Dubya taxes hunters

[BigHornRam]

So IT,

What is your solution to coming up with the funds to manage recreational use on our public lands? I can see where Big Government is not the answer. Maybe the bureaucrats can work on why all their programs are corrupt, and why revenues of these schemes can never cover the cost to administer them in the first place. Too many parasites in big government I guess and no reward for being productive and efficient.

My solution would be to have more users volunteer to do things like maintain trails and trailheads, campgrounds, ect.. I know getting people volunteer can be difficult, but faced with paying a ridiculous fee or pitching in, most people will opt to pitch in.

 

[snake river rufus]

SRR, ever heard of the word "veto"????

And if Bush does NOT veto the bill, then you can say it was Bush's tax. since congress has not even voted yet, it's a bit premature.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

Can you imagine what hunting would be like if the anti-hunters kicked in as much for wildlife as hunters do? I am sticking to my statement that those who pay have the most say.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR, not to be a smart ass...but have you looked at the new MT elk management plan?

I find it pretty amusing that there is even mention of ranchers needs in the plan...it isnt a rancher management plan, its an elk management plan. Care to take a guess who puts more $$$ into elk management...ranchers or hunters? Why do ranchers get a say, when they dont pay even remotely as much as elk hunters?

What other examples?

How about that Greenhorn mountains sheep transplant? Who paid for that? The hunters or the ONE sheep rancher who is being catered to? Again, why do those that pay, not have the most say? Why does a sheep herder who doesnt put anything into that transplant even have a say at all?

Paul, I think you're a pretty sharp guy, I really do, but you have to realize that those that pay, dont have any more "say" in an issue when dealing with public resources...sad, but true.

I contend that when dealing with public resources, those who put the most in ($$$, effort, etc.) arent necessarily catered to or heard more.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

When elk feed on a ranchers land, the rancher is putting his dollars (hay and grass)into elk management and he does have a say. He's contributing more to elk management in a day than me or you with our $20 elk tag. When a rancher is leasing gov land with his money to graze his livestock on it, he does have a say as well.

The sheep rancher see's himself as the last dinosaur. Everyone wants to get him off the range. Any wonder why he's so resistant to a transplant of wild sheep? Every successfull transplant is one more nail in his coffin. Put yourself in his shoes for just one minute.

 

[MattK]

BHR- The management of elk and other wildlife is very expensive. I agree that a rancher losing some grass has a cost but I know in Montana some of that cost is recovereable from the state and the federal government.

It seems to me through different acts of congress (P-R for one), sportsmen pay a lot to manage wildlife. If you were to take dollar for dollar the amount the sportsmen put into game management vs. the non-sportsmen, you will find sportsmen put a higher portion into it.

If you are talking variable costs such as elk eating hay, then you also have to look at variable costs to the communities added by sportsmen (hotel rooms which are taxed, etc, etc). All of these are attributed to sportsmen but not directly counted in the income.

Rancher's (especially those leasing land for grazing or outfitting) get a hell of a lot more out of public lands than they will ever put into it. Many more get subsidized for the hay they lose (not just from elk eating it.)

All-in-all, the sportsmen should have a lot more say than they actually do when speaking of public lands if you are looking at only the amount they pay for their voice.

However, I believe all people should have an equal voice when speaking of public lands by simple definition of "public" lands.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

Read the elk management plan carefully, its not supposed to be an elk/rancher management plan, just an ELK management plan. The small amount of grass that the elk eat pales in comparison to the amount of grass the same ranchers cattle eat on my public lands...so we'll just call that a "wash". So, once again its the hunters providing $$$ and the ranchers providing static for correct elk management in Montana. I'll dive into the flawed ideas in the plan in another thread if you want to get into it any deeper. I also pay more than $20 for my elk tag in MT, I pay $678 for a deer and elk tag. Therefore, I should have more say than you and the ranchers...right?

If ranchers want a say in a management plan, then change the title to something appropriate "elk management and how to deal with whiney welfare ranchers" or the like.

Also, please keep in mind that the point I'm making is that the ranchers, outfitters, etc. have a disproportionate amount of influence on my PUBLIC lands and wildlife compared to what they contribute...thats a fact. You wont change my mind about that, and I think the proof is pretty apparent (see my previous post) as many decisions regarding public wildlife, timber, etc. are not made by the science, but rather from who yells the loudest, politics, etc. I'm also not saying its necessarily wrong, as everyone should have a voice in public resource management...I'm just not convinced that my $$$=stronger voice.

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, The RAT tax has had huge flaws in it since the beginning. That's why I'm against it. My solution is to abolish the FS subsidy to the timber extraction industry and the welfare ranchers and use that money to provide access etc. for recreational users.

 

[BigHornRam]

IT,

The only reason the timber industry or the welfare rancher is subsidized, is the same reason the RAT tax is subsidized. Incompetant and corrupt gummint bureaucrats! So if we follow your lodgic here, the recreationist, the logger, and the rancher should all have free access to public lands, correct?

Buzz,

Your non resident $678 does speak loudly. Non resident dollars support about half the FWP budget with only a small fraction of the number of hunters. FWP would be foolish not to listen to the wants and needs of the non resident sportsman.

But let's get back to the main topic; Shouldn't recreationist be asked to kick in to pay for public land management? Is charging an enterance fee at Jellystone Park bad, even though it does not entirely support the cost to manage the Park? If we don't like the RAT tax, maybe we should get rid of Park enterance fees as well? They already subsidize geezers. Why not subsidize all Park goers?

 

[Tom]

Hey, I just thought of this. Its Clinton's fault.

If Clinton wasn't such a moral mess, we would have had Gore, not Bush. Its Clinton's fault, if you don't like Bush not vetoing it.
haha

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

I think user fees are a great idea, I'm just not sold that the RAT is anything but another flawed government program that will ultimately end up COSTING taxpayers money. That said, though, I am in total agreement with you on user fees, those that use the resource (hiking, biking, etc. etc. etc.) should be required to pay more than someone who doesnt use that resource. I still contend that as long as public lands exist, all citizens, whether they use that public land or not, should be required to pay something (via federal income taxes).

I also think all user fees should be appropriated back into what they are collected for.

But, hey, I realize that wont happen with our Government...look at Social Security.

Thats why I dont like the RAT.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

We finally found some common ground!!!! I agree that S. S. is a complete joke.

And I also agree that every dime collected as a user fee should go back to the resource that it was collected for.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

Social Security isnt a joke...the idea is great.

The joke is the crooked bastards we elect to represent us that rob from the program to fund their pet gubbermint pork barrel projects...

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

I guess we don't agree. S. S. was a failed program from the get go. Future generations fund the retirement of todays. The first beneficeries never payed into the system. Couple that with people living much longer and the retirement age staying the same. Throw in a skyrocketing number of people that are on disability that are bleeding the system dry. You wouldn't believe how many 40-50 some year old people are on disability because they are too fat to work.

Why can't gubbermint just let us put OUR money aside for OUR own retirement instead handing it over to the government to "manage for us".

I'm glad Bush is spending some political capital trying to fix this f--ked up mess!

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

I dont think the program was flawed, you have to start somewhere and there is obviously going to be growing pains involved. I've done a fair amount of research on S.S. and it would be pretty "liquid" if it wasnt for the constant robbery from it. Social Security is the "cookie jar" that politicians cant keep their hands out of.

As to this: "Why can't gubbermint just let us put OUR money aside for OUR own retirement instead handing it over to the government to "manage for us".


I agree with you...almost.

While you and I have the smarts to save for our retirements and arent expecting or relying on S.S. or other gubbermint programs...the fact is, there are lots of folks who have no retirement OTHER than what they put into S.S.

If you expect all of the American Public to manage their money correctly, you're going to end up with 50% of America living in the streets at age 62, with no retirement of any kind.

So, I guess its either give them social security or give them welfare...may as well be S.S. as they typically had to at least paid SOMETHING into the program.

Just my thoughts.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

Typical liberal B. S.. Many people are to stupid to save for their retirement so the gummint needs to do it for them. Just creates more and more dependence on gummint, which suits the libs just fine.

You never commented on my disability comments. I knew 3 examples within a mile of my T. Falls home. And guess what, each one owned an atv! Too fat to work or pay for their health care and medicene, but all had the coin to come up with a brand new shiney atv. I say sink or swim on this one. Let Dawin's theory kick in.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

I agree, but jump into reality, as a responsible member of society, you're going to pay either way.

Always been that way, and always will be.

I'm not disagreeing that S.S. isnt the perfect program. The point is, that a whole pile of Americans lack responsibility and that the working class will pay for it, one way or another.

While your Darwin theory certainly has appeal and may even make sense, its not realistic and will NEVER be an answer to the problem.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

Who's calling who a realist? And why are you assuming I'm responsible!

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

You're right, judging from the hunting trips you've done, I must assume you're not really responsible with your money...

I just wasnt sure you could afford the new shiney ATV and the expensive hunting trips on disability...I may have to look into this angle a little more

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

If the gummint called me up and said "Paul if you give us 10K you can opt out of our system", I would cut them a check TODAY. They could use the 10K to honor their commitment to those who want to stay in, or use it to warehouse wild horseys, or what ever, I don't care.

But until they do, I will get by on short or long term capital gains, interest income, dividends, the sell your house every 2 years and build a new one loophole, trade labor, or just hunt and fish and live off the land. Anything but earned income. Anything to avoid funding their POS retirement plan. How's that for being responsible?