Would you pay a special tax for wildlife?

[Ourea]

For those not getting it......read Rob Chipman's posts on this thread.

The model would insulate the revenues from Gov access ensuring they can only be spent on wildlife.
All of the$14 million of our license revenue goes in to start.
Small tax on all outdoor related goods and services.
It would be a nice start.

The "leverage" in the deal is that HUNTERS are putting the vast majority of cash in the pot.

[rocksteady]

Nope.. already paying it with tags licences leh..

Be better to hold gov accountable to use what we are already chipping in.. jmho

[brownmancheng]

Nope.. already paying it with tags licences leh..

Be better to hold gov accountable to use what we are already chipping in.. jmho

so is everyone happy with a 14 million dollar budget for wildlife? since our license and tag revenue is enough....

[dakoda62]

Thinking back several years ago the government in power imposed a surtax on fishing licenses (25 years +-) buddy did a access for information on where the funds were spent, low and behold over 30% went to some woman's group with absolutely no connection to fish or wildlife.

[brownmancheng]

Nope.. already paying it with tags licences leh..

Be better to hold gov accountable to use what we are already chipping in.. jmho

so is everyone happy with a 14 million dollar budget for wildlife? since our license and tag revenue is enough....

[Fisher-Dude]

Nope.. already paying it with tags licences leh..

Be better to hold gov accountable to use what we are already chipping in.. jmho

2 deer tags $30
Elk tag $25
Moose, maybe, $25
License $38
Couple of LEH $12

You're set for the season for about the same cost as a tank of gas.

But hunters happily blow through 20 tanks of gas to hunt those tags, gas that is 38% tax (increasing with Horgan's 17% increase in carbon tax each year), tax that goes to paying Justin Trudeau's $8.3 million expense account last year and to his friends like Omer Khadr.

People need to assess their priorities a bit more carefully, and put things in context.

[weed782]

Yes!! A user pay system with the funds set aside for management of the wildlife and their habitat. Excellent!! In fact we could maybe charge non resident users more for the privilege. ??? Wait just a second here?? Isn't that the intent already. Charging for Licenses and tags to both residents and non residents?? As we watch the degradation of habitat and the miss management of our wildlife I have to wonder WTF!! Do we trust the government agencies with more of our money to "do the right thing"? HA!!

[cruiser]

Probably yes, but...

Trouble is the annual $34M towards wildlife (assuming FD's figure is correct) from general revenue is much more than the direct revenue from annual licence and leh fees, over double. So really everyone, hunters and non-hunters, are already chipping in to wildlife mgmt indirectly through other existing GR taxes. If less was directed to wildlife than hunter fees brought in then the GR issue be a concern. I support the idea of hunters contribution staying with wildlife, as long government doesn't use it as a means of dumping a much larger burden of that solely on us, and it becomes an addition to what is already invested into wildlife from general revenue. It feels like licence fees are somewhat arbitrary (eg cost of tags for deer vs moose vs mtn goat vs elk etc). if I knew the money was going to benefit those species I would feel more comfortable with those values getting adjusted (within reason). But funding will always need to pull from a broader group than hunter fees, resource industry and recreational users would be appropriate.

Pulling funds from the broader tax base gets us back to social licence and non-hunters not trusting the idea of hunters taking the lead on wildlife issues, even if it is us who benefit most from that succeeding. But if a fund directing the $14M in hunter fees was separate and in addition to the $34M baseline budget, and it went towards enhancement and projects that are specifically for 'huntable' species, then incidental effects to species at risk, or small mammals, or song birds etc (assuming effects were positive) would make it easier to grow the funding to other user groups beyond hunters in the future. For funding management looking at the successes and failures of how BCHydro handles fish and wildlife compensation funding for research and enhancement initiatives would be wise. Tapping into those monies would also be. The $14M only goes so far towards major changes with such a large province and breadth of issues.

[leadpillproductions]

Yes absolutely if it was only possible we could make sure it went 100% back in to wildlife .

[rocksteady]

so is everyone happy with a 14 million dollar budget for wildlife? since our license and tag revenue is enough....

Do we know where the $14M goes and what it does for us?

You can do a lot with $14M if used correctly.. my point is...is it being used correctly??