This tax on hunting equipment has provided $5-billion for conservation over the last 75 years. It has done a lot of good, but it also ties the USFWS to”game” wildlife rather than wildlife in general. Regardless of your view, every conservationist should know about Pittman-Robertson and the related Dingell-Johnson Act (Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act) which is funded by a tax on sports fisheries equipment.
Story. Pittman-Robertson Act: 70 years of conservation dollars. Since 1939, taxes on archery, shooting and hunting equipment have meant nearly $5 billion for conservation. By Jeff Dute. Outdoors Editor. Press Register (Huntsville)
Print Friendly
Ralph Maughan
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is past President of the Western Watersheds Project.
The PR Act has done a lot for wildlife conservation but it is very frustrating that wildlife watching makes so much money and none of it goes to wildlife conservation – must goes to the general economy. There should be a tax on all cameras, binoculars, spotting scopes, etc, to have non-hunters pay for wildlife conservation as well. At least a 1 % tax would add tons to wildlife conservation.
I agree. The non-consumptive users should pay their fair share too.