February 8, 2007

Let’s Manage Wolves Like We Manage Lions and Elk

By Walker S. “Buddy†Smith, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

If there’s anything that can grab the attention of an elk hunter faster than the bugle of a big bull, it’s the howl of a wolf. Want to stir up a roomful of elk hunters? Don’t bother yelling Fire! Just say wolf. Everyone has an opinion, most of them passionately held.

That passion will always exist among hunters, but I’m hoping over the next few years it might ease down to a gentle roar. The 1995 reintroduction of gray wolves into Idaho, Montana and Wyoming has been highly successful from the viewpoint of most biologists. Whether you think that was the worst or best idea anybody ever had, wolves look to be a permanent part of the landscape in the northern Rockies.

Wolf populations in all three states are well above the minimum thresholds for recovery set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They no longer need the help of the Endangered Species Act. On January 29, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting wolves in Montana and Idaho and handing control of them over to the game and fish department in those states.

That’s great news. I hope Wyoming and the FWS can hammer out their differences so wolves can be returned to state control there as well. Each of us—the public—now has 60 days to submit written comments on this delisting proposal.

Since the day wolves were reintroduced, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has strongly encouraged the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove wolves from the endangered species list as soon as possible and transfer management responsibility to the states. The Elk Foundation applauds both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the individual states for all the hard work they’ve put in over the last 12 years to reach this point.

A couple of years ago, Carter Niemeyer, Idaho wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told the Elk Foundation’s magazine, Bugle, “The quicker we can start thinking about wolves as just another game animal, the better off all involved will be.“ Amen.

It is time to set politics and posturing aside and define reasonable plans for wolf management. I’ve hunted elk in Montana every fall since 1971. It’s one of the driving passions of my life and I’m pretty good at it. In my experience, the deadliest, most efficient elk hunter is not the wolf. And much as I hate to say it, it’s not me, either. If you’re betting on who’s going to bring home the elk steaks, put your money on a mountain lion.

That’s why I think it’s worth looking at how Montana manages its lions. In 1978, the state changed the status of mountain lions from a year-round bountied animal to a licensed big game species, with specific seasons and quotas. Since then, annual harvest has gone from 50 per year to 450 per year. The range occupied by lions doubled. Yet during that same time, elk and deer populations flourished all across that expanded range. Hunting opportunity for elk, deer and lions is excellent. That’s because the state teamed up with hunters as hands-on managers. This is where we need to get to with wolves.

Give the states the ability to set seasons and region-by-region quotas for wolves in the same way they do for lions and black bears—and for elk and deer—and we can have healthy populations of both prey and predators. Combined, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are now home to about 350,000 elk and 1,240 wolves. Elk hunting success, in terms of both total harvest and mature bulls, is strong across all three states. That doesn’t mean that in areas where wolves are active there aren’t fewer elk—or that the hunting hasn’t gotten a lot tougher. It means we should be managing wolves in those places.

Wolves can and will impact game populations. But as someone who loves to hunt in wild country, I’m convinced that the greatest threat to both our elk populations and the future of hunting is . . . us. There are now 300 million people in the United States and a little over 1 million elk. The way we’re filling up elk country with houses and roads and strip malls makes me heartsick. That’s why I’m so proud that in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho alone, the Elk Foundation has permanently protected more than 220,000 acres of prime wildlife habitat and greatly enhanced another 1.2 million acres.

If you care about the future of elk and elk country, I urge you to do two things. Speak up for state control of wolf management during the next 60 days. And step up and support the conservation groups that are working to ensure that future generations have places to hike, hunt and enjoy.

quote:

If you’re betting on who’s going to bring home the elk steaks, put your money on a mountain lion.

Except in areas with high wolf populations, the lion numbers have also plummeted, according to the yellowstone and Wy G&F biologists. And to add to that, lion hunters will not take thier hounds into wolf areas in this part of the state to try and hunt lions.

The RMEF held a pro wolf stance until just a few years ago. I am glad they changed there tune. I wonder if loss of members due to the prowolf stance had any thing to do with it?????

Hey Tony, Why do you think the democrats put the wolf back into the ecosystem?

By the way, I'm still working on fawned, foled, foaled, fooled, fouled, etc.

Kudos to RMEF. I agree with what the chairman has written. Wolves should be--and are--another game animal. Treated with the same conservation philosphy as the rest of the wildlife species.

Just a couple generations ago, deer and elk were looked at with the same attitude as seen by the wolf haters on the hunting forums--deer and elk were nothing more than competition with livestock or they ate all the crops. "The only good deer or elk is a dead deer or elk". I heard that phrase many a time. The naysayers figgered it was just all a commie plot.....

Casey

Outdoor Writer: I hope YOU are not buying any of the crap "ol'buddy" has printed!

CaseyC: Are you really as naive and gullible as you make it sound!
You see CaseyC "I" was alive "a couple generations ago" and know for a fact your descriptions of Deer and Elk - are bullshit!
The "commie plot" is alive and well ONLY in your punkin head!
There is one ranch within 5 miles of my home here in SW Montana (the Matador Ranch) which has in excess of 2,000 Mule Deer that live on their pastures! In addition, there are at least 2,000 Whitetails that live in the pastures and along the willows that line the creeks of this ranch! In addition, there was at one time (I counted them!) last fall and then during the Hunting season, 850 Elk there on their pastures eating alongside the Matadors Cattle!
This ranch has been here for MANY generations and the Deer and Elk are treated like KINGS there upon! And have been "for generations"!
I know many dozens more of these examples and will gladly show them to you if need be!
Indeed the Matador ranch does allow Hunting for Doe Deer starting on November 5th each year (most field work and harvesting is done by then) and they try to harvest 400 Deer during that time. No Elk Hunting is allowed! Now you might wonder why so many Deer on the ranch and next to none in their traditional living areas (the Ruby Range and the Blacktail Ranges of the Rocky Mountains) around them - its because those ranges are full of Wolves, Cougars, Black Bear, Grizzly Bear and Coyotes! I Hunted a few days around this large ranch back in November as its close to home and many roads in the area, and my handicapped friend and I never saw a Buck Mule Deer and just a handful (10 Mule Deer does at most!) in two or three days of Hunting! Their traditional ranges have just been forsaken due - I believe - to enormous numbers of predators!
To say that Deer and Elk were looked upon as vermin to be shot on sight in the past, is not inline with the truth!
The "happy words" strung out by this cretin from the green rmWf are sappy, insincere and incorrect!
I will list just PART of the crap he espouses and tear it apart for you!

QOUTED - "That’s why I think it’s worth looking at how Montana manages its lions. In 1978, the state changed the status of mountain lions from a year-round bountied animal to a licensed big game species, with specific seasons and quotas. Since then, annual harvest has gone from 50 per year to 450 per year. The range occupied by lions doubled. Yet during that same time, elk and deer populations flourished all across that expanded range. Hunting opportunity for elk, deer and lions is excellent. That’s because the state teamed up with hunters as hands-on managers. This is where we need to get to with wolves".
END QUOTED!

This is just stark raving MAD bull shit!
I started Hunting Mule Deer and Elk in Montana back in 1969 - and when the Cougar was removed from the bounty system and "quotas" were put on them the Mule Deer population in many areas of the state PLUMMETED! They are STILL sickeningly low in vast areas of western and south western Montana! I know, I live here!
The reason only 50 Mt. Lions were killt back in 1978 was because they were kept to LOW populations INTENTIONALLY - and the Mule Deer flourished back then!
Mule Deer Hunting in western Montana is very poor compared to the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's!
Indeed I have Hunted extensively in the 70's and 80's in a mountain range and on a particular mountain here in SW Montana! And it was normal to see 150 Mule Deer in a days Hunting! Recently I took both my sons Hunting on this same mountain and we saw 7 (seven) Mule Deer in a dawn to dusk intense days Hunting!
Mr. Buddy Smith is full of happy words and CRAP!
PERIOD!
Ask ANY Game Biologist Warden in western Montana if there are more Mule Deer now than in the 70's and 80's - if you need proof regarding Mr. Smith's bullshit story!
Back to my long time Hunting area - I Hunt this mountain often (year round!) for Coyotes and am constantly amazed at how few Mule Deer live in this area any more!
The FEW Mule Deer that live in this area take up residence for as much of the year as possible ON pasture and feed lot lands of ranches! This apparently gives them some protection from predators and gives them some respit from the stress of outrunning Coyotoes, Wolves and Cougars all day up in the hills!
The Mt. Lion quota on this range (Management Area #322) is 2 Cougars - OR - ONE COUGAR ONLY if the first one killt happens to be a female! There need be at least 10 Cougar killt from this area every year, in my opinion!
Yeah the Mt. Lions are doing well you dumb son of a bitch (Mr. Smith!), they are eating all the game!
I shake my head at the stupidity and audacity of this green turd!
Well at least I am glad these green cretins are feeling the heat - and trying to earn favor by publishing this bullshit article!
It was good for a laugh - nothing else!
This letter from this green cretin is in response to pressure from "some" Elk Hunters and Elk advocates who FINALLY have to bring pressure on the greens at the rmWf!
"They" are seeing the damage to the Elk herds and Elk Hunting and the Elk Hunting related industries!
So much of his "happy word" blather is just crap, I again am forced to mention, anyone who supports the rmWf monetarily is simply to stupid to get out of their own way!
The Elk were recovering VERY well indeed - and had been, for decades, before the money changers at the rmWf came along!
Thanks for the "happy words" rmWf - they are crap and not worth the paper they are written on!
Again I am VERY worried about your gullibility and naivette!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

should be--and are--another game animal.

Actually they should be classified as a furbearer and be allowed to be sold commercially like coyotes, foxes, bobcats, etc.

And the method of take should include traps and snares along with firearms.

Simply 'hunting' wolves will not prove to be an effective means of regulating their numbers.

Varmint Guy.

I grew up on a ranch in Western Colorado, and my ancestors settled in the Larimie area a couple of generations ago.

I have been involved in wildlife conservation, putting in time and money to a good cause. Unlike others who sit and bitch and go hunting never appreciating those who stood up and took the flak from the naysayers like yourself.

The name calling is demonstrates the absolute narrow mindedness of those who find liberal/commie plots in ANYTHING that does not allow them to kill more deer/elk. High fence hunting is what you want--and probably need.

Mule deer were grossly overpopulated in the 60's through the late 70's/early 80's. Believe me, I was one of the first to begin to complain about declining muley herds in the late 80's. It has little to do with predators. Decadent habit--especially winter/transition habitat--is the primary culprit, with overpopulated elk herds probably having a significant effect also.

The reason I even bother to respond to a narrow, narrow minded person such as yourself is because you threaten my elk hunting more than the wolves allegedly planted by the commies/liberals. When hunters like yourself are seen only wanting to raise up deer and elk as coddled livestock so we can then shoot them--all hunters lose credibility as conservationists.

The general public does not oppose hunting--as long as it's done in a manner they believe is ethical, and as long as they view hunters as ethical conservationists. If we lose that, we lose hunting--because the majority of Americans are non-hunters. As opposed to anti-hunters you numbskull--they only make up a tiny fraction of our society.

I started following my dad elk hunting as a kidergardener on the early 60's--when there was about 50,000 elk in the entire state of Colorado. Today there is somewhere between 250,000-300,000 elk. Not only does that defy the idea that predators kill all the ungulates, but more importantly, it is probably why I'm not scared I may have to hunt a little harder for deer and elk that are now a little wilder and smarter--thanks to predators like wolves. Maybe you're afraid you will have to hunt harder.

You see, I like hunting WILD animals. It makes me a better hunter. Git outta the truck and try it some time Varmintguy....

Casey

They stradeled the fence for years, now with loss of memebership they have changes their tune! GOOD! But they are a conservation organization, not a gun or hunting organization. They could care or give a red rats ass, if hunting were to end tomorrow. It is a damn shame outfitters support it. 220,000 acres so far and you can't hunt on hardly any of it.

Any of you who think that the RMEF isn't a hunting organization is DEAD WRONG. Conservation is "wise use" of the resource....kudu you're thinking of preservation.

Each year the RMEF puts $$$$$ into improving the places that elk and other species desperately need to survive. Their volunteers assist with habitat enhancement projects, as well as old fence cleanup and noxious weed management projects. I'm sure that is more that most of you who sit here and bitch about them.

Get off your asses and do something to help the situation before you start slamming them...what have you all done for wildlife recently, besides just trying to shoot it?

MG

If they hadn't been prowolf in the beginning and for the last 12 years I would have continued to support them via membership, banquet attendance, doantions to those banquets and volunteering with prescribed burns via our fire dept.

But they very strongly supported the wolf reintro! Which was a direct contradiction of thier mission statement. THis new guy is trying to right a wrong. So what!

I will continue to spend my money with the Mule Deer foundation, NRA, DU, and SWF! All anti-wolf and all, prohunting!


And where are they now when the feds want to end and reduce feeding of elk on the refuge? The feds starved hundreds of elk last year and not a peep out of the RMEF! The refuge is all the elk have left, thanks to the almighty dollar!

quote:

Originally posted by Madgoat:

Get off your asses and do something to help the situation before you start slamming them...what have you all done for wildlife recently, besides just trying to shoot it?

MG

It's about time some real hunting conservationists showed up.....

That is an excellent question....what are you guys doing?

I'll continue to fund the Pittmann-Robertson Act, local resturants, Hotels and Sporting goods stores.


Pittman-Robertson Act: Friend Of The Hunter & Hunted


It may be hard to believe today, but in the 1930s the sighting of even one whitetail deer was a notable event. Encroachment of humans on habitat and over-hunting without regulation had caused populations of many game species to plummet rapidly. Today, however, the nationwide deer population is nearly 20 million strong.

Contrary to the belief of recently spawned animal extremist groups, hunters and sportsmen have been and continue to be the primary players in the effort to protect the game which they hunt. Conservation tactics such as carefully regulated hunting, habitat acquisition and species transplants contributed to bring populations back to healthy levels.

While the tool for hunting is usually the gun or bow, the vehicle which actually transforms money into habitat, ecological study into proven conservation tactics, and the idea of harmony between nature and society into reality is the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Who fuels this vehicle? Sportsmen.

Sponsored by Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Congressman A. Willis Robertson of Virginia and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Sept. 2, 1937, the Pittman-Robertson Act created a 10% excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition. A few years later the tax became 11%.

The tens of millions of dollars generated by Pittman-Robertson each year were mandated to go back into state and local organizations to increase game populations, expand habitat and train hunters. As the money kept piling up, a repeal bill was drawn to relieve sportsmen from the financial burden of the excise tax. However, because dramatic results could be seen nationwide, sportsmen insisted on keeping the tax in place.

The generated revenues from Pittman-Robertson were placed in a special trust under the control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and were to be allotted to state wildlife conservation programs for wildlife restoration and to ensure the future of hunting sports. The trust was to be kept separate from the general fund, meaning the monies were not to be part of the accounted annual budget. Translated, this cuts red tape and produces positive results for wildlife when overseen by honest officials.

For years the Pittman-Robertson Act functioned soundly--generating $150 million in funds each year--and, more importantly, produced results. Numerous species including migratory birds (ducks and geese), elk, deer, antelope, wild turkey and many other species were rescued from the endangered list and are now not only surviving, but thriving. Pittman-Robertson was a rare legislative model for efficiency and a godsend for hunters and animals alike.

However, in recent years, notably during the Clinton Administration, evidence surfaced that the sportsman`s conservation trust funds were being mismanaged.

NRA board member and sportsman, U.S. Representative Don Young (R-Alaska), felt it was time to act.

Representative Young held hearings to question the authorities in charge in an effort to correct the system. Thereafter, he introduced the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000 which precisely re-defines what USFWS can spend the excise taxes on and in what manner the monies can be spent. The NRA backed bill passed the House 423-2 and became law on Nov. 1, 2000.

Today, Pittman-Robertson is back on track, supplying wildlife with vast amounts of habitat, resources and practical ecological study, while supplying hunters with game to hunt and eat, thus ensuring necessary funds never run dry. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that through these special taxes and license fees, America`s sportsmen contribute $3.5 million each day to wildlife conservation.

Perhaps President Ronald Reagan stated it best at the Pittman-Robertson 50th Anniversary when he said: "Those who pay the freight are those who purchase firearms, ammunition, and, in recent years, archery equipment."

quote:

Pittman-Robertson Act: Friend Of The Hunter & Hunted

Very good point. THose guys that send in their $35 a year to RMEF and go to bed feeling all warm and fuzzy for saving elk and elk habitat.

While the US Fish and Wolf service continues to destroy millions of dollars of donations, hard work,volunteerism, and 40 years fo good game management!

quote:

THis new guy is trying to right a wrong. So what!

Oh come on now, just because some previous director F'd up you are ready to condem the group forever and always even though they are now or seem to have pulled their head out of their azz?

For everyones sake I hope you never make a mis-directed decision because by your own statement (above) you have painted yourself into a corner.

Never, say never!

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

quote:

Pittman-Robertson Act: Friend Of The Hunter & Hunted

Very good point. THose guys that send in their $35 a year to RMEF and go to bed feeling all warm and fuzzy for saving elk and elk habitat.

While the US Fish and Wolf service continues to destroy millions of dollars of donations, hard work,volunteerism, and 40 years fo good game management!

The "mismanagement" of Pittman-Robinson fund began the last few years of the Reagan administration, was made worse under the !st Bush administration, and was re-misdirected under the Clinton administration. More so, the Republican led Congress beginning in 94 once again re-misdirected funds. It's only when ALL the politicians got caught funding their favorite "wildlife" projects (read: rewarding their special interesets) and sportsman called them on it, did they change their tune.

P-R money, including the Dingell-Jones amendment that included archery equipment, comes from an excise tax at the manufacturing level (not the retail level) of each peice of hunting/fishing equipment made.

P-R money is specifically allowed only for the states/feds for wildlife research, habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, and to fund management activities on wildlife refuges administered by the USFWS.

The amount of money going to the states (the bulk of the money) is determined by--as usual--a complicted formula, heavily weighted towards the sheer number of licenses sold by the state.

Here in the western states, P-R money makes up roughly 10% of state wildlife agencies budgets.

Wildlife projects, such as buying land, or conservation easements, or habitat improvement projects, are also available for private organizations for matching funds. RMEF is one that makes significant use of these P-R funds/grants for habitat conservation. From the Nature Conservancy, to the Sierra Club, to Ducks Unlimited, to the NRA, to the Boone & Crockett Club, to the Mule Deer Foundation, to local community conservation groups--they all make use of P-R funds. And other funding/grants made available by the federal and state government--and don't ignore the amount of fed/state taxpayer money that is made available--everybody contributes at least some tax money to wildlife conservation.

This is not news to those who are actively involved in wildlife conservation--but it's always news to those who only go hunting, riding on the backs of the conservationists who have done the work to make it all happen--and particularly those who are so narrow-minded that the only thing they can visualize is how to kill a game animal quicker, easier and faster--and anything that they perceive as getting in the way is a commie/terrorist/liberal plot.....

It all BEGINS and ENDS with wildlife habitat. Everything else really pales in comparison--hunting regulations, predators, anti-hunters/wolf haters (it's the same attitude--just different subject). Without habitat, everything becomes kinda' irrelevent.

That is why those who focus on conserving habitat are the second best conservationsts. The best conservationists are the folks who focus on conserving ALL wildlife, and then go hunt those critters

Casey

Great point Casey. And anyone who's seen the rape and ruin of habitat up and down the east coast knows that the politicians, smug in their limosines and inside that incidious damned "Circle" called Washington D.C. son't seem to give a shit about habitat. Unbridled construction fueled by lawyers in bed with realtors make the Amazon basin story look like a fairytale. Eventually, east of the Mississippi will reserve hunting for only the well heeled.

RMEF is your choice, mine is Mule deer foundation,D.U.,NRA, SFW, and as of yesterday, SCI. All but RMEF willing to get involved politically to defend and support conservation and "hunting", the antihunting groups are involved in the same way.

Some fat cat, some true bonified conservation/hunting organizations. RMEF has ran it's course, 220,000 acres to date, very little you can access, bought and leased with your donations. About all we see here in this part of Wyoming is a few bucks here and there for prescribed burns.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
RMEF is your choice, mine is Mule deer foundation,D.U.,NRA, SFW, and as of yesterday, SCI. All but RMEF willing to get involved politically to defend and support conservation and "hunting", the antihunting groups are involved in the same way.

Some fat cat, some true bonified conservation/hunting organizations. RMEF has ran it's course, 220,000 acres to date, very little you can access, bought and leased with your donations. About all we see here in this part of Wyoming is a few bucks here and there for prescribed burns.

The RMEF fro the beginning was not intended to be a political advocacy group--even their charter emphasizes this. They exist to raise money for habitat and research. Having said that, it is impossible for a consevation organization not to find itself speaking on wildlife issues. Generally, the REMF remains true to its original intent.

Don't get me wrong, I have my criticisms of all conservations groups--including REMF. None are perfect--nor do they do it the way each of us thinks it should be done. I support a number of conservation groups--including MDF, DU, ect.

The REMF has been involved in a lot more than 220,000 acres. One criticism is RMEF often advertised their involvment as being a primary player in some particular project when there were other groups equally involved.

Exactly which 220,000 acres are "off-limts" to us?

The Mule Deer Foundation got off to a slow start, but I like them. Didn't they partner up with another organization recent times? (I should know who but I've forgotten)

Casey

quote:

P-R money, including the Dingell-Jones amendment that included archery equipment, comes from an excise tax at the manufacturer level (not the retail level) of each peice of hunting/fishing equipment made.

Casey,

A bit of clarification:

The taxes for both P-R and D-J are INITIALLY paid by the manufacturer but they are tacked on to the cost all the way down to the retail level, i.e. the consumer ultimately pays the tax when he or she buys equipment.

The way it's done is merely for simplication of the collection process and works just like the taxes on gasoline. It elimates retailers having to add it on at the register, only to send what they collect to the feds, as they do with the state and city taxes they collect and send off to the state or city. -TONY

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

P-R money, including the Dingell-Jones amendment that included archery equipment, comes from an excise tax at the manufacturer level (not the retail level) of each peice of hunting/fishing equipment made.

Casey,

A bit of clarification:

The taxes for both P-R and D-J are INITIALLY paid by the manufacturer but they are tacked on to the cost all the way down to the retail level, i.e. the consumer ultimately pays the tax when he or she buys equipment.

The way it's done is merely for simplication of the collection process and works just like the taxes on gasoline. It elimates retailers having to add it on at the register, only to send what they collect to the feds, as they do with the state and city taxes they collect and send off to the state or city. -TONY

Of course, that is the way all costs--including taxes--work. I didn't mean to suggest that the cost is not ultimately passed on to consumer.

P-R Act was originally thought of in the context of the Migratory Waterfowl/Bird Acts--where birds travel the breadth of a entire continent. Collecting the money at the federal level, allowed the feds to disperse the money where it was thought to benefit waterfown the most, thereby benefitting all waterfowl hunters. But the P-R Act was farseeing enough, and well written enough,--demonstrated by withstanding the test of time (with the exception of the politicians who were able to dip into it for a while) to be used in a manner that benefits all wildlife.

Casey

quote:

Of course, that is the way all costs--including taxes--work. I didn't mean to suggest that the cost is not ultimately passed on to consumer.

Sorta. In this case, though, the taxes are not specifically listed, as some federal taxes are. The excise tax on tires is one example.

When someone buys a rifle at the retailer's price, they have no idea how much the excise tax was on that gun, other than the percentage as listed in the P-R Act.

Now if we can just keep all the money-grubbing politicians away from those funds.... -TONY

Tony, one question. I haven't heard lately, but how did the issue of imported archery equipment turn out. I know that Easton had sought importation excise tax on it as American manufacturers were being unduly penalized. Have you heard anything on that?

George,

Geez, that was an issue a couple years ago, no? I haven't heard lately, but I'll see what I can find out through my contacts at the ATA. At some point along the way, those products will hit a US distributor unless a US retailer is dealing directly with the manufacturer over there.

Just guessing here, but I imagine it wound up pretty much like the fishing tackle, which is almost all made off-shore and now taxed the same as USA goods. -TONY

George,

Here ya go. -TONY

First, here's a good recap article on it from the ATA site.

Archery Taxes

****

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Jobs Bill) was passed by Congress and was signed by President Bush on October 22. Section 332 of the Jobs Bill includes three provisions that amend Section 4161 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding the archery excise tax due on

1.) Bows with a peak draw weight under 30 pounds; 2.) Broadheads; and, 3.) Arrows.

So what is the current tax code on FET for archery products?

EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 21, 2004 manufacturers, importers, and producers must pay the FET on the first sale of arrow components, bows, and accessories. The tax is:

A 12.4% FET on the first sale of shafts, points, nocks, inserts, feathers, and vanes.

An 11% FET on the first sale quivers and broadheads.

An 11% FET on the first sale of bows with a peak draw weight of thirty (30) pounds or more.

An 11% FET on the first sale of any accessory suitable for inclusion in or attachment to a taxable bow.

****

HR 5394 levied a flat tax of $.39 on the first sale by the manufacturer, importer or producer of any shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow suitable for use in a taxable bow. The bill also specified that points will be taxed at 11% just like broadheads. HR 5394 eliminates the FET of arrow components such as fletching, vanes, feathers, nocks, and inserts. This language effectively eliminates any loopholes and game-playing by those involved in any aspect of the arrow business.


EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2005, manufacturers, importers, and producers must pay the FET on the first sale of arrow shafts, bows, and accessories. The tax is:

A $0.39 FET on the first sale of an arrow shaft, regardless of whether the shaft is bare or other components have been attached. The $0.39 will be adjusted annually for inflation. The tax on shafts will apply only to arrows that are 18 inches or longer. Shafts for arrows that are less than 18 inches that are suitable for use in a taxable bow, such as a crossbow, are also taxable

An 11% FET on the first sale of quivers, broadheads and points.

An 11% FET on the first sale of bows with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more.

Manufacturers and importers must pay an 11% FET on the first sale of any accessory suitable for inclusion in or attachment to a taxable bow.

quote:

Hey Tony, Why do you think the democrats put the wolf back into the ecosystem?

HC,

Oh no you don't. You ain't luring me into a debate in this sandbox of juveniles.

As you well know, I enjoy a good CIVIL discussion on controversial topics, but this one seems to dredge up the worst when it comes to uncivil idiots. They can't have a civil discussion because they are too busy calling people names and being vulgar. As I result, I keep my opinions about wolves to myself. -TONY

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Of course, that is the way all costs--including taxes--work. I didn't mean to suggest that the cost is not ultimately passed on to consumer.

Sorta. In this case, though, the taxes are not specifically listed, as some federal taxes are. The excise tax on tires is one example.

When someone buys a rifle at the retailer's price, they have no idea how much the excise tax was on that gun, other than the percentage as listed in the P-R Act.

Now if we can just keep all the money-grubbing politicians away from those funds.... -TONY

I see what you mean, and yes, the excise tax is an "invisible" tax--which make it easier for the politicians to abscond with it.

Casey