BigBendFishing.Net

Is it true that in the US, the Manufacturers, Wholesalers or Retailers have to pay a 10% tax on all fishing tackle sold, the proceeds of which go to conservation causes ?

There has been some debate in the UK on ways to raise money for conservation of sea fish stocks.
Someone has raised this an an option (if its correct).

Public Law 98-369, approved July 18, 1984 (26 U.S.C. 9504, 98 Stat. 1012) created the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund comprised of the Sport Fish Restoration Account and the Boating Safety Account. This amendment expanded the items of fishing tackle subject to the 10-percent excise tax and imposed a new 3-percent excise tax on fish finders and electric trolling motors. In addition, it provided for the deposit of receipts from these excise taxes and from the following sources into the Sport Fish Restoration Account: the motorboat fuels tax revenues less amounts deposited into the Boating Safety Account, and the import duties on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure craft. This Act also directed that the additional funds be equitably allocated between marine and sport fish. The law also directed States to use up to 10 percent of funds for boating access facilities and aquatic resources education programs.

http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/fasport.html

EDIT:... Sounds like Aucilla is more on target.

I'm not 100 percent certain but you may be referring to something called the Pittman-Robertson Act. Here is some general info:

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly know as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was approved by Congress on September 2, 1937, and begin functioning July 1, 1938.

The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improvment of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of information produced by the projects.
The Act was amended October 23, 1970, to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public target ranges.

Funds are derived from an 11 percent Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the States and Territorial areas (except Puerto Rico) by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas set forth in the Act. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.

Each state's apportionment is determined by a formula which considers the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Aid for up to 75 percent of the project expenses. The state must provide at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source.

I'm guessing only the manufacturer is taxed?

The person that buys and item (consumer) is always the one who pays the tax.
It's reflected in the price.

Amazing sometimes how quickly folks get answers around here.

Thank you gentlemen.

I assume (as is suggested) that the Manufacturer pays the tax and its passed on to the Consumer.

Cranfield wrote:Thank you gentlemen.

I assume (as is suggested) that the Manufacturer pays the tax and its passed on to the Consumer.

Cran:

Actually there are two such taxes, the one described above (Pittman-Robertson, named for the congressmen who sponsored the legislation), which is levied on hunting related stuff, and another called Dingell-Johnson (likewise named for the legislative sponsors) levied on fishing related goods. They both work in a similar fashion, with a "hidden" tax applied at the wholesale level, collected by the federal government and returned to the state fish and wildlife agencies on a formula basis.

Like any wholesale tax, it is likely that it is passed along to the consumer as an increased sales price. Both PR and DJ have done wonders for fish and wildlife management, especially in small states where other forms of funding are limited. In Florida it is also important.

EJ