Most Pittman-Robertson Act funds are generated by non-hunters
It is often said that hunters disproportionately pay for wildlife conservation in part through their purchase of items that are taxable under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act). While the dollars from license sales are paid by the people who purchase them, most Pittman-Robertson federal dollars actually come from people who do not hunt. In fact, although excise taxes paid on guns and ammunition account for the bulk of Pittman-Robertson Act revenues (93-94 percent of the total), most guns and ammunition in the U.S. are not purchased for use in hunting.
The Pittman-Robertson Act was enacted in 1937 to address the urgent need for habitat restoration and wildlife conservation. Initially, it was crafted to respond to overhunting and habitat destruction during a time when wildlife populations were in steep decline. While hunters were a driving force in its passage, the Act’s broader purpose has always been about securing the future of wildlife for all Americans. Over time, the funding model has expanded to include non-hunting contributors, making it one of the most effective conservation programs in U.S. history—and one that serves everyone, not just hunters.
A 2021 study by Southwick Associates estimated that only about one-quarter (25.8 percent) of all firearms and ammunition sold in 2020 were purchased for hunting. A 2012 survey by the Archery Trade Association found that about 44 percent of archery equipment was purchased for hunting. Taken together, this means that about 73 percent of Pittman-Robertson funds are generated by non-hunters.
The Role of Non-Hunters in Funding Conservation
Today, a significant portion of Pittman-Robertson funds comes from recreational shooters, archers, and others who do not hunt but contribute through excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. For example, recreational target shooting—a growing sport—now accounts for a large share of these funds. These contributors often do not realize that their purchases are helping to conserve wildlife, protect habitats, and maintain public lands, but their role is indispensable.
Hunting participation in the United States has been steadily declining for decades. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the percentage of Americans who hunt dropped from 7.4% in 1991 to just 4.2% in 2021. This trend has significant implications for the Pittman-Robertson funding model: as hunting revenue declines, non-hunting contributors are becoming the primary financial drivers of wildlife conservation. This shift underscores the need to include non-hunting voices in decisions about how these funds are allocated.
Yet while the number of hunters in the U.S. has been on the decline both in absolute and relative numbers for decades, Pittman-Robertson Act revenues have generally increased over the years, with some notable year-to-year fluctuations. They tend to spike after a mass shooting or presidential election when fears rise about restrictions on gun ownership. Through their purchase of guns and ammunition, non-hunters are already making a substantial contribution to state wildlife agency budgets.
In the U.S., conservation is implemented by many entities, including federal, state and local agencies, private landowners, businesses and nonprofits. Taken as a whole, the non-hunting public contributes far more financially than hunters and anglers to conservation activities undertaken collectively by these entities. One 2015 study concluded that non-hunters accounted for 94 percent of total funding for wildlife conservation and management, based on the operating and land acquisition budgets of the relevant federal agencies and largest wildlife-related nonprofit organizations. While one can argue over details of the methodology used in this study, the overall picture remains unchanged.
Looking at just one aspect of conservation in the U.S. — the role of federal public lands in supporting wildlife habitats and populations — it is clear that non-hunters contribute far more than hunters. Four federal agencies (National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) manage more than 600 million acres of land. These areas provide habitat for thousands of vertebrate species (and countless invertebrates) including hundreds of endangered species. The more than $16 billion cost to manage these lands is shared more or less equally by all taxpayers, 82 percent of whom neither hunt nor fish.
Despite the significant contributions of non-hunters, wildlife management decisions remain dominated by hunting-focused agencies and commissions. This is a mismatch that must be addressed. Wildlife is a shared resource, and the policies governing it should reflect the values of all contributors—not just the shrinking minority of hunters. Reforming state wildlife management to align with modern funding realities and public values is essential for equitable and effective conservation.
Wildlife belongs to everyone. As the funding landscape shifts, it’s more important than ever that management decisions reflect the values of all Americans. Together, we can advocate for policies that ensure the future of wildlife for all—hunters and non-hunters alike.