Let me start by saying that I am not inherently opposed to finding ways
for birders and other observers to contribute to the preservation of
wildlife areas nor would I be opposed to hunters using those lands even
if they didn't provide funding more for ODW than anyone else.
We should consider however that when hunters and fisherman use a
wildlife area, they have permission to take things of concrete economic
value from that location. Specifically, what they take has concrete
economic value to them and to the property owner (the state). How much
is a deer worth? Pheasant? Duck? Turkey? Rabbit? I realize hunters are
unlikely to enjoy a business profit from their take and a single item
might be a pretty expensive meal or meals once all the costs are
included but the wildlife taken are still of concrete economic value.
Such value can be measured and then evaluated for taxation in whatever
form the state chooses.
When birders and others use these areas, they observe and perhaps take
pictures. The latter could certainly have economic value but one would
be hard-pressed to find a way to document the concrete economic value of
observation in a way to be able to fairly tax it. Visitor access fees
(no take allowed) could have such an effect and it might be economical
to implement them. The permitting infrastructure already exists so it
would just be a matter of enforcement. I certainly would not be opposed
to this. I wonder if other states have done this and I wonder if this
would decrease the numbers of visitors to these areas?
Adding excise taxes earmarked for wildlife areas to binoculars and
spotting scopes would certainly be unreasonable. While many of these are
designed, marketed and sold for wildlife viewing, they are not
necessarily used for this purpose. Moreover many if not most people that
purchase such things may never use them on public lands or those
supported with hunting fees. I use mine for astronomy as well as for
birding on my own and other private and public properties where no
hunting is permitted (and where associated fees have made no
contribution). I rarely visit wildlife areas anymore but I would be
willing to pay a reasonable visitor fee to have permission to do so.
Good birding!
Chris Caprette
Geauga Co.
> I 100% agree! It is time for birders to contribute to conservation of the
> resource.
>
> Tom Hissong
>
>
> In a message dated 12/14/2010 1:08:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> The non-financial participation of birders in the acquisition and
> management of exceptionally fine birding areas that were paid for by hunters and
> fisherman is always a contentious one, on all sides of this many-sided issue.
>
>
> The fact that the Ohio Division of Wildlife gets the vast majority of its
> operating funds from the sale of hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses
> has been noted.
>
> But what hasn’t been mentioned are the excise taxes on firearms,
> ammunition, archery equipment, and fishing gear allowed by the Pittman-Robertson Act
> and the related Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. These taxes on
> sportsmen have were instigated by hunting and fishing groups, and are
> fully supported by them.
>
> Should there not be, then, a similar conservation excise tax on
> binoculars, bird guides, and bird feed? Why not?
>
> –John Blakeman
______________________________________________________________________
Ohio-birds mailing list, a service of the Ohio Ornithological Society.
Our thanks to Miami University for hosting this mailing list.
Additional discussions can be found in our forums, at www.ohiobirds.org/forum/.
You can join or leave the list, or change your options, at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OHIO-BIRDS
Send questions or comments about the list to: [log in to unmask]
|