Should Hunters Foot the Bill?

[blacktailslayer]

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 tax like this be passed in Oregon to help ODFW? What are everyone's thoughts?

From The Wildlife Society:

Should Hunters Foot the Bill?

=45135247288&p[]=384475889481"]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-cockaded 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/next_earth_day_thank_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.

[Doc]

I seldom ever get involved in calling for new taxes, and this subject is no exception. Use and product taxes regardless of what they are, are simply government methods of achieving "behavioral modification". An extreme version of that is every type of "sin tax" that exists. What the government can't achieve through honest and forthright legislation, generally is handled with taxation, which eventually becomes excessive and results in a mandated and dictated change in citizen behavior. The most glaring example is the taxes on cigarettes, liquor and gas. It is a long accepted premise that if you want to curtail or eliminate an activity, simply tax it. As a sportsman, I don't like seeing hunter, fisherman and trapper numbers continue to fall, and I don't really appreciate whatever contribution that taxes and fees on our products and activities may have in that result. By the same token, I really have no interest in this same kind of thing being used on any other form of outdoor activity.

So, to increase this insidious attempt at making citizens march in lock-step to government dictated behaviors by extending the list to include bird watchers, and hikers, and whatever other wildlife users there may be is simply another extention and condoning of this sneaky way of encouraging government dictation of personal activities and interests.

Instead of encouraging and even suggesting an expansion of this kind of government activity, we should be encouraging removing that style of taxation of hunters, fishermen and trappers. Let the general fund of each state handle the costs of administering fish and game activities and regulations. Our fish and game management agencies are simply another government bureacracy just like the other agencies in government, and should be funded in the same way.

Let's not be so quick to tax away other people's activities simply because we are getting over-burdened. It's time to eliminate this whole idea of taxing activities and begin to take away this sneaky taxing method and replace it with the proper method of raising funds for the maintenance of state lands and state natural resources. After all, that function is not just for the benefit of sportsmen and other outdoor enthusiasts. It is a state function that guards and maintains state resources for the benefit of the entire population.

Doc

[redkneck]

I'm with Doc.....

Who came up with this? Why add tax burden to folks who enjoy the outdoors just because us shooters are overtaxed?

It's kinda like saying that because gasoline is overtaxed that we should tax the car makers more, the gas stations more, the folks that take the bus more.

[maddhunter]

In Okieland there are taxes on everything outdoors that are alotted to the Wildlife Department for conservation.From binos to flare guns there is a Consrvation Tax on it. Although hunting and fishing support the biggest part because we buy more stuff, be it bad shots or backlashes.

And IMOP fair is fair, if you use it you should help pay for it !!!!!

[Flintlock1776]

Spare me from people who think taxing themselves is some way to benefit themselves. Obama loves stuff like that. 1984 may be upon us

[Ethan Givan]

I see no reason to tax anyone else. Where is the millions of dollars spent on hunting licenses, permits, and tags going? If each state efficiently used the revenue gained from the sales of licenses, tags etc. to improve and manage wildlife in there own state then I doubt any taxes would be needed. Thats how it works in KY.

[Doc]

In Okieland there are taxes on everything outdoors that are alotted to the Wildlife Department for conservation.From binos to flare guns there is a Consrvation Tax on it. Although hunting and fishing support the biggest part because we buy more stuff, be it bad shots or backlashes.

And IMOP fair is fair, if you use it you should help pay for it !!!!!

When it comes to a state's natural resources, every resident is a user whether they hunt, hike, bike, or simply have the poulations controlled for them to lessen auto impacts and landscape predation, or even enjoy lower food prices because of animal population control and management. So, to target one small segment of the state's population and say that natural resource management is the sole responsibility of sportsmen is simply another excuse for the state to punish sportsmen for choosing those particular types of recreation. There is no real logic behind it, and it is simply a scheme hatched by those who never saw a tax that they didn't love. And now we have those that are just itching to expand that philosophy.

We sit and wonder why more of our paycheck goes toward running the various levels of government than we get to spend ourselves. The attitude shown in the above quote is exactly the reason. Some people really get off on paying taxes like it is some kind of a symbol of patriotism ...... lol. There sure is no motivation to control spending and waste as long as there are these kinds of people around.

I've got an idea. Maybe they would really have a good time if they payed mine as well. Just think how pleasantly fulfilled they would be. Any takers?

Doc

[fly]

To add a tax to guns and ammo and claim the tax is for nature is an agenda if ever I saw one. How many people buy guns and ammo for self defense? Self-defense has nothign to do with nature preservation.

[Strut10]

It's called the Pittman-Robertson Act and it's been around since 1937.

http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/pract.html

[Doc]

I believe the original message on this thread talked about making such taxes a state obligation, IN ADDITION TO the Pittman-Robertson legislation. Blacktailslayer talked about applying the same concept of user taxes to the state of Oregon to help out with their ODFW and then even extend it further to include more hand selected citizens.

I am against all user taxes for the reasons previously stated. And to expand that concept is just about the worst thing that could be suggested. As far as I am concerned, any government expenditure that is worth doing is worth being supported by ALL citizens. For too many years, the U.S. hunter has been targeted as being the minority group made responsible for the financial resources of maintaining and safeguarding the natural resources of the entire population. Now, to suggest that this same burden be put on the backs of the sportsmen additionally by state agencies is merely compounding the financial burden that has to bear some of the responsibility for the declining hunter numbers. That's not something that I would ever support. Such maintenance of natural resources is the obligation of EVERY citizen, not just a targeted few. And if the P-R legislation were being discussed, I would have exactly the same arguments against that.

Doc