Feds Mismanagement of Pittman Robertson Money for Environmetalism

[Bean Counter]

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) 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/07/feds-use-tax-revenue-from-gun-sales-to-fix-environment.html?intcmp=hplnws

The Obama administration is distributing $1.1 billion in tax revenue from the purchase of firearms to help states with environmental programs.

The Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service made the announcement Monday, saying the money is from excise taxes paid on firearms, bows and ammunition. Excise taxes on sportfishing tackle, some boat engines and small engine fuel also were included.

"State wildlife agencies play an essential role in the conservation of America's wildlife, while also generating billions of dollars for the nation's economy through increased hunting and fishing opportunities," said Dan Ashe, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. "It's fitting that those very sporting activities help sustain wildlife, their habitats and the agencies that manage them. Our role in administering these funds reflects our long-standing partnership with the states across a broad spectrum of wildlife conservation issues."

The revenue is collected for land and environmental restoration projects under two laws: The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration acts.

[WAcoyotehunter]

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) 

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. 

[REHJWA]

Are you trolling? Why do you think sportsman proposes these taxes? Yes, there are some things worth being taxed for, and these taxes were specifically ear marked unlike all the general fund taxes...

[Bean Counter]

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.

[JimmyHoffa]

Like when they raided these funds in the mid 90's for wolf introduction in the Rockies.  Yeah.....I'm sure that's what sportsman had in mind when these taxes were first implemented.  The USFWS head got a cushy job at DOW for that move.

[RadSav]

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) 

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.

It's a Ted Cruz support post.  You will likely see more of these supporting his desire to give federal lands to the states.  Part of his on the ground election efforts.

[NoBark]

Nothing new here.  There is nothing in the story that gives a clue to exactly what they will be used for.  I agree more openness on programs would have been nice, but this story could have run every year for the last 20, just change the amount.  I'm sure some will go to programs I'm not a fan of but I bet a bunch will go to improving habitat across the west.

[Bean Counter]

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. 

[pianoman9701]

This article tells us nothing. PR funds are to go for wildlife habitat improvements, hunter education, and shooting ranges. The article says the money is being doled out to help with states' environmental programs. Without knowing what these "environmental programs" are, we have nothing to get worked up about. In lieu of more specific information, the title of this thread is misleading and inflammatory.

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. 

You've previously stated that you like to work with empirical data. I don't believe that guesses fall into that category.

[Bean Counter]

The article says the money is going to state environmental departments, not state fish and game departments. 

[pianoman9701]

The article says the money is going to state environmental departments, not state fish and game departments. 

No, it doesn't say that. "The Obama administration is distributing $1.1 billion in tax revenue from the purchase of firearms to help states with environmental programs."

[Dhoey07]

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.

Because Washington State would spend the money more wisely?   

[Bean Counter]

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. 

[pianoman9701]

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.

[pianoman9701]

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. 

So then, you're for ending the The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act in favor of more local programs? Because it's been helping hunters and wildlife for about 80 years and is federally controlled. Not only that, but because it mandates money for gun ranges, it supports our 2nd Amendment on the federal level, as well. There is no single greater success of the hunting and conservation communities than the passing of this act in 1937 and its subsequent modifications in 1971.