Pittman-Robertson Act: 70 years of conservation dollars
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)

Ralph Maughan
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.
2 Responses to Pittman-Robertson Act: 70 years of conservation dollars
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 996 other subscribersRecent Posts
- Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments September 20, 2023
- Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence September 12, 2023
- How Thinning Impacts Fuels September 11, 2023
- The Proposed Ambler Mine and Road–Implications For The Kobuk River Ecosystem And People. August 27, 2023
- The Social Carbon Cost of Public Land Livestock Grazing August 24, 2023
Recent Comments
- Jeff Hoffman on Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments
- Lyn McCormick on Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments
- Selina Sweet on Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments
- Jeff Hoffman on Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence
- Jeff Hoffman on Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence
- Jeff Hoffman on How Thinning Impacts Fuels
- Mike Higgins on Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence
- lou on Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence
- Jerry Thiessen on How Thinning Impacts Fuels
- Richard Halsey on How Thinning Impacts Fuels
- midlaj on The Social Carbon Cost of Public Land Livestock Grazing
- Barrie K Gilbert on The Proposed Ambler Mine and Road–Implications For The Kobuk River Ecosystem And People.
- Maggie Frazier on Logging Road Impacts
- China Kantner on The Proposed Ambler Mine and Road–Implications For The Kobuk River Ecosystem And People.
- Ida Lupine on Tribal Burning and Fire Suppression
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.