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

[TheJason]

They already have a seat at the table through the North American Model and the public trust doctrine. What is important is what is written into statute and departmental policies as to how wildlife is managed.

In the United States and Canada, the Model operates on seven interdependent principles:

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.
2. Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated.
3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law.
4. Wildlife may only be killed for a legitimate, non-frivolous purpose.
5. Wildlife is an international resource.
6. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.
7. Scientific management is the proper means for wildlife conservation.

 

[Doublecluck]

You post valid points. However, I'm confident even those who purchase firearms, ammunition and such are not opposed to hunting and likely support it. On the other hand, many of the others you point to who don't necessarily support hunting and if given the "equal seat at the table" visa vie by paying PR taxes ... then their influence will increase through a true vested interest. So my point is ... be careful who you invite to sit at the PR table. (ie: camera holding wolf watchers, ebikers, ATV groups, snowmobile clubs, etal.)

Agreed, but it seems they invited themselves. If I gotta listen to them, shouldn’t they pay to play? I’d prefer the status quo, but we better start working on recruitment. If we can continue to buy the “seats” as outdoorsman, I’m all for paying more.

 

[Straight Arrow]

They already have a seat at the table through the North American Model and the public trust doctrine. What is important is what is written into stature and departmental policies as to how wildlife is managed.

That is true. However the legacy of hunters holding significant sway in wildlife management decisions and with respect to policy has been attributed to the management fiscal support through PR. It is acknowledged that others not paying PR taxes have increasingly gained political and related influence with fish and game departments and commissions ... but if given even stronger voices due to paying PR taxes as well as general taxes, then I submit to you that the hunting / firearms community becomes much less important and influential proportionally.

 

[TheJason]

Why should hunters exclusively pay for urban wildlife issues? Public safety removals and trash can bears? Maintenance and upkeep of wildlife areas used by the general public? Public water accesses?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Why should hunters exclusively pay for urban wildlife issues? maintenance and upkeep of wildlife areas used by the general public? Public water accesses?

They should not. You misunderstand what I wrote. Furthermore, PR is not the sole funding mechanism for wildlife management and other wildlife related programs. There is strong and valid rationale for increasing fiscal support for wildlife for many reasons, increasingly less related to hunting. But PR is a distinct and separate fiscal "voice" available to hunters to put money with mouth. With larger more varied groups paying PR taxes, the hunter's voice suddenly diminishes.

 

[LopeHunter]

No issue with a tax increase for P-R. While this disproportionately has hunters and shooting enthusiasts paying for habitat this also supports having a stronger voice in public policy discussions that involve issues hunters care about now. I think is a shame when "user taxes, er, user fees" are required to enter national parks for day visits. No issue with charging to stay overnight. Rant over.

 

[Flyfish4ever]

A side comment:
In Alabama for WMAs, we have to have a permit to recreate on them. All of this money goes to funding wildlife projects on the WMAs (mostly dealing with eradication of hogs) but everyone contributes to that. An annual pass is about $30 and I would be happy to see this more widespread.

I agree that hunters are disproportionately taxed for wildlife projects, but the taxes are not just for game animals. It’s about sustaining an ecosystem, not a species.

 

[geetar]

If it’s used wisely for intended purposes I will gladly pay it. If it’s just a higher tax with an underlying agenda I will gladly oppose it.

 

[coleslaw]

I wouldn't be bothered by it necessarily, but I do think that a hard inquiry is needed to see exactly where all the money is going first and how exactly all these departments and organizations are using these funds. Are they for research or are people using it to buy $30,000 suits and expensive dinners? (Looking at you NRA). I know it's not really the same as the NRA, but money that our government touches seems to sometimes be at times "mishandled", or allocated for other purposes without consent of the voters/ taxpayers. Sorry for the tinfoil hat speech.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I wouldn't be bothered by it necessarily, but I do think that a hard inquiry is needed to see exactly where all the money is going first and how exactly all these departments and organizations are using these funds. Are they for research or are people using it to buy $30,000 suits and expensive dinners? (Looking at you NRA). I know it's not really the same as the NRA, but money that our government touches seems to sometimes be at times "mishandled", or allocated for other purposes without consent of the voters/ taxpayers. Sorry for the tinfoil hat speech.

You have highlighted a real issue for Montana which seems to arise every legislative session. There are legislators who see that PR money which comes to Montana FWP for wildlife and they try to divert it for other programs or state funding shortfalls.
The positive outcome each time is that FWP protects that funding for wildlife by explaining the parameters and the rules for spending those federal dollars. Part of the explanation is caution to the legislature that if the money is not used as intended ... then it faces the potential to be reduced or eliminated by those who oversee PR funds.

BTW, the NRA analogy is not a valid one as you pointed out. Obviously LaPierre's spending extravagances are not illegal, but if an elected congress person, legislator, or governmental department official purchases a $30,000 suit for personal wear ... that is illegal! So watch for those "suits" as you as a taxpayer, citizen, and voter are also part of the "government" (like it or not) and it's your inherent right as well as responsibility to provide the ultimate oversight regarding tax dollar expenditures.

 

[diamond hitch]

I agree with most of what everyone is saying. I vaguely remember details on those funds (40 years ago). I believe there was another separate tax but I can't remember if it was for fish? I think the money was to be used as matching funds from states for habitat improvement but there were specified uses. I also remember a brief article (70s or 80s) about USFWS using those funds for management bonuses and building new offices. Hence I believe a review is in order as a refresher on what the current rules are, how the funds are being used, and is there an annual report that reports to the people some form of accountability.

It might be time to update the law to make sure it is not an agency slush fund as well as document the annual accomplishments prior to blanket increasing the rate. Periodicaly it is important to get a little sunshine on things.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I believe there was another separate tax but I can't remember if it was for fish?

Dingell-Johnson Act for fisheries.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That is true. However the legacy of hunters holding significant sway in wildlife management decisions and with respect to policy has been attributed to the management fiscal support through PR. It is acknowledged that others not paying PR taxes have increasingly gained political and related influence with fish and game departments and commissions ... but if given even stronger voices due to paying PR taxes as well as general taxes, then I submit to you that the hunting / firearms community becomes much less important and influential proportionally.

I agree. Let's make our tent smaller, and continue to wonder why fewer people hold hunters in high esteem. This is the way.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There are currently some bills that would help achieve the outcomes (outside of the tax for non-consumptive goods)

Reinvesting in America's Wildlife Act

Many efforts to provide statutory funding for LWCF (This is just the first one that popped up)

The backpack tax is a great idea. We could also add many goods to PR and achieve a similar increase in funding.

We also should be advocating for an increase in the base budgets of our land mgt agencies so they have the basic tools & manpower to get the job done, rather than using the budget as a way to punish an agency for whatever perceived slight.

 

[TheJason]

They should not. You misunderstand what I wrote. Furthermore, PR is not the sole funding mechanism for wildlife management and other wildlife related programs. There is strong and valid rationale for increasing fiscal support for wildlife for many reasons, increasingly less related to hunting. But PR is a distinct and separate fiscal "voice" available to hunters to put money with mouth. With larger more varied groups paying PR taxes, the hunter's voice suddenly diminishes.

I’m fully aware it is not solely PR dollars. It’s a huge augmentation to license dollars (in addition to DJ funds as you noted).

Good luck continuing to buy your voice at the table. It’s a failed model of thinking we hunters need and should be the only ones paying an excise tax for wildlife. With falling numbers of hunters, you ultimately end up sacrificing the good of the resources for a need of paying for things, without contributions from others who both strain the resources and benefit from the resources.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I agree. Let's make our tent smaller, and continue to wonder why fewer people hold hunters in high esteem. This is the way.

Sarcasm at another misunderstanding? I'm just advocating for keeping PR a smaller firearms and hunting related "tent" so those taxpayers may maintain that particular venue of influence. If wanting to expand the wildlife funding tent then I suggest a Lamb Act tax on camera equipment, as an example.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sarcasm at another misunderstanding? I'm just advocating for keeping PR a smaller firearms and hunting related "tent" so those taxpayers may maintain that particular venue of influence. If wanting to expand the wildlife funding tent then I suggest a Lamb Act tax on camera equipment, as an example.

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.

 

[Trial153]

I am not apposed in theory. However I feel that we should be looking at getting our fiscal house in order on all fronts before we decide that increased taxes are needed. I also feel that there are too many seats at the table that aren't footing the bill. We already give them a voice we might as well let them pitch in on the check.

 

[88man]

10% tax on North Face and Patagonia I vote yes!
Ha ha
How many of the affirmative posts before mine get their personal income from the Government " non military related" or a non profit.
Its crazy to me how people who work for the government again non military> all seem raising taxes as a good thing sorta like a revenue booster "and we will put it to good use".

Worst unemployment ever> Government not allowing various businesses to be open> People who pay taxes and employ people on the verge of possibly losing everything.
No I'm not for new taxes of any kind or or any tax increases. Maybe in ten years or so

 

[Irrelevant]

I'd say there's a 99% chance the hunting community would revoke the PR taxes if given the opportunity. They seem to want to pay less for everything, from licenses costs, to gun costs, always less. But you look at the non-consumptive crowd, and the direct consumers are going the other direction, willing to pay more. Look at Patagonia, they don't make clothing better than anyone else, but they've convinced people that they're doing good by buying their clothes. I think it's only a matter of time before the entire OR industry adds a "backpack" tax of some sort.