PR funds for wolves

[petronius]

1. That's a very thought-provoking article, thanks for posting it

I think using P-R money to directly compensate ranchers for livestock loss would be appropriate, but it doesn't really get at the bigger problem of funding conservation and bringing everyone to the same table. I've always been a little worried about P-R as the number of non-hunting purchasers of firearms and accessories (and perhaps archery gear) continues to grow and represent a larger proportion. All of these purchases contribute to P-R, but the buyers aren't benefiting any more than any other person (except to the extent, which I think is small, that P-R supports public ranges). It seems that eventually the firearms industry might be tempted to make the same argument that is cited in the article as coming from the broader outdoors industry - that many buyers are not engaged in the activities supported by P-R. I worry that the shooting industry may be increasingly tempted to raise that argument whenever we hear calls for gun/bullet taxes to support crime prevention, health services, etc.

What I like better is an expansion of the P-R taxes to a wider range of outdoors equipment. I don't hunt, and I don't shoot on public lands (I actually contribute very little to P-R) but I do a lot of hiking, camping, diving, etc - all of which may benefit from P-R funded measures. It makes more sense to me that there should be a comparable excise on my equipment (backpacks, tents, camp stoves, water purifiers, dive gear, kayaks, whatever) to spread the conservation cost to a more representative pool of users...