MN "Birder Stamp" - hunters/anglers thoughts on this?

[Box]

Hi all,

I just thought since the Loon / Lead debate seemed to be interesting to many, this idea might be food for thought. Please see the article here:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/columnists/chris_niskanen/5106728.htm

Basically, it is an idea that birders (there are tons of them) are getting a free ride on the back of hunters and anglers who have been paying for the same land in MN that birders use.

I, as somebody who buys trout stamps but doesnt fish for trout and pheasant stamps but doesn't hunt pheasants, would welcome birders to help MN wildlife buy having some sort of user fee. I would also buy this stamp, as the money would go to buy and maintain land that helps wildlife. It would also add some credibility in hunter/angler eyes when another group steps up to bat with their pocketbook :)

Anyway, have a good day - I thought this was an interesting and overdue idea.
-Box

[SpikeRoberts]

OK I'll play devil's advocate here..

As was pointed out in the article it is logistically problematic. How do you distinguish between a birder and a hiker? If someone is hunting/fishing they are readily identifiable. A flat access fee would help, but then it would also have to apply to hunters. Besides, access fees to walk on public property poses a whole series of questions in and of itself. What about birders on private land? If you hang a bird fedder in your backyard, would you have to buy a stamp -- might be counter-productive.

Another problem that would likely rise would be that birders preferences for species/habitat management would come into conflict w/ hunters. Birdsongs and raptors v. grouse and pheasant. If birders were required to pay for licenses it would be difficult to ignore there management desires.

I agree we need more funding and exploring ways to raise it is necessary...I'm just not convinced that this is the appropriate response. Glad the issue is coming up in public discussions though...maybe it will serve as a reminder to donate to the non-game wildlife fund on your taxretrun.

[Box]

Good points one and all.

I know the one about birders having a say in the management is important to me - I would like to manage for deer and grouse ;) and not sognbirds etc. It would be a tough issue, and I certainly don't have answers.

But waterfowl $$ pays for "Waterfowl Production Areas", maybe birder $$ would pay for "Birding Refuge Areas" or something. Maybe it would be voluntary stamps and no penalty for not having one. As in my example, I pay for trout stamps though I don't trout fish.

I certainly am not sure what is best, but I do like the idea of user fees. The logistics certainly are a problem. But there are permits ($4) for cross country skiing, and when I first heard of them I thought that was silly. Now I think it is great. (Granted different than the birding example.)

-Box

[Cheeseheade guest]

I think there should be a state sales tax of say 1/4 percent on all outdoor related items, such as binnoculars, walking sticks, backpacks, etc. This money would go towards the acquisition and maintenance of public lands, boat launches, etc.Land that is bought and maintained with fishing and hunting moneys is also used by hikers, berry pickers, birders and others.How many times did you pull onto a boat ramp and and have the parking spots used by hikers or such. I understand that the state of Missouri has something on this order and they have more money than they can spend on projects. I have brought this up to different groups in WI but nothing came out of it.

[Tom B]

I thought the legislature tried to pass a "birding tax" on feeders, feed and binocs a couple of years ago.... If I remember correctly, there was opposition from all the birders, feed sales dudes and birding equipment manufacturers.

I wonder if they are willing to pay for their share of the outdoors.

Tom B