Sec. 2. Findings
950 words·~4 min read·
/bill/115/hr/4647/ih/section-2A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
Congress finds the following: A diverse array of species of fish and wildlife is of significant value to the United States for aesthetic, ecological, educational, cultural, recreational, economic, and scientific reasons. More than 100 million citizens of the United States participate in outdoor recreation through hunting, fishing, birding, and other wildlife-dependent recreation, all of which have significant value to the citizens who engage in those activities and provide economic benefits to local communities.
It is in the interest of the United States— to retain for present and future generations the opportunity to hunt, fish, observe, understand, and appreciate a wide variety of fish and wildlife; to recover species of fish and wildlife listed as threatened species or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and to prevent fish and wildlife species from declining to the point of requiring Federal protection under such Act; and to support collaborative and proactive conservation that will sustain the diverse fish and wildlife populations of the United States.
The first nongovernmental conservation organizations to instill fish and wildlife conservation values in hunters, anglers, bird watchers, and all citizens were founded during the 1880s to 1890s at the behest of hunters and anglers, including Theodore Roosevelt and naturalist George Bird Grinnell, who were alarmed that game and sportfish could not sustain unregulated harvest and that avifauna needed protection from commercial take. At the turn of the 20th century, the States— realized the need to regulate the harvest of game and sportfish for sustainable use; required hunters and anglers to obtain licenses and established regulations for game seasons, bag and creel limits, and legal means of take for game and sportfish; and used the funds received for such licenses largely for enforcement of such regulations.
In 1937, an alliance between hunters and conservation organizations, States, the Federal Government, and the shooting sports industry convinced Congress to transfer to the States receipts from an existing Federal excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition, matched by State hunting license dollars, for the management of wildlife and conservation of habitat under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act ( 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), which greatly enhanced the States’ ability to move from primarily enforcing game seasons and bag limits to science-based research and management of wildlife.
In 1951, an alliance between anglers and conservation organizations, States, the Federal Government, and the sportfishing industry convinced Congress to impose a Federal excise tax on fishing equipment under the Dingell-Johnson Sportfish Restoration Act ( 16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.) and to transfer to the States such receipts, matched by State fishing license revenues, to manage sportfish and conserve aquatic habitats, enhancing the State fish and wildlife agency’s ability to use science-based research and management of fish species.
Such user-pay, public-benefits means of funding fish and wildlife conservation is unique in the world, having been started in the United States by sportsmen and sportswomen who were willing to pay these fees to ensure dedicated funds went to fish and wildlife conservation delivered by the States. Such user-pay funds (licenses and excise taxes)— have benefitted not only hunters and anglers, but all citizens of the United States by providing abundant fish and wildlife (including both game and nongame species), clean water, outdoor recreation, healthy activities, and quality of life; and provide, and will continue to provide, a majority of the funds that are available to State fish and wildlife agencies for science-based research and management of fish and wildlife.
State fish and wildlife agencies are responsible for the conservation and management of all fish and wildlife in the State, but are grossly underfunded because there are few funds available at the State level for fish and wildlife conservation, except those driven by hunting and fishing license revenues and Federal excise tax revenues. Congress created a subaccount known as the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount under section 3(a)(2) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act ( 16 U.S.C. 669b(a)(2) ) to support the full array of fish and wildlife conservation needs identified by State fish and wildlife agencies, including for species that are not hunted or fished, but only authorized appropriations for the Subaccount for one year.
While appropriated funds have been made available through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the lack of assured and sufficient dedicated funding for the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount has left unrealized the goals of the Subaccount, thereby allowing fish and wildlife populations to continue to decline across the United States and resulting in hundreds of species being listed as threatened species or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act ( 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), each State and territory is required to seek public input and produce a comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation strategy, otherwise known as a State Wildlife Action Plan, to guide the State-led conservation of the full array of fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Providing assured and sufficient dedicated funding to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount will advance the national interest by assuring sustainable populations of fish and wildlife species are available for the use and enjoyment of citizens of the United States through implementing the comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation strategy of each State and territory.
As funds become available for the purposes of this Act, sportsmen and sportswomen expect States to secure the needed non-Federal match from sources other than revenue generated by sportsmen and sportswomen through the sale of State hunting and fishing licenses (except when projects or programs benefit habitat for species that are hunted or fished and other associated wildlife).
Connectionstraces to 4
Citation graph
cites case law
Cites 4Cited by 0 across 0 sources