BHA leading a push

hossblur said:
Then stop that growth, no strangle the resource.

Any given week there are more paddle boards and kayaks on the water than fishing boats. Yet the fishing boats paid the freight.
Click to expand...
Yeah, hunters been paying the freight for years. It’s why we still have a voice.

If its a given that we can’t live within our means, then we can tax the supply chain or tax at the resource.

The lesser of two evils is to tax at the resource so we can limit access. Right?
 
Bluehair said:
Yeah, hunters been paying the freight for years. It’s why we still have a voice.

If its a given that we can’t live within our means, then we can tax the supply chain or tax at the resource.

The lesser of two evils is to tax at the resource so we can limit access. Right?
Click to expand...


Guess I missed where the other groups don't have a voice. Be nice if they also didn't get to free load.
 
I used to think this kind of idea was a good idea…. Until I considered that the fact that hunters/fishermen pay the entire way, gives us a legitimate voice in things. If our contributions are swallowed up in a much bigger pool of dollars, because we are grossly outnumbered, then I fear we become much less important and much easier to simply pass over when decisions about access, management, etc. are on the table.

This is how we become irrelevant.
 
El Gringo said:
I used to think this kind of idea was a good idea…. Until I considered that the fact that hunters/fishermen pay the entire way, gives us a legitimate voice in things. If our contributions are swallowed up in a much bigger pool of dollars, because we are grossly outnumbered, then I fear we become much less important and much easier to simply pass over when decisions about access, management, etc. are on the table.

This is how we become irrelevant.
Click to expand...


????

I've missed where all those other voices don't get a say.
Like Bess pointed out, I'm not seeing ATV groups, or backpack hikers kept out of the woods during hunting season.

Or cross country skiers kept out like shed hunters in the winter.
 
Do you honestly believe taxing these people is going to enhance your hunting experience? This money will go toward making it easier for them to enjoy and join you in the great outdoors.
 
“The cost of conservation is increasing faster than the cost of excise taxes [ever could],” says Newberg. “

I guess first you need to define "conservation". What would this money be used for specifically? Reintroduction of wolves to all 48 states? Funneled into endangered species studies?
 
eelgrass said:
“The cost of conservation is increasing faster than the cost of excise taxes [ever could],” says Newberg. “

I guess first you need to define "conservation". What would this money be used for specifically? Reintroduction of wolves to all 48 states? Funneled into endangered species studies?
Click to expand...
As Sleepy Joe would say, "C'mon." ;)

Every DNR, Dep. of Wildlife, Game & Fish agency. etc. is tasked with 'conserving' ALL wildlife -- big or small -- & regardless if the critters have targets painted on their sides or not.

In states where the agencies do not get a bite of the state's tax revenue but exist on self-generated money, hunters have had it really good for decades. But human population dynamics & politics have been gradually changing over the last two+ decades. Cash flow to the agencies has also diminished somewhat. So it should be no surprise if they look more to non-consumptive users to take up some of the slack. Whether we like it or not, it's probably the future.

As an aside -- much of the money used on federally protected species comes from the Feds bank & not from the state agency's coffers.
 
El Gringo said:
I used to think this kind of idea was a good idea…. Until I considered that the fact that hunters/fishermen pay the entire way, gives us a legitimate voice in things. If our contributions are swallowed up in a much bigger pool of dollars, because we are grossly outnumbered, then I fear we become much less important and much easier to simply pass over when decisions about access, management, etc. are on the table.

This is how we become irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You are dead right......but......how could we be seen as less important than we are now???

We are irrelevant....
 
Hunting agencies have severely devalued the price if licenses and tags. If they had kept up with reality they wouldn't have had to start taking money from non consumers.
 
Can't we just find an organization that has demonstrated success with actual conservation and give them our money of our own accord.? Who wants to give more money to the government.?
 
We already pay taxes to use public land. How about cut the unemployment checks, put people back to work so their not leeching off the tax system and they could pay taxes. How about close our border and not let another million people in that are leeching off taxes. It all stems from excuse me, crappy politics!
 
BrowningRage said:
Can't we just find an organization that has demonstrated success with actual conservation and give them our money of our own accord.? Who wants to give more money to the government.?
Click to expand...


That doesn't fix trails. Fix roads.

I'm all for groups, but 640 million acres, ain't a group around that can handle that
 
The thing I see missing in this discussion is that the two are not exclusive groups. Lots of backpackers, kayakers and ATVers are hunters. So one aspect is that hunters will pay double unless it is an either/or: if you have a hunting/fishing license you are exempt
 
txhunter58 said:
The thing I see missing in this discussion is that the two are not exclusive groups. Lots of backpackers, kayakers and ATVers are hunters. So one aspect is that hunters will pay double unless it is an either/or: if you have a hunting/fishing license you are exempt
Click to expand...


Most hunters are fishermen too, paying excise tax for both. Silly argument.

Especially considering that target shooters are the largest payers into the system, and aren't that big of users of it. They don't get a discount by proving they aren't hunters.
 
hossblur said:
That doesn't fix trails. Fix roads.

I'm all for groups, but 640 million acres, ain't a group around that can handle that
Click to expand...
I agree. I wasn't considering trails and roads as "conservation". As one member said above, I think a better definition of what conservation means is necessary.
 
hossblur said:
Most hunters are fishermen too, paying excise tax for both. Silly argument.

Especially considering that target shooters are the largest payers into the system, and aren't that big of users of it. They don't get a discount by proving they aren't hunters.
Click to expand...
They don't even have to be target shooters. As you allude to, anyone who buys firearms or ammo pays the same excise tax a hunter pays.
 
OutdoorWriter said:
They don't even have to be target shooters. As you allude to, anyone who buys firearms or ammo pays the same excise tax a hunter pays.
Click to expand...


Yup. But the high volume shooters, pay the highest percentage. Clay shooters. Competition shooters.

My box of 06', and 30yr old rifle didn't contribute nearly what those trap shooters and high end shotguns do.

And I for sure use the ground more than most of them.

We are battling now with MTN bikers, ATV, backpackers, yearly during hunting seasons.

I don't see that changing. Might as well get some $$ out if them for maintenance and the like.
 
hossblur said:
Yup. But the high volume shooters, pay the highest percentage. Clay shooters. Competition shooters.

My box of 06', and 30yr old rifle didn't contribute nearly what those trap shooters and high end shotguns do.

And I for sure use the ground more than most of them.

We are battling now with MTN bikers, ATV, backpackers, yearly during hunting seasons.

I don't see that changing. Might as well get some $$ out if them for maintenance and the like.
Click to expand...
Agree, especially with the last sentence. The only places they pay some is on state or federal land with fees, such as the NPs. But everyone pays there.
 
Part of the article is correct. "People hate taxes". That includes me.

Hey Hoss, just charge the recreational users to pay a fee at the trailhead, on land that's paid for with tax dollars.
 
heywouldya said:
Part of the article is correct. "People hate taxes". That includes me.

Hey Hoss, just charge the recreational users to pay a fee at the trailhead, on land that's paid for with tax dollars.
Click to expand...
That would likely go to the Feds' bank account, as the NP fees do. Any tax on other recerational equipment that isn't already on the rolls needs to be funneled into each state's agency in charge of conservation. IOW, a mirror of the D&J or P&R funds. The issue would be how to divide the pie. The two above are done via the license counts, but there's no such thing for hiking, canoeing, kayaking or birdwatching. Only option I can see is population, but that would make for lopsided distribution. In states where most of the population resides in large cities, outdoor recreation consists of golf, tennis or looting & burning the city. :rolleyes:
 
Wanna see a bunch of people scream bloody murder? Make em buy a license, with season dates, popular areas become OIL tags? They already do it in certain sensitive areas. It'll be here before we know it. And I doubt BHA could lead a successful Chinese fire drill!
 
DW said:
Wanna see a bunch of people scream bloody murder? Make em buy a license, with season dates, popular areas become OIL tags? They already do it in certain sensitive areas. It'll be here before we know it. And I doubt BHA could lead a successful Chinese fire drill!
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t be referring to the recent state trust lands debacle that required birdwatchers to buy a hunting license , would you?

That’s NOT how to get unity around the multi-use doctrine.
 
Bluehair said:
You wouldn’t be referring to the recent state trust lands debacle that required birdwatchers to buy a hunting license , would you?

That’s NOT how to get unity around the multi-use doctrine.
Click to expand...


I'd actually almost forgotten about that one. First they simply asked them to purchase a $10 habitat stamp, to help cover the cost of leasing state trust lands that were leased with funds generated from hunting license sales. But they didn't, and no one enforced it. Then they made the requirement a valid hunting or fishing license, that's when they screamed bloody murder, and I still don't think they're enforcing it. What I mean by "it's already being done in sensitive areas" is areas like Havasu falls, hanging lake, RMNP. Eventually we will be to a point where you will need a permit to access any "public" lands for any purpose, and access will be limited because of over use. BHA will "lead the push" for this, Hoss will cheer. You'll have to draw an access permit before you draw a big game tag. Of course CPW will hold the big game draw before the "access" draw. "Tag soup for me this year. Drew my elk tag but couldn't draw my access permit!"
 
I have long been bothered by so many outdoor recreationalists benefiting off the backs of hunters and anglers. Something as simple as a duck stamp. In my state we have a federal refuge that non-hunters go use all the time, and then criticize the fact that hunters are using it too. Yet duck stamp fees, that these clowns don't contribute to, are one of the reasons this refuge is a success.

I'm all for adding a Pittman-Robertson Act type provision to all these outdoor users. Add the tax to their gear the same way it is added to mine. I do many of these other things as well, and I'd happily add a bit more to the cost if it was as successful as the Pittman-Robertson Act has been across the board.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2022 king buck.jpeg
DSCN2960.JPG
D8085536-6907-4285-BBFD-31253B9D054B.jpeg
20240309_160830.jpg
5A6C94C0-8ECA-4C4B-82CA-C07897EE99CE.jpeg
D64DC7EE-1258-452A-AA9F-CDAA3CEFF1C7.jpeg
Screenshot_20211104-202219_Video Player.jpg
D3F122A0-9374-4A85-91CA-06C2AF530D2C.jpeg
IMG_5520.jpeg
C5A078FD-D22B-4670-B9CB-446003B52393.jpeg
44467823_10217361752146879_5298362735422078976_n.jpg
E0FA4D06-4D7E-48ED-8F8C-42EF84C265F3.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom