I saw this article from last weekend about anticipated legislation from Mark Udall proclaiming to now allow funds from the Pittman-Robertson funds. But, stick with me, there are some problems.

Congressman Mark Udall, D-Colo., announced Saturday he will introduce legislation this week to allow states to use wildland-restoration funds to create and maintain public shooting ranges. …

Funds created by the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, which levies a 10 percent sales tax on all hunting equipment, are given to the states to help restore wildlife habitat.

Udall’s legislation would allow states to use up to 10 percent of the money they receive through the federal act to buy land for public shooting ranges, develop shooting ranges and maintain them. …

Udall said his legislation will allow money received from the Pittman-Robertson Act to roll over from year to year instead of being lost.

A Google search and a couple of clicks around the USFWS page will reveal some fundamental flaws here. To say I almost don’t know where to start is rather mild.

Incorrect Tax Numbers
I’ll start with the fact that the tax information is off. I don’t want to say it’s completely wrong, but it’s definitely not presented in a manner that reflects the actual function of P-R. Rather than the “10 percent sales tax on all hunting equipment” that the article claims, P-R actually levies an 11% tax on long guns and ammunition. It’s been that way since 1954, according to this handy little chart that would allow a reporter to, I don’t know, research P-R. The 10% tax is on handguns, as of 1970. Then, two years later, they added an 11% to bows, arrows, and archery accessories. Twenty five years later, Congress removed the tax on arrows, but shifted a higher tax to arrow components.

Needless to say, as applicable to Colorado hunters, the apparent focus of the news pitch in this piece, the 11% rate would be most accurate.

Wildlife Funds Don’t Evaporate Every Year
The tax numbers are not the only numbers misrepresented in the article. In fact, wildlife funds don’t disappear after a year, as implied. This handy little overview that seems to be linked at the bottom of most of the P-R information pages reveals that the annual apportionments are available for two years. Only very specific funds expire each year – Section 10 Hunter Education funds of $8 million for each state and territory. They get that money flat out each year, but they qualify for more based on a very convoluted formula that factors in their land area and number of hunters.

Shooting Ranges are already Funded with P-R – The Fundamental Flaw
And now we get to the biggest false representation in this article. Contrary to the claims in the article, there appears to be nothing different about the ability to use the funds for shooting ranges than what already exists in the law.

And just where could that be found? (Emphasis added to all.)

Well, here.

Purpose:
• Restoration, conservation, management and enhancement of wild birds and mammals and their habitat.
• Provide public use and access to wildlife resources
• Provide for education of hunters and development of shooting ranges

And here.

Funds may also be used for the development and operations of archery and shooting range facilities.

And here.

2000 Amendment
* Federal Assistance Improvement Act set aside 8 million dollars per year to enhance hunter education and shooting range development

And here.

The Wildlife Restoration Program (WR) provides grant funds to the states, the District of Columbia and insular areas fish and wildlife agencies for projects to restore, conserve, manage and enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitat. Projects also include providing public use and access to wildlife resources, hunter education and development and management of shooting ranges.

Get the point yet? No? Okay, then here.

• New Shooting Ranges Constructed with P-R Section 10 Funds: 4,051
• New Shooting Ranges Constructed with P-R Section 4(c) Funds: 337
• Shooting Ranges Maintained & Operated with P-R Section 10 Funds: 370
• Shooting Ranges Maintained & Operated with P-R Section 10 Funds: 972

Even on this very blog, the Arizona public shooting range grants I mentioned recently are funded in part by P-R dollars, according to the AZGFD Statewide Shooting Ranges Administrator.

Political Stunt – Faking a Pro-Gun Record
Who got this wrong? Well, I did some research yesterday. I emailed the reporter, Mike Saccone, to ask about all of these errors and questions. He apologized for not being able to get me source documents because his email had recently crashed and taken the saved materials with it. I believe him because the address in the article doesn’t work anymore, and I had to contact him at a new one. Plus, he volunteered that his primary source was Mark Udall’s office. So I gave the office a call, specifically the staff member he named.

As of now, my questions were reportedly too complex for her to answer, so they have been sent to the legislative aide who is working on the bill. We’ll see if I hear back, and just how the issues are handled.

So what is this article really about? Well, it appears to be nothing than free promotion for a political stunt by Mark Udall to appear pro-gun in an election year immediately following the result in Heller. (He’s currently got a D rating from NRA.)

According to his own website, Congressman Udall only decided that complete gun ownership bans were bad after the DC Circuit said they were unconstitutional and it looked like the Supremes were going to take the case.

I also believe that a recent ruling by the D.C. Court of Appeals on the reach of Second Amendment rights made a convincing constitutional argument against the so-called “gun ban” in Washington, D.C. I generally support the self-rule of residents and their local governments such as Washington D.C., because I think they, like the residents of Colorado, should be largely able to set their own policies — but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and after reading this recent federal court ruling, I think the D.C. Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the DC gun ban improperly violated the Second Amendment.

I guess before Heller, he was all on board with gun bans?!?

Evolving positions on gun bans aside, Colorado voters should really be asking themselves why they are paying for a member of Congress to propose and pass bills that do the exact same thing as existing law. I mean I could do that job. My campaign slogan: “Making it illegaler than it was before!”

If it does something different than existing law, its appropriate for the state’s sportsmen – hunters and shooters – to raise some big questions about how he’s tampering with P-R and their money for their sports. Is he actually putting the formula at risk for providing less money than it did before? Is he going to make the process more convoluted than it already is for ranges? Of course, if it does actually change the formula or process, you would have expected for the woman who pitched the story to have at least a general idea.

It’s obvious that at least a few folks in Colorado – or on the Hill – may need some help with their research skills. At least, according to the information I’ve been provided so far, it looks like they issued a statement before they knew what they were talking about in hopes that it would hide the poor record he has with sportsmen in the state.

On an only mildly related note, I’d like to say kudos for the USFWS doing wonders to update and simplify their information on P-R. It’s lightyears ahead of where it used to be a few years ago.

No obviously related posts.