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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Need both.

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

Zinke's doing some good stuff with his new panel that Cameron Hanes is on. I hope they get it sorted out!

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.

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.

The world turned upside down...........

Next, dogs & cats will be living together...........

Reform would be doing away with the legislation that protections/provides for reimbursement for all non-profit/orgs. The legislation was put in place to protect/provide relief for low income families from baseless government tyranny. They win Lot more then you think, they don’t win on being right they win on technicality errors.

As fire suppression we are in a no win situation anymore, we need to let it burn, but liabilities are way to high and fuel levels are so high in a lot of places it becomes catastrophic.


Something has to change quickly because it’s just going to become more catastrophic

25% of the US is public land. I can name off lots of OTC states for Whitetails, Mulie deer, Pronghorn, elk, bear, even big horn sheep, Etc.

We as Texans are lazy but I do find it ironic every time a Texan complains about public land and that’s thier reasoning for driving out of state to hunt.

We don’t have a lack of places to hunt, we have a lack of education about our public places to hunt.

I agree to an extent. I have a hard time justifying traveling out of state to hunt something I could hunt here. I'll be traveling out of state in June for bear and wolf. Then in the fall I'm going to bite the bullet and hunt deer in OK. I doubt I'd ever hunt out of state for deer except this trip is more of an excuse to visit an old friend from high school.

The only complaint I have about the public hunting allowed in Texas is that there could be so much more. There's no reason we couldn't have public hunts at every one of our state parks and equally no reason we shouldn't have hunts at the national parks within the great state. Just think how much more opportunities we'd have as Texans.

Youths hunting at TX state parks is a bargain in the draw.

Oklahoma has some great public land FYI

NP system is scam IMO, sold to the public as some grand utopia, and it’s not

You can hunt a lot of states for a lot less money then you think, all about budgets