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]