VERMONT PITTMAN-ROBERTSON FUNDING DEFENSE
Background
Vermont authorized a moose hunting season and used funds provided by the federal Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program to manage the hunt. Under the Pittman-Robertson Act, hunters pay federal excise taxes on all guns, ammunition, and bowhunting gear, and these taxes are deposited into a fund and then dispersed to all 50 states based on several variables for wildlife management and related activities. Anglers pay similar taxes under the Dingell-Johnson Act, which are deposited into a sportfish fund and also reallocated to the states.
Anti-hunters sued, claiming that Vermont had to prepare a federal environmental impact statement before the state could approve a moose hunt using federal Pittman-Robertson funds.
Impact to Hunters
Victory by the anti-hunters would have effectively federalized state wildlife agency decision-making whenever a state used any Pittman-Robertson or Dingell-Johnson dollars.
Verdict
The Sportsmen’s Alliance intervened to help prevent this usurpation of traditional state authority over fish and wildlife – Vermont and the Sportsmen’s Alliance ultimately prevailed.
MICHIGAN PITTMAN-ROBERTSON FUNDING DEFENSE
Background
Like in the Vermont moose case, the Sierra Club sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, alleging that certain projects relating to the management of Michigan’s public lands funded and monitored under the Pittman-Robertson Act were improperly and illegally approved. The Sierra Club believed that the case would set a national precedent, so it was aggressively involved and widely publicized its involvement.
Impact to Hunters
The Sportsmen’s Alliance filed briefs in support of the FWS and MDNR just as aggressively opposing the Sierra Club’s attempts to “federalize” state land management activities, illustrating the real-world implications of an adverse decision for sportsmen and women, and specifically refuting their contention that Environmental Assessments and/or Impact Studies are required for Pittman-Robertson funding approval.
Verdict
We achieved a successful outcome in this case, which was a strong win for the agencies and for sportsmen. The court’s decision made it clear that Sportsmen’s Alliance’s involvement was important to the case, as we helped identify the relevant case law and focus the court’s analysis of the issues.
Help Us Fight for You
Your tax-deductible donation to the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund directly supports our legal fights in courtrooms nationwide. The Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund was established to represent sportsmen in lawsuits that affect your ability to hunt, fish, trap and own firearms. Its funding ensures the sportsman’s voice is heard above the rhetoric of anti-hunting groups.
Join the fight for your hunting and fishing future by donating to the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund today!
