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]