Shelter/Tent Choice

[sneaky]

NEW U.S. BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS NUMBERS DEMONSTRATE VIBRANT OUTDOOR INDUSTRY - Outdoor Industry Association

outdoorindustry.org

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Gearqueer]

NEW U.S. BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS NUMBERS DEMONSTRATE VIBRANT OUTDOOR INDUSTRY - Outdoor Industry Association

outdoorindustry.org

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Although the author(s) brings up some good points (LWCF not being funded) it’s pretty clear that backpacking companies don’t want to pay D.J. or P.R. excise taxes. I can see both sides of the argument.

Edited to reduce thread highjack

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RazzleDazzle]

I ran a teepee last season with 1.5 inner and I'm ready to be done with it. Looking currently at more traditional tents. 3 seem to fit my bill and all have similar pricing, within $100 of each other, but I'm interested in any feedback experienced users might have. So here goes the question.

Stone Glacier Skyscraper 2p, Kuiu mountain star 2p, or FL/Nemo Kodiak 2p.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

The cheaper of the 3 that has the layout that fits you the best. $100 bucks is $100. That's a weekend of fuel for hunting.

 

[sneaky]

Although the author(s) brings up some good points (LWCF not being funded) it’s pretty clear that backpacking companies don’t want to pay D.J. or P.R. excise taxes. I can see both sides of the argument.

Edited to reduce thread highjack

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LWCF was permanently reauthorized in 2019, that article was from 2017, but I see your point. However, imagine if LWCF was funded through an equipment excise tax on outdoor recreation and not being propped up by a tax on the oil and gas industry. Those grants that they want from the govt would be funded from their own industry and the use of the lands they want to protect. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Even a 5% tax on outdoor gear would generate billions in tax revenue every year and it would fund all of the LWCF projects and then some.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[RazzleDazzle]

..... However, imagine if LWCF was funded through an equipment excise tax on outdoor recreation and not being propped up by a tax on the oil and gas industry...
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Isnt that the whole idea of the LWCF, to basically charge the oil and gas companies "mitigation" to put back into natural resources? I'm asking because I'm not fully sure. That's how it was explained to me. If that's what it was was designed for than how is it "propped up by it"

Sorry for hijack I'm honestly curious.

 

[sneaky]

Isnt that the whole idea of the LWCF, to basically charge the oil and gas companies "mitigation" to put back into natural resources? I'm asking because I'm not fully sure. That's how it was explained to me. If that's what it was was designed for than how is it "propped up by it"

Sorry for hijack I'm honestly curious.

The LWCF fund has been being used as a slush fund for various projects, not all of them LWCF related. Kinda like Social Security has been broke for decades because it keeps getting pilfered for other things. Even a 5% tax on outdoor equipment, with the stipulation in writing and law, that it would go to outdoor projects, would be a good thing. The outdoor industry just wants the govt to pay for everything they want without kicking in their share. They can talk all day long about how much their industry generates in sales, but that money goes into the general sales tax pool and you know that money is being spent elsewhere. I don't think it's right that they want tax money raised from other sources when they could fund everything themselves and know where the money comes from and is going.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk