TexasCHLforum.com

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:01 am United States Laws and Policies Protecting Wildlife shows that Federal Authority regarding wildlife conservation has been a long topic of dispute. Individual states have difficulty regulating migratory birds in general and birds from Canada in particular.

This definitively answers your general question regarding spending money for wildlife conservation on federal land:

Section 3
2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

US Constitution

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:01 am

CleverNickname wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:10 pm Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to spend money on wildlife conservation or public shooting ranges? This is a state or local issue.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power...

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

US Constitution

Militia Act of 1903:

Rifle ranges also are needed, not only for the National Guard,
but also for the citizen population. To shoot well is a large part
of the education of the soldier ; and if the Government can arouse
such an interest in shooting, in not only the organized but also
the unorganized militia, that our male population shall be familiar
with the accurate use of the rifle, we shall have gone far towards
evening up the advantage the foreigner gains by his universal
conscription. Much can be accomplished in this direction, if the
United States will offer free the use of the military rifle on ranges
to be established near our large towns. Such ranges would also
be available for the instruction of the National Guard. Their cost
would be little in comparison with the benefits to be obtained.
The cost of sufficient target ranges and camp sites for the whole
country will hardly exceed that of one or two new battle-ships.

Jusme wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:32 am I am all for encouraging, target practice, firearms training, and safety programs, especially for the youth, but this sounds like a backhanded way to redistribute ammo buyer's taxes. JMHO

Paladin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:37 pm I think wildlife conservation and building shooting ranges are both noble goals. I support federal funding for both.

However exercise of our constitutional rights should not be taxable. I believe that an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition is/should be unconstitutional.

puma guy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:25 pm It's for wildlife restoration, management and habitation.