I responded to her by suggesting that since she and I did not share the same interests, would she be interested in being interviewed. I promised her that I would present her responses to my questions even if they where totally different from my own point of view. I sent her four sample questions to consider. I figured that a different point of view would be of interest and that, particularly at this time of year when hunting dominates my time and thought process, a mix of subject matter would also help.

She agreed to meet to be interviewed, but unfortunately, thus far we have been unable to get together.  She and her husband seem to have a full schedule as do I. So, I am going to take the liberty of picking some of the responses she gave me to my written questions to present some issues that I have an ongoing interest in and pertain to all of us.

Two questions I asked her (all by e-mail) were “Do you know what the Pittman Robinson Acts are and how it benefits the non-hunting outdoors person?” and secondly, “Do you take advantage of the Adirondack State Park and do you know where the funds come from to purchase additional lands?” Her response was that she had never heard of the Pittman Robinson Act and that because she lived in a rural area, the outdoor activity she and her friends took part in was usually on their own lands. Fair enough!

However, for those of us who do take advantage of the vast and beautiful public lands that we are so fortunate to be surrounded by and especially to those who are anti-hunting or anti-gun and anti-any person who participates in hunting with a gun, a little information about the 1937- enacted Pittman Robinson Act would be helpful in balancing if not changing your point of view.

Recently, in an edition of “New York Outdoor News”, Patrick Durkin wrote an article within which he provided some great information which I will paraphrase for your enlightenment. I have known for years that Pittman Robinson imposed an 11 percent, that’s 11 percent, excise tax on all hunting-related equipment and that these monies went back to the states for the purchase and restoration of wildlife lands. Patrick took this abstract number to a new meaning by providing some real numbers. I will repeat only two paragraphs of his article to make my point.

“In 2007 alone, hunters contributed $267 million in federal excise taxes for wildlife restoration and maintenance by state agencies.  Since 1937, those same taxes have raised more than $5.3 billion for the cause, with another $1.3 billion contributed through state matches.

And since 1934 sales of federal duck stamps to hunters and other conservationists have raised more than $700 million to acquire more that 5.2 million acres of habitat for our National Wildlife Refuse System”

To all of you anti’s, I’d like to ask a favor of you. At the bottom of this article, you will find my email address. I invite you to please contact me if you can find a sign anywhere in New York or, for that matter, anywhere in the United States, that says “these lands where purchased with Pittman Robinson excise tax dollars and are for the use of hunters only” or “these wetlands were restored with Duck Stamp funds, if you don’t hunt, take your boat somewhere else”. Please, I implore you, please show me that sign or any other that is even similar to it. 

I do not expect or suggest that hunters should have any special rights or privileges to these lands other than to be permitted to hunt on them during prescribed seasons.  Nor do I expect or will I accept being treated or looked upon as some sort of low life sub human because I do choose to hunt and carry a gun. What I do promise and pledge is that I will treat anyone who uses these lands with courtesy and respect. What I expect is the same in return. If I’m carrying a gun, the burden of safety is upon me. If you differ from my point of view, the burden of understanding and tolerence is upon you!

See you outdoors!