'Devastating consequences': Conservation groups oppose bill supported by Rep. Mullin

Oklahoma U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin is one of 58 House Republicans who are co-sponsoring a bill that would repeal certain firearms and ammunition excise taxes that have funded wildlife conservation for 85 years.

The bill, House Resolution 8167, has been called misguided by wildlife conservation groups across the country. Asked to comment on the bill, Mullin did not directly respond to The Oklahoman. Instead, through representatives in his office, Mullin emphasized that the money for wildlife conservation is not ending. Just the source of the funds for it would change.

The bill calls for amending the Internal Revenue Service to repeal certain excise taxes on firearms and ammo. The money raised through the taxes is now used to support wildlife conservation. The bill calls for the funding to be replaced by federal offshore oil and gas revenues to the tune of $800 million per year.

U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Georgia, introduced the RETURN (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act to eliminate the 11% federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition that funds conservation in America. Clyde’s argument is that the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition threaten Second Amendment rights.

More:A Tulsa brewer has organized a statewide fly fishing tournament

Conservation groups react

Forty-three hunting, conservation, and gun rights groups have signed a letter opposing Clyde's bill.

The National Wild Turkey Federation issued a statement that it is strenuously opposed to HR 8167, saying it would undo what is considered the most successful conservation funding model in the world.

“We are very concerned that this bill would undermine the American System of Conservation Funding, which is looked to by nations around the world as the most successful model in the history of wildlife conservation,” said NWTF Co-CEO Becky Humphries.

The National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation also oppose the bill.

John Gale, conservation director for Back Country Hunters and Anglers, said HR 8167 would recklessly unravel funding for conservation.

"Its passage would have devastating consequences for our fish and wildlife agencies and would limit the role of sportsmen and women in funding conservation, diminishing our effectiveness as a constituency," Gale said. "We ask Congressman Clyde to reconsider his decision to introduce this wrongheaded bill, and we likewise urge his House colleagues who co-sponsored it to disavow it."

More:Will Tiger Bass be the answer to growing bigger bass in Grand Lake?

How it works

Under siege is the Pittman-Robertson Act or Wildlife Restoration Act, which has been called the most successful wildlife conservation fund ever created. Signed into law in 1937 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Pittman-Robertson Act provides funding for restoration and improvement of wildlife habitat and wildlife management research through an 11 percent federal excise tax on shotguns, rifles, ammo, archery equipment and more, as well as a 10 percent tax on handguns.

In 1970, the act was amended to ensure funding for hunter education and the development/operation of public target ranges. Over the years, hunters, anglers and shooters have contributed a total of $25.5 billion to conservation, including a record $1.5 billion in 2021 alone, according to the U.S. Department of Interior.

The impetus for the Pittman-Robertson Act was a marked decline in certain game populations. Over the years, the program has been credited for helping to save populations of wildlife such as deer, elk, wild turkeys and more.

The federal excise taxes are collected from manufacturers and distributed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to states based on a state's population, its geographical area and number of licensed hunters. To help ensure states use the money for wildlife conservation and habitat, individual states must match Pittman-Robertson funds with $1 for every $3 received. This money typically comes from hunting license sales.

In 1950, Congress also passed a similar wildlife conservation funding model to support recreational fishing. The Dingell Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act calls for a 10% excise tax on sport fishing tackle; a 3% excise tax on fish finders and electric trolling motors; import duties on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure craft; and a portion of powered boat fuel tax revenues and small engine fuel taxes.

More:Oklahoma mountain streams might hold unique species of smallmouth bass

A source of funds for ODWC

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation's annual budget in 2021 was $60.38 million. Of that amount, $14.3 million came from Oklahoma's share of the Pittman-Robertson Act. Combined with the money from the Dingell Johnson Act, the total was $23.9 million.

For the 2022 fiscal year that just ended, the Wildlife Department received $22.6 million from Pittman-Robertson funds alone, said Nels Rodefeld, chief of communications and education for the Wildlife Department.

"We, like every state fish and wildlife agency, rely heavily on PR (Pittman-Robertson) funding to provide hunting and shooting opportunities, so we will certainly watch this legislation and are willing to work with all elected officials to discuss the potential impacts to the North American model of conservation," Rodefeld said.

"Unlike many states, here at the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation we do not receive any general state appropriations so the significance of these funds is magnified."

More:How the Oklahoma Wildlife Department became a Twitter sensation

This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Conservation groups oppose bill supported by Oklahoma Rep. Mullin