Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access

Pittman-Robertson Act in Crosshairs of Repeal

<< < (2/7) > >>

Boss .300 winmag:

--- Quote from: Special T on June 30, 2022, 10:43:59 PM ---I think this is wrong but Im gonna play devils advocate because some one needs to. Fact. we generate a huge sum a money. Fact, Anti hunting groups have been able to tap into this huge sum to fight conservation in the name  of conservation. Wolves, cougars, grizzlies dont need protection. fact is we are funding our enemies and that is in part because the democrat party has allowed those funds to be used against sportsmen's interests.

The problem as I see it has to do with the fact that the ESA allows Sue and Settle techniques that give advantage to anti hunting groups and give an unfair advantage against sportsmen. I understand why we should oppose taking away our funding because it gives us a superior voice... question is how do we solve the problem that Antis are using our $ against us.

--- End quote ---

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. Wolves were funded illegally by it.🤬🤬🤬

I was thinking along the same lines, SpecialT.  Too much abuse allowing money generated by hunters and shooters to be used for items not only not benefiting hunting, but actively working against.  Predators are a great example.  Preferably, they would just clean up the program so it works as intended.

It's an interesting bill, which will go nowhere, IMO. I actually would love to see the Ds confused as to which way to vote on it. Guns - bad. Taxes - good. I think the GA freshman and others supporting this bill don't understand that PR has the support of tens of millions of gun owners and sportsmen, or what it actually does for wildlife conservation. They will soon hear from them. I do agree that when they can get away with it, they'll abuse the funds for political reasons.

Some good reading here (  seems the majority of funding is by statute either directly allocated to hunter education, or apportioned to the states for a number of programs.  Not a lot about non-game species, although that certainly seems to be a valid area for states to expend PR funds.  So that might be an issue to be fixed at the state level, not at the national level. 

I am all for the majority of uses of PR funds, including expansion of shooting ranges.  I have lived in several places where it was not convenient at all to get to a range.  And hunter education, including archery hunting education programs, is always worthwhile.  Throwing the whole business out the window, rather than fixing specific problems, just seems misguided. 

Angry Perch:
Regardless of what god the money might do, is it Constitutional to have a significant tax on firearms?


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version