It Is Time To Have A Serious Discussion About A “Backpack Tax”

So, this blog post is really going to be a follow up from the posts I did discussing H.R. 8167, known as the RETURN Act and the Pittman-Robertson Act.  If you haven’t read either of those blog posts, go back and check them out.  I have found that there are many, like I before, who really do not know that much about the Pittman-Robertson Act.  This particular post is going to discuss a controversial idea surrounding what some people feel is needed, a “backpack tax.”  This would essentially be an enhancement of the Pittman-Robertson Act in a sense, which is why if you are not familiar with that piece of legislation you should check it out.  

     To recap a bit of what the Pittman-Robert Act is I will make a few notes here to try and set the stage.  The Pittman-Robertson Act was based with huge bipartisan support in 1937 in order to provide dedicated funding for the restoration of wildlife populations across the United States.  It is funded through and 11% excise tax that is paid by the manufactures of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, and others.  Obviously, this tax is then passed on to the consumer in the cost of the goods purchased but many do not even realize it.  This has been one of the most successful funding mechanisms in the history of wildlife conservation and its genesis is with outdoors men and women. 

    Wildlife agencies rely on the funding from Pittman-Robertson to fund a significant amount of their programs.  Without these funds it would be virtually impossible to do what they do without passing on that cost to hunters and anglers in massive increases in license and permit fees.  We have already seen this in the cost of non-resident fees across many states.  Imagine if as a resident you were paying the same amount as non-residents do.  People’s heads would explode.  This is why it is so important to protect the Pittman-Robertson Act.  I have not even mentioned the Dingle-Johnson Act, which is the same thing but on the angling side of the equation.  I will do a post about that one in the future.  

    This leads me to the discussion on the idea behind the need for a “backpack tax” in the modern wildlife conservation system.  What most who talk about the need for this new tax refer to is mirroring the Pittman-Robertson funding via excise tax with the non-hunting part of the outdoor community.  What this might look like is an excise tax on everything you buy at REI, as just one example.  This would provide dedicated funding to both federal and state agencies responsible for managing outdoor recreation programs.  

    According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis data shows that outdoor recreation accounted for 1.8 percent of the gross domestic product in 2020.  That is roughly $374.3 billion that went into the economy from this one sector of the overall economy.  In fact, data suggests that the outdoor recreation economy out performs many of the other sectors of the economy.  Much of the outdoor recreation economy supports small communities throughout the country and spans multiple industries providing close to 5 million jobs.  These data sets are readily available via cursory searches on the internet.  Just be sure to go with trusted and reliable sources.  

    States across the country are recognizing how important outdoor recreation is to their economies.  To date 16 states have created offices of outdoor recreation in some manner.   Funding these types of organizations is not easy, just ask the state wildlife management agencies.  Imagine what could be done if every state had an outdoor recreation agency with dedicated funding from something similar to the Pittman-Robertson Act.  I would like to think it would be monumental and the impact to the states would be massive.  

    There are a lot of arguments against this idea and there are many in the outdoor recreation space that would be subject to this tax that push back against it.  However, I am more in the camp of those who think it is high time they get in the arena and help fund conservation in the same manner the “hook and bullet” crowd has done for 85 years.  I do not pretend to know what the best way to go about this would be but I do know that something is needed.  The name of the game needs to be wildlife conservation.  We are seeing declining populations across the country and one of the most significant factors is habitat lose.  If there was another mechanism in place to provide funding from the greater outdoor communities it would be significant.  

     There are a lot of programs out there to assist with conservation efforts.  Many NGOs receive money from industries in the outdoor recreation space.  However, many of the same industries that currently are subject to the Pittman-Robertson excise tax do the same.  If we want to get serious about conservation, we need to get serious about how we are going to fund it.  It is not cheap to do carry out the projects that are required.  Just look at what has gone into the Great American Outdoors Act, Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, and others.  These things need to be funded somehow.  What better way than for those that are directly affiliated with these activities to do so.

My hope is that this spurs some critical thinking out there with those that take the time to read this through.  We could use some more critical thinking and thought experimentation out there that works towards more positive goals these days.