Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    7,477

    Future Wildlife Management Funding

    Hunters, shooters, and sport fishermen have borne a disproportionate burden of wildlife management funding in the United States since the passage of the Pittman-Robinson Act in 1937 and the Dingell-Johnson Act in 1950. Hunter numbers have been dropping sharply as Baby Boomers retire from hunting and sport fishermen numbers are at best stagnant. Only the shooting community's contributions to wildlife through P-R and D-J have been rising. Funds, after inflation, available for wildlife management have been declining even after sharp increases in hunting license fees across America.

    Lincoln Larson, a professor at North Carolina State University, has examined these trends and the various options under consideration to fund future wildlife management:

    https://theconversation.com/as-hunti...rvation-105792

    As hunting declines, efforts grow to broaden the funding base for wildlife conservation
    Lincoln Larson - December 14, 2018


    Hunting is a seasonal ritual for more than 11 million Americans in fall and winter. For those whose quarry includes ducks, geese or other waterfowl, one essential item is a Federal Duck Stamp – one of the most innovative and influential conservation initiatives in U.S. history.

    For more than 80 years, federal law has required all hunters age 16 and older to buy and carry the current season’s duck stamp in the field. The stamp costs US$25 and inspires an annual art and design contest. Ninety-eight cents of every dollar from stamp purchases goes into a fund to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat. Since the 1930s, duck stamps have raised over $1 billion to support the National Wildlife Refuge System.

    Duck stamps represent a “user pay, user benefit” approach to funding conservation that is unique to North America, with hunters as the centerpiece. But this model works only if people hunt, and the number of hunters in the United States has significantly declined in recent decades.

    My research on connections between people and nature shows that demographic and cultural trends are reshaping the modern landscape for hunting and other outdoor recreation activities. For wildlife managers and outdoor advocates, these shifts are raising questions about who will pay for conservation in the future.

    Taxes and license fees

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act in 1934. The program was proposed by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a cartoonist, conservation pioneer and outdoorsman. Darling headed the agency that would become the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1934 to 1936 and drew the first duck stamp.

    Other user-pay measures followed. The 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act imposed an 11 percent federal excise tax on sales of hunting gear and ammunition to support state wildlife conservation efforts. In 1950 the Dingell-Johnson Act placed a similar tax on fishing equipment and motor boat fuel. Today these taxes, along with duck stamps and license fees, raise roughly 60 percent of all revenue to support fish and wildlife conservation efforts yearly.

    Broadening the conservation funding base

    License fees and gear taxes target specific groups (hunters and anglers), but duck stamps could also appeal to other potential buyers, such as birdwatchers, photographers and stamp collectors. They serve as an annual pass to U.S. National Wildlife Refuges that charge entrance fees, and organizations such as the American Birding Association encourage birders to “make their voices heard” in wildlife conservation by purchasing duck stamps. However, there is very little information about whether and why birders actually buy the stamps.

    To answer these questions, I worked with graduate student Nathan Shipley, NCSU colleague Caren Cooper and researchers from the National Audubon Society to survey thousands of birdwatchers participating in the society’s annual Christmas Bird Count. We found that just 14 percent of nonhunting bird count participants had purchased duck stamps in the past two years. Even among specialized birdwatchers who invested substantial time and money in birding, only 36 percent had bought the stamps.

    These low numbers may reflect a general lack of knowledge about duck stamps and their purpose. For example, studies have shown that even waterfowl hunters know very little about the duck stamp’s role in wildlife conservation. Other research has found low awareness among nonhunting outdoor advocates about hunting’s links to environmental stewardship and conservation. And birders may be reluctant to buy something historically linked to hunting.

    Despite ideological differences, however, both birdwatchers and hunters are more likely than nonrecreationists to engage in pro-environmental behaviors such as joining conservation organizations, volunteering to enhance wildlife habitat on public lands and donating money to support conservation. But while birdwatchers may be just as eager to contribute to conservation as hunters, our research indicates that duck stamps are not currently an effective way to financially engaging the birding community.

    Recruiting new hunters

    Since 2011, the number of big game hunters in the United States has decreased by 20 percent, and the total number of hunters has declined by over 2 million. This trend leaves wildlife managers two primary options for boosting conservation funding: Attract new hunters or find other revenue sources.

    The first strategy, often referred to as R3 – recruitment, retention and reactivation – is rapidly gaining traction in the wildlife management world. My colleagues and I have spent much of the past five years studying nontraditional pathways into hunting, including growing interest in links between wild game meat and the local food movement.
    Adam Ahlers of Kansas State University guides students on their first hunting experience. Haley Ahlers, CC BY-ND

    Our current project, which spans 23 states, is exploring the potential impact of R3 efforts focused on college students. Preliminary results suggest that over 70 percent of college students support hunting. Roughly one in six plan to hunt in the future, and one in four would consider trying it.

    Finding new revenue streams

    However, other funding sources are also needed. As one example, in 2009 thousands of wildlife professionals, hunters, birdwatchers and other recreationists endorsed the Teaming with Wildlife Act, which would have introduced a new excise tax on nonconsumptive recreation gear such as binoculars, tents and kayaks. The bill failed to pass, largely due to limited support from retailers.

    In 2016, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Fish & Wildlife Resources – a bipartisan group comprising leaders across government, industry and the nonprofit sector – released a report urging Congress to dedicate up to $1.3 billion annually in revenues from energy production and mining on federal lands and waters to support wildlife conservation. This recommendation has been integrated into the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, which was introduced in the House in December 2017 and the Senate in July 2018, and attracted bipartisan support in both chambers.

    This approach also appears to be popular among future generations of voters. In our study of college students, we asked participants to evaluate nine potential options for funding wildlife conservation. The preferred strategy across all demographic subgroups, supported by over 80 percent of students, was requiring “companies that profit from natural resource extraction to contribute a portion of their annual revenue to conservation.”

    Through duck stamps, excise taxes and license purchases, hunters (and anglers) will continue to play a critical role in the future of funding conservation. But other stakeholder groups, from birdwatchers to energy companies, can also contribute. If Congress passes the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, it could open a new chapter in North America’s innovative history of funding wildlife conservation.
    Hikers, climbers and birdwatchers get a free ride in the wild on the back of hunters, sport fishermen, and shooters - three groups they ideologically despise. It is long past time they pay their fair share. Taxes on hunting, fishing, and shooting gear can only rise so much before the golden goose is killed. The decline in hunter numbers indicates that we are reaching that point.
    Last edited by 10x25mm; 12-17-2018 at 12:01 AM.

  2. #2
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Arenac County
    Posts
    4,817
    I see the shroom Tax is going to make a return.

  3. #3
    MGO Board of Directors

    Trustee Jackam's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Flint, Mi
    Posts
    15,214
    If shroom hunters and bird watchers start paying in, then they will have a say on how ALL the money is spent.
    They've tried many times before to dictate how the lands purchased with PR funds should be managed, only to be turned down flat because they had no financial stake in the game.

    It's true that hunter numbers have dropped, but recreational and personal protection shooting is WAAAAY up.

    The lion's share of funding for state wildlife conservation programs comes from the sale of guns, ammunition, and only then comes the hunting supplies.

    In the Obama "He's going to man my guns" panic era, 11% of all those purchases went to PR. Now that we're all safe from losing our gun rights with President Trump, gun sales and ammo sales are waaaaay down.

    The reduction in hunters is just a blip on the PR funding chart.
    "But then there are plenty of gun folks who think no one should rock the boat because it might piss off the anti gun crowd/politicians and cause even more gun control." - Bikenut
    Submissive gun rights advocates need to lose their submissiveness before we lose our 2A rights.

  4. #4
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    S.E. MI - Downriver
    Posts
    2,121
    I guess they could start, by adding Hiking Boots and Backpack sales to the Pittman-Robertson funds.

  5. #5
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    7,477
    Ropes, carabiners, pitons and other climbing equipment should be at the top of the taxables list. Mountain rescues are spectacularly expensive and most rock faces are festooned with abandoned cams and pitons.

  6. #6
    MGO Member UpNorthWOLF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Near Mackinaw City
    Posts
    4,090
    I seem to remember my hunting years (70s and early 80s) on public land (even the "leased" public land) as basically being drives and walks in the woods with my stepfather and brother while carrying a pointless firearm. Game was almost non existent. Still some good memories, but it was not usually a successful harvest. Fast forward a few decades and I've stopped hunting and now live on acreage where there is state land all around me. I did see a lot of game a dozen years ago when I bought the place (I was also feeding them, though), but that has really disappeared since I stopped doing it (dogs kept having issues with other critters looking for easy food). The bigger issue my few neighbors and I deal with are the trespassers/poachers/and groups of bear guys running their dogs in caravans). Anyway, lots of fees and taxes on goods and income (and DNR stickers on a few vehicles) and I don't see a lot of return for all of that investment. I even stopped fishing because I hated the change in licensing requirements few years ago (a lot more money for things I didn't have the equipment to fish...and even then I was always a catch and release fisherman). So basically the state helped squeeze me out...and I am sure I am not alone.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter