House Push to Repeal Pittman-Robertson

[mightywalleyehunter]

I have never seen where a tax that anywhere has the term "general" used is a good thing,,, ever. Always someone else going after the money

The Missouri tax is actually pretty neat. Would never be implemented nationwide but individual states could implement it. I think it's 1/10 of a penny on each and every item sold in Missouri.

 

[mightywalleyehunter]

What portion of PR funds come from recreational shooting, personal defense purchases and competitive shooters compared to purchases for hunting equipment?

About 60-70 percent. But most of the categories above also hunt and that fact gets lost in the sauce when people look at who pays into the PR.

 

[Sam Ortmann]

An 11% excise tax buried in the price for every firearm and ammunition is crap. There should never be a tax to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right, and every schmuck that buys a pistol or shotgun to keep at their bedside is being taxed for just that. Same goes for the sales tax on those items.

Repeal P-R, quit wasting tax money on useless crap and fund conservation with the same amount of money out of the general fund.

Too bad none of the politicians in office are responsible enough to do any of that.

Nice pipe dream. Until that happens, let’s not cut off the largest source of conservation funding we currently have.

 

[hobbydog]

The Missouri tax is actually pretty neat. Would never be implemented nationwide but individual states could implement it. I think it's 1/10 of a penny on each and every item sold in Missouri.

Minnesota has the same deal but it is a constant battle to keep legislators from hijacking it.

 

[Steel3's]

What portion of PR funds come from recreational shooting, personal defense purchases and competitive shooters compared to purchases for hunting equipment?

I'm not sure I want to even wade into this discussion ......... but I was surprised to learn that 72% to 75% of P-R funding comes from people that do not hunt. It was the reason an increased proportion of our P-R allocation now goes to public shooting ranges.

It's also one reason the statement "hunters pay for conservation" has become less and less convincing. License fees are only the 3rd most important source of revenue for my agency, behind mineral revenue on Department lands and P-R, which we now know is 3/4 non-hunting. Federal appropriations for just NAWCA ($42-million in 2022) exceed federal Duck Stamp revenue and that doesn't even include other sources of funding for NAWCA (like Breaux Act, MBTA fines, Interest on P-R funds, and a tax on small-engine fuels). When we consider Farm Bill conservation programs, State Wildlife grants, Endangered species conservation funding, etc. hunters are carrying less and less of the load.

And that is OK. Why? Because hunters still provide a LOT of resources for conservation. Further, the habitat they fund, and wildlife agencies protect, manage, and make available, benefits ALL species utilizing that habitat AND the entire community of citizens through ecological goods and services (carbon sequestration, oxygen production, water treatment, flood control, pollinators, etc.) It's WAY, WAY, WAY past time that those citizens ...... I'm going to especially call out birdwatchers ....... started actively contributing! I'm sick and tired of hearing how birdwatchers and nature-enthusiasts in our general population are increasing while hunters are declining. Just try and get them to contribute a nickel for something they proclaim to love so much.

That is the beauty of Missouri and Arkansas and Minnesota's everybody-pays-to-support-conservation-through-sales-taxes strategy. And despite hunter's objections and fears, those states didn't seem to short-change hunting habitat development or opportunity when funding started coming from all citizens (including hunters, who also contribute to all these other sources). And that is also why P-R should be left alone. Given the level of sales, the wholesale excise tax is clearly NOT affecting the firearms/ammunition industry or burdening our citizenry, and the funding goes to activities that benefit us all.

 

[DisplacedDuck]

I’m not a smart man, but I do think the correlation between states with their own unique fit-for-purpose taxation system and the quality/quantity of public lands in said states is striking…

 

[nobands]

The Missouri tax is actually pretty neat. Would never be implemented nationwide but individual states could implement it. I think it's 1/10 of a penny on each and every item sold in Missouri.

Yes it is a great deal in my opinion
Iowa passed a constitutional amendment to fund ours 3/8 of a cent. On the next sales tax increase.
That's been years ago and it still ain't funded as no one has the balls. They just want to get re elected.
Passed buy I believe 80 percent , yet we can't fund it because no wants to be the person calling for more tax come election time .
Even though a overwhelming majority approved it .

 

[bill cooksey]

I’ve been told the MO tax would fail if proposed there today.

 

[nobands]

More than likely yes in today's economy.
A couple years ago I'd doubt it., but I'm not from there . We had a good very real chance of ours getting funded in early 2020 , then covid hit . It wasn't going to be to the original transcript, but way more dollars to conservation than the present.

I’ve been told the MO tax would fail if proposed there today.

 

[S.davis]

I’ve been told the MO tax would fail if proposed there today.

It would almost certainly fail the state legislature, which is one of the absolute worst collections of grifters, charlatans, clowns and booger eaters imaginable. But it would likely pass a vote of the people, then their elected representatives would spend time, money and effort to unwind that decision and override the people, who would then whoop and holler and tweet. In the end you get the government you deserve. Missouri is like the movie Idiocracy came true.