The Pittman Robertson Act: a steady source of wildlife funding for the states

It doesn’t take much digging into the topic of wildlife conservation before coming across something called the Pittman Robertson Act, a 1937 law named after Senator Key Pittman (Nevada) and Rep. Absalom Willis Robertson (Virginia). 

It’s very relevant today because Pittman-Robertson is the key source of money for saving and recovering wildlife across the country. Here’s a short primer: 

Wildlife and habitat conservation requires money

The Pittman Robertson Act, officially the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, has sent tens of billions of dollars to the states for wildlife programs (as much as $1.5 billion in a single year). But more than just the money, the Act is viewed as a model because of the cooperation it fosters between federal and state governments, and between agencies and hunters and conservationists.

The Act has funded the restoration, conservation and management of wildlife and their habitats in every state.

Source of the funding 

The Pittman Robertson Act generates funds through an  11% (sometimes 10%) excise tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. 

How much does each state get? 

The money is distributed to state wildlife agencies based on a formula that includes the land area of each state and the number of paid hunting license holders in each state.

States have skin in the game, too

To receive their allotment of federal funds, states must contribute matching funds. The formula is 75% from the feds with the remaining 25% coming from states. 

Use of the funding

The money can be used for a variety of wildlife-related purposes, including the acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitats, research, management programs, and the construction and maintenance of facilities for the public. 

A tendency to fund game species 

Because the source of the funding comes from a tax on guns, ammunition and bows, the money is generally used to protect game species. There’s both a logic to this (hunters provide the money, and thus states protect game species) and for some, a criticism (other species may need conservation assistance as much or more than game species). 

A solution moving forward 

In the big picture, who can argue with tens of billions for wildlife conservation. The Pittman Robertson Act has worked. But as to this concern that the money tends to support game species, we offer a simple solution. Congress should pass the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, which would send more than $1 billion per year to the states for wildlife conservation, irrespective of whether the animal in need is an elk or an elktoe (a mollusk, pictured above).