Free: Contests & Raffles.
Gotta love giving up state sovereignty so D.C. can control stuff... But hey, at least they give us free places to hunt (for now)
Quote from: Bean Counter on March 08, 2016, 08:18:35 AMGotta love giving up state sovereignty so D.C. can control stuff... But hey, at least they give us free places to hunt (for now) I don't understand your problem here? The states are getting the money for projects? Should it be a state issued tax? It was a federal act that initiated the Pittman Robertson tax.... not a state tax. HUNTERS pushed this because too habitat was being destroyed and there was no money to restore wildlife populations that we all enjoy.
Do you really think its going to go to support migration routes for the mule deer of the Red Desert? My guess is global warming bs hooey.
The article says the money is going to state environmental departments, not state fish and game departments.
Sportsmen proposed these taxes to help wildlife. I think there would be more accountability over the funds if they were given to the states to decide how to use them, rather than the feds stealing it for environmentalism.
Probably not, which is why I moved to a Red State Point is it should be about local control. You have far greater chances of influencing the law and lobbying on a state basis than you do on a national basis. Besides, I shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of federal mismanagement because some who actually love this country chose to live in a gawd awful blue state for one reason or the next.
Don't get me wrong; I don't trust the federal government, especially when the word "environmental" is used. However, until there's some proof that what's being done is outside of the parameters of PR or the Fish Act, I'm not biting. Congress is well aware of PR and what the money is to be used for.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on March 08, 2016, 10:06:07 AMDon't get me wrong; I don't trust the federal government, especially when the word "environmental" is used. However, until there's some proof that what's being done is outside of the parameters of PR or the Fish Act, I'm not biting. Congress is well aware of PR and what the money is to be used for. Per the P-R Act, if the money is required to be distributed to state fish and game departments, and instead its being given to the Department of Ecology, isn't that prima facie evidence of illegal distribution?
Perhaps I'm wrong as well. I went to and read the original article and neither it or Faux News (Unfair and Biased) are clear to me. To me it reads like the money is going to state departments other than Fish and Game.
I think one has to ask why Obama is involved specifically. My guess is money is going somewhere it is not intended to go.
Quote from: Wacenturion on March 10, 2016, 05:00:47 PMI think one has to ask why Obama is involved specifically. My guess is money is going somewhere it is not intended to go.