Should Birders Need a License?
Sunday March 22, 2009
In a recent article on Coloradoan.com, nature writer Kevin J. Cook speculated on the fact that birders are not required to have a birding license. While at first the very idea may seem absurd, consider this: birders generally outnumber hunters and fishers in the use of public lands, and they also use roads, trails, parking spaces, restrooms and other facilities.So, should birders pay a fee to use public lands? Would you pay such fees? Vote in the poll, and share your opinions in the comments!
Money
Photo © Andrew Magill
Comments
I think paying for a license is a good idea. As you say, the fees could be used for upkeep of public lands and conservation. I don’t think the licenses should be extremely expensive though!
Why not tax people for breathing the air? Or looking at the view. There are enough existing revenue streams funding public spaces without making people taking nothing from the spaces but memories paying even more tax.
Well, I thought long and hard about this! My first instinct was to vote ‘no’, however I ended up voting ‘yes’. A small license fee would help to protect public places and wildlife. I wouldn’t want to see a punitive charge – I am sure there could be a happy medium.
JK, I could not have said it better myself.
Yeah, lets tax people for actually having the nerve to wake up in the morning.
We need to respect that simply walking through an environment does impact it. I think low-cost licensing would be a good idea.
(BTW, JK and JS, birding is not a physical requirement the same way breathing and waking up are. Poor arguments there.)
This already exists on a voluntary basis … buy a Federal Duck Stamp. It is just $15 at most post offices, gives you free access to all National Wildlife Refuge properties, and supports acquisition and management of migratory wildlife habitat.
Instead of a birding license, why not do what Maine does? Offer conservation license plates for vehicles, here of which proceeds go back to the IF&W for habitat renewal. The IF&W also offers a “Birders Band” which proceeds go for supporting the non-game and endangered species conservation efforts of the Maine IF&W. More info: Maine IF&W
I think there should be a federal license for the “avocational ornithologist.” You could pay a fee, take a written test, and have the same authority as a licensed rescue/rehab agency. You could legally pay a veterinarian to treat an injured bird under your license, and keep a limited number of birds for rehabilitation and release. It’s sad that so many people have become criminals by picking up an injured bird and living in fear that the government will take the bird and kill it.
Cliff
Beth,
You obviously didn’t get the exaggerated sarcasm to simply make a point. When do we ever say enough? Yeah, tax the sky and rainbows too where angels fear to tread.
Easy for those wealthy few to always kneejerk towards more and higher taxes.
What about all those pout of work, struggling to make ends meet? What may seem like low taxes to you may exclude many from the pleasure nature brings. Namely, to give us balance in our lives.
Still a poor argument? Sheesh.
This has really got to be one of the more stupid idea’s I have heard. A Tax to look in the sky or into a tree? That is why there are taxes and fees for boating, camping, hunting and entrance fees to parks and public lands. Good Lord can this guy think of something a little more original?
Hunters and such take home tangible items from their use of the public lands. Birders just look. Sure we use the facilities and resources but, in my state, I’m already taxed to take care of things like upkeep, facilities, expansion. Why must I be taxed one more time? There are not a lot of ‘free’ activities for those of us with a limited income.
Public lands are supported by taxes in my state; state parks require a fee to enter. Birding is no more harmful than hiking, so let’s charge hikers. Lest we forget about the health benefits of these receational activites. Birding is something the entire family can get involved in with out alot of expense; let’s deny family activties, there is a real need for family togetherness in this day & age.
Would the Tax replace the seed in my bird feeders,(which by the way I have to buy with part of my disability check).Oh yeah, I have to buy my fishing permit and pay to go to a public lake witch has NO hadicap provisons for fishing.Now youwant to tax the birds I see IN MY OUEN BACK YARD,I mean that is part of bird watching,is’nt it?
Altho not a hunter, I buy my federal duck stamp every year for getting on wildlife refuges free. I will start buying my state stamps. This is a good way to support conservation efforts for birding.
Thats the most absurd idea I have heard in a while. What exactly would be be paying for? Like all citizens we already pay for parks and other public lands with our taxes. But much more than that, birders pay the freight for a large portion of conservation groups (the Audubons and many more), while the only thing hunters, for example, might join is Ducks Unlimited (a fine organization, but only 1). Beyond that, birding groups tend to be very active in volunteer work in parks and forests. Don’t see many ski clubs out there do you? I don’t want to demean others, but birders do more than their share already, by the very nature of the activity do almost nothing to defile the land, require very little in the way of services, and take nothing away but fond memories and some really fine photographs.
I do not think that an auduboner should be taxed for enjoying what is in their own backyard. We already pay enough for the feed to support them! To give you an idea of what some of us do I will take a quick look at the feed document for 2008 and tell you how much I spent. It was $1,558.00+! That doesn’t count some things that are purchased for their healthy homemade suet that I support them with. You for sure pay for what you see. If I did not purchase a special mix I would not see the Pileated Woodpecker as often. Also a true Auduboner and the philatelists already purchase their Federal and State Duck Stamps to support the Ducks and other birds. This is not necessary at all.
In many areas they already do, in the form of day use fees, the same fees that many states are now requiring simply to drive through our enter state parks and recreation areas.
In this, only if hikers, picnicers, etc, pay a use fee should birders have to pay a use fee.
While I know our national parks are running into trouble, nickleing and diming people to death is not the answer.
I haven’t read the other comments, but on the face of it, birder licensing is silly. These are already public lands we pay taxes to visit. Does that mean hikers should also pay for licenses? Hunter & fishers receive something tangible. Birders & hikers just look at the beauty that would be wasted if people weren’t there to see it. Maybe a more voluntary contribution?