[mou] paying to use state wildlife land

[wampy@att.net]

It's not that I object to paying. I object to fees which are imposed as a substitute for taxes which is the case here because they impose a regressive burden on the citizens. This kind of fee is to be distinguished from fees like Park entrance fees which are designed to cover (at least theoretically) the costs attributable to the use by the fee payer. Fees used to purchase land and for its general maintenance have little to no relationship to use.

--
Bernard P. Friel		
www.wampy.com	

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Jim Williams <two-jays@att.net>
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Bernard P. Friel (wampy@att.net) wrote: 
> Isn't that what taxes are supposed to provide for, and wouldn't this 
> just be another fee so that  the "no new taxes pledge" can be kept ?
> 
> 
> Well, taxes obviously do not do the job. Politicians do not do the job. 
> That does not mean the need should be ignored.
> 
> Hunters have been paying the bills via duck stamps, various state 
> hunting stamps, licenses, and taxes on guns and ammunition for years. 
> Birders enjoy the land secured by that money. What gives us the right 
> to stand back and say, not me? A duck stamp costs $15. The Colorado 
> land-use fee is $10. The pleasure we get from birding: not worth the 
> cost of a bag or two of bird seed? We can pay hundreds of dollars for 
> optics and $25 for a bird ID book but we can't contribute to fund 
> habitat?
> 
> Jim Williams
> Wayzata
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mou-net mailing list
> mou-net@cbs.umn.edu
> http://cbs.umn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mou-net