Federal dollars belonging to sportsmen eyed for budget
TribLIVE Sports Videos
You've heard of the fiscal cliff by now, and of the attempts to balance the federal budget.
But did you know it might get done on the back of sportsmen?
Congress at the 11th hour agreed to raise taxes and cut spending to avert a crisis, but only for the short term. Unless it acts to make things otherwise within two months or so, the government will “sequester” money paid into a variety of programs, including the so-called Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs. Those are tax dollars paid by sportsmen on hunting, shooting, and fishing-related equipment.
Sportsmen long ago lobbied for those taxes to be created, with the caveat that the money cannot be spent on anything but programs benefitting hunting and fishing. The pot adds up to about $31 million annually for hunting and $34 million annually for fishing.
Sequestering those dollars means the government would put them aside so that, on paper, it seemed as if it had money to cover its debts. It couldn't spend the money on anything but fish and wildlife, says the law.
But some worry that could change. Bill Horn, of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance — one of many national groups calling for sportsmen to contact their Congressmen — wrote in a blog that the government could keep setting aside the money for years on end. The “great worry,” he said, is that when the unspent amounts total $100 million or more, the federal budget office will try to take it to prop up other federal programs.
“If they try, they will meet us in federal court arguing that redirecting our tax dollars violates the law,” he wrote.
That's down the road a bit, though. The immediate impact of sequestration would be that state fish and wildlife agencies would lose money they count on, and programs and services sportsmen expect would go by the wayside, said John Arway, executive director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.
“It could have a large fiscal impact, especially with the other fiscal challenges we're facing right now,” he said. “We would have to adjust for that by either coming up with money from elsewhere or cutting programs.”
“The losers will be the hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation oriented public and the fish and wildlife. The federal budget deficit will not be reduced but our enhancement, protection and enjoyment of our natural resources will be,” said Len Lichvar, a Fish and Boat commissioner from Somerset, in an op-ed piece he wrote.
Arway said he hopes the funds will be released on time and as usual. If not, trouble looms.
“Right now, we don't know how we would accommodate that kind of withholding,” he said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.