In keeping with the present framework of the American System of Conservation Funding, a state-level sales tax on outdoor gear can provide an additional dedicated revenue source for agencies that manage both game and non-game species.
Conservation funding in the United States is largely a “user-pays, public benefits” structure in which those that consumptively use the resource pay for the privilege and/or the right to do so. State agencies are the primary managers of game and non-game species and contribute significantly to conservation of fish and wildlife habitats. Thus, ensuring adequate funding for state agencies is vitally important to the continued responsible management of fish and wildlife. Sporting license sales, as well as excise tax revenue collected through the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts provide important revenue streams for these agencies.
In keeping with the present framework of the Funding, a state-level sales tax on outdoor gear can provide additional revenue for these agencies. Presently, both Texas and Virginia have dedicated a portion of their state sales tax collected on outdoor equipment specifically for conservation purposes. In both instances, a portion of the taxes that are already in place on outdoor sporting gear are re-directed to a state conservation fund.
Points of Interest
- A sales tax on outdoor gear maintains the “user-pays, public-benefits” principle that is already in place through the American System of Conservation Funding and does not levy any additional tax burden on the consumer.
- A dedicated tax on outdoor gear can generally be passed with simple legislation and can have low overall administrative costs.
- The Texas Sporting Goods Sales Tax generates up to $168 million per year. A constitutional amendment to fully dedicate this funding to the Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Texas Historical Commission passed by popular vote on Nov. 5, 2019.
If properly constructed, a sales tax on outdoor gear can provide a substantial source of revenue for state fish and wildlife agencies, particularly if safeguards are put in place that prevent the funds from being diverted to other accounts. Legislators should explore and support options similar to a dedicated sales tax on outdoor goods to expand conservation funding in their states.
For more information or sources regarding this issue, please contact Nick Buggia, 517-260-6437, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Recently, Virginia has proposed legislation that would make the punishment for poaching, in their state, a 1-5 year prison sentence through HB-449. Poaching undermines the social acceptance of hunters, jobs, recreation, local and state economies, and conservation efforts. How should poachers be punished?Vote Here
- By sentencing them to jail time. (32.35%)
- By giving them a cash fine. (17.65%)
- By banning their hunting and fishing privileges and their ability to buy the necessary licenses. (11.76%)
- By putting them on a probation period. (0.00%)
- There should be some discretion in the penalties depending on the motivations for the poaching incident. (38.24%)