blacktail slayer

I wish a tax on birkenstocks, bird seed, bird field guides, and other products would be taxed to help wildlife management like this article talks about. Could a tax like this be passed in Oregon to help ODFW or anywhere else? What are everyone's thoughts?

From The Wildlife Society:

Should Hunters Foot the Bill?
Share

Today at 6:55am

“To “preserve nature,” they don’t tax Birkenstock hiking boots and Yin-Yang pendants — but do tax my shotgun. They don’t tax binoculars or birding field guides with cutesy photos of the red-****aded woodpecker and spotted owl — but do tax the shotgun shells I blast at Mallards before arraying them on my grill as Duck-K-Bobs”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/nex...k_a_hunter.html

While the above statement from irate hunter, Humberto Fontova, may be extreme, the decision to tax hunters and not other wildlife enthusiasts such as bird watchers, kayakers and hikers is a controversial issue for some. The “hook and bullet” taxes go towards wildlife agencies to provide financial support for wildlife conservation and management. According to a study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, for every taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife conservation, hunters and fishermen contribute nine. Besides the fact that it seems unfair for hunters and fisherman to foot the bulk of the bill, there is also the fact that entire target markets are being ignored; ones that are larger and more diverse than that of the hunter/fisher persuasion.

The Wildlife Society’s Journal of Wildlife Management included an article on this argument stating that “The predominant funding source has been license sales and federal excise taxes paid by hunters, trappers, and gun owners. This leads to a pattern of institutional actions tending to meet the needs of a narrow base rather than broader public interest.”

Since money is usually the primary decision factor in whether research and conservation projects are approved or denied, not only should these small user-based groups be taxed but so should the general public.

“Conservation needs to be funded in large part by all beneficiaries; that is, the general public via a nonvoluntary mechanism.” (JWM) Just because some people don’t see the benefit or decide not to go out and enjoy nature, doesn’t mean that each person should be able to decide whether or not to pitch in to support a healthy environment. As corny as it sounds, we really are just borrowing the Earth from our children so that decision is not ours to make.

davidmil

Hunters always get the shaft. Like in Maryland. They have some state parks that are being overrun by deer who are destroying the habitat. So they opened them to bowhunting. At the time it cost you $50 for the permit ... a useage permit to hunt in the park. The park is full of horse trails. So of course the horse people(left wing liberals of Maryland) complained that hunters would shoot their horses. Finally the limited days you could hunt. When someone questioned the $50 fee to help the state with their deer problems.... the state said it's a useage fee. When someone ask what the horseback people paid they were told they just ride... they don't pay. Hunters said, we don't use... we just hunt and don't ride.... or something along those lines. You know who still pays and who doesn't I'm sure.

bigcountry

No doubt, one of the only departments that bring in more money than they make is the Happ Baker Firing range in Carroll County, MD. But Piney Run lake costs millions to run. But a few council members have wanted to do away with the range. Go figure.

YooperMike

It never used to bother me about fees and such, but in recent years, i've become more of that same mindset, where hunters are always getting charged to use the same ground, where other aren't, and the horse people are a perfect example. Its a CAtch-22 for us though, pay to play pretty much.

kickin_buck

I never use to mind all of the little fees that hunters in Illinois got dinged with. However, a few years ago Illinois over hauled the DNR, placing it under the State Police. Then for 2 or 3 years in a row they took several millions of dollars that was brought in by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and redirected it to a rails-to-trails program where they converted old railroad beds to bike trails and then closed 9 State Parks because they lacked funding. It really irked me off big time. Anyone can use the trails for free, while hunters and fisherman paid for it and still lost public land.

I really like how some State such as WI and a few others do it, a flat yearly fee to gain access to State ground, no matter what your use. That way the bird watch is helping to pay for the ground he is using, as well as the hunter that is using that same ground. I think as hunters, we are footing enough of the bill for everyone else and instead of looking at new taxes aimed at the hunter, they should look at ways to generate money from everyone that uses the resource.

rather_be_huntin

I'm fine with it in my state as long as the situation like kickin buck describes doesn't happen.

Like the article says...money talks....so as long as our dollars dominate the revenue stream that is used for wildlife then we have a voice, a loud voice. Once everyone else contributes, they get a voice too and I've already heard what they have to say and I don't like it.

Valentine

They never were good at getting taxed. Why they'd have to curtail their programs, if they started taxing their constituency.

SWThomas

I don't mind paying it as long as it's going back into the land.

bigbulls

Correct me if i am wrong here but didn't hunters and shooters propose and vote for the Pittman Robertson act? However, the monies raised from the PR act are suppose to be used specifically for wildlife restoration and not horse and bike trails. If states are using PR monies for things like horse and bike trails then it would seem that they are in direct violation of the act.