OPINION: Finally, an idea everybody can agree to disagree with

This editorial was published by the Post Register of Idaho Falls

———

Idaho’s 1st Congressional District Rep. Russ Fulcher has managed to find something a lot of people can agree upon, something that crosses party lines.

What so many people agree on in a bipartisan way is that Fulcher is backing a bad bill in the U.S. House. Second District Rep. Mike Simpson isn’t backing it.

Fulcher is co-sponsoring the RETURN (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act, a bill that would eliminate the federal tax on firearms and ammunition that funds wildlife conservation in the U.S. by repealing the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 — which places an 11% tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment — and distributes the proceeds to state governments for wildlife projects.

The bill was introduced recently by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga. Clyde and Fulcher and more far-right representatives such as Colorado’s Lauren Boebert argue the bill affirms the Second Amendment. The reason they feel the Pittman-Robertson Act is a threat? They say it infringes on the rights of Americans to purchase firearms because the tax makes firearm purchases unattainable.

That’s a bit of overreach.

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, sponsored by Rep. A. Willis Robertson of Virginia and Sen. Key Pittman of Nevada, was signed into law in 1937 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. For states to be able to access this federal funding, they must guarantee that license fees paid by hunters are only used for administration of state fish and wildlife departments. In addition to providing funds for wildlife conservation and habitat restoration, the act helps ensure that license fees paid by hunters are not diverted for other uses.

Revenue from Pittman-Robertson is deposited in the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund. Additional revenue is raised from similar taxes on fishing equipment, established by the Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950, and on boating fuel based on the 1984 Wallop-Breaux Amendment. Clyde’s bill also reportedly seeks to eliminate these funds.

The secretary of the Interior distributes these funds to state fish and wildlife agencies. States typically must provide an investment match of $1 for every $3 in federal funding. In most cases, state hunting and fishing license fees are used to meet this matching requirement.

Those funds can be used for wildlife restoration and conservation, hunter education, and gun safety training.

Jack Connelly from Blackfoot is a former Idaho Fish and Game Department biologist and an avid outdoorsman who can attest to the effectiveness of this funding.

“In my 30 years with the agency, I have seen these funds used to enhance populations of a variety of wildlife species including mule deer, elk, sage grouse and waterfowl,” Connelly says. “As an example, if you travel through Idaho’s sagebrush uplands you are likely to see fences with small, highly visible markers. These were placed to reduce fence collisions by sage grouse. Research showed that they reduced these collisions by over 80% and this important work was supported by Pittman-Robertson funds. Since 1939, the Idaho Fish and Game Department reports that it has received $263.6 million in Pittman-Robertson funds, including $21.3 million in fiscal year 2022, a large proportion of the agency’s annual budget.”

The reaction to this proposed bill from those who hunt and fish has been the equivalent of a firestorm. Among Boebert’s Colorado constituency, there’s the example given by Adam Gall, a licensed outfitter, urging residents to ask Boebert why she’s “going against the longstanding wishes of past and current generations in supporting a bill that would be devastating to our state’s and our nation’s incredible and unprecedented outdoor heritage.”

Gall offers an important reminder: The acts now under attack were put in place at the request of the sportsperson’s community. Sportspeople asked to be taxed for the benefit of all wildlife that Americans enjoy, he said, with taxes that are overwhelmingly supported and applauded by anglers, hunters and shooting sports participants.

Like Colorado, Idaho is an outdoors wonderland. Connelly says to a large degree, Pittman-Robertson funds are responsible for developing and maintaining many of the qualities that make Idaho a great place to live, and the Pittman-Robertson Act is generally considered one of the nation’s most effective and successful pieces of conservation legislation.

“By supporting Clyde’s legislation, Rep. Fulcher shows utter disregard for Idaho’s hunting heritage and the state’s hunters, anglers and wildlife enthusiasts,” Connelly adds.

How ironic that Fulcher is among 58 House Republicans co-sponsoring Clyde’s legislation to “affirm Second Amendment rights.”

Among sportspeople, it would appear that Fulcher and others have shot themselves in the foot.