Outside Online Back Pack Tax Article

[Mtnboy]

Hopefully somehow this eventually gets put in to place. LONG overdue.

Home Page

Outside covers travel, sports, gear, and fitness, as well as the personalities, the environment, and the style and culture of the outdoors.

www.outsidebusinessjournal.com

 

[Formidilosus]

I disagree completely. They is t costing them anything now, you make them apart of the funding and see how much more the ignorant public gets involved. When the pay, they will have a say.

 

[isItFallYet]

Add another to the disagree column.

 

[bsnedeker]

This article claims PR and DJ funds have been declining for decades... I'd love to see a source on that. I can't find anything that shows funds by year, but firearms and ammo sales have grown significantly in the last 20 years and from what I can find the fishing industry is staying pretty stable.... down about 1.5 percent over the last 5 years.

I'm against this tax. I don't want random hikers to have more say than they currently do in conservation related topics which will be the expectation if they have to start paying in, I guarantee it.

I try to be open minded about BHA but I find I'm pretty much opposed to anything they try to push, this is yet another example.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[ODB]

This article claims PR and DJ funds have been declining for decades... I'd love to see a source on that. I can't find anything that shows funds by year, but firearms and ammo sales have grown significantly in the last 20 years and from what I can find the fishing industry is staying pretty stable.... down about 1.5 percent over the last 5 years.

I'm against this tax. I don't want random hikers to have more say than they currently do in conservation related topics which will be the expectation if they have to start paying in, I guarantee it.

I try to be open minded about BHA but I find I'm pretty much opposed to anything they try to push, this is yet another example.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Bubblehide]

Just look at what the Center for Biodiversity has done and continues to do and you will realize that such groups already have a say. They raise tons of money and spend it on issues that directly impact us in a negative manner.

 

[mitchellbk]

I don’t know, makes more sense to tax companies that make goods oversees that then are used on our trails

 

[Jauwater]

I thought I was already paying taxes to access the "Governments" land

Sent from my SM-S506DL using Tapatalk

 

[mlgc20]

 

[123 4/8 P&Y]

I have mixed feelings. The backpackers use the mountains more in some regions. Other places hunters use much more. We already pay the excise tax on archery gear, ammo, etc., plus we pay tag and license fees. It makes sense that trekking poles, sleeping pads and backpacks with any type of frame should be taxed. But backpack hunters buy those too, so creepy Joe will be double dipping on us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ODB]

Let's not forgot that while only 4% of people make up hunters, the P-R tax is on ALL firearms (10% on pistols and revolvers and 11% on rifles/shotguns, archery and ammo).

The dirty little secret is that all those pew pew gun nut hoarding AR-15-totin' tactical folx are putting one hell of a lot of money into the P-R.

I'd like to see Land and BHA recognize the massive $$ contributions of his fellow non-hunting, but gun-friendly conservationists.

 

[sneaky]

The outdoor industry has had multiple occasions to implement a self-imposed tax on outdoor gear and equipment and they've voted against it every time. "We pay lots of money in parking fees at trailheads every year" is their same old trite argument. If they want to destroy trails and campgrounds without paying their part, let them. But those same idiots are the reason that Colorados DOW got merged with Parks AGAIN after it failed the first time decades ago. Hunters are footing all the bills anyways.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[WCB]

Reading the comments on BHA's post is great. I looked at it a day or so ago on this topic and the vast majority were against it. Many stating something like " I pay a lot to other organizations for conservation" hahahaha so do hunters and anglers on top of the tax, and licenses, and parking passes, access fees etc.

 

[hutty]

Interesting comments and thoughts. Honestly when any piece of public ground is going to do something or change something, public comments is taken and user groups are assembled. More often than not, hikers and campers make up part of the user groups. If these are properties are paid with PR dollars they are getting a free ride. They are going to have a say, so why shouldn't they pay for it and have some more skin in the game. Have to say they are some serious whiners moaning about a small excise tax on their expensive gear. Pony up some cash hunters have for the last 100 years or so.

Thanks for the article, Great to see the the Sports Lure quoted in the story. Awesome store for all things outdoors.

Interesting article I came across today looking at this issue.

College student views on paying for conservation: oil and gas, hunters, lotto should pay, tax on outdoor recreation equipment not supported. A recent study from North Carolina State University explores how 17,203 undergraduates think wildlife conservation should be paid for in the US. The majority of students supported continued funding from hunting and fishing license fees and a tax on sporting equipment, and were also in favor of funding conservation via revenue from natural resource extraction companies, state lottery proceeds, state sales taxes and local bonds. Funding from a tax on outdoor recreation equipment—tents, backpacks, binoculars, etc.—was not supported by students.

https://news.ncsu.edu/2021/07/this-...uld-pay-for-wildlife-conservation-in-the-u-s/

 

[hutty]

And lets not forget one of the most successful other conservation programs funded mainly by hunters the migratory bird and hunting stamp.

2021/2022 Federal Duck Stamp helps wildlife and habitat. 98 cents of every dollar spent on the $25 stamp are used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire and protect waterfowl habitat. You don’t have to be a hunter to support the program

 

[sneaky]

Interesting comments and thoughts. Honestly when any piece of public ground is going to do something or change something, public comments is taken and user groups are assembled. More often than not, hikers and campers make up part of the user groups. If these are properties are paid with PR dollars they are getting a free ride. They are going to have a say, so why shouldn't they pay for it and have some more skin in the game. Have to say they are some serious whiners moaning about a small excise tax on their expensive gear. Pony up some cash hunters have for the last 100 years or so.

Thanks for the article, Great to see the the Sports Lure quoted in the story. Awesome store for all things outdoors.

Interesting article I came across today looking at this issue.

College student views on paying for conservation: oil and gas, hunters, lotto should pay, tax on outdoor recreation equipment not supported. A recent study from North Carolina State University explores how 17,203 undergraduates think wildlife conservation should be paid for in the US. The majority of students supported continued funding from hunting and fishing license fees and a tax on sporting equipment, and were also in favor of funding conservation via revenue from natural resource extraction companies, state lottery proceeds, state sales taxes and local bonds. Funding from a tax on outdoor recreation equipment—tents, backpacks, binoculars, etc.—was not supported by students.

https://news.ncsu.edu/2021/07/this-...uld-pay-for-wildlife-conservation-in-the-u-s/

As usual, they want someone else to foot the bill for them. I think they should pay their share or STFU

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Mtnboy]

As usual, they want someone else to foot the bill for them. I think they should pay their share or STFU

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

This is kinda my thought too.

I'm actually a little surprised how many guys don't want something like this.

 

[Formidilosus]

Because the answer is always more taxes…

 

[sneaky]

Because the answer is always more taxes…

No, they want hunters and anglers to pay more taxes, just not them. They're too good for that. They need to pay for their use of resources just like we have to. Sportsmen and women can't keep footing all the bills for them. If you are against them placing a tax on their outdoor gear, then what do you suggest as an alternative?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

No, they want hunters and anglers to pay more taxes, just not them. They're too good for that. They need to pay for their use of resources just like we have to. Sportsmen and women can't keep footing all the bills for them. If you are against them placing a tax on their outdoor gear, then what do you suggest as an alternative?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Leave them out if it, and not subsidize more government wasting. The government has way more money than it needs. Sportsman asked for the PR and they established the NA model of conservation, hikers didn’t force them. As for hunters and anglers paying, no, shooters are paying for PR. That tax is largely coming from people and groups that shoot a lot, and that isn’t hunters or anglers.

It’s like people can’t look around at the country now and think “maybe it’s the way we think that caused this”.