Conservation sales tax

[beginnerhunter]

There's a lot of discussion about non-consumptive users needing to invest more in wildlife management and conservation. One option I don't see discussed a lot (someone will now post links to several threads about this) is a conservation sales tax similar to the one we have in AR and MO.

Passed in 1996 by AR voters, our 1/8% sales tax is designed to provide wildlife law enforcement, more wildlife habitat for public use, wildlife education, and endangered species work.
Here is the ten year summary document:

consvtax_tenyr_report.pdf

drive.google.com

Notably, "AGFC has purchased 46,817 acres of land at a cost of $26,457,610."

As far as revenue, this from the congressional sportsmen website:

Conservation Sales Tax | Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation works with Congress, governors, and state legislatures to protect and advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting, and trapping in the halls of government.

congressionalsportsmen.org

"Arkansas collected an additional $64 million from their conservation sales tax in 2013, and through the first 10 years of the program over $475 million has been raised."

I don't know what the more recent figures are but I'd imagine they are higher since the economy is stronger, even in a poor state like Arkansas (34th in GDP).

In a state like Colorado, with a CPW budget around $200 million (AGFC operates on around $88 million), do you think a similar tax could provide significant benefits to wildlife and outdoor enthusiasts? Colorado is ranked 18th or so in GDP, so they could probably see a 25-30% boost in $ to support parks and wildlife.

I suppose there are some drawbacks. Many folks don't like sales taxes because of their regressive qualities, especially in high tax states. But we need to get creative if we want to support wildlife habitat and make a larger hunting tent.

Please discuss, criticize, or point out errors I've made in my smartphone Google during lunch research. Thanks!

 

[jryoung]

I was on an advisory committee for the CA DFW regarding budgeting. The MO sales tax was highly regarded throughout the room as it is a fairly stable source of revenue and could be a great offset to the whims of the legislature and budget volatility. Though, we recognized the challenges in CA though which already has high income, sales and excise taxes.

 

[beginnerhunter]

I was on an advisory committee for the CA DFW regarding budgeting. The MO sales tax was highly regarded throughout the room as it is a fairly stable source of revenue and could be a great offset to the whims of the legislature and budget volatility. Though, we recognized the challenges in CA though which already has high income, sales and excise taxes.

Arkansas has pretty high sales taxes (I don't know how they compare to CA). I pay about 9% after local sales taxes. How would the sportsmen/women in a state go about implementing this? Petition and ballot measure? Seems like lawmakers wouldn't be interesting in sponsoring this sort of thing. Or would they?

 

[Irrelevant]

I think the only way this works is if some large well liked person or group picks of the torch. I don't think it'll work as an initiative and the legislature sure as sh!t isn't going to vote to raise taxes. Cali state rate is 7.25% with local add-ons it can be >10%. Pretty similar (though a little smaller) to WA.

 

[beginnerhunter]

What about the other big time outdoor states? MT, WY, Colorado, etc? Places where groups like BHA and outdoor recreation industry have a big presence. Just seems like another opportunity for an outdoor state to tax itself in order to preserve it's natural grandeur. Plus it hits non-consumptive and consumptive alike (and everyone else...)! Folks are always talking about "who takes/uses what, who gets to decide, who funds this or that" etc. There was a long thread recently about this issue that made me think about this alternative funding.

 

[jryoung]

It would have to be a bill or a ballot measure in CA, depending on other states it could be different. We have a far easier time taxing vices and things perceived to be bad, tobacco, soda, making money......applying a tax for something virtuous would be a far harder sell.

WA may have a higher sales tax, but there is no income tax, which CA has.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Montana has no sales tax, and votes it down every time. Unlikely that wildlife will be the thing we have a change of heart over.

It’s not like no one has been trying to solve this. There have been all kinds of proposals to increase revenue streams for wildlife and conservation. They just always go down in flames. Hunters are opposed because either they don’t want to pay more than they already do or they don’t want to lose the argument that they foot most of the bill so hunting is important. Non-hunters oppose it because they don’t want to pay for something they’ve always had for free. Outdoor gear companies oppose it because the additional taxes might discourage consumers and hurt their bottom line. Basically it all comes down to people caring more about their own interests than the good of the resource. Until that changes, I just don’t see that there’s going to be much progress.