Time for Pittman Robert’s Expansion?

[Hammsolo]

The post about revising Montana’s draw and regulations got me thinking.

1. It’s time for heavy investment to make informed changes.

2. Change takes change.

Well, how do we do that? I propose the Centsible Wildland and Wildlife Act. Ten percent of each purchase of outdoor recreation supplies would be invested into wildlands and wildlife management. This would decrease the tax on long guns and ammo.

According to Outdoorindustry.org, US citizens spent 887 billion dollars on outdoor recreation. Of this, they spend about 185 billion on outdoor supplies. This does not include lift tickets, lessons, or guides.

What if Pittman Robert’s expanded to cover any supplies intended for outdoor use? The Acts max excise tax percentage is 11% currently on long guns and ammunition and 10% on pistols. Let’s say we just make everything 10%. This would increase the revenue to 1.85 billion, not including other areas that should be taxed like lift tickets. If we added in any purchase that leads to the use of wildlands and wildlife as a resource the revenue would skyrocket.

If we all want to play, we all need to pay. The more we play the more we pay. We pay to care for our precious natural resources.

Outdoorindustry Report

 

[hank4elk]

Past time for a recreation use tax.

 

[gouch]

A tax on all outdoor recreation equipment would be a great idea. But how could such a bill ever pass congress? To start with every Republican would vote no, just because it is a "TAX". Then every manufacturer of outdoor equipment would oppose it as would most users of that equipment, no matter how much they claim to care about the environment. I guarantee that if Pitman Roberts didn't already exist and, the exact same bill was introduced in congress, that hunters would be leading the charge to kill the bill. Everyone hates taxes even if they love what those tax dollars do.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Recovering America's Wildlife Act is close to this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2773

Advocates are saying that the liklihood of passage is high, and if passed, it would mean a lot of cash to states to pay for a variety of issues relative to threatened & endangered species as well as species of conservation need.

CARA was another attempt at this: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1690/

Ultimately for an excise tax it's the manufacturers & major retailers who stand in the way of it.

 

[Hammsolo]

A tax on all outdoor recreation equipment would be a great idea. But how could such a bill ever pass congress? To start with every Republican would vote no, just because it is a "TAX". Then every manufacturer of outdoor equipment would oppose it as would most users of that equipment, no matter how much they claim to care about the environment. I guarantee that if Pitman Roberts didn't already exist and, the exact same bill was introduced in congress, that hunters would be leading the charge to kill the bill. Everyone hates taxes even if they love what those tax dollars do.

Do we change the wording? Humans are emotional critters. We don’t make decisions on logic usually, even though we like to think we do. We base it on emotion, and then justify.

For example, I decide I want a new rifle. Factually, I don’t need another one. However, a 17hmr Tikka T1x would fit a “necessary” niche… My fancy target 22 is just too heavy to carry… my 6.5 costs too much to plink… time to buy a unneeded new rifle!

The Centsible Conservation Fund? The Centsible Wild Fee? The Centsible (I feel really creative… ) Wildlife & Land Trust? The Centsible Roundup!

In today’s day and age it could be an optional donation at purchase. What if it was an automatic question on all outdoor supply purchases? It could be anything from 10% to a “Would you like to round up?”

My goal isn’t a specific strategy, but conservation.

 

[R.K.]

Do we change the wording? Humans are emotional critters. We don’t make decisions on logic usually, even though we like to think we do. We base it on emotion, and then justify.

For example, I decide I want a new rifle. Factually, I don’t need another one. However, a 17hmr Tikka T1x would fit a “necessary” niche… My fancy target 22 is just too heavy to carry… my 6.5 costs too much to plink… time to buy a unneeded new rifle!

The Centsible Conservation Fund? The Centsible Wild Fee? The Centsible (I feel really creative… ) Wildlife & Land Trust? The Centsible Roundup!

In today’s day and age it could be an optional donation at purchase. What if it was an automatic question on all outdoor supply purchases? It could be anything from 10% to a “Would you like to round up?”

My goal isn’t a specific strategy, but conservation.

The problem is, you have places like Bass pro shops that collect it and then donate it on your behalf as a "charitable donation" to get the good optics and possible tax breaks. My gut is telling me there is something that's going to be exploited in all this.

That said, it's past time for mountain bikers and backpacking instagrammers to pay back to the resource they use.

 

[Hammsolo]

I do both of those activities and agree. I also know that my group of buddies would be willing to pay if it was a well-planned transparent plan. I don’t think the topic has been broached enough or in an effective way. Most people are clueless about this topic. I’ve learned through my own curiosity and this forum has helped tremendously.

I also believe we should be teaching conservation in all schools within Science. What is more important than understanding and living within the system we are part of.

I’ve pondered contacting RMEF and other groups about helping me to create a curriculum. I am a science teacher. We are behind the curve when we are teaching adults.

 

[Shangobango]

Was in a somewhat similar conversation yesterday when I was told by a hiker “I will help fund preservation with my tax dollars but I will not fund conservation”. Freeloaders…

 

[MThuntr]

A recent post on an outdoor social media page suggested the need for a backpack tax...there were like 1500 comments all of them said the same thing
1) ANY added fee is a barrier to low income (regardless if it's a penny or a dollar) and is seen as discrimination.
2) Hunters and fishermen are consumptive users of public resources so they should pay more (they don't care to take into account we already do) or hunters/fishermen should be kicked off public lands completely because it hurts their feelings.
3) Fees at parks and popular trailheads are already a thing so why should they pay twice.
4) The FS, BLM, NPS already has a budget they should stop pumping $ into fire and spend it on trail maintenance.
5) Revise tax law to remove corporate bailout/tax advantages to prevent multibillion dollar corporations or individuals from paying little or no taxes. That way funds are appropriately distributed for use on trails.

 

[Scott85]

People in Virginia threw a hissy fit because VA DWR started to require a permit for kayaks and canoes to launch from state owned ramps. If you had a fishing or hunting license you didn’t need the permit. It got so bad the state had to delay the implementation of the permit by 6 months to do more research.

 

[Shangobango]

A recent post on an outdoor social media page suggested the need for a backpack tax...there were like 1500 comments all of them said the same thing
1) ANY added fee is a barrier to low income (regardless if it's a penny or a dollar) and is seen as discrimination.
2) Hunters and fishermen are consumptive users of public resources so they should pay more (they don't care to take into account we already do) or hunters/fishermen should be kicked off public lands completely because it hurts their feelings.
3) Fees at parks and popular trailheads are already a thing so why should they pay twice.
4) The FS, BLM, NPS already has a budget they should stop pumping $ into fire and spend it on trail maintenance.
5) Revise tax law to remove corporate bailout/tax advantages to prevent multibillion dollar corporations or individuals from paying little or no taxes. That way funds are appropriately distributed for use on trails.

Sounds like way too much focus on trails and too little focus on what they go through.

 

[Hammsolo]

Was in a somewhat similar conversation yesterday when I was told by a hiker “I will help fund preservation with my tax dollars but I will not fund conservation”. Freeloaders…

What is the definition? They’re synonyms. To conserve? To preserve? They both mean to keep, or to save. I’d love to hear their answer.

 

[Hammsolo]

A recent post on an outdoor social media page suggested the need for a backpack tax...there were like 1500 comments all of them said the same thing
1) ANY added fee is a barrier to low income (regardless if it's a penny or a dollar) and is seen as discrimination.
2) Hunters and fishermen are consumptive users of public resources so they should pay more (they don't care to take into account we already do) or hunters/fishermen should be kicked off public lands completely because it hurts their feelings.
3) Fees at parks and popular trailheads are already a thing so why should they pay twice.
4) The FS, BLM, NPS already has a budget they should stop pumping $ into fire and spend it on trail maintenance.
5) Revise tax law to remove corporate bailout/tax advantages to prevent multibillion dollar corporations or individuals from paying little or no taxes. That way funds are appropriately distributed for use on trails.

Number 1 makes zero sense if they said a penny. They ruin there own argument. I could listen if they had a cap, but a penny.

Number 2, we’re all consumptive users when were out there. They need to be educated on environmental effect of trails and hiking. Are they proposing true wilderness? No trails, and no actual access?

Number 3, then we should set a standard rate for all trails. I rarely pay a fee, but would be willing. How isn’t that discrimination?

Number 4, what is the plan to do with climate change? There isn’t even enough resources for preemptive fire management.

Number 5, I can get behind that. However, what does that look like? I’ve read ideas on this. You tax the outdoor supply companies rather than the individual.

 

[Hammsolo]

People in Virginia threw a hissy fit because VA DWR started to require a permit for kayaks and canoes to launch from state owned ramps. If you had a fishing or hunting license you didn’t need the permit. It got so bad the state had to delay the implementation of the permit by 6 months to do more research.

Did they educate people before hand? Did they clearly show what money was going to be collected, and how it would be spent? I think that’s key.

 

[MThuntr]

Number 1 makes zero sense if they said a penny. They ruin there own argument. I could listen if they had a cap, but a penny.

Number 2, were all consumptive users when were out there. They need to be educated on environmental effect of trails and hiking. Are they proposing true wilderness? No trails, and no actual access?

Number 3, then we should set a standard rate for all trails. I rarely pay a fee, but would be willing. How isn’t that discrimination?

Number 4, what is the plan to do with climate change? There isn’t even enough resources for preemptive fire management.

Number 5, I can get behind that. However, what does that look like? I’ve read ideas on this. You tax the outdoor supply companies rather than the individual.

This is just what I read and made a list for people to see what I saw...these are common barriers to acceptance by general public. The answers you seek are much too complex for the average Facebook commenter to process. I'd say 100% of comments were uneducated, emotionally driven (mostly greed)

 

[Shangobango]

What is the definition? They’re synonyms. To conserve? To preserve? They both mean to keep, or to save. I’d love to hear their answer.

I said what you said so I googled it last night. Apparently preservation in the sense this person was talking about means to protect with no consumptive uses by humans whatsoever where as conservation is to protect and still have responsible consumption.

These are the types that preach Leave No Trace fanatically and wag their finger at me for hiking off trail while walking on a man made trail through the wilderness. Bet I leave less trace than they do…

 

[Hammsolo]

I said what you said so I googled it last night. Apparently preservation in the sense this person was talking about means to protect with no consumptive uses by humans whatsoever where as conservation is to protect and still have responsible consumption.

These are the types that preach Leave No Trace fanatically and wag their finger out me for hiking off trail while walking on a man made trail through the wilderness. Bet I leave less trace than they do…

I hear you. Then they shouldn’t be in the woods at all. In my experience this is a very small group.

This is also an example of vocabulary creep. Those are new definitions adapted by a group to suite their needs. They’re inaccurate in actuality.

 

[Shangobango]

I hear you. Then they shouldn’t be in the woods at all. In my experience this is a very small group.

This is also an example of vocabulary creep. Those out new definitions adapted by a group to suite their needs. They’re inaccurate in actuality.

Unfortunately, in the ultralight backpacking, backpacking, and hiking world they are not as rare as you may think.