# How about an Outfitter Tax



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

OK.

So ND has all these guides and outfitters that charge $200 to $500 per day for hunting in ND.

Why not legislate in a new tax (say 10% or 20%) onto any $$$$ that are payed to a licensed/registered outfitter. This money is then used to obtain more PLOT land.

Thus if an outfitter runs 8 people per day @ 250 /day for the month of October (8X250X31) he grosses $62,000. Tax adds $6,200 to $12,400 to the PLOT land acquisition fund.

Most states already have a hotel occupancy tax of 5 - 10%. In addition, Minnesota often has added an extra tax to raise money for stadiums, etc... Legislature adds a special tax to bars, hotels, etc... Money dedicated to special fund.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

:******: Why should they have to pay more taxes than any other job in this state. I think they should pay their fair share and nothing more. Give me one good reason why they should be treated differently than the average citizen.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Why? It must be nice to be able to sell something that cost you absolutely nothing, unless you lease land taking opportunities from the common man. In fact, they ought to just make it illegal.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Does the hotel owner pay your 5 or 10% occupancy tax ?

When you buy gasoline - does the station pay the tax bill for you ?

When you buy a box of shotgun shells - does the store pay your sales tax ?

Maybe your dad does, but these hotels and stores do not - the customer pays.

*Lets think outside the box.* Sure you can work to limit the number of guides and/or the land they lease. Reality screams that those already in business will continue on. Why not pull some extra $ for PLOT land off their client base.

The people and corporations that use these outfitters are more capable of spending this extra money relative to NR freelance hunters (wealthy guide using residents too).

*Sooo Again:*
Do you really think that this tax would be paid by the outfitter. The way this would work is the outfitter would add the tax to the client's bill. Those NR or (residents for that matter) that hunt with an outfitter pay more to the state than the freelancer. If you still do not get it here:

Four days hunting ($250/day) = $1,000
10% outifitter tax = $ 100
*Total Bill = = $1,100*

Guide still gets his money. :******: States gets a nice income too. 

*Also*
1) Taxation is rarely equal (the word fair is a debate in itself). The Feds tax your first 40K income at 15% and it goes to 28% after that. So taxation is not even from an income tax perspective.

2) Most states have some sort of homestead exemption. You live in the home you own you pay less than the guy who has rental property. In some states the first 50K or 100K of your property value is taxed at a lower rate or tax exempt. Those that own more property or higher value property or commercial property often (not always) pay greater taxes.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

not only hunting - but fishing guides take way more than a average hunter & what do they give back ???

For hunting base it on the amount of land they lease - with pay points where it gets rediculous, it gets more expensive.

Why should pay to hunt shooters (which are a true minority of the licenses sold) get the majority of the better palces to shoot ??? When real hunters (Freelance & those that share their lands) are forced to pay to have a chance anymore ???

Also if landowners were given a way to let NR family & Friends - assured they can hunt - Say in exchange for not posting their land or not allowing leasing of their lands - would this satisfy alot of the angry landowners ??? Who keep saying this is the biggest reason they post or lease ???


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

& never let it be allowed that Guides & Outfitters are allowed a percentage of the licenses sold, or be gaurenteed a certain # of licenses.

This would only promote the shooters & the direction we have been heading


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

:huh: I'm confused. Do you think that land people are leasing is land that was not posted in the first place. And who has trouble finding land to hunt on. You people act like you own land and have a right to hunt wherever you want. I have never had trouble finding"great land" to hunt on. Do I like outfitters? NO, but this is America, and if you own land or lease it you have the right to do with it as you please. It sounds to me a lot of people on this web site think they should be able to hunt wherever they want and if we had no guides or outfitters they would be able to do that. This is not true, there is the same amt. of land posted today as there 15 years ago. The big difference in my opinion is there is fewer resident hunters than when I was growing up. They have been replaced by NR, which means I see the same amt of hunters every year, just now I see more NR. Some people will say this is because of access. Hogwash, when I hunted the early season goose/duck opener for residents only, there were very few hunting parties out. Just like after deer season, I have hunted non-posted land where I was told geese had been feeding for 3 weeks and set up and shot my limit. We drove around to look for other parties and saw two hunters in a 40 mile radius of Adubon. 
What I don't like is everyone hunting opener, I would like to see license sold like this 20,000 NR, oct, 20,000, nov, 20,00 dec. This would relieve some of the pressure on opening weekends of upland and waterfowl. 
I guess what I am saying is people there are plenty of birds and access for everyone. If your not finding this to be true you are looking in the wrong places(sw nd) 
I also don't think attacking outfitters and guides does us any good. These people spend a LOT of money in this state which helps small towns and our tax base. If residents don't want to hunt we should not prevent NR from enjoying the resourse of this state. 
I want to here from people on this board and tell me why I am wrong on this. 
If you do not own land or lease land your rights depend on others. Do not make them angry. I have been told by some farmers they are not happy with the additude of the resident hunter. 
Again please educate me, I am new to this board and would like to here from the people that are against NR hunters and Outfitters. Maybe you can change my mind. Good luck to all I know we all want the same thing, to be able to have area's to hunt forever!!! :beer:


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Why do you assume just because some one is against land leasing that they are reliant on other peoples land. I for one am against land leasing and we have our own land. There is more posting now than there was 15 years ago, I don't know how a person could even state this. As far as the resident only opener and you only seeing a few hunters out, that seems like a success to me. My hunting satisfaction goes down proportionately with the number of people I run into in the outdoors. Number of animals have nothing to do with it. I can spend a night in the treestand and not harvest a deer, but get immense joy out of the peace of quiet and the animals. When I go hunting, I go to get away from people not see a bunch of them. That is why I prefer to hunt when the chances of me having to see and hear other hunters is smaller. That is why I prefer bowhunting and muzzleloading to rifle hunting. This is the same reason I save my vacation and hunt in the middle of the week and do chores at home on the weekend. I thought the resident only duck opener was great, I did see people out enjoying it, but it was manageable. Landowner rights are fine, post the land and don't let anyone hunt it if you don't want to. However, I don't want someone making one thin dime by selling access to a public resource. The money thing gets ridiculous, there are a lot of things that would bring money into a community but some of them just cross the line into not being right. Letting people hunt is a wonderful thing, and I am not convinced that fee hunting helps anything but the initial person collecting the fee. I still believe that small towns see as much or more benefit from free lance hunters coming in and spreading the cash around a little bit. One our neighbors back home guides deer. He doesn't need any extra income, he is a bigger producer than anyone around. How much of that money actually hits town? Very little other than some grocery money. The clients bunk down at his house and his wife feeds them. Pretty much all inclusive. Have you ever thought that why we have less resident hunters now is due to the increase in nonresidents and the hassle that goes along with it. I believe that nonresident hunters have a compensatory effect and not an additive one. Look at the numbers, we don't have any more total numbers, but the nonresidents have displaced the resident hunters. Some will claim that the nonresidents are just filling in the "spots or slots" that residents are leaving. I think that as things get tougher the residents are getting pushed out and saying to hell with it. Our state population is still around 600,000, people have just moved from the rural areas to the larger towns/cities in ND.

The great conservation movement started happening at the turn of the century and then picked up during and after the great depression. The idea behind this was to preserve animals and opportunities for all people, regardless of income. There was NEVER an intent to be a financial opportunity for a few select people.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Go back to the 1st page of this forum & see this [ Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next] on the top - right side. Read what we think & has been said - then come back & ask questions -

But don't ASSuME we are just greedy - Quotes like


> people on this web site think they should be able to hunt wherever they want


 This shows your only reading & taking little things out of context & not getting the overall feeling of what we think is fundamentaly right & wrong.

& in America - government can tax almost everything ??? to come up with money, for all sorts of things (that many don't agree with), that help the common good of all people. & pass a multitude of laws. To try to make people do the right things. It is the only equalizer between the Wealthy & Greedy & those that take advantage of most anything. Alot of these same people run most of everything. Or inherited it, or have most all what they want or need. (but want more) & even then they have lawyers & accountants to help them avoid spending anymore than they have to, or get things to go their way. But in ND at least ( by Referral Vote) we can ultimately change, or decide things that our elected officials don't understand, or take serious, or try to abuse. We hope it does not come to this & hope the Legislature & our leaders do the right things.

I don't overly like this - But I understand it - Capitalism & Free Enterprise is not as pure & good as many believe (for everything) In fact without socialism & Taxes & government, I doubt many would own land, or farm up here at all. - The growing split between the haves & the have nots, is going to cause alot of problems in the future. Then you have all the middle class working people that provide services to those that own everything, that have to pay their fair share of taxes. & we depend on Government to do right by us too.

I see alot of this as being a way to salvage something unique & special that ND has - Not just becoming like most other states & either wrecking the resource, or selling it to the highest bidder.

You need to go back & read awhile - most of the things you ask about have been talked about & answered.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

As often as we throw off the gloves (a hockey phrase) we also tend to agree. The sad fact of the matter is guides already get an allocation of the NR deer licenses and NR land owners get deer gratis tags too.

In the 2001 legislative session - the guides were staunchly fighting for an allocated number of licenses.

I forsee another move in that direction come January.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Fetch, I am new to this board and may have came off in a way I did not anticipate. We all have the same beliefs when it comes to basic principles, having land to hunt on, not having a majority of the land owned by a few select groups, and not having to constantly battle to find a good place to hunt....I am for caps...after reading I have np on a tax for outfitters, I am for spreading out NR license so not everyone is hunting opening weekend and no other time. 
I am for always having NR hunters because I know from talking to business owners in my home town it is essential for survival. If we had more resident hunters that might not be the case but with rural pop down..we just don't have the numbers we used to. I am also sure we all want to work together as a group to try to get things done so we will be assured of a good future for ourselves and our kids... :beer: Please accept my apology....


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

Texas requires landowners that lease their land for hunting to purchase a leasing permit. It is graduated by the amount of land leased out.

We should consult a Texan on how their hunting opportunities are. 
I have heard that if you don't lease, stay home.

I do like the concept of having the NR's pay a tax that funds the problem that they are creating by hiring guides that lease up land. It also keeps the freelancers from having to pay.

Freelancers should always have a place in ND.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

No problem G-H-F-L in fact it seems we have to explain ourselves way too often. & I think the guides like it that way. (Spreading those rumors & false beliefs & LIES) in oreder to get the rural folks to side with them.

Most all of us are from small towns or rural ND.

I agree with Muzzy on how in many areas most residents are saying to heck with hunting - because of the fact, so many NR's are crowding into these areas with services. Then the few pay to hunt NR's get the better places to hunt. :eyeroll: That also makes residents & eventually Non resident Freelance hunters either quit coming, or crowd into the few public, or private places left to hunt. The pay to hunt people are getting the better opportunities to hunt game owned by everyone ??? Eventually only the ones that will, or do pay to hunt, will come. Making ND like so many other states. (& I still say for pheasants, these guys are really running nothing but hyped pheasant preserves- after they shoot all the free birds that are naturally provided, or pushed from the public areas into their leased lands) This is causing terrible problems for all. If the pheasants die off ??? Just think how bad things will be in these communities ??? Will they ever get freelance hunters back ??? (maybe) - but if there is little to hunt ??? But if it turns into a total released bird hunting expirence ??? (& I say it is partially that now) Don't expect Residents or NR Freelance hunters to ever be a part of that, cause it won't happen - there has always been pay to hunt preserves, near most of the bigger towns around ND (& many have gone broke too)- There ok for people who are too busy, or who want to work their dogs & no one has ever complained about them. But to see so much of ND & so much land becoming like this, is terrible - just to take advantage of rich, or wealthier traveling shooters. (cause this is not real hunting - & many NR's will catch on & stay in their own states & do this) Then all this will be such a great loss to Freelance hunters & those communities. (seems immoral & absurd to most of us) :******: Definitely not a secure economic development idea to me. :roll: More of a desperate scheme that way too many are falling for. Or at least using, to take away or destroy, a life long Passion & Recreation to so many. (But the sad part is maybe their are enough idiots - from out of state - to keep this going ??)  But does that make it right ??? & should we stand back & watch it happen ???

& remember how hyped the SOB hunting was - as far as the need to shoot as many birds as possible ??? I can assure you the pay to hunt people are not helping this be accomplished. All that has occured as far as SOB hunters coming here- has done (in the fall) is show the NR how many ducks we have - & remember these guys don't want to pay $200 to $300 a day to hunt ducks - (or Geese for that matter.) they also want to freelance & this has really crowded to many areas - that have to few services & for to few weeks.

Things like Candos Duck Days are great ideas - if they help promote access from private landowners in their areas - This is how it is up in Canada - the City of Wynard gives out hunter packets at Motels. They give area plots maps . So when your out scouting, you can easliy find who owns the land, to get permission. Plus lots of other info to help hunters & all Hunters are welcome - this is real economic development, designed to help their communities become real destinations for hunters. (No land can be leased for hunting up there.) Sure there are guides for those who need them, but they certainly donot have an unfair advantage, or have they ruined the hunting opportunities for all. --- (OUR TOURSIM DEPT. & GOVENOR & Legislature would be wise, to study how smart those people are up there.)
http://www.quill-lakes.com/hunt.htm

Another problem no-one wants to take into consideration is, that most of these Pay to hunt people only do it once, to learn the laws & customs & how things work in a state, or area. Then they come back & try to freelance (& they tell their friends, or bring new people & so on & so on.) Until it is so crowed & such a mess, like we are expirencing now , here in ND.

Some of us are hardcore - Been there done that (ALOT) hunters. The guides & outfitters don't like us telling the truth, or helping the Legislature & other towns & landowners & bureaucrats, see what can be done, to help the biggest numbers of people. That is very sad - that people in the know & can make a difference, are not the movers & shakers, that can help improve ND, as a destination of QUALITY Hunting expirences, for a long time to come.

Welcome !!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

PH, great idea. Call it a outfitter client tax dedicated to the access program. It will not negatively effect outfitters or anyone else and will benifit the access programs. People who can afford to use outfitters can easily pay it.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

G H F L - I added alot more to my last post above. Good ideas for anyone wanting to listen-

Please feel free to copy anything I say & send to whoever will listen - or better yet invite them here to catch up on lots of good ideas.


----------

