Pittman Robertson Act is on the chopping block

[SC-001]

FYI saw this on another forum...

Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]* 06/22/2022
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]* 06/22/2022
Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]* 06/22/2022
Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4]* 06/22/2022
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]* 06/22/2022
Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX-14]* 06/22/2022
Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]* 06/22/2022
Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]* 06/22/2022
Rep. Taylor, Van [R-TX-3]*

These are all the Republican cosponsors that are backing the fool from Georgia that brought this bill into place. (H.R.8167)

I know that we are all busy talking about deep/shallow, line size, forward sonar, etc but EVERYONE needs to take a minute to look up this bill and contact their Rep.
P.R is a huge part of why get to enjoy the things we do in the outdoors. Losing or repealing this will have long lasting repercussions that will affect every fisherman and hunter in the country.

If your asking why I posted this on the Bass section (and I know there will be those who do) - you need to go do some research on the Pittman Robertson Act.

[S-3 Ranch]

FYI saw this on another forum...

Saw this being debated, it funds state and federal wildlife & fishing
Tax on hunting & fishing gear,
A repeal is terrible for sportsmen & outdoor enthusiasts

[cajuntec]

This is important. People who really don't understand the implications of what that idiot is doing should really look into what will actually happen to fishing / hunting if the acts are repealed. It's bad.

Pittman-Robertson Act is also known as Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act

Dingell-Johnson and also Wallop-Breaux after amendment, apply to fishing / fish management

A long time ago, when I didn't quite understand that these acts did, I was initially upset that I had to pay excise taxes on fishing lures that I manufactured and sold to dealerships. Especially because I hadn't done enough research into it (because I didn't know about them), and had set my store prices already. So having to pay (and adjust my pricing) initially hurt me. But after looking into it, I quickly changed my mind. Yeah, I had to pay an unexpected tax on the stuff I was making / selling, but this is one tax that actually benefits our chosen recreational activities in awesome ways. I gladly paid it quarterly.

I think most people who actually read and understand what the acts do would fully appreciate their importance, and not be concerned about the built-in tax they pay when they buy hunting / fishing equipment.

I'm all for keeping Pittman-Robertson (and Wallop-Breaux) acts.

All the best,
Glenn

[SmTx]

Hardly on the chopping block. That'd be the day our great politicians choose to take less money from us.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/return-act-pittman-robertson-conservation-funding/

[hpdrifter]

FYI saw this on another forum...

Where's Cornyn? If he's not on board, then it might not be ALL bad.

Doesn't sound good, but I would like to see the proposal before I concur.
Maybe they want to just change it to support the people that support it(hunters and fishermen), and not bird watchers and other nature types.

[AntlerCollector]

Hardly on the chopping block. That'd be the day our great politicians choose to take less money from us.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/conserva...ation-funding/

You haven’t been paying attention then. Liberals are willing to give up tax dollars if it means seeing gun manufacturers, Ammo manufacturing, and lots of conservative businesses fail.

[ladrones]

It’s always fun to watch the R’s and the D’s squirm when someone tries to get rid of any tax.

[cajuntec]

From "Jay Kumar's BassBlaster" emails, that I get every week:

Ever heard of the Pittman-Robertson Act, aka the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act? It's a program which started in 1937 under which "federal excise taxes" – meaning taxes that are passed on to us in ways we don't see – on firearms, ammo and archery equipment are earmarked for wildlife use only. Using a formula, the tax money is sent to the states for wildlife management and is one of the biggest sources of funding for state DNRs.

[Same deal exists in fishing and fish management, called Dingell-Johnson and also Wallop-Breaux after a more recent amendment.]
In other words, this program has worked, is successful and is needed.

So lots of folks are shocked that Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA, 9th) recently introduced legislation that would or could gut this program. Some details from Outdoor News:

> Clyde calls his bill, HF8167, the Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now (RETURN) our Constitutional Rights Act, and he's got 53 co-sponsors, all fellow Republicans. The legislation would eliminate most federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.

> ...Clyde said the 85-year-old tax "infringes on Americans' ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights and creates a dangerous opportunity for the government to weaponize taxation to price this unalienable right out of reach for most Americans – a threat that is materializing by the day."

[The tax is 10-11%, which is just incorporated into the prices we see.]

> Clyde's release notes that since the current firearms tax revenue funds beneficial programs such as hunter education and environmental care, his legislation would redirect unallocated lease revenue generated by onshore and offshore energy development on federal lands, which currently flows into the general fund, to continue funding those important programs.

The Missoula Current reported:

> Clyde owns a gun store in Georgia called the "Clyde Armory," so he stands to benefit from the bill, according to the hunting website Meateater.

> ...the bill doesn't limit itself just to gun-related taxes. It also affects the Dingell-Johnson Act [the fishing equivalent of Pittman-Robertson] because it reduces the taxes on outboard motors and fishing tackle boxes to 3% from 10% and limits the total tax on fishing rods to $10.

Reactions from Jay Kumar (the guy who writes BassBlaster):

1. I have not studied the actual legislation, but I have covered P-R and D-J for decades. It is without a doubt one of the most successful programs in the history of the federal government.

2. Clyde is talking about replacing a program where funds are EARMARKED – meaning they can't be used for anything else – with partial funding from the general fund, which can be reallocated anytime. That is crazy...and suspicious.

3. This is a "solution" looking for a problem...which does not exist. I bet you the number of Clyde's constituents who called his office saying to get rid of Pittman-Robertson is zero.

4. In my 2c...wasting time on gutting what is literally the most successful wildlife [and fisheries] program in the country is legit bananas.

5. I am skeptical of their motives. If Pittman-Robertson was gutted, what would be the effects on DNRs, wildlife and hunting? All super bad. Why would all these so-called Republicans (or anyone, but so far it's all Republicans) be in favor of it then? 🤔

6. Including FISHING in it, which has nothing to do with the 2A, makes it even more suspicious.

Right now it's only in bill form so hopefully it won't get farther.

All the best,
Glenn

[cajuntec]

You haven’t been paying attention then. Liberals are willing to give up tax dollars if it means seeing gun manufacturers, Ammo manufacturing, and lots of conservative businesses fail.

The bill was written and co-sponsored by Republicans, not Liberals.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA, 9th) introduced it.

Co-Sponsors:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors

All the best,
Glenn

[hpdrifter]

You haven’t been paying attention then. Liberals are willing to give up tax dollars if it means seeing gun manufacturers, Ammo manufacturing, and lots of conservative businesses fail.

that's a for sure. I'm just surprised a whole lot of Dems names aren't on the "sponsor" list.
If it is in fact a move to eliminate the PR, then I can't support it.
I mean I'd like to pay less for sporting goods, but not at the cost of paying for refuges, wildlife and all the PR does.

Get this passed and the General Fund could suddenly dry up;....with a little Demonrat help.

[bignick612]

While I'm fully opposed to messing with PR, it looks like the bill would also eliminate the $200 tax on NFA items. With that in there I see little chance of it passing.
Here is a link to the bill if anyone is interested.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...ouse-bill/8167

[SmTx]

You haven’t been paying attention then. Liberals are willing to give up tax dollars if it means seeing gun manufacturers, Ammo manufacturing, and lots of conservative businesses fail.

Dems created the P-R act under a Dem president. It ain't going anywhere.

i do agree with the spirit of the Bill that taxes shouldn't be levied on rights. Seems like another infringement to me.

[hpdrifter]

Dems created the P-R act under a Dem president. It ain't going anywhere.

i do agree with the spirit of the Bill that taxes shouldn't be levied on rights. Seems like another infringement to me.

If all the gossip/talk/rumblins are anywhere near correct, sportsmen were all for it at the time. Well, maybe not ALL, but generally.
I can see the "infringement" argument. After all Poll Taxes were abolished because it was an infringement on voting rights. On the other hand, you/we might not recognize our hunting capabilities/opportunities if it hadn't been in place.

As much as I'd like to pay less, I just don't know how things might go without it.

[friscopaint]

Washington D.C. never met a tax they don't like....they will not repeal one just divert the funds to their pet projects and buddies......

[IDFWU]

They should extend it to ALL outdoor activities and equipment.

Mountain bikers, bird watchers, para gliders…baseball bats, back packs, jet skis, etc etc etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk