Because these WMA areas have operating cost nothing worth having is free. A better question is why wouldn't you want to support such great treasures in our State.
@@Kenny-rw6ib operating expenses? No facilities, maybe mow a field? What operating expenses? It's just land. Please specify what is fine there. I really don't know.
@@Kenny-rw6ib since it’s public land, perhaps it should be funded by general tax dollars and not user fees, which is nothing more than a way to shift the tax burden onto the class of citizens that visit wma’s, and those are undoubtedly not the individuals and corporations who profit the most off public lands.
The exact same reason I expect taxpayers to fund fire and police departments. The more property a taxpayer has which benefits (disproportionately) from police and fire services should therefore disproportionately pay their fair share in taxes. User fees are not fair, they’re regressive by design to dump the public tax burden on lower incomes. Public lands benefit every citizen in a myriad of ecological ways regardless of whether said citizen ever visits it. The exploitation of the resources on those lands benefits those with higher incomes the most. It’s simple when you give it a split second of rational thought.
Why do we have to have a sport license to go to a WMA?
Because these WMA areas have operating cost nothing worth having is free. A better question is why wouldn't you want to support such great treasures in our State.
@@Kenny-rw6ib operating expenses? No facilities, maybe mow a field? What operating expenses? It's just land. Please specify what is fine there. I really don't know.
@@Kenny-rw6ib since it’s public land, perhaps it should be funded by general tax dollars and not user fees, which is nothing more than a way to shift the tax burden onto the class of citizens that visit wma’s, and those are undoubtedly not the individuals and corporations who profit the most off public lands.
@@streamlinetreecare182 It's land funded by the people who use it. Why do you want taxpayers to subsidize you?
The exact same reason I expect taxpayers to fund fire and police departments. The more property a taxpayer has which benefits (disproportionately) from police and fire services should therefore disproportionately pay their fair share in taxes. User fees are not fair, they’re regressive by design to dump the public tax burden on lower incomes.
Public lands benefit every citizen in a myriad of ecological ways regardless of whether said citizen ever visits it. The exploitation of the resources on those lands benefits those with higher incomes the most. It’s simple when you give it a split second of rational thought.
How can I earmark a donation to my local Wildlife Management Area?
Good video and good places to check out ...
Wild life management areas are amazing!
If I go backpacking there and wear an orange hat what are the chances that I get shot