Pittman-Robertson Act a historical question

[answerguy]

Was it wanted by sportsmen in the 1930's or was it forced upon them? Was archery equipment added to this act or was it a separate act? Seems like archery was added early 70's and was requested by the bow hunters but I'm not positive. Who remembers?

 

[Steve Wynn]

Sportsmen requested the special tax and have also requested the additonal items that have since been added. The P-R funds are earmarked as to what they can be spent for. I don't remember all the details but I'm sure that if you google P-R you can find all the details. As a college student in the late 60's I did a paper on it in college.

I think the anti gunners and anti hunters have attempted to derail and remove it because they obviously don't like the idea that we put it forth and contribute so much to the state game departments.

Steve

 

[Knotthead]

I also did a paper on it in college a little over fifteen years ago. If my memory serves me well, it was supported by hunters, as has been stated. There is also a similar program (Wallop-Breaux?) for fishing equipment in place. I also seem to recall that a similar program to tax binoculars and similar equipment to fund bird habitat was opposed and defeated by the bird watching community.

 

[mp510]

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/sportfishrestoration.html
Wallop-Breaux is a 10% excise tax on tackle boxes and other fishing equipment.Motors, sonar, and some other items are at 3%.

 

[answerguy]

Was archery added on to Pitman Robertson or was it a separate bill?

 

[mp510]

It looks like archery was added to Pittman-Robertson in 1997, with a revision made in 2004 to end the loophole made foreign producers, making domestically produced gear more competetive.

http://www.archerytrade.org/press_detail.html?SKU=20041023054837

 

[Rembrandt]

Don't remember all the details, but a percentage was designated to be put into development of gun ranges....unfortunately some state agencies have been dipping into it to supplement budget shortfalls under the guise of hunter education. Nothing wrong with hunter ed, but they need to be improving ranges and building new ones.

The portion of money alloted each state is in direct relation to how many hunting licenses they sell. Last I checked Pennsylvannia and Texas got the biggest pieces of the pie.