Hiker of the Woods
Active Member
- Messages
- 623
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-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/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.
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-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/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.
