As I sit and write this, I have to be honest, I'm a little irritated. Actually I am more than a little irritated, I am pissed off. I'm not mad at any specific person, so much as I am mad at a situation that includes a piece of misguided legislation out of Georgia and a recent New York Times opinion piece.
Back in June, I caught wind of a piece of legislation that was introduced by a Congressman from Georgia, that left me speechless. Andrew Clyde, a Republican out of the 9th district, introduced the RETURN Act on June 22, 2022, and I only knew about it because of my very good friend out of Florida, Travis Thompson. Travis had posted about the RETURN Act on his private Cast & Blast Facebook page and had I not seen it posted there, I may not have discovered it at all.
Once I did some research on the bill, I knew that if the "wrong crowd" caught wind of it, the conservation community could be in a lot of trouble. Let me explain.
As many, or at least some of you have heard or read about, the RETURN Act is a proposed bill that would repeal the Pittman-Robertson Act. For many people who aren't heavily involved in the conservation or hunting spaces, respectively, this may not feel like something they need to understand, because it doesn't pertain to them. However, I feel like it is worth an explanation, because I believe most people will decide that it absolutely does pertain to them, and in ways they didn't previously think about or understand.
What the Heck is Pittman-Robertson?
Here is the watered down explanation.
The Pittman-Robertson Act, now known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, is an excise tax on firearms and ammunition that was asked for by outdoorsmen and the firearm industry and signed into law back in 1937. The P.R. Act essentially imposes a 10 or 11% excise tax, depending on the equipment, that is charged to the firearm, ammunition and archery equipment manufacturers and importers, is collected and put into a fund held by the Department of Treasury, then distributed via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to states, for designated funding of Wildlife Restoration (conservation), Hunter Education, and Enhanced Hunter Education. The disbursements to the states are based on a formula that includes land mass, population, and how many certified hunters there are in that state. A certified hunter is anyone who purchases a hunting license.
Hunting licenses sold in each state are incredibly critical to the funding that is offered through Pittman-Robertson, because each state has to come up with a 25% match of non-federal funding and much of that comes from hunting license sales. Match dollars can also come from volunteer hours accumulated during events like Hunter Education classes, "Learn How" events, and other event where volunteers are utilized for conservation or hunting related activities. Those volunteer hours have a value applied to them to help meet that 25% match.
The Pittman-Robertson Act has been the most consistent and important tool for wildlife conservation in the history of the United States. Just as a single example where I live, in Indiana, there are numerous Fish & Wildlife Area properties that were purchased, enhanced, and are maintained by the funding that comes from P.R. What people oftentimes fail to realize is that those properties are for everyone to enjoy, not solely hunters and anglers. The properties are perfect locations for birders, wildlife photographers, wildlife watchers, foragers, or those who simply want to take a walk in nature and enjoy a space where wildlife is abundant.
Again, I will use Indiana as an example of how conservation efforts of the past have worked and change the landscape for the better. In Indiana, the white-tailed deer and the eastern wild turkey were both extirpated, or taken off of the landscape of this state, back in the early 1900's. This was due to over hunting the species, loss of habitat, and the lack of any kind of conservation model in this country, let alone wildlife rules and regulations at a state level. Due to collaborative conservation efforts between multiple states starting in the forties and fifties and in the case of turkeys, lasting into the early 2000's, these animals were reintroduced to Indiana. Federal funding generated from primarily the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 helped make that, and many other conservation success stories, possible.
I hope that puts into perspective the importance of conservation in this country, not just for hunters, but for anyone who enjoys the sights and sounds of nature. Funding from Pittman-Robertson doesn't benefit only hunters or what some call consumptive users, and it also doesn't only benefit game species. The large amount of non-game species that not only live in the spaces funded by the wildlife restoration funds, but thrive there, are really something we should all be excited about.
What Does RETURN Stand for and Why Should I Care?
The RETURN Act Legislation introduced by the Republican Congressman out of Georgia is actually an acronym for "Return (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Rights Now) our Constitutional Rights Act of 2022". And just by the name of it, you would think that this thing is a little ridiculous right out of the gate. The purpose of the proposed bill, according to Congressman Andrew Clyde, is to do away with a tax (yes, the same tax that funds a massive portion of wildlife conservation in the United States) that he believes is unconstitutional because it makes it difficult for Americans to afford firearms, which he says is their unalienable right, according to the second amendment of the United States Constitution.
Firearm sales are at an all time high in the United States, and while I am not one to make predictions, I would bet those sales are not going to decrease in the near future. So, I have a really hard time buying into the notion that we, as Americans, are having our second amendment rights stifled due to the cost of firearms in this country.
Congressman Clyde claims the funding from Pittman-Robertson ($1.1 billion in 2021) can be replaced by the lower amount of $800 million dollars generated from on and offshore energy development and from unallocated oil and gas lease revenue from public lands. If that sounds eerily familiar, Google the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and you will realize real quickly that there are only so many pieces of the pie and at the end of the day, someone is going to go hungry. And please tell me how $800 million is comparable to the $1.1 billion in funding? I'll wait.
You should probably know that this proposed piece of legislation was introduced with 56 original co-sponsors, all Republican Congresspeople, who were in support of the bill right out of the gate. I wonder how many of them understand how conservation in this country actually works?
Let's Be Honest
Most Americans, including surprisingly high numbers of lifelong hunters and recreational shooters, have never heard of the Pittman Robertson Act and they definitely aren't aware that they are paying a tax that goes into that P.R. fund. I am "new" to the hunting community, having only been around for ten years, and I am probably an anomaly, in that I have made conservation a significant part of my life in those ten short years, so I go out of my way to learn how it all works. Most hunters don't have that mindset, and I'm not necessarily mad at them for it, I just feel a little disappointed that when something like the RETURN Act rears it's ugly head, a large population of hunters don't even know what they stand to lose, so they don't speak up or get involved.
But it's bigger than that, and this is where I get angry.
There are more conservation organizations than I can count who operate on a national level that know exactly how conservation works, how its funded, and what would happen if that funding went away, and a large majority of them blew this proposed piece of legislation off as something that will never get legs (meaning that the bill would never amount to a serious threat) when it was introduced. The number of members for these organizations is staggering and had there been a push for those members, by their organization leaders, to immediately reach out and put pressure on their respective Congresspeople, especially if they were one of the 56 Cosponsors, maybe more of the Cosponsors would have removed themselves early on (as of 8/28/22 when I post this piece, 7 have withdrawn). Even if they didn't want to get involved politically, they could have been pushing a conservation education narrative to their members, just in case the members wanted to do something on their own
But it didn't happen. There were a few individuals, and yes I am one of them, Travis Thompson another, who started banging pots and pans together and trying to get the word out that this could potentially be a real problem for conservation, if this thing were to get in front of the "wrong crowd". I can't speak for Travis, but I know all I heard from folks in private messages through my social media accounts, was that this bill was a "nothing burger", or it was "so crazy" that it would never get past the Natural Resources Committee, it would be "dead on arrival", or again, my favorite, "it will never get legs". I'm still hoping those people are right, but that hope has diminished a little over the last few days. I'll get to that in a minute.
Who is The "Wrong Crowd", Anyway?
The percentage of hunters in the U.S. isn't exactly increasing by leaps and bounds, in fact hunting license sales have been in a steady decrease for about a decade now (2020-2021 numbers showed increases in some places due to Covid, but it is very unlikely that those numbers will be sustained moving forward). If that is the case, then it is obvious that there are significantly more people who aren't necessarily against hunting, they just don't participate, but that also means they probably have never been concerned with wildlife conservation or why it matters. There is the anti-hunting crowd, whom we are well aware of, who claim to love and value wildlife, but don't have an understanding of what it takes to have a healthy wildlife population on the landscape. We also have a group who loves their firearms, are staunch advocates for their second amendment rights, and could be more accurately classified as self-proclaimed "Patriots", who are not hunters, not concerned with conservation, not exactly fans of the government and who feel like all taxes violate their rights, as American citizens. And lastly, there is a group of people who may prove to be more significant to this entire RETURN Act scenario than anyone predicted; the anti-gun crowd.
I posted a video on my @othercindylou Instagram page back on July 1st, shortly after diving into what the RETURN Act was all about, and I clearly stated my fears about this bill. I stated my fears about this bill getting in front of the crowds I just described and why we shouldn't discount what it would mean if they let their elected officials know that they supported the bill. I stated why I believed that it was important that those of us in the hunting and conservation space needed to take action and make sure that this bill is tossed in the trash before the "wrong crowd" got a hold of it. I was fired up and I mistakenly believed that everyone else who believes in the importance of conservation as much as I do, would get fired up too. Boy, was I disappointed.
Travis also blasted out to his social media following all of the reasons he believed people should speak up and fight back against this ridiculous legislation, that he and I both knew would be detrimental for conservation nationwide. Fortunately for Travis, he has an AMAZING community in Florida who are on board with all things conservation, and they answered the call. His friends lit up the phone lines in Congressman Clyde's office, so much so, that Congressman Clyde's assistant emailed Travis and expressed her displeasure with Travis' efforts. That being said, it gave Travis an opportunity to have Congressman Clyde on the July 18th episode of the Cast and Blast Florida Podcast that Travis facilitates. I highly recommend giving that episode (#227) a listen.
The New York Times Opinion Piece and Those Damn Legs
There was an opinion piece published in the New York Times on Friday, August 26th, that just might provide the legs to this bill that everyone assured me would never materialize. The piece was written by someone named Christopher Ketchum, it was a guest essay in the opinion section of the publication. It was his opinion, however there were many falsities mentioned in the article pertaining to how the Pittman-Robertson funding is used, such as: it in no way benefits non-game species, the false claim that state agencies use of funds only benefits hunters and anglers, that logging and controlled burns are bad for wildlife, or that state agencies use herbicide on native species rather than the invasive species that are typically targeted. You get my point, it is loaded with misinformation and if you are a hunter or angler who is involved on the ground level with conservation like I am, you can suss out the falsities for yourself.
Here is the problem with this piece; those of us who know better, are the tiny minority in this situation. Those of us who know better will go on our social media accounts, call "foul", tear this piece apart, calling out every falsity we read and call this guy a biased, anti-hunting, anti-gun asshole, then go on with our day. We will get comments applauding our cheeky IG and FB posts, our arrogance about knowing "what's real", and how this thing (still) will never go anywhere. But while we are shouting into our echo chamber and patting each other on the back for knowing right from wrong and bragging about what we have "done for conservation", there are millions of people reading this article who are going to take the bait that this guy is dangling in front of them and they are going to swallow the hook in the process, simply because they just don't know any better.
They don't know any better because we haven't done a good enough job educating them. I know a lot of people who are passionate about conservation, I follow them on social media, I am friends with them in real life, many of them are people I look up to in the outdoor space. They are good people and they really do put boots on the ground, get their hands dirty, and put in long days. They talk about efforts they believe are important in their respective areas, they post pictures of themselves, pulling invasive weeds, planting for new habitat on their private land or going out into the back country to build guzzlers, pull fence that disrupts migration routes, and to count wildlife species for research. If you gave me a few names, I could probably rattle off the species or places that are most important to them.
How many of the people who subscribe to the New York Times and read that opinion piece even know why fences get pulled? How many know that invasive weeds choke will out natives weeds that are critical to healthy wildlife populations? Do they know how much work private landowners put into conservation efforts on their land? How many of those subscribers know why wildlife biologists get volunteers to spend a weekend away from home, in less than ideal conditions, to ultimately find only one bighorn sheep the entire weekend? Have any of those readers ever heard the term wildlife conservation and if they have, could they tell you what the term even means? I'd say the answer to those questions is very few to none, because they aren't part of our echo chamber, they don't know who we are or what we do.
The article in the New York Times is exactly what was needed for the RETURN Act to grow those damn legs. It is going to speak to the masses and what it is telling them, is not in the best interest of conservation as we know it. But what are we, the people who know better, doing to tell them otherwise?
Tell More Stories About Conservation and Less Stories About Big Bucks and Limiting Out
People who have never been taught conservation methods aren't ignorant people, they just aren't educated on the subject. You can't expect them to care about something that they don't understand. I think there are opportunities that we, as hunters, anglers, and conservationists miss by not starting the conversation with people whom we are certain have no idea what we are talking about. I am, by nature, an introvert, I don't want to really be around a lot of people if I don't have to be, and small talk is my kryptonite. But if I can somehow find an opening to talk about hunting, which opens the door to talk about conservation and how they go hand in hand, you cannot get me to shut up.
I got a new tattoo last week by an artist in Indianapolis whom I had never met before that appointment. I had him tattoo a large squirrel on my right forearm, which wasn't his normal subject matter, so it led to him asking why I was getting a squirrel. That of course led to a discussion about hunting with my dad, and through his prompts in conversation, it led to a discussion about why people hunt, and eventually to conservation. That then led to how conservation works, the extirpation of deer and turkey in Indiana, game laws, funding, and on and on. He had no idea. And why would he? He kept repeating to me throughout the conversation, that he didn't know about any of this and while he is in no way against hunting, it gave him a whole new perspective on hunting in general and definitely a better understanding of conservation. He thanked me for sharing this information with him, he said had I not taken the time to explain all of this stuff to him, he would have never known.
I don't think I had anything to gain by telling him the story of my big ten-point buck from 2020, or the squirrel limits I set to get every time I venture out with my .22 rifle in January. It wouldn't have been as impactful for me to tell him about all the ducks Chance killed while in Louisiana a few years ago with his buddy. I could have shown him (tastefully done) pictures of half skinned mule deer doe that I shot in Montana last year, but what does that do to gain a supporter of conservation? Nothing.
Instead, I told a conservation story. One of giving back, not taking. One of successes that aren't based off death. A story that he can pass on to others if he hears someone badmouthing hunters. It's a story that matters more than any other, but one we have to be dedicated enough to tell. Like my friend Randy Newberg says, "Conservation is always difficult, it is always uncomfortable, and it is always inconvenient", but I know he would also agree, that it damned sure is necessary.
Where My Real Frustrations Lie
To be clear, my overall frustration was initiated by the RETURN Act and what would happen if it were passed. But the more I talked with fellow hunters about conservation, and the more I realized that there are lifelong hunters out there that don't know how conservation, or the funding mechanism for conservation even works, it made me realize that these conversations should have started long before the RETURN Act was introduced, long before RAWA, and long before the big push a few years ago for the Land and Water Conservation Act.
Many popular hunting shows on cable television don't talk about conservation, they talk about monster bucks, rope dragging turkeys, and all of their sponsors. Too many hunters on social media post videos of kill shots, bloodied animals, and an unfortunate disrespect for the game they pursue, not videos explaining why conservation is important. Yes, hunting is enjoyable and it feels good when you attain the success you are after, but I find these are huge missed opportunities to reach those new hunters who are scouring social media and YouTube for role models and mentors in the hunting/conservation space.
Some folks in the spotlight get it right; Randy Newberg, Clay Newcomb, Steve Rinella, Janis Putelis, Doug Duren, Travis Thompson, and Remi Warren are just a few who share their experiences while incorporating the importance of conservation, in a meaningful and educational manner. Those are the people I tell non-hunters and new hunters alike, to pay attention to, those are the people who I know, have genuine intentions. And I can say that, because I am friends with a few of those guys and they have always been willing to chat on the phone when I've needed to bounce something off of them or simply just need advice.
Control the Narrative
It is important for people who love to watch wildlife, understand how that wildlife got there for them to watch. Birders should know that prairie habitat restoration projects benefit not only game birds, but also multiple varieties of songbirds. Wildlife photographers need to know that without conservation efforts and some reliable avenue of conservation funding, they wouldn't have nearly as many species to photograph. Foragers should understand that controlled burns in their favorite forests will not only help successional forest growth for wildlife, but will potentially produce a bumper crop of their favorite edible plants and fungi.
We can't keep preaching to each other about what many of us already know. We need to write editorials in our local newspapers (even if they are all digital) about local conservation efforts the community can become involved with. We need to share the history of our local wildlife with the groups of people who appreciate the animals, but might not know that the animals were once gone from the landscape and could be again, if not managed properly.
The RETURN Act isn't the first time and certainly won't be the last time we are targeted for being hunters or firearm owners. But maybe it's the wake up call we need to remind us that if we don't make an effort to educate the "others", and if we don't control the narrative, someone else will, and we'll be caught with our pants down. Just like we were this past Friday when Christopher Ketchum told his truth in a way many of us have never tried, outside of our own circles.
You have a voice, use it to talk to people you've never met. If I can do it, I am damn certain you can too.
