Pittman‐Robertson and Dingell‐Johnson: A Congressional endorsement of state supremacy over wildlife?

The Pittman–Robertson Act of 1937 (PR) and the Dingell–Johnson Act of 1950 (DJ) provide states with substantial capacity to manage fish and wildlife by directing revenue from federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment to states. The precise scope of state and federal wildlife management authority has been a topic of debate among scholars and in courts. To evaluate the extent to which the passage of PR and DJ constituted a Congressional endorsement of states as the primary managers of wildlife, we first evaluated the legal context in which both laws were deliberated and passed. We next reviewed the PR and DJ Congressional Record for discussion of state versus federal wildlife authority. Finally, we examined the Congressional Record to determine motivating factors for Congress in passing PR and DJ. We found that contemporary jurisprudence regarding the Public Trust Doctrine likely made states' relative authority over wildlife a non‐contentious issue for Congress at the time. Although the PR Congressional Record acknowledged primary state authority, Congress spent minimal time considering relative state and federal authority over wildlife. Instead, Congress appeared to be motivated to form a joint federal‐state response to a perceived wildlife crisis amplified by President Franklin Roosevelt.