would you oppose an increase in the tax for Pittman-Robertson?

[Straight Arrow]

The good thing about a "sales tax" Such as PR is that you yourself are imposing the tax on yourself. It is solely your decision whether or not you purchase that firearm or ammunition. No external "government" entity is imposing that tax. In order for you to pay it ... you decide you want to pay it. For me personally, I am motivated to purchase by the fact that the tax is going to benefit wildlife in some way.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The idea that allowing non-consumptive users a "seat at the table" by having them pay more is a common theme among hunters who fear poor outcomes. Apologies if I took your statements out of context.

Yeah until CPW decides to spend 5 million to sterilize elk in boulder because hunting is cruel. I like the idea of inclusivity and a big tent, I think we should bring people into the hunting community who have previously felt they don't have a place in our tent. I don't think we should cede authority to other groups. There will always be the Muir v. Roosevelt debate in our community, which is fine, but those two gentleman didn't have to deal with PETA.

Personally I'm not worried about the mountain hippies... I'm worried about Becky and Chet, they just moved here from Darien. Chet just made a fortune shorting the market during corona, Becky has a JD from Harvard and is a stay at home mom. Becky is bored; yelling at people who have their kids and dogs off leash just isn't enough anymore and has decided to make it her mission to eliminate hunting.

(Sorry started the cinco de mayo festivities early)


To the OPs question, I would definitely pay more personally, but I've very much opposed to dicking around with PR. Don't change it don't expand it, it is one of our few pieces of legislation that really works don't open it up to be monkeyed with.

Different taxes and programs are a great idea, I fully support backpack taxes with that revenue going towards building infrastructure to mitigate habitat impact caused by the massive increase in outdoor recreation.

 

[TOGIE]

Becky is bored; yelling at people who have their kids and dogs off leash just isn't enough anymore and has decided to make it her mission to eliminate hunting.

keep those gremlins tethered

 

[JLS]

Different taxes and programs are a great idea, I fully support backpack taxes with that revenue going towards building infrastructure to mitigate habitat impact caused by the massive increase in outdoor recreation.

The beauty of a different tax as you and @neffa3 have alluded to is you can tailor it directly to things like expanding and developing access. In addition, you could use it for law enforcement efforts to implement seasonal closures and travel plan restrictions. These are both very important aspects to wildlife management that aren’t allowed an expenditure of PR funds.

If I were king and could implement an outdoor excise tax, I would direct it towards following

1. Access
2. Trail development, expansion, decommissioning based on science ( collared animal studies, water quality studies, etc.
3. Enforcement of a seasonal closures for wildlife wintering, calving, etc.
4. Enforcement of travel plans to reduce user conflicts
5. Expansion of wildlife areas to protect migration corridors and reduce foothill housing encroachment

 

[6mm Remington]

I would pay a higher percentage point to help out certainly. I also try and donate some time to projects if possible. I volunteered to help trap some bighorn sheep in Western Montana as an example. It did not pan out because the weather did not co-operate, but you get the idea. I think small things like volunteering are helpful also and besides I like the boots on the ground work personally.

The latest Bugle Magazine from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation posted these figures that hunters and fishermen have contributed in these programs which is really impressive. It does not include man hours spent helping on projects like the one I high-lighted, or other groups such as the NRA, Boone & Crockett Club, Safari Club, Wild Sheep Foundation, Montana Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife, The Mule Deer Foundation, and many other groups.

Excise Taxes:
$22 bilion - generated since 1937 with the passing of the Pittman-Robertson Act.
$1 billion+ - generated per year since 2014

Hunting and Fishing Licenses:
$1.5 billion+ generated in license sales in 2015 alone
$686 million of that in fishing licenses
$821 million in hunting licenses

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yeah until CPW decides to spend 5 million to sterilize elk in boulder because hunting is cruel. I like the idea of inclusivity and a big tent, I think we should bring people into the hunting community who have previously felt they don't have a place in our tent. I don't think we should cede authority to other groups. There will always be the Muir v. Roosevelt debate in our community, which is fine, but those two gentleman didn't have to deal with PETA.

Personally I'm not worried about the mountain hippies... I'm worried about Becky and Chet, they just moved here from Darien. Chet just made a fortune shorting the market during corona, Becky has a JD from Harvard and is a stay at home mom. Becky is bored; yelling at people who have their kids and dogs off leash just isn't enough anymore and has decided to make it her mission to eliminate hunting.
View attachment 139058
(Sorry started the cinco de mayo festivities early)


To the OPs question, I would definitely pay more personally, but I've very much opposed to dicking around with PR. Don't change it don't expand it, it is one of our few pieces of legislation that really works don't open it up to be monkeyed with.

Different taxes and programs are a great idea, I fully support backpack taxes with that revenue going towards building infrastructure to mitigate habitat impact caused by the massive increase in outdoor recreation.

So you're problem is essentially white people engaging in democracy.

Which, to be fair, hasn't been going well for us lately.

 

[TOGIE]

So you're problem is essentially white people engaging in democracy.

i think it's more a somewhat veiled complaint at folks who could barely distinguish an elk from a tiger from an opossum from a snot nosed little child who engage and try to force their (rather ignorant) hand in wildlife issues

 

[Ben Lamb]

i think it's more a somewhat veiled complaint at folks who could barely distinguish an elk from a tiger from an opossum from a snot nosed little child who engage and try to force their (rather ignorant) hand in wildlife issues

This is how everything works in politics & policy.

Welcome to America.

 

[TOGIE]

This is how everything works in politics & policy.

Welcome to America.

oh i'm not entirely new to america

it is what it is. doesn't stop it from being annoying as chit tho

 

[JLS]

oh i'm not entirely new to america

it is what it is. doesn't stop it from being annoying as chit tho

Yes, it can be entirely annoying. I just hope we as hunters don’t continue to delude ourselves into thinking “we foot the bill so we call the shots”, all while telling others we don’t want help funding the process.

 

[Ben Lamb]

oh i'm not entirely new to america

it is what it is. doesn't stop it from being annoying as chit tho

"We had this great idea, but the annoying dumbasses screwed it all up." Geo. Washington, 1789




Seriously though, a public process, with public involvement will attract those seeking personal advancement, the silly, the conspiracy theorists, etc. I've spend 20 years sitting in on public meetings and the one constant is that crazy will be at every pubic meeting.

How we graciously accept their input while ensuring that the reasonable & thoughtful measures move forward has been one of this nation's greatest tests. Just because these people show up, doesn't mean they should get their way, but those who do come to the table with an honest intent & willingness to compromise should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Trial153]

"We had this great idea, but the annoying dumbasses screwed it all up." Geo. Washington, 1789




Seriously though, a public process, with public involvement will attract those seeking personal advancement, the silly, the conspiracy theorists, etc. I've spend 20 years sitting in on public meetings and the one constant is that crazy will be at every pubic meeting.

How we graciously accept their input while ensuring that the reasonable & thoughtful measures move forward has been one of this nation's greatest tests. Just because these people show up, doesn't mean they should get their way, but those who do come to the table with an honest intent & willingness to compromise should be given the benefit of the doubt.

As long a the F&G depts are air dropping wolves into areas to kill off all the Elk I am not agreeing to pay one more red cent.

 

[Irrelevant]

The beauty of a different tax as you and @neffa3 have alluded to is you can tailor it directly to things like expanding and developing access. In addition, you could use it for law enforcement efforts to implement seasonal closures and travel plan restrictions. These are both very important aspects to wildlife management that aren’t allowed an expenditure of PR funds.

If I were king and could implement an outdoor excise tax, I would direct it towards following

1. Access
2. Trail development, expansion, decommissioning based on science ( collared animal studies, water quality studies, etc.
3. Enforcement of a seasonal closures for wildlife wintering, calving, etc.
4. Enforcement of travel labs to reduce user conflicts
5. Expansion of wildlife areas to protect migration corridors and reduce foothill housing encroachment

I would love if those were the uses of a future OR tax. Unfortunately I think a decent % will end up being spent to fight O&G development, expand anything and everything that could be contrived as fighting climate change, and keeping fluffy megafauna on the ESA.

However, ACCESS should be the one thing everything can agree on. And general enforcement, which I think of as monitoring for illegal off-road use or poaching timber or trash dumping.

 

[TOGIE]

Yes, it can be entirely annoying. I just hope we as hunters don’t continue to delude ourselves into thinking “we foot the bill so we call the shots”, all while telling others we don’t want help funding the process.

agreed. i do believe those words will slowly rearrange to some form of "pay the bill and shoot your foot"

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So you're problem is essentially white people engaging in democracy.

Which, to be fair, hasn't been going well for us lately.

Yeah... basically, though to refine it a bit I have a problem with people who attempt to "fix" a perceived problem without first trying to understand the issue from all sides.

You're not going to see me leading a campaign on "how to fix the T in Boston" anytime soon.

 

[rtraverdavis]

Yikes. Just realized my initial reply was made without carefully reading the question—exactly what I teach my students not to do! I would definitely not oppose any new outdoor rec taxes that would fund wildlife and habitat.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yeah... basically, though to refine it a bit I have a problem with people who attempt to "fix" a perceived problem without first trying to understand the issue from all sides.

You're not going to see me leading a campaign on "how to fix the T in Boston" anytime soon.

I will never abandon the principles of open & transparent gov't, as well as never give up the sacred right to petition our gov't.

I will also never abandon my right the mercilessly mock those who show up and go full Chad & Karen.

With rights comes responsibilities.

 

[Wildabeest]

Tax E-bikes big time. mtmuley

Should we also add horses? Mules? Llamas?

 

[Wildabeest]

In general, I don’t really trust that the government will effectively or efficiently use the money they collect. So my personal preference is to tax myself by donating to (and buying tons of raffle tickets) from conservation groups that I have researched and respect their mission and financials. I wouldn’t protest addition funding sources for PR, but I think the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim for reasons stated by others.

@mtmuley, I’m not buying an e-bike until they change the access rules (which is unlikely if you are fighting against it), so they won’t get my money that way!