PIttman-Robertson funds usage in Mass

[ddeck]

Hello,

I am looking for more detailed information on Pittman-Robertson funds usage in Mass. Before I contact the Mass Fish and Wildlife people, does anyone know where to find a list? I can only see an apportionment of funds from the 2019 FY here (latest I could find):

https://www.mass.gov/doc/2019-masswildlife-annual-report/download

Page 156 indicates they took in about $7.7 million from the tax in 2019.

But it makes no reference to the specific projects.

I can see that the number has ballooned in 2022 due to the sales of firearms and ammunition:

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/WR%20FY22%20Certificate%20of%20Final%20Apportionment%202022Feb3_508.pdf

I imagine it is being used for general purposes (of which General and Administrative makes up 40% of the total expenses) , but I want to get see if they actually have a breakdown of projects.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

It gets rolled into line item 2310-0200, without further differentiation. The Act doesn't require reporting on specific projects:

https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2022/FinalBudget

While the amount raised has gone up, remember that Massachusetts only gets a minimum 0.5% allocation because it sells comparatively few hunting and fishing licenses.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It gets rolled into line item 2310-0200, without further differentiation. The Act doesn't require reporting on specific projects:

https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2022/FinalBudget

While the amount raised has gone up, remember that Massachusetts only gets a minimum 0.5% allocation because it sells comparatively few hunting and fishing licenses.

And towns regularly buy property with Pittman-Robertson funds and then close off access to hunting on said properties. When asked directly if such funds were used to buy the properties, town officials answer is "we don't know"! I know this because I asked that question of our town officials when I lived in MA!

 

[whacko]

And towns regularly buy property with Pittman-Robertson funds and then close off access to hunting on said properties. When asked directly if such funds were used to buy the properties, town officials answer is "we don't know"! I know this because I asked that question of our town officials when I lived in MA!

It's my understanding that the funds only need to go into conservation.......there is no regulation that the funds need to directly support hunting.

 

[vicorjh]

And towns regularly buy property with Pittman-Robertson funds and then close off access to hunting on said properties. When asked directly if such funds were used to buy the properties, town officials answer is "we don't know"! I know this because I asked that question of our town officials when I lived in MA!

I've run into this but more along the lines of general recreational fields and parks as some towns restrict non-residents ability to utilize the facilities. Mostly around team sports / pick-up games and such.

The state has it set-up such that federal fund usage is very difficult to track since it ends-up commingled with other funds. We've had conversations with park and rec departments that say things like ... sorry, no federal funds were utilized and we will not provide you with such accounting ... you are not a resident and we make the rules ... though, if you were to make a sufficient donation to the town we'd probably look the other way (Waltham, Newton, et al).

 

[Len-2A Training]

It's my understanding that the funds only need to go into conservation.......there is no regulation that the funds need to directly support hunting.

And it has been my understanding that such land comes with a "restriction" that a city/town can NOT ban hunting. I was told this by a very seasoned financial director of the town (and a prior town barely North of Boston) many years ago.

 

[ddeck]

The Community Preservation Act apparently has more stringent requirements (luckily my town did not vote for the surcharge) since I can see lists of the projects on which those funds are used. They are mostly BS now as they can be used for pretty much anything recreational or history related.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

It's my understanding that the funds only need to go into conservation.......there is no regulation that the funds need to directly support hunting.

Specifically wildlife conservation:

16 U.S. Code § 669 - Cooperation of Secretary of the Interior with States; conditions

www.law.cornell.edu

Towns don’t get those funds unless Fish and Game grants it to them.

 

[Mark from MA]

Specifically wildlife conservation:

16 U.S. Code § 669 - Cooperation of Secretary of the Interior with States; conditions

www.law.cornell.edu

Towns don’t get those funds unless Fish and Game grants it to them.

While I believe they have to go to Fish and Game a few Govenors (Romney) tried to divert to the general fund and got slapped because they didn't understand they would lose the money.

As far as how its spent? Would love to see a breakdown. Im very sure like Len and Whacko say, that the money is diverted to buy lands and close them to hunting....calling it "wildlife conservation". Which is bullshit.

There are other states that use them in better ways I've seen lots of state game land plantings for wildlife, and gun ranges on state game lands. Like PA. But I know PA probably gets a lot of money from Pittman Rob because the license sales are high.

 

[smokey-seven]

The state has it set-up such that federal fund usage is very difficult to track since it ends-up commingled with other funds.

If lands in MA are purchased or taken in the name of the State of MA, they become immediately huntable / fishable under state law.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I'm not a jiggalo, but I'm pretty proud of my Dingle-Johnson money.

Isn't it true that it's not just GIVEN to the states - it has to be $1 for $1 of funds they raise via permit fees and such? (Which is why I always find it funny when people bitch about the first license fee increases in 25 years in mASS this past year. I'm thinking - well, they're actually using some of the $. Maybe some of it will be for good. Or at least hiring officers to bag the over-limit turds on the Canal.)

So a big increase is likely because of an increase in permits in 2020/21 due to Covid AND the increased costs when that hits the bottom line in 2022.

And yeah, if you co-mingle your PRDJ $, you get b-slapped by the Federales. They don't screw around. They'll cut your funding off in a heartbeat. PRDJ is one of the few successful programs out there.

And before someone gets on their high horse - yes all shooters and fisher peeps are funding ALL of the conservation efforts in the US. Even if you don't use it. The alternative - giving a seat at the table to the bunny-huggers. For my money - the bunny-huggers can go sit over there and STFU.

 

[steveg241]

Mass maxes out all Pittman-Robertson money from all sources except from hunting licenses. National average is 5% of residents are hunters and 4% gets you max P-R money. Mass is at 0.7%. We need more people involved to really take advantage of available funds.