Backpack Tax: Is it Time Hikers Pay Their Fair Share?
- Thread starter skiguy
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
hikerbrian
Active member
The title of the article (and this thread) is rather provocative, isn't it? Who defines 'Fair Share,' and how?
I'll get us started, and we might as well all get out the popcorn. I'd say funding conservation efforts in general is a noble cause. But there's a limit of some kind somewhere. The author of the article doesn't clearly define the problem, so something like this, I would guess, would end up as an amorphous pot of money collected from an amorphous group of businesses more or less in perpetuity and dished out to people with connections. Which I think isn't great. Also, IMO taxes are most efficient (least evil?) when they are collected in very close proximity to where they're spent. Every middle step introduces opportunities for corruption, inefficiency, and skewed motivations. So taxing businesses that sell outdoor gear (very broad definition, and subject to manipulation), sending the money to Washington, and then dolling that money out through some kind of Application Process overseen by Really Important People seems...not perfect. And finally, I just finished this year's taxes, and nothing could make me cheerier than the prospect of sending even more money off to the Fed [insert deep, deep sarcasm emoji here].
I'll get us started, and we might as well all get out the popcorn. I'd say funding conservation efforts in general is a noble cause. But there's a limit of some kind somewhere. The author of the article doesn't clearly define the problem, so something like this, I would guess, would end up as an amorphous pot of money collected from an amorphous group of businesses more or less in perpetuity and dished out to people with connections. Which I think isn't great. Also, IMO taxes are most efficient (least evil?) when they are collected in very close proximity to where they're spent. Every middle step introduces opportunities for corruption, inefficiency, and skewed motivations. So taxing businesses that sell outdoor gear (very broad definition, and subject to manipulation), sending the money to Washington, and then dolling that money out through some kind of Application Process overseen by Really Important People seems...not perfect. And finally, I just finished this year's taxes, and nothing could make me cheerier than the prospect of sending even more money off to the Fed [insert deep, deep sarcasm emoji here].
Mike P.
Well-known member
generally, I agree with Hikerbrian. If his points were not enough, I'd look at what this is based on. The program used for Hunter Safety, is that run by the NRA? (I'm thinking yes.) As a former hunter I took the course twice, once as a 12 year old, before Dad would let me go with a loaded gun with him, (trust me this is the short version), and the other five or six years later with a friend who would almost shoot me a year or two later. The second test was a complete joke. You picked safe and unsafe practices from drawings, one included teens waving guns drinking beer brand beer. (Because in the 70's even TV shows drank Beer or XXX, even Christian Willie Aames in a Eight is Enough Episode got drunk on "Beer".)
Assuming some of these funds for education for shooting are going to the NRA, their troubles keeping NRA money out of Mrs. LaPierre's clothes closet is a blatant example of funds mismanagement. The large percentage of NRA funds seems to be used more for lobbying, (lining politician's pockets), and fearmongering then hunter education.
Who should pay the backpack tax? Non-profits like scouts where many of their activities are at their own facilities? Will some funding be used for Scout Camps? Will funds be allocated based on states requests? What would that entail in NH for the Whites (USFS) Vs. in NY in the ADK, a State Park? NH's needs may be more for infrastructure, bigger lots so we don't park on the sides of state roads and let the Fed's worry about the actual forest. In NY, perhaps they would look at balancing both ADK Park needs and infrastructure. What would count as a project and if a Federal Program, who has a say on that? Trail building, check. Logging road building that hikers and outdoor recreationalist could also use? Replanting forest that have been cut down for timber or fixing scars on public lands that had been used for mining or buying played out mines from mining companies and doing some type of restoration?
Would groups like AMC, ADK, Sierra Club be able to request funds so they could fund more ambitious trail projects? (They also would have to be monitored so it didn't go in fundraising and executive pay.) I distrust these groups less than I would the Federal Government. (I can't use the phrase, I trust them more since that would imply trusting one of them.)
Should it be a graduated tax and on what products? Eastpack and Jansport packs? Do these go anywhere but to school anymore? If you are buying the highest costing and generally considered the best brands should you pay a higher percentage? Could you theorize that those people would be more likely to travel to more places and less likely to use their town and local recreational spots? For places like the Whites and ADK that are near the northern border, (assuming it reopens to pre-covid access) we would have a fair amount of foreign usage? Will there be a fee if when stopped at the border, their car will be searched for backpacks, boots and poly-pew? (I need funding to train my dogs to also smell for poly-pew.
)
If this goes through and they do a study five years later, I imagine less than 10% of the funds collected actually get spent outdoors.
Assuming some of these funds for education for shooting are going to the NRA, their troubles keeping NRA money out of Mrs. LaPierre's clothes closet is a blatant example of funds mismanagement. The large percentage of NRA funds seems to be used more for lobbying, (lining politician's pockets), and fearmongering then hunter education.
Who should pay the backpack tax? Non-profits like scouts where many of their activities are at their own facilities? Will some funding be used for Scout Camps? Will funds be allocated based on states requests? What would that entail in NH for the Whites (USFS) Vs. in NY in the ADK, a State Park? NH's needs may be more for infrastructure, bigger lots so we don't park on the sides of state roads and let the Fed's worry about the actual forest. In NY, perhaps they would look at balancing both ADK Park needs and infrastructure. What would count as a project and if a Federal Program, who has a say on that? Trail building, check. Logging road building that hikers and outdoor recreationalist could also use? Replanting forest that have been cut down for timber or fixing scars on public lands that had been used for mining or buying played out mines from mining companies and doing some type of restoration?
Would groups like AMC, ADK, Sierra Club be able to request funds so they could fund more ambitious trail projects? (They also would have to be monitored so it didn't go in fundraising and executive pay.) I distrust these groups less than I would the Federal Government. (I can't use the phrase, I trust them more since that would imply trusting one of them.)
Should it be a graduated tax and on what products? Eastpack and Jansport packs? Do these go anywhere but to school anymore? If you are buying the highest costing and generally considered the best brands should you pay a higher percentage? Could you theorize that those people would be more likely to travel to more places and less likely to use their town and local recreational spots? For places like the Whites and ADK that are near the northern border, (assuming it reopens to pre-covid access) we would have a fair amount of foreign usage? Will there be a fee if when stopped at the border, their car will be searched for backpacks, boots and poly-pew? (I need funding to train my dogs to also smell for poly-pew.
) If this goes through and they do a study five years later, I imagine less than 10% of the funds collected actually get spent outdoors.
Last edited:
DayTrip
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,014
- Reaction score
- 254
I thought the idea behind this was pretty good , at least structurally. The existing example he cited makes a lot of sense to me provided that is how it is really working in reality. I'm sure the legislation could be written rigidly enough to limit abuse, stipulate very specific goals for distributing funds and I also liked the idea of the unused funds being dumped into a general charitable organization each year so there is no pressure to give the funds away to less than ideal causes just to get rid of it.
I didn't do any research beyond this article so I can only imagine it generically. The existing laws in use referenced by the author certainly make it sound like the program has been working well for many decades. I think the success or failure of something like this would have a lot to do with the original crafting of the legislation and the influence of lobbyists in that process. I don't generally have much faith in our current Congressional "representatives" to do anything that makes much sense but it would be interesting to see someone sponsor it and get it working through the bowels of the legislative process to see what kind of shape it takes.
I didn't do any research beyond this article so I can only imagine it generically. The existing laws in use referenced by the author certainly make it sound like the program has been working well for many decades. I think the success or failure of something like this would have a lot to do with the original crafting of the legislation and the influence of lobbyists in that process. I don't generally have much faith in our current Congressional "representatives" to do anything that makes much sense but it would be interesting to see someone sponsor it and get it working through the bowels of the legislative process to see what kind of shape it takes.
Mike P.
Well-known member
I would say you are being too kind and optimistic
Hunter Safety programs are run by individual states, usually the departments that are responsible for the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses. While the NRA has lots of literature on safe gun handling, etc. that may or may not be used in a course, they do not get any money when somebody takes a Hunter Safety Course. I took my course at a local gun club. An example of hunter training certification in NH is below:
https://nh-events-web.s3licensing.com/Event/AllEvents?EventTypeID=166&ClassActivity=21
Last edited:
Lost Dad
Member
The problem is the government makes use of funds like this so inefficient. I have spent some time with Recreational Trail Grants and USDA Rural Economic Development Grants. The administration, time cycles and rules (prevailing rate, buy US, etc) make the grants very difficult to use for all but large organizations.
Creag Nan Drochaid
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 342
- Reaction score
- 42
Well, here we are riding on this merry-go-round, again. This issue of who should pay for what never goes away, but it does die down for several years until a new cohort of people seizes it and trots out the same old proposals. It was old when I first encountered it, and that was almost 40 years ago.
Most successful way to raise public money for trail upkeep has been what the USFS tried from about 2000-2005. Called fee pilot, hikers paid to park at trailheads, and their money stayed on that forest to fix trails there. Little or none of it went to DC. See recent thread on Franconia Notch parking fees. To make that happen, there'd need to be some new RSA that authorizes and requires action X, or the state won't do it. The public demand for themselves, as hikers, to be taxed, is not there.
Most successful way to raise public money for trail upkeep has been what the USFS tried from about 2000-2005. Called fee pilot, hikers paid to park at trailheads, and their money stayed on that forest to fix trails there. Little or none of it went to DC. See recent thread on Franconia Notch parking fees. To make that happen, there'd need to be some new RSA that authorizes and requires action X, or the state won't do it. The public demand for themselves, as hikers, to be taxed, is not there.
Similar threads
