The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act

October 12, 2022
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-
The Multistate Conservation Grant Program provides for
Robertson; 16 U.S.C. §§669 et seq.), initially enacted in
two types of grants. The first authorizes grants for
1937 as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (50
multistate conservation projects. Such projects must benefit
Stat. 917), provides funding for states and territories to
(1) more than half of the 50 states; (2) a majority of the
support wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter
states in an FWS region; or (3) a regional association of
education and safety programs. Funding for Pittman-
state fish and game departments. These grants are available
Robertson programs comes from federal excise taxes on
to (1) states; (2) groups of states; or (3) nongovernment
firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. All 50 states
organizations (subject to certain conditions). The funds also
and the five major, permanently inhabited U.S. territories
may be used by FWS, states, or groups of states to carry out
receive Pittman-Robertson funds. In general, neither tribes
the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
nor the District of Columbia receives funding through
Associated Recreation. In 2019, Congress authorized a
Pittman-Robertson programs.
second multistate grant program that provides grants
exclusively for promoting a national hunting and shooting
Pittman-Robertson Programs
sport recruitment program, including related
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the
communication and outreach (P.L. 116-94). Hunter and
Department of the Interior (DOI), administers Pittman-
recreational shooter recruitment grants are administered in a
Robertson. FWS apportions funds to states and territories
similar manner to the traditional Multistate Conservation
through three formula-based programs: the Wildlife
Grants. Neither grant program includes a matching
Restoration Program (Section 4(b)), Basic Hunter
requirement.
Education and Safety Program (Sections 4(c) and 8(b)), and
Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Program (Section
Pittman-Robertson Fund Apportionment
10). FWS also allocates funding for a Multistate
Receipts from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and
Conservation Grant Program (Section 11) and for general
archery equipment are deposited into the Federal Aid to
program administration (Section 4(a)). To be eligible for
Wildlife Restoration Fund (also known as the Wildlife
Pittman-Robertson funding, the law requires states to have
Restoration Trust Fund) in the U.S. Treasury. Monies from
enacted laws ensuring all hunting license fees collected by a
the fund are made available for FWS in the fiscal year
state are directed solely toward the administration of the
following their collection without any further action by
state wildlife agency (16 U.S.C. §669).
Congress (i.e., these are considered mandatory funds).
The Wildlife Restoration Program provides funds to state
Figure 1. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
fish and wildlife agencies to restore, conserve, manage, and
Revenue and Apportionment Structure
enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitats. States
must submit to FWS proposed wildlife-restoration projects
or comprehensive fish and wildlife resource management
plans to receive funds under this program. Among other
purposes, the funds may be used to provide public access to
wildlife resources; to acquire, restore, and manage wildlife
areas; to conduct research on managing wildlife and its
habitat; to facilitate public access for hunting or other
wildlife-oriented recreation; and to maintain completed
wildlife-restoration projects. Federal funds may be used for
up to 75% of costs of implementing projects.
The Basic Hunter Education and Safety Program funds may
be used for teaching responsible hunting skills; acquiring
property for public firearm and archery ranges;
constructing, operating, or maintaining such ranges for

public use; and recruiting hunters and recreational shooters.
Source: CRS with information from 16 U.S.C. §§669 et seq.
The Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Program grants
may be used to enhance hunter education, development, and
Each fiscal year, FWS allocates half of the amount of
safety activities and to construct or maintain public target
funding derived from taxes on pistols, revolvers, and
ranges. The federal cost share for both programs is
archery equipment (but not other firearms and ammunition)
generally 75%, though the federal cost share for public
for apportionment pursuant to Section 4(c) for the Basic
target range projects may be up to 90%.
Hunter Education and Safety Program. FWS also allocates
specific amounts of funding for the Enhanced Hunter
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 1 The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
Education and Safety Program ($8 million) and Multistate
funding for states, territories, tribes, and the District of
Conservation Grant Program ($3 million for traditional
Columbia to support wildlife restoration, law enforcement
grants and $5 million for hunter and recreational shooter
activities, and educational programs related to recovering
recruitment grants). The amount set aside for program
at-risk species. This funding would be in addition to
administration in a given year is determined by the amount
existing funds. Both bills would provide mandatory funding
set aside in the preceding year, adjusted for inflation. The
to the Wildlife Restoration and Conservation Account from
remaining funds from taxes on pistols, revolvers, and
the general fund of the Treasury, with the amounts
archery equipment, as well as funds from taxes on firearms
increasing from $850 million for the first year to
(other than pistols and revolvers) and ammunition, is
$1.3 billion by the fourth year and for each year thereafter.
available for apportionment for the Wildlife Restoration
Additional mandatory funding for various purposes would
Program (see Figure 1).
be deposited in a new Tribal Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account and a new Endangered Species
Funds for three of these programs—Wildlife Restoration,
Recovery and Habitat Conservation Legacy Fund. In
Basic Hunter Education and Safety, and Enhanced Hunter
deliberating these bills, Congress is considering whether
Education and Safety—are disbursed directly to states
this funding should be mandatory or discretionary; be offset
based on two apportionment formulas: one for Wildlife
by existing revenues from certain taxes, royalties, or
Restoration and one for both Hunter Education and Safety
penalties and fines; or require additional oversight beyond
programs. The formulas take into account a state’s acreage,
what is directed in existing law.
number of hunting licenses sold, and population. Territories
are apportioned a set percentage of the funds for each of
Proponents of the bills assert that supplemental funding is
these programs. As discussed, neither tribes nor the District
necessary to meet critical species recovery needs. For
of Columbia receives funding through these programs.
example, some stakeholders indicate that state wildlife
FWS selects projects for Multistate Conservation Grants
conservation strategies are underfunded, leaving more than
from a priority list of projects compiled by a committee of
12,000 species at risk for listing under the Endangered
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies comprising
Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). Other
state fish and game department heads. For more
stakeholders suggest that Congress consider options other
information on apportionment of Pittman-Robertson
than additional funding to address species conservation
funding, see CRS Report R45667, Pittman-Robertson
issues. Specifically, some Members suggest that Congress
Wildlife Restoration Act: Understanding Apportionments
amend the ESA to incentivize private landowners to help
for States and Territories, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
recover endangered or listed species. Others raise concerns
on the broader budgetary impacts of the bills.
Wildlife Restoration and Conservation Account
In 2000, Congress amended Pittman-Robertson to add a
Congress also may consider how funds under Pittman-
subaccount, called the Wildlife Restoration and
Robertson are spent and, specifically, whether to limit
Conservation Account, within the Federal Aid to Wildlife
funding to conservation-specific activities. Some
Restoration Fund to provide supplemental funding for
stakeholders who support such a limit assert that funding
wildlife restoration and conservation (P.L. 106-553). In the
authorized for public target ranges or shooter recruitment
same law, Congress appropriated $50 million to the
and outreach is not directly linked to conservation. Other
subaccount for FY2001. Congress has not appropriated
stakeholders counter this viewpoint, asserting that such
funding to this subaccount since FY2001.
activities increase the popularity of sport shooting and
hunting, which in turn brings additional revenue for wildlife
Funds from the subaccount may be used “for the
restoration and conservation purposes. In addition, they
development, revision, and implementation of wildlife
contend that an increase in hunters means more supporters
conservation and restoration plans and programs” (16
of conservation efforts due to hunters’ inherent interest in
U.S.C. §669b(c)(1)). A state’s wildlife conservation and
maintaining healthy wildlife populations.
restoration program must address unmet needs for wildlife
habitats, wildlife conservation, wildlife conservation
Congress may consider whether to adjust federal excise
education, and wildlife-associated recreation projects. The
taxes on firearms, ammunition, or archery equipment. Any
act directs that priority for subaccount funds should be
such alteration would impact the source of funding for
given to “species with the greatest conservation need,” as
Pittman-Robertson programs. Stakeholders in favor of
determined by the state program, and specifies that this
reducing excise taxes contend that such taxes infringe on
includes species that are not hunted or fished (16 U.S.C.
Second Amendment rights to bear arms. Other stakeholders
§669b(c)(3)). Subaccount funds may be used for up to 75%
assert that any reduction or elimination of such taxes could
of the cost of developing and implementing the program.
essentially limit or repeal Pittman-Robertson programs.
Unlike the other programs funded by Pittman-Robertson,
Congress may consider alternative sources of revenue for
the District of Columbia is eligible to receive funding under
the program if excise taxes are reduced or eliminated.
this account (though tribes are not eligible).
Issues for Congress
Erin H. Ward, Legislative Attorney
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Congress is considering whether to modify funding for
Mark K. DeSantis, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
activities authorized under Pittman-Robertson. For
example, H.R. 2773 and S. 2372 in the 117th Congress
IF12229
would amend Pittman-Robertson to provide supplemental
https://crsreports.congress.gov

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12229 · VERSION 1 · NEW