For years there have been two check boxes on the Ohio State Income Tax
Return for donations for wildlife. One is for the Division of Wildlife and
the other is for Natural Areas although I think they have changed the
wording on this in the last couple years. When this was first implemented
many years ago, the two combined received over $1 million. In recent years I
have heard very little about this but it is still on the tax return and I
have contributed every year. If you don't get a return, you can still send
in a contribution.
Doug Overacker
Springfield, Ohio
-----Original Message-----
From: Ohio birds [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill
Whan
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Ohio-birds] Whither conservation dollars for birds?
It's no big news to readers of this list, but today's New York Times
(pg. D7) runs an article from the AP, "As Hunting Declines, Conservation
Efforts Suffer." It makes the point that fading interest in hunting is
resulting in fewer dollars going to conservation efforts. It also
laments the loss of income for the sporting industry. The article is
about Wisconsin's situation, but applies just as much here.
Regrettably, the article assumes only one thing can reverse this
loss
of conservation dollars: reviving hunting, thus selling more hunting
licenses, duck stamps, ammunition, traps, etc. This is nonsense, of
course. There are plenty of other ways to direct more dollars to
conservation---donations to private organizations, levies for state and
local park systems, etc., and taxes. Red states like Missouri and
Arkansas for years have levied state sales taxes dedicated to the
acquisition and care of wild lands for wildlife, including but not
limited to species legal to hunt. The Missouri sales tax, first of all
its kind, and regularly renewed by a good majority of voters, is the
envy of other states, as are their conservation programs and
publications. Minnesota voters passed a similar law in 2008, and in the
last election Iowa voters easily passed a law to make 3/8 of 1% of the
next tax increase to go to conservation projects. Thus, Iowa residents
who spend $50,000 a year for taxable goods and services will pay about
$180 for conservation. Multiply that by millions of people and there's
some serious money for the outdoors. This is the modern efficient way to
accomplish these aims, not burdening (or serving) only hunters and
trappers, or asking birders to pretend to be hunters by buying a duck
stamp. If you want significant public money to go to birds other than
game species or raptors, this is the way to go.
Wear the orange,
Bill Whan
Columbus
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
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]
|
