From what I know, some of the extra cost on a Gun would go to the NRA. I would if the government had nothing to do with the money.
Yes
No
From what I know, some of the extra cost on a Gun would go to the NRA. I would if the government had nothing to do with the money.
BLACKRIFLESMATTER
Many of you have called for a tax to be implemented across all outdoor activities. On the surface that appears logical, but if that were the case, we would become the minority voice in how the funds from that tax should be spent. Funds could easily be diverted to build trails for mountain bikers or birding platforms or campgrounds or whatever else these competing groups want.
Many of the strongest opposition to hunting comes from competing outdoors "users" e.g. the grizzly bear watchers. If we want to ensure that the funds are used how WE want, WE have to pay for it... Nobody else. It's another way that we can help ensure that the fund is not corrupted by political interests or pet projects.
Conservation by the majority of "users" standards is preservation (the national park model). This is NOT what we want and yet this is what would happen if such a tax were implemented across competing outdoor interest groups.
Last edited by cpwrestler; 01-09-2018 at 03:28 PM.
Help my math.
Hunters toss in $14 million in license fees.
(lets forget the economic impact discussions, just pure tax/fee revenue)
Any platformed tax on outdoor goods and services will target mostly those that fish and hunt that would add to this.
If grizzly bear and eco tourists blah blah blah......get them to step up and pay the bill.
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with keyboards and forums. - F L Wright
Try and be kind to everyone but fear no one. - Ourea
As has been pointed out in the graphic comparing our funding to that of our neighbours to the south and east, our "14 million" is nowhere near enough to make the kind of change we keep talking about wanting. We complain that management of our wildlife is suffering, but when we compare our contribution to management funding it's clear that we're getting what we pay for.
.....Because other Gov's put wildlife as a priority.
BC never has.
$14 million in license fees.
Small outdoor tax that could shove another $20-40 million into the cause.
Pretty good start in my view.
It takes money to create a marketing campaign and create public awareness.
No message = no audience.
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with keyboards and forums. - F L Wright
Try and be kind to everyone but fear no one. - Ourea
Good point about global tax on users. My main objection is that more funding is going to be drawn when governments (current anyways) are not going to be using it rationally but towards ideological or more so political means. Means, in the end, which have now restricted hunters rights. Would I willingly want to pay funds to a government that is looking for ways to restrict my rights for political gain? If there was a genuine conversation about respecting the principles of conservation and wildlife management, then yes, I'd support it.
Regards,
Ltbullken
Freelance Wildlife Population Manager
Animals - If you can't eat 'em, wear 'em!
Make Deer and Bear tags 100$
Moose, Elk, and Caribou 200$
Sheep and goats 300$
If they did something like this and put 100% of tag revenue into wildlife we'd be swimming in funding.
Anybody who hunts big game can afford it.