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]