Would you pay a special tax for wildlife?

[limit time]

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.

[cpwrestler]

NO!! Not unless anything other than science is considered in managing wildlife populations. If governments are going to be swayed by social media campaigns and politics, then no I would not support any additional tax on my rights being restricted. Why would any hunter agree to such a proposition? How about an extra tax on ALL outdoor sports gear and activities (skiing, sledding access, kayaking, etc.), because these activities constitute encroachment on habitat and sometimes destroy habitat? Let's be fair about it and point out to city-ots how they're activities also constitute habitat loss and encroachment, instead of blaming the hunter for all the woes in wildlife management!

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.

[Ourea]

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.

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.

[cpwrestler]

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.

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.

[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.

[cpwrestler]

.....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.

So we agree on a small tax then

[Ourea]

So we agree on a small tax then

Understatement.

[Ltbullken]

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.

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.

[TexasWalker]

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.

[338win mag]

NO!! Not unless anything other than science is considered in managing wildlife populations. If governments are going to be swayed by social media campaigns and politics, then no I would not support any additional tax on my rights being restricted. Why would any hunter agree to such a proposition? How about an extra tax on ALL outdoor sports gear and activities (skiing, sledding access, kayaking, etc.), because these activities constitute encroachment on habitat and sometimes destroy habitat? Let's be fair about it and point out to city-ots how their activities also constitute habitat loss and encroachment, instead of blaming the hunter for all the woes in wildlife management!

Exactly this.