Conservation funding

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

Recently I've done some research on funding in different states, Missouri has a pretty good handle on funding supported by all groups.

Missouri citizens voted in by a large majority a 1/8 of 1 cent sales tax addition which is dedicated to conservation , raising over 100 million per year since 1972. Although this isn't exactly money that could be used to fight off unwarranted attacks on hunting here in az it is a path that should be considered.

I will try to get this information to the group wanting to use our tags for funding.

This information came up in Steven rinellas podcast , if your not listening to some of these podcasts your missing out on some great stories and discussions

[ThomC]

The problem is whom gets to spend and decide where the money is spent. The G&F spent money on buzzards. The state of AZ has taken the heritage funds away in the past. With the recent teacher political fight using the KID Card dont expect the public to care about hunters. And the teachers are not done they want more and they want Dems in office.

[krp]

I would be extremely hesitant in taking/forcing public funds from the tax base. Right now G&F is funded by users and we have the strongest voice in their decisions... bringing in the taxpayer will bring a new demographic with a loud mouths and strange minds.

 

Kent

[azslim]

State Legislator's would just find a way to get their hands on it, happened before, reduce a budget here and snatch money from there to pay for pet projects.

[PRDATR]

State Legislator's would just find a way to get their hands on it, happened before, reduce a budget here and snatch money from there to pay for pet projects.

 

Red for Ed

[300RUM]

A sales tax like that could be used for habitat improvement projects that are currently funded mostly by hunters and hunting organizations. With habitat improvement projects receiving funding from another source hunters and hunting organizations would have more funding available to fight attacks on hunting rights. If the tree huggers simply want the wildlife available for their viewing pleasure it is only fair that they to contribute to the care of wildlife habitat.

[ForkHorn]

Not sure about being general funded. Then you have someone that doesn't care about conservation raising concerns. User funding is ideal.

The problem is that hunters and fishermen pay for EVERYTHING. Why not figure out a way to include all of the birders, and hikers, and campers?

 

Those groups reap the benefits of wildlife in the state while footing very little of the bill. Generally they are also conservation oriented and any money raised could go toward all the non game stuff AZGFD already does. Maybe allowing more hunting and fishing funds to go towards.... Hunting and fishing?

[krp]

No Taxes, no tags... I'm sure there are 1000 special interest groups that can justify in their minds a minuscule 1/10th cent sales tax increase... figure the math on that.

 

Campers, hikers, bikers ect are land users and pay Fed/state fees/taxes for that use.

 

Kent

[Nefarious Red]

This idea is already in the works, just not by hunters.

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

I believe the statement of nonhunters contributing more money to wildlife by far is completely false, I can't say nationally for sure since my above research shows some states have statewide taxes all going to wildlife. I'm pretty sure in az it's majority hunters. I guess this person never heard of pitman Roberts or dingle Johnson

To date 7 billion from pitman Roberts alone