|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 13, 2012, 08:17 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,392
|
All States set to lose Federal wildlife management funding
I tried searching, to see if this was covered a few weeks ago, but didn't have any hits. So...
The White House, in August 2011, released a report, suggesting that Pittman-Robertson funds be sequestered (frozen) until further notice. Congress obliged, and included that recommendation in the Budget Control Act of 2011. No changes have been made since, and the funds will be frozen beginning in 2013. http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=7299 http://www.sportsmenslink.org/the-me...h-and-wildlife As the articles point out, those are the funds used for wildlife management and conservation, across the United States; and come from the 10% and 11% excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery gear. In some states, those funds are a significant portion of their wildlife management budgets. This will have a big impact on Wildlife Management agencies across the United States, and may nearly kill some agencies. Wyoming, for example, is currently dealing with a massive wildlife budget crisis and diminishing Deer and Antelope herds, and would be completely crippled by the further loss of Pittman-Robertson funds. It could, quite literally, mean the end of affordable hunting in Wyoming and states in similar situations. Quote:
Worst of all, there is currently no way for Congress to touch the Pittman-Robertson trust fund. They can't actually use this money for anything else. Unless they repeal the P-R Act and pass new legislation in place of it, this money is only accessible by the states. But, the Federal government is still going to freeze a portion of the funds, and deny the states access to it. Spread the word. Talk to your Senators and Representatives. Talk to your State officials. Talk to your local businesses that will be impacted by a loss of wildlife management funding. (Hunters won't buy gear, ammo, or new hunting weapons if they aren't going hunting.) If this remains unchanged, it will have a trickle-down effect on everyone involved in shooting sports, not just hunters and state agencies.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
November 13, 2012, 10:40 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2010
Posts: 962
|
Wow
I had no idea. We need to make this very well known. Lets make this the most popular thread on this board and a stickey.
|
November 14, 2012, 12:38 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2009
Location: central Wisconsin
Posts: 2,324
|
Some states will just have to raise the cost of hunting licenses. Kind of reminds me how our wonderful government "dived" into the SS funds justifying it with BS.
|
November 14, 2012, 03:11 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,392
|
Quote:
It cost them far more than they calculated it would save. By increasing permit fees so much in a single year, they scared off more the majority of their non-resident hunters and fair portion of resident hunters. The loss of revenue from the application fees, alone, really hurt the budget. Rather than increasing revenue, they actually crippled themselves and alienated a lot of hunters.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
November 14, 2012, 06:48 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
and these are the people representing us, once again representing themselves
|
November 14, 2012, 07:27 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
You all are not really saying you want the federal government to spend money, are you?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
November 14, 2012, 07:40 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2010
Location: Pawleys Island
Posts: 1,563
|
Might not be a bad thing to get them out of it entirely. They have completely wrecked the fishing industry on the East Coast with their regulations based on junk science and not actual data being provided by fishermen. I can only imagine what they are doing to federal forest land and game management.
|
November 14, 2012, 07:46 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
this is unfortunate but
you do realize Sir a lot of this is due to compromise as well as the fact that there is a lot of anti federal govt sentiment at the moment @ least as far as the private sector is concerned(with concerns ab equal rights), right?
many, many agencies(federal) are feeling this pinch & many times as well people don't realize that multiple agencies are being scapegoated because they are federal(like they are the problem because they are "fat cat" federals) case in point: these important agencies you mention in OP
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 14, 2012, 08:05 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,786
|
If the money is not going to be used as intended the tax should be dropped. It won't happen without pressure. I could see this going to the Supreme Court over legalities.
|
November 14, 2012, 08:16 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
So how many fishermen have you talked to? My impression from speaking to at least one (former) fishing boat captain is that the problem with the fishing industry is that they're running out of fish. Fishermen from the Chesapeake Bay have gone as far as the Gulf of Mexico to fish. It's not rocket science.
It is possible for federal lands to be well managed, be they national parks, national forests or range lands. In theory, it is equally possible for state lands to be well managed, too. Naturally, there are competing interests and apparently no one wants to actually bear any of the costs. The anti-socialist element would privatize all such places, no doubt. Hunting and fishing is only one of the uses of federal lands and it probably isn't the largest. I suspect that much of the hatred directed at federal land managers is because of the simple fact that some people can't do whatever they want, whenever they want, where ever they want to do it. How'd you like to be a forest ranger, huh? Rich people do their hunting on private lands anyway.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
November 14, 2012, 08:34 AM | #11 |
Member
Join Date: February 24, 2012
Posts: 71
|
Suprise, Suprise this started with the Clinton's by diverting part of the money to non-game species. The libs hate guns and hunting they hate gunowners and hunters so why wouldn't they steal this money? who knows maybe the lack of funds will help them with another goal of shutting down public hunting lands.
|
November 14, 2012, 09:17 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
In the Federal Government "trust fund" is a fiction. Just like Social Security is supposed to be a trust fund. Do you trust the feds (pun intended) to use the funds for conservation? No way. End result will be loss of the funds to the states but NOT an end to the tax.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
November 14, 2012, 10:04 AM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Given the importance of this issue, we're going to move this one to Law & Civil Rights. Let's remember that the rules prohibit general Republican/Democrat political broadsides and stick to discussion of the issue at hand.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
November 14, 2012, 11:52 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,345
|
FrankenMauser:
I hope you don't mind, I would like to copy your post and place it on my Facebook page. You have informed me about a threat to something I hold dear to my heart, the funding of wildlife management, and I want to pass it along to my friends. I have also written my congress woman and senators. I suggest we all do the same. Finally, I feel guilty that I did not know about this earlier, as I try and pride myself on knowing current events. Thnaks again for the heads up!
__________________
Go Pokes! Go Rams! |
November 14, 2012, 03:20 PM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It's down-right hard to keep track of all the federal legislation that gets passed. Even the NRA didn't pick up on this, as evidenced by the 10-19-2012 date on their article.
So don't feel too badly you didn't know. I suspect this was an amendment that was tacked on (in one of the Houses) and no-one really thought much of it. Or the consequences. Hence, no publicity. We really need every hunter and sports-shooter to contact their Representatives and Senators and voice our opposition to this withholding of much needed funds -- Before they all decide to raid it, as was done years ago with the Social Security Trust Fund. It is much easier to stop this now, rather than wait for what comes down the pike. |
November 14, 2012, 05:33 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,392
|
Quote:
I've done the same, but many of my Facebook friends are complacent and ignorant. So, it won't go very far.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
November 14, 2012, 07:10 PM | #17 | |
Member
Join Date: August 1, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
|
|
November 15, 2012, 01:21 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,392
|
I don't want to drag this too far into fishing territory, but...
Quote:
For 3 years, I had a room mate that was a deck hand on three commercial boats out of Destin. I'll spare you the details of lost long-lines and blatantly illegal operations, but... He figured that for every legal fish they sold, there were 3 dead fish in the Gulf (out of season, not legal size, or partially eaten), and 3 fish sold on the black market (to make up for lost long-lines and leaders). And, that doesn't even take shark trips into account, where they'd just slice the fins off and toss the carcass. But, commercial fishing and its dark side are a different subject. Let's try to stick to the Pittman-Robertson funds being sequestered.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
November 17, 2012, 12:56 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,392
|
The current "Sportsman's Act of 2012" (S. 3525) seeks, among other things, to amend the Pittman-Robertson Act to create provisions for shooting range acquisition, expansion, and construction by states using some Pittman-Robertson funds; but fails to address the sequestration.
Quote:
This may be a good opportunity to get your opinion out to your Senator(s), while another Pittman-Robertson issue is on the table. The NRA's "Write Your Representatives" tool is an easy place to start. Don't hesitate to contact your Representatives, either. The bill seems likely to pass the Senate without much opposition. (I need to find out why one of my Senators voted against letting it advance. It makes me wonder if I missed something important.)
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|