Non-hunters wearing orange

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by matty70

Some more than others ever hear of Pittman-Robertson Act? End users contibute in boat ramp fees and boat rentals and day use of the pool and State and Fed income taxes pay for a little, but the bulk of the finances comes from sportsmen!

yes, i have heard of the Pittman-Robertson Act. however, i would bet the majority of guns and ammo bought in this country are not for hunting. so, i'm not sure it really applies to this discussion the way you are implying it does. how much of the revenue generated by Pittman-Robertson actually come from hunters?

more generally, i have been trying to find a budget or something that shows a breakdown of the the PA DCNR's revenue sources, but have not been able to find one. do you know where such info can be found, by any chance?

Just saying that there is plenty of room for all but for their safety as they are not wearing orange and everyone's enjoyment. I'm not saying they should stay out of state parks-just out of the hunting zones, as the boat ramps, waterfront, horse trails, frisbee golf, bike trails, hiking paths, picnic areas, and pools are not within the hunting zones and therefore they have no reason to be in the zones. We cannot hunt in "their" areas, and they should not be allowed to recreate in "ours".

i don't use any of that stuff with the exception of hiking trails from time to time. i go out of my way to avoid that stuff. for me, the whole point of going out in the woods is to avoid people and man made "stuff"--including trails.

so, i often end up in "hunting zones"...heck most state forests (i don't spend much time in state parks, personally...they tend to be too developed for my tastes and they do not allow primitive camping) are nearly entirely a hunting zone.

and, even if pittman-robertson taxes are the major funding source for state forests (i don't think it is, but it might be), i pay just as much or more of those taxes as a typical hunter as i buy more guns and, especially, buy a ton more ammo per year than the typical hunter.

Often they seek out the hunting zones to deliberately disturb the hunters and the game in hopes to display their anti-hunting agenda. I've been there! Once while hunting small game a group of people thought it was OK to start playing football in the middle of a meadow where hunters had been hunting since the ass-crack of dawn! Its bullshit!

they may well not have even realized what they were doing. if they did, though, i agree it was bullshit. they should have been more courteous since there were already people hunting there and gone elsewhere.

but, thinking you have exclusive rights to that meadow (assuming it was not on state game lands) for hunting is also bullshit.

If they don't like playing nice with the hunters and respecting our rights then there is always Valley Forge, Nolde Forrest and plenty of county parks for non-hunters to enjoy.

yeah, orienteering/backpacking/etc. in county parks is exactly the same experience as doing so in state forests or national forests...not even close.

(Not ranting on you but ,They can't say what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine!!! It simply disgusts me!)

you are the one saying that, though.

you are saying "what's mine (SGLs) is mine, and what's ours (SFs) is exclusively mine."

(btw, i do wear orange when in the woods during hunting season. but if you think i am going to avoid off trail areas of state forests during hunting season just so you can have the state forest to yourself, you might as well forget it.)


and, since you brought up pittman-robertson...how much of SGLs are funded from that? if it is much, then maybe SGLs should not be limited to hunters after all...since much of the pittman-robertson revenue comes from non-hunters.

[matty70]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

yes, i have heard of the Pittman-Robertson Act. however, i would bet the majority of guns and ammo bought in this country are not for hunting. so, i'm not sure it really applies to this discussion the way you are implying it does. how much of the revenue generated by Pittman-Robertson actually come from hunters?

more generally, i have been trying to find a budget or something that shows a breakdown of the the PA DCNR's revenue sources, but have not been able to find one. do you know where such info can be found, by any chance?



i don't use any of that stuff with the exception of hiking trails from time to time. i go out of my way to avoid that stuff. for me, the whole point of going out in the woods is to avoid people and man made "stuff"--including trails.

so, i often end up in "hunting zones"...heck most state forests (i don't spend much time in state parks, personally...they tend to be too developed for my tastes and they do not allow primitive camping) are nearly entirely a hunting zone.

and, even if pittman-robertson taxes are the major funding source for state forests (i don't think it is, but it might be), i pay just as much or more of those taxes as a typical hunter as i buy more guns and, especially, buy a ton more ammo per year than the typical hunter.



they may well not have even realized what they were doing. if they did, though, i agree it was bullshit. they should have been more courteous since there were already people hunting there and gone elsewhere.

but, thinking you have exclusive rights to that meadow (assuming it was not on state game lands) for hunting is also bullshit.



yeah, orienteering/backpacking/etc. in county parks is exactly the same experience as doing so in state forests or national forests...not even close.



you are the one saying that, though.

you are saying "what's mine (SGLs) is mine, and what's ours (SFs) is exclusively mine."

(btw, i do wear orange when in the woods during hunting season. but if you think i am going to avoid off trail areas of state forests during hunting season just so you can have the state forest to yourself, you might as well forget it.)


and, since you brought up pittman-robertson...how much of SGLs are funded from that? if it is much, then maybe SGLs should not be limited to hunters after all...since much of the pittman-robertson revenue comes from non-hunters.

You make some good points and some incorrect acussations but lets get back to the tax. I believe that this tax is only applied to sporting arms, So I supose your .223 ammo qualifies as do your shot guns and probably most of your rifles and some revolvers but your 9mm, .40 .45 ammo and the pistols that go with them , AKs ARs and SKSs, C&Rs etc I don't believe are subject to this tax and therefore wouldn't be contributing to the developement of these areas. I don't have all the answers but in the few minutes I had to do alittle reasearch revealed a very "dated" document.
http://www.fws.gov/news/historic/1963/19630110.pdf I don't know what the current numbers are, but the money is collected as Federal tax, from the manufacturers and is distributed to the state based on the number of licensed sportsmen with in the state. It re-imburses the state up to 75% of the cost to develope hunting/fishing areas and other projects that benefit fish and wildlife restoration projects. It is not a dollar for dollar amount of what is spent by sportsmen in a particular state. Anyhow I feel we are getting off topic from the OP and are starting to hijack-I'd be happy to pick this up with you in email. mattyoung369@hotmail.com

[WCO,R.W.J]

Excise tax (Pittman Robertson) funds are sent back to the states. The money is divided up by land mass and the number of license buyers in the state. It can only be used for certian projects.

Here is a link to the Pittman Robertson act, law.

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd16usc669.htm