Indeed, every firearm and bullet produced or imported into the United States is subject to an excise tax dedicated to the conservation and restoration of wildlife. In 1998, these taxes generated approximately US$247 million in inflation-adjusted allocations to federal state fish and wildlife agencies. US Fish and Wildlife Service, which collects and manages these funds. In 2018, these revenues had more than tripled for $829 million.

These taxes on arms and ammunition sales represent a growing share of the budgets of national fishing and game agencies. But as scholars of environmental policy, conservation and wildlife management, we have found that the growth in conservation funding driven by the explosion in arms sales presents at least three critical moral and ethical issues.

First, the original argument for using gun taxes to fund conservation was that most gun users were hunters who used land and wildlife and should help support these resources. But our research shows that the use of firearms is less and less linked to hunting.

Second, the recent surge in gun sales is related to violence and social unrest. Even though most gun owners never commit a crime, this means that overall, conservation benefits from social conflict and gun-related harm.

Finally, recent changes to the law allow for the use of firearm excise taxes to support activities with little or no connection to hunting, wildlife, or outdoor recreation.

A marriage of arms and conservation

By the end of the 19th century, many wildlife species in the United States were threatened by overhunting and unregulated markets for wild game products. Companies used buffalo bone make “soft porcelain” and bird plumage for decorating hats. Many species have been driven to the brink of extinction. Some, like the passenger pigeon, were completely exterminated.

In an effort to restore game populations for sport hunters, federal and state governments have created fish and wildlife agencies. But these offices were often underfunded.

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, commonly referred to as the Pittman–Robertson law, increased funding for conservation by redirecting an existing excise tax on firearms to a fund dedicated to wildlife management. Over time, the law expanded to include the excise taxes manufacturers pay today on long guns, handguns, ammunition, and archery equipment. To access these funds, states must use hunting license fees exclusively to support fish and wildlife agencies.

Pittman-Robertson funds make up a large portion of national fish and wildlife agency budgets. In 2018, for example, we estimate that about 25% of Ohio Wildlife Division’s $62 million credit came from excise taxes generated by Pittman-Robertson. In Massachusetts, the number was 43%.

Fewer hunters, more gun sales

The idea behind Pittman-Robertson was quite simple: taxes on hunting supplies should support agencies that manage wildlife. This idea persists today. Weapon manufacturers and fishing and game agencies regularly celebrate the financial contributions of hunters to preservation.

Since the early 2000s, however, gun and ammunition sales have begun to disconnect from hunting. Nationally, the number of hunters has fallen from a peak of 17 million in 1982 to 11.5 million in 2016. By way of comparison, in the same year Gallup estimated that approximately 93 million Americans owned guns.

These figures suggest that only 1 in 8 gun owners hunted in 2016. This trend echoes a 2015 analysis by Southwick Associates, a consultancy that works closely with the firearms industry, which found that 80% of gun sales in 2015 were for non-hunting activities such as sport shooting, weapons collection and self-defense.

Other outdoor recreational activities are developing. Bird watching, hiking and backpacking are some of the fastest growing outdoor recreational activities. Bird watching increased by 232% from 1983 to 2001. Unlike hunting and fishing, there is no federal requirement for people who engage in these activities to contribute to conservation.

Profiting from social violence

Although most guns sold in the United States are not involved in violent crimes, Pittman-Robertson does not distinguish between firearms and ammunition used for hunting and sport shooting and those used for harm people. The guns and bullets involved in more than 45,000 gun-related deaths in 2020 generated excise taxes used to fund wildlife conservation. This means that the protection of public lands and wildlife is irrevocably linked to social violence. This is also why some commentators fear that gun regulations could harm conservation efforts.

Data also shows that gun sales are driven by fear of violence and social unrest. Arms sales have increased following mass shootings and protests for racial justice and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in the past two years some African Americans and Asian Americans have purchased their first guns from fears of a rise in anti-black and anti-Asian violence.

Wildlife conservation benefits from the fear, racism and sustained social conflict that drives gun sales. This raises a moral question: is this the right way to fund conservation?

Promote the use of firearms other than hunting

As gun sales increase, the gun industry has pushed to use Pittman-Robertson funds to support the use of firearms other than hunting. Arms manufacturers and sports groups approved a set of reforms to Pittman-Robertson that became law in 2020. These changes allow state and federal agencies to use Pittman-Robertson funds to promote recreational shooting and purchase land for shooting ranges.

Some organizations fear that these changes redirect wildlife restoration funding to target practice and marksmanship. But hunting and shooting organizations say the new rules will generate more money for conservation activities. As a former president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies stated in a recent interview:The goal is to improve and build more shooting ranges, that’s where the money comes from.”

New sources of conservation funding

Other groups have proposed ways to make wildlife conservation less dependent on guns.

An idea of ​​some backcountry hunters and Forest Service Employees is to create a “backpack tax» on equipment used for outdoor activities such as hiking and bird watching. The outdoor industry has opposed these proposalsarguing that it is impossible to discern the actual use of outdoor products and that such taxes can create more barriers for low-income people who want to participate in outdoor activities.

Another proposal — this one embraced by the outdoor industry — says Congress should leverage existing funds from other sources to support conservation. Moving away from funds generated by hunters could also give public bodies greater freedom to undertake projects for species other than popular game like deer and elk, which often are central to state conservation policies.

This idea enjoys bipartisan support and is progressing in Congress as part of the Recover US Wildlife Act. This bill would direct $1.3 billion from the Treasury to the Pittman-Robertson account, with a portion dedicated to the recovery of endangered species.

As long as hunting is part of the American model of wildlife management, firearms will be closely tied to conservation. In our view, however, proposals to change funding sources could help address the moral concerns that arise from this relationship and could create opportunities for more effective conservation.

[Get fascinating science, health and technology news. Sign up for The Conversation’s weekly science newsletter.]

This article is republished from The conversation under Creative Commons license. Read it original article.