Maybe we can’t have more hunters

[KB_]

We should schedule the 2022 ht ski meet up around some type of hunting/public land public meeting and after we get done jibbing rails we’ll all put on our court clothes, look super sharp, go to the meeting and let you, Ben and vkings guy talk.

A Ski meetup? Great now I get to embarrass myself by tomahawking down the hill. Good thing my wife works in the local ER.

 

[Hammsolo]

I agree with this in concept. However, I think the time has come for hikers, campers, backpackers, boaters, and bikers to pay into process through a Pittman-Robertson tax. Manufacturers have been adamantly against it. The reality is hunters and fisherman have funded the bill for conservation for 80+ years practically alone. That can't continue forever.

Pardon my dumb question, and I should just do some research…. Is there any form of tax on bicycles and such? If not it seems there should be. I won’t admit what I paid for my last mountain bike, and I use it on public trails. Hunters should not be singled out. My experience tells me mountain bikers would be more than willing to pay this tax. Disc golfers? Hmmm…

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Pardon my dumb question, and I should just do some research…. Is there any form of tax on bicycles and such? If not it seems there should be. I won’t admit what I paid for my last mountain bike, and I use it on public trails. Hunters should not be singled out. My experience tells me mountain bikers would be more than willing to pay this tax. Disc golfers? Hmmm…

There is not. When you look at how outdoor user pressure can impact wildlife, there really needs to be some sort of funding mechanism built into these other activities. Sadly, too many have the attitude of “that’s what my taxes are for “.

 

[SAJ-99]

Pardon my dumb question, and I should just do some research…. Is there any form of tax on bicycles and such? If not it seems there should be. I won’t admit what I paid for my last mountain bike, and I use it on public trails. Hunters should not be singled out. My experience tells me mountain bikers would be more than willing to pay this tax. Disc golfers? Hmmm…

This pretty much sums up the ongoing position.

Where We're Going and How Far We Have Come: Climate Action on Earth Day - Outdoor Industry Association

outdoorindustry.org

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This pretty much sums up the ongoing position.

Where We're Going and How Far We Have Come: Climate Action on Earth Day - Outdoor Industry Association

outdoorindustry.org

It's absolutely insane.

If I buy a gun in the US it's quite possible I will never use it on public lands, wildlife are a public resource, so yes it will have a public impact if I use it to hunt, but I'm also buying a license to use it in that manner.

Conversely, I've never been on a private MT biking trail... does one even exist? Similarly skis... maybe some ski areas in the East? These are durable hard goods that are entirely dependent on public lands. Same argument can be made for backpacks, tents, etc.

If we went to a Texas model, all of these companies would just fold.

 

[Irrelevant]

This pretty much sums up the ongoing position.

Where We're Going and How Far We Have Come: Climate Action on Earth Day - Outdoor Industry Association

outdoorindustry.org

I've never heard the import tax disparity mentioned in that article and I honestly have a really hard time believing it.

Either way, I just emailed them requesting they re-look at their "No new taxes" policy.

 

[SAJ-99]

I've never heard the import tax disparity mentioned in that article and I honestly have a really hard time believing it.

Either way, I just emailed them requesting they re-look at their "No new taxes" policy.

That’s the “We moved our manufacturing to Asia to increase profits and the import tariff is killing us” argument. What they can’t says is that their manufacturing employees income taxes fill the coffers of the US treasury. The argument is ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

That’s the “We moved our manufacturing to Asia to increase profits and the import tariff is killing us” argument. What they can’t says is that their manufacturing employees income taxes fill the coffers of the US treasury. The argument is ridiculous.

That was my first thought as well. It’s an importation issue.

 

[bullbugle307]

That was my first thought as well. It’s an importation issue.

So the way I read that, if they made their products in America, and used American materials, they would pay absolutely nothing.

Edit to add: other than their employees would pay income taxes here.

 

[Hammsolo]

It's absolutely insane.

If I buy a gun in the US it's quite possible I will never use it on public lands, wildlife are a public resource, so yes it will have a public impact if I use it to hunt, but I'm also buying a license to use it in that manner.

Conversely, I've never been on a private MT biking trail... does one even exist? Similarly skis... maybe some ski areas in the East? These are durable hard goods that are entirely dependent on public lands. Same argument can be made for backpacks, tents, etc.

If we went to a Texas model, all of these companies would just fold.

There are many private biking trails, and bike parks are spreading across the country quickly. I ride both routinely as an avid mountain biker. There is even a private ski area, The Yellowstone Club in Big Sky Montana. I am not in that socioeconomic class…

 

[Hammsolo]

This is definitely a much more complex issue than I realized; unconsciously unaware…. Drrr duh drrrrrrrr….

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There are many private biking trails, and bike parks are spreading across the country quickly. I ride both routinely as an avid mountain biker. There is even a private ski area, The Yellowstone Club in Big Sky Montana. I am not in that socioeconomic class…

I know of bike trails that have easements on private and sure maybe some short track or something but I’ve never heard of someone with a 20k acre ranch building a 15 mile bike trail and then charging people to use it. Point being they are public trails, I don’t know of a private pay to use trail system.

Both Big Sky and the Yellowstone club are on private, a lot of ski areas have some of their buildings and infrastructure on private.

 

[Dougfirtree]

It's absolutely insane.

If I buy a gun in the US it's quite possible I will never use it on public lands, wildlife are a public resource, so yes it will have a public impact if I use it to hunt, but I'm also buying a license to use it in that manner.

Conversely, I've never been on a private MT biking trail... does one even exist? Similarly skis... maybe some ski areas in the East? These are durable hard goods that are entirely dependent on public lands. Same argument can be made for backpacks, tents, etc.

If we went to a Texas model, all of these companies would just fold.

I know of bike trails that have easements on private and sure maybe some short track or something but I’ve never heard of someone with a 20k acre ranch building a 15 mile bike trail and then charging people to use it. Point being they are public trails, I don’t know of a private pay to use trail system.

Both Big Sky and the Yellowstone club are on private, a lot of ski areas have some of their buildings and infrastructure on private.

Kind of a hybrid: https://www.kingdomtrails.org/membership

I agree with your point, though.

 

[Hammsolo]

I know of bike trails that have easements on private and sure maybe some short track or something but I’ve never heard of someone with a 20k acre ranch building a 15 mile bike trail and then charging people to use it. Point being they are public trails, I don’t know of a private pay to use trail system.

Both Big Sky and the Yellowstone club are on private, a lot of ski areas have some of their buildings and infrastructure on private.

They aren’t common, but they are around. They are generally for the wealthy. There are a couple in Big Sky, Rock Creek Ranch near Philipsburgh Montana, Pomerelle in Idaho, and more. I’m not arguing they’re common, but they exist. I’m not arguing they’re a good thing either. Each is its own critter.

Most ski areas usually fit your description, and are developing bike parks.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They aren’t common, but they are around. They are generally for the wealthy. There are a couple in Big Sky, Rock Creek Ranch near Philipsburgh Montana, Pomerelle in Idaho, and more. I’m not arguing they’re common, but they exist. I’m not arguing they’re a good thing either. Each is its own critter.

Most ski are which usually fit your description are developing bike parks.

Vail resorts owns 10 mountains on public in the west. They sold 2.1 Million season passes for the 2021-2022 season.

Skis, boots, poles, or snowboard cost let’s say on average $200 a year. ($1400 total with people keeping them 7 seasons)

PR is 11%

So just Vail Resorts pass holders would contribute $46,000,000 in funds given a PR sized tax on just hard goods.

For perspective CPW total budget was 329MM.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They aren’t common, but they are around. They are generally for the wealthy. There are a couple in Big Sky, Rock Creek Ranch near Philipsburgh Montana, Pomerelle in Idaho, and more. I’m not arguing they’re common, but they exist. I’m not arguing they’re a good thing either. Each is its own critter.

Most ski are which usually fit your description are developing bike parks.

Riding a lift with a bike is dumb.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think the biggest issue with non consumptive user taxes is that those folks will, like hunters want tangible benefits from their dollars.

Hunters want refuges created, animal populations studied and restored, and lands protected.

Skiers and bikes want more place to ski and ride which just creates more impact on the landscape.

 

[Hammsolo]

Vail resorts owns 10 mountains on public in the west. They sold 2.1 Million season passes for the 2021-2022 season.

Skis, boots, poles, or snowboard cost let’s say on average $200 a year. ($1400 total with people keeping them 7 seasons)

PR is 11%

So just Vail Resorts pass holders would contribute $46,000,000 in funds given a PR sized tax on just hard goods.

For perspective CPW total budget was 329MM.

I am not arguing against finding tax equity. I think someone smarter than I needs to analyze the data, and share a clear broad full picture of all the taxes users are paying. Damn, it’s a complex system.

 

[COEngineer]

Overall, yes, opportunities have declined as population and suburban sprawl have increased, but there are steps we can take to slow or reverse those trends.

1. We can restore/improve habitat that will produce healthier populations. Think controlled burns, thinning, dam removal, etc.
2. We can open some of the millions of acres of land-locked public land. See the corner-crossing discussion and MAPLand Act.
3. We can continue to open smaller parcels of public and private land to hunting in suburban areas. If they can do it in Boulder County (Red Hill), we can do it anywhere. Also see Backyard Bow Pro. Granted, many of these ideas aren't going to create more wilderness that we can backpack 10 miles into to rifle hunt for bighorn sheep, but if we look for opportunities to harvest game with shorter range weapons (maybe even *gasp* suppressors) we can find more opportunity closer to home.

 

[bullbugle307]

I think the biggest issue with non consumptive user taxes is that those folks will, like hunters want tangible benefits from their dollars.

Hunters want refuges created, animal populations studied and restored, and lands protected.

Skiers and bikes want more place to ski and ride which just creates more impact on the landscape.

In my neck of the woods the bikers are already getting those benefits in spades. And it seems like it's never enough for a very vocal and organized a subset of them. If I was king I'd tell them to be happy with what they have and pay up.

That being said, I fully recognize that approach would go over like a turd in a punch bowl in the biking community.