complicit "reporter" -- or "reporters" as the case sadly is.
And this "Fudd" stuff is a takeoff on the narrow-mindedness of so many "not my problem" sportsmen, as long as they are left alone, they don't care, and don't care to listen to the warnings of their fellows...as in "Be vewy vewy quiet" and don't confuse me.
With all that said, I can only conclude that you yourself are complicit in fostering the false impression that ALL "hunters and anglers" toe the Pew line on roadless areas, oil and gas, conservation easements, et cetera, ad nauseam. You want it to be true, of course, so I can understand that.
But the fact remains that there are lots of other sportspeople who understand that even though we can hunt in Montana five weeks a year, and that's a wonderful thing, there are 47 other weeks in the year where we'd prefer to work at decent-paying jobs in a prosperous economy. It's a matter of setting priorities within the parameters of reality.
I'm one of those. I wish I could hunt a heck of a lot more than I can. Nonetheless, I like to eat, and it's more likely that I can eat in a Montana (or Western) economy that is based on the inherent competitive strength of our resource-producing sectors.