Press release:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that it will distribute $1.1 billion in revenues generated by the hunting and angling industry to state and territorial fish and wildlife agencies throughout the nation. The funds support critical fish and wildlife conservation and recreation projects that benefit all Americans . . .

The Service apportions the funds to all 50 states and U.S. territories through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration programs. Revenues come from excise taxes generated by the sale of sporting firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing equipment, electric boat motors, and from taxes on the purchase of motorboat fuel.

“These funds are the cornerstone of state-based efforts that are critical to the preservation of America’s wildlife and natural resources,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “But they are also the fuel for a massive financial engine that benefits outdoor recreationists, hunters, boaters and anglers, equipment manufacturers and retailers, and local and regional economies. Their value cannot be overstated in providing opportunities for the next generation of Americans to get outdoors, experience our wild places and learn the importance of conserving our natural heritage.”

Pittman Robertson-Dingell Johnson funds are distributed by the Service’s Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program. Since their inception, the programs have generated more than $15 billion to conserve fish and wildlife resources and support outdoor recreation opportunities for the American public. The recipient State fish and wildlife agencies have matched these funds with more than $5 billion over the years, mostly through hunting and fishing license revenues.

“The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program provides critical funding for conservation projects and outdoor recreation activities across this great nation,” said Assistant Director Hannibal Bolton of the Service’s WSFR program. “I can’t stress enough that the key to the program’s success is through our dedicated partnerships with State agencies, non-government organizations and many others.”

“It is thanks to this significant financial investment made by America’s sportsmen and women and the hunting, shooting sports, angling and boating industries that state and territorial fish and wildlife agencies can deliver science-based conservation on the ground,” said Larry Voyles, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies President and Arizona Game and Fish Department Director. “The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program has made the difference between the survival and abundance of some species and it helps agencies, like mine, manage a vast estate of lands and waters and connect more people to wildlife-related recreation.”

Below is a state-by-state listing of the Service’s final apportionment of Wildlife Restoration Funds and Sport Fish Restoration funds for Fiscal Year 2015. To learn more about the Service’s WSFR program visit: http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/.

STATE
ALABAMA $25,562,321
ALASKA $51,951,630
AMERICAN SAMOA $2,502,516
ARIZONA $27,219,443
ARKANSAS $19,403,525
CALIFORNIA $44,134,573
COLORADO $28,516,034
CONNECTICUT $9,242,606
DELAWARE $8,232,316
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA $1,155,056
FLORIDA $25,607,039
GEORGIA $25,236,594
GUAM $2,502,516
HAWAII $8,232,316
IDAHO $21,670,126
ILLINOIS $23,783,360
INDIANA $18,386,530
IOWA $16,502,569
KANSAS $19,984,814
KENTUCKY $19,623,501
LOUISIANA $22,570,941
MAINE $11,872,265
MARYLAND $11,140,015
MASSACHUSETTS $11,131,347
MICHIGAN $37,569,842
MINNESOTA $37,850,616
MISSISSIPPI $15,109,447
MISSOURI $29,783,609
MONTANA $29,781,997
N. MARIANA ISLANDS $2,502,516
NEBRASKA $17,608,725
NEVADA $19,340,531
NEW HAMPSHIRE $8,232,316
NEW JERSEY $11,131,347
NEW MEXICO $22,125,164
NEW YORK $28,927,341
NORTH CAROLINA $31,320,942
NORTH DAKOTA $16,004,762
OHIO $24,084,830
OKLAHOMA $25,729,133
OREGON $26,047,277
PENNSYLVANIA $37,974,470
PUERTO RICO $7,024,381
RHODE ISLAND $8,232,316
SOUTH CAROLINA $15,674,905
SOUTH DAKOTA $19,016,379
TENNESSEE $31,366,355
TEXAS $54,850,661
UTAH $20,944,045
VERMONT $8,232,316
VIRGIN ISLANDS $2,502,516
VIRGINIA $19,431,901
WASHINGTON $22,215,325
WEST VIRGINIA $12,088,070
WISCONSIN $36,479,149
WYOMING $19,662,264

Recommended For You

17 Responses to Guns Are Good for the Environment

  1. Need to show this article to a gun-hating environmentalist.

    “I Swear officer, the dirty hippy’s head just asploded! Musta been all that pot!”

  2. How about we PotG propose an amendment to the law providing for the distribution of guns/ammo excise taxes baring any State, territory or DC from receiving any funds unless it adopts a Shall-Issue or Constitutional-Carry law?

    Another tack might be to allow a buyer to claim an exemption (or file for a refund) of excise tax on guns/ammo used exclusively for self-defense or marksmanship training? Or, exclude ball ammo from taxation? Some other carve-out?

    In putting forth such a proposal, we PotG should express our heartfelt support for maintaining wildlife at public expense. We should point out that our fathers and grandfathers consented to this taxation for the benefit of the environment and the public enjoyment thereof. Now, we are calling attention to the fact that 10 States and DC are flaunting our 2A right to bear arms. In retaliation, we are withdrawing our consent of the governed to be taxed on guns/ammo not directly tied to wildlife conservation.

    Aiming our powder-horns at the sacred oxen of the conservationists and leftist environmentalists we ought to get some attention.

    The Fudds have been free-riding on the efforts of the gun-rights community. So long as their sacred hunting grounds, rifles and shotguns are not under imminent threat their oxen weren’t gored. So long as the Sierra Club’s members were getting their conservation funds they couldn’t care less about the 2A or self-defense.

    The controversy alone that would be stirred-up by such a proposal would be worth the effort. I can’t imagine that this would be the first time a special interest group had put-forth a “poison pill” bill along such lines that they used to coerce some desired result.

    • Simper solution: Make it proportional based on states’ sales. DC would get next to nothing, There’s no reason for our money to go to other states.

      • Thank you for your brilliant improvement on my proposal. Your idea would attract the attention of most of the Shall-Issue States’ Congress-critters at the expense of the 10 Won’t-Issue States’ constituents. Your idea does nothing to deprive the noble cause which is popular (conservation); it simply channels the revenue to those States where the 2A interest is honored at the expense of those States where it is defied.

        Voters in these 10 States are bound to lose revenue from passage of such a bill as you have suggested. That would make them reconsider whether they are more deeply invested in stifling the 2A in their States or in supporting conservation in their States.

    • ..”the FUDDs have been free riding…”

      Wassamatter, Mark? Got daddy issues? Grampa never let you touch his gun?

      FUDDs like Teddy Roosevelt established the National Park system.
      FUDDs have put more acres into wetlands conservation than Nature Conservancy.

      http://www.ducks.org/conservation/conservation-initiatives/conservation-initiatives?poe=hometxt

      I love how the COD boys and mall ninjas who have manhood issues like to look down on older hunters who dont share their gun tastes. This is exactly the tin-foil hat wearing, circular firing squad starting gun nut behavior that Bloomberg tries to start up.

      I’m not even a FUDD, but I respect their gun contributions to the culture, which is a lot closer to my values than some twerp blanket-bashing the whole group to satisfy his ego needs.

      Thats the stoopid I can read all day long at Slate, PuffHo’s MediaMatters, WAPO and NYT forums.
      Lets give it a rest, unless you have hard data, on what a FUDD is, or does,as a group, and proof, not some old history about NRA this in ’64, or SAF that….lets move ahead, on dismantling the gun-grabber faux rights groups rather than tear one another down, at least in TTAGs “clean, well lit room” (Hemingway)….(another FUDD).

      • “..”the FUDDs have been free riding…”

        Wassamatter, Mark? Got daddy issues? Grampa never let you touch his gun?”

        Thank you for that; it made my day.

        OK, so, as a matter of fact, my daddy was a Fudd. He enjoyed hunting as a younger man but after marriage, never touched his shotgun again. Wasn’t the least bit interested in guns; not in the slightest. Not even his FFL license entered into his consciousness. Neither Grandpa nor Dad nor the Justice of the Peace (who worked for them) had any issues with my touching the gun inventory. I cheerfully whiled-away many an hour fiddling with the 2 shotguns in the store as customers came and went. No one EVER said a word to me or cast an interested glance at me while fiddling with the break action, hammers or triggers.
        I wasn’t allowed to have my own .22 until I was 13; whereupon I kept it, carried it and used it NEVER with ANYone supervising me. If I have a deep-seated gun issue it would take a lot of analysis to dig it out.

        I have to imagine that during my father’s and grandfather’s generations it was the hunters who kept-alive the RKBA. Without them, the gun culture might have completely atrophied. Hunters and target shooters are a legitimate and important part of the gun culture today.

        And, yet, hunters/marksmen stood by mostly moot while the RKBA largely atrophied in the first 75 years of the 20th Century. Altogether too many of them do little to contribute to the cause of writing and speaking to their State and Federal legislators. They rest confident in the conviction that the Antis won’t come after their shotguns or rifles with wooden stocks.

        These Fudds are free riders just as every one of us is a free rider on most issues involving the defense of the Constitution. There are so many rights and an infinite number of encroachments. At best, each of us can pay a little attention to advancing the cause of some such rights.

        Look at the ratio of number-of-households (and, presumably heads-of-households) to NRA membership as a crude index. (I’m not promoting the NRA here, just using their membership statistic as an approximation of membership in any gun organization). Imagine how much better off we would be if each gun owner would write one letter to one legislator each year urging him to support the RKBA.

        OK, so, you consider the term “Fudd” to be a pejorative. I’ll accept that and apologize to any hunters I might have offended. That was not my intention. What term would you use to identify and inspire a gun owner who neither pays dues to a single gun-rights organization nor writes a single letter to a legislator in a year? I’ll use your term in the future.

        Thank you for calling out my faux pas in being PC in among the PotG.

        • Intelligent and impressively direct and articulate response, as I have observed in your other posts.
          THAT is the standard of discourse that impresses others and draws them in, in particular the independent minded new generation, for example the Millenials, who are hip to being marketed online, and cynical for broken-promises by HopeyChangey.

          The very LAST thing we should be doing, is turning them away in disgust using the same juvenile, retarded, typical lefty-progressive attacks on the person, labeling, Alinskyite attack polarize freeze blah blah blah, that really boils down to advanced trolling, which is all too common as it is on the innertubz.

          We POTG, FUDDs, COD-boys, Mall Ninjas, and the rest, have a whole world of gun-grabbers to resist, and best way is to set a standard, of discourse, on the facts, not chew on one another. Thats actually the dirty trick we see by trolls online, some I am quite sure paid by OFA and others.

          For it is that higher standard of discourse THAT stands out, in comparison, to the increasingly hysterical left that has nowhere to go but down, lacking facts,

          for us 2A believers to educate, inform, and gradually, convert those intelligent, independent, middle of the road citizens and voters,

          that are as yet un-educated about guns, but also sick and tired of the typical lefty Alinsky divide and conquer labeling of the other- bitter clingers.

          I only point this out, because its working- and well, under the radar- so to speak… and thats got to have the Bloomturds frantic-

          Look at the NSSF stats ( the organization that represents the industry) for new shooters and interests- to your point about what and who FUDDs were and did, vs new blood and comparative interests.

          Look at the Pew Polls.
          Look at the media stats for trust by the Millenial in mainstream media- 11% !!!

          Keep Calm and Carry On.

        • “Intelligent and impressively direct and articulate response, as I have observed in your other posts.” Foo Dog, you are very kind. I agree with the sentiments you conveyed.

          I invited FUDD: “What term would you use to identify and inspire a gun owner who neither pays dues to a single gun-rights organization nor writes a single letter to a legislator in a year? I’ll use your term in the future.” I have yet to see his suggestion; albeit it’s still early. Do you have a suggestion?

          I suppose it’s futile to try to reach this class via TTAG. The uninvolved gun-owner is, by definition, not reading TTAG. Still, it is this class that ought to be a potentially large source of support for the cause. After all, they already own a gun. They have some interest – albeit tangential – to guns. (I think of my Dad who at one time did enjoy duck hunting but – nevertheless – never touched a gun so far as I was aware during my lifetime notwithstanding that he was an FFL. Hard to believe.) These folks sort of “get it” but just aren’t interested enough.

          I had written: “The Fudds have been free-riding on the efforts of the gun-rights community. So long as their sacred hunting grounds, rifles and shotguns are not under imminent threat their oxen weren’t gored.” My error was two-fold. I used a term easily deemed pejorative; and, one that lumps together hunters (target shooters) who DO participate in the defense of gun rights with those that enjoy their hobby without doing anything; not even joining the NRA, etc.

          NRA bangs away at hunters and target shooters incessantly. Unfortunately, there interest is primarily in raising money and only secondarily in succeeding in the defense of gun rights. I’ll assume they are very effective in wringing money out of those who at least pay attention to their campaigns. But what I think we need more of is a larger percentage of passive gun owners who aren’t even on the NRA’s mailing list. We don’t need much – if any – money from these passive gun owners. We just need them to become dues-paying members of one of the gun rights organizations and write one letter per year. (Or, something along these lines.)

          A really good example is GOA. I get an e-mail from them about once a week or two inviting me to send an e-mail to my Senators or Congressman. All I have to do is click a couple of times and the e-mails go off to those Congress-critters. Easy for the Congress-critters to count: ‘That’s X e-mails favoring (opposing) HR1234 from gun-owners in my district’.

          Nathan B trumped my initial idea: “Make it proportional based on states’ sales. DC would get next to nothing,” Under his idea he wouldn’t explicitly step on any hunter’s toes; albeit, implicitly, hunters in the Won’t-Issue States would suffer. Alas, these few suffer enough already. Some such hunters in slave-states may be working hard for gun rights; others might not care because they believe themselves to be immune.

          In any case, there ought to be some such ideas out there – probably Nathan’s better than mine – to pressure Congress-critters from the 40 free states to get behind gun-rights legislation. Hunters from the 40 free States ought to use their “greed” in a positive way to call upon their Congress-critters to back Nathan’s bill to bring more excise tax revenue to their hunting grounds. Hunters in the slave-States might be inspired to contact their Congress-critters to defend conservation interests in the States they represent even at the cost of giving-in on some pet gun-control objective. And, in any case, we could potentially reel-in reluctant acquiescence from Sierra Club types.

  3. I think it would be interesting to take that list of $$ by state, normalize it for state population, and then plot it vs the onerousness of gun control in that state.

    I bet you’d likely find that gun control = effectively hating conservation

    • So I ran a correlation between the Guns and Ammo best states for gun ownership rubric ranking, to funding per person. Correlation for those two data sets is .30249 which is obviously not very high, though slightly indicative. I can email the spreadsheet if needed or you want to continue the work.

  4. The problem is the funds also go to HSUS and some gun control as is historical for CA. Either the late 90s or early 2000s our gov. used hunting license fees for gun control.

    Begin CA bashing in 4. 3. 2. 1………

    I don’t know how the funds could be controlled to only be used for wildlife conservation and nothing more.

  5. But….hunters kill Bambi and Thumper! It is better to have mass starvation of animals and destruction of habitat by good government housing than having them shot by a gun bully!

  6. Why is California getting ANYTHING? They have cut fishing opportunities in half since I was transferred here. They have cut big game hunting opportunities by 80% since 1980. They have used the money to buy land as “conservation forests” where they do not allow hunting or shooting. And finally, although the court has ruled their 10 day waiting period for a firearm, and mandatory $60 transfer fee is unconstitutional, they have spit on the courts authority, defied the order, and are still requiring the 10 day waiting period. Congress should base distribution on money collected within the State, not population and withhold any payments to States who do not use the money for conservation purposes (i.e. increasing hunting and fishing opportunities).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *