Post by: Bean Counter on March 08, 2016, 08:18:35 AM
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.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 08, 2016, 08:38:46 AM
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) :bash: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.
Post by: REHJWA on March 08, 2016, 08:46:47 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 08, 2016, 08:48:37 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 08, 2016, 08:53:13 AM
Post by: RadSav on March 08, 2016, 08:56:23 AM
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) :bash: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.
Post by: NoBark on March 08, 2016, 09:27:39 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 08, 2016, 09:29:56 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 08, 2016, 09:33:45 AM
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. :twocents:You've previously stated that you like to work with empirical data. I don't believe that guesses fall into that category.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 08, 2016, 09:42:35 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 08, 2016, 09:48:38 AM
The article says the money is going to state environmental departments, not state fish and game departments. :dunno:
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."
Post by: Dhoey07 on March 08, 2016, 09:53:52 AM
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? :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 08, 2016, 10:05:18 AM
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. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 08, 2016, 10:06:07 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 08, 2016, 10:12:39 AM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 08, 2016, 10:14:59 AM
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.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? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 08, 2016, 10:19:26 AM
It would be but the article doesn't say that. It says environmental programs not departments. F&W departments take part in and perform many environmental programs. I've read nothing that says these programs aren't being done by F&W departments. Furthermore, PR funds can be distributed to individual organizations performing habitat improvement or in the building of gun ranges. I see nothing in PR which requires the money funnel through the F&W departments. I could be wrong about that but I'd like to see how.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.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? :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 08, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 08, 2016, 10:43:37 AM
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.
It's meant to get people upset Faux is known for doing that without cause.
Post by: Special T on March 08, 2016, 12:08:36 PM
P&R has been a huge sucess, but like many funding mechanisims for a specific purpose are being co opted.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: timberfaller on March 08, 2016, 12:24:12 PM
The funds are ear-tagged, any attempt at doing different with them, Go To Jail!! Those two senators KNEW how to write up a bill!!
Maybe since obo can't get impeached like he should, just maybe Ty Goudy could throw him in Jail!!!
Post by: Wacenturion on March 10, 2016, 04:59:07 PM
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.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? :dunno:
Guess would be yes.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 10, 2016, 05:00:47 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 10, 2016, 05:22:15 PM
I think one has to ask why Obama is involved specifically. My guess is money is going somewhere it is not intended to go. :twocents:
:yeah:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 13, 2016, 02:34:07 PM
Post by: buckfvr on March 13, 2016, 02:41:27 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 13, 2016, 03:12:21 PM
Post by: buckfvr on March 13, 2016, 03:36:25 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 13, 2016, 04:51:00 PM
I think one has to ask why Obama is involved specifically. My guess is money is going somewhere it is not intended to go. :twocents:
:yeah:
Speaking of Obama
"Following the monument designation announcement, U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said “everybody is coming to me with their wish list,” referring to environmental extremists hoping to have their pet projects endorsed by the president."
"In order to make up for lack of actual support among the American people for federal land grabs, environmental and left-wing foundations have dumped millions of dollars into so-called sportsmen, hunting and angling groups, using them to create a false grass-roots image behind the use — or abuse — of presidential powers."
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20160313/OPINION03/160319778
Post by: Booman2 on March 15, 2016, 07:35:43 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 16, 2016, 05:11:09 AM