Rei now

[cuerro viejo]

Then why make a invalid comparison? Why not just have a discussion on the issue based on its own merits with the correct information. Isn’t it better to recruit confederates based on facts rather then spin?

Invalid? Oh you mean if they ignore Or don’t implement a self introduced truly governed and regulated conservation funding program, its then an relevant funding technique, there for it has no true value? Just because it’s now compulsory doesn’t mean it wasn’t self induced and continues to be so.

Saying that PR is irrelevant in the conservation conversation because is cumpulsory is a true travesty. It destroys the purpose of it being governed and mandated, infact it’s more meaningful because it is governed and mandated with defined allocation criteria .

REI gives 10% back in rewards but not a percentage point to conservation. Think about that. They sure arent leading headlines trying to get their owe self induced compulsory conservation funding technique ratified, but then again now they don’t have any governance over thier charities orgs or regulations determining what % of thier Branded Items sales go to real science backed conservation with true governance and oversight.

Oh and everyone forgets that NRA board had a heavy hand in wildlife and sport fish restoration programs improvements act, that came about because of Misuse of PR funds by the Clinton Administration

 

[brocksw]

Invalid? Oh you mean if they ignore Or don’t implement a self introduced truly governed and regulated conservation funding program, its then an relevant funding technique, there for it has no true value? Just because it’s now compulsory doesn’t mean it wasn’t self induced and continues to be so.

Saying that PR is irrelevant in the conservation conversation because is cumpulsory is a true travesty. It destroys the purpose of it being governed and mandated, infact it’s more meaningful because it is governed and mandated with defined allocation criteria .

REI gives 10% back in rewards but not a percentage point to conservation. Think about that. They sure arent leading headlines trying to get their owe self induced compulsory conservation funding technique ratified, but then again now they don’t have any governance over thier charities orgs or regulations determining what % of thier Branded Items sales go to real conservation with true governance and oversight.

Oh and everyone forgets that NRA board had a heavy hand in wildlife and sport fish restoration programs improvements act, that came about because of Misuse of PR funds by the Clinton Administration

That's because the NRA supports a portion of those funds for shooting ranges and training.... It's right on their website. They only speak of the funds as it relates to shooting. They completely ignore the primary purpose of the fund and reason for its creation which is wildlife restoration...hence the reason it is actually called the "federal aid in wildlife restoration act".

I have seen no one here say the PR is an irrelevant fund. The point I am making to you in particular, Is that REI contributed 9.3 million dollars in 2017 to conservation. This was not compulsory, It was of their own free will.

If you eliminate the excise tax on Vista, which is compulsory, how much money did Vista donate to conservation?

Can anyone answer that question with a valid source?



The PR tax is not self induced. Can you show me the legislation that gives Vista the option to pay the 11% excise tax?
I'll wait...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Trial153]

Invalid? Oh you mean if they ignore Or don’t implement a self introduced truly governed and regulated conservation funding program, its then an relevant funding technique, there for it has no true value? Just because it’s now compulsory doesn’t mean it wasn’t self induced and continues to be so.

Saying that PR is irrelevant in the conservation conversation because is cumpulsory is a true travesty. It destroys the purpose of it being governed and mandated, infact it’s more meaningful because it is governed and mandated with defined allocation criteria .

REI gives 10% back in rewards but not a percentage point to conservation. Think about that. They sure arent leading headlines trying to get their owe self induced compulsory conservation funding technique ratified, but then again now they don’t have any governance over thier charities orgs or regulations determining what % of thier Branded Items sales go to real conservation with true governance and oversight.

Oh and everyone forgets that NRA board had a heavy hand in wildlife and sport fish restoration programs improvements act, that came about because of Misuse of PR funds by the Clinton Administration

Are you for real? How convoluted are you to twist what I said into the above quoted nonsense?
You said vista wrote a check to tune of 89 million. Myself and several others pointed out that was excise tax money that they are forced to pay in the PR fund. Leaving out little fact and painting it as a donation to wildlife conservation is disingenuous at best.

 

[cuerro viejo]

So because it was a self imposed governed conservation tax, it’s now disingenuous, and shouldnt be taken into account?

Twisted? No everything is straight out of your argument. Your agruement is it’s a tax and they have to pay it anyway. That is trifling and truly goes against why companies such as Savage and Federal (now vista) Who where at the forefront of RP, pushed for it. It’s self induced, it’s a tax because it can’t be lost to frivolous .orgs/charity’s spending. As a tax it has the maximum governance for how it’s used. Real skin in the game.

Savage and Federal where at the forefront of PR, way before REI was even a concept, like I said self induced.

 

[cuerro viejo]

That's because the NRA supports a portion of those funds for shooting ranges and training.... It's right on their website. They only speak of the funds as it relates to shooting. They completely ignore the primary purpose of the fund and reason for its creation which is wildlife restoration...hence the reason it is actually called the "federal aid in wildlife restoration act".

I have seen no one here say the PR is an irrelevant fund. The point I am making to you in particular, Is that REI contributed 9.3 million dollars in 2017 to conservation. This was not compulsory, It was of their own free will.

If you eliminate the excise tax on Vista, which is compulsory, how much money did Vista donate to conservation?

Can anyone answer that question with a valid source?



The PR tax is not self induced. Can you show me the legislation that gives Vista the option to pay the 11% excise tax?
I'll wait...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

As Far as NRA, they pushed for more oversight and definitive appropriation, and that’s what we now have. What ever the reason or speculation for thier involvement isn’t as relevant as the outcome. Outcome is what matters.

Vista Bought Savage and Federal with PR in place, that’s self induced. Has Vista purposed legislation to dissolve PR? In addition to PR Vista donates to conservation titled orgs.

End of the day Savage and Federal fought to implement PR, has REI championed similar legislation?

There is a huge difference in 89 million that’s goes directly to very governed and regulated conservation spending and 9.8 that’s only regulated by
IRS goverened charity spending allocation.

 

[brocksw]

As Far as NRA, they pushed for more oversight and definitive appropriation, and that’s what we now have. What ever the reason or speculation for thier involvement isn’t as relevant as the outcome. Outcome is what matters.

Vista Bought Savage and Federal with PR in place, that’s self induced. Has Vista purposed legislation to dissolve PR? In addition to PR Vista donates to conservation titled orgs.

End of the day Savage and Federal fought to implement PR, has REI championed similar legislation?

There is a huge difference in 89 million that’s goes directly to very governed and regulated conservation spending and 9.8 that’s only regulated by
IRS goverened charity spending allocation.

So you're under the assumption that the pricing model for guns and ammunition does not have the 11% tax already built in? You're also under the assumption that Vista outdoors bought savage and federal thinking that they would have to "cut a check" for the PR fund?

I think your definition of self induced is a far cry from reality.

Do you have any sources for your "speculation" on the NRAs influence on the PR fund amendments?

Do you have reliable sources that state Savage or federal specifically, fought for a mandatory 11% excise tax?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

As Far as NRA, they pushed for more oversight and definitive appropriation, and that’s what we now have. What ever the reason or speculation for thier involvement isn’t as relevant as the outcome. Outcome is what matters.

Vista Bought Savage and Federal with PR in place, that’s self induced. Has Vista purposed legislation to dissolve PR? In addition to PR Vista donates to conservation titled orgs.

End of the day Savage and Federal fought to implement PR, has REI championed similar legislation?

There is a huge difference in 89 million that’s goes directly to very governed and regulated conservation spending and 9.8 that’s only regulated by
IRS goverened charity spending allocation.

I found a source for the NRA supporting reform of the PR funds. Just gave it a quick browse and it was on NRA site and didn't give a great detail.... But from what I've briefly read... good on them.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

collecting required taxes and handing them over to the government isn't donating

I wonder if the IRS will let me claim a charitable deduction to the money I "donate" out of each of my paychecks; I've "donated" a lot of money if that's the case

 

[cuerro viejo]

So you're under the assumption that the pricing model for guns and ammunition does not have the 11% tax already built in? You're also under the assumption that Vista outdoors bought savage and federal thinking that they would have to "cut a check" for the PR fund?

I think your definition of self induced is a far cry from reality.

Do you have any sources for your "speculation" on the NRAs influence on the PR fund amendments?

Do you have reliable sources that state Savage or federal specifically, fought for a mandatory 11% excise tax?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Did you just infurr that Vista didn’t know about the PR tax when they bought Savage, Federal, Speer, CcI etc that accounts for 810million in revenue. So they bought well over a billion dollars of companies and wasn’t aware of the 11% tax that Savage and Federal helped put into place? Lol

Built in? So you are saying that they wouldn’t have 89 million more in profits if they didn’t have a 11% Conservation allocation. Obviously they would because the market bears the the additional 11%.

You have any sources that’s state in the last 80 years Savage or Federal championed against the PR act? Better yet as A manufacturer of outdoor clothing and equipment has REI pushed for a governed and regulated conservation tax?

 

[brocksw]

Did you just infurr that Vista didn’t know about the PR tax when they bought Savage, Federal, Speer, CcI etc that accounts for 810million in revenue. So they bought well over a billion dollars of companies and wasn’t aware of the 11% tax that Savage and Federal helped put into place? Lol

Built in? So you are saying that they wouldn’t have 89 more million in profits if they didn’t have a 11% Conservation allocation. Obviously they would because the market bears the the additional 11%.


You have any sources that’s state in the last 80 years Savage or Federal championed against the PR act?

I didn't "infurr" anything of the sort. I think you have an astounding ability to manipulate people's words.

What I am saying is that the 11% excise tax is not equivalent to a donation. It is also a tax on the wholesale price, or as I see it... Built into the cost. Its not as if Vista had to take that 11% and factor it into their profit margin...profit is afterall the main driver behind operating a business.

If I build a product for 100 dollars and 11 of those same dollars is the excise tax. It's a part of my cost.

Then I sell that product for 150 dollars.

That tax didn't effect my profit, it was just a portion of the cost that is sent to the department of treasury at the end of the fiscal year.

It's neither self induced nor big hearted donation. It's built in.

From what I gather, Charles L Horn who founded federal ammunition did support the implementation of an excise tax. It also sounds like he had to lobby pretty hard to get federal ammunition to jump on board with it. He is also not the original drafter of the bill, nor an original sponsor.


I never accused federal, savage, or Vista of trying to end the PR fund... I'm not sure where you're getting that... Or why you want a source? Is this something you've heard somewhere else? It would be news to me.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

collecting required taxes and handing them over to the government isn't donating

I wonder if the IRS will let me claim a charitable deduction to the money I "donate" out of each of my paychecks; I've "donated" a lot of money if that's the case

Yeah, where's the form for making my income tax and excise tax?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

I didn't "infurr" anything of the sort. I think you have an astounding ability to manipulate people's words.

What I am saying is that the 11% excise tax is not equivalent to a donation. It is also a tax on the wholesale price, or as I see it... Built into the cost. Its not as if Vista had to take that 11% and factor it into their profit margin...profit is afterall the main driver behind operating a business.

If I build a product for 100 dollars and 11 of those same dollars is the excise tax. It's a part of my cost.

Then I sell that product for 150 dollars.

That tax didn't effect my profit, it was just a portion of the cost that is sent to the department of treasury at the end of the fiscal year.

It's neither self induced nor big hearted donation. It's built in.

From what I gather, Charles L Horn who founded federal ammunition did support the implementation of an excise tax. It also sounds like he had to lobby pretty hard to get federal ammunition to jump on board with it. He is also not the original drafter of the bill, nor an original sponsor.


I never accused federal, savage, or Vista of trying to end the PR fund... I'm not sure where you're getting that... Or why you want a source? Is this something you've heard somewhere else? It would be news to me.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I didn’t say you accused them of trying to end the tax, I just ask if they had tried to de-solve it. End of the day the tax stands because the industry that help implement it wants it to stand. You going to stop buying ammo, guns, bows and arrows if PR wasn’t in place? No

It’s the most true, unbiased, best appropriated Conservation funding out there. Bragging about a half a percentage of revenue going to anything with a .org allocation isn’t really Conservation, when you compare it to what PR funds do, and the 89million yearly that came from Vista.

Market bares the 11% tax, there for its relevant. If that tax wasn’t there that’s an 11% increase in gross margin instantly. Market has already proved that viable.

Self induced means they helped implement it and the continue to support it, infact Vista is the largest contributor to PR. There is a reason there are no special 11% tax’s on tents and sporting goods, because that industry doesn’t want one. It takes the industry to get something like that approved. REI is a retailer and manufacturer, that flaunts conservation so where is the advocacy to match PR?

Let’s simplify this, which company has a bigger financial impact on Conservation- REI or Vista?

 

[brocksw]

I didn’t say you accused them of trying to end the tax, I just ask if they had tried to de-solve it. End of the day the tax stands because the industry that help implement it wants it to stand. You going to stop buying ammo, guns, bows and arrows if PR wasn’t in place? No

It’s the most true, unbiased, best appropriated Conservation funding out there. Bragging about a half a percentage of revenue going to anything with a .org allocation isn’t really Conservation, when you compare it to what PR funds do, and the 89million yearly that came from Vista.

Market bares the 11% tax, there for its relevant. If that tax wasn’t there that’s an 11% increase in gross margin instantly. Market has already proved that viable.

Self induced means they helped implement it and the continue to support it, infact Vista is the largest contributor to PR. There is a reason there are no special 11% tax’s on tents and sporting goods, because that industry doesn’t want one. It takes the industry to get something like that approved. REI is a retailer and manufacturer, that flaunts conservation where is the advocacy to match PR?

Let’s simplify this, which company has a bigger financial impact on Conservation- REI or Vista?

Rei donated 70% of their profit to conservation. They share their Financials to the public and their members. By those numbers REI has actually contributed a larger portion of their finances to conservation, and a more crucial portion of their business model, because it comes from their profit.

It's not as simple as asking who benefits conservation more. There is no doubt hunters have a much bigger impact on conservation than REI alone. But remember It's an excise tax...and you're right the market does bare it... Thats YOU... Not Vista. It's your money that is contributing to the PR fund... Vista is the means to acquire that tax. You cannot act like they have a choice in the matter... They would get castrated if they tried to support legislation that repealed it. Vista donates almost nothing out of its profit to conservation compared to REi on an annual percentage basis.

I would hardly call any government appropriated fund unbiased, fair, or efficient.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

They didn’t donate 70% to conservation.. lol

Re-read it, like I said greatest marketing ploy ever. The donated 9.1 million to tax deductible partner charities. REI has 2.5ish billion in revenue.

Vista’s PR check just this year was more then REI has given in 40plus years combined

Vista’s revenues would be 2.5billion x 1.11 if PR was eliminated. Period. Where is REI on a matching conservation tax?

 

[dotman]

Rei donated 70% of their profit to conservation. They share their Financials to the public and their members. By those numbers REI has actually contributed a larger portion of their finances to conservation, and a more crucial portion of their business model, because it comes from their profit.

It's not as simple as asking who benefits conservation more. There is no doubt hunters have a much bigger impact on conservation than REI alone. But remember It's an excise tax...and you're right the market does bare it... Thats YOU... Not Vista. It's your money that is contributing to the PR fund... Vista is the means to acquire that tax. You cannot act like they have a choice in the matter... They would get castrated if they tried to support legislation that repealed it. Vista donates almost nothing out of its profit to conservation compared to REi on an annual percentage basis.

I would hardly call any government appropriated fund unbiased, fair, or efficient.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Since you are in the know and have researched this what conservation orgs did they donate the money to? Were any orgs like BHA, RMEF, DU, SCI, WSF, TRCP etc donated to by REI? Or was it orgs like HSUS etc. Many anti hunting groups are considered conservation oriented.

If it wasn’t to an org what grant programs or habitat improvement projects did they donate to?

Pretty easy to say you give but who is it they gave to.

 

[cuerro viejo]

So you think that Pittman-Robertson funds are being wasted and have less oversight then REI’s tax deductible partner charities?

Being that state agencies have to apply for PR, I’d say from a record stand point they damn sure do a lot more then foresttrailsareus.org

It’s funny almost every hunter based group Pheasants forever, wild sheep, REMF etc has worked on project with PR 3-1 matches... name one partner charity that REI has tax deductible donations to that have worked on a PR funded or supplemented project?

Still blows my mind that you think that the 80 years of PR tax existence was out of force and not out of want.

 

[mtwarden]

what part of donate don't you get? it's an excise TAX- WE pay it- sportsman and sportswomen, not Winchester, not Federal, not any manufacturer

they aren't donating jack, the federal govt enacted an excise tax, they are required to collect it on arms and ammo they sell and hand it over- if they don't as required by law, they get fined or go to jail- they aren't donating anything

what part of fuel tax is donation? trick question- NONE, it's not a donation, its a tax

damn good thing you weren't around during the Revolutionary War- you'd been right with the Brits- "quit your complaining, we're not taxing you, you're donating it"

 

[dotman]

So you think that Pittman-Robertson funds are being wasted and have less oversight then REI’s tax deductible partner charities?

Being that state agencies have to apply for PR, I’d say from a record stand point they damn sure do a lot more then foresttrailsareus .org

What is foresttrails.org? Do they clear blow downs from game trails? Sound to me like they just keep hiking trails cleared by the name, that makes a huge impact on conservation.

 

[brocksw]

Since you are in the know and have researched this what conservation orgs did they donate the money to? Were any orgs like BHA, RMEF, DU, SCI, WSF, TRCP etc donated to by REI? Or was it orgs like HSUS etc. Many anti hunting groups are considered conservation oriented.

If it wasn’t to an org what grant programs or habitat improvement projects did they donate to?

Pretty easy to say you give but who is it they gave to.

Nope, there's a few lists out there. If my. Memory serves me correctly I don't believe any of them were hunting affiliated. National parks foundation, biking associations, some scenic associations, local trails, etc...

I believe I've stated in a previous post that they have not donated to hunters or anglers... Def not directly anyway.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

what part of donate don't you get? it's an excise TAX- WE pay it- sportsman and sportswomen, not Winchester, not Federal, not any manufacturer

they aren't donating jack, the federal govt enacted an excise tax, they are required to collect it on arms and ammo they sell and hand it over- if they don't as required by law, they get fined or go to jail- they aren't donating anything

what part of fuel tax is donation? trick question- NONE, it's not a donation, its a tax

damn good thing you weren't around during the Revolutionary War- you'd been right with the Brits- "quit your complaining, we're not taxing you, you're donating it"

Haha, didn’t you know, a tax is a forced donation