There are many public activists and government officials today that would happily restrict the free exercise of Second Amendment rights in America by banning certain types of firearms from public use. These same groups then turn around and espouse information about “human-caused” climate change and rampant global warming in an attempt to draw awareness towards conserving the natural world. However, most of the environment-centered individuals and organizations who endorse such ideas as gun registration, restriction of gun manufacturers, and banning of certain types of firearms fail to recognize that an immensely significant portion of funds for on-the-ground natural conservation and state environmental agencies comes directly from the sales of firearms and ammunition!
These funds come in the form of an excise tax on firearm, ammunition and archery equipment manufacturers designated by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, more commonly called the Pittman-Robertson Act (P-R Act). The Act, named after the lawmakers who engineered it, was passed in 1937 and has since contributed tens of billions of dollars to state wildlife and conservation agencies.
More specifically, the P-R Act requires firearm manufacturers to pay an 11% tax on long arms and 10% tax on handguns, while ammunition and archery equipment manufacturers pay 11% tax on their products. This money then gets deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Fund (which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and each state’s fish and wildlife agency then receives the appropriate amount of funds based on factors such as land area and number of registered hunters.
These “P-R dollars” constitute one of the largest and most important sources of income for the state environmental agencies—the Act allows funding for up to 75% of any natural resource-related project using Wildlife Restoration Fund money! Interestingly, the P-R Act also requires import duties on firearms and ammunition to be deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. As an example of the money that the P-R Act provides for wildlife conservation, Pennsylvania (which currently has the second highest number of registered hunters of all U.S. states) received over $23,500,000 in 2019 from P-R taxes. These funds were distributed directly to the PA Game Commission, PA Fish and Boat Commission, and other state conservation agencies. A helpful chart of how the Pittman-Robertson Act operates can be found here. *Note: While P-R taxes on archery equipment do contribute a sizeable portion of funds to the state conservation agencies, we are focusing on the firearms side of the Act in this article.*
Most importantly, the P-R Act specifically states that all revenues generated by its tax on firearms/ammunition manufacturers may not be used for anything other than fish and wildlife conservation-related projects and activities. This means that all responsible U.S. gun owners (not just hunters) directly contribute to state environmental agencies with their purchases! In other words, effective fish and wildlife conservation in the U.S. is inextricably linked with free exercise of Second Amendment rights. More responsible citizens buying firearms means more money for conservation agencies, and more funds available for ensuring natural productivity and sustainability in the U.S.
On the flip side, fish and wildlife conservation will only suffer from attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by conservation-centered entities and legislators. Shutting down gun manufacturers takes away one of the largest income sources for state environmental agencies, and conservation impacts will be greatly reduced as a result. In other words, restricting free practice of the Second Amendment works against effective conservation and stewardship.
Environmentally active organizations and individuals advocating for legislation like the “Green New Deal” and environmentally sustainable lifestyles—while at the same time calling for bans on semi-automatic rifles along with restrictions on gun manufacturing—should study legislation such as the Pittman-Robertson Act and reevaluate their position accordingly. Any type of gun control in the U.S. will not only encourage increased crime by disarming the public, but also directly deprive conservation and environmental agencies of much-needed funds, shrinking the scope of their impacts on the very natural systems that conservation entities claim to care about.
About The Author
One response to “Conservation Depends on Hunting And the Second Amendment”
Not to mention, many of us who support the 2nd Amendment, are also supporters of organizations like Pheasants Forever, who donate a significant amount of funds toward conservation of public lands and bird/wildlife populations. So not only are we providing conservation funding on the front end by buying firearms and ammunition, we’re also donating to the cause directly.