Dear Editor: Outdoor Enthusiasts Should Consider Someone Other Than Rosendale

Dear Editor,

Two great things about Montana are our fish and wildlife. Whether you are a hunter, angler, or bird watcher this all is being threatened by legislation proposed by Matt Rosendale. He and Andrew Clyde (R_GA) propose to repeal laws that partially fund state fish and wildlife agencies, such as Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

Montana and the rest of the nation did not always have viable populations of big game. In the 1930s wildlife populations were at an all-time low due to overharvest and habitat loss. Hunters, conservationists, and much of the nation thought help was needed for wildlife populations and their habitat. A self-imposed tax was proposed. The Pittman-Robinson Act of 1937 used a 10% excise tax on firearms and ammunition to fund state wildlife agencies for wildlife management and wildlife research. Through later amendments, the Pittman-Robinson funds now can be used for shooting and archery ranges, acquisition of game ranges and access, wildlife and conservation education, block management, wildlife surveys, and almost anything dealing with wildlife. For 2022 about 25% Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks budget came from Pittman-Robinson funds.

In 1950 the Dingell-Johnson Act provided funding for sports fisheries through an excise tax on fishing supplies and equipment.

Together, the acts have been hugely successful in restoring wildlife and fish populations and their habitat and providing recreational opportunities for a wide variety of citizens: hunters, anglers, recreational shooters and archers, bird watchers and the list goes on. Montana’s vibrant outdoor industry owes much of its success to the opportunity for visitors, clients, and the general public to pursue or view fish and wildlife.

In June of 2022, Matt Rosendale cosponsored the Return Our Constitutional Rights Act of 2022 (HR8187) with out-of-state, freshman representative Clyde (R-GA). Only fifty of approximately 435 representatives supported this proposed Act that would eliminate the excise taxes used to help fund state fish and wildlife agencies. The premise of this bill is that a tax on guns and ammunition infringes on the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment. The American Wildlife Conservation Partners, a group of 43 wildlife organizations, sent letters to Congressional leaders supporting the existing Pittman-Robinson Act of 1937 and opposing changing or eliminating the excise taxes. Rosendale and the other 49 representatives did not take that advice.

For 85 years the Pittman-Robinson Act was not thought of as an infringement on citizens' right to bear arms. Now, suddenly, it’s presented as a threat to a constitutional right. One could envision all sorts of reasons why a tax might infringe on our rights. For example: Is the right to freedom of expression infringed if we pay taxes on phones or internet service? The phrase “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” comes to mind.

There are at least two reasons why one might think the motivation for the proposed Return Our Constitutional Rights Act is to defund state fish and game agencies and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

1. Rosendale and other supporters propose that “unallocated lease revenue” from on-shore and off-shore drilling be used to fund fish and wildlife agencies. But oil and gas leases constantly change, and the revenue gets redirected, which would make planning difficult. To adequately manage fish and wildlife populations consistent monitoring is a must. Roller coaster funding can be counterproductive. The term “unallocated” does not instill confidence in receiving sustained funding.

Revenues from on and off-shore leasing are the same revenue source that permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Congress would be “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.” Nationally, about $800 million per year would be pulled from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to fund state fish and wildlife agencies. The $800 million is $200 million short of what the Pittman-Robinson and Dingell-Johnson Acts currently provide to the states. Both the state fish and wildlife agencies and the Land and Water Conservation Fund would be short-changed.

2. The Return Our Constitutional Rights Act proposes to reduce the excise tax on fishing equipment. The Dingell-Johnson Act is about sport fish and fishing and has nothing to do with guns or the right to bear arms, so why are Rosendale and the 49 others proposing to reduce the excise tax? I believe the motivation for the Return Our Constitutional Rights Act is to defund state fish and wildlife agencies and to restrict the way of life many of us enjoy. Based on this example of short-sighted and misguided legislation, hunters, anglers, recreational shooters and other outdoor enthusiasts should put some serious thought into electing someone else other than Matt Rosendale this November.

Grant Godbolt

Whitehall, Montana