This was surprising, FS royalty mix.

[Deleted member 28227]

I was just pointing out that skiing is a recreational activity that people are willing to spend a lot of money on and expect to be taxed more...as compared to other uses.

Well except for free loaders like neffa3

I agree I think the ski industry could easily support a hard goods tax that went to public lands.

 

[Irrelevant]

I also skin up the edge of the resort at night. Total freeloader.

 

[LuketheDog]

I don't have any data

That's not a great way to start debate on here...or, maybe it is...

 

[BigHornRam]

The "free" skiers around here use snowmobiles to access the National Forest backcountry. Lazy freeloaders.

 

[COEngineer]

That's not a great way to start debate on here...or, maybe it is...

I meant it as an invitation for someone to provide data, but since no one took the bait, here's the answer:
"The number of hunters was evenly split
between those with household incomes
of $75,000 or more and $74,999 or less.
Among hunters who reported income,
51 percent had household incomes of
$74,999 or less, and 49 percent118
had household incomes greater than
$75,000."

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw16-nat.pdf

The median household income in the US in 2016 was about $58k, so it looks like hunters, on average, have a higher income than the general population ($75k vs $58k).

 

[Trial153]

Everything is open to be subsidized if the right lobby throws enough money at it.

 

[jumpshooter]

This graph would be totally different if our forests were being properly managed instead of letting them burn up everywhere. Timber revenue would dwarf all other activities. In fact, timber revenue used to fund the entire agency. Now we are spending all the revenue on fighting fire....

 

[LaSportsman]

I meant it as an invitation for someone to provide data, but since no one took the bait, here's the answer:
"The number of hunters was evenly split
between those with household incomes
of $75,000 or more and $74,999 or less.
Among hunters who reported income,
51 percent had household incomes of
$74,999 or less, and 49 percent118
had household incomes greater than
$75,000."

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw16-nat.pdf

The median household income in the US in 2016 was about $58k, so it looks like hunters, on average, have a higher income than the general population ($75k vs $58k).

Interesting data there. Decline in hunters from 2011 to 2016 despite some denying that numbers are declining and all this media is ruining hunting. Doubt there have been that many new hunters since 2016. Interesting that the biggest category of spending was $7.4 billion on hunting equipment, nearly as much as total trip related expenses and more than food, lodging, and transportation combined. Would love to buy a new rifle every year but not in the cards and I shoot a couple hundred rounds a year instead of 3 to sight my rifle but still. That supports your argument on hunters and spending.

Only 16% hunted in a state other than their own. I do wonder if that has gone up in recent years.

I do agree hunting and skiing are equal in cost if you compare resident/nonres. I can ski all season out west on a $500 season pass and $1500 of gear that will last me five years or more. Toss in fuel and occasional lodging if I want to stay closer to the slop to ski Saturday and Sunday. Traveling to ski goes up but so does that non res license.