Connecting gun sales to wildlife

[Humptulips]

Here is an interesting article from an anti-gun person.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/08/01/north-american-wildlife-depends-gun-sales-for-survival/ZgXV1LCQMjYMNWlUluQOvI/story.html

[shmacker]

Sounds like the author is proposing a tax on other outdoor products, say, a backpack tax.  Everyone should be in favor of that, right?!

[Jpmiller]

I'm curious about these trappers advocating for gun bans but I like the realization that outdoors people who don't hunt or fish really aren't contributing. I'm fine with the pitman Roberts tax and I'd support broadening it's reach to more outdoor related items as well. More money for wildlife is fine by me no matter where it comes from.

[pianoman9701]

I'm curious about these trappers advocating for gun bans but I like the realization that outdoors people who don't hunt or fish really aren't contributing. I'm fine with the pitman Roberts tax and I'd support broadening it's reach to more outdoor related items as well. More money for wildlife is fine by me no matter where it comes from.

I'm unsure I agree. The PR funds we supply give hunters (and fishers) a unique status and a certain protection of our hunting privileges. As ignorant anti-hunters push to remove our privileges, the realization by the general voting public that when hunting goes, so goes the funding for wildlife conservation, is a powerful tool to protect our heritage in the mind of that public. Although I agree that more is better with regards to wildlife conservation funding, keeping our dominance of that funding helps to ensure our future in the sport.

[Special T]

I'm not sure where I heard it, but believe broadening the P&R D&J taxes have been fought by the sporting goods industry In the past.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Jpmiller]

I'm curious about these trappers advocating for gun bans but I like the realization that outdoors people who don't hunt or fish really aren't contributing. I'm fine with the pitman Roberts tax and I'd support broadening it's reach to more outdoor related items as well. More money for wildlife is fine by me no matter where it comes from.

I'm unsure I agree. The PR funds we supply give hunters (and fishers) a unique status and a certain protection of our hunting privileges. As ignorant anti-hunters push to remove our privileges, the realization by the general voting public that when hunting goes, so goes the funding for wildlife conservation, is a powerful tool to protect our heritage in the mind of that public. Although I agree that more is better with regards to wildlife conservation funding, keeping our dominance of that funding helps to ensure our future in the sport.

Does our disproportionate financial contribuition really give us any additional leverage against anti hunting attacks? Seems we directly reap the benefits through the wildlife conservation side but I don't believe it's winning us any political battles.