Every current Democratic presidential candidate is advocating an assault on wildlife and habitat conservation in America. It’s fair to assume they don’t know. They, like most Americans, are likely unaware that the bulk of wildlife conservation funding in this country comes from a healthy firearms industry.

The act was originally proposed by the firearms industry and supported by conservation groups like the National Wildlife Federation. It was bipartisan. It allowed states to marshal resources needed to recover dwindling populations of animals like white tail deer, elk, turkeys, and others. Because much of the success benefited hunters, there is a false assumption: they “pay the bill” in generating the tax. While it was mostly true in 1937, now it’s mostly not.

Today, roughly 80 percent of this firearms and ammunition tax comes from non-hunters. How’s that? We all hear left of center politicians and even “moderates” tying gun ownership and use to hunting. “I am a hunter” and “you don’t need that for hunting” are popular catchphrases of politicians endorsing certain gun, ammunition, and magazine bans.

They miss the target. What they don’t understand are the demographics of today’s gun ownership. Even as hunting‘s popularity is slowly declining, sport and practical shooting are way up. By sheer numbers, more people in America are shooting now than ever, although less are hunting.

Even more telling, half of all firearms purchased are handguns. These are primarily semiautomatics, also identified as “assault weapons” in misguided legislation. Ammunition purchased to use in these guns lines up in similar fashion.

This all means the lion’s share of wildlife conservation funding comes from the “non-hunting” shooting community. It also means that individuals, politicians, hunting, and conservation organizations that tacitly or openly endorse those pushing “bans” harm conservation across North America. They are complicit in gutting the goose that lays the golden egg: removing the primary source of state funds for conservation of wildlife and dedicated habitat.

In the future, spending on wildlife and habitat should continue to be the bedrock ideal of Pittman-Robertson. But it is time for realization, acceptance, and support of gun owners and recreational shooters who don’t hunt. They’re the ones who pay three-fourths of the bill.

In states like Montana, California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii, and others, top political leaders are hostile to the firearms industry and recreational shooters. Maybe they don’t realize they are taking hundreds of millions of dollars from recreational shooters in the name of conservation.

Those seeking public office need to be more informed. They need to know where the golden egg comes from—at least to consider it before they kill the goose.

Maybe if Pittman-Robertson’s billion dollars went only to those states where policies and leaders are supportive, they would see it differently. Perhaps if they knew their proposals would result in the largest single loss of conservation funding in our history, they would tone down the rhetoric.