Would you pay a special tax for wildlife?

[325]

Would you guys be agreeable to paying a special tax, similar to the USA, on firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, fishing gear, etc IF the revenue went into its own account and was dedicated for spending on provincial fish and wildlife management? Additionally, let’s assume all revenue from hunting, angling and trapping licenses went into this account.

[dakoda62]

Probably not, only reason being I absolutely no faith that the funds would be used accordingly.

[325]

Keep in mind the USA has been doing this since 1937 with great success

[RugDoctor]

No need for new taxes, just do the right thing with the taxes we already pay.

[325]

No need for new taxes, just do the right thing with the taxes we already pay.

I agree we are already overtaxed. However, it’s very easy for the province to cut wildlife funding with the current model. A dedicated account would be independent of provincial budgets, and provide reliable funding for wildlife management. This has been the model in the USA.

[Grumpa Joe]

I already do every time I buy a license, tag or LEH. The government just needs to spend it on the area it is intended for rather than putting it into general revenue.

[Brew]

I would if they Guaranteed the government would keep their mitts off of it and that they also guaranteed to scientific wildlife management.
There is no reason that BC can’t be the Serengeti of North America once again. This province needs to be restored to what it was back in the glory days of hunting. There is no excuse that it can’t be that way once again. We need a model from some of the US states that are doing extremely well.

[Rob Chipman]

The trick is to recognize the nature of government and try to manage for that. They're not going to spend current taxes properly. The money you pay for tags and LEH isn't dedicated to anything. The idea is to create some sort of fund that is a voluntary/semi-voluntary tax that the government can't decide how to spend and can't divert.

It has worked in the US, but politicians (most notably the Clintons, from what I have heard) have tried to divert the funds to their own favourite projects. They would try to do that here as well. The idea of a dedicated fund is simple, and effective. The key ingredient, and the part that will be hard, is the nuts and bolts method of making it something government can't take control of.


One idea that occurs to me (might be very hard to get passed) is a tax credit for a donation to a standalone agency. Completely voluntary, but you get a tax credit that reduces your BC income tax if you give up to a certain amount to a specific agency. If government never touches the money they can't divert it.

Anyway, I'd pay the tax.

[ActionJackson017]

I already do every time I buy a license, tag or LEH. The government just needs to sped it on the area it is intended for rather than putting it into general revenue.

^^ This. I feel the exact same way. Another tax is not required. Proper allocation of what is already generated through licensing, LEH, etc. is what needs to be prioritized. That, and perhaps an increased mandate and larger C.O. role - give C.O.s a larger budget for their particular MUs to the benefit of wildlife management for example.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather see existing 'infrastructure / systems' used rather than creating something new.

[srupp]

I already do every time I buy a license, tag or LEH. The government just needs to sped it on the area it is intended for rather than putting it into general revenue.

Perfect reply..our family can't afford the proposed increases in taxes this year.
Steven

[brownmancheng]

I would fully support this. we always spend huge amounts of money every year to do.what we love it only makes sense to put something back in.

Of course it needs to actually go to where it was intended.

I also think our licenses tags and leh should easily double . assuming it is going to the right place of course and not general revenue.

before people say we shouldn't increase costs, we all spend much more on gas, supplies etc to actually go hunting the licenses etc. are such a small fraction.

people that can't afford it would be eligible for the reduction much like we currently have it .

[brownmancheng]

just an additional thought...

I think it's a great start to redirect revenue from licenses and tags. but I think revenue is approx 16 mil.
and the flnro budget is approx 34 million based on the townhall. so that is not guaranteeing an increase just different source

[Fisher-Dude]

Oddly a bunch of people on this forum voted for a party that is increasing carbon taxes by 17% per year.

Those increases are going to go beyond what was a revenue neutral consumption tax (our income taxes were reduced to offset carbon tax by the Libs).

That carbon tax is going to do absolutely zero to the climate of this province or the world as a whole.

But when we propose a modest tax that would apply to ALL outdoor users (hikers, bikers, eco-grizzly watchers, birders, heli-skiers) to help fund wildlife directly through a segregated wildlife society and segregated fund, people squawk.

So, we can remain at $2 million of our $14 million in licensing going to wildlife, and watch wildlife and hunting disappear, or we can do something far better with many more outdoor users paying the bill.

Time to get on board.

[IronNoggin]

Absolutely. Under the condition Rob noted, and having that Fixed In Stone!


... The key ingredient, and the part that will be hard, is the nuts and bolts method of making it something government can't take control of...

The amount of money our tags and certificates generate is peanuts compared to what most States realize due to the directed taxes (there are two) for wildlife there.
Yes, it is a start, and getting those funds OUT of the trough snuffer's hands is a priority. Sadly, that will not be enough to get things where they need to go. More, much more than that iwill be necessary if we are to see the Glory Day response we would hope for.

I would suggest that any such tax hit ALL users - every single piece of outdoor equipment (including bicycles, binocs, hiking gear, tents, sleeping bags, water filtration systems, quads and a LOT more!). In that manner, many who currently use the wild land resource would be forced into finally putting something towards it's maintenance as well as promoting larger, healthier wildlife populations.

I would also suggest that hand in hand with any such consideration that notice be given to all outdoor user groups that the time to directly support what they like doing is well overdue...

Cheers,
Nog

[Islander30]

Absolutely. Under the condition Rob noted, and having that Fixed In Stone!



The amount of money our tags and certificates generate is peanuts compared to what most States realize due to the directed taxes (there are two) for wildlife there.
Yes, it is a start, and getting those funds OUT of the trough snuffer's hands is a priority. Sadly, that will not be enough to get things where they need to go. More, much more than that iwill be necessary if we are to see the Glory Day response we would hope for.

I would suggest that any such tax hit ALL users - every single piece of outdoor equipment (including bicycles, binocs, hiking gear, tents, sleeping bags, water filtration systems, quads and a LOT more!). In that manner, many who currently use the wild land resource would be forced into finally putting something towards it's maintenance as well as promoting larger, healthier wildlife populations.

I would also suggest that hand in hand with any such consideration that notice be given to all outdoor user groups that the time to directly support what they like doing is well overdue...

Cheers,
Nog


I would agree to it also if like you say it was " set in stone" however I would also require the grizzly ban lifted first as a show of good faith and that it also be "set in stone" that goveremnt can never again manage wildlife by public opinion or vote collecting !

[Modeltwelve]

No. Pay enough taxes and the money collected would just dissappear.

[tomcat]

I already do every time I buy a license, tag or LEH. The government just needs to sped it on the area it is intended for rather than putting it into general revenue. My sediments also.

[325]

Personally, I’d rather see wildlife management funded solely by hunters. It would be much simpler to ensure the tenants of the North American model of wildlife management are adhered too. Perhaps rather than a special levy on hunting and fishing gear, which would place B.C. vendors at at disadvantage as people could order firearms,etc from out of province, simply increasing license and tag fees and ensuring it strictly gets used for wildlife management would be simpler and more effective?!

[HappyJack]

NO, been paying fees and taxes since day 1 of my hunting/fishing career. It's time the rest of the people living here started to kick in some coin, put a tax on the bird watcher and the hiker, the guy on the mountian bike and the bear and whale watchers.....It's time they realized it's not just hunters and fishermen that should be contributing.

[Seeker]

WOW!!! Without a shadow of a doubt I would pay!! Some people are givers.... the rest takers..... the "I've been paying for years" excuse is crap. You haven't been paying didly for what you are all able to hunt. To the 45% you all claim to love hunting so much, yet your not willing to pay for it. Your probably the same people that criticize welfare users yet you want handouts of a different kind for yourselves. That disgusts me. It's pretty evident the problem with hunting in BC lies largely within our own ranks! Brutal.

[Bugle M In]

Absolutely. Under the condition Rob noted, and having that Fixed In Stone!



The amount of money our tags and certificates generate is peanuts compared to what most States realize due to the directed taxes (there are two) for wildlife there.
Yes, it is a start, and getting those funds OUT of the trough snuffer's hands is a priority. Sadly, that will not be enough to get things where they need to go. More, much more than that iwill be necessary if we are to see the Glory Day response we would hope for.

I would suggest that any such tax hit ALL users - every single piece of outdoor equipment (including bicycles, binocs, hiking gear, tents, sleeping bags, water filtration systems, quads and a LOT more!). In that manner, many who currently use the wild land resource would be forced into finally putting something towards it's maintenance as well as promoting larger, healthier wildlife populations.

I would also suggest that hand in hand with any such consideration that notice be given to all outdoor user groups that the time to directly support what they like doing is well overdue...

Cheers,
Nog

I like this...don't forget industries and rec resorts etc.

[steve-r]

My first thought is No, our govt should better utilize the taxes they collect...not just from hunting revenue , but from all industry users of our provincial resources that are impacting habitat.
I might reconsider if the eco-tourists were charged a "per photo" levy on BC wildlife, with highest rates on grizzly.

[brownmancheng]

I am actually shocked! you cheap *******s....

[Keta1969]

Yes we need far more than what is collected in LEH fees and Licences to make a difference. Would like to think we can work with others and am willing to give it a chance.

[338win mag]

Yes, without smoke and mirrors I would happily pay a small tax.

[338win mag]

Yes, without smoke and mirrors I would happily pay a small tax, especially if it was a separate from a bungling government,, an independant entity,, and if I knew my $$ was going to wildlife initiatives I would donate to such a fund.

[GoOutside]

Really surprised how much negativity is on here. i don't make a ton of money but I would gladly pay even if only part of it benefits wildlife in BC. We have to start somewhere boys.

[HappyJack]

WOW!!! Without a shadow of a doubt I would pay!! Some people are givers.... the rest takers..... the "I've been paying for years" excuse is crap. You haven't been paying didly for what you are all able to hunt. To the 45% you all claim to love hunting so much, yet your not willing to pay for it. Your probably the same people that criticize welfare users yet you want handouts of a different kind for yourselves. That disgusts me. It's pretty evident the problem with hunting in BC lies largely within our own ranks! Brutal.

oMG holier than thou!!! I for one am tired of paying over 50% of my annual income to governments in one form of taxation or another. I have paid my share over the last 50 years, go ahead have your turn at it.

[brownmancheng]

My first thought is No, our govt should better utilize the taxes they collect...not just from hunting revenue , but from all industry users of our provincial resources that are impacting habitat.
I might reconsider if the eco-tourists were charged a "per photo" levy on BC wildlife, with highest rates on grizzly.

I'm pretty sure if the government found "savings" in their budget it would go towards health care, education or other ministries which the majority supports. if we hunters (whom should hold the highest value on wildlife) are not willing to buck up then who will?

[Ride Red]

Oddly a bunch of people on this forum voted for a party that is increasing carbon taxes by 17% per year.

Those increases are going to go beyond what was a revenue neutral consumption tax (our income taxes were reduced to offset carbon tax by the Libs).

That carbon tax is going to do absolutely zero to the climate of this province or the world as a whole.

But when we propose a modest tax that would apply to ALL outdoor users (hikers, bikers, eco-grizzly watchers, birders, heli-skiers) to help fund wildlife directly through a segregated wildlife society and segregated fund, people squawk.

So, we can remain at $2 million of our $14 million in licensing going to wildlife, and watch wildlife and hunting disappear, or we can do something far better with many more outdoor users paying the bill.

Time to get on board.

This biggest issue with giving any government more money is; are they going to do the right thing with it or piss it away as they are doing with the funds they’re receiving right now. So I don’t believe that saying people are sqawking is the right way to address this. I’d put more money in a heartbeat if the accountability is there. Until then, I need to see some legislation that protects those funds earmarked for wildlife specifically.

[brownmancheng]

I already do every time I buy a license, tag or LEH. The government just needs to sped it on the area it is intended for rather than putting it into general revenue.

the government already spends more than comes from licenses and tags on wildlife. but, it is not even close to enough!

how much did you spend on tags and licenses and how much time did you spend hunting?

how much did you spend to go hunting? (gas , gear etc)

you guys walking around wearing thousands of dollars of Sitka camo and swarovskis? but wont open your wallet. I am crying

[srupp]

Wow..only on the Internet. .pay over half my pension in taxes..user fees..i pay user fees..licenses tags..volinteer time to help wildlife..
Next door neighbor. .doesn't hunt..pays zero towards wildlife..ZERO..why would I give province or turdeau one more red cent?

BC fisheries Brian Chan organization received $10 million last year from fishing licenses etc..resulting in the best fishing improvements ever.
Gov't should spend the monies wiser..Auditor general reports gov't greatly under spending on wildlife. .hunters spend more than gov't. .yet much of these funds disappear. .then won't listen to biologists ..and stop grizzly hunting..

Please stop trying to spend my monies..pretty pleased at what I have contributed. .no more in the piggy bank..
Cheers
Cranky

[Seeker]

oMG holier than thou!!! I for one am tired of paying over 50% of my annual income to governments in one form of taxation or another. I have paid my share over the last 50 years, go ahead have your turn at it.


Then do us all a favor and sell your guns and give up hunting. Its a time for helping WILDLIFE, if you're willing to take, be willing to give.

[gmachine19]

Hell no! Why would only fishermen and hunters have to carry the burden?

[Ride Red]

the government already spends more than comes from licenses and tags on wildlife. but, it is not even close to enough!

how much did you spend on tags and licenses and how much time did you spend hunting?

how much did you spend to go hunting? (gas , gear etc)

you guys walking around wearing thousands of dollars of Sitka camo and swarovskis? but wont open your wallet. I am crying

Do you know this for a fact?

[IronNoggin]

... I need to see some legislation that protects those funds earmarked for wildlife specifically.

Unless I am mistaken, which happens these days a lot more often than I'd like... :D
Were not all parties in alignment on the tag / certificate revenue going into dedicated funding, outside and unavailable to general revenue immediately prior to our last provincial election? Am I imagining that?? :shock:

Just more bullshit, or something that should be looked into...

Wondering...

Nog

[Ride Red]

Unless I am mistaken, which happens these days a lot more often than I'd like... :D
Were not all parties in alignment on the tag / certificate revenue going into dedicated funding, outside and unavailable to general revenue immediately prior to our last provincial election? Am I imagining that?? :shock:

Just more bullshit, or something that should be looked into...

Wondering...

Nog

I think we’d all like to see how much money is actually being spent on wildlife, but probably would be sick to see how little is actually being focussed in the right direction.

[Seeker]

For those of you that have been giving for all your life, what has wildlife been doing? Giving or taking? What is wildlife going to continue to do. Are we going to stop taking if we stop paying? I Guarantee we are going to continue to take. For those of you that are givers ( you know who you are) this is not directed at you. For those of you who buy your licence and then go hunting doing nothing more .. look in the mirror. This is a chance to help by doing very little yourself.

[brownmancheng]

Wow..only on the Internet. .pay over half my pension in taxes..user fees..i pay user fees..licenses tags..volinteer time to help wildlife..
Next door neighbor. .doesn't hunt..pays zero towards wildlife..ZERO..why would I give province or turdeau one more red cent?

BC fisheries Brian Chan organization received $10 million last year from fishing licenses etc..resulting in the best fishing improvements ever.
Gov't should spend the monies wiser..Auditor general reports gov't greatly under spending on wildlife. .hunters spend more than gov't. .yet much of these funds disappear. .then won't listen to biologists ..and stop grizzly hunting..

Please stop trying to spend my monies..pretty pleased at what I have contributed. .no more in the piggy bank..
Cheers
Cranky

first of all sorry for spamming the thread.

srupp, no one is in a position to judge what you have contributed. undoubtedly you have done more than I and most others as well! I have a lot of respect for you.

the government's money is money we have all paid in taxes. yes we pay too much. much gets wasted a lot we may not agree where it goes. this is one thing we all care about and should be one thing we don't mind paying into (if it's going to actually help)

your neighbour who doesn't pay.. has he got as much as you out of wildlife in terms of enjoyment and memories?

it definitely would have to not be just hunters but all users... bikers, campers, hikers etc and especially these eco tourists!

[brownmancheng]

Do you know this for a fact?

If I'm not mistaken license revenues are close to 16million. flnro budget is 34 million. give or take a few shmill

[dapesche]

Personally, I’d rather see wildlife management funded solely by hunters. It would be much simpler to ensure the tenants of the North American model of wildlife management are adhered too. Perhaps rather than a special levy on hunting and fishing gear, which would place B.C. vendors at at disadvantage as people could order firearms,etc from out of province, simply increasing license and tag fees and ensuring it strictly gets used for wildlife management would be simpler and more effective?!

I'd like to see forestry and miners pay their fare share too.

Someone my be able to educate me on this but I think our provincial operators have it easier than most, especially the miners. I'd like to see much more give back from these companies.

When you look a miners that operate internationally in some cases they are required to build damn, desalination infrastructure before given the right to operate. At any time some of those politically unstable countries have assumed control of mines. In bc we have existing infrastructure in most cases, skilled workers, stable government and tax credits to encourage investment.

Does anyone know what we require back from them other than Corp taxes, which is typically quite low since they are constantly burning cash looking for more good rocks in the ground.



In regards to a tax, I'm with you. Need to be funded by hunters. Too many interested parties results in lack of focus when distributing $$

[2chodi]

https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fawild.html

The tax in the US is an excise tax (i.e. it's hidden in the cost rather than something that appears on the till slip) and it only applies to sporting firearms and ammunition, bowes and arrows (11%) and handguns and ammunition (10%).

[Ride Red]

If I'm not mistaken license revenues are close to 16million. flnro budget is 34 million. give or take a few shmill

I’d like to see the actual numbers put toward wildlife, but wouldn’t hesitate to put more out if 100% of it went to wildlife.

[scoutlt1]

So only people who hunt, fish and trap should be paying an "extra" tax to fund proper wildlife management?

Are we the only ones who will benefit?

[JDR]

Yes, provided that the funds are GUARANTEED to be dedicated for that purpose and that purpose only. All too often the gov't appropriates funds and uses it for unintended purposes resulting in mistrust. How do we go about ensuring the gov't cannot misuse the funds?

[Greenthumbed]

So only people who hunt, fish and trap should be paying an "extra" tax to fund proper wildlife management?

Are we the only ones who will benefit?

Hopefully, wildlife is the ones who benefit.

I would gladly pay pay if it were to help the future of fish and wildlife.

[RugDoctor]

Now that it's established that hunters are willing to pay more for their passion, wait for the prices to go up and nothing for your money. Those that would take your money need not make any promise....you've already said you'd pay more. Good job.

[Johnny G1]

Just what we need is more friggin taxes as if they don't get enough now, might as well just sign over my lousy pension check to people that don't deserve it, mainly this stinkin government???

[Grumpa Joe]

the government already spends more than comes from licenses and tags on wildlife. but, it is not even close to enough!

how much did you spend on tags and licenses and how much time did you spend hunting?

how much did you spend to go hunting? (gas , gear etc)

you guys walking around wearing thousands of dollars of Sitka camo and swarovskis? but wont open your wallet. I am crying

I don't have a single piece of Sitka camo or any Swarovskis. I paid $250 in direct licenses, tags and LEH. The money I did spend on hunting and fishing related gear indirectly generates business and personal income taxes. I don't have a problem paying more but experience tells me that government will not spend it where it is intended. I recall when the Federal government proposed the GST. The intent was to put all the proceeds into paying down the national debt. That never happened. Environmental taxes on batteries and tires go for the most part into general revenue as opposed to environment and habitat restoration. I would also like to see a definitive document on licensing revenues versus expenditures.

The Auditor General's report says that for 2015 the ministry collected $366,400 in total surcharges from hunters (which are intended to all flow to the HCTF) of which approximately $34, 000 went to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation. The balance went to, you guessed it, general revenue.

[338win mag]

So only people who hunt, fish and trap should be paying an "extra" tax to fund proper wildlife management?

Are we the only ones who will benefit?
Snowshoes, hiking poles, etc, even the anti's would be paying and contributing, not just hunters and fishers.

[Fisher-Dude]

I’d like to see the actual numbers put toward wildlife, but wouldn’t hesitate to put more out if 100% of it went to wildlife.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26220060_2003924213218847_8189333522592544720_n.jp g?oh=8437107c41c723b19e2afacb19ddc64a&oe=5AE95AE2

[HappyJack]

Then do us all a favor and sell your guns and give up hunting. Its a time for helping WILDLIFE, if you're willing to take, be willing to give.

No you sell your gear and donate all the proceeds to the cause. Then you could join a church and take a vow of perpetual poverty....you'd be given sainthood no doubt.

[two-feet]

The thing with an excise tax on hunting gear is this: Hunters can then prove we are doing more than any other segment of the population to help wildlife, with $ to back it up.

This will create public support for hunting.

If put into a dedicated wildlife fund, sign me up for the tax.

[brian]

So only people who hunt, fish and trap should be paying an "extra" tax to fund proper wildlife management?

Are we the only ones who will benefit?

Look at it the other way around, if a tax were laid on all outdoor gear, then all outdoor enthusiasts would feel like they have a say in where and how the money should be spent. Can you say wildlife management for animals that are the most photogenic? If the tax were on hunting gear then only hunters get to be smug and say, "look at what we are actually doing for wildlife, we are putting our own real money behind our words!" Don't take our smugness from us! We need the smug, we're not getting the moral high ground anywhere else these days!

I would actually support a tax that I knew was going directly to wildlife management and habitat. But I have absolutely zero faith in government to maintain that revenue stream and not incorperate it into general revenue.

[Ride Red]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26220060_2003924213218847_8189333522592544720_n.jp g?oh=8437107c41c723b19e2afacb19ddc64a&oe=5AE95AE2

Good info FD. So how is the extra funding proposal going to work and will all stakeholders be on board? I beleive that winning over the public may be an easier endeavour than trying to pull more money out of the pockets of users. Not saying that it isn’t needed, but trust in government has been lacking for too many years now.

[Hunter gatherer]

What a great idea ,more taxes. This idea rates right up there with PETA's idea for a sin tax on meat. The Government should just learn how to manage the money we already give them.

[Piperdown]

Sure as long as the FN's pay too, which they won't, so NO!

[Bernie O]

We already have the HCTF. It appears that the trust part has been removed from that.Any time I hear or see the word TAX,I think of politicians pensions.

[Wild one]

If $ was set to go to projects to benefit wildlife and no where else yes I would support tag/license increases or a tax on outdoor equipment

But it MUST go to wildlife/habitat and not eaten up going into general revenue

Would also want to see reports published showing where the $ was used and results of these projects

[Fella]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26220060_2003924213218847_8189333522592544720_n.jp g?oh=8437107c41c723b19e2afacb19ddc64a&oe=5AE95AE2
eye opening. Pretty sure a hunting license costs more than $7. 100% of license fees need to go to wildlife management.

[325]

Lots of great responses. I’m getting the feeling that one of the biggest issues with a levy or increased license and tag fees is a lack of trust in the government. Government stealing the money for their own agenda items is a valid concern. I think using conservation funds solely for conservation would have to be written into provincial law.

[horshur]

Do a google search on Pittman Robertson act...hunters money used to introduce grey wolves and still being funnelled off for grey wolf management.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/mar/06/gray-wolf-recovery-projects-continue-to-drain-mill/

[tinhorse]

I love the fact that we would be putting money back into wildlife and habitat, but it would have to work and would have to be accepted/respected by ALL. I would hate to see a group of elk get transplanted and 2 hours after being released shot up, even if they were on someones private land.....

[604ksmith]

Quite a few good posts and comments above. I too would support an excise tax program for wildlife specific uses. However, the U.S. set their system up in a different time, with a different government and public culture, I'm not so sure it would pass or work as well as it does if they (or us) tried it now.

Instead, how about everyone donates more to the wildlife conservation organizations of their choosing? That should maximize the chances money is spent in the way it's intended. For full disclosure, and I say this somewhat embarrassingly, I have not donated any money to such a group before, but this thread has motivated me to look into doing so.

Does anyone have any experience or relationship with pre-existing conservation groups (those below or more) and could recommend what would be worth looking into for BC specific donations?
https://www.wildsheepsociety.com/wild-sheep-information/
http://www.bcwf.net

Also, anything for fresh or salt water fishing as well?

[REMINGTON JIM]

THIS ! :sad: Be HAPPY to Pay more ! IF there is any ACCOUNTABILITY - MANAGEMENT of the MONEY ! RJ

This biggest issue with giving any government more money is; are they going to do the right thing with it or piss it away as they are doing with the funds they’re receiving right now. So I don’t believe that saying people are sqawking is the right way to address this. I’d put more money in a heartbeat if the accountability is there. Until then, I need to see some legislation that protects those funds earmarked for wildlife specifically.

[Wild one]

THIS ! :sad: Be HAPPY to Pay more ! IF there is any ACCOUNTABILITY - MANAGEMENT of the MONEY ! RJ

This biggest issue with giving any government more money is; are they going to do the right thing with it or piss it away as they are doing with the funds they’re receiving right now. So I don’t believe that saying people are sqawking is the right way to address this. I’d put more money in a heartbeat if the accountability is there. Until then, I need to see some legislation that protects those funds earmarked for wildlife specifically.


A well written well thought out proposal that closes loop holes for govt and even wildlife organization abuse is needed to attempt this

Accomplishing things like this is why I feel a strong need for a hunting organization that represents all hunters. We presently do not have this representation in BC. An organization that strictly focused on wildlife populations and stayed out of the politics of the different forms of hunter would be good for this kind of project

My opinion best results would only be achieved if this was organized with growth of wildlife populations being the only agenda

[Fisher-Dude]

eye opening. Pretty sure a hunting license costs more than $7. 100% of license fees need to go to wildlife management.

It's based on overall population that supports a jurisdiction's tax base, not on hunter numbers alone.

[antlerking]

WOW!!! Without a shadow of a doubt I would pay!! Some people are givers.... the rest takers..... the "I've been paying for years" excuse is crap. You haven't been paying didly for what you are all able to hunt. To the 45% you all claim to love hunting so much, yet your not willing to pay for it. Your probably the same people that criticize welfare users yet you want handouts of a different kind for yourselves. That disgusts me. It's pretty evident the problem with hunting in BC lies largely within our own ranks! Brutal.

WOW!!! 57% taxes + land + gas +++ how much is enough? That's what disgusts me ! Brutal and now you want me to pay more! Give donations to your local fish& game club that money would be used doing what is needed not diverted to the public coffers! The government is the worst money managers and you want to give them more! CRAZY

[scoutlt1]

Not to say that Idaho has all the answers, but i'd like to see more of a "model" like this for B.C...

https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/directors-report-commission-2016.pdf

No "general revenue" taxes go to Idaho Fish and Game.

[weatherby_man]

Throwing MORE tax money at this issue is not the answer. They'll collect more but not do more. This province has a terrible record of wildlife and fisheries management (should say exception may be rainbow trout stocking/mgmt). Until they come up with a published solid long term plan for management, giving them more money will just make things worse for us at this point.

[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??

[Fisher-Dude]

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

That's the idea of the wildlife funding model.

Everyone, not just hunters, benefits from solid wildlife funding.

[northof49]

This biggest issue with giving any government more money is; are they going to do the right thing with it or piss it away as they are doing with the funds they’re receiving right now. So I don’t believe that saying people are sqawking is the right way to address this. I’d put more money in a heartbeat if the accountability is there. Until then, I need to see some legislation that protects those funds earmarked for wildlife specifically.


^^^^This. I will add that it shouldn’t be an ADDITIONAL tax on recreational goods as that would put BC retailers at a significant competitive disadvantage and would hurt small business like local outdoor shops etc. Straw that breaks the camels back so to speak. Instead a portion of the existing PST on these goods should be ear marked for a Provincial Wildlife Management and Habitat Enhancement Fund. Also this should apply to all outdoor recreation goods...hiking, fishing, camping you name it. This way it would not be an additonal tax on folks, just reallocation of portion of PST to help enhance the things those goods are being purchased for. Obviously should include 100% of licence revenue etc as has been advocated already. Also should be managed independently based on science and outside the influence of Govt.

[northof49]

The thing with an excise tax on hunting gear is this: Hunters can then prove we are doing more than any other segment of the population to help wildlife, with $ to back it up.

This will create public support for hunting.

If put into a dedicated wildlife fund, sign me up for the tax.

Additional tax on BC retailers is not fair and would not be well receieved.....take it from existing PST on all recreation gear....hiking, hunting, fishing, camping etc. No additional tax. We are over taxed as it is. If the GreenDP’s are truly pro Wildlife and the Environment they should have no issue with this. Funds need to be managed independently though with accountability and legislation to prevent it from becoming a Govmt slush fund to make up for the deficits elsewhere.

[finngun]

Dont givv any ideas for mr.trudou...might go for it...

[northof49]

Look at it the other way around, if a tax were laid on all outdoor gear, then all outdoor enthusiasts would feel like they have a say in where and how the money should be spent. Can you say wildlife management for animals that are the most photogenic? If the tax were on hunting gear then only hunters get to be smug and say, "look at what we are actually doing for wildlife, we are putting our own real money behind our words!" Don't take our smugness from us! We need the smug, we're not getting the moral high ground anywhere else these days!

I would actually support a tax that I knew was going directly to wildlife management and habitat. But I have absolutely zero faith in government to maintain that revenue stream and not incorperate it into general revenue.

Habitat enhancement will benefit everyone and should be funded by EVERYONE, not just hunters. Our right to hunt is a seperate issue and should be kept as such.

[northof49]

Lots of great responses. I’m getting the feeling that one of the biggest issues with a levy or increased license and tag fees is a lack of trust in the government. Government stealing the money for their own agenda items is a valid concern. I think using conservation funds solely for conservation would have to be written into provincial law.

Exactly.....remember how the extra funds in ICBC were raided not long ago....and now look at the mess ICBC is in and guess what.....our rates just got increased. Need to ensure there is legislation to ensure this cant happen with any kind of a wildlife enhancement fund. The funds must be protected from being raided by Govmt.

[northof49]

THIS ! :sad: Be HAPPY to Pay more ! IF there is any ACCOUNTABILITY - MANAGEMENT of the MONEY ! RJ

This biggest issue with giving any government more money is; are they going to do the right thing with it or piss it away as they are doing with the funds they’re receiving right now. So I don’t believe that saying people are sqawking is the right way to address this. I’d put more money in a heartbeat if the accountability is there. Until then, I need to see some legislation that protects those funds earmarked for wildlife specifically.

If managed by the Govmt the funds will be pissed away...GAURANTEED. Must be independent management and accountable through annual audits.

[elknut]

Agree 100% FD...Exactly what I proposed ..The Roberton Pitman Act is the USA model..Only way to get proper dedicated funding for Fish and Wildlife..Seems to be a lot of takers and not many supporters when it comes to Wildlife funding..The money from our licenses and habitat fund is a pittance of what is needed..And that Ladies and Gentlemen is why we will never get anywhere..Just like the Republican party ..." Fractured".....Dennis

[Iron Glove]

I'm all for it with the well expressed caveat that, as most have said, the $$ are designated for wildlife enhancement.
I'm also OK with them getting rid of the $25 savings us old farts get on our hunting licenses, again if that $25 extra goes into the fund.
I don't mind spending a bit extra for the privilege of hunting in this great Province.
Rarely, if ever agree with FD but he's right on this one.

[Brew]

Another idea would be to allow employees to get their employers to deduct small donations from paycheques before tax is taken off. If the hunting community each had $1-$5 deducted off each paycheque for a year that would add up to a significant amount of revenue. I’m no money guy but I would take an option like that.

[northof49]

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.

Yes but not fair to add tax on retailers that are already struggling to compete with internet sales. Take it from the 7% that is already paid. Otherwise most will simply say I can buy it cheaper from the internet and do so thus circumventing the excise tax. How will that help. Human nature is what it is. Everone wants to pay less and most will do if given the option.

[Paulyman]

Probably not, only reason being I absolutely no faith that the funds would be used accordingly.

The whole idea of the tax is that it does go directly back into Wildlife Management. That's what they do in the states

[rocksteady]

The whole idea of the tax is that it does go directly back into Wildlife Management. That's what they do in the states

And what guarantee do we have that it will vs. Going to the Port Mann bridge, sea to sky hwy or some other project??????

[Paulyman]

And what guarantee do we have that it will vs. Going to the Port Mann bridge, sea to sky hwy or some other project??????

Have to be something written into the legislation that 100% of the money is for conservation otherwise I wouldn't be on board.

[Wild one]

Have to be something written into the legislation that 100% of the money is for conservation otherwise I wouldn't be on board.

This is the important factor

Without setting things up so funds cannot be used for anything but wildlife it is not worth paying tax for it

[mrdoog]

why not utilize systems already in place such as speciality vehicle plates or lottery revenues?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Absolutely. Should tax all outdoor equipment that can have an affect on our fish and wildlife.....ATV's, motorcycles etc.

The amount doesn't have to be high.

[Paulyman]

I think this poll should be redone if and when there is some framework that outlines what percentage of it is to go back into wildlife. Seems to be a lot of people not in favour of it and I'm guessing that would change if the percentage looked good

[Ourea]

Seems that some are opposed to being asked to contribute more if it all went to wildlife.
A bit of the old .....sure I want more, or better, as long as someone else pays for it.

Positive though that conversations are happening, that wildlife needs funding and more attention in this province.

[steel_ram]

I have no problem paying a bit of a "user fee" for anything in this province as long as the money goes to where it is supposed to go.

As far as wildlife goes, why ding the newbies who are buying their first basic set up with special taxes? Why not tax the guys that have already taken their fare share, and continue to? What about all us baby boomers who have lived a life better than any has, or will? I'm not a rich man, but it seems stupid to give the increasing amount of "seniors" a seven dollar hunting license. Today's seniors are not poor (at least shouldn't be).

[Ride Red]

Seems that some are opposed to being asked to contribute more if it all went to wildlife.
A bit of the old .....sure I want more, or better, as long as someone else pays for it.

Positive though that conversations are happening, that wildlife needs funding and more attention in this province.

With a guarantee of 100% of the funds collected going into wildlife, I and the majority would step up without issue IMHO.

[stan]

I am payin plenty to support the useless beurocracy already, anyone that supports such an idea is a fool.

[303savage]

A dedicated account would be independent of provincial budgets,

I would bet it would just be shoved into general revenue

[mooseknuckler]

For sure - so long as all the money went to wildlife which would be managed by science and not by feelings.

[stan]

Oh ya the moneys gonna go 100 % for fish and wildlife??? . Pull you heads outta your asses.

[dakoda62]

You all must remember this, bit off topic however. Trust your government! no sir I don't.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) is a provincial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada) crown corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Columbia_Government_Agencies_and_C rown_Corporations) in British Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia) created in 1973 by the NDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_New_Democratic_Party) government of Premier Dave Barrett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Barrett). The original purpose of ICBC was to provide universal and affordable compulsory public auto insurance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_auto_insurance) in British Columbia by operating on a non-profit basis.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia#cite_not e-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia#cite_not e-4) However, in March 2010, Christy Clark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christy_Clark)'s BC Liberal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Liberal_Party) government announced that it would require ICBC to pay the province dividends totalling some $778 million over three years, thus signalling the end of ICBC’s operation as a non-profit Crown corporation, and also making it the only for-profit public auto insurance provider in Canada.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia#cite_not e-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia#cite_not e-6) These dividends eventually totalled $1.2 billion.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia#cite_not e-7) Since ICBC's creation, its responsibilities have expanded to include driver licensing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license), vehicle registration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_register), and various road safety initiatives.

[Wild one]

Oh ya the moneys gonna go 100 % for fish and wildlife??? . Pull you heads outta your asses.
Is

if a a bill was passed with no loop holes to transfer funds or spend them on anything but wildlife would you support it?

most are wise enough to not trust govt completely but it’s possible to make a deal with the devil and come out ahead.

[Paulyman]

From a conversation that I had with one of the people pushing this initiative it is supposed to be set up much like FreshwaterBC, where you buy your freshwater fishing licenses from. Please read my attached to link

http://www.gofishbc.com/About-Us.aspx

[stan]

Plenty of tax revenue collected provincially and at the fed level to have competent management.i for one am sick of paying to support the bunch of lying, power tripping leach’s that people refer to as government.

[338win mag]

Now that were going to be subjected to paying more, which I happily agree to,,so long as it is a separate entity from government looking after the funds, how much are the forest companies gonna kick in?

[Ourea]

Plenty of tax revenue collected provincially and at the fed level to have competent management.i for one am sick of paying to support the bunch of lying, power tripping leach’s that people refer to as government.

Bad day stan?

[Ourea]

Nope ,just have trouble understanding how anybody can support greater taxation on the blue collar workers of this country.

When you learn how to control the money paid in.

[Wild one]

Now that were going to be subjected to paying more, which I happily agree to,,so long as it is a separate entity from government looking after the funds, how much are the forest companies gonna kick in?

If we as hunters want to achieve results looking for support from those who have passion and want to see wildlife flourish is the better starting point then fighting industry

Trying to battle industry in hopes of getting $ out of them would be long and costly. Lobby to improve practices or that a portion of environmental fines forestry pays out go to funding wildlife sure.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Here's a small bit of info from the Pittman-Robertson Act...

States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the states's fish and game department.[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-Connecticut-3)[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Act-6)[8] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-ROI-8) Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Act-6) Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of wildlife and/or habitat, and acquisition or lease of land.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-USFWS-1)[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Act-6)[10] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-book22-10) Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through P–R funds.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-USFWS-1)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-Connecticut-3)[10] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-book22-10) The 25% of the cost that the state must pay generally comes from its hunting license sales.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-USFWS-1) If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Conservation_Act).[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Act-6)[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act#cite_note-texas-9)

[stan]

Canada don’t work that way

[Ourea]

Canada don’t work that way

Well stan, some are trying to change that

[Ride Red]

Well stan, some are trying to change that

And a change is definitely needed too.

[tigrr]

No government is trust worthy enough to spend any newly collected funds on what we want. Give your head a shake.
For instance BC's carbon footprint is non existent because our forest consume more than we as humans produce. So why the carbon tax? You like giving the government more that 50% of your paycheck, I for one don't.

[HarryToolips]

WOW!!! Without a shadow of a doubt I would pay!! Some people are givers.... the rest takers..... the "I've been paying for years" excuse is crap. You haven't been paying didly for what you are all able to hunt. To the 45% you all claim to love hunting so much, yet your not willing to pay for it. Your probably the same people that criticize welfare users yet you want handouts of a different kind for yourselves. That disgusts me. It's pretty evident the problem with hunting in BC lies largely within our own ranks! Brutal.
Yup, those of you that Seeker is referencing should be ashamed of yourselves...according to my hunting partner who is from Utah, what we pay here for tags is peanuts compared to what they pay in the States....and their revenue all goes back toward wildlife and habitat..

[Greenthumbed]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26220060_2003924213218847_8189333522592544720_n.jp g?oh=8437107c41c723b19e2afacb19ddc64a&oe=5AE95AE2

This is very sad and embarrassing!

[Ourea]

Does anyone actually read a thread thru on HBC?
Painful.

[Pemby_mess]

That graphic makes bc hunters look like entitled spoiled brats - hopefully not true. Id not be keen in funding general revenue, but obviously we all need to find a way to channel more money directly into this kind of thing.

[338win mag]

Forest companies support entire communities you idiot
Sure they do Stan, you misunderstand.
Its not the resident hunters job to hold forest companies to account.
Dont you think its ok to have them pay a small fee for wildlife initiatives, restoration, etc is it Stan?
Who do you think should pay for this??

[338win mag]

If we as hunters want to achieve results looking for support from those who have passion and want to see wildlife flourish is the better starting point then fighting industry

Trying to battle industry in hopes of getting $ out of them would be long and costly. Lobby to improve practices or that a portion of environmental fines forestry pays out go to funding wildlife sure.
Why battle industry?
Some of the posting in this thread tells me this....some are good readers but poor at comprehension.

[338win mag]

This thread is a perfect example of the cross section of the hunting mind in this province, the smart vrs the....

Despite some, its encouraging that most hunters get it, and some that dont get it can be swayed into the basic understanding that the money has to come from somewhere, and its obvious by now it wont be coming from the government directly.
Its wise to not trust government to implement a funding model, it would be unwise to think that there isn't the wisdom within the hunting community to implement such a strategy with government at arms length, yet independant of government.

[Hunter gatherer]

That graphic makes bc hunters look like entitled spoiled brats - hopefully not true. Id not be keen in funding general revenue, but obviously we all need to find a way to channel more money directly into this kind of thing.
Graphs can be skewed to get the results you want. The money allocated to wildlife is what the govt puts into it from our taxes, they just need to stop wasting tax money on frivolous projects. I am sure we all here would put more money into wildlife if we knew that's where the funds would go but giving more money to the govt is basicly pissing into the wind. "Entitled spoiled brats" ,really ,name calling. Throwing money at something that is broken when you don't what the problem is won't fix it.

[Hunter gatherer]

[QUOTE=338win mag;1971305]This thread is a perfect example of the cross section of the hunting mind in this province, the smart vrs the....
The smart vrs the what , someone with a different opinion is what. Hunters dole out lots of taxes every year. The extra fuel you burn ,hotels you stay in ,ammo ,equipment and so on . All these things are taxed ,if we didn't hunt those taxes would not be collected,instead it might be a Mexican holiday where all monies were spent elsewhere.

[Wild one]

Why battle industry?
Some of the posting in this thread tells me this....some are good readers but poor at comprehension.

Very well could have miss understood what you meant by your post

Just common to see hunters in BC point fingers saying “x should pay out” or “ I won’t put $ forward if x don’t “ this attitude holds back anything getting accomplished. I am a believer that hunters need to focus on what we can do vs what we can get others to do is my point.

My attitude is hunters should focus on showing an example by putting in an effort to making a difference before pushing industry.

[stan]

Gonna be difficult to cough up all these new bend over user feed and taxes that appear well supported without the jobs that industry provides.i think we are paying plenty.

[325]

As a hunter I don’t mind paying the majority of revenue that will fund wildlife management. I do think though, we would need any additional revenues to be placed in a legally protected account outside of the normal government reach. I do think that given the differences between the USA Federal excise program and a smaller provincial program, it would make more sense to simply increase license and tag fees rather than tax items. I totally understand the sentiment that many feel that they are already overtaxed, I feel the same way. But I even feel more strongly towards the current state of our wildlife in this province, I’ve never seen things as bleak as they are now something needs to be done soon. Continued urbanization, habitat fragmentation, habitat degradation, high predation rates, all need to be dealt with sooner rather than later. If we step up to the plate put the energy and time into improving our wildlife management in British Columbia, our grandchildren will thank us.

[86k20]

The government has shown us over and over that they cannot manage the tax revenue they bring in now effectively. They waste an insane amount and if they are not wasting it they are giving it away and getting nothing in return. Absolutely NOT!

[brownmancheng]

Very well could have miss understood what you meant by your post

Just common to see hunters in BC point fingers saying “x should pay out” or “ I won’t put $ forward if x don’t “ this attitude holds back anything getting accomplished. I am a believer that hunters need to focus on what we can do vs what we can get others to do is my point.

My attitude is hunters should focus on showing an example by putting in an effort to making a difference before pushing industry.

lol I tell my kids that all the time. don't worry about everyone else worry about what you can do!

[Rob Chipman]

"just have trouble understanding how anybody can support greater taxation on the blue collar workers of this country"


Here's the simple explanation Stan:

1st, most recognize that government can't be trusted to keep a dedicated tax dedicated to it's goal. They will try to divert the $$ to a pet project. That's why we're suggesting a tax that flows to an independent body. The example of what CC's liberal government did to ICBC is a lesson in how strongly insulated the independent body has to be. Forewarned is forearmed. (BTW, if the standalone independent agency didn't build up the cash but instead got it out the door doing concrete work in the communities it would a) have less cash to raid and b) be harder to target).

2nd, most recognize that government will not, despite how often you call for them to do it, spend tax money wisely. That's jut the world we live in. Demanding that they change their practices and start spending money on conservation wisely is sort of like hoping Santa will bring you something - most of us have reached the age that we know Santa will bring something, but that at the end of the day we're paying the bill because we're actually Santa.

3rd, most recognize (and I'm including you, because you know this as much as I do) that if you want something you have to pay for it. There is no free lunch. If we want conservation we're going to pay for it one way or another. We can try to get the government to spend less on schools, health, cushy jobs for party faithful. A lot of people don't think that'll work. And that's the real reason that people are advocating more taxes. They realize that if you want something done you've got to do it yourself, and that costs money.

No, it is not a pretty picture. No, it is not a simple job to get the tax money and keep it free from government's greed talons. But...we need the work to be done, and a lot of people can't see another way. It doesn't need to be only hunters, since a lot of non-hunters benefit from and enjoy wildlife and wild landscapes.

BTW, the people who oppose hunting most effectively are professionals and get paid for what they do. If you think we're going to compete with them without reaching in our pockets you've got another thing coming. Again, I think you realize that this is true.

[Wild one]

lol I tell my kids that all the time. don't worry about everyone else worry about what you can do!

My kids get the same talk

Crazy how much can be accomplished with this attitude lol

[elknut]

Hopefully SSS reply of the Robertson Pitman act shows what basically is the objective of this taxation request..Read it ..Its been working for years..And yes its embarrising to see what the few states spend on their Wildlife and Fisheries versus ...SUPER NATURAL BC...LOL...We are a disgrace..No balls No brains and CHEAP *******S...In the end people that want to support a positive initiative will bring about change and will help the cause...Others will be bottom feeders and I guess thats that....Dennis

[Paulyman]

Everyone wants to hunt, everyone wants science based management, but no-one wants to fund it. No money in General Revenue to pay for us as a user group. If we want proper management of wildlife we are going to have to pay for it

[Greenthumbed]

Graphs can be skewed to get the results you want...

Throwing money at something that is broken when you don't what the problem is won't fix it.
That graphic clearly show that next to no money is being spent on wildlife conservation in this province by comparison. Do you not believe that fact?
Money needs to be spent to find out what the problem is before you can fix it. It's called research. It's part of the process.
We need to spend some money folks!

[gwes2003]

Nope, I dont agree with taxing the people who already contribute the most to wildlife management. Perhaps it would be better to create a special tax to those who oppose or dont hunt/fish. Way more revenue that way, and then those people will actually be contributing more than thoughts and feelings!

[338win mag]

Hunter gatherer
The smart vrs the what , someone with a different opinion is what. Hunters dole out lots of taxes every year. The extra fuel you burn ,hotels you stay in ,ammo ,equipment and so on . All these things are taxed ,if we didn't hunt those taxes would not be collected,instead it might be a Mexican holiday where all monies were spent elsewhere.

None of which you speak of go's to wildlife initiatives, think about it.

[finaddict]

Its been mentioned in this thread already, but I think it needs to be emphasized. The ONLY way to ensure that our privileges to hunt are maintained is to make sure that we are the ONLY ones contributing to wildlife management. The excise taxes collected on firearms, ammunition, bows etc. in the US are a huge success. If we look for others to help fund wildlife management, they will expect to have even more say in how those populations are managed. I think they already have too damn much to say now.

Make it an excise tax the same as the US, guarantee it is collected and forwarded to an independent agency that manages the funds for "boots on the ground" habitat and wildlife management and tell the anti's to go eat themselves. I look forward to contributing more financially if it means that that money goes to habitat protection. My hunting fees and tags can go to the defense of my privileges and lawyers that will be necessary in the near future as the effing Furbearers, Raincoast, SPCA, PETA and all the other self interest Eco-brokers look to boost their socially engineered influence on OUR resource.

[two-feet]

In my mind it cant happen soon enough. So easy to bitch, so hard to find solutions. This would be a concrete, solid win for every BC resident, but hunters in particular.

[Ovis17]

I already do every time I buy a license, tag or LEH. The government just needs to spend it on the area it is intended for rather than putting it into general revenue.Amen.......

[Wild one]

To those who say they already pay from buying tags, licenses and LEH you do realize these are cheap in BC

maybe a start is these funds going towards wildlife and increasing the fees to match closer to other parts of North America?

Bet that would’ve met by the same resistance though

[Downtown]

Nailed it to the point.

Cheers

[Downtown]

No need for new taxes, just do the right thing with the taxes we already pay.

Nailed it to the point.

Cheers

[cpwrestler]

Would you guys be agreeable to paying a special tax, similar to the USA, on firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, fishing gear, etc IF the revenue went into its own account and was dedicated for spending on provincial fish and wildlife management? Additionally, let’s assume all revenue from hunting, angling and trapping licenses went into this account.

How many people actually read the initial post? The question was not just would you support the tax, it was would you support the tax IF it were dedicate for spending on provincial fish and wildlife management. It sounds like the vast majority are supportive of such a tax, just many are skeptical that it would work.

Since the majority of posters agree that we would pay for the tax if it could be dedicated, why don't we suggest some ways that we might be able to make it dedicated instead of just complaining that the government is too inefficient and will waste it.

For example, after reading the post about the Pittman Robertson Act, I find it interesting that it is Federal and that it takes cooperation between two levels of government to get money for projects. In other words, state projects need to be approved federally and if the feds tried to raid the fund, the states would be outraged and apply pressure on the feds to abide by the rules. This acts as a form of mutual accountability.

I think such a program would be a start in Canada, but it will take more than just that because there are 50 states that can apply that pressure vs. only 13 provinces and territories. It would be a lot harder for the feds to get consensus or a significant majority out of 50 states than 13 provinces/territories so we'd need some more accountability I think and I'm not sure what that would look like.

[northof49]

Can’t believe those who are asking to pay more tax.....you might rethink that soon after Trudeau and the GreenDPs start hiking the Fed/Prov taxes in near future to pay for all spending. Should come from the taxes we already pay. Easy enough....AB doesnt pay any Prov tax. If enviromemt and wildlife is so important to the Greens and the NDP it is time for them to “walk the talk” and reallocate a portion of the PST collected on sale of recreational items to wildlife management and habitat enhancement. Am all for it....but there’s no f’ing way I want to pay more taxes than I already do.

[Hunter gatherer]

Hunter gatherer
The smart vrs the what , someone with a different opinion is what. Hunters dole out lots of taxes every year. The extra fuel you burn ,hotels you stay in ,ammo ,equipment and so on . All these things are taxed ,if we didn't hunt those taxes would not be collected,instead it might be a Mexican holiday where all monies were spent elsewhere.

None of which you speak of go's to wildlife initiatives, think about it.
And the point I was trying to make is that the from taxes that are collected more should be allocated to wildlife . Doubling the cost of tags would not be out of line either,they are cheep but would the money go where it's needed or where the govt of the day wants to spend it. No one on this site is against more money for wildlife spending only where the money comes from and at the end of the day it is still our money.

[brian]

I wonder if you could put a kill switch in a tax bill, like the moment the tax that is collected is rerouted then the bill is dead?

[Ltbullken]

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!

[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.

[bownut]

Quite a few good posts and comments above. I too would support an excise tax program for wildlife specific uses. However, the U.S. set their system up in a different time, with a different government and public culture, I'm not so sure it would pass or work as well as it does if they (or us) tried it now.

Instead, how about everyone donates more to the wildlife conservation organizations of their choosing? That should maximize the chances money is spent in the way it's intended. For full disclosure, and I say this somewhat embarrassingly, I have not donated any money to such a group before, but this thread has motivated me to look into doing so.

Does anyone have any experience or relationship with pre-existing conservation groups (those below or more) and could recommend what would be worth looking into for BC specific donations?
https://www.wildsheepsociety.com/wild-sheep-information/
http://www.bcwf.net

Also, anything for fresh or salt water fishing as well?

Wold Sheep Society Of BC has been doing some great work and continues to get the best bang for the buck. Thats one group you can feel good about.
Chris Barker puts his boots to the ground like no one else..

Listen to this interview.
https://journalofmountainhunting.com/episode76/

[Lugg]

Out of curiosity, and forgive me if it's been stated, but does anyone know how much money forestry companies must give to wildlife protection for logging rights?

I could see that being a viable option to help top off the "Wildlife Conservation Pot". There would have to be a set percentage of money based on many factors that I can't begin to complete, roads, forested area, pollution, time, etc.

But again, this would have to go directly into a gurateed cache of money only for this one purpose. Not for government to decide later that they could use 850 million of it to build a bridge, or something.

[finaddict]

Out of curiosity, and forgive me if it's been stated, but does anyone know how much money forestry companies must give to wildlife protection for logging rights?

I could see that being a viable option to help top off the "Wildlife Conservation Pot". There would have to be a set percentage of money based on many factors that I can't begin to complete, roads, forested area, pollution, time, etc.

But again, this would have to go directly into a gurateed cache of money only for this one purpose. Not for government to decide later that they could use 850 million of it to build a bridge, or something.It has been decades since I looked at this but in the 80's, all the logging companies paid was stumpage fee. This was essentially a "tax" based on the area in hectares being logged and the estimated cubic metres of of salable timber on the land as revealed through the silvicultural surveys. That stumpage fee was paid after the completion of the logging and I am not sure if it went to Ministry of Forests for site regeneration and seedling production, or if it went into general revenue.

I have no idea how it is managed today.

[OoDark]

the Big reason this works better in the us is because they "Nationally love guns", where here in Canada its all most criminal to like to use and hunt with them.

[cpwrestler]

[/B]Exactly this.

Forgive my repetition, but you do this and we're no better off than where we are today. In fact we may become worse off for several reasons.

1) There are more anti's in the general outdoors community than there are hunters therefore we will be a minority voice on how the funds are used.

2) With so many interest groups in play, it will become far easier for the money to be misspent on things that don't really help wildlife the way we hope. E.G. mountain bike trails, campsites, hiking trail maintenance, docks, birding stations etc.

3) Many competing voices will make it difficult to establish a clear mandate for the fund. Without a clear mandate, it is not possible to define an "appropriate" use of the funds. Without such a mandate and definition it becomes much easier for the fund to dissolve into the kind of political slush fund demonstrated in point 2... Exactly the thing everyone is most worried about.

4) The general outdoors community tends to favour "preservation" over "management." They see the outdoors as something that would just be fine if we left it alone. A fund with revenues from groups like this would likely end up producing far more protected areas like national parks than it would improving habitat and hunter opportunity.

I'm sure I could come up with some more reasons why sharing such a pot with other competing groups is bad, but the whole point of a tax like this is to ensure hunters provide a greater direct contribution to wildlife than other groups. If we do this, then we can ensure that there are more dollars to spend on wildlife and that the dollars that are spent are spent in a way that benefits wildlife AND us as hunters. Money talks in politics and with such a fund we would talk a lot louder than the antis who would have no $$ to back up their claims.

[brownmancheng]

Forgive my repetition, but you do this and we're no better off than where we are today. In fact we may become worse off for several reasons.

1) There are more anti's in the general outdoors community than there are hunters therefore we will be a minority voice on how the funds are used.

2) With so many interest groups in play, it will become far easier for the money to be misspent on things that don't really help wildlife the way we hope. E.G. mountain bike trails, campsites, hiking trail maintenance, docks, birding stations etc.

3) Many competing voices will make it difficult to establish a clear mandate for the fund. Without a clear mandate, it is not possible to define an "appropriate" use of the funds. Without such a mandate and definition it becomes much easier for the fund to dissolve into the kind of political slush fund demonstrated in point 2... Exactly the thing everyone is most worried about.

4) The general outdoors community tends to favour "preservation" over "management." They see the outdoors as something that would just be fine if we left it alone. A fund with revenues from groups like this would likely end up producing far more protected areas like national parks than it would improving habitat and hunter opportunity.

I'm sure I could come up with some more reasons why sharing such a pot with other competing groups is bad, but the whole point of a tax like this is to ensure hunters provide a greater direct contribution to wildlife than other groups. If we do this, then we can ensure that there are more dollars to spend on wildlife and that the dollars that are spent are spent in a way that benefits wildlife AND us as hunters. Money talks in politics and with such a fund we would talk a lot louder than the antis who would have no $$ to back up their claims.


hasn't this thread proven that close to half the hunters are NOT willing to pay more? how do we jump from a tax on many users to hunters fully picking up the tab? with only our 14 mil in licenses should put us in good shape!

[Rob Chipman]

Bownut:

Good recommendation on WSS and Beyond the Kill podcast. I believe in modelling success, and anytime I hear Chris talk I'm motivated to call him and say "Hey, how exactly do you pull off such good results?".

[cpwrestler]

hasn't this thread proven that close to half the hunters are NOT willing to pay more? how do we jump from a tax on many users to hunters fully picking up the tab? with only our 14 mil in licenses should put us in good shape!

No... Half the people support it, and probably 25'ish percent of the remainder say they would support it if they could trust the government to spend it wisely (which most don't). So the question becomes if 75'ish percent of the people would support such a tax if we could be sure it was truly spent on wildlife and habitat enhancement, how could we set up the fund in such a way that it would be protected from political interference?

I made some suggestions on this in post #146 (i.e. collect the funds federally, but have the provinces spend the money so that each level has to hold one another to account that the projects fit the mandate like in the States). If we put our collective minds together I'm sure we could come up with more ideas.

Remember. We're only speaking hypothetically at this point. What's the harm in throwing out ideas on how something like this MIGHT or COULD work? It's better than just saying "nope, impossible" we do enough already... If we did enough, or gave enough, we wouldn't be losing political battles, influence, opportunities, and habitat. We need to do something differently if we want our voices heard and our desires met.

As has been pointed out many times, 14 million in the scheme of things is nowhere near enough to solve the problems we complain about. It's only $14.82/sq km and would represents only 41% of our current budget. Compare that to Oregon's budget of 220 million for a land mass roughly a quarter of the size.

[HappyJack]

hasn't this thread proven that close to half the hunters are NOT willing to pay more? how do we jump from a tax on many users to hunters fully picking up the tab? with only our 14 mil in licenses should put us in good shape!

Well there are several million people in BC, I wonder how many of them would be willing to pay more taxes for the betterment of wildlife?

[northof49]

I made some suggestions on this in post #146 (i.e. collect the funds federally, but have the provinces spend the money so that each level has to hold one another to account that the projects fit the mandate like in the States).

REALLY.....you think it’s a good idea to add another level of bureaucracy with the Federal Govt.....might want to rethink that. Too many reasons to list.

[northof49]

I'm sure I could come up with some more reasons why sharing such a pot with other competing groups is bad, but the whole point of a tax like this is to ensure hunters provide a greater direct contribution to wildlife than other groups. If we do this, then we can ensure that there are more dollars to spend on wildlife and that the dollars that are spent are spent in a way that benefits wildlife AND us as hunters. Money talks in politics and with such a fund we would talk a lot louder than the antis who would have no $$ to back up their claims.

Typically wildlife management and habitat enhancement projects require management plans, prescriptions, approvals and permits from MoF/MoE, not to mention referrals to FNs, other stakeholders and the public as well. Regardless where the monetary contribution comes from, you can’t avoid environmental folks, Govt agencies and likely some antis being involved in the process. IMO you are mistaken if you think the hunting community would have free reign to determine how and where the the money would be spent.

[.264winmag]

Absolutely yes. Then there's the others that don't even care what a lifetime biologist has accomplished. Conservation study is waste of $ to those individuals I guess...

[338win mag]

2) With so many interest groups in play, it will become far easier for the money to be misspent on things that don't really help wildlife the way we hope. E.G. mountain bike trails, campsites, hiking trail maintenance, docks, birding stations etc.

The fund would be for wildlife initiatives, delivered by a separate entity from government, not to be used for hiking trails etc.
I understand the mistrust citizens of this province have for a bungling government, I think the question is a simple one.
How much is stolen, misused, is irelevent to the question and is skewing the poll.
Personally, if the government was implementing the funds and directing the funds then I dont support it either, however I support the original question because I know where we are going if we dont generate some $$$.
Our licensing fees isn't going to be enough, not even close.

[powderhound]

I would happily pay a tax to support wildlife management if it was set up properly. The minuscule amount that BC spends on wildlife management is embarrassing. Something needs to be done and as a hunter I would be happy to put my money where my mouth is and pay more (if it in fact goes to wildlife management and conservation and NOT into the general fund of the government).

In addition to being good for wildlife, I think it would be good for hunters as well. If it is exclusively hunters funding wildlife management then that gives us even more of the moral high ground over anti-hunters who contribute nothing. And that matters when the public perception of hunting is under attack.

[325]

I addition to proper funding, we need a government willing to manage wildlife. For example, if a population of ungulates is in serious decline, and the biologists say the cause is poor recruitment secondary to predation, will our government be willing to cull predators??? Not a chance with this current government. We need funding to develop a proper understanding of our current and ongoing wildlife challenges AND a government willing to follow-up on recommendations. We must insist on it.

[Bugle M In]

I addition to proper funding, we need a government willing to manage wildlife. For example, if a population of ungulates is in serious decline, and the biologists say the cause is poor recruitment secondary to predation, will our government be willing to cull predators??? Not a chance with this current government. We need funding to develop a proper understanding of our current and ongoing wildlife challenges AND a government willing to follow-up on recommendations. We must insist on it.

The only way to get a government to become as you stated, and I agree with you:
Is to get more hunters into politics, meaning more hunters running for mla's in their area.
Get hunters as mla's, and we will have a voice in Victoria.....period...and is about the only way we will ever see any government in the future that supports hunting.
It's that, or have legislation drawn up that really protects hunting, and take wildlife issues out of the hands of government so they don't determine things based on public opinion (meaning votes)

[cruiser]

The only way to get a government to become as you stated, and I agree with you:
Is to get more hunters into politics, meaning more hunters running for mla's in their area.
Get hunters as mla's, and we will have a voice in Victoria.....period...and is about the only way we will ever see any government in the future that supports hunting.
It's that, or have legislation drawn up that really protects hunting, and take wildlife issues out of the hands of government so they don't determine things based on public opinion (meaning votes)


Typically wildlife management and habitat enhancement projects require management plans, prescriptions, approvals and permits from MoF/MoE, not to mention referrals to FNs, other stakeholders and the public as well. Regardless where the monetary contribution comes from, you can’t avoid environmental folks, Govt agencies and likely some antis being involved in the process. IMO you are mistaken if you think the hunting community would have free reign to determine how and where the the money would be spent.

Very true. Doesn't look great reading where current guideance seems to be heading on topics like control of predators:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12896/full

[338win mag]

The only way to get a government to become as you stated, and I agree with you:
Is to get more hunters into politics, meaning more hunters running for mla's in their area.
Get hunters as mla's, and we will have a voice in Victoria.....period...and is about the only way we will ever see any government in the future that supports hunting.
It's that, or have legislation drawn up that really protects hunting, and take wildlife issues out of the hands of government so they don't determine things based on public opinion (meaning votes)
Its not the only way bugle, the other way is to make large donations to lets say the liberal party, lets say about 20 million to start, thats how this shyte works. As with alot of government decisions that leaves you head scratching can be traced back to sizeable donations.

[HarryToolips]

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.
And it's like that in most parts of the USA, according to my hunting partner from Utah...hunting and wildlife holds more importance down there than our liberal douche governments up here hold it to...

[Bugle M In]

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.

TW...I am not sure what to say here.
Must be nice to have a 80,000 a year income I suppose?
You know why it's a bad idea.....
I have seen people cut tags, just because the feel they need to because they have a tag.
I, on the other hand don't worry about that, and would prefer to "eat tag soup" if I can't find the deer I am looking for.
But, if I had to pay those king of prices for a tag, I can assure you, I would just take a deer because of that.
In other words, I probably would act in a manner I would prefer rather not to.
In other words, more would just take an animal because they paid so much for a tag.
Honestly, it would be nice if you could develop some sort of "empathy" for others....we don't all have big fat wallets, and why you think we "all do" is beyond me.
I know (developing empathy) is impossible for you....:-D

[Seeker]

TW...I am not sure what to say here.
Must be nice to have a 80,000 a year income I suppose?
You know why it's a bad idea.....
I have seen people cut tags, just because the feel they need to because they have a tag.
I, on the other hand don't worry about that, and would prefer to "eat tag soup" if I can't find the deer I am looking for.
But, if I had to pay those king of prices for a tag, I can assure you, I would just take a deer because of that.
In other words, I probably would act in a manner I would prefer rather not to.
In other words, more would just take an animal because they paid so much for a tag.
Honestly, it would be nice if you could develop some sort of "empathy" for others....we don't all have big fat wallets, and why you think we "all do" is beyond me.
I know (developing empathy) is impossible for you....:-D

Not taking jabs, but if those prices were in effect, pretty certain a good chunk of people wouldn't buy tags reducing the number of deer taken in a year. You won't hunt them if you don't have a tag. Question is, are the animals shot to justify a tag price more than the number that would have been spared because people chose not to buy a tag?

[Bugle M In]

Not taking jabs, but if those prices were in effect, pretty certain a good chunk of people wouldn't buy tags reducing the number of deer taken in a year. You won't hunt them if you don't have a tag. Question is, are the animals shot to justify a tag price more than the number that would have been spared because people chose not to buy a tag?

And if people can't afford the tags, how many just go out illegally in that case??
At the prices suggested, you are going to "price out" some folks here.
So, do you want hunting to just be for the rich? and justify it, by saying less hunter to afford those tags, so less animals taken.
Is that what we want here in BC??
OR, can we just use the money that is already spent for tags, and use 100% of it to go back to habitat and conservation uses??
Can we not start putting a "surcharge" on people buying a ski pass?
Can we put a surcharge on "mountain bikes" or "ATV purchases".
Do you get where I am going??
Place small surcharges on items that are used "Outdoors" and then take all of that money, 100% of it, and use it as I sated above.
Then, we can leave the pricing of tags "AS IS", so "Everyone", no matter what they have for an income, can still have that opportunity to hunt....god knows, fuel prices and everything else to just get out there is already expansive enough.

[Rob Chipman]

One thing that occurs to me a a result of this thread (and it's really just reinforcement of a previously held suspicion): changing the regulations or the tax/funding structure will be way easier once we change culture. If we don't change culture we'll have a much harder time.

I know that seems unacheivable, but look at Bugle M In's questions. Would you cut a tag on an animal you'd otherwise let walk if tag prices were higher? Maybe. Depends on what your culture values.

As a skier would you pay a wildlife surtax? Maybe. Depends on your culture. (Check the complaints about shutting down the back country to sledders in order to save caribou - there's a cultural disconnect going on there).

Translation of all of the above? The more we look at this issue the more complex it becomes! :-)

[Bugle M In]

One thing that occurs to me a a result of this thread (and it's really just reinforcement of a previously held suspicion): changing the regulations or the tax/funding structure will be way easier once we change culture. If we don't change culture we'll have a much harder time.

I know that seems unacheivable, but look at Bugle M In's questions. Would you cut a tag on an animal you'd otherwise let walk if tag prices were higher? Maybe. Depends on what your culture values.

As a skier would you pay a wildlife surtax? Maybe. Depends on your culture. (Check the complaints about shutting down the back country to sledders in order to save caribou - there's a cultural disconnect going on there).

Translation of all of the above? The more we look at this issue the more complex it becomes! :-)

Yup, lots to look at.
You change one thing, you get other results that were never thought of at the time of inception.
Ying and Yang.
All I know is, hunters have paid to go out there to do what we do, and the money has been used for other things non related to habitat (ie. general revenue)
But, I do think it is time for "other users" to chip in as well.

[VancouverIsleGuy]

If a small left was added to most outdoor stuff like fishing gear, boats, atvs, lift passes, hunting gear, etc, etc.. And those funds were by law to be dedicated to fish/wildlife conservation research and enhancment. I would support it.

[tanner]

I know I would be willing to pay a little more if it would actually help wildlife. I want to see results, and open books. Not "we really need your money, what we are doing is so important, just trust us) This is so common. Tell us exactly what the money is spent on. We need to see where every dollar goes, and most importantly SEE RESULTS.

[Wild one]

I know I would be willing to pay a little more if it would actually help wildlife. I want to see results, and open books. Not "we really need your money, what we are doing is so important, just trust us) This is so common. Tell us exactly what the money is spent on. We need to see where every dollar goes, and most importantly SEE RESULTS.


I have to say I ? If BC could do the right things with $ for wildlife. In ways I don’t think the mentality is here

Yes I would support the tax and cross my fingers

[RugDoctor]

Everyone keeps on saying they'd pay up so long as the money was handled properly.....why not say the exact same thing about the money we already pay. This is what I don't understand about everyone lining up to throw good money after bad.....

[SeaScene]

The biggest threat to our continued existence is the mudslide-like human encroachment into every crook and cranny of this little planet. If the funds were offered as cash awards to women choosing reproductive abstention, not birthing more misery to that which already exists; freeze foreign ownership of Canadian real estate; freeze building permits in some regions ... and similar etc..etc... Yes I would support this idea. Otherwise it's just another delusional joke. Treating the symptom and not the disease of infinitely depleting the finite resources of a small planet is a dog that don't hunt.

[Greenthumbed]

Everyone keeps on saying they'd pay up so long as the money was handled properly.....why not say the exact same thing about the money we already pay. This is what I don't understand about everyone lining up to throw good money after bad.....
I'm for paying an excise tax on outdoor goods AND having the funds we already pay going directly back into wildlife conservation. BC's wildlife has been grossly underfunded for so long. It's time we pony up and get some money back out there!

[338win mag]

I'm for paying an excise tax on outdoor goods AND having the funds we already pay going directly back into wildlife conservation. BC's wildlife has been grossly underfunded for so long. It's time we pony up and get some money back out there!
This is the kind of thinking we need more of.