|
Pictured above are two spools of thread. The one on the left is fly tying thread - very tough, strong and very fine. A fly tier will pay from $2.00 on up for a small spool of this stuff. On the right, a spool, same size, of ordinary seamstress thread your Aunt Mary might buy to repair your shirt. I bought it a few years ago, so I would guess today it might sell for about 90 cents.
The special fly tying thread, even though it is more expensive to manufacture, appears to be a ‘rip off.’ But, is it? Not when certain aspects of the outdoors recreational world are considered.
Did you know that every time a hunter or fisherman buys a piece of equipment he pays a special tax that ultimately comes back to him in the form of programs designed to improve his outdoor experience. And reduce the need for tax money for these programs from those of you who do not hunt or fish. It is, in effect, a user tax, one that traditionally has had strong support from sporting goods manufacturers, dealers, and anglers and hunters everywhere.
Back to the thread. Let’s assume that the fly tying thread costs 80 cents/spool to manufacture. The manufacturer must add a 10 per cent excise tax to his price before selling to a wholesaler. The eight cents is collected by the federal government, turned over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where it sits in a trust account. By purchasing this roll of thread, a fly tier makes an 8-cent contribution to Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration programs. You get the idea.
Eight cents. Big deal. But all of these spools, rods and reels, lines, rifles, bows and arrows, scopes, shotguns, boots, trolling motors, hooks, etc. add up to over $800,000,000 dollars (projected for 2007). Now we’re getting somewhere. Over three-quarters of a billion dollars is a pretty nifty nest egg. All from hunters and fishermen - those damned weirdly-dressed, lay-about, long-winded, red-necked disturbers of the peace!
Is this something new? Most definitely not. The first of several Congressional Acts, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (known as the Pittman-Robertson Act), was passed 70 years ago. Subsequent acts in 1950 (the Sport Fish Restoration Act, a.k.a, Dingell-Johnson Act), the Wallop-Breaux Amendment to the Sport Fish Restoration Act in 1984, have greatly expanded the role of the federal government in supporting states in their efforts to restore wildlife, improve habitat and promote outdoor activities. All through the mechanism of a more-or-less self-imposed tax on the users, outdoors-men and women throughout America.
These joined-at-the hip Federal Assistance programs, funded through an excise tax on hunting, angling and boating items, have supported state conservation programs for many years. Funds from the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act are made available to states based on land area and the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. Hunter education funds are based on the relative population of each state. Sport Fish Restoration funds are based on the land and water area and the number of fishing license holders. These funds pay for up to 75 percent of the cost of each project, with the individual state kicking in at least 25 percent.
Wildlife restoration money comes from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition, a 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers and an 11 percent tax on certain archery equipment. States use this money to manage wildlife populations, habitat research, surveys and inventories and to administer hunter education programs.
The 10 percent Dingell-Johnson Act also includes a 3 percent tax on electric trolling motors and sonar fish finders. The Wallop-Breaux amendments capture a portion of the federal fuels tax attributable to motorboat fuels and imposes import duties on fishing tackle and pleasure boats. States use these Sport Fish Restoration Program funds to stock fish, acquire and improve sport fish habitat, provide aquatic resource education opportunities, conduct fisheries research, build boat ramps, fishing piers and other facilities to provide recreational boating access.
After the tax collectors have made their tallies and the federal number crunchers perform their machinations, the sportsmen’s national nest egg is placed into trust funds, from which apportionments are made available to the individual states through the Division of Federal Aid. For fiscal year 2006, this amounted to $542,000,000.
In their 2006 Annual Report, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission discusses all sorts of accomplishments for the year. On the last page is listed a financial report spanning July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Lacking any definition of terms, one has to assume the item “Augmentations” refers to Sport Fish Restoration funds received. For the period of the report it is $10,365,290. They also received another $6,706,264 from “Miscellaneous” sources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reported a final apportionment of Sport Fish Restoration Funds to Pennsylvania for the full year of 2006 of $7,268,842. Pennsylvania ranks number 9 on the list of states and possessions receiving these apportionments in 2006.
Regardless, whether it is $7 million or $10 million, it is a sizeable sum of money. The only specific PFBC program I could identify from the Annual Report that makes use of the Sport Fish Restoration money is a grant program to help ensure that Pennsylvania’s recreational boaters are provided with the highest quality boating facilities on all navigable waters of the state. Successful applicants must provide a 25 percent grant match, and they must be willing to enter into a long-term agreement to keep the facility open to free public use for its useful life. During the first two rounds of grant funding, the Fish & Boat Commission approved funding for 28 projects for the development or improvement of Commonwealth public recreational boating facilities. Currently, 23 projects are under construction. Five of the projects have been completed. The total cost for these projects exceeded $4.25 million (page 6). There may be other PFBC programs utilizing SFR funds that were not identified as such in the report.
The PFBC is also an active participant in the other program, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. It has been focusing attention on nongame species and their habitats. For about five years, they have been receiving funds from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service through the State Wildlife Grants Program (SWG) and more recently through the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). To help with these programs and to assist with the diversity of additional needs, including the identification and acquisition of funding for these programs, the Fish & Boat Commission developed the position of conservation coordinator. With this position, the Fish & Boat Commission will expand its capacity to pursue these additional funds to protect and manage these important species and their habitats.
In 2006, the Fish & Boat Commission either initiated or approved nine SWG Program projects. The scope of these projects demonstrates the diversity of species and habitats encompassed by the Fish & Boat Commission’s jurisdiction. These projects include work on deepwater fishes of large rivers, turtles, American eels and habitat improvement. The duration of these projects ranges from one to five years with more than $1.7 million of federal funds provided by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. These federal funds are matched with $633,782 provided by partners and the Fish & Boat Commission. SWG projects help address critical species and habitat concerns of Pennsylvania and provide for a healthier environment for both wildlife and people (page 11).
While the bulk (69%) of the PFBC’s revenue still comes from license sales, without the Federal Assistance monies it would be hard-pressed to carry out its day-to-day operations, let alone initiate new and or innovative programs. I’ve always maintained that both the Fish Commission and the Game Commission should be eligible for general funds money (your tax dollars) for research and development projects as these, as a general rule, benefit all Pennsylvanians, not just hunters and fishermen. However, in the absence of these monies, it would appear that the sportsmen will have to continue to pick up the bill.US Fish and Wildlife
Service: Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs
Division of Federal Assistance - http://federalasst.fws.gov/
Copyright April 11, 2007 Thomas P. Dewey