Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
TimberGiants.com, alternate707420, HunterB712, beardbud1, BTurner12971
63500 Registered Users
Top Posters
dogcatcher 86287
stxranchman 52401
bill oxner 45357
RWH24 44568
rifleman 44349
BOBO the Clown 43356
BMD 40820
Big Orn 37484
txshntr 35133
SnakeWrangler 33931
facebook
Forum Stats
63500 Members
45 Forums
448758 Topics
6200154 Posts

Max Online: 16728 @ 03/25/12 08:51 AM
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#7117318 - 03/20/18 09:44 AM Wildlife Funding
DonPablo Offline
Woodsman

Registered: 09/20/11
Posts: 163
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation

They're predicting that Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson won't be enough soon. Also that a big part of it is the aging baby-boomer population. They say some are pushing for an excise tax on other outdoor gear so that non-hunting outdoor enthusiasts can start to pull their weight.

While I agree that non-hunting outdoor enthusiasts have been freeloading for a while, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of making them pay. It seems like it'd make it harder for us to justify the need for hunting (as it'll no longer be the sole monetary provider of conservation).

Also, I wonder how much it would help if we (the people) would force our States to use and take advantage of the Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson funds that so often go unclaimed.

What do you guys think?

Top
#7117373 - 03/20/18 10:28 AM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: DonPablo]
Nogalus Prairie Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 24016
Loc: Corsicana
I think non-consumptive outdoor enthusiasts should be willing to put their money where their mouth is regarding conservation just as hunters and fishermen do.
They have the lobbyists, megaphones, and influence already from the tree-hugger/industry side, might as well make them contribute and actually benefit wildlife.

_________________________
Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.



Top
#7117497 - 03/20/18 12:01 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: Nogalus Prairie]
dkershen Online   content


Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 18188
Loc: Denton/Argyle
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
I think non-consumptive outdoor enthusiasts should be willing to put their money where their mouth is regarding conservation just as hunters and fishermen do.
They have the lobbyists, megaphones, and influence already from the tree-hugger/industry side, might as well make them contribute and actually benefit wildlife.

Good sentiment, but how? It's already proven they won't make any substantial contributions on their own accord. Need a way to pry it out of there pockets.
_________________________

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.
www.NewHopeEquine.com

Top
#7117515 - 03/20/18 12:23 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: dkershen]
Nogalus Prairie Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 24016
Loc: Corsicana
Originally Posted By: dkershen
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
I think non-consumptive outdoor enthusiasts should be willing to put their money where their mouth is regarding conservation just as hunters and fishermen do.
They have the lobbyists, megaphones, and influence already from the tree-hugger/industry side, might as well make them contribute and actually benefit wildlife.

Good sentiment, but how? It's already proven they won't make any substantial contributions on their own accord. Need a way to pry it out of there pockets.


Have to pass a “backpack” tax. They have always fought it - hypocrites. Will it ever get done? I doubt it. Tax is a nasty word these days.
_________________________
Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.



Top
#7117586 - 03/20/18 01:04 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: Nogalus Prairie]
SherpaPhil Offline
Woodsman

Registered: 04/09/12
Posts: 156
Loc: Dallas
Backpack tax would be the best way to do it. We just need all of the players in that industry to step up the way hunters and fisherman did.

Failing that, I think it might work to offer voluntary "outdoor recreation" licenses. The money goes to the state for conservation and the number of license sales could be counted in allocating Pittman Robertson funding, adding a multiplier to the license revenue. (PR funding is tied in part to the number of licenses sold in the state). Done correctly, with a strong public awareness campaign, I think a lot of the REI crowd could be persuaded to voluntarily contribute. Many of those folks already have leanings that way.

Top
#7117622 - 03/20/18 01:32 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: Nogalus Prairie]
DonPablo Offline
Woodsman

Registered: 09/20/11
Posts: 163
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Have to pass a “backpack” tax. They have always fought it - hypocrites. Will it ever get done? I doubt it. Tax is a nasty word these days.


I think you’d catch a lot of flack from parents who buy them for school kids. I think we’d be better off taxing other outdoor gear like tents, mountain bikes, binoculars, etc. maybe even campers. Lotta oilfield guys might get mad but any tax makes someone mad.


Edited by DonPablo (03/20/18 01:33 PM)

Top
#7117630 - 03/20/18 01:38 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: DonPablo]
BOBO the Clown Online   content
decoy

Registered: 04/19/07
Posts: 43356
Loc: Metroplex
Originally Posted By: DonPablo
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Have to pass a “backpack” tax. They have always fought it - hypocrites. Will it ever get done? I doubt it. Tax is a nasty word these days.


I think you’d catch a lot of flack from parents who buy them for school kids. I think we’d be better off taxing other outdoor gear like tents, mountain bikes, binoculars, etc. maybe even campers. Lotta oilfield guys might get mad but any tax makes someone mad.


Texas has a sporting goods tax, not an additional tax but a reallocation of existing sales tax, with a cap.

I think it should be 10% of ALL outdoor and sporting goods sales. From mountain house to running shoes.

Top
#7119445 - 03/22/18 08:04 AM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: DonPablo]
Dave Davidson Offline
Extreme Tracker

Registered: 06/24/06
Posts: 4598
Loc: Hurst, Tx
The tax doesn’t matter. The reality is that $ allocated goes out the back door into the general fund.
_________________________
Without a sense of urgency, nothing ever happens.

Boy, if I say "sic em", you'd better look for something to bite. Sam Shelley, Rancher Muleshoe Texas 1892-1985 RIP

Top
#7119463 - 03/22/18 08:21 AM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: Dave Davidson]
DonPablo Offline
Woodsman

Registered: 09/20/11
Posts: 163
Originally Posted By: Dave Davidson
The tax doesn’t matter. The reality is that $ allocated goes out the back door into the general fund.


I've heard this. I've also heard that the $ generated from the public draw hunts doesn't go to the WMAs hosting the hunts. I bet there are a lot more state parks that would consider offering hunts if they at least had the monetary incentive of receiving those funds.

Top
#7120130 - 03/22/18 07:42 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: DonPablo]
gusick Offline
Pro Tracker

Registered: 07/19/13
Posts: 1517
They were talking about this on NPR yesterday. They (NPR) were concerned that it was because hunter numbers have decreased. Need more hunters to conserve wildlife, they said. It's weird to hear NPR calling for more hunters while THF calls for more taxes. crazy

Top
#7120156 - 03/22/18 08:14 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: Dave Davidson]
BOBO the Clown Online   content
decoy

Registered: 04/19/07
Posts: 43356
Loc: Metroplex
Originally Posted By: Dave Davidson
The tax doesn’t matter. The reality is that $ allocated goes out the back door into the general fund.


R&P tax dollars most certainly do, the state tax goes to park system but it’s capped, grand scheme it’s not an addition tax to begin with so doesn’t really matter to begin with, just a tax shift

Top
#7120160 - 03/22/18 08:16 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: gusick]
BOBO the Clown Online   content
decoy

Registered: 04/19/07
Posts: 43356
Loc: Metroplex
Originally Posted By: gusick
They were talking about this on NPR yesterday. They (NPR) were concerned that it was because hunter numbers have decreased. Need more hunters to conserve wildlife, they said. It's weird to hear NPR calling for more hunters while THF calls for more taxes. crazy


Need both.

And to change some of the eco terrorist conservation groups from an org to inc so they aren’t as sue happy

Top
#7120347 - 03/22/18 11:51 PM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: DonPablo]
chital_shikari Offline
Minor in training

Registered: 08/03/11
Posts: 12500
Zinke's doing some good stuff with his new panel that Cameron Hanes is on. I hope they get it sorted out!

Top
#7120364 - 03/23/18 12:41 AM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: BOBO the Clown]
gusick Offline
Pro Tracker

Registered: 07/19/13
Posts: 1517
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: gusick
They were talking about this on NPR yesterday. They (NPR) were concerned that it was because hunter numbers have decreased. Need more hunters to conserve wildlife, they said. It's weird to hear NPR calling for more hunters while THF calls for more taxes. crazy


Need both.

And to change some of the eco terrorist conservation groups from an org to inc so they aren’t as sue happy


I agree on all counts, although I don't know how we can change the ecoterrorist groups into corporations. We definitely need some reforms where the loser pays court cost or something. They rarely win a case but they do delay any action until it's too late.

We also need to fully fund wildfire suppression for the next ten years so we don't have to borrow that money from other project programs. Last year's fire season cost over 2 billion dollars. Most of that was "borrowed" from other programs, many of which would reduce future wildfire risk. If we could leave that money in timber programs for a while, we wouldn't need 2 billion dollars a year for fire suppression.

Top
#7120365 - 03/23/18 12:55 AM Re: Wildlife Funding [Re: gusick]
Txduckman Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 08/30/04
Posts: 12878
Loc: Big D
Originally Posted By: gusick
They were talking about this on NPR yesterday. They (NPR) were concerned that it was because hunter numbers have decreased. Need more hunters to conserve wildlife, they said. It's weird to hear NPR calling for more hunters while THF calls for more taxes. crazy


How do you get more hunters when many of us pay $6 to $12 an acre and Facebook says $40+ an acre is the norm and 100 folks want on a 50 acre place being advertised? What the hell has happened??? I assume most draw states fill their quota so where do they want these hunters to come from and where will they go? Most places are leased to the brim or privately owned.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



© 2004-2018 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide