Land managed under the Pittman-Robertson (P-R)

P-R funding funds generated by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, Commonly called the Pittman-Robertson Act, have been used to assist individual states in the purchase of substantial amounts of land to be held in PUBLIC trust for wildlife restoration.  in recent years, equestrians have advanced the argument that as these lands are a part of the PUBLIC trust, they should be available for other recreational uses,
Lands purchased with the assistance of P-R funds are managed by state wildlife agencies, and are typically referred to as game management areas or game lands. The agencies have traditionally denied request for a minimized recreational access to such lands accept for the purposes of hunting or activities judged to be closely related to hunting, such as field trails, hunting dog training, target shooting sports, and hunter safety training.

THE LAND PURCHASED IN THE PRC UNDER THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT IS LESS THAN  12 ACRES.  I THINK I CAN RIDE AROUND 12 ACRES DON'T YOU? 
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                   

 From a MASTER SPORTSMAN:

 Good luck finding the wording in the Pittman Robinson act, stating that horseback riding, snowmobiling and bicycling are unacceptable recreational activities. For there to be a violation of that act. It would have to be proven that Fish and game funds are used to support snowmobiling horseback riding and bicycling, which is not the case

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/s...sc669.htm#669i

There are other recreational federal programs that do hand out funding , but unfortunately, these types of recent DNR restrictions make them in ineligible for federal funding because of their take away of recreational activities.

 U.S. Department of the Interior

 .............................................................................................................................

 This is a post by trail rider from another forum
Folks, we all need to check, and verify all the claims, rationalizations and justifications that the DNR is using.
According their own PRCF Management Plan approximately 50% of the land purchased in the Pigeon River was from fish and game funds. The rest was tax reverted lands or purchased with other sources or exchanges. Besides, the use of these fish and game funds does not exclude other user groups.
Also, according to the DNR over 12,000 acres of land was purchased with Natural Trust Fund monies. The Natural Trust Fund gets it's money from profits taken off of public lands such as oil and gas leases. "Lease revenues and royalties from State owned land would be used for the purchase of new recreational lands for public use to provide enhanced recreational opportunities." Yet horse back riders and bike riders are prohibited from continued access of these lands (Green Timbers and Blue Lakes).
The federal Pittman-Robertson Act is also called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Title 16, Chapter 5 B, Section 669a To receive funds under the Act, a state must submit to the Federal Secretary of the Interior either a comprehension plan or a detailed project. Wildlife resource management plans "shall insure the perpetuation of (wildlife) resources for economic, scientific and recreational enrichment of the people. Such plans are to be based on the projections of desires and needs of the people." Section 669A Definitions (5) The term "wildlife-associated recreation" means projects intended to meet the demand for outdoor activities associated with wildlife including, but not limited to, hunting and fishing, wildlife observation and photography, such projects as construction or restoration of wildlife viewing areas, observation towers, blinds, platforms, land and water trails, water access, field trailing, trial head and access for such projects"
Did you catch the "not limited to hunting and fishing" part ? I believe that the outdoor activity that we engage in while camping and riding our horses in Pigeon River meets the "wildlife observation and photography on trails" intent. The federal law does not say or even imply that the State should limit or squelch the demand, but rather should be taking steps to "MEET the demands for outdoor activities."

Forcing riders out onto vehicle roads is very dangerous. It would only take one reckless driver and one very scared horse for a tragedy to occur. There are many miles of dirt barricaded or gated roads that are closed to traffic that would be safe to ride on and not endanger the environment. Yet the DNR has prohibited us from continuing to ride in safety. With recent new acquisitions the Pigeon River Forest is now over 118,000 acres. Surely, there is room for all user groups to safely enjoy this, OUR public lands.

Thank you Trail rider!

 What Does It Mean to Have Trails on Pittman-Robertson Funded Land?

 By Gene W. Wood

Land managed under Pittman-Robertson (P-R) funding offers some challenges to recreational horseback riders. Before getting specific about trails, it is necessary to understand P-R itself.

P-R Funding Funds generated by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 , commonly called the Pittman - Robertson Act (P-R), have been used to assist individual states in the purchase of substantial amounts of land to be held in public trust for wildlife restoration. In recent years, equestrians have advanced the argument that as these lands are a part of the public trust, they should be available for other recreational uses, particularly recreational trail horse use, in addition to recreational hunting and related sports.

Lands purchased with the assistance of P-R funds are managed by state wildlife agencies, and are typically referred to as game management areas or game lands. The agencies have traditionally denied requests for or minimized recreational access to such lands accept for the purposes of hunting or activities judged to be closely related to hunting, such as field trails, hunting dog training, target shooting sports, and hunter safety training. Over the last decade, the huge increase in demand for trail experiences of a wide variety have led to these denials being challenged in an array of venues that have ranged from the local offices of state wildlife agencies to the hearing rooms of state legislatures.

It often has been the case that equestrian trail users have stumbled into these sessions largely unprepared to make specific, factual arguments. Lands that have been purchased and managed with P-R funds matched with hunting license dollars or other monies generated within the state wildlife agency should be considered as legally designated for hunting and hunting allied recreation. Any other uses of these lands will almost have to be based on the generosity of the state wildlife agency and their hunter constituency.

However, all game management areas are not this tightly defined by purchase and management funding sources. Large amounts of game management area acreage in the nation are privately owned, usually by corporations. Those owners can dictate the terms of game management area leases. The state wildlife agency in consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service can then determine whether or not P-R funds can be legitimately spent for game management on such areas.

In addition, large amounts of federal lands and lands managed by state agencies other than the state wildlife agencies are often under game management area agreements. These areas are typically multiple-use lands, and it would be up to the state wildlife agency and their federal partners as to whether or not they could make legitimate use of P-R monies on such lands without removing their multiple-use potential. If the multiple-use potential on such lands is significantly reduced by a game management area agreement with a public agency, then that agreement should be reviewed.

The arguments over whether or not game management areas or game lands can or should be used for recreational activities such as equestrian trails will have to be made on a case by case basis. Each area is going to have a somewhat different history. The following questions should be asked. How did the land come to be held in public trust? Was some type of enabling legislation required, and if so, what was the nature of that legislation? And, what were the sources of monies for purchase and management? Where funds from the general treasury have been used, unless some legislation has specified single use for the land, equestrian trail users will have some basis for argument. However, to the extent that P-R funds are the predominant source of support, latitude to accommodate uses other than hunting and hunting related activities will be greatly reduced.

Fundamentals of P-R The fundamental facts regarding P-R are as follows: a) the clear purpose and intent of Congress was and continues to be provision of the individual states and U. S. territories with federal monies to assist in the restoration of wildlife and wildlife habitat; b) the monies can be spent only on a "wildlife-restoration project" (Section 2), shooting sports target ranges, and hunter safety training; c) P-R monies can not be used to pay for more than 75% of a federally approved state project; d) the remainder of the funding must come from state wildlife agency funds; e) agency funding may be generated from a number of sources including hunting license fees, state wildlife agency land resource utilization revenues (e.g., sales of timber, oil, or minerals), or state legislature appropriations from the state's general fund. Furthermore, that the Congress clearly intends for expenditures of these funds to focus on huntable wildlife is demonstrated by the importance of the number of hunting licenses sold in a state as a factor in the formula used to determine apportionment among the states.

In short, P-R funds are focused on the purpose of huntable wildlife restoration and the provision of safe recreational hunting and related sports. State agency monies used for matching funds that have come from the state general fund might offer a crack in the wall for non-hunting recreationists, but then only if the newly proposed recreational activities can be shown to not interfere with wildlife restoration efforts.

The Historical Context In the 1930s, natural resource conservation programs brought a psychological, as well as an economic uplift to an American citizenry that faced legendary poverty and natural resource destitution. The Roosevelt New Deal program was heavily weighted to ventures into natural resource restoration projects aimed at infusing federal money into the national economy by attempting to repair and restore degraded lands. Modern conservation historians argue about the real conservation successes of those programs, but in that time, the politicians, bureaucracies, and the general citizenry believed in the good of it all.

While federal conservation programs increased in number and size under the New Deal, state programs were less prosperous. This posed a substantial problem for wildlife conservation. Wildlife resources were the property of the people held in trust by their government. That trust was totally the responsibility of the individual state governments until 1900 when the Lacey Act gave the federal government law enforcement authority over the interstate transport of game taken in violation of state game laws, and the control over imported wild animals. The migratory bird treaties with Great Britain in 1916 and Mexico in 1918 gave the federal government ultimate authority over all migratory birds in the nation. The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 became the major source of funding for migratory waterfowl restoration.

While the restoration of resident wildlife remained the responsibility of the individual states, most state wildlife agencies were barely surviving in the 1930s. If the states were to continue with this responsibility, and if they were going to have anything left to be responsible for, they were going to have to have federal assistance. To facilitate that assistance there would have to be a statute that not only created a funding pipeline but that also created the funds that would flow through it.

The Legislation From the North American Wildlife Conferences in 1936 and 1937 emerged a proposal to place a federal excise tax on hunting arms and ammunition to raise funds that would be apportioned to the states for the purpose of wildlife restoration. Secretary of the Senate Committee on Wildlife Resources Bill Shoemaker drafted the bill. On to this stage stepped Senator Key Pittman (Nevada) and Congressman A. Willis Robertson (Virginia). They crafted legislation to raise such funds through a 10% federal excise tax. (This amount was raised to 11% in 1954.)

That Congress had in mind the restoration of "game" seems obvious based on the wording in Section 1 of the Act where it is required that a state expecting to qualify for P-R funds ".shall have passed laws for the conservation of wildlife which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said state fish and game department, ." With this wording, Congress clearly guaranteed that at least hunting license revenues would be available to provide matching funds for their apportionment of the P-R monies.

The Congress clearly defined the limits on P-R funds as usable for 75% of the cost of a "wildlife restoration project." Such project was defined in Section 2 of the Act as meaning:

".selection, restoration, rehabilitation, and improvement of areas of land or water adaptable as feeding, resting, or breeding places for wildlife, including acquisition .of such areas . as are suitable or capable of being made suitable therefor, and the construction thereon or therein of such works as may be

 Amendments that expanded the revenue potential and objectives for P-R funds included the following:

1970 -- Public Law 91-503 reallocated revenues derived from the 10% excise tax on pistols and revolvers from the general treasury to the Wildlife Restoration Fund. One half of these monies were to be used for the support of hunter safety programs and the construction of public target ranges. The rest was to go to wildlife restoration projects.

1972 -- Public Law 92-558 created an 11% excise tax on bows, arrows and their parts and accessories to be used as P-R funds. One-half of these monies were to be used for hunter education and the development of target ranges, while the other half went to the Wildlife Restoration Fund. (Actual initiation of this amendment was delayed until 1975.)

1989 -- Public Law 101-233 provided that those funds from interest-bearing accounts controlled by the Secretary of the Treasury and used to fund the North American Wetlands Conservation Act through 2005 be transferred to the Wildlife Restoration Fund beginning in 2006.

Eligibility for receipt of P-R funds is strictly limited to state fish and wildlife agencies. In addition, these agencies must present documentation that the appropriate fish and wildlife conservation laws are in place, and that the hunting license fees are protected from transfer from control by the state fish and wildlife agency. In addition, the state agency must present certified documentation of the number of hunting license buyers in the state.

Under Section 4, the Secretary of the Interior may retain up to 8% of total P-R revenues for the purpose of administration of the Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This responsibility is assigned to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State fish and wildlife agencies work with their respective U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional directors to obtain project approvals.

Funds are allotted for approved projects on a formula basis. The six territories of the United States may each receive one-sixth of 1% of the revenues collected from excise taxes on pistols, revolvers, bows, and arrows following the Secretary's deduction for administrative purposes. The remaining 91% is then apportioned among the states based on the percentage of the population of all the states taken collectively that is accounted for by a given state. No state may receive more than 3% and not less than 1% of these funds.

Revenues from excise taxes on sporting arms (rifles and shotguns) and ammunition are apportioned among the states after the Secretary's retention of up to 8%. The formula ranking is based 50% on the percentage of land area in the 50 states accounted for by a given state, and 50% on the percentage of all paid state hunting license holders in the 50 states accounted for by a given state. No state can receive more than 5% of the available funds and not less than 0.5%.

Levels of Funding P-R funding is highly important to the wildlife management and research efforts in every state. The annual amounts of P-R funds going to the states and territories

 range from $ 268,000 to $7,187,000 and average $2,750,000. Total funding to the states and territories since the first payments were made in 1939 is $4.14 billion. The approximate total of P-R funds apportioned to the states and territories for fiscal years 1996-2002 is $1.27 billion or about 31% of the 1939-2002 total. (For detailed information on funding by state and year see the web site http://federalaid.fws.gov.)

Recent Challenges In 1996, Earthlaw sued Colorado officials in federal court to prevent the expansion of a state prison on to lands purchased with P-R funds. The Court found that the expansion of the prison would do irreparable harm to wildlife that use the area as habitat. It also ruled that citizens may bring suit to stop state officials from the misuse of monies designated for wildlife conservation. (see Sportsman's Wildlife Defense Fund v. Interior, 1996 WL738948)

More recently, in 1999, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service came under attack in the Congress for alleged misuse of P-R funds. In hearings by the House Committee on Resources, Ms. Becky Norton Dunlop, a former Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the Department of the Interior, testified that in her opinion, the Fish and Wildlife Service was spending money in excess of that needed to support administration of the Act. Allegedly, the Service had spent administrative funds for purposes other than game species restoration. She called for the Congress to tighten the Act to specify its focus on huntable wildlife, and to reduce the administrative allotment from 8% to 3-4%. Testimony from a retired National Wildlife Refuge Manager echoed many of the same sentiments.

Amending P-R In American democracy, when the general populace believes that a statute does not fit the current situation in society, efforts are undertaken to either repeal or amend that statute. From a general natural resource conservation perspective, any attempt to repeal P-R would be a mistake both in intent and the political consequences for anyone undertaking such an effort.

Any attempt to broaden P-R to make it more accommodative of activities that allow support of non-hunting recreation also would be a mistake. The gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, would oppose any such attempt. Propositions for any such amendment would be a waste of time. In fact, any such attempts likely would prove to be counter productive by galvanizing opposition to any broadening of uses at administrative discretion.

About Trails The purposes of P-R funds under the Act as amended to date are aimed at the production of game species and provisions for recreational hunting of game species and recreational use of firearms and archery equipment. No P-R monies can be spent directly on recreational trails other than for hunting or hunting related activities without a clear violation of the Act.

However, there may be some reasonable possibilities for recreational trails on lands purchased or managed with P-R funds. The first condition that must be met is that no proposed activity can significantly interfere with the feeding, breeding and sheltering of wildlife or the legal recreational hunting of that wildlife. It is likely that the burden of proof for the compatibility of proposed trail recreation and wildlife restoration and hunting would be on the trail people. This seems only reasonable, and it is achievable.

How might compatible uses of these lands be developed? I suggest starting by approaching the state wildlife agency and whatever entity owns the land when the former is not the owner and offer a recreational trails program to them. Offer to design, install, monitor and maintain trails in a manner that does not conflict with the production of game species or the hunting of such species. Offer to assure that such trails will be kept at safe distances from target shooting areas.

Offer to partner with the agency or agencies to develop funding for trail design, installation, monitoring, and maintenance. Develop a strong volunteer assistance effort, but remember that the agency knows that volunteer efforts do not get into place without expenditures of time and money on its part. In addition, agencies experienced with volunteer programs know that volunteer efforts, with some notable exceptions, are often ephemeral over long periods of time. Figure out how you will deal with that problem in order to get a more empathetic ear from the agency.

In the densely populated eastern U. S., game management areas are most heavily used on Saturdays during the hunting season, but most eastern public lands are closed to Sunday hunting. In such cases, offer to prohibit Saturday riding during the hunting season. Encourage Sunday riding. Furthermore, with respect to hunting season, any public area heavily hunted for big game should be off limits to recreational trail riding during the gun season. Archery season is usually not a problem.

In my opinion, trail traffic should be minimal and allowed only as absolutely necessary on game management area roads open to vehicular traffic. Hunters tend to like to drive through some of their old hunting areas during the off season. In addition, many people who may not even hunt may drive through these areas simply for the pleasure of driving through the countryside. Trail traffic and vehicular road traffic make an awkward mix at best and a dangerous one at worst.

Wildlife openings or food plots usually represent a major habitat management investment by the state agency in the East. Be sure that you offer to avoid these openings to the extent practicable. Volunteer to prohibit the grazing of horses in such areas. Utility rights-of-way are often used as linear wildlife openings. Do not use these as trails.

Demonstrate your concern for wildlife by developing a rider's code of conduct when encountering wildlife on the trail. For example, never pursue wild animals on horseback. When encountering wild animals with dependent young wait for the adults to take the young animals out of the situation. If the adults leave the young, you must leave the site immediately. The adults will return for their babies.

With respect to water quality protection, offer how you will avoid, minimize and mitigate damage to surface waters, stream and lake banks, and streamside and lakeside vegetation.

Finally, acquaint the agency with the Leave No Trace? and Back Country Horsemen of America principles aimed at ensuring a harmonious relationship between the recreational users of trail horses and pack stock and the land. Above all offer yourself a concerned conservationist.

Why would state wildlife agencies want to cooperate with trail recreationalists? As all professional wildlife people know, there has been an alarming decline in the percentage of Americans who hunt. In addition, there has been an alarming increase in the percentage of Americans with a negative attitude towards recreational hunting. Game management programs need more people who do not hunt to come to a level of compatibility with those who do.

Appropriately moving game management areas towards a wider array of uses combined with increased efforts to educate the non-hunting public could engender an enlarged empathetic constituency. Public servants who manage the wildlife resources must remember that all citizens of their respective states are their constituency. Those constituencies must remember that the wildlife restoration projects began more than 60 years ago, and had it not been for the foresight of the hunters and allied interests, most of these lands would not be available for public use at all. In addition, they must remember that the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act has very definite sideboards. Finally, the agencies should remember that there is a difference between drawing a line in the sand and slamming the door.