PDA

View Full Version : Trail Funding Schemes



Tuckahoe
03-07-2015, 10:58
With the many discussions regarding the management issues, economics, political realities, and political ideologies of trail funding. Just for curiosity sake, as hikers would you support a Pittman-Robertson style excise/duty on hiking/camping equipment used to help support the development and protection of long trails?

What would you scheme look like? What goods would the tax be placed on? How would funds be collected and distributed? Would funds be distributed to state agencies or to an accredited trail agency? What would the standard for accrediting? if to states, what requirement for state matching/funding would you require?

How would funding be prioritized? Would it be based on length or whether inter- or intrastate?

For those not familiar with Pittman-Robertson -- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act -- please read!

Slo-go'en
03-07-2015, 12:11
I don't know. Taxes collected for a specific purpose tend not to ever get there. Plus the cost of administrating the program would eat up much of the money collected. And that isn't even considering the other nightmare points you made about who gets the money and how it would be spent.

Look at the parking fees imposed on National Forest trail heads. That money was suppose to go to trail maintenance and education. Instead it got diverted into the general fund.

CaribouRanger
03-07-2015, 12:11
FYI - There already is trail funding from excise taxes on fuel.
"The Federal Highway Administration provides financial assistance to states for developing and maintaining trails and trail facilities. The funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel excise tax collected from non-highway recreational fuel use."

Here's a link to NJ's share:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2015/15_0020.htm

4eyedbuzzard
03-07-2015, 13:20
I have several thoughts regarding such a proposal:

1)Defining what is and what is not camping and hiking gear may pose some problems. Many items used for camping/hiking can't be as narrowly defined as say a firearm, ammunition, or a fishing pole and tackle. And trying to further differentiate hiking vs camping gear would be very difficult. e.g. tax backpacks. But what defines what is a general use day pack vs school backpack vs a computer backpack vs a hiking backpack? Same with clothing, footwear, even sleeping bags and tents, etc.

2)Why should an excise tax levied on hiking and camping gear support trails only, when probably 95%+ of purchases in this category are never used on any trail, but rather only in developed campgrounds? It would kind of be like having an excise tax on all sporting goods used only to support field sports.

3)What would define "long trails"? How long is long enough? I think one issue here would be the designated usage of any trails receiving funding under such an Act. For example, the National Trails Act covers Scenic, Historic, and Recreation trails. Some are hiking only, some are multi-use allowing bikes, motorized vehicles, stock animals, etc., and some are even water trails. So there would have to be very narrow limits placed in order to ensure that such an excise tax didn't support biking trails, right? Which unfortunately begs the question of an off road bike tax . . .

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more, and from many different perspectives as well, such as from manufacturers, retailers, hiking and non-hiking consumers, etc. I think there are some really tough hurdles defining what would be taxed and what wouldn't be, as well as how such funds would be dispersed.

ny breakfast
03-07-2015, 13:49
shouldn't there be a tax on the air we breath. I mean this breathing thing is just getting out of control. at-least Washington state has the right idea. just look at the cyclist causing all the problems out there. it's really getting out of control maybe we shouldn't breathe anymore, that will solve it

huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/ed-orcutt-bike-riders-pollute-environment-washington_n_2805658.html

ALLEGHENY
03-07-2015, 18:14
AS a U.S. citizen I would be in favor of a hefty excise tax on all outdoor equipment manufactured outside of the U.S.A. This would help to stop and combat the envasive species that have devastated our forests. And keep all that trash out of landfills. Reduce the vast amount of fosil fuels to ship it here. China has no polution controls. The world has been taxed too much. A globle economy is bad. BUY LOCAL.

rocketsocks
03-07-2015, 18:34
Penny a mile to each state passing through.

rocketsocks
03-07-2015, 18:38
...unfortunately it may require $0.99 cents to keep track of all the funding.

Cookerhiker
03-07-2015, 18:49
It will only work if you keep it out of the Appropriations process. Otherwise, money in the fund will be "loaned" to pay the other expenses of government. No "raids" on the fund for defense, Medicaid, budget balancing, etc. like they've done to the Land & Conservation Fund.

Establishing a "trust fund" won't work because I've seen trust funds raided. What you want is a Revolving Fund whereby the Dept of Interior (presumably) has the authority to spend money (not to exceed the fund balance, of course) on the stated purpose without Congressional interference.

BTW, I worked for 17 years in a major Agency's Comptroller's office.

Tuckahoe
03-07-2015, 19:39
FYI - There already is trail funding from excise taxes on fuel.
"The Federal Highway Administration provides financial assistance to states for developing and maintaining trails and trail facilities. The funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel excise tax collected from non-highway recreational fuel use."

Here's a link to NJ's share:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2015/15_0020.htm

Thank you for pointing this out. From my limited understanding many urban and subburban multi use trails are built using these sorts of funds. I know that a number of my local paved MUTs have been developed through VDOT with state and federal grants.


I have several thoughts regarding such a proposal:

1)Defining what is and what is not camping and hiking gear may pose some problems. Many items used for camping/hiking can't be as narrowly defined as say a firearm, ammunition, or a fishing pole and tackle. And trying to further differentiate hiking vs camping gear would be very difficult. e.g. tax backpacks. But what defines what is a general use day pack vs school backpack vs a computer backpack vs a hiking backpack? Same with clothing, footwear, even sleeping bags and tents, etc.

2)Why should an excise tax levied on hiking and camping gear support trails only, when probably 95%+ of purchases in this category are never used on any trail, but rather only in developed campgrounds? It would kind of be like having an excise tax on all sporting goods used only to support field sports.

3)What would define "long trails"? How long is long enough? I think one issue here would be the designated usage of any trails receiving funding under such an Act. For example, the National Trails Act covers Scenic, Historic, and Recreation trails. Some are hiking only, some are multi-use allowing bikes, motorized vehicles, stock animals, etc., and some are even water trails. So there would have to be very narrow limits placed in order to ensure that such an excise tax didn't support biking trails, right? Which unfortunately begs the question of an off road bike tax . . .

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more, and from many different perspectives as well, such as from manufacturers, retailers, hiking and non-hiking consumers, etc. I think there are some really tough hurdles defining what would be taxed and what wouldn't be, as well as how such funds would be dispersed.

All excellent points.

One aspect that made Pittman-Robertson successful was its support from both manufacturers and sportsmen alike and that support continues nearly 80 years later.

If I may cram points one and two together, I do not necessarily see these as issues or a problem. We may debate what gear and attitudes differentiate hiking, camping, hammocking, and climbing gear, but these are merely finer points within our community. It is fairly easy to define what constitutes a tent, a sleeping bag or a pack. And in my mind it would not matter whether a pack ended up as a messenger bag, a book bag or for hiking, the tax is on the manufacture of the goods not on the consumer's intended use.

Under Pittman-Robertson all firearms and ammunition are taxed, even though, many would point out that neither a sub-compact pistol or .380 auto ammunition are suitable for hunting. In turn, in this day and age how many firearms owners are hunters? I know I am not. Again, it is not necessarily the intended use, but the manufacture of the goods.

As for #3 I am of the same thought as you.

ETA -- P-R funds are distributed based in part on the number of hunting licenses bought with in a state. Not sure how this sort of distribution would work with regard to trails.

Tuckahoe
03-07-2015, 19:48
AS a U.S. citizen I would be in favor of a hefty excise tax on all outdoor equipment manufactured outside of the U.S.A. This would help to stop and combat the envasive species that have devastated our forests. And keep all that trash out of landfills. Reduce the vast amount of fosil fuels to ship it here. China has no polution controls. The world has been taxed too much. A globle economy is bad. BUY LOCAL.

Ummm really?

Never mind that protectionist duties are pretty insidious, to impose such duties would do nothing but harm a domestic company's ability to compete on in a global market by cutting it off from global manufacturing...

Aw screw it there is just too much durp, which had nothing to do with the OP.

Rain Man
03-09-2015, 11:55
I'm always a little amused when I hear how much hunting taxes/fees support this or that, as if it were strictly a one-sided equation. By definition, that's a false premise, ... which raises the question of why's it's made in the first place. But that's another question.

If a hunter pays $100 for his fee/tax, and takes a deer with $200 worth of meat, has the hunter paid in or taken out?

I'm not opposed to hunting. I'm opposed to funny money, one-way street accounting to reach false conclusions for political, agenda-driven propaganda purposes.

Of course, if hikers paid (and they do, as per the gas tax mentioned), don't they also get monetary worth back out? In the form of "free" vacations on public lands? Then again, so do hunters. ATVers, etc.

Analyzing, honestly and COMPLETELY, the costs and benefits of any scheme, requires looking at all facets of the jewel and maybe an honorable, robust debate. Otherwise, you get a custom, crafted answer.

And whether one wants a particular answer might depend on where he stands more than on who actually pays and who actually benefits. Then the argument devolves and go in circles.