II
i
"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" INITIATIVE
Y4.R 31/3:104-71
"Teaninj Uith llilillife" I«itiati»e,. . . FARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, \¥ILDLIFE AND OCEANS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATR^S
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION ON
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVERSITY
FUNDING INITIATIVE KNOWN AS
"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE"
JUNE 6, 1996— WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 104-71
Printed for the use of the Committee on wrwww ■•.i.i.,.!.. ..r->i«^^
omww
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFHCE 25-856cc» WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Go\ eminent Printing OtTice
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-052910-7
"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" INITIATIVE
Y4.R 31/3:104-71
"Teaninj Uith Uildlife" Iiitiative,. . . jARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATR^S
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION ON
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVERSITY
FUNDING INITIATIVE KNOWN AS
"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE"
JUNE 6, 1996— WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 104-71
Printed for the use of the Committee on
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OKnCE 25-856cc« WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-052910-7
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah JIM SAXTON, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland KEN CALVERT, California RICHARD W. POMBO, California PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming WES COOLEY, Oregon HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho LINDA SMITH, Washington GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CaroUna WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington JACK METCALF, Washington JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
GEORGE MILLER, California EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan PAT WILLIAMS, Montana SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
Samoa TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Cahfornia CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
Rico MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam SAM FARR, California PATRICK J, KENNEDY, Rhode Island
Daniel Val Kish, Chief of Staff
David Dye, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk /Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, DON YOUNG, Alaska W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana WAYNE T. GILCHEST, Maryland PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts LINDA SMITH, Washington WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina JACK METCALF, Washington JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine
New Jersey, Chairman
GERRY E, STUDDS, Massachusetts GEORGE MILLER, California SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey SAM FARR, California PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director John Rayfield, Professional Staff Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held June 6, 1996 1
Statement of Members:
Dingell, Hon. John D., a U.S. Representative from Michigan 119
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chair- man, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 1
Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman,
Committee on Resources 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Ashe, Dan, Assistant Director for External Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2
Prepared statement 42
Bowers, Richard J., Conservation Director, American Whitewater Affili- ation (prepared statement) 140
Dufficy, Thomas J., Executive Vice President, National Association of
Photographic Manufacturers 35
Prepared statement 107
Eubanks, Ted L., Jr., President, Fermata, Inc 15
Prepared statement 89
Franklin, Thomas M., Wildlife Policy Director, The Wildlife Society (pre- pared statement) 135
Humphreys, David J., President, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
(prepared statement) 138
Ingemie, David, President, Ski Industries America 28
Jenkins, David E., Director, Conservation and Public Policy, American
Canoe Association (prepared statement) 121
Jenks, Robert, National Wild Turkey Federation 13
Lucier, James P., Jr., Director of Economic Research, Americans for Tax
Reform 34
Prepared statement 100
Keck, Rob, Executive Vice President, National Wild Turkey Federation
(prepared statement) 83
Mac Donald, Martin G., Director of Corporate Public Relations, Conserva- tion and Youth Development, Bass Pro Shops 10
Prepared statement 67
Mailman, James, Manager, Commodities Trading, American Agco Trad- ing Company 16
Remainder of statement 18
McDowell, Robert L., Director, New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and
Wildlife 8
Prepared statement 47
Mcllwaine, Charles B., Vice Chairman, American Recreation Coalition 30
Prepared statement 92
National Rifle Association of America (prepared statement) 127
Peri, David, Director of Marketing, Mountainsmith 37
Prepared statement 113
Steed, Diane, President, Coalition for Vehicle Choice 32
Weizenicker, David L., President, National Association of State Park
Directors 12
Prepared statement 77
Communications submitted:
Engler, William D., Jr. (Faytee): Letter of June 5, 1996, to Congressman H. James Saxton 150
(III)
rv
Page
Communications submitted— Continued ,^ 1r^r.^ ^ u t-^
Knowles, Gov. Tony (Alaska): Letter of June 19, 1996, to Hon. Jim ^^^
WilUamsonrLonnie L.''(Wiidiifie Management Institute): Letter of June
13, 1996, to Hon. Jim Saxton 14b
"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" INITIATIVE
THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1996
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fish- eries, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Re- sources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (Chair- man of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
Mr. Saxton. Good morning. The subject of today's hearing is the concept of the Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative known as "Teaming with Wildlife." The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, known as the International, is leading an effort to generate Federal funding for the conservation and management of nongame wildlife.
According to the International, there are more than 1,800 wild- life species for which no reliably funded conservation program ex- ists. These species include butterflies, chipmunks, fish, frogs, her- ons, ospreys, salamanders, songbirds, turtles, and many others.
To many states, some source of funding for nongame species, as structured in the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative, may be a nec- essary step in preserving these species. While funding authoriza- tion for nongame species has been approved consistently by the Congress, the program has never received any money in the appro- priations process. As such, some alternative funding sources should be found.
[The statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and Chairman, Committee on Resources
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you for holding this oversight hearing on a new funding proposal for non-game species known as "Teaming With Wildlife".
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has worked tirelessly to produce this idea and because of their leadership over 900 organizations, inclua- ing the Izaak Walton League, Quail Unlimited, and the World Wildlife Fund, have now endorsed this concept.
In short, the intent is to raise money for State conservation programs for non- game species like butterflies, songbirds, and turtles by broadening the funding base to include those individuals who do not hunt or fish, but otherwise enjoy the out- doors. This would include millions of Americans who are bird watchers, campers, hikers, and nature photographers.
Under the "Teaming With Wildlife" concept, there would be a five percent excise fee on a broad range of consumer products such as backpacks, canoes, film, hiking
(1)
boots, mountain bicycles, recreational vehicles, and wild bird seed. The proponents hope to raise some $350 million a year.
While I support the fundamental goal of having everyone who enjoys our parks, refuges, and wildlife pay their fair share, there are a number of questions about this proposal that must be resolved.
For instance: What is the justification for a five percent excise fee and what is magical about the figure of $350 million a year? Who will determine which species should be given priority status and how will these conservation programs interact with recovery efforts under the Federal Endangered Species Act? And, how can we ensure that these new fees do not become just another financial burden on those Americans who already finance the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux Pro- grams?
I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses and I hope answers to these and other questions will be forthcoming. This is an important hearing and I compliment the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for fram- ing this debate.
Mr. Saxton. Many questions have arisen concerning the concept. We have three distinguished panels to address those concerns today. Let me now turn to our first paneUst, an old friend from this committee, Mr. Dan Ashe, who is currently serving as Assistant Di- rector of External Affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And, Dan, you are familiar with the subcommittee's five-minute rule so why don't you just jump right in.
STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Ashe. All right. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative, and I want to start by congratulating the states for developing this pro- posal and bringing it to the attention of Congress. Their leadership on this issue really signals their recognition of and commitment to maintaining a diversity of plant, fish, and wildlife, both for game and nongame species. And in this alone, they deserve our grati- tude.
At this point, I need to clarify that the views in this testimony constitute the Department's position on the need to expand and support management of nongame wildlife and our very preliminary comments on the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal. It is not an en- dorsement. But we look forward to providing the committee with formal position and detailed comments once legislation has actually been introduced.
The "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative proposes to authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide grants to State fish and wild- life agencies and U.S. territories for the development, revision, and implementation of conservation programs for fish and wildlife that are neither fished nor hunted.
The proposal would provide State fish and wildlife agencies with the funds to undertake projects to improve these resources and thereby expand wildlife associated recreational opportunities. The Service would welcome these opportunities.
This initiative is patterned after two of the nation's most success- ful conservation programs: Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Pro- gram and Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Program. I can think of no better models for this effort than these two highly successful programs.
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program began in 1938 following enactment by President Roosevelt of the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman-Robert- son Act after its sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. The primary pur- pose of the law is to provide a stable and secure funding source for states to manage and restore wildlife resources.
The Act authorizes funds for the program to be derived from Fed- eral excise taxes on sporting arms and ammunitions, pistols, and revolvers, and certain archery equipment. The total amount of funds collected are apportioned to the states based on the geo- graphic area and number of hunting license holders in each State.
Responsibility for selection, planning, and execution of wildlife restoration projects rests with the states through their designated wildlife management agency. Project proposals are submitted by the State agencies to the regional directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service who have authority to approve or disapprove projects.
About $202 million was allocated to states in fiscal year 1996 under this program, and of that amount, about $42 million was made available to help states finance hunter education programs.
In the more than 50 years since Pittman-Robertson was created, over $3 billion in Federal excise taxes have been matched by more than $1 billion in State funds, mostly from hunting license fees. All of these amounts have gone to wildlife restoration projects. Benefits to the economy have been impressive. National surveys show that hunters alone now spend some $12 billion every year on equipment and trips. Literally thousands of jobs have been created.
On August 9, 1950, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, modeling that legislation after the highly suc- cessful Pittman-Robertson Act. The new Act was known as Dingell- Johnson after its sponsors. Representative John Dingell, Sr., of Michigan, and Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado. Following en- actment in 1984 of substantial changes to that Act, the program began to be called the Wallop-Breaux program after Senator Mal- colm Wallop of Wyoming and Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, the visionary sponsors of those new provisions.
The Sport Fish Program is funded by revenues collect'^d from the manufacturers of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies, and artifi- cial baits who pay an excise tax on these items to the U.S. Treas- ury. Funds are also received from import duties on sport fishing equipment, pleasure boats, and yachts. One other major source of revenue is an excise tax from the sale of motorboat fuels.
These taxes are transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for distribution among the states and territories. Each State's share is based on the number of licensed fishermen and the area of land and water in the State.
For fiscal year 1996, the sum of $197 million was apportioned to the states and territories. As in the case of the P-R Program, the Service ensures adherence to the law, provides technical assistance, sets standards for performance, and monitors progress, but each State selects, plans, and performs the management work.
These two great conservation programs touch every man, woman, and child in the United States, making it possible for State wildlife agencies to undertake conservation efforts quite literally in commu- nities all across America. When you see a flock of geese or ducks
in the autumn sky, these programs are a big part of the reason they are there.
The Service agrees with the states that there is a growing need to accommodate increasing numbers of nonconsumptive wildHfe re- source users. Wildhfe populations are dwindling due to the frag- mentation of forest habitat, changing land use, and farming prac- tices. Certain nongame species, such as neotropical birds, have de- clined drastically.
A generation of children has grown up watching nature programs on public television, becoming more knowledgeable and interested in their environment, and more and more people are wanting to get out into the outdoors. This illustrates a growing need to provide greater opportunities for Americans to experience the outdoors.
While this Administration, again, is not in a position to endorse the proposal at this time, the concept of funding wildlife conserva- tion from taxes on certain merchandise is a well-demonstrated suc- cess under the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux Programs and is a sound model for Congress to consider in efforts to conserve nongame fish and wildlife. Thank you very much.
[Statement of Mr. Ashe may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Ashe. Did I understand you correctly at the outset to say that the Service does not have an official position at this time relative to the bill?
Mr. Ashe. That is correct, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. We have been working together, you and I, on a number of projects, not the least important of which is the Endan- gered Species Act. And I would suspect that these funds, if they were made available, could be used in conjunction with some of the concepts that we have been discussing on protection of endangered species.
Mr. Ashe. There is no doubt of that, and as you know, there's been a great deal of talk and a great deal of consensus about the need for nonregulatory approaches to species conservation. And leg- islation such as this offers really the opportunity to realize that consensus by providing the resources that we need to put on the ground through the State experts to conserve a diversity of fish and wildlife species before we are in a crisis mode.
Mr. Saxton. Have you come across any examples of nongame species that we can look to as examples of some species that need help, that perhaps haven't been able to get it because of lack of funding?
Mr. Ashe. I think undoubtedly in my mind, two areas jump out. One certainly are songbirds and neotropical migrants, in particu- lar, where there has been a great deal of concern expressed about the declines in populations of neotropical migrants, and these are some of the most recognizable songbirds in the United States, in- cluding the Maryland State bird, the Baltimore oriole, the woodthrush, and scarlet tanagers, varieties of other birds which are really — there are serious concerns about the trends and the de- clines.
Another big category would be amphibians in general and, you know, again, serious concerns about large-scale declines in popu- lations of amphibians and really no consensus yet as to why but extreme concern. And a program like this would really provide the
resources that we need to put on the ground to start doing both the research and the management to deal with these issues again in a nonregulator>' context.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. I have no further questions at this time. Mr. Longley, do you have any questions for Mr. Ashe?
Mr. Longley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple ques- tions. Mr. Ashe, in your statement on page five, you made ref- erence that wildlife populations are dwindling due to the frag- mentation of forest habitat. Could you be more specific? Because isn't it the case that we are actually seeing significant increases in some species and dwindling of others?
Mr. Ashe. That is true. I mean, I don't mean to overemphasize that point, although in some cases certainly changing habitat pat- terns and the creation of edge habitat, which is. in effect, the result of fragmentation of forests or whatever, has beneficial impacts for certain species that depend on that type of edge habitat.
But the large-scale fragmentation I think is looking at it from a macro standpoint and the loss of certain types of habitat that are key for species like neotropical migrants, species that depend on breeding habitat in North America, migratory habitat to sustain them along their trips, and then wintering habitat in
Mr. Longley. Well, where I am going with the question is have you done any studies particularly in the continental U.S. that might be more specific or generic to certain parts of the country? In other words, I am familiar with it more on a micro basis.
Somewhere between the neighborhood and the United States, is there any attempt to regionalize or — I am trving to get more to the particulars. I would imagine, for instance, in the East where there are more urban areas that there is more of a serious problem than you might find in some of the more rural areas.
Mr. Ashe. Sure.
Mr. Longley. And where I am tr>ing to go with this is to under- stand the nature of what is happening in terms of are there species that are increasing or decreasing? What parts of the country-? Are there any areas that particularly jump out at you that are of high- er priority? Are there areas that might be of lower or nonexistent priority?
And I am trying to really get at the basis for how the program has been developed: how did we come up with the $350 million fig- ure; the five percent: and there are other questions that I have. But that is kind of the direction I am going, and I would like to give you an opportunity to speak on the record.
Mr. Ashe. Yes. I would. \\Tic.t I would like to do is provide you with a response for the record in '-egard to exactly what studies we may have done that would provide regional pictures regarding the effects of habitat loss and habitat fragmentation on populations of wildlife.
And it certainly is a problem m urban areas and certainly along the kind of heavily urbanizea corridor along the eastern seaboard. But it is also a problem and a concern in rural areas, and there is a great concern over the less and fragmentation of grassland and prairie habitat in the Midwest. And so it is not only a problem as- sociated with urban and suburban environments. It is also a prob- lem associated with rural environments as well.
Mr. LONGLEY. And the point of my question wasn't to suggest there wasn't a problem because the conservation of particularly forestland and wildlife areas in my State — in the State of Maine is a very, very serious issue right now. We feel that we are at a criti- cal moment in terms of where the State is going to be going into the future. But are there any areas that really jump out at you where there is a serious diminution of wildlife species or in other areas that really it is not even a concern or even maybe an over- abundance of some species to the detriment of others?
Mr. Ashe. Yes. Again, I would hesitate to say that anyplace was not a concern for us, but, you know, in the Fish and Wildlife Serv- ice, we have certainly over the last few years have had a major focus on the Everglades ecosystem, as has the whole Department of the Interior. And there has been a marked decline in the num- bers and diversity of species there, and that is probably as good an example of any. The Pacific Northwest is another obvious example that jumps to mind.
Mr. LONGLEY. I would like to jump for a second to the funding issue, and what alternatives did you look at, or did you look at any alternatives as to how this money might be raised? And I am obvi- ously assuming for the moment that you didn't think existing funds were available. But did you look at anything besides sales tax?
Mr. Ashe. Again, we are not saying that this is the solution at this point. What I was trying to point out in my testimony is that Wallop-Breaux and the Pittman-Robertson Programs really show that a model based on excise tax as a source of revenue can work and can be supported by the people who pay the tax and by the manufacturers who make the products and the people in the end who pay the tax who are the hunters and fishers in America.
And that has been the key to success in that model, the real sense of partnership and symbiosis between those people and their willingness to support and pay those taxes. So this is clearly a model that — where we know it can be successful if we can develop that type of partnership and that spirit of shared concern and shared destiny with regard to the wildlife resources at risk.
There certainly are other potential approaches to achieving the financial wherewithal to attack this problem. One obviously is tra- ditional appropriations, which under the Partnerships for Wildlife Act from the early 1980's, we have simply not been able to realize the type of fiscal support under that mechanism that is needed to tackle this problem.
But that is an approach which could be taken if we could en- hance those resources. There are other approaches which have been talked about in the past in terms of generating revenues, and I am sure you will hear about a number of them today.
Mr. Longley. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to ask one more question? One of the things that has fascinated me is the extent to which — I am not sure that as a nation we are really ad- dressing the issue of Federal land policy.
And I want to ask a question, but I want to preface it by saying that, for instance, in the State of Maine we have probably one of the lowest percentages of federally and maybe even publicly owned land in the country. There are other states where the percentage can easily hit 70, 80, 90 percent.
And in the State of Maine, one of the preeminent issues right now is the question of how to work with the private sector to main- tain private sector ownership of land, but yet develop conservation easement strategies. There has been some issues with respect to the Forest Legacy Program, and, again, it is rather contentious in Maine right now because the Federal policy is to require the land- owner to convey title and fee simple to the Federal Government having a conservation easement then given back.
Some of us kind of have some problems with that approach. We would like to see more retention of ownership but preservation for conservation. But I am balancing that against, if you will, the shortage of publicly devoted land, I guess is the term I would use, oriented toward conservation issues versus the 6 or 700 million acres largely in the West that are owned by the Federal Govern- ment.
Has anyone looked at or are there any studies that deal with the question of Federal landownership and management and whether there might be a system by which some of the areas of the country where there is perhaps an overabundance of federally owned and managed property that might be reduced and potentially revenues developed and then those funds may be used in other parts of the country to build up the conservation issues? Have you looked at all at the question of Federal landownership and whether there isn't a significant resource there that could be devoted to conservation specifically in different
Mr. Ashe. I don't know of any-
Mr. LONGLEY. You know what I am getting at.
Mr. Ashe. Yes. I am not aware of any study or research that has been done into the kind of particular question that you ask of kind of on a large scale looking at kind of the divesting of lands where there is high public landownership and then investing — reinvesting in areas where there is low Federal landownership. I personally am not aware of that.
But we do look at these issues more or less consistently, and the process of exchanging Federal lands between land managing agen- cies and between Federal land managers and State managers or private managers is a fairly well-developed concept in public land management.
And right now, for instance, there is an effort underway to effec- tuate a major land transfer which will trade lands in Oklahoma — forestlands in Oklahoma between the Weyerhaeuser Corporation and the Forest Service and the BLM, and we will be the bene- ficiaries of that with a 25,000-acre addition to the refuge system in Arkansas.
So that concept of trading lands and taking advantage of oppor- tunities on a regional or national basis is a fairly well-developed concept, and where we have those opportunities, we take advan- tage of them. But I am not awau^ of any kind of comprehensive look.
Mr. LONGLEY. Well, I recognize the issue I am raising is an ex- tremely sensitive issue from a lot of different perspectives. But it strikes me that having visited the Northwest that a lot of the con- troversy that exists in some of the western states, you know, be- tween developmental versus preservation ideals stems from the
8
fact that we maybe really haven't developed what our strategy is. And each is attempting to move as aggressively as they can to pro- tect their own interests, and that perhaps it is time to raise the question as a country what is our long-term policy going to be?
And I would suggest that, you know, 6 or 700 million acres and largely concentrated in certain parts of the country balanced against relatively small totals of acreage in other parts of the coun- try could pose some very interesting conservation and habitat is- sues. So that is why I asked the question. Thank you.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you.
Mr. LONGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Dan, thank you very much. There are no other questions at this time. Thank you for your very articulate and very well-given testimony and answers to questions.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you and we will move on to the next panel. The next panel is made up of a number of individuals with a great deal of background in fish, game, and wildlife issues. First, a good friend of mine from New Jersey, Mr. Bob McDowell, who is Direc- tor of the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, works actually for my good friend. Governor Whitman, and for my good friend, DEP Commissioner Bob Shinn.
Bob and I worked on many issues together over the years, and I have always enjoyed our relationship. And I want to make a spe- cial point to welcome you here this morning. Bob, and hopefully we can get the Northeastern flyway Canada goose situation under con- trol before the
Mr. McDowell. We are working on it.
Mr. Saxton. Before the fall season starts. We are also joined by Mr. Martin Mac Donald, who is Director of Corporate Public Rela- tions of the Conservation and Youth Development of Bass Pro Shops; Mr. David Weizenicker, who is President of the National As- sociation of State Park Directors; Mr. Bob Jenks of the National Wild Turkey Federation; Mr. Ted Eubanks, who is President of Fermata, Inc.; and Mr. James Mailman, who is Manager, Commod- ities Trading, American Agco Trading Company. Mr. Bob McDowell, would you. like to start us off?
Let me just remind each of you that we have a five-minute rule primarily because of the number of witnesses that we have today. There are three little lights there in the middle of the table. The green one means you are off and running. The yellow one means that you have got 30 seconds to go, and the red one means please conclude your thoughts. Bob, if you would like to begin for us?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. MCDOWELL, DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF FISH, GAME, AND WILDLIFE
Mr. McDowell. Well, first of all, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for hearing about this grand oppor- tunity that we have to sort of close the loop in the area of wildlife management — put the third leg on the stool, so to speak. Because one of the areas that we haven't addressed are species that are not endangered species, nor game species. They fall in the middle. The game species we are doing well. We are making progress on endan-
gered species. But these nonendangered species represent a big op- portunity for us to complete the circle.
I am speaking on behalf of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and I have several directors here from other states also in the audience; Jerry Presley, President of Inter- national, from Missouri; Bob Bachman from the Maryland Depart- ment of Natural Resources; Josh Zant, also from the same organi- zation; Andy Manus and Lloyd Alexander from the State of Dela- ware; David Waller from Georgia; Ira Palmer from the DC Fish- eries organization; and Cal DeBrock from the Pennsylvania Game Commission.
"Teaming with Wildlife" is the thing we want to talk about, and this is a funding proposal that would create a national trust fund for State level fish and wildlife conservation, recreation, and con- servation education.
In New Jersey, our project, such as — we just received a donation of a place called the Sedge House, which is in the middle of Bar- negat Bay. And we are going to provide a conservation education program there. In places like that, this money could be spent to teach a wide array of natural resource concepts and understanding about the real world — in many states, not just our own.
We have a broad coalition of people supporting this. We have nearly 1,000 organizations, from the Alaska Tourism Council to the Zion Lutheran Church. We have Pineland Canoes in our own State listed and American Agco and Bass Pro Shops who are here today. We have submitted for the record, in addition, eight letters from governors that also support the program. We have a ninth governor that has recently submitted a letter.
This funding proposal is modeled after the successful program which was spoken about earlier, and I don't think you can go with- out— I mean, it is an obvious thing that this has been very success- ful. We have provided fisheries management under the Dingell- Johnson and Wallop-Breaux funds. We have provided hunting and fishing opportunities, and we have brought many species back. Things like turkey and antelope, ospreys and elk are certainly ex- amples of species throughout the country that we have worked, under the Pittman-Robinson Act, and have been successful with.
This proposal has a sliding scale of funding and a sliding scale of taxing. We are talking about a quarter of a percent on some things and five percent on others. It is the first of sale price on out- door-related products such as binoculars, field guides, tents, camp- ing gear. And we have arrived at the $350 million level, not just as a matter of whim, but as related to many surveys and related to inquiries of the states and response from the states.
The moneys collected from "Teaming with Wildlife," just like Wallop-Breaux, Dingell-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson, would go into the Treasury and return to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service using an allocation formula which involves two-thirds people and one-third land. And it is a three-to-one match. In other words, the states would have to come up with the money.
In New Jersey, we have an income tax checkoff. We also sell li- cense plates to fund our nongame and endangered species program, and we use corporate donations. But those are all iffy kinds of
10
sources of funds, but they can be used to match a fund such as this.
State fish and wildhfe agencies will be making the decisions on how the money is spent for conservation and with our partners in- volved in conservation education and outdoor recreation, and our constituents will be dealing with State programs.
This will provide an opportunity of equity between all the out- door enthusiasts to contribute back to conservation just like the sportsman has for decades. I think the most important point of this is the preventative nature. It is nonregulatory. It will keep species from becoming endangered, and it will enhance recreational oppor- tunities. Hiking, canoeing, wildlife viewing — all very important.
Lastly, I think "Teaming with Wildlife" funds can stimulate the local economy by supporting nature-based tourism programs, which everybody is coming on line with. A good example of this is the fall migration in New Jersey's County of Cape May. Thousands of birds migrate — hawks, owls, songbirds. They stop over in Cape May, and lots of people come there to view these. They spend an estimated $6 million in local businesses, and these opportunities exist in every State. And "Teaming with Wildlife" could make it a reality and a benefit to both wildlife and people.
[Statement of Mr. McDowell may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Bob. Mr. Mac Donald.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN G. MAC DONALD, DIRECTOR OF COR- PORATE PUBLIC RELATIONS, CONSERVATION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, BASS PRO SHOPS
Mr. Mac Donald. Mr. Chairman, the first statement that I would like to make is that Bass Pro Shops, the corporate family of Bass Pro Shops, is enthusiastically and wholeheartedly behind and support this initiative. We think this initiative is doable, and it is the right thing to do. And you will hear me repeat that again, but I want to state to you that we enthusiastically and wholeheartedly support this initiative.
This endorsement comes from John L. Morris, our President and founder, our affiliated companies, our associates, and our numerous customers. For your information, from those customers who know we are supporting this initiative, the letters have come to us 100 for, one against, and we have had several hundred letters.
What I also want to relate to you is that I am on the spot as I testify to you because we have sent out a notice to our 4,000 associ- ates that I was going to be here, and I got numerous phone calls before I came to Washington, DC, and they are outdoor enthu- siasts. All I want you to know is if I don't do a good job on this testimony, I can't go back to Missouri.
I do want to relate to you that Bass Pro Shops is a leading mer- chant of outdoor recreational products. There is Bass Pro Shops catalog — 36 million catalogs. We are the world's leading supplier of fishing tackle around the world. And to tell you how dedicated I am to this particular initiative, this day would be perfect for fishing.
Outdoor World Retail, Missouri's number 1 tourist attraction, with 4 million visitors; Tracker Marine, the largest manufacturer of freshwater fishing boats in the world; American Rod & Gun wholesale division serving more than 7,000 independent dealers;
11
Dogwood Canyon, an 8,000 acre nature park; Big Cedar Lodge, a top ten resort — a wilderness resort in this country.
I see "Teaming with Wildhfe" and our company, our associates, and our customers see "Teaming with Wildhfe" as an investment in the future, bringing positive benefits to, one, outdoor recreation; two, conservation; three, conservation education; four, to the out- door enthusiasts and outdoor recreation customers; and, five, the outdoor recreation products and the industries that they represent.
One of the reasons that Bass Pro Shops is so successful is that we have kept an eye on the customer. We are constantly reading customer comment cards. Bass Pro Shops customers tell us time and time again they will support a user fee if it benefits the re- source. "Teaming with Wildlife" benefits the resource.
This is also important to us from a business perspective. The out- door recreation industry is dependent on a natural resource base — no fish, no wildlife, no Bass Pro Shops, no many outdoor recreation products companies or industry-related business.
We also feel that it is good because this program will allow users to have a financial stake in the resources they enjoy, and I think that is important. I also want to relate to you that our company feels very strongly that this initiative would be a profitable one for our company, and we are a for-profit corporation. And I assure you that we would not be endorsing this initiative if we didn't think it had a return on investment. Of course, just from the natural re- source perspective that this will bring, it brings a very powerful re- turn on investment.
We also see it as a capital investment. With more recreational opportunities being created through trails, access points, land ac- quisition, instructional guides, nature centers, and stronger con- servation education, we feel that this is actually the way of the fu- ture and, again, the right thing to do.
We especially like the concept of the green logo, which is a tag that would allow customers to really know what their user fee in- vestment is going for. We are spending some extra time this year to support wildlife restoration and sportsfish restoration so the cus- tomer knows what it is doing because it has done significant things.
And it is very important for the customer to know what is hap- pening related to any legislation. The informed customer is the best customer. We also feel the excise tax is fair and equitable and has worked well with wildlife restoration and sportsfish restoration.
If I could sum up why we feel this initiative is so important, it is probably because I have had the opportunity to see it in Mis- souri. There is a conservation tax in Missouri, and if I could bring each of you and the constituents that you represent to my neigh- borhood to see the kind of conservation programs that are there, I could have the opportunity to go to a shooting sports range, an opportunity to fish, to hunt, to bird-watch, and to go to the nature center to participate in family outdoor programs.
And I can learn anything from how to find my way in the out of doors to knowing how the butterfly plays a real key indicator role in our environment. So what I would like to say is that it pro- vides a full service conservation menu for the outdoor enthusiasts and definitely for our customer.
12
Conservation, conservation education, recreation — these are all important things that need to be done, have to be done. I think the most important thing that I would like to mention is that this cre- ates a partnership between the outdoor user, the outdoor recre- ation, the states, the Federal Government to enhance conservation.
We couldn't do it totally with the investment that we do in con- servation, but together we can create wonderful things. We have a slogan at Bass Pro Shops, "The great outdoors pass it on." This ini- tiative would do just that. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Mac Donald may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Mac Donald. Mr. Weizenicker.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. WEIZENICKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE PARK DIRECTORS
Mr. Weizenicker. Good morning. I am Dave Weizenicker, Presi- dent of the National Association of State Park Directors. This orga- nization consists of the administrative heads of all 50 State park systems. At the same time, I am Director of State Parks for the State of Wisconsin. I would like to include for the record our orga- nization's resolution of support for "Teaming with Wildlife" and my statement in its entirety. And I will just highlight several key fea- tures of this initiative.
My group is pleased to be a partner with the International in this important effort not only to conserve fish and wildlife habitat, but also to enhance the public's opportunity to observe, understand, and enjoy fish and wildlife in their natural habitat. There are 5,357 parks, forests, and natural areas throughout the Nation consisting of nearly 24 million acres. The nation's State park systems last year hosted over 752 million visitations.
My organization is supporting this proposal basically for two rea- sons. First of all, the fish and wildlife conservation, the fish and wildlife-related recreation, and education components can provide magnificent opportunities for the outdoor recreationists who are growing in numbers in every State. Nature tourism is the fastest growing segment of the travel industry, a 30 percent annual in- crease since 1987.
Secondly, and I think this is especially important, this proposal offers an opportunity to rely less on government and more on our- selves as users to fund outdoor recreation and resource programs. More and more people are seeking outdoor recreation opportunities to improve health, reduce stress, family togetherness. Our constitu- encies are telling us across the country that they are willing to pay a fair share for more benefits, more opportunity so long as the ad- ditional charge is utilized for the intended purposes.
Because of competing needs in every State of Federal and State dollars for other high priority purposes — health, education, public safety — funds for recreation and conservation will likely not be forthcoming at least in the near-term, creating a monetary void that this user fee could fill.
A user fee incentive will be of immeasurable assistance as seed money to encourage organizations and citizens to match, thereby maximizing the bang for the buck. There are many examples in the State parks across the country of friends groups and other organi-
13
zations asking us in charge of those programs to help them in turn provide us assistance to be better stewards of their natural re- sources.
The "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative also provides an impetus for strong alliances on the part of conservation and recreation groups. The coalition list with nearly 1,000 supporters underscores the win-win outcomes for a wide variety and diversity of stakehold- ers including not only public park and fish and wildlife agencies, but many citizen groups as well. These groups are representative of those who would be asked to pay the bill, and they should have a voice in determining the destiny of this initiative.
In summary, there is a growing urgency to come up with ways and means to conserve fish and wildlife habitat, at the same time the demand for outdoor recreation opportunities is sharply accel- erating. In many situations, the same acreage and capital invest- ments can accomplish both needs through appropriate integration of conservation and recreation programs at the local level.
On behalf of the National Association of State Park Directors, I urge action on the part of Congress to implement the "Teaming with Wildlife" concept. I would like to briefly refer to a letter that the head of my agency, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- sources, sent to the subcommittee Chair, George Meyer, and simply to highlight a couple of examples on how we in Wisconsin would utilize this kind of funding because I think that is representative across the nation.
Number 1, create an urban wildlife reserve program to acquire small conservation parks in urban areas to view common wildlife species; number 2, perhaps the most important one, and one that we are going to be experimenting with in Wisconsin this summer, teaching outdoor skills in a number of parks especially for young- sters, many of whom do not have people to take them out and show them how to fish, how to view and observe and appreciate and un- derstand wildlife; number 3, giving grants to neighborhood associa- tions or communities to encourage restoration of neighborhoods in an urban setting as wildlife sanctuaries, a program to bring wild- life into people's yards and lives — just a few examples of how badly additional funding is needed to accomplish more partnering and en- hance the resource not only for wildlife, but for access for recre- ation opportunities. Thank you for your attention.
[Statement of Mr. Weizenicker may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Jenks.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT JENKS, NATIONAL WILD TURKEY
FEDERATION
Mr. Jenks. Mr. Chairman, that was
Mr. Saxton. Was that fighting gobblers?
Mr. Jenks. Mr. Chairman, that was the call of the wild turkey gobbler heard this spring by over 2 million turkey hunters in 49 states in pursuit of the bird we love, and love the bird we do. Many of us hunt in multiple states. Each spring we spend over $750 mil- lion just on travel, motels, restaurants, equipment, accessories, not really the P-R kind of moneys for guns and ammunition, but just in traveling to pursue the wild turkey. It is a magnificent obses- sion, and I am hooked.
14
Almost extinct at the turn of the century, there now are over 4 milHon wild turkeys. The nonprofit National Wild Turkey Federa- tion was founded in 1973 and has over 140,000 members in all 50 states, and we work closely with the professional, State, and Fed- eral agencies to make sure this remarkable wildlife restoration suc- cess story continues.
With our partners, with our own moneys, and our partner mon- eys, we have spent over $55 million on 4,000 wild turkey projects around the country, and many nongame species have benefited from these on-the-ground projects.
But the real credit for more wild turkeys goes to the foresight of the early conservationists and the leaders in the Congress in the 1930's. When the Pittman-Robertson Act was passed in 1937, it opened the door to the management of habitat and ultimately the comeback of many of this nation's valuable species.
In 1950, the Dingell-Johnson Act did for fisheries what Pittman- Robertson had done for wildlife. In both of these efforts, hunters and anglers joined businesses to establish legislation mandating a user fee to restore populations of once critically low fish and wild- life species; also to conserve millions of acres of habitat and to pro- vide countless hours of enjoyment for all Americans on our lands and waterways.
Sportsmen and women know the value of a longstanding commit- ment to conservation and have continually demonstrated their fi- nancial commitment to this goal. We believe that now is the time for all Americans who enjoy our fish and wildlife resources to fi- nancially contribute to their conservation as hunters and anglers have done for years.
If I may quote from Congressman Dingell's statement submitted today in support of "Teaming with Wildlife," "Today, more than 160 million Americans take part in wildlife-related activities. This speaks even more urgently to the need for expanding the user fee program base so that our lands can support this increased activity.
"I believe most outdoor enthusiasts will be willing to contribute a little more for some recreational equipment if they know the money is dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation, trail access, nature centers, conservation education. The 'Teaming with Wildlife' proposal would provide a dedicated and permanent fund for these purposes." Eloquent words indeed, Mr. Chairman, from the son of the co-author of Dingell-Johnson.
This broader coalition of outdoor enthusiasts advocated this pro- posal to expand this proven approach and address the broader chal- lenges mentioned previously and to raise $350 million desperately needed annually by State fish and wildlife diversity programs.
"Teaming with Wildlife" will take Pittman-Robertson and Wal- lop-Breaux a step further by putting dedicated user fees on a vari- ety of items used by outdoor enthusiasts. This will achieve con- servation equity, we hope. Hikers, canoeists, nature photographers, bird-watchers would be able to pay their fair share to contribute to fish, wildlife, recreation, and educational projects when they pur- chase certain outdoor products, just as hunters and anglers have done.
And, of course, we buy more than just guns and ammunition. We buy backpacks. We buy cameras and films. We buy four-wheel-
15
drive vehicles. And we think now is the time to make this move. Manufacturers of outdoor recreational products depend on Ameri- ca's natural resources. Without wildlife, without habitat, without places to go to enjoy nature, there would be very little demand for the products they sell. We think good conservation translates into good business.
And in summary, Mr. Chairman, the National Wild Turkey Fed- eration wholeheartedly supports the "Teaming with Wildlife" Ini- tiative. We think this is a wonderful opportunity. We don't want to let it slip by. The general public wants it. It is fair to the public and industry and to the wildlife. It is the right thing to do at the right time.
And, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues, we ask you to please help us make 1996 another milestone year, as was 1937 and 1950, as we assure our children's children a bright future in the out of doors. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Keck may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Jenks. Mr. Ted Eubanks, tell us what Fermata is.
STATEMENT OF TED EUBANKS, PRESIDENT, FERMATA, INC.
Mr. Eubanks. Fermata is a resource based tourism consultant company.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Eubanks. And I did not bring my turkey call. I apologize.
Mr. Saxton. I am glad.
Mr. Eubanks. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and committee members. My name is Ted Lee Eubanks, and I am a resource based tourism consultant from Austin, Texas. I appear before you today to speak in support of "Teaming with Wildlife," an effort to estab- lish a consistent and invariable funding source for the conservation of those resources that my industry depends upon for its very exist- ence.
I too believe that nature-related recreation and tourism is a bur- geoning interest in this country. For the past decade, I have stud- ied the economic impacts of these wildlife viewers; in particular, bird-watchers. I have now completed numerous studies in this country. I am before you today to share with you my experiences with this one specific user group.
In the United States, wildlife viewing has become a billion dollar industry. Observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife was enjoyed by 76 million people 16 years or older in 1991. More important to my business, among this group, 30 million people took trips for the primary purpose of enjoying wildlife.
Retail sales from birders now exceed $5 billion in this country, creating 191,000 jobs, and generating over $15 billion in economic impact. For example, in my home State of Texas, birding rep- resents a $365 million industry. This industry now supports the livelihoods of nearly 5,000 Texas workers.
These wildlife appreciation activities are quickly eclipsing hunt- ing and fishing as the primary link between Americans, particu- larly urban Americans, and the outdoors. Yet, consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife activities — and I apologize for both terms — such as birding are founded upon an enduring base of na-
16
ture resources. Using the business analogy, this resource base is our inventory. And any depletion of this inventory threatens the vi- ability of the business itself.
In order to capitalize upon the economic opportunities that re- source-based travel and tourism present to many of our commu- nities, we must secure a stable source of funding for the conserva- tion of these nongame wildlife resources. Therefore, I speak today in support of "Teaming with Wildlife," a funding initiative dedi- cated to conservation of the fish and wildlife resources of this coun- try upon which my industry depends.
In studies of wildlife watchers that I have conducted around this nation, I have yet to see any indication that these consumers are not willing to pay for the conservation of these resources. For ex- ample, in Texas, a survey of birders indicated that nearly 70 per- cent favored or strongly favored the addition of a sales tax on out- door equipment if the funds were dedicated to conservation.
"Teaming with Wildlife," therefore, should be vievv^ed as an eco- nomic development effort, as well as a conservation initiative. In the nonpartisan White House Conference on Tourism held in Octo- ber of 1995, where I represented Texas as a delegate, representa- tives of the United States tourism industry urged the preservation of "our natural, historic, and cultural resources for future genera- tions and to expand urban and rural economic development oppor- tunities for a national strategy for fostering environmental and cul- tural travel and tourism."
I suggest that "Teaming with Wildlife" is a key component of this national tourism strategy. And very quickly, I would like to address a question from Mr. Longley. I believe that the most potent of con- servation tools is a profit. In a State such as Texas, where 97 per- cent of the land is in private hands — 97 percent of the land — wild- life resource conservation is strictly in the hands of private land- owners.
Many would now like to expand their economic strategies into re- source-based tourism. And given the prices of cattle, oil, and gas, I can tell you many more are standing in line to do so. But they do not have the resources, nor the expertise to make that expan- sion. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the local State agency, simply lacks the resources to provide such assistance.
"Teaming with Wilidlife" will provide such funding that will allow Texas Parks and Wildlife to work with these private landowners in my State. Therefore, please lend your support to this critical initia- tive to conserve the nature resources which is the foundation for this critically important industry. Please allow conservation to pay for itself. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Eubanks may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Eubanks. Mr. Mailman.
STATEMENT OF JAMES MALLMAN, MANAGER, COMMODITIES TRADING, AMERICAN AGCO TRADING COMPANY
Mr. Mallman. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today and present testimony in support of "Teaming with Wildlife." My name is Jim Mailman, and I am a Commodities Trading Manager for American Agco.
17
American Agco has been in the business of purchasing, blending, and distributing agricultural products in South St. Paul since 1936. And like everyone else involved in agriculture, we have seen a tre- mendous change in the past 60 years. We have also, like most busi- nesses, looked at these changes only from the standpoint of how they affect our business and how they directly affect our own firms.
Coming into the meeting room this morning, I was struck by the irony of the mural behind you. I am sure that after all these years it has become just another fixture, but I can't think of a better de- piction of what is going on in the United States with our natural resources.
Larger and more intensive farms, increased concentration of live- stock operation, bigger and better highway systems to transport our products, and the continuous growth of our urban areas have had a major impact on how we manage our operations today. Un- fortunately, as we as a company struggle to deal with these changes, we lose sight at how these very changes are impacting our country's most precious asset, and that is our nongame wildlife.
In recent years, the fastest growing sector of American Agco has been its Nature's Seasons birdseed division. This facet of our com- pany brought us into contact with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. And through a coalition of business and the De- partments of Natural Resources and Agriculture, we developed the Wild Bird Conservation Program that was established in 1995, and this program assists in the funding of nongame wildlife in the State of Minnesota.
It was through this program that we learned about the deterio- rating conditions of nongame wildlife in the United States. The fragmentation of natural habitat, increasingly polluted streams and ponds, and the dwindling budgets for nongame wildlife research are all contributing to this problem.
American Agco has studied this proposal and this initiative enti- tled "Teaming with Wildlife." And we are very, very much aware of the obvious objections to this plan by the other members of our industry. Yet, after careful consideration, we believe the objectives of "Teaming with Wildlife" to be of the utmost importance, that the scope of the proposal is very reasonable and that with but a few exceptions, the user fee approach for the funding is fair.
Our support for "Teaming with Wildlife" is based in part on two very basic business principles and one civic responsibility. Number 1, we support the program because it expands our marketbase. Our Nature's Seasons bird food is sold to thousands of customers who enjoy feeding and watching wild birds.
So although our customers are bird-watchers, our end users are wild birds. The future growth of our market depends not only on the increased popularity of the hobby, but also a sustained and in- creased growth of the variety of wild birds in this country.
We recognize the expertise of the biologists, naturalists, and wildlife specialists who work in wildlife management with govern- ment agencies across the country. Many of the witnesses here today in support of this initiative are far more qualified than I to address the present State of nongame populations. While I don't present myself as an expert in this area, I do feel very comfortable
18
in the assertion that the conditions for nongame wildUfe in this country continue to deteriorate.
We, therefore, see the "Teaming with WildUfe" Program as a sen- sible and economically sound approach to help expand our potential customer base. We feel that by improving habitat for wild birds in this country and by protecting threatened species, we can increase the enjoyment of this hobby for our customers.
The second business approach that we looked at was never sup- port a program that puts you in a competitive disadvantage. One of the hardest obstacles for American Agco to overcome when we considered the Minnesota Wild Bird Program was the fact that not all birdseed companies would be participating in this program, the program based on a voluntary contribution so other companies could not choose to participate and still enjoy the benefits.
However, the proposed guidelines for "Teaming with Wildlife" give participating companies what they have been asking Congress for as long as I can remember — a level playing field. Only national legislation will provide everyone in the industry with the assurance that we will be treated equally, and that we can be assured that it is absolutely necessary for the program's success.
And last, but most importantly, giving something back. As an ag- ricultural-based corporation, American Agco acknowledges that our very existence depends on our ability for the land to reproduce. Ag- riculture has always recognized this fact that we need to restore, protect, and replenish our natural resources.
"Teaming with Wildlife" could very possibly be the most signifi- cant piece of wildlife preservation legislation passed by our genera- tion. By properly funding responsible conservation programs, we can help assure that future generations will enjoy a diverse and healthy wildlife population.
[The remainder of Mr. Mailman statement follows:]
Remainder of Mr. Mallman's Statement
American Agco, as a responsible corporate citizen, views Teaming With Wildlife as an opportunity to give back a portion of the resources it has used to sustain our 60 years of growth.
We have tried to understand the opposition to Teaming With Wildlife by other manufacturers of wild bird food. The most often-mentioned criticism we hear is the potential negative effect an additional tax might have on bird seed sales. There is little doubt that price increases can have a negative impact on sales. Still the ques- tion has to be, how severe will that impact be and will it offset the benefits that can be derived by this program?
As a Commodities Trader I feel eminently qualified to address this issue. The grain markets during the '95-'96 crop season have been the highest priced and most volatile in history. Corn prices for the most part have remained relatively stable for over 50 years. Although crop conditions and export demands have pushed the mar- ket above $3 and driven it down below $2 on numerous occasions, the price has re- mained between these levels the majority of the time.
This year, however, corn not only surpassed the record $4 per bushel benchmark, but rocketed up to a staggering $5.37 per bushel high. As dramatic as these price increases seem, they pale in comparison to what the bird seed market did three years ago.
White proso millet is a major ingredient in almost every bird mix. In the early 1990s, the grain traded in a range of from $4.50 to $7.00 a hundredweight. For a period in 1993, millet was trading at $27 a hundredweight. This represents an al- most 500% increase over the average trading range. For corn prices to match these levels, we would need to see prices of $15 per bushel.
19
So what happened to bird seed sales during the same period? Industry pubhca- tions reported that the growth of wild bird seed sales during that same period rose approximately 8 percent. American Agco sales grew nearly 40 percent.
The user fee proposed by Teaming With Wildlife will be applied equally to all bird seed manufacturers and passed along without additional markups by distributors or retailers. Since the fee would affect consumer price far less than volatile grain mar- kets have in the past, the overall effect on sales should be negligible.
In conclusion, American Agco would like to restate its position in support of the initiative Teaming With Wildlife. We would also like to take this opportunity to re- quest that other bird seed manufacturers reconsider their position and join us in helping to draft sensible and effective legislation that will make this program a model for industry and government cooperation.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much for very fine testimony which each of you have expressed in a very articulate way. I am going to wait till last to ask my questions. So, Mr. Torkildsen, the gen- tleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Torkildsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding the hearing. I would also like to thank Mr. Mailman for ex- plaining the mural behind us. We have been wondering about that for many years, and so we do appreciate that explanation.
I do want to thank all of you for your testimony, and I say that while I support your intent of seeing that we preserve and protect and restore our resources, I do have questions about the mechanics of this legislation. And I guess the reason for it is that, you know, there is one law that no one can ignore and no Congress can re- peal, and that is the law of unintended consequences.
When the Congress in the past passed a so-called luxury tax on expensive vehicles and some boats, the effect was not to raise a lot of revenue, but it did achieve a great reduction in the sale of those vehicles. And the jobs of the people who built those cars were hurt. The jobs of the people who sold those cars were hurt.
Likewise, when we had a very logical safety rule that said you couldn't make children's pajamas out of cotton, the result was that manufacturers would make garments that looked a lot like paja- mas, only they called them something else, and they made them out of cotton, and parents would end up buying those products as well.
How can you prevent what would almost certainly happen in that if you tax a mountain bike, somebody calls it by a different name? And also the larger question, why should somebody who is buying a mountain bike or hiking boots or whatever and using them for purposes that have nothing to do with protecting our envi- ronment, why would they even consider paying the tax at all?
For example, in my district, I mean, literally thousands of moun- tain bikes are sold and used in my district every year. I have no mountains in my district. I mean, it is just a fact of life. People buy hiking boots all the time. Some buy them for fashion reasons. They may not use them. I personally enjoy hiking. I enjoy using the out- doors in my district and elsewhere, but not every person does. Why are those people being targeted for this tax?
And also, how could you prevent the tax-avoidance policy, which is a very human behavior, of both people buying other products outside of this list that is being proposed and also manufacturers either making a minimal change or just a name change to avoid the tax? And, you know, when that happens, wouldn't that just un-
20
dercut the whole intent of your bill? So anyone who would like to address that, I would appreciate your comments.
Mr. McDowell. Yes. I will address that. We have done a lot of— first of all, we have done an awful lot of interviews and breakout groups with the users of this type of equipment. This is the way they want to pay. I would also point out that it is a sliding scale that we have developed, and we will work with industry, work with members of the industry community to take a look at this and have worked with them. In other words, on some equipment, it will be a quarter of one percent, and on others, it will be five percent.
I think that this is what the users want. So I think to a degree if the manufacturers name it something else, the users are not going to buy it as often as they are. I am not a marketing special- ist, but all the users that we have spoken to will identify with the "Teaming with Wildlife" logo on these things — this equipment, hik- ing boots, bicycles, whatever — and will identify that with contribut- ing back to the resource. They are more likely to stick to the prod- ucts that, in fact, are targeted that way.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. If I could just follow up on that, if that is the intent, would anyone consider making this a voluntary item where you do use the logo and people who want to help can make sure they purchase a product with that logo? Would you consider a vol- untary instead of a mandatory tax?
Mr. McDowell. Voluntary kinds of things don't work I don't think in terms of consistency, and that is what we need. We need consistency because the projects that we will undertake have to deal with long-term solutions.
And, you know, in my State, we have one-third of the entire world's population of one species of shorebirds. And if we don't pro- vide recreational opportunities there, we don't provide value there, then that population worldwide is going to be in trouble. The peo- ple will identify with that. The people will identify with the prod- ucts used for that.
I might point out that Swift Optics supports this, and many of the companies in the bird-watching business support this — a lot of the optical companies. And so they have identified the people. They know, for example, how much their binoculars, what style, what- ever is used for bird-watching. And with that symbol on it, I think that is what is going to direct the public back to the product.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Would anyone else like to comment on that at all?
Mr. Mallman. Yes, I would. I think your points are well taken, and there is certainly a real incentive for some companies to try to avoid this tax or user fee. Unfortunately, I don't think a vol- untary program would be fair for the companies who do want to participate and who recognize the seriousness of the situation we are trying to correct. It allows other companies to actually take ad- vantage of the growth in the business because of the efforts of our nongame specialists, while making just a few pay for the services.
On the other issue that you brought up, and this is a very impor- tant one, and that is when you mentioned the luxury tax and its impact on sales of certain things, this has been the biggest objec- tion voiced by the people — the companies in our industry.
21
And if I can just cite you one example that sort of undermines that, I am a commodities trader. And this year alone has been the most dramatic year in commodities prices in the history of this country. Normally, corn trades between 2 and $3 a bushel, and it stays there fairly consistently. This year, we not only broke the benchmark of $4 a bushel, we went right through $5.36 a bushel. And yet corn keeps trading. Well, that was a huge increase.
Three years ago, white proso millet, which is one of the largest seeds used and most popular seeds used in birdseed, went from 4 to $7 a hundred weight, where it usually trades to $27 a hundred weight. For corn to do what white millet did, it would have to go to $15 a bushel, which would be a national disaster.
And yet at the same time, birdseed sales, which are not tracked accurately enough to give you definite figures, but the industry says during that same period they grew eight percent. And our fig- ures, which are accurate, we grew 40 percent during the same pe- riod. So the effect of this drastic change in price didn't really have the impact on sales that we might have guessed. And the proposed user fee levels that this initiative presents, we think that the ef- fects would be negligible.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. If I may, Chairman, just a quick follow-up. I mean, when you are talking about some basic commodities, I can understand that. I mean, there may not be a great elasticity of de- mand. Some of these items though almost certainly will have lower-priced alternatives available probably on the same store shelf so I am not sure the two are similarly comparable, but I do appre- ciate your comment. And I would be happy to let the questions progress. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Longley.
Mr. Longley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pick up on your comment, Mr. Eubanks, and maybe could you discuss what is happening — to do with the ranch lands in Texas and give me maybe some examples of how the State is diversifying, using a pri- vate sector model?
Mr. Eubanks. Yes. I would love to. Among the legislation the State of Texas passed in the last session, and, as you know, we meet only every other year in the State of Texas, was a constitu- tional amendment which extends to private landowners the same ad valorem tax benefit as received for an agricultural exemption if you maintain your land for wildlife. Now we have ranchers who want to start making conversions, lowering stocking rates, and ex- panding into tourism.
Well, let me give you an example of one ranch. Consider the King Ranch, a rather immense ranch in the State of Texas. Ranch offi- cials have stated that the future of the King Ranch is in resource- based activities, such as resource-based tourism. They believe this for a very simple reason. Cattle raising, agriculture, and oil and gas revenues are going to pay the bills to keep that ranch in exist- ence. Profits are going to come from recreation.
The ranch that adjoins the King, the Kennedy Ranch, has 500,000 acres. It is owned by the Catholic Diocese of Corpus Chris- ti. Ther Kennedy Ranch is already expanding into nature-based tourism, again, with the same basic approach. This is a menu or
22
cafeteria-styled approach, where you have to do a lot of things now- adays just tc stay on the land.
So in the State of Texas, we have added legislatively. At the Fed- eral level, if we deal with the inheritance tax problem and are al- lowed to keep these large contiguous tracts together, we have a real opportunity. The problem at this moment is that there is no resource nor expertise that these people can rely on. Texas Parks and Wildlife simply doesn't have the resources to provide this infor- mation.
And I will tell you Texas has a fairly large nongame department compared, for example, to Mr. Tauzin's State that has but one per- son in that department. Agencies simply do not have the funding to go out and work with these private landowners, and I think that private land initiatives are the future of conservation in many of these states.
Mr. LONGLEY. If I could just pick up on your comment, and I would just note for the record, in fact, I had an opportunity to re- view a major study that is done on forestland in the Northeast. And you mentioned estate taxes. Frankly, from everything I have read, the Federal estate tax and even lack of a capital gains tax is probably one of the single biggest dangers to wildlife habitat be- cause of the basic tax policy encouraging land sale and divesti- ture
Mr. EUBANKS. Absolutely.
Mr. LONGLEY. [continuing! — and it is pushing land — literally pushing land into development, and it is a travesty. But I would appreciate it if you could discuss the mechanics of how the State tax works because, very frankly, from what I see in my own State, much of the harm to habitat is coming through owner's tax and regulatory policies out of Washington. And all of the initiatives for significant gain for increasing conservation easements, for set- asides, for building up wildlife are coming on the State level.
And I guess I am kind of questioning whether the initiative you are proposing isn't misdirected and whether these taxes ought to be looked at on a State-by-State basis where they can be managed more effectively than on a Federal level because, very candidly, one of the major problems we are dealing with right now is currently existing Federal tax policy.
And I am not sure personally — ^you know, kind of echo Mr. Torkildsen's comments — I am not sure honestly that adding an- other system of Federal taxation on top of what is already an oner- ous system of taxation that is already causing many of the prob- lems we are seeking to resolve — I am not sure that that initiative is well placed. But I would appreciate your comment.
Mr. EuBANKS. Concerning states, sir, I would split the issues. Obviously, you and I are going to agree on the issue of estate tax and the effect it is having on private landowners. This is certainly the case in the State of Texas.
However, in my industry, tourism is an interstate activity. That is, people are traveling from one State to another, and the re- sources are attracting them. Our industry is based on an experi- ence. Resource-based tourism is experiential. So for us to look at it from State to State makes for a very inconsistent resource base.
23
On an international level, right now we have many of our travel- ers, our tourists, who are interested in resource-based tourism going to Costa Rica, Kenya, Mexico, and other countries. These dol- lars are leaving. We have a chance, I believe, to retain those dol- lars with that consistent resource base.
I agree that these resources should be managed at the State level, and I believe this initiative does that. These moneys will be transferred to the states and then their agencies can work on pri- vate land initiatives, et cetera; for example, in the State of Texas where I think a lot of the money will go to private land initiatives.
Mr. LONGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McDowell. Mr. Chairman, could I say one thing about that?
Mr. Saxton. Go ahead.
Mr. McDowell. I think that is the beauty of this program really because the State directed — the State partnerships with private landowners — part of this is the backbone of this legislation. It actu- ally takes less Federal oversight just like Pittman-Robertson and D-J, and what it does is put the power in the hands of the State agencies to do just what you are talking about, and that is with conservation easements, protecting critical habitat, and providing recreational uses. And this can be done very much — very closely and very effectively with private landowners. So it is not a Federal program in that sense.
Mr. Saxton. OK. Thank you. Mr. Shadegg, did you want to ask a question or two?
Mr. Shadegg. I would like to if I could, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Proceed.
Mr. Shadegg. First of all, let me thank the Chairman for allow- ing me — I am not a member of this subcommittee, but let me thank you for allowing me to join you and ask some questions. Second, let me apologize to the panel. I have been in another committee where I had to do some questioning, and I wasn't able to hear all of your testimony. However, I think I am coming down very much on your side of this issue, and I am going to make some general remarks and then perhaps ask each of you to comment if you would.
I represent a western State, Arizona. Though I am a Republican, I am very interested in protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, endan- gered species, and recreational opportunities. I grew up through the Boy Scout system. I learned a lot about conserving land. I learned a lot about the value of wildlife and outdoor experiences, and I also learned the importance of conservation.
I believe that we have for a long time in America recognized that consumptive recreational users — ^hunters and fishermen — ought to pick up the tab for making sure or participate in paying for outdoor opportunities and for the wildlife that is there and the outdoors that they get to use.
I think more and more one of the things that is dividing the Na- tion on this issue of wildlife, wildlife preservation, wildlife habitat preservation, and endangered species is a divide between those people who want to go visit these lands, want them preserved for them to visit and enjoy and hike and hunt and fish or bird-watch or whatever — and I should take out hunt and fish — bird-watch — just getting the experience of nature, which I had the opportunity
24
to do as a Boy Scout where it is nice to get out of the city and get away from it all, and those who own much of that land or who are currently using it under Federal land policies.
And we have a divide here, and it seems to me that your pro- posal, the "Teaming with Wildlife" idea, is at the cutting edge of how we try to strike a balance. It seems to me that people in Mr. Longley's district or Mr. Torkildsen's district or Mr. Saxton's dis- trict who want to come to the West, to Arizona or to Wyoming or Montana, and want it not to be despoiled, and want to be able to see a rare species of bird ought to be able to do that. That is in everybody's interest.
But if, in fact, we create the sentiment in the West the total bur- den economic and lifestylewise of preserving that habitat is just going to be rested upon the people in the West and that their rights are going to be diminished or their property value is going to be diminished or their ability to use their land is going to be di- minished, then we create this tension.
And I think "Teaming with Wildlife" is the right way to go. I am very anxious in how we structure it so that we say to somebody who wants to be an occasional user of these lands, "Help us pay the tab." And while I am a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative who signed a no new tax pledge, this is an area where I think we have a disproportionate allocation of the burden for the preservation of these lands.
Everyone wants these lands preserved. Fine. Let us just make sure that the burden of doing so is shared equally amongst all the users. And so I commend you and would ask for your comments on where we might go here and whether or not you agree with my general point on this area. Gentlemen?
Mr. Jenks. Mr. Shadegg, I am a hunter. I am representing the National Wild Turkey Federation, and I concur with your com- ments. I think definitely it is the right thing to do at the right time. It will spread it out. I would add that where P-R and D-J in- volved 10 or 11 percent user fee, if you will, we are talking here about maximum less than half — five percent — and in some cases less than one percent, two to three percent.
And once people know, notwithstanding some other comments, where the money is going and what it is about, especially with the young people these days that are seeing the nature programs, even though they may not use a sleeping bag out of doors, even though they may buy some boots and never really go out on a trail, they know what it is about. They appreciate the backyard wildlife. They want to do the right thing. And I think without question this is the right time to do this.
Mr. Shadegg. If I could just interrupt right there, I mean, one of the specifically articulated arguments of the environmental com- munity is that we want to know that it is there. Even if we don't get to go out there and enjoy it, we want to know that it is there so that if two or three or five years from now we can or if we can never get there but some wildlife photographer can get there, we want to be able to have that occur.
Mr. Jenks. It belongs to the people of this country, the land, the wildlife, the fish. People want to protect it. They want to conserve
25
it. They want to use it. And there are some Httle frictions, but I think, in fact, this thing will go over very well.
Mr. Shadegg. Quite frankly, in the West, it is more than little frictions. In the West, it is substantial friction. And I think, you know, we can deal with that. We need not have a divide in America where people who have these lands and are using them in some way now resent the other people who just want to make sure that they don't get ruined. Yes, sir? Mr. Eubanks.
Mr. Eubanks. Congressman Shadegg, I concur with you com- pletely. In fact, I would like to address a situation in your State. At this moment, you have places like Patagonia and Fort Huachuca and Ramsey Canyon that attract large numbers of wildlife viewers. But as you well know, many of these sites are at carrying capacity.
We need to create more outdoor opportunities, and the question is whether we do that through public lands — buy more public lands, or do we entice private landowners into this business? I think you know which side I would prefer. I like the private sector solution side. But we must have the resources to enable those peo- ple to enter this business.
I see "Teaming with Wildlife" as doing that. It provides us with a funding source which these states can utilize to work with these people. Tourism allows people to remain on the land.
Mr. Shadegg. I will tell you some of the best projects are projects where various wildlife groups — the Nature Conservancy — have gone out and purchased things ahead of the government and have created preserves and protected lands. And I don't think any- body resents that. The problem is when it is taken from them with- out compensation and when there isn't a fair payment for it.
And, I mean, some of us are trying to improve the National Park System by making sure that it doesn't get overburdened and that we allocate those resources appropriately. But there is a divide in this country between the Northeast and the West, and I don't think that is good for the Nation on this. And I think this is a way of trying to straighten that out. Yes, sir?
Mr. McDowell. Yes. Mr. Shadegg, I am from New Jersey, and people there are very concerned about open space, not only in our State, but also in the rest of the country. And they travel around this country. One of the benefits of this program, as the Inter- national sees it, is to flatten the playing field because the formula is based both upon the size of the State and also the number of people.
So, therefore, your State would get a pretty good amount of money here that would, in fact, be able to keep the land in private ownership in some cases and at the same time protect the habitat, and at the same time provide for the recreational use. This is a win-win situation as far as that is concerned. We also deal with these land-use problems also — competition.
And one of the issues is if you have a critter that lands on your property and it is particularly affected and it needs that piece of property, how do you deal with it? Well, this is nonregulatory. This is a partnership approach, and this is very popular both in the East, and I hope it is popular in the West.
Mr. Shadegg. Yes, sir?
26
Mr. Mac Donald. Congressman, I would just like to endorse and say amen to what you said. And, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there is a way that we could trade his testimony for mine, but I definitely like what he said. But there is one other piece that struck me. I think it is very important, and I don't want it over- looked.
You talk about your background in Boy Scouts and learning about conservation. At our company, our greatest philanthropic ef- fort for the future is going to be in youth development and con- servation. And if nothing else happens related to this, the potential for youth development and education to teach individuals, particu- larly youth, about the outdoors is the greatest thing that we could do. It is the way that we can create that certain scenario for our kids, our grandkids so they can enjoy the resource that we have en- joyed.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. The gentleman's time
Mr. Shadegg. I thank you, gentlemen, and I appreciate the Chairman for his indulgence.
Mr. Saxton. The gentleman's time has expired. Those are bells which are calling us for a vote, but let me get my five minutes or so of questions in before we go, and then we can move on to the next panel during the break.
First of all, let me commend you for stepping up to the plate and identifying a funding source for something that you all believe is important. For many years, around the Congress of the United States, people had programs which they identified as being impor- tant, and they went directly to the Appropriations Committee and over time pressured the Appropriations Committee to fund the project, and we ended up with a $5 trillion debt. And so what you are doing in terms of the way you approached this I think is very commendable, and I want to say thank you for doing it this way.
Let me ask a couple of questions about the mechanics of how I understand this tax — user's fee — you know, the old duck thing. You know, if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. I understand that the manufacturer will be responsible for paying the user's fee. Is that the way you understand it? That is correct.
My concern is this. I used to be a schoolteacher, and I used to help folks understand things with examples. And so let me use an example, and if I had a blackboard here, it would be useful. But if you can just go along with me here without one, let us suppose for a minute that a manufacturer produced a product that the manufacturer sold to a wholesaler for $50.
And using the schedule of tax — of user's fee here — I keep getting those words mixed up — using the schedule that was provided to me here, it would say that — let us say it was a pair of hiking boots. And so a five percent user's fee paid by the manufacturer would amount to $2.50.
Now, I extrapolate that on down the road, those hiking boots passed through the wholesaler and on to the retailer. And when the wholesaler passes those hiking boots through, he has a percent- age of markup, and I don't know what that percentage of markup is. But let us just say to make it simple that his percentage of markup is 100 percent.
27
Now, the manufacturer sold the boots for $52.50, and if the wholesaler's markup is 100 percent, that means that the whole- saler now has a $50 pair of boots which he marks up to $105. He, in turn, passes the boots along to the retailer, who has, let us just say for the sake of discussion, a 100 percent markup, who now marks up his cost which is $105, and the product ends up being $210.
And so in order for us to collect a $2.50 tax to give to "Teaming with Wildlife," we are asking the consumer under this scenario to pay $210 for the boots, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, quite frankly. Maybe you can clear that up for me or respond to it?
Mr. Mallman. Well, it is hard to clear up, Mr. Chairman. It is one of the areas that when we decided to endorse this initiative that we had to struggle with, and right now the consensus is that this user fee will have to be isolated. In other words, when we sell a given product, there will be a cost of the product and transpor- tation. And then isolated on the invoice will be this fee, and that fee will be added separately and not be subject to the distributor markups.
Several of the distributors we have talked to said that, yes, they could handle that. I can't say they are real excited about it. There are other issues that come into play such as price points and things like this, but it doesn't seem to be insurmountable. There is me- chanics that have to be ironed out. This is a very, very complicated proposal.
Ajid I can't speak for other industries, but from our standpoint, we see it as workable, and we see it as one that can be prevented from being increased with the distributor and the wholesaler and the retailer adding on their cut.
Mr. Mac Donald. If I could add something to this, as a company that has a retail side and a wholesale side, and it is a carrier of many of the products that work in wildlife restoration and sportsfish restoration, and I think I would like to go back to that because as you talk to manufacturers that work with things that are under wildlife restoration and sportsfish restoration, they don't see it as a burden because they see the benefit that comes back to them.
And when it comes to us, it comes in the manufacturer's price, and it is not priced and increased at each particular level related to that. It comes in the base product, and that levy is only once as I understand the retail component.
Mr. Saxton. We are going to have to go vote here shortly. Let me just ask the second part of this question, and that is why didn't we just ask the retailer to send in the $2.50 and then use that as the percentage of the user's fee?
Mr. Mac Donald. Well, the explanation that I use for that, I al- most call it like a port of entry, and it is almost like a trunk of a tree and the leaves on a tree. You are consolidated and have fewer of the entities at the manufacturing level. It is simpler to col- lect it at that particular level than it is to try to get it when it is out into that system — to all the leaves and that sort of thing.
It is a simpler system, and it is a system that has been proven to work with — because it is the same system used for Pittman-Rob-
28
ertson and Wallop-Breaux. So it is a workable system, and we check with vendors and manufacturers related to this. And there may be some manufacturing items that would affect us that we might do later, and we feel all of this is workable.
Mr. Saxton. Right. Well, thank you very much. We are going to have to go vote. This matter that we have just discussed is really a matter for the Ways and Means Committee, but I saw it as a question that ought to be at least surfaced here. So thank you all very much for coming. We are going to take probably 10 or 15 min- utes to get over and back on this vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Saxton. It looks like we can start with the next panel; Mr. David Ingemie, President, Ski Industries America; Mr. Charles Mcllwaine, Vice Chairman, American Recreation Coalition; Ms. Diane Steed, President, Coalition for Vehicle Choice; Mr. James Lucier, Director of Economic Research, Americans for Tax Reform; Mr. Thomas Dufficy, Executive Vice President, National Associa- tion of Photographic Manufacturers; and Mr. David Peri, Director of Marketing, Mountainsmith. Mr. Ingemie.
STATEMENT OF DAVID INGEMIE, PRESIDENT, SKI INDUSTRIES
AMERICA
Mr. Ingemie. Good morning. My name is David Ingemie, and like other people that have appeared before you today, I am also a hiker, a fisherman, a hunter, a cyclist, a skier and a snowboarder. And I appear today on behalf of the members of Ski Industries America, a national nonprofit trade association of which I am presi- dent, and the National Ski Areas Association to state opposition to the "Teaming with Wildlife" tax as it is currently proposed.
SIA alone represents more than 1,100 U.S. manufacturers and distributors of ski, snowboard, snowshoe, and other winter on-snow sports equipment, apparel, footwear, and accessories. NSAA rep- resents over 320 major ski resorts in the country.
SIA alone encompasses a total workforce of over 197,000 individ- uals ranging from warehouse personnel to chief executives. Our consumers are the American on-snow recreationists, alpine and cross country skiers, snowboarders, and snowshoers — a very di- verse cross section of the American public.
We believe that as active members in the recreation community, we have a shared responsibility to protect and expand the re- sources of our national, regional, and local parks and outdoor recre- ation areas. In support, SIA has been instrumental in the forma- tion and growth of many programs such as Rails to Trails, SIA's Golden Eagle Awards that recognize environmentally responsible policies and practices, and investing in a recycling research pro- gram to reclaim materials from skis, snowboards, and boots, and develop a textile recycling program to collect and reuse textile waste.
Clearly, SIA has actively sought and will continue to strive for enhanced wildlife preservation and protection. Moreover, in this time of shrinking Federal and local budget resources, we certainly recognize the need to seek out new and innovative methods of sus- taining the remarkable maintenance and growth of the many envi- ronmental and wildlife sanctuaries the American public enjoys.
29
We support the concept of a long-term strategic approach to funding the requirements for recreation and conservation, espe- cially involving the private sector and local and State level funding measures. However, the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal is ill- timed and would, if implemented, place an undue hardship on SIA's membership, and, more importantly, adversely affect the 15 million Americans who participate or otherwise might participate in lifetime on-snow sports.
Furthermore, these participants are already supportive of the government's environment and wildlife programs through payment of fees by ski area operators on public lands for downhill and cross country skiing and snowboarding.
At one time, the on-snow recreation industry in America enjoyed tremendous growth. However, for the past decade, the number of ski resort visits by skiers and snowboarders has remained con- stant. During this period, however, product unit sales at the retail level decreased 27 percent for alpine skis, 57 percent for cross country skis, and 24 percent for alpine boots from the industry's peak in 1987.
Now, as costs for participating in our on-snow sport have esca- lated, our sport is mature. It appears that the American public is near a saturation point in the family budgeting process as to the cost of recreation activities, which they can sustain.
The proposed excise tax on ski equipment and other snow related sporting goods will represent one more barrier for continued par- ticipation or entry into our lifetime sport. The public's perception is that our sport is already expensive. Therefore, any increase in the costs associated with our sport would likely preempt participa- tion and further growth.
You should note that a significant majority of our members are small businesses with sales not exceeding a million dollars. These companies operate at an average profit before tax margin of less than five percent. The impact in loss of any sales, as a direct result of the proposed excise tax, would certainly cause a number of our member businesses to fail, resulting in greater unemployment and a decrease in the revenue base. This liability alone could outweigh the revenue benefit that the imposition of such a tax might accrue on the on-snow recreationists in America.
The Teaming proposal calls itself a user fee. SIA does not oppose a fee if it were equitable, cost effective, understandable to those as- sessed, and dedicated to those areas for which fees were collected. However, we believe that those who pay the fee must be provided a direct and identifiable service. The "Teaming with Wildlife" pro- posal fails far short of meeting this test.
Unlike Wallop-Breaux, levying an excise tax on a loosely defined list of outdoor recreation products is not compatible with the phi- losophy of a fair and equitable user fee. Teaming's proposed mecha- nism fails to meet the user-pays test. This proposal represents a specialized tax if a substantial portion of users did not pay, or if they pay a disproportionate share of the tax, and thereafter derive no direct benefit. We believe this to be the case with the partici- pants or potential participants in our sports.
We share the concerns of others regarding the problems with in- adequate administration of collected funds and certainly with the
25-856 0-96
30
ad valorem inflationary factor that would accompany imposing the tax at the manufacturer's first point of sale. The subsequent mark- up of a product, as you noted earlier, as it moves through the com- merce stream results in costs to the consumer in excess of the per- centage of tax levied.
In conclusion, I reiterate the fact that we remain supportive of balanced and responsible funding mechanisms to sustain and broaden the environmental and wildlife resource programs in this country. However, SIA is adamantly opposed to the excise tax con- cept of the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal. On behalf of the SIA and NSAA memberships, I thank you for this opportunity to ex- press and appreciate your recognition of our problems.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Ingemie. Mr. Mcllwaine.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. MCILWAINE, VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION
Mr. McIlwaine. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to appear on behalf of the American Recreation Coalition. My name is Charles Mcllwaine, and I serve as the Vice Chairman of ARC, a national federation of 125 corporations and as- sociations actively involved in satisfying the nation's need for qual- ity outdoor experiences.
I am also the Vice President for Corporate Communications of the Coleman Company based in Golden, Colorado, and one of the oldest and largest manufacturers of outdoor recreation equipment in the world. I would point out that recreation-related spending in America today exceeds $300 billion annually.
I fmd my appearance here somewhat ironic. Just over 11 years ago, I testified in this very room before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on funding nongame wildlife programs. Mem- bers who took part in that hearing continue to be involved in this issue — the current Chairman of this committee. Representative Don Young, and now Senator John Breaux, who at that time had just experienced notable success in the creation of what we now refer to as Wallop-Breaux.
At that time, I underscored the recreation community's commit- ment to good management of our natural resources, including nongame species, but emphasized that an excise tax was the wrong mechanism to fund a nongame wildlife grants program. My mes- sage, I believe, was understood and shared by Messrs. Young and Breaux. They made clear their hopes that voluntary means to gen- erate these revenues could be found.
I return to testify with three messages. First, the Congress and the recreation community can take a great deal of satisfaction in the new programs that have been implemented since 1985 to boost recreation opportunities. The second message is that in spite of these advances, the recreation needs of our nation are intense and growing. The third message addresses the specifics of "Teaming with Wildlife," including the grant's program to aid nongame wild- life and the excise tax mechanism.
ARC'S position is that the proposed excise tax does not qualify as a recreational user fee. A user fee becomes simply a specialized tax if a substantial portion of users do not pay or do not pay propor- tional to the benefits they derive, while a very different substantial
31
portion of those who do pay do not derive any benefits. That is the case with the proposed "Teaming with WildHfe" Initiative.
Here are some important facts. Based upon national research funded and performed by the Recreation Roundtable and Sports Market Research Group/Market Facts, a large number of the pro- posed taxed products are never used in the great outdoors. A rel- atively low percentage of campers, hikers, and other recreationists report that they watch wildlife or go bird-watching.
Recreationists proposed to be taxed are generally satisfied with their present activities, including opportunities for wildlife-associ- ated activities, and they do not appear to be very motivated to pay additional taxes for additional services.
Further, those who view wildlife or watch birds are also quite satisfied with current opportunities. Our camping customers are generally less optimistic than wildlife viewers about whether recre- ation opportunities are getting better presumably because of budg- et cutbacks at the Federal and State recreation-sites.
A great deal of emphasis has been placed upon the success of the Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson Programs by proponents of the initiative. We see a clear and fundamental difference between Teaming and Wallop-Breaux. Wallop-Breaux imposes taxes on a narrow band of fishing and boating products and dedicates all reve- nues to programs with clear and direct benefits for American an- glers and boaters. The Teaming proposal would tax a broad range of products and dedicate use of those receipts to a narrow range of programs at best indirectly benefiting most of those paying the tax.
There are other inherent difficulties associated with an excise tax. First, taxes are imposed early in a product's manufacturing to shelf life and may well double or increase even more by the time the product is sold at retail. An excise tax unfairly penalizes qual- ity. It will be exceedingly difficult to apply the tax equitably across all the product lines to be affected.
Wallop-Breaux documents how imported product values may be manipulated to the financial disadvantage of domestic producers. There will inevitably be efforts to avoid the tax through the cre- ative classification of products. It is likely that some small manu- facturers will bear an excessive administrative burden, while other small enterprises may well fall through the cracks and pay no tax.
Most importantly, the government-imposed tax may serve as a disincentive for companies to continue to develop voluntary private initiatives that are emerging and increasingly popular in today's marketplace. We need to be innovative and comprehensive in our efforts to address the nation's outdoor needs.
I would reiterate that the recreation community is strongly sup- portive of the goal of a healthy and diverse wildlife population habitat. We offer our cooperation and assistance to those who have worked so hard and so long on the initiative, in defining the high- est national goals for the great outdoors, and then developing ap- propriate strategies and tactics to achieve these goals.
ARC finds the "Teaming with Wildlife" fails to meet the recre- ation community's criteria for an acceptable user fee and, therefore, is something that we unfortunately cannot support. While noble in intent, it is flawed in design and scope and will not accomplish our goals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
32
[Statement of Mr. Mcllwaine may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Ms. Steed.
STATEMENT OF DIANE STEED, PRESIDENT, COALITION FOR VEHICLE CHOICE
Ms. Steed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this oppor- tunity to discuss the "Teaming with WildHfe" proposal today. The CoaHtion for Vehicle Choice is a nonprofit organization that was created to preserve the freedom of Americans to choose safe and af- fordable motor vehicles that meet their individual needs and their freedom to travel.
CVC includes about 40,000 groups and individuals from all walks of life who believe that freedom of choice and mobility are impor- tant values that must be considered as society develops its govern- mental policies. CVC believes that government has an important role to play in the development of policies to address legitimate public concerns. But we also believe that government has an obli- gation to protect the mobility of Americans and the needs of car and truck buyers for function, safety, and affordability.
It is the proposed inclusion of sport utility vehicles that interests the coalition. And although the objective of the proposal, the pres- ervation of our nation's wildlife population and habitat, is definitely well intentioned, CVC believes that the proposed fee is not a user fee in the traditional sense of the word, where those who pay are those who actually use the resource. Instead, we view the fee as an excise or hidden tax that would be imposed on the users of sport utility vehicles, whether or not they travel offroad.
In fact, I would have to say that the assumption that most, if not all, owners of sport utility vehicles bought them to engage in some type of recreation simply is not true. While that is true for some purchasers of these vehicles, it is not true for many others. Many people buy sport utility vehicles in order to get around in bad weather or for the added safety for driving onroad. And I have to say that many women favor sport utilities for these reasons.
I recently visited a dealer showroom in the suburbs here in Washington, and the owner told me that the majority of his cus- tomers looking to buy a sport utility vehicle are women, and that they prefer this type of vehicle because they feel safer in a larger vehicle sitting up higher than the rest of traffic.
I can confirm that feeling since I too drive a sport utility vehicle. The reasons I bought the vehicle were for safety because a larger vehicle is safer than a smaller one, for four-wheel-drive capability in foul weather, and for hauling capability for errands. I do not use that vehicle offroad.
And I have to add that last winter, my neighborhood certainly appreciated my four-wheel-drive since my next-door neighbor is an emergency physician and asked me to get up at five in the morning and take her to work when her car couldn't get through the snow.
People who buy utility vehicles for these reasons or business ap- plications would not directly benefit from this so-called user fee since from their standpoint, there is no more reason to tax a utility vehicle than any other type of vehicle such as a station wagon or a minivan.
33
In order for the extra $100 to be a true user fee, you would have to be able to determine at the point of purchase which vehicles were, in fact, going to be used offroad. Such an effort would be highly impractical, create a costly administrative nightmare for dealers, and I think serves to point out that as the American Recreation Coalition has said, the proposed excise tax is flawed in design and scope and really the wrong tool for the task.
In fact, sport utility users would be penalized since the price of utility vehicles compared to other types of vehicles would be in- creased. I think that sort of a tax would be viewed as a penalty tax similar to other specialized taxes like the gas-guzzler tax and the tax on luxury vehicles, both of which were and are highly un- popular with consumers.
In addition to shifting Americans away from a class of vehicles by increasing the price of sport utilities, the proposed excise tax suggests that some kind of mitigation charge is being applied to these vehicles for damage to the environment and, therefore, it is likely to be viewed by consumers in a negative light.
Moreover, the added $100 in initial purchase price, if financed over five years at 12 percent, would cost the buyer around $60 in finance charges, thus increasing the total tax to around $160. And car and truck buyers, I can tell you, are already unhappy about the price of a new vehicle. Today, the average cost of a vehicle is nearly $20,000, which translates into about 25 weeks of pay for the aver- age consumer.
In sum, the Coalition for Vehicle Choice believes that the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal as it applies to sport utility vehi- cles is an improper application of the user fee concept and unfair to the buyers of sport utility vehicles.
We think a better approach might be the one already in place in many states where motorists have the opportunity to purchase spe- cial license plates for which a portion of the license fee is dedicated to support wildlife and conservation programs.
A good example in our own area is in Maryland and Virginia where about 50 to 60 percent of the additional costs of the special "Save the Bay" plates goes to support Chesapeake Bay Foundation conservation activities. It is my understanding that many states have this type of license plate. As a matter of fact, I have a poster here that demonstrates a number of those plates. About 22 states have environmental or conservation plates, and nine of those, as I understand it, are dedicated to wildlife preservation.
We think such an approach is good because it allows all motor- ists to participate, and contributions can be made annually. And we think this type of approach is preferable to mandating a tax on mo- torists who purchase one class of vehicle. Moreover, the license plate alternative provides a tangible and visible recognition of sup- port for wildlife conservation programs, whereas the excise tax con- stitutes what we would term a hidden tax. Thank you, Mr. Chair- man.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Ms. Steed. Mr. Lucier.
34
STATEMENT OF JAMES LUCIER, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM
Mr. LuciER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am Jim Lucier. I am here to represent the sore-pressed taxpayers of America. I would like to say that we are huge fans of the work you do at the Joint Economic Committee and your studies on the importance of keeping the over- all size of government small and the tax burden low, to long-term economic growth, and the well being of all citizens.
I think it is important to try to keep our discourse civil here and on a very high plain because we are talking about important topics. We are talking about conservation
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Lucier, could you pull that microphone just a bit closer please?
Mr. Lucier. Certainly. We are talking about conservation of nat- ural resources. We are talking about what may be necessary to al- leviate the regulatory burden — the property rights burden on land- owners in the West. But the key point here is that the tax proposal put forth today is not really a good way of addressing any of those things. In fact, I must say it is a silly proposal. I am astonished we are even talking about this today.
The user fee point has been perhaps beaten to death in testi- mony already. What distinguishes a user fee from a tax? A clear one-to-one link between buying a good or service and demanding some sort of service in return. In other words, if I buy a hunting rifle, I know I am going to go hunting. If I buy a fishing rod, clearly I am going to go fishing unless, of course, I want to decorate my wall with it.
With this broad range of products though, there is really no one- to-one link between trying to buy a backpack and necessarily de- manding fish and wildlife conservation services. Suppose I want to use the backpack to go to school?
The real issue here is the nature of an excise tax and the fact that if you want to raise money for any reason whatsoever, excise taxes are uniquely damaging and a uniquely inefficient way of rais- ing that money. To begin with, excise taxes are distortionary, and the cost of excise taxes ripples throughout the economy. When you put a five percent excise tax on something — an arbitrarily defined range of goods — what you are doing is interfering with the supply and demand signals in the marketplace, the price mechanism that connects supply and demand.
Excise taxes can lead to inefficiencies all over the economy as people begin gaming the system, substituting goods, and buying things they would not have bought otherwise because they are try- ing to avoid an excise tax on a particular product.
The system also tends to be arbitrary. At what point does a CD- ROM become a CD-ROM about wildlife, as opposed to say. Bill Gates's encyclopedia on everything in the world? Why apply a five percent tax to CD-ROMs? Why apply a five percent tax to cameras? To photographic film? Why not tax doorknobs too? If you are going to go use the great outdoors, you can have a five percent tax on doorknobs because people that are going to use the outdoors will be going outdoors using doors as well.
Why not put an excise tax on glasses so that we can fully fund the nation's art museums? It is arbitrary and when you don't really
35
have a consistent application of the lowest possible level of tax throughout, you are just doing economic damage. What is worse is that the excise taxes are not cost efficient ways of raising revenue. It has been estimated that most of the smaller special excise taxes we have cost almost as much to administer as the amount of reve- nue they raise.
The sensible thing to do, if you want to allocate goods and re- sources efficiently in the economy, is to move toward abolishing all excise taxes altogether. Actually, there is a proposal from the Progress in Freedom Foundation literally to abolish all Federal ex- cise taxes and to abolish the agencies within the Treasury that ad- minister them. Because, as I pointed out, the amount of money the excise taxes bring in is fairly close to the amount of money it takes to enforce them, it is not a win-win situation at all.
Excise taxes such as this will also be invisible to the taxpayer. Perhaps you could have a little logo, a little green dot that you put in every product, but that doesn't necessarily tell the taxpayer what the cost of goods and services are. I think it is much more efficient to have a unified tax every year so that you know what the total bill for government goods and services is.
Then if we want to allocate Federal funding for wildlife purposes or for national parks or simply to subsidize the West, then those people requesting this funding should have to compete with, you know, all other funding sources as we set our national priorities and where the money is going to go.
I think this particular tax proposal also poses real enforcement issues. A lot of cheap outdoor equipment may be made in China. Are we going to get it from the Chinese manufacturers? Will they play games with classifications? I just don't see any logical, rational way that you can effectively enforce a tax bill of this type.
And, finally, you know, follow the money. Look at who is asking for this — mostly State government agencies and nonprofits who get lots of Federal funding. Are we going to create yet another Federal slush fund that will finance State agencies that want to do what State agencies do?
I suggest that if the only tool you have is a hammer, sooner or later everjrthing looks like a nail. What this country has to do is look on the macro level for major, major, major changes such as the changes you have discussed in the ESA or capital gains tax or land-use policies generally that would have a very large impact and be fundamentally different, nonbureaucratic way of addressing the issue. Just giving self-interested government agencies more money to do government agency stuff is not necessarily the best solutions to the problem.
[Statement of Mr. Lucier may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. You hit that right on the nose, didn't you? Thank you. Mr. Dufficy.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS DUFFICY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI- DENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC MANU- FACTURERS
Mr. Dufficy. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to testify. I am Tom Dufficy with the National Associa- tion of Photographic Manufacturers. I represent the companies that
36
produce 90 percent of the photographic products shipped to the U.S. market and almost 100 percent of the amateur photographic products. Agfa, Kodak, Fuji, 3M, and Polaroid are included in our membership, and we currently have 52 members.
We appreciate the opportunity for a conceptual discussion on ex- cise fees for wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation. We faced this issue of excise tax and user fees on photographic products in the past — the 1980 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act on the Fed- eral level, and we had some dealings with various states, the State of Washington Initiative, as an example. After due consideration, neither of these funding initiatives resulted in a fee or a tax on photographic products.
The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1980 had the concept of taxing ap- propriate items. They spoke to equity, benefits received, to some kind of a linkage with the tax and the taxpayer. Our members are for reasonable and equitable funding initiatives for wildlife con- servation and outdoor recreational activities. We, however, do not believe an excise tax or a user fee should be imposed on photo- graphic film. We don't think it is fair. Photographic film should not be considered an appropriate item under the outdoor type of prod- uct for excise tax sales or use taxes.
Industry studies that we have done have set forth, and set forth in our statement, indicate that a very small percentage of the pic- tures taken by amateur photographers are taken out of doors and particularly in park settings. There is an industry report known as the Wolfman Report on the U.S. industry, and one of their particu- lar sections is on subject matter and most popular subject matters. The report reports that only 16 percent are taken of nature and of landscapes. Aiid, of course, not all of those nature and landscapes are taken in parklands.
One of our larger member companies, Kodak, conducted an in- house study. Nature photographs comprised only 13 percent of the total pictures taken. Polaroid and other member companies of ours reported to us that only five percent of consumer instant photo- graphs are taken out of doors. Most of them are indoors.
We asked our members who produce film to supply us with any recent information they may have on picture-taking habits of their customers. One estimate stated that less than one percent of pic- tures in the U.S. portray people engaged in fishing, hunting, or camping activities.
Now, I don't have a statistical study to back this up, but it seems to me when it comes to "wildlife," I put that in quotes, there are many more wildlife photos taken at bachelor parties than of big- horn sheep. We would urge that any excise fees have a rational connection to the benefits received.
We firmly believe that consumer photographic film and any other photographic product should not be on a list for potential fees or taxes to fund wildlife conservation or outdoor recreational activi- ties. Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to testify.
[Statement of Mr. Dufficy may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Peri please. Can you identify the organization Mountainsmith. I don't know what that is.
37
STATEMENT OF DAVID PERI, DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, MOUNT AINSMITH
Mr. Peri. Well, it means I am not doing my job, being that I am responsible for the marketing of the company. I appreciate the op- portunity to help alleviate that deficiency. Mountainsmith manu- factures high quality outdoor goods, particularly backpacks. Our gear, if you will, has been used to summit probably all the major mountains in the world. So, obviously, you haven't summitted the Eiger lately.
Mr. Saxton. You are talking to a sailor so don't feel bad.
Mr. Peri. OK. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you this afternoon for the opportunity to come and appear before you today. My name is David Peri, and I do direct the marketing for Mountainsmith, which is a backpacking and outdoor gear manufacturing company. Today, I also represent the Outdoor Recreation Coalition of Amer- ica (ORCA), which is a 600 member trade association that includes suppliers, manufacturers, retailers, distributors, and suppliers of hiking, backpacking, paddling, and climbing equipment.
ORCA supports maintaining habitats and protecting America's natural resources and believes the funding crisis for public lands demands creative but economically sound solutions. We do not sup- port this initiative for several reasons.
It chooses State fish and wildlife programs when the natural re- source needs of our consumers are more diverse. The proposed ex- cise tax cannot be fairly called a user fee. And the initiative creates a new inefficient and largely hidden tax affecting hundreds, per- haps thousands, of manufacturers and untold numbers of retailers and consumers.
Rather than levying a new tax, we urge you to allow flexibility in providing assistance where we believe it best benefits our com- pany and consumers. Let me tell you about a Mountainsmith pro- gram I helped devise that shows how manufacturers, retailers, con- sumers, and foundations like the National Forest Foundation can voluntarily work together bringing projects to life.
Mountainsmith started in its founder's garage 17 years ago but now employs about 240 people in Colorado and Arkansas. Our product line ranges from fanny or lumbar packs to large expedition backpacks. Our products are used by professional and amateur mountaineers, hikers, and backpackers, as well as camera people, emergency medical technicians, students, bicycle riders, and ath- letes the world over. Our equipment has summitted nearly every major mountain in the world.
Mountainsmith sees trail access and development directly affect- ing and benefiting our customers, and so we have developed a pro- gram that will generate cash for the construction of the Continen- tal Divide Trail (CDT), the last great U.S. border-to-border trail stretching from Canada to Mexico along the Continental Divide.
In our CDT program, we offer one of our best selling expedition packs with a special top pocket and lumbar pack that is embroi- dered with a large CDT emblem. Our CDT pack sells for $30 above the cost of the normal Crestone II. All $30 goes to the CDT, 50 per- cent in the name of the participating retailer, and 50 percent in the name of Mountainsmith.
38
Through this innovative program, one, new money is generated for the construction and hopefully maintenance of the Continental Divide Trail. Two, the consumer willingly makes that donation and is recognized for doing so for the life of the pack by his and her peers on the trail.
Three, we increase the overall awareness of the trail, attracting more attention, volunteers, and support. Four, participating retail- ers receive increased traffic in their stores and positive public rela- tions for participating in the CDT Program.
And, five, Mountainsmith benefits by selling more packs, dif- ferentiating ourselves from other pack companies, preserving fu- ture access, and hopefully creating and protecting not only more places to use our product outdoors, but creating more customers who hike. There is no increased burden for anyone except those who willingly carry and purchase that product.
Our donations through this program will be complemented by other corporate support and by a $50,000 challenge grant from the National Forest Foundation. Unfortunately, the program that is the subject of the hearing today does not allow the choices offered in our program. It chooses for us that State-level programs are best. It chooses a one-size-fits-all program that will not and cannot meet the needs of the diverse group of users and companies af- fected by the tax. And this is a tax, not a user's fee.
As the data in Mr. Mcllwaine's presentation points out, there is no firm user connection between the products proposed for taxation and services provided. In the context of this tax, often those who will pay are not the same as those who use the services of the State fish and wildlife programs.
We are also very concerned about the added cost this tax creates for the consumer. We know that even a few dollars' difference af- fects the consumer's choice in product. This excise tax will push some consumers away from higher end and higher quality packs to lower end and lower quality packs and would hurt our market- ability to non-outdoor markets like emergency medical technicians, videographers, and other professionals who use our packs to carry their equipment.
Some of our packs are already expensive, and so the increased cost, including the increased cost for administering the tax, and in- cluding the subsequent normal markups of the manufacturer's price at the wholesale or retail level, as you pointed out earlier, would be or could be significant.
These professionals have other untaxed options. Experience shows us that many would choose a cheaper, inferior product be- cause of an even greater price discrepancy, putting our products at a further price disadvantage. We lose the sale, the user loses the advantages of our product, and no tax is collected at all.
We encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to champion voluntary pro- grams allowing companies, consumers, and recreationists choices in the resource programs they support. We urge you to look toward the models of the park, forest, and fish and wildlife foundations, and at successful State programs like those in Missouri and Colo- rado, where I am from, for possible solutions.
We look forward to working with you and all who are concerned about how we continue to generate funding for something that all
39
of us are concerned about. We agree with the ends. We just don't agree with the means. Thank you for your time and attention.
[Statement of Mr. Peri may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. I am tempted to ask Ms. Steed if she got up at five o'clock in the morning to help her neigh- bor to work, and I think I will pass on Mr. Dufficy's wildlife photos. Thank you all for your testimony. It is very enlightening.
Some of you are involved in the business as Mr. Peri is as a rep- resentative of manufacturers or wholesalers or retailers, and with- out repeating the little scenario of how this tax could build from $2.50 on a pair of boots to an expensive $10 on a pair of boots, would any of you care to comment? That is certainly one concern that I have foremost in my mind.
Mr. Peri. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will comment. I mean, it is something that we are very concerned about. We are a small manu- facturing company. Our margins are not a full keystone, which is the name often given to the description that you gave of how that markup works.
The retailers that we work with also do not get a full keystone markup, in that they do not mark it up 100 percent. But I will say that we have had a recent experience that is taking place right now, as we speak, that the bank that we normally borrow our money from was sold to another bank. Wells Fargo. And they have decided that outdoor businesses are not anything they want to be loaning money to because the margins are simply not good enough.
I might point out that we hope for less than a full keystone markup under the best circumstances, and we realize substantially less than that. We are very concerned that we are already operat- ing in a very difficult competitive environment.
We compete with many products that are made offshore — very less expensive products. Ours are considered a premium at this point — particularly for videographers. We have a pack that is often used by TV — professional camera crews, and we have lumbar packs that are used by emergency medical technicians. And if I was the administrator of a hospital and had to choose between purchasing a pack that was sold by a medical supply house and, therefore, was never considered an outdoor pack and our product that has outdoor connotations, that multiplication factor of four — even if it wasn't multiplied, that tax would make a difference. And we feel that we would be at a competitive disadvantage and would lose sales.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. LuciER. Mr. Chairman, I might want to address this quickly more from the standpoint of tax policy and public choice theory. It is simply bad tax policy on any grounds. The five percent excise tax level is fairly similar to say the seven percent excise tax in Canada, and which used to be called the Manufacturer's Sale Tax (MST). Now, it is called the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
And once you have a tax like this in place, you are going to see abuse of it. For instance, the Clinton gas tax — 4.3 percent on the gallon. Does that go to roads? No. It goes to general spending. The Administration has just proposed a tuition tax credit. How do they fund that? A user fee on leaving from airports — a $6 departure tax.
Once this tax is in place and you have the idea of collecting a sort of a general user fee/excise tax for whatever purposes may be
40
deemed worthy, how do you know that the five percent tax or even a seven percent tax doesn't get applied, for instance, to washing machines because they use a lot of water and pollute the water and create demand for, you know, clean water services? That seven per- cent tax in Canada applies to washing machines and household equipment and garbage disposals and things like that.
I think that once you have this funding mechanism in place, once you have State agencies and advocacy groups that benefit from this Federal funding, you are going to see the tax applied to more and more items and the tax applied at a higher level, and eventually a situation where just as we see the gas tax diverted, you will see these tax funds diverted to things that have nothing to do with conservation.
Also, taxes like this give people the impression they are paying for what services they demand. For instance, people are generally aware that they are paying something in the form of a user fee — gas tax for highways. And yet we also put a lot of money from gen- eral State taxes and general Federal funding into highways as well.
The result has been a massive overbuilding of highways in the U.S. by some estimates, which is doing quite a lot to hurt the envi- ronmental quality. If there were a closer link between using high- ways, demanding highway services, demanding highway construc- tion, and building of highways, and people that actually drove cars paid more of the tax directly for highways, there would probably be fewer highways and perhaps more efficient development of transportation, more use of mass transportation, et cetera.
So in that situation, you have people confused by inaccurate sig- nals in the marketplace, demanding too much of the wrong things, demanding too many highways and thus destroying many valuable acres of farmland.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Ms. Steed, I understand there is draft legislation. Do you happen to know how the draft legislation de- fines sport utility vehicle?
Ms. Steed. I don't. I haven't seen the legislation itself, but I would be happy to take a look at it.
Mr. Saxton. I think that is certainly something that you might want to look at. I think I know what a sports utility vehicle is, but I am not cure that the definition would go along with the way I necessarily define sports utility vehicle.
One final comment. In my other role that I play, as Mr. Lucier mentioned, I am the Vice Chairman of the Joint Economic Commit- tee, and we have a saying there that is not new. It is something that is actually quite old. And the saying is, "If you want less of something, tax it."
And I suspect that to a greater or lesser degree, that old parable would come into play here although it might be, I must say, to a lesser degree because this is a hidden user's fee or tax which is col- lected very early in the process. And so I am not sure just what effect that would have in this case.
But in any event, we have been here for better than two and a half hours. And I thank you all for coming. We appreciate your tes- timony. And we look forward to talking about this issue more in the future. And before I close, I just must ask unanimous consent
41
that all members' statements be included in the record. Thank you all very much for being here.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and the following was submitted for the record:]
Committee Note: The Subcommittee has received numerous let- ters regarding the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal. The majority of the letters were statements of support for the proposal. All let- ters will be kept on file at the Subcommittee.
42
TESTIMONY OF DAN ASHE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, OVERSIGHT HEARING REGARDING THE CONCEPT KNOWN AS "TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" OR THE "FISH AND WILDLIFE DIVERSITY FUNDIN3 INITIATIVE"
JUNE 6, 1996
Mr. Chairman, I ain pleased lo be here today to discuss tiie "Teaming With Wildlife" Initiative. I want to congratulate the States for developing this proposal and bringing it lo the attention of Congress. I heir leadership on this issue signals ilicir recognition of and commitment to maintaining a diversity ol plant, tish and wildlife, both for game and non- game species. In this alone they deserve our gialitudc.
At this point. I want to clarify thai the views in this testimony constitute the Department's position on the need to expand support for management of non-game wildlife and our preliminary comments on the Teaming With Wildlife proposal. It is not an endorsement. However, wc look forv-ard to providnig ihc Committee witli a formal position and detailed comments, once legislation has been actually introduced. Ihe Deparunent also recognises and supports the goals of this proposal, and we commend the Slates and particularly the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for their initiative and leadersliip.
The "learning With Wildlife" initiative proposes to autliori/e the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide grants to State fish and wildlife agencies and II. S. territories for the development, revision and implementation of conservation programs for fish and wildlife that are neither fished nor hunted. If properly designed, such an initiative could significantly enhance fish and wildlife-associated recreation, education and restoration programs fiir Siaic.< The Service would welcome the opportunity lo expand wildlife-asiiocinted recreational opportunities. Many Slates arc experiencing declines in the amounl of funds available for wildlife resources. This proposal would pnwide State fish and wildlife agcntic.>i with the funds to undertake projects to improve thc.se resources and tliereby expand wildlife-associated recreational opportunities. For example. New Jersey could build viewing platforms on the Delaware Dayshore which would allow visitors to view migratory shorcbiids. raptors and songbirds without disturbing them. Alaska would be able to enhance wildlife education efforts. We look forward lo increasing stewardslup eapabilitie.s through appropriate legislaiion.
Potential benefits of this initiative are illustrated by the fact that it is patterned after two of this Nation's most successful conservation programs: Federal Aid m Wildlife Restoration Program (Pitiman-Robcrtson Program) and Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Program (Dingell-Jolmson/Wallop-Bieaux Program). I can think of no better models for tliis effort than these two highly successful programs. We believe thai the degree to which this proposal mimics those programs will enhance its poieniiiil for success. 1 will begin with a short discussion of these two programs.
Ihe Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program began July I, 1938, following enactment by
43
President Roosevelt of tlie Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act on September 2, 1937. The Act is popularly kiiowii us the Piitman-Robcrtson Act (P-R Act) after its sponsors. Senator Key Pitlmaii of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robeilson of Virginia. It has been amended several times to improve its effectiveness. The primary purpose of the law is to provide a stable and secure funding source for States to manage and restore wildlife resources.
Tlie Act authorizes fuiids for the program to be derived from I'cderol excise taxes on sporting arms and aininunitioii, pistols and revolvers aiid certnin archery equipment. The total amount of the funds from sporting arms and ammunition and fifly percent of the funds from pistols and revolvers are apportioned to tlic States based on the geographic area and number of hunting license holders in each State. The remaining fifty percent of the funds from pistoi.s and revolvers and archery equipment is apportioned to the Slates ba-scd (m the population, and used by the Slates for hunter education projects. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, America Samoa, and the Northern Marian Islands each receive a fued-pcrccniage of the funds upporlioned.
Re.sponsibility for selection, planning, and execution of wildlife restoration projects rests with tlie Stales through their designated wildlifie management agency. States may be reimbursed hy the Federal Government for up to 75 percent of ilic total cost of approved projects.
Project proposals are submitted by the designated State agencies to the Regional Directors of the FW'S who have the authority to approve or disiipprovc a project. Projects may include acquiring areas of land oi water for feeding, resting, or as breeding places for wildlife; rehabilitating or improving land or waters for the benefit of wildlife management areas, public hunting areas and public use facilities for the benefit of wildlife, such as wildlife management areas, public hunting areas ajid public use facilities, regular maintenance of completed projects; management of wildlife resources (exclusive of law enforcement or public relations activities), wildlife management research; conducting hunter safety courses and building target ranges; and coordinating projects necessary to efficiently administer wildlife resources.
■About 3i42 million was made available for fiscal year 19^6 to helji States fmance hunter education programs. This program trains 700,000 new huniers in safety and sportsmanship each year. The backbone of the hunter education program is the 45,000 volunteer instructors from all walks of life who donate about S2S million woith in volunteer seiA'ice annually.
In tlie more than 50 years since the Pittman-Robertson program was created, over $3 billion in Federal excise taxes have been matched by more than SI billion in Slate funds (cliiefly from hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration. Benefits to the economy have been equally impressive. National surveys show that hunters now spend some $12 billion every year on equipment and trips. Non-hunting nature lovers spend even larger sums to enjoy wildlife on travel and on items that range from bird food to binoculars, from special footwear to camera equipment Areas famous for their wildlife have directly benefited from this
44
spending, but so have sporting goods and outdoor equipment manufactures, disiributors and dealers. IhousandK of jobs have been created
There is no doubt thnt witliout a "I'ittman-Rubunson" program the nation would have been poorer in terms of knowledge, science, and the confidence that we can indeed change ihings for the bencr.
On August 9, 1950, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, modeling the legislation after the highly successful Federal Aid m Wildlife Restoration Act. The new Act, was known as the Diagcll-Johjison Act, after its sponsors. Representative John Dingell, Sr., of Michigan, and Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado. Following enactment m 1984 of substantial changes to the Act, tlie program began lo be called the "Wallop-Bieaux progiam" al\er Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Senator John Brcaiix of Louisiana, the visionary sponsors of the new provisions.
The Sport Fish Restoration program is ftinded by revenues collected from the manufacturers of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies ajid artificial baits, who pay an excise lax on these items lo the U.S. Treasury, l^inds are also received from import duties on sport fishing equipment, pleasure boats and yachts. One other source of revenue is an excise tax from the sale of motorboat fuels.
These excise taxes, collected directly from the exporter or nianufaeturcr, are paid lo the U.S. Treasury and then transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service for disirihuiion among the States and territories. Each State's share is based 60 percent on tlie number of licensed fishermen and 40 percent on the area of land and water No Stale may receive more than 5 percent or less than 1 percent of each year's total appiirtionmeni, Puerto Rico receives 1 percent, and the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianna Islands, and the District of Columbia each receive one-third of 1 percent.
For fiscal year 1996 the sum of $197 million was apportioned to the States and territories •u.'ith Alaska, California and Texas receiving the maximum amounts (S9.8 million), and the District of Columbia and the territories receiving the minimum amount ($657,123).
Up to 75 percent of the cost of ever>' Sport Fish Restoration project is borne by Federal fbnds and 25 percent by matching State funds. Though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assures adherence lo the law, provides tcclinical assistance, sets standards for performance, and monitors progress, each State selects, plans and performs the management work
.So, under the Spori Fish Restoration program one state may choose to devote much of its
Federal Aid money to improvement of aquatic habitats for certain warm water species of fish,
while another may stress laud acquisition and construction of fishing areas for the public.
Still another might emphasis Jong-rangc rishcries research using sopiiisiicau^d laboratory investigations
'I'he Sport Fish Resturation Act program serves as the States' financial cushion witli which
45
iliey may undertake long-term progrums lo benclil fish - a cushion Uicy lack witJioui a stable, dependable national source of funds.
The capabilities of State fisheries agencies liave blossomed under the Sport I'ish Restoration Act. Previously, many of them had little money except for stocking offish and traditional law enforcement duties. Federal Aid encouraged liigher standards and provided additional money so States could afford lo employ more professional bioloijisis to plan more long-term restorations such as establishing self-sustaining populations of fish.
Management plans have paid off handsomely over the past four decades. Nuisance plants were making life difficult for fish and anglers alike in some lakes; projects to lower water levels at certain limes of the year corrected this problem. Likewise, projceis to remove undesirable species of fish that had been competing with game tlsh made existing restocking efforts more effective.
"New" species of sport fish, including striped bass, toho salmon, and northern pike have been introduced into favorable waters to increase spon fishing opportunities. Managers have developed techniques in some southern inland lakes so that ocean species like the red drum, spotted sea trout, and southern flounder have prospered in them much to the delight of anglers.
Research has controlled fish diseases for more economical and efficient hatchery production Belter designs have been developed for fish ladders to enable migrating salmon and sieelhead to reach spawning grounds. Careful monitoring has pinpointed sources of water pollution that have interfered with fish reproduction and survival
The Sport Fish Restoration Act has yielded benefits unimagined in 1'50 that have transformed the American fisheries scene from one of depletion and decline to one of renewed vigor and optimism
Virtually unchanged since 1 950, the basic Sport Fish Restoration legislation was supplemented in 1984 with new provisions that extended the excise tax to previously untaxed items of .^porting equipment Under new provisions, named for Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Representative John Breaux of louisiana, ihe 10 percent tax was extended to include tackle boxes and other types of recreational ilshing equipment, a 3 percent tax was applied to electric trolling motor.* and flasher-iypc sonar fish finders, and import duties on fishing tackle and pleasure boats were channeled into fisheries restoration. In addition, a portion of tlie existing Federal lax on molorboai fuels was devoted to this program.
The "Wallop-Breaux' provisions introduced a number of historic firsts to the sport fish restoration program Twelve and one-half percent of all restoration money must now be spent on projects providing boating access to public waters Cmisiul Slales are required to apply a portion of their new "Wallop-Breaux" funds to programs enhancing marine recreational fisheries. And .States may now elecl lo use up a 10 percent of their "Wallop-Breaux" funds
46
for aquatic resource education programs.
"Wallop-Breaux" has revolutionized the Sport Fish Restoration Act in its scope and the potential it liolds for fisheries restoration well into the next century. Its provisions have iransformed the Spurt Fish Restoration Act from a program amounting to roughly S40 million annually to one five times tliat size • over S197 million in 1996 This significant infusion of new money bodes well for the future of sport fish restoration for many years to come.
"Wallop-Brcaux" was also expanded in 1991. Reventjcs derived from "small engine" fuel excise taxes support Coastal Wetlands Restoration. These grants to State agencies have nnproved nursery' areas for marine sport fish and helped to preserve one of our more liinited ecosystems.
Mr Chairman, a iireliminniy leview of the "Tcnining With Wildlife" proposal indicates great potential to build on the winning P-K/l)-,l model. Pittjnan-Roherison, DingcU-Johnson and the Teaming With Wildlife Program should be compatible. Likewise the direct and indirect benefits of the proposed program should Mippori P-R and D-J eiTorls. Multiple use and sustainable use of these resources is more imponant today than ever before.
The Service agrees with the States that there is a growning need to accommodate increasing numbers of nonconsumptive wildlife resotjrce users. Wildlife populations arc dwindling due to the fragmentation of forest habitat, changing of land use and farming practices. Certain nongame species, such as neotropical birds, have declined drastically. With respect to numerous other species, there is inadequate information to determine whether these populations are expanding or decreasing. The changing public atliludes toward nun- consumptive recreational opportunities require fish and wildlife agencies to expand their programs to meet the needs of a more sophisticated public A generation of cluldrcn has grown up watching nature programs on public television, becoming more knowledgeable and interested in their natural enviroruncnt. For example, in 1991, 24.7 million people took trips away from home to observe, feed, or photograph birds This illustrated a growing need to provide better services for birders, such as trails, boardwalks, observation towers, viewing blinds, checklists and rare bird sighting news.
Over $18 billion is currently being spent on nongame recreational activities According to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, approximately 76 million citi/-ens, or .'^9 percent of the US papulation \6 years of age or older, enjoyed nongame recreational activities in 1991. While the Administration is not in a position to endorse this proposal at this time, the concept of funding wildlife conservation from taxes on certain merchandise is a wcll-dem<.msirated success under Pittman-Robertson and Wallop- Breuux.
i appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter.
47
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON nSHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
ON THE "TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" INITIATIVE
Robert L. McDowell, Secretary/Treasurer
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
June 6, 1996
Thank you, Mr Chairman, I am Bob McDowell, Director of the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, and Secretary/Treasurer of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (lAFWA) On behalf of my 49 State Fish and Wildlife Director colleagues, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity you have given us to bring to you the most exciting fish and wildlife conservation initiative that all of us will be involved in for the rest of this century Teaming With Wildlife (TWW) This funding initiative will complete the process started by its predecessors decades ago with the passage of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson (later Wallop-Breaux) Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Acts for game and sportfish conservation activities in the States Through TW^, all of our citizens who use and enjoy fish and wildlife can join sportsmen and women who for decades have contributed billions of dollars to the restoration and sustainability of our fish and wildlife that are hunted and fished, but are also enjoyed by all Americans As you know, our non-game species have also benefited by these efforts fiinded by sportsmen through habitat enhancement, acquisitions and other conservation endeavors More dedicated fijnds are vitally needed for projects focused specifically on these species as well as providing support for associated outdoor recreation. TWW will bring this financial support to these programs and equity to the long-term support of fish and wildlife efforts in this country by all who enjoy these resources.
The Association, founded in. 1902, is a quasi-govemment organization of public agencies charged with the protection and management of North America's fish and wildlife resources The Association's governmental members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and federal governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource management and strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the State fish and wildlife agencies are public trustees offish and wildlife resources within their bo.deifs uiid have statutory authority to ensure the vitality and stewardship of these resources for the use and enjoyment of their citizens, both present and future State jurisdiction for migratory birds, anadromous fish and listed threatened and endangered species is concurrent with the USFWS. Most fish and wildlife species (approx. 1800 across the US) are not hunted, fished, or listed as threatened or endangered species. In New Jersey, for example, our popular game species include the wild turkey and white-tailed deer, but we are also home to 195 species of "non-game" birds as the American goldfinch and osprey, 62 species of non-game mammals as the Tuckahoe masked shrew and 29 sf>ecies of
48
reptiles and amphibians, such as New Jersey chorus frog and bog turtle, 4i) of which contribute to recreational opportunities for our citizens, and the getieral quality of life in our State
The lesson to learn from our fish and wildlife conservation efforts in the US is that, because of sportsmen and women's interest in game species, funds have b«cn dedicated to their conservation with the result that these species now enjoy a relatively healthy and vital status. Of courst, funds are also being spent on threatened and endangered species to save them from extinaion because of their crisis status However, the 90% of other (than game, sportfish and threatened/endangered species) fish and wildlife species suffer from a lack of adequate fijnding to assess their status, ensure their sustainability, and provide appropriate recreational and educational uses of this resource TWW will provide a consistent, dedicated source of funds to meet these needs.
While hunters and anglers remain one of our most ardent constitueiKies, the State fish and wildlife agencies serve a wide variety of fish and wildlife enthusiasts sirKe we manage these public trust resources for all of our citizens While some pro^'ams in the States arc directed at meeting these user needs, such as land and habitat conservation on our 200,000+ acros of Wildlife Management Areas in New Jersey, much more is needed Bird wstfchers, nature photographers, those who feed birds, and hikers and canoers ail benefit from rokitf fi^ and wildlife populations Sustainable fish and wildlife populations in kaalthy habitats will provide for enhanced recreational and educational opportunities by ail who mpy thes« rwourcet. Funds now available to the States to secure this friture for fish and wildlife rcscMjrces are simply not enough TWW will provide those fionds that are so vitally needed
Like the hunter and angler constituency which supports Pittman/Robertson aixl Dingell/Johnson-Wallop/Breaux, a broad coalition of sportsmen axid women, other conservationists and other consumers are now ardent advocates for TWW The almost 1000 coalition organizations and the approximately 50 million consumers they represent have resoundingly indicated to industry thdr willingness to pay a nominal excise fee on certain outdoor products as long as they can be assured that the fimds will be statutorily and [)ermanently dedicated to enhaxK^ed fish and wildlife conservation, recreation and education programs to benefit them in their states TWW can meet these needs and will accomplish this objective. For the record, I would like to introduce the nx>st recent coalition list and the letters of endorsement from Governor Knowles of Alaska. Governor Kitzhftbcr of Oregon, Govenvsr Chiles of Florida, Governor Miller of Georgia. Governor Dean of Vermont, Governor Tucker of Arkansas, Governor Foster of Lxxiisiana, and Governor Johnson of New Mexico We expect other Governors to also endorse TWW soon
Like the Pittman/Robertson and Dingell/Johnson-Wallop/Breaux programs, under TWW nominal excise fees (proposed on a sliding scale from V*% to 5% based on product value) will be imposed at the manufacturer's level on certain outdoor prockicts, collected by the US Treasury, and permanently appropriated to the USFWS to be apportioned to the State fish and wildlife agencies on a 3 1 Federal State matching fiand basis based on 2/3 population and 1/3 land area No State (or territory) would receive more than 5% of the total flmds, nor less than 0 5% of the total fimds. We estimate an annual income stream to the States of $350 million
49
from the excise fees Since existing adnunistrative and management processes will be used, there would be no appreciable increase in the federal administrative infrastructure necessary to collect and administer these funds
Building further on the success of the Pinman/Robertson and Dingell/Johnson- Wallop/Breaux model, decisions on priority use of TWW funds would be made by the State fish and wildlife agency in cooperation with the State Parks Director and with citizen and constituent involvement and participation States would provide the match fiands, but they don't necessarily have to originate from the State agency We fully expect our partners in this endeavor in etch State - non-goveniment conservation and recreation organizations, educators, local parks and nature facilities, etc to bring match funds to the table States also have other sources of match funds For example, in New Jersey we would use funds from our non-game tax check-off, license plate sales and foundation grants as sources We believe most States already have the match funds, or TWW wquW facilitate the availability of match fijnds.
Let me now give you some historical and prospective perspectives from our home State, Mi . Chairman
First, two success stories of the TWW model Pittman/Robertson and Dingell/Johnson- Wallop-Breaux in New Jersey
1) PR/DJ-WB funds helped the Division to acquire Pemberton Lake Wildlife Management Area in Burlington County and to raise and stock fresh water fish in waters accessible to the public throughout New Jersey The land and water of this WMA are also home to numerous nongame fish and wildlife species
2) PR money also helps to fund the Endangered and Nongame Species Program's Landscape Project that offers a unique approach to rare species protection on an ecosystem level The overall goal of the Landscape Project is to protea and preserve the ecological communities of landscapes throughout New Jersey, while promoting comprehensive growth management within those areas
Now, let me address needs and opportunities with TWW funds in New Jersey:
1) One example is the Diviaon's Watchable Wildlife Project that will create a statewide network of wildlife viewing areas, trails and diversity tours Providing opportunities to view NJ's valuable wildlife resource will inaease the public's understanding and support for wildlife and habitat conservation, which contributes to the quality of life for our citizens
2) One of the best examples of wildlife-related recreation in New Jersey takes place on the Cape M«y Peninsula in the Fall of every year when raptors, passerines and woodcock stop over on their migration south Each September and October, thousands of birders from all over the worid flock to Cape May to witness this phenomenon and it has been estimated that these visitors pump over $6 million into the county's economy The
50
economic and ecological benefits of nature-based tourism to local economies should not be underestimated .^nd. Teaming with Wildlife can make it all happen
3) Other potential project in our state that would benefit fi-om TWW funding include the development of an interpretive program along the Cedar Creek Water Trail in Ocean County that would allow canoeists to identify cultural and natural areas of interest
4) In Monmouth County fijnding is needed to purchase privately held lands that connect with public lands along the proposed 13-mile Bayshore Trail that when completed will provide hiker access to the Sandy Hook National Recreation Area
In summary, TWW fiands will be applied to projects in these three general areas:
1 Fish and Wildlife Conservation ~ includes preventative management for non-game species which allows the use of voluntary non-regulatory, incentive focused conservation efiforts with landowners to address species needs before their status requires listing as threatened or endangered
2 Fish and Wildlife Related Recreation ~ the increasing human population demands more quality outdoor recreation TWW will provide for these appropriate outdoor recreational opportunities
3 . Conservation Education ~ our children are our future; we must pass on to them a strong conservation ethic through various programs for which TWW will provide fiinds
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies, with the support of almost 1,000 organizations representing about 50 million citizens fi-om the broad conservation community, strongly believe the time has come to act on TWW. The need is both meritorious and great, the support fi-om the consumer and much of industry is there, and there is no other credible source of funds on the horizon. TWW is built on a tremendously successful model, it will be responsive to the resource users and enthusiasts, and it will secure healthy and sustainable fish and wildlife populations for outdoor recreation for our children and their children. Let's make this happen now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity and I would be pleased to r-^^spo^d to any questions.
gt^wovxfc^gary^njtww
51
TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE
COALITION LIST
TIAMINC WITH WILOUFE
97S groups support Teaming Huh Wildlife as of June i. 1996 All 50 stale fish and wildlife agencies are members of the coalition ^-Members of Steering Committee spearheading Initiative Companies \thich are part of the coalition are underlined
ABR. Inc
Adventufe Travel Society. Inc
Adventures for Women
Alabama Environmental Council
Alaska 4-H Program
Alaska Bed and Breakfast Association
Alaska Biological Research, Inc
Alaska Bird Observatory
Alaska Board of Game
Alaska Center for the Environment
Alaska Cooperative Extension, UAF
Alaska Cooperative Fisli & Wildlife Research Unit
Alaska-Denali Guiding. Inc
Alaska Dept of Commerce & Economic Development
Division of Tourism Alaska Discovery Ine Alaska Division of Tourism Alaska Kids Foundation ^ ka Manne Highway System / .<a Natural Heritage Program Alaska Natural History Association Alaska Deptarlment of Natural Resources
Parks & Outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Transportation/Public Facilities Alaska Natural Resource &
Outdoor Education Association Alaska Rainforest Tours Alaska Science & Technology Alaska Sportfishmg Association Alaska Travel Hotline Alaska University Museum Alaska Watchaoie Wildlife Steering Committee Alaskan Wilderness Images Alaska Wildland Adventures Alaska Wildlife Alliance
Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Association Alaska Wilderness Sailing Safaris Alaska Wild Wings Allegheny Valley Land Trust Alliance for a Living Ocean American AGOG American Bird Conservancy American Birding Association American Fisheries Society *
AFS-Dakota Chapter
AFS-ldaho Chapter
AFS-lliinois Chapter
AFS-lntroduced Fishes Section
AFS-lowa Chapter
AFS-Kansas Chapter
AFS-Mississippi Chapter
AFS-New York Chapter
AFS-Oregon Chapter
AFS-Virginia Chapter
AFS-West Virginia Chapter American Oceans Campaign, CA American Ornithologists Union American Rod & Gun
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetnlogists American Wildlands American Wildlife Research Foundation Appalachia-Science m the Public Interest Archery Manufacturers & Merchants Organization Arctic Treks
Arizona Association for Learning In and About the Environment Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society Arizona Heritage Alliance Arthur Kill Watershed Association Association for Conservation Information, Inc Association of Field Ornithologists Association of Midwest Fish & Game Law
Enforcement Officers Association of Northwest Steelheaders Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks Audubon Naturalist Society Audubon Society of New York State. Inc Aukiet Charter Services B&B Custom Services Bare Island Charters Bare Island Originals Barnck Museum, UNLV Basin Airmotive BASS. Inc
Flonda BASS State Federation
Georgia BASS Chapter Federation, Inc.
Illinois BASS Federation
Missouri BASS Federation
Ohio BASS Chapter
South Dakota BASS Federation Bass Pro Shops Inc Bat Conservation International Bay Air
Beach House Bed & Breakfast Becker Chemical The Benchmark Big Cedar Lodge Big Marsh Bowhunters Big River Specialty Company Big Sky Wildcare Billings Rod & Gun Club Biodiversity. Inc Bird House & Habitat BIRD Treatment and Learning Center Bismarck-Mandan Bird Club Black Swamp Bird Observatory Boone & Crocken Club Boyer Valley Environmental Foundation, lA Brasstown Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
International Association of Fish A HVJUfe Agenda. 444 Sortk Capitol Street. MV, Suite SU. Washington, DC 20001
52
Bremer County Soil & Water Conservation District. lA
P ■ Bush Nature Center
L ol Bay Native Association
Broadcast Services of Alaska
Buck Creek Guide Service
Bucks County Consen/alion District, PA
The Camp Fire Club of America
Canoe Safari
Canyon Birders
Cape-Atlantic Soil Conservation District
Carbon Co Environmental Ed Center
Caribbean Conservation Association
Caribou Air Service & Enterprise
Carl Zeiss Optical
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Carolina Bird Club, Inc
Cass County Wildlife Club, ND
Cedar Creek Clothing Company
Center for Marine Conservation
Center for the Study of Tropical Birds. Inc
Central Florida Native Flora, Inc
Centre County Women's Resource Center
Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center. Inc
Chequamegan Bird Club
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
Chestnut Ridge Regional Park of Mongolia County. WV
The Chewonki Foundation, ME
Chthuly's Charters
Chinook Northwest, Inc
Churchill Area Environmental Council
Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens
zens Committee to Save the Cache River. Inc ..iizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries. Inc Clear Lake Fnendly Garden Club Cleveland Metroparks Zoo Cloudberry Lookout Bed & Breakfast Coalition of Concerned Pennsylvania Anglers Colorado Bird Observatory Colorado Bow Hunters Association The Colorado Mountain Club Colorado Outward Bound School Colorado River Wildlife Council Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority Committee for Idaho's High Desert Concerned Friends of the Winema Connecticut Ornithological Association The Conservancy of Montgomery County Conservation Explorer Post 171, Iowa Conservation Federation of Missouri Cooper Ornithological Society Copper River & Northwest Tours Country Ecology Cordova Water Sports Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology Costa Rica Expeditions Crawford County Conservation Board. lov« Crescent Harbor Hide A Way Critter Company '&R Sporting Goods . he Committee for National Arbor Day The Conservation Fund
TCF-Alaska Office Critter Control of Rochester Dallas County Conservation Board Darby Creek Valley Association Debbie S Miller. Author
Inlernational Association of Fish & WiUlife Agencits,
Defenders of Wildlife •
Delaware Advisory Council on Game and Fish
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
State of Delaware Parks & Recreation Council
Delmarva Ornithological Society
Delta Waterfowl Foundation
Denali Backcountry Lodge
Desert Fishes Council
Discovery Voyages
Dive Rite Manufacturing. Inc
DJ Case & Associates
Dogwood City Grotto of the
National Speleological Society Don's Round Island Boat Charters Ducks Unlimited. Inc D&R Canal Watch Eagletail Ranch Eagletail Wilderness Society Eastern Illinois Sportsman Club Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental Action Assn ECO Education Eco Tours of Oregon Elko County Wildlife Advisory Board. NV Elmore Manufacturing Company Emerald Isle Sea Turtle Conservation Project Enviromat Inc
Environmental Action Committee Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Interpretation. Environmental Education Association of Illinois Environmental Education Association of Indiana Environmentally Concerned Citizens of the Lakeland Area Eruk's Wilderness Floot Tours Everglades Coordinating Council Exotic Pets Falconers of NYS Falcon Press
Farmton Hunting & Sportsmen Assn Inc Federation of New York State Bird Clubs Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs Femhill Wetlands Council, Inc Fin & Feather. Inc Fishing & Flying Five Valleys Audubon Society Florida Bowhunters Council Florida Defenders of the Environment Florida Hawking Fraternity Florida Hound Hunters Association. Inc, Florida Sportsmen's Conservation Association Florida Stillhunters Association Flondaa Wildlife Unlimited Inc Foothills Land Conservancy For Our Birds For the Birds, Inc
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep Freshwater Fisheries Coalition. SC Friends of Briarbush Nature Center Friends of Chehaw, GA Friends of Creamer's Field. AK Friends of Dragon Run Fnends of Endangered Wildlife. Inc Fnends of Fish and Wildlife Fnends of Potter Marsh Fnends of the Earth Fnends of Fish and Wildlife. Inc Fnends of McNeil River
Fnends of Smoots Creek/Pure Water for Kansas 444 Sonh Capitol Slrtel, Mf. Suilt S44. IVaihingtoii, DC 20001
53
The Friends of the Red Rock Canyon
F' 'ds o( the Wapsi Center
F Js of West Hills Streams
Kathy Frost, 1995 Women's World Champion Sled Dog Racer
Furharveslers Club of Iowa State University
Fur Takers of Amenca, Chapter 17-8. IL
Garden Clubs of Georgia
Gearing Up
General Federated Women's Club of Clarkside, Iowa
George Miksch Sutton Avian Research Center, Inc
The Georgia Conservancy
Georgia Ornithological Society
Georgia Recreation & Parks Association
Georgia Wildlife Federation
Gesine s At Four Corners
Gilcrease Bird Sanctuary
Gilmore Ponds Conservancy, inc
Glen Helen Outdoor Education Center
Glen Helen Raptor Center
Golden Crescent Nature Club
Governor of Alaska, Tony Knowlet
Governor of Arkansas, Jim Guy Tucker
Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles
Governor of Georgia, Zell Miller
Governor of Louisiana, Mike Foster
Governor of New Mexico, Gary E. Johnson
Governor of Oregon, John Kltzhaber
Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, M.D.
Great Lakes of South Dakota Association
Great Plains Trails Network. Nebraska
H'eater Ecosystem Alliance
ater Yellowstone Coalition tjreater Watchung Nature Club Greensboro Beautiful, Inc Greenwood & Gryphon, Ltd Grounded Eagle Foundation, Inc Gustavus Inn at Glacier Bay Gwylan Sail Charters Harns Center for Conservation Education Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Hawk Watch International Headwaters Landtrust High Desert Ecological Research Institute The Holden Arboretum Hocking Valley Wildlife Center Hook-n-Shot Heltons of Helena, Ltd Holden Beach Turtle Program. NC Hot Yotts
The Holden Arboretum, Ohio Howard County Conservation Board The Highlands Coalition, NJ The Humane Society of th« U.S. Hyalite Outfitters Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation Idaho Conservation Officers Association Idaho Falconers Association Idaho Herpetological Society 17 Idaho Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Chapters
aho Region IV Wildlife Council idaho Trails Council Illinois Muskies Alliance Illinois Audubon Society Illinois Association of Hunting Preserves Illinois Bowhunter's Society Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board
International Association of Fish & UlUU/e Agencies. 444
Illinois Environmental Council Illinois Native Plant Society Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Illinois Ornithological Society
Illinois Professional Assn of Conservation Resource Managers Illinois Tree Farm System Illinois Wildlife Federation Institute for Bird Populations
International Assn for Bear Research & Management International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies ' International Society of Tropical Foresters, Inc The International Sonoran Antelope Foundation International Wolf Center Iowa Academy of Science
Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards. District II Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards, District VI Iowa Association of Naturalists Iowa Audubon Council Iowa City Bird Club
38 Iowa Counties' Conservation Boards Iowa Conservation Education Council Iowa Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit Iowa Environmental Council Iowa Falconers Association Iowa Lakes Community College Conservation Club Iowa Lakes Community College Environmental Studies Program Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation Iowa Naturalist Club Iowa Ornithologists Union Iowa Prairie Network Iowa State Coonhunters, Inc
Iowa State University • Fisheries & Wildlife Biology Club Iowa State University - Student Environmental Council Iowa Wildlife Rehabilitators Association Iowa Women in Natural Resources Izaak Walton League of America
IWLA-Ames Chapter
IWLA-Elgin Chapter, IL
IWLA-Emmet County Chapter, lA
IWLA-Fort Dodge/Phil Fox Chapter, lA
IWLA-Frank Anetsberger Chapter, IL
IWLA-Franklin Co
IWLjA-Greater Atlanta Chapter, Inc
IWLA-Greene County Chapter
IWL-A-Homewood Memorial Chapter
IWLA-lndiana Division
IWLA-lowa Division
IWLA-Linn County Chapter
IWLA-Maquoketa Valley Chapter
IWU^-Oregon Chapter
IWLA-South Dakota Division
IWLA-Three Rivers Chapter
IWLA-Virginia Division JD Summers & Associates Jefferson County Conservation Board. lA Jersey Falconry Club Johnson County Songbird Project J N "DING" Darling Foundation Kachemak Air Service. Inc Kachemak Bay Conservation Society Kachemak Bay Wilderness Lodge &
Chenik Brown Bear Camp Kane County Natural Areas Volunteers Kane-DuPage Soil & Water Consen/ation District Keep Sedona Beautiful, Inc Sank Capitol Street, NW, Suite 544, Hashingion, DC 20001
54
Keep Winter Haven Clean & Beautiful
K ing TracK, Inc
K ,1 Peninsula Condos & Apartments
Kenai River Sportfishing Association
Kirkwood Ecology Committee
Knik Cancers & Kayakers
Knowille Zoo
Kodiak State Parks Advisory Board
Kossuth County Conservation Board
LAB Flying Sen/ices Inc
Ladage Photograpny
LaGrande Bird Group
Larionlan Wetlands Coalition, NV
Lake Clark Lodge. Inc
Lake Erie Nature & Science Center
Lake Polk Hunt Club
Lake Region Photograptiy Club
Lakeland Runners Club
Lancaster County Conservancy
Land Trust Alliance
LaSalle County Natural Area Guardians. IL
Lasso-E-Camper Sales
The Laurens Federated Women's Club
LCSC Biology Club, 10
League of Women Voters of Cedar Rapids/Manon, lA
Lee County SWCD Natural Area Guardian Com . IL
Lehigh Gorge Outdoor Club
Leif Selkregg Associates
Leopold Center (or Sustainable Agriculture
Lewis & Clark Wildlife Club
Liberty Prairie Conservancy
e Creek Nature Center Foundation i.,.in County Resource Enhancement Protection, lA Long Island Pine Barrens Society Lost World Adventures Low Impact Wildlife Photography Lower Marion Conservancy Lowry Park Zoo FL
Lycoming County Conservation District, PA MPA
Maine Environmental Education Association Manatee-Sarasota Fish and Game Assoc , Inc Manitowish River Canoes & Kayaks Manomet Obsen/atory
Mariton Wildlife Sanctuary & Wilderness Trust Martic Hills Watershen Association, PA Mary Ingles Trail Blazers Marlyland Ornithological Society Massachusetts Audubon Society Mat-Su Valley State Parks Citizens Advisory Board, AK Menasha Ridge Press Men's Garden Club of Des Moines. lA Men's Garden Club of Mason City. lA Miami County Park District, OH
Michigan Alliance for Environmental & Outdoor ddudation Michigan Environmental Council Michigan Loon Preservation Association Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council Mid-Missouri Conservation Society
idwest Raptor Research Fund vligratory Waterfowl Hunters. IL Mikal Kellner Foundation for Animals Miller, Debbie. Author Minnesota Land Trust Minnesota Ornithologists' Union Mississippi Flyway Council Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Assoclatit
Inlemational .Association of Fish & WiUQife .Agenda, <
Mississippi Ornithological Society
Mississippi Valley Duck Hunters of IL
Missouri Audubon Council
Missouri Botanical Garden
Missouri Native Plant Society
Association of Missouri Interpreters
Missouri Prairie Foundation
Missouri Wildflowers Nursery
Monmouth County Friends of Cleanwater, NJ
Montana Bald Eagle Working Group
Montana Environmental Education Association
Montana Falconers Association
Montana Loon Society
Montana Natural History Center
Montana State Parks & Wildlife Interpretive Assn
Montgomery County Conservation Board
Musconetcong Watershed Association
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association for Interpretation
National Association of State Foresters
National Association of Stale Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers (NASORLO)*
National Association of State Park Directors *
National Assn of Umv Fishenes & Wild Program
National Audubon Society *
Anchorage Audubon Society. Inc Arctic Audubon Society. AK Arkansas Valley Audubon Society Atlanta Audubon Society Big Bend Audubon Society Big Bluestem Audubon Society Birmingham Audubon Society Bitterroot Audubon Black Hills Audubon Society Boulder County Audubon Society Bucks County Audubon Society Cape Henry Audubon Society Cedar Rapids Audubon Chequamegon Audubon Society. Wl Coeur d'Alene Chapter Columbia Audubon Society. SC Columbia Audubon Society. MO Conococheague Audubon Society Audubon Society of Corvallis Dakota Pravie Audubon Society ^Pelaware-O»ego Audubon Society Qenver Audubon Society Dec Moines Audubon Society Detrtait Audubon Society Dubutlye Audubon Society Fargo-Woorhead Audubon Society Flathead Audubon Society Fort Collins Audubon Soaety Four Rivers Audubon Society Golden Eagle Audubon Council Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society Huachuca Audubon Society Huntington Audubon Society Idaho Audubon Council Audubon Council of Illinois Iowa Audubon Council Juneau Audubon Chapter Juniata Valley Audubon Society Audubon Society of Kalamazoo Kansas Audubon Council Kanza Audubon Chapter Kissimmee Valley Audubon Society I Sorth Capitol Street, NW. Suite $44. Washington. DC 20001
55
Kodiak Audubon Society
Lakota Audubon Society
Last Chance Audubon Society
Loess Hills Audubon Society
Lycoming Audubon Society, PA
Madison Audubon Society
Maine Audubon Society
Mecklenburg Audubon Society
Michigan Audubon Society
Audubon Society of Missouri
Missouri Breaks Chapter Audubon Society
Monmouth County Audubon Society. NJ
Montana Audubon Council
Morns Highlands Audubon Society. NJ
Nebraska Audubon Council
New Hope Audubon Society
Audubon Council of NY State. Inc
Audubon Council of North Carolina
Northeast Pennsylvania Audubon Society
Northern Flint Hills Audubon Society
Northern Iowa Prairie Lakes Audubon Chapter
Northwest Illinois Audubon Society
Oconee Audubon Society
Ocmulgee Audubon Society
Ogeechee Audubon Society, GA
Onondaga Audubon Society
Audubon Society of Omaha
Owashtanong Islands Audubon Society. Ml
Palouse Audubon Society. ID
Audubon Council of Pennsylvania
Peona Audubon Society
Phoenix Audubon Society of So Illinois
Audubon Society of Portland
Portneauf Valley Audubon Society
Potomac Valley Audubon Society
Praine Falcon Audubon Chapter
Praine Hills Audubon Society/Western SD
Prairie Woods Audubon Society
Quad City Audubon Society. lA
Quittapatilla Audubon Society. PA
Red RocK Audubon Society
Rolling Hills Audubon Society
Seneca Rocks Audubon Society
Siskiyou Audubon Society
SE Kansas Chapter of Audubon Society
Topeka Audubon Society
Tulsa Audubon Society
Upmpqua Valley Audubon Society
Upper Iowa Audubon Society
Vandalia Audubon Society
Wake Audubon Society
Warioto Audubon Society. TN
West Virginia Audubon Council
Audubon Council of Washington
Wayne County Audubon Society. NC
Wildcat Audubon Society
Wyncote Audubon Society National Bowhunters Education Foundation - IL Chapter National Ecological and Conservation Opportunities Institute ^lational Fish & Wildlife Foundation
itional Military Fish & Wildlife Association Natl Museum of Nat History/Smithsonian Institution National Parks & Conservation Association. DC National Shooting Sports Foundation National Wild Turkey Federation
NWTF-Georgia Chapter National Wildlife Federation *
liaernational Association of Fish S WiUlift Agenda. •
Alabama Wildlife Federation
Wildlife Federation of Alaska
Arizona Wildlife Federation
Arkansas Wildlife Federation
Colorado Wildlife Federation
Florida Wildlife Federation
Idaho Wildlife Federation
Indiana Wildlife Federation
Iowa Wildlife Federation
Kansas Wildlife Federation
Louisiana Wildlife Federation
Mississippi Wildlife Federation
Montana Wildlife Federation
Nevada Wildlife Federation
New Hampshire Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
South Carolina Wildlife Federation
South Dakota Wildlife Federation
Stutsman County Wildlife Federation, ND
Tennessee Conservation League
Twin Falls Wildlife Federation, ID
Virginia Wildlife Federation
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Wyoming Wildlife Federation National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association National Wildflower Research Center The Native Fish Society Native Nursenes of Tallahassee. Inc Natural Areas Association Natural Area Guardians Jo Daviess County Natural Land Institute Natural Resources Technology Nature Alaska Tours The Nature Conservancy of Alaska The Nature Conservancy-Delaware Field Office The Nature Conservancy - SD Chapter The Nature Shop of Field View Photo & Design Nebraska Council of Sportsmen's Clubs Nebraska Family Campers & RVers Nebraska Ornithologists Union Nevada Public Land Access Coalition. Inc New Hampshire Audubon Society New Jersey Association Conservation Districts New Jersey Audubon Society New Jersey Consen/ation Foundation New Jersey School of Conservation New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. Inc New Mexico Falconry Association New Mexico Wildlife Federation. Inc New Pioneer Co-op
New York State Conservation Cojr,cil Inc North American Falconers' Association (NAFA) North American Fishing Club North American Hunter North Amencan Loon Fund North Amencan Wolf Society North Carolina Falconers' Guild North Carolina Herpetological Society North Country Trail Association Northern Illinois Anglers Association Northern Iowa River Greenbelt Association Northern Rockies Natural History Northwoods Limited Falconry Equipment Company Northwoods Wildlife Center Ocean Isle Beach. Turtle Watch Ohio Biological Survey Ohio Histoncal Society I Sorth Capitol Street. VW, Suite 544. Washinpon. DC 20001
56
Ohio Huskie Muskie Club
Ohio Odonala Survey
' State Trappers Association
0.,.o Wildlife Center
Ohio Wildlife Rehabilitators Association
or Sam Peabody Company
Old Harbor BooKs
Openlands Project
Orca Book & Sound Corr.pany ,-
Oregon Animal Welfare Alliancft
Oregon Environmental Council
Oregon Humane Society
Oregon Hunters Association - Bend Chapter
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Oregon Natural Desert Association
Oregon Trout
Organization of Fish and Wildlife Information Managers
Outdoor Escape
The Ornithological Society
Pacific Seabird Group
Palisades Nature Association
Partners In Flight NGO Committee
Passaic River Coalition
Paunacussing Watershed Association
Payless Drug Store, Burley, Idaho
Penn State College Bird Club
Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust
Penn State-Allentown Outdoor Club
Penns Woods Girl Scout Council
Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts, Inc
Pennsylvania Deer Association
^-nnsylvania Falconry & Hawk Trust
nyslvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission Pennsylvania Game Commission Pennsylvania Land Trust Association Pennyslvania Travel Council Pennsylvania Wildlife Federation Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust Peoria Academy of Science Pete Petersen's Wild Bird Shop Pheasants Forever, Inc - ID Chapter Pheasants Forever, Inc - Grundy County, IL Pheasants Forever, Inc - NV Chapter Pheasants Forever, Inc - OR Chapter Pheasants Forever, Inc - WA Chapter Phillipsburg Area Chamoer of Commerce. NJ Phi Sigma Biological Honor Society
PSBHS-Eastern Illinois University Chapter Phototake The Phoenix Zoo Picture Perfect Frames Inc Pike County Conservation District Pineland Canoes, Inc Pinelands Preservation Alliance Platte & Prairie Audubon Society, CO Pocono Environmental Education Center Point Reyes Bird Observatory Powdermill Nature Reserve °rairie Enthusiasts
South Central Wisconsin Chapter Kredatirs /defense Council of Oregon Preferred Adventures Ltd Preserve Arizona's Wolves Prince William Motel Pro'Wildlife Company Public Lands Foundation
tnternasionat ^Association of Fisk A Wiidlife .-igei
Pure Water for Kansas Program Purple Martin Conservation Association PVL Minnow l/art
Quail Hollow Nature & Bird Club. Ohio Quail Unlimited. Inc
QU-lllmois
QU-New Mexico Quakertown Recreation Club Quality Sportsmen's Club Quartz Creek Homeownwers Association Rainforest Alliance Reflective Images Photography The Reluctant Fisherman Inn Resource Management Associates Responsive Management Revere Land Conservancy Richardson Wildlife Foundation, Illinois Ridgerunner Forestry Services River Keepers, North Dakota Riverwear
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Rob & Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation Rome-Floyd Parks & Recreation Authority Ron Levy Photography R&R Spoils, Inc
Leonard Lee Rue, III, Wildlife Photographer The Ruffed Grouse Society
TRGS-IA Chapter The Salisbury Zoological Park Saskatchewan Wetlands Cons Corporation Save the Dunes Council Save the Prairie Society Safari Club International
SC-GA Chapter
SC-AK Chapter Sawtooth Wildlife Council Seaward Association for Advancement of Marine
Science (SAAMS) Second Chance Wildlife Schramm Nature Photography Club Scott County Soil & Water Conservation Distnct Shaker Lakes Regional Nature Center Sibley-Ocheyedan High School Wildlife Biology Class Sierra Club
Cedar Prairie Group, Sierra Club
East River Group Sierra Club, SD
Great Basin Chapter of the Sierra Club, NV
Heart of Illinois Sierra Club
Pennsylvania Sierra Club
Sierra Club Appal Reg Cons Com
Sierra Club Glackhawk Group. IL
Sierrra Club. Flonda Chapter
Flonda Sierra Club, Public Lands Committee
Illinois Chapter, Sierra Club
Central Iowa Sierra Club
Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club Sheriff Tom Tramel, FL
Simpson College - Dept of Biology & Envir Science Sitka Center for Art and Ecology
of the Neskowin Coast Foundation Lawton L Skipper, Real Estate Broker Snowline Bed & Breakfast Snowline Marine Adventures Societas Biophilia Society for Ecological Restoration Society for the Study of Amphibians & Reptiles Society of American Foresters . 444 Sorlh Capitol Street, .VI*', Suite S44. Washington. DC 20001
57
SAF-New Jersey Student Chapter So ' (or Conservation Biology
SFCB-Aldo Leopold Chapter
SFCB-Colorado Plateau Chapter Sourdough Outfitters, Inc South Branch Watershed Association South Carolina Open Shooting Dog Championship South Dakota Assn o( Conservation Districts South Dakota Discovery Center & Aquanum South Dakota Ornithologists Union South Dakota Science Teachers Association South Dakota Soil & Water Conservation Society South Dakota State Wildlife Conservation Club South Jersey Land Trust
Southeast Alaska Coalition of Outdoor Educators Southeastern Fishes Council Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen, NM Southwest Iowa Birders Sportsmans Atlas Company Sportsmen Conservationists of Texas. Inc St Hubertus Outdoor Enterprises Stan Stephens Cruises Starbuck Charters Alaskan Guide Service State College Bird Club Don and Lillian Stokes. Nature Authors Stonefly Angler
Sugar Creek Protection Society, OH Sunshine Electric & Plumbing Supply Company Sustina Air Sen/ice
Suwanee River Dog Hunters Association Swarovski Optik North America. Ltd
Instruments. Inc Tan Timbers Tampa Wmgmaster Taylor Outfitting
Tenafly Nature Center Association Tennessee Environmental Education Association Tennessee Ornithological Society
TOS-Greeneville Chapter Tennessee Trails Association The Conservation Fund, Alaska Office The Environmental Resource Network (TERN) The Wildlife Society *
TWS-Alabama Chapter
TWS-Alaska Chapter
TWS-Arizona Chapter
TWS-Clemson Univ Student Chapter
TWS-Colorado Chapter
TWS-Colorado State Univ Student Chapter
TWS-Cornell University Chapter
TWS-Florida Chapter
TWS-Georgia Chapter
TWS-ldaho Chapter
TWS-ldaho Student Chapter
TWS-lllinois Chapter
TWS-lndiana Chapter
TWS-lowa Chapter
TWS-Kansas Chapter
TWS-University of Maine Student Chapter
TWS-Maryland\Delaware Chapter
TWS-Michigan Chapter
TWS-Minnesota Chapter
TWS-Mississippi Chapter
TWS-Mississippi State Univ Student Chapter
TWS-Univ of Missouri-Columbia Student Chapter
TWS-Montana Chapter
TWS-Murray State University Chapter liutrnatioHol Association of Fish S Wildlife Agtncits, <
National Capital Chapter
TWS-Nebraska Chapter
TWS-New England Chapter
TWS-New Jersey Chapter
TWS-New Jersey Student Chapter
TWS-New Mexico Chapter
TWS-New York Chapter
TWS-North Carolina Chapter
TWS-North Central Section
TWS-NC, Haywood Comm College Stud Chapter
TWS-North Dakota Chapter
TWS-Ohio Chapter
TWS-Oregon Chapter
TWS-Pennsylvania Chapter
TWS-Penn State Student Chapter
TWS-Southern Illinois Univ Student Chapter
TWS-South Carolina Chapter
TWS-South Dakota Chapter
TWS-Tennessee Chapter
TWS-Texas Chapter
TWS-Univ of AK Fairbanks Student Chapter
TWS-Virginia Chapter
TWS-West Virginia Chapter
TWS-West Virginia Univ Student Chapter
TWS-Western Illinois Univ Student Chapter
TWS-Univ of Wl Student Chapter-Stevens Point
TWS-Wisconsin Chapter
TWS-Wyoming Chapter Thompson/Center Arms Co . Inc Three Rivers Resources Trails & Recreational Access for Alaska (TRAAK) Citizens
Advisory Board Trails Club of Oregon Trails North Tortoise Group Tracker Manne Trailside Discovery Trees Forever Trout Unlimited
TU-Cumberland Valley
TU-Ferdinand Hayden Chapter, CO
TU-Forks of the Delaware
TU-Frank Hornberg Chapter, Wl
TU-Georgia Council
TU-Montana Council
TU-Mountain Streams
TU-South Platte Chapter. CO
TU-Sagebrush Chapter Trumpeter Swan Society Tucker Aviation. Inc Turnstone Ecolog Res Assoc Ltd Ty Smedes Nature Photography Underwater Services United Bowhunters of Illinois University of Alaska, Anchorage
Alaska Natural Heritage Program University of Alaska. Fairbanks
Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit Dept of Biology & Wildlife Dept of Resources Management Institute of Arctic Biology University of Alaska Museum University of Delaware
Wildlife Conservation Club Univ of Iowa Environmental Health Sciences Res Center Univ of Kentucky Student Forestry & Wildlife Assn Univ of Tennessee Wildlife & Fisheries Society I Sortk Capitol Strett, SW. Suite S44. Washinpon, DC 20001
58
Unrv of Wisconsin - Women m Natural Resources
U ' Mississippi River Conservation Commitlee
U\., .! Raritan Waterstied Association
Upper Rockaway River Watershed Association
Urban Wildlife Resources
U S Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Mgmt Board
Utah Falconers & Raptor Breeders Association
The Van Buren County Conservation Board
Vermont Ecology Tours
Vermont Falconers Association
Vermont Woodlands Magazine
Vicksbirders
Virginia s Explore Park
Virginia Society of Ornithology
VWSP Rock Climbing Club
Washington Falconer's Association
The Waterfowl Festival. Inc
Webster Groves Nature Study Society
West Virginia Scenic Trails Association, Inc
West Virginia Trails Coalition
Western Regional Environmental Education Council
(WREEC) Weston & Associates, Inc Wetlands for the Americas Wetlands Institute Wheaton Park District, IL Whitefish Point Bird Observatory White Mountain Conservation League Whitetails Unlimited, Inc - lA Chapter Whooping Crane Conservation Association \A'ild Canid Survival & Res Center
) Wing Project, Inc Vvilderness Birding Adventures Wilderness Photography The Wilds
The Wild Bird Feeder The Wildfowl Trust of North America , Inc Wildlands Conservancy Wildlife Action, Inc
Wildlife Action of South Carolina
Wildlife Action of Georgia The Wildlife Authority Wildlife Conservation Advisory Council Wildlife Conservation Society Wildlife Federation of Alaska Wildlife Forever Wildlife Management Institute " Wildlife Preservation Trust International The Wildlife Center of Virginia The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America Wild Sentry Wildstock
Wilson Ornithological Society Wind Rider Images
Wisconsin Sharp-Tailed Grouse Society Wisconsin State Trails Council Wisconsin Society for Ornithology Women's Voices for the Earth Woodbury County Conservation Foundation
'oods Sporting Goods Woods & Wetlands Wildlife Center World Wildlife Fund • York College Biology Club, PA Yukon River Tours Zion Lutheran Church Zoo Atlanta
International .4ssocUitU>n of Fish <t Uimft Agenda. 444 Sonh Capitol Street, NW, Suite 544, Washington, DC 20001
59
"ONv Knoules _ _ _
GOV6BNOB ' ^Jp , ^_ Jun««o, Alum mV" 000'
19071 4«S 3S0O
>0 So. u. Alaski 19071 4«! Fm (907) 4«S'3S32
State of Alaska
office of the governor Jlneal
December 4. 1995
:-..-.... }/
Mr. R. Max Peterson, Executive Director International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Hall of States
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 544 . Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Peterson:
As Governor of the State of Alaska, I endorse the concept of the Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative "'Teaming With Wildlife." This concept provides a fair and innovative approach for funding conservation and outdoor recreation in the United States. Just as sportsmen and women have supported conservation for over 50 years, "Teaming With Wildlife" offers an opportunity for all outdoor enthusiasts to contribute their share toward conserving our wild heritage.
In AlasksL, this funding will not only enhance important conservation and recreation programs of the Department of Fish and Game and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, but will significantly benefit Alaska's growing visitor industry by providing new and better opportiinities for Americans firom throughout the country to enjoy Alaska's spectacular wildlife and wildlands.
I am pleased to join all those who are "Teaming with Wildlife" and have the State of Alaska listed as a member of your national coalition.
Sincerely,
Tony Knowles Governor
United States Senator Ted Stevens
United States Senator Frank Murkowski
United States Congressman Don Young
Commissioner Frank Rue, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Commisioner John Shively, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
John Katz, Office of the Governor, Washington, DC
60
JOHN A. KITZHABER
Governor
rjc'C T'l rrr
December 18. 1995 -"-'-i/tj u^
R£C£;v£^
2 1 1995
1395
R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies 444 N Capitol Street. NW Washington. DC 20001
Dear Mr. Peterson;
This nation is blessed with a rich diversity of fish and wildlife resources, and it is up to each and every one of us to ensure that this legacy is passed on to future generations. I am pleased to endorse an initiative that I believe can help us with this challenge: "Teaming With Wildlife: A Natural Investment."
Management of fish and wildlife species that are not hunted or angled make up the single largest unfunded mandate faced by state fish and wildlife agencies today ^ In Or.gon. 88 percent of our native species are in this category. Funds raised through Teaming With Wildlife will help Oregon implement the Oregon Wildlife Diversity Plan, keep species off state and federal endangered species lists, and provide a wide array of recreational and educational opportunities for citizens and visitors. I believe diversity is important to both the biological and economic health of Oregon.
Teaming With Wildlife provides a way for all citizens to contribute to wildlife conservation, recreation and education. It may also be our best hope for ensuring healthy fish and wildlife and their habitat for the future.
Sincerely,
John A. Kitzhaber, M.D. JAK/sm
61
P.CCEIVED --'• 1 ' '^
STATE OF FLORIDA
(Office of ti|c (iotoernur
THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32399-0001 LaWTON OOLES
GOVERNOR . ,
Januan ;. 1996
Mr Max Peterson
Executive Vice President
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
444 Nonh Capitol Street. N.W,
Suite 544
Washinaton. D.C. 20001
Dear Max:
On behalf of the State of Florida. 1 am pleased to endorse the Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative.
.As a committed sportsman and lifelong outdoor enthusiast. I am ver\ aware of the successes of the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration .Acts. Notwithstanding that funding source. In Florida, we struggle each year to find sufficient revenues to prevent further declines in our fish and wildlife populations, to ensure high quality outdoor recreation, and to meet the rising need for conserv ation education. We are certain that we can put the money procured by this new initiative, should it pass, to immediate good use. It is particularly attractive to me because it allows everyone who has a stake in a wildlife-nch outdoors to contnbute to its conservation and management, and because the products to be taxed are non-essential, or luxury items.
Thank you for your work on behalf of the nation's wildlife through your commitment to this initiative, and other good works. I am happy to offer our full support.
With kind regards, 1 am
C^'
rAWTON CHILES LC mlp cc: Congressional Delegation
25-856 0-96-3
62
RECEiVfiDja- : : 1995
STATE OF GEORGIA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ATLANTA 30334-0900
Zell Miller
GOVERNOR
Mr. R. Max Peterson, Executive Director International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies riaii of States
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 544 Washington, D.C. 20001
January 5, 1995
Dear Mr. Peterson;
The United States boasts a rich diversity of fish and wildlife resources which we, as citizens of this nation, must strive to conserve for future generations. As Governor of the State of Georgia, I am pleased to endorse the Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative, commonly called Teaming With Wildlife. This concept provides a fair and innovative approach for funding fish and wildlife conservation, recrsation and education programs which will benefit a wide array of wildlife as well as the many citizens who gain enjoyment from them.
In Georgia, Teaming With Wildlife would not only provide funding for important wildlife conservation programs conducted by the Department of Natural Resources, but it would also provide funding for wildlife recreation and education opportunities for Georgia's citizens. Just as the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts have allowed sportsmen and women to support game and sportfish conservation programs, the Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative will allow other wildlife enthusiasts to contribute to wildlife conservation programs that will have far reaching benefits for nongame species.
I am pleased to join the growing li'-t of fovernors, conservation organizations and industries who have endorsed "Teaming With Wildlife' and will be pleased to see the great state of Georgia listed among national coalition members.
Sincerely,
c
Vvv
63
RECE-vii; ■ - STAT1896»F Arkansas Office of the Oox ernor
N/zifr ( uptt'tl Jim Guy Tucker
March 8, 1996
R. Max Peterson Executive Vice President International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 544 Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Arkansas, like the nation, is blessed with a rich diversity of fish and wildlife resources, and it is up to each and every one of us to ensure that this legacy is passed on to future generations. I am pleased to endorse an initiative which I believe can help us with this challenge: "Teaming With Wildlife: A Natural Investment."
As a committed sportsman and lifelong outdoor enthusiast, I am aware of the successes of the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts. In Arkansas we struggle each year to find sufficient revenues to prevent further declines in our fish and wildlife populations, to ensure high quality outdoor recreation, and to meet the rising need for conservation education.
The Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative will allow other wildlife enthusiasts to contribute to wildlife conservation programs that will have far reaching benefits for nongame species.
This concept provides a fair and innovative approach for funding conservation and outdoor recreation in the United States. Just as sportsmen and women have supported conservation for over 50 years, "Teaming With Wildlife" offers an opportunity for all outdoor enthusiasts to contribute their share toward conserving our wild heritage.
As this legislation begins to move through Congress, I will be pleased to help in any way I can.
Sincerely,
Jim Guy T\V:ker JGT/lg/vj
64
HOWARD DEAN, MJ).
Governor
RECEIVED APR 3 t996
State of Vermont OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Montpelier 05609
Tel: (802) 828-3333 Fax: (802) 828-3339 TDD: (802) 828-3345
April 2, 1996
R. Max Peterson - '
Executive Vice President
International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies
444 N. Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Peterson,
On behalf of the State of Vermont, I am pleased to endorse the Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative, commonly referred to as "Teaming with Wildlife." Our nation is blessed with a large diversity of fish, wildlife and habitat resources which need broad-based support to ensure their perpetuation for future generations.
Vermont shares this wide diversity of wildlife which local and national surveys indicate the majority of residents (80+ %) feel are important to a high quality life. Surveys conducted by our Fish and Wildlife Department also show that our citizens are crying out for increased conservation efforts, recreational opportunities, and increased educational/outreach efforts by the Department. The Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative addresses these concerns with an approach to develop a long term reliable funding source based on the 'user pay* concept that has been extremely successful for more than 50 years with the Sportfish and Wildlifi! Restoration Acts passed by Congress in 1934 and 1950 respectively.
This initiative is attractive to me, for it culminates efforts to develop a fair user pay program where all who actively and passively enjoy wildlife, and feel it is important to their quality of life, can contribute to conservation, recreation, and education programs with far reaching benefits to humans and wildlife populations alike.
Sincerely,
^^
Howard Dean, M.D. Governor
HD:tw
cc: Allen Elser
65
^tstc of ^outSTxnji
POST orr^c* bo« f«
Mr R Max Peterson April 15, 1996
Execuuve Vice President IntemaQoDal Associaaoo of Fish and
WUdbfe Agencies 444 North Capitol Street, NW Saitc544 Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Peterson;
The State of Looisiaoa is known as the *^portsinan's Paradise." Indeed, it has an extensive recreatioaal and commeraal indnstry hased upon the abundance of oor natural resouttxs Those industries generate billions of dollars to the ecooomy, and through a combined effort of the stale and federal govenua^ts generate motiey to support activities through programs such as the DingcU Johnson, F>ittmaD-Robert5oa, and Wallop-Breaux federal initiatives Although these programs are highly successful, the state must struggle each year with finding sufficient funds to continue and enhance our programs.
The Wildlife Diversity Fooding Initiative seeks to provixle additional tnonies from wildlife enthusiasts to fiirther the cnissioo of conserving biodiversity. In Louisiana, 86 percent of our vertebrate species of wildlife are not btrnted. fished, or trapped- The proposed legislation would allow the state to focus efforts on many wildlife species that are in decline prior to their being listed as thicatcned or endangered. The appctiacfa to wildlife manag^incnt w :)uld become proactive instead of reactive. This initialive is particularly auractive to me because the products proposed to be taxed are non-essential or luxury items. It allows everyone who has a stake in outdoor recicatioa to contribute to cooservatioo. edncation, and ircreational enhancements.
I am pleased to join all ibose who are Teanung with Wildlife" and to have the State of Louisiana listed as a mnnber of yoor natioaal coalition.
Senator J. Bennett Johnston Senator John Breaux Congressman Robert Livingston Congressman WHliam Jefferson Congresstnan W J. "^illy" Tatizin Congressman Qco Fields Congressman Jun McCtery Congtessman Richard Baker Cangressman Jimmy Hayes ^Mi. James R Jenkins, Jr., Seawaty. LA Depaitment of Wildlife and Fisheries
66
0.03 06 02 OS F*X 505 827 7»0l
OmCE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPTTOt SANTA FE. NTEW MEXICO 8n(H
June 4, 1996
Mx". R. Max Peterson
Executive vice President
International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Hall of States
444 N. Capitol St. NW, Suite 544
Was^ang-ton D.C. 20001
Dear Mr. Peterson:
r have reviewed information, pro and con, on the Teaming with Wildlife proposal and am offering my support for bringing the concept into law.
Factors I found favorable include: The user pay/user benefits concept; the logical extension to the well tested, successful Sport Fish and WildJ.ife Restoration programs; an existing collection and disbursement system; resolution of taxing and funding issues between spor-tsmen and other outdoors and wildlife users; the substantive funding for additional outdoor recreational opportunities and non-game wildlife; and the opportxinity to benefit our state economically through expanded outdoor recreational and educational programs.
1 am encouraging our Department of Game and Fish and State Game Commission to work with the you, the public and our Congressional delegation to inform them of my support and reasons for it.
Thank you for your leadership in this important legislative initiative.
Sincerely,
Gary E. Johnson Governor of New Mexico
GEJ: jc: Ih
67
GENERAL OFFICES
1935 South Campbell ' Spnngfield. Missouri 65898 • (417) 887-1915
PRINTED HEARING RECORD DOCUMENT
SUBMITTED TO:
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WILDLIFE & OCEANS
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 6, 1996
FROM:
MARTIN G. MAC DONALD
DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE PUBLIC RELATIONS
CONSERVATION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
BASS PRO SHOPS
FOR:
ENDORSEMENT OF
"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE"
THE WILDLIFE DIVERSITY FUNDING INITIATIVE
Keeping Nets Wet Around The World
^% panted on recycled paper
68
GENERAL OFFICES
1935 South Campbell • Spnngtield. Missoun 65898 • (417) 887-1915
Mr Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, My name is Manin G Mac Donald 1 am the Director of Corporate Public Relations, Conservation and Youth Development for BASS Pro Shops 1 appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today
My first statement to you, is that the Bass Pro Shops Corporate family "enthusiastically and wholeheartedly" endorses "Teaming With Wildlife".
This endorsement comes from John L Morris, President and Founder, our affiliated companies, and our associates and numerous customers who have expressed written support for this initiative
Bass Pro Shops is a leading merchant of outdoor recreational products and services with a special part of its mission focused on conservation of our natural resources The following Bass Pro Shops affiliated companies endorse this initiative
Bass Pro Shops Catalog L.P.
* Producing 36 million catalogs
* The leading supplier of quality fishing tackle around the world
* A major supplier of outdoor recreational products Outdoor World Retail
* Mega retail stores are currently in Springfield, Missouri, and at Atlanta, Georgia, with announced store locations to be at Ft Lauderdale, Florida and Nashville, Tennessee
* The store in Springfield, Missouri is Missouri's #1 tourist attraction with 4 million visitors per year
Tracker Marine
* The largest manufacturer of freshwater fishing boats in the woHd
* The brands we build and sell include Bass Tracker, Sun Tracker, Nitro, Fisher, Spectrum, and Myacht
Martin G. Mac Donald
Bass Pro Shops
Pagp I
Keeping Nets Wet Around The World
) pnnted on recycled paper
69
Outdoor World Incentives
• A premier incentives program offering outdoor recreation products to hundreds of corporations throughout the United States
American Rod & Gun
• The wholesale division serving more than 7,000 independently owned sporting goods stores
Worldwide Sportsman
• A premier saltwater fly fishing center and sports travel agency Islamorada, Florida Dogwood Canyon
• An 8,000 acre nature park in the scenic Ozark Mountains Big Cedar Lodge
• One of America's top wilderness resorts located on Table Rock Lake just south of Branson, Missouri.
"Teaming with wildlife" is an investment in the future bringing positive benefits to:
Outdoor Recreation
Conservation and Conservation Education
Outdoor Enthusiasts and Outdoor Recreation Customers
The outdoor recreation products and services businesses plus the industries
they impact
The initiative is a user pay, user benefit concept Bass Pro Shops customers tell us "time and time again" that they will support a user fee .... if it benefits the resource. This program benefits the resource
The initiative is good business in that
• The outdoor recreation industry is dependent upon a natural resource base It's really pretty simple No fish and wildlife no business We must invest in our precious natural resource and public lands and waters
• This program will allow users to have a financial stake in the resources they enjoy
Martin G. Mac Donald Bass Pro Shops Page 2
70
• This program would expand the outdoor recreation market as it would increase the number of people enjoying the outdoors and provide quality experiences
• For every $1 00 spent for outdoor recreation equipment — another $3 00 to $4 00 is spent on recreational services
• 160 million Americans are participating in wildlife related activities $18 billion in revenue was generated from the sale of these outdoor products and associated sales in 1991.
From a Bass Pro Shops perspective we feel "Teaming with Wildlife" will increase the profitability of the outdoor recreation industry and our business We are a profit corporation and I assure you, we could not and would not endorse this initiative if we thought this excise tax would be a detriment to our outdoor recreation focused enterprise
"Teaming with Wildlife" is a capital investment With more recreational opportunities being created through trails, access points, land acquisition, instructional guides, nature centers and a stronger environmental education curriculum available to teachers and schools, we draw more people to outdoor recreation These projects translate to more people buying our products
With continued maintenance and conservation of our outdoor resources, we continue to satisfy our current customers with a quality outdoor experience We are aware of the decline in wildlife populations and the lack of funding available to address pressing conservation needs, as well as recreation and environmental education needs If we don't maintain and invest in our natural resources, our industry is in the same danger as our wildlife
Lastly, "Teaming with Wildlife" offers an excellent marketing opportunity By having all user fee products identified by a "green logo" (as indicated in the legislation), and by identifying on-the- ground projects as having been fijnded through this initiative, our company can cuhivate a unique relationship with our customers who would be aware of their contributions to and who care deeply about such conservation issues
The excise tax levied at the manufacturer's level makes sense for efficiency and fairness purposes Companies that are truly competitive should be able to withstand the increase in their prices because 1 ) the excise tax (and hence, the pnce increase) is applied across the board for all companies, 2) the excise tax is minimal, and 3) there is considerable customer support for these flinds cannot be diverted for other purposes
As I review the potential benefits of this initiative, the most important point for me is that it creates a full service conservation menu for the outdoor customer.
I feel very lucky to live in Missouri, the home of the Missouri Department of Conservation, which by reputation is the leading conservation department in North America Thanks to an 1/8 of 1% conservation sales tax initiative voted in by the citizens of the state, 1 can
Martin G. Mac Donald Bass Pro Shops Page 3
71
• Travel just 20 miles for a shooting sports experience at the Andy Dalton Shooting Range and Training Center Complex
• Fish at the nearby James River through a Conservation Department access area Hunt at the Bois D'Ark Conservation Area.
• Birdwatch and nalk the nature trails of the Springfield Nature Center
Implementing the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative would create a full service conservation department for each state in our nation... thus meeting the needs of today's outdoor enthusiast.
The key beneflts to this initiative would be as follows:
CONSERVATION & CONSERVATION EDUCATION
Strategies
To sustain a diverse array of fish and wildlife and their habitats with an emphasis on preventing species from being endangered. To foster a responsible stewardship ethic through conservation education efforts.
Objectives
• To prevent a decline in a wide range offish and wildlife
Special Note: Today's wildlife are under tremendous pressure from declining habitat and other environmental factors. 1,800 wildlife species have no reliably funded conservation programs
• To conserve habitat for wildlife and restore natural habitat that is scarce and declining. To bring back selected native species to their native range
• To establish and maintain nature centers and conservation education centers and camps
• To interpret the natural world along roads, trails, at wildlife viewing areas, picnic and campgrounds
• To provide educational programs that introduce people to the out of doors to increase their comfort level in the "natural" outdoor world
To foster an outdoor ethic and conservation stewardship.
Martin G. Mac Donald Bass Pro Shops Page 4
72
RECREATION
Strateev
To enhance the outdoor recreational experience. Objectives
• To provide appropriate access for hiker, canoeists, photographers, birdwatchers, mountain biicers and other outdoor enthusiasts through trails, viewing blinds and observation towers
• To provide recreation information to the outdoor enthusiast from guide boolts to "How To" clinics
• To provide a nationwide network of wildlife viewing areas
Special Note: Wildlife viewing is the fastest growing outdoor recreation leisure activity
• To publish and distribute backyaid habitat guides for wildlife enthusiasts wishing to enhance wildlife outside their homes
Not only could a resident hunt and fish, but they could birdwatch, do nature study, learn how to do backyard wildlife gardens and learn why butterflies are an important indicator species for the quality of our environment
/ would also like to make the point to you that this initiative would relieve financial stress on state conservation organizations that are increasingly being asked by the general public to fund programs like Watchahle Wildlife, but due to dwindling state dollars are forced with allocating hunting and fishing license fees to general conservation initiatives. This trend must not continue as these funds should always be designated to improve hunting and fishing The "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative would provide the fijnds needed to initiate key conservation programs that the general public is asking for
At Bass Pro Shops we feel the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative would parallel the great success of the Sports Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) in 1951 and the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) passed in 1937
For over 50 years, hunters and anglers have paid user fees on hunting and fishing equipment to the Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration Funds These fijnds have restored populations of once critically low species such as the wild turkey, wood duck, pronghom antelope, and striped bass, conserved millions of acres of habitat across our nation, and provided countless hours of enjoyment on our nation's lands and waterways for hunters, anglers, and many other outdoor enthusiasts.
Martin G. Mac Donald Bass Pro Shops Pages
73
Some funds from the Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Programs have bene6ted common species that are not hunted or fished as well However, the majority of this funding is designated for game and sport fish as the hunter and angler are paying these user fees The "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative is similar as it is a user pay, user benefit system and would benefit the resource It would create a partnership between the outdoor users, the outdoor recreation industry, and the states and the federal government to enhance the conservation and management of the wide array of fish and wildlife species in the United States and to increase public opportunities to observe, understand and enjoy free-ranging fish & wildlife in natural habitats.
An important spin-oflf of this Initiative would be the tremendous opportunity it would offer to America's families, in a time when family values are a key issue This Initiative would allow numerous opportunities for the family to enjoy the outdoors together
Bass Pro Shops has a very good working relationship with the Missouri Department of Conservation Over the years, we have collaborated on a number of common interest projects We will continue to provide our feedback to the agency as this new program develops and to represent our customers, and we feel confident that we will be pleased with the work we can accomplish together The key to creative solutions and actions for conservation will best be established through partnerships
My summary point is that a healthy future for wildlife means a healthy future for outdoor recreation and businesses that depend on it.
We have a slogan at Bass Pro Shops THE GREAT OUTDOORS PASS IT ON.
We feel strongly "Teaming with Wildlife" will do exactly this.
Special Note:
We treat conservation very seriously at Bass Pro Shops. The following pages include a summary of conservation achievements of John L. Morris our President and Founder and a list of some investments we have made in conservation.
Martin G. Mac Donald Bass Pro Shops Page 6
74
GENERAL OFFICES
1935 South Campbell • Spnnglwld. Missouri 65898 • (417) 887-1915
JOHN L. MORRIS A Conservation Perspective
John Morris was a three term Chairman of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, one of the foremost conservahon organizations in America. The foundation has generated as much as $22 million for on-the-ground conservation projects in just one year.
John is a member of the Board of Trustees of the International Game Fish Association in their worldwide efforts toward better game fish management
John served as the Chairman of the Fund Raising Committee for the University of Missouri's School of Forestry, Fishery and Wildlife's $13 million Natural Resource Building.
Other awards and recognition include:
. 1990 recipient of the NATIONAL CONSERVATION ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
from the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. . 1990 recipient of the TEDDY ROOSEVELT CONSERVATIONIST AWARD,
presented to John by former President George Bush.
• 1992 FISHERMAN OF THE YEAR AWARD from the Sport Fishing Institute considered the top fishing conservation organization in the world.
• 1993 MASTER CONSERVATIONIST AWARD from the Missouri Departinent of Conservation - Only 36 others have received this award in its 51 year history.
. In 1994 he was inducted into the SPRINGFIELD AREA SPORTS HALL OF FAME. . 1995 recipient of the INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION ACHIEVEMENT AWARD. John Morris was the first conservationist to be honored with this award.
John Morris and BASS PRO SHOPS work hand-in-hand with the Missouri Department of Conservation, and the Missouri Conservation Federation, at all levels, to help make their goals become reality, whether ifs a conservation area project or a planning session. Since 1986, BASS PRO SHOPS has been the sole corporate sponsor of the Operation Game Thief program, which focuses on illegal poaching.
Through John Morris' leadership, his various companies hold a unique position in the business world by having a commitment to conservation formally state in their mission statements.
Keeping Nets Wet Around The World
^\ printed on recycled paper
75
GENERAL OFFICES
1935 South Campbell • Spnngfield. Missouri 65898 • (417) 887-1915
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS SUPPORTED BY BASS PRO SHOPS
• BASS PRO SHOPS has been a supporter of the Missouri Beautification Association which helps clean up trash along Missouri's roadways and shore lines.
• BASS PRO SHOPS supported expansion of the Dingell/Johnson bill to create greater revenue b>eing returned to conservation programs through taxes collected on the sale of sporting goods.
• BASS PRO SHOPS is the major sponsor of "Operation Game Thief", a program aimed at curbing poaching within the state of Missouri. As a matter of fact, BASS PRO SHOPS has contributed in excess of a million dollars to the Missouri Department of Conservahon and its programs.
• BASS PRO SHOPS Annual Christmas Tree Fish Habitat Program has recycled more than 100,000 Christmas trees into much-needed fish habitat in are lakes.
• BASS PRO SHOPS has been a constant supporter of Catch & Release, promoted nationally through the company's catalogs (total circulation 36 million plus) a "Free the Fighter" campaign.
• John L. Morris was a strong supporter of establishing minimum length limits on a number of Missouri lakes.
• BASS PRO SHOPS strongly supported Missouri's unique design for conservation which earmarks 1/8 of 1% sales tax exclusively to conservation. John Morris did much to promote public awareness of the program through company-funded advertising in support of the tax.
• In March of 1988, BASS PRO SHOPS hosted the first WORLD'S FISHING FAIR, drawing thousands of people from every state in the country. The entire gate proceeds were earmarked for conservahon. The first recipient was the School of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife at the University of Missouri with a $50,000 grant toward expansion of the department
• BASS PRO SHOPS donated over $100,000 from the 1992 WORLD'S FISHING FAIR gate proceeds to conservation. The money went to the Nahonal Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Future Fisherman Foundation, Sport Fishing Institute, Fish America
Keeping Nets Wet Around The World
^\ pnnted on recycled paper
76
Foundation, International Game Association, and the Missouri Department of Conservation. This contribution represented only a small part of the $1.5 million BASS PRO SHOPS has donated to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and International Game Association.
• BASS PRO SHOPS is a regular contributor/sponsor of conservation service organizations including: Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Future Fisherman Foundation, Trout Unlimited, Recreational Roundtable and others.
• BASS PRO SHOPS has been a co-sponsor, along with Buck Knives, of the National FFA Wildlife Proficiency Award Program. This program honors FFA members for excellence in the Wildlife Proficiency Program which trains individuals in the principals and practices of improving our wildlife resources.
• BASS PRO SHOPS sponsors the Missouri Federal Junior Duck Stamp Best of Show Award. The contest is designed to acquaint youths with the importance of wildlife preservation and conservation by educating them in envirorvmental issues as they relate to wetlands.
• BASS PRO SHOPS is a national sponsor of Hooked on Fishing International's Kids All-American Fishing Derby and Seniors AU-American Fishing Festival programs. In its tenth year, the program has had over one million youth participants.
• BASS PRO SHOPS is a major sponsor of the National Wild Turkey Federation Jakes Program, contributing in excess of a quarter of a million dollars to the NWTF.
• BASS PRO SHOPS is a sponsor of a Conservation Explorer Post. Scout members are involved in conservation causes throughout the Ozarks.
• Teaming with the Missouri Department of Conservation, BASS PRO SHOPS sponsors Great Outdoors Day, a National Hunting and Fishing Day celebration in which families are encouraged to learn more about hiking, fishing, archery, shooting and conservation through demonstrations and hands-on experiences.
• Also in conjunction with Missouri Department of Conservation, BASS PRO SHOPS kicks off National Fishing Week, each year by sponsoring Kids' Fishing Fun Day in Springfield, Missouri. This event continues to bring thousands of young participants to a local pond for a day of fishing and conservation education.
77
^^^^S^ national association of
EH state park Ol directors
STATEMENT BY
President
David L. Weizenicker
Wisconsin
Vfce President Fran P Mainella Florida
Secretary- Treasurer Kenneth E. Travous Arizona
Yvonne S Ferrell Idaho (1997)
Gregory A Marshall New Jersey (1997)
Laurie Mathews Color; 1997)
Ron Holliday Texas (1999)
Philip K McKnelly North Carolina (1999)
Gerald J Pagac Indiana (1999)
PAST PRESIDENT
Edward J Koenemann VermonI
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ney C Landrum 126 Mill Branch Road Tallahassee. FL 32312 Phone 904-893-4959
David L. Weizenicker, President
National Association of State Park Directors
On the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative
House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
June 6, 1996, 10:00 a.m.
I am Dave Weizenicker, the President of the National Association of State Park Directors. This organization consists of the administrative heads of all 50 state park systems I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspectives with you on this important conservation initiative. I'd like to include for the record our organization's resolution of support for Teaming with Wildlife
The National Association of State Park Directors is pleased to be a partner with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in this important effort to conserve fish and wildlife habitat and enhance the public's opportunity to observe, understand, and enjoy fish and wildlife in its natural habitat!
There are 5,357 state parks, state forests, and natural areas throughout the nation consisting of nearly 24 million acres. The nation's state park systems hosted over 752 million visits in 1995.
Our organization is supporting this proposal for basically two reasons:
1 The fish and wildlife conservation, fish and wildlife-related recreation and education components of this proposal can provide magnificent opportunities for the outdoor recreationists who are growing in numbers in every state. In fact, nature tourism is the fastest growing segment of the travel industry, boasting a 30% annual increase each year since 1987. Additionally, dramatic increases in tent camping, backpacking, off-road biking, hiking, and canoeing continue, with projected growth in these activities ranging from 11% to almost 35% from 1989 to 2000.
2 The proposal offers an opportunity to rely less on government and more on ourselves-as users-to fund outdoor recreation and resource programs. More and more people are seeking outdoor recreation opportunities for
^ • Printed on recycled paper
78
various purposes: to improve health, reduce stress, promote family togetherness, etc. Our constituencies generally tell us they are v^^illing to pay a fair share for increased outdoor resource related benefits so long as the additional cost/fee is utilized for the intended purposes.
This model for a user fee on recreation products is similar to the models for funding hunting and fishing programs such as Federal Aid in Wildlife restoration and the Sport Fish Restoration programs, which have endured for a half-century with the strong support of hunters and anglers Due to competing needs of federal and state dollars for other high pnority needs such as health, education, and public safety, badly needed funds for recreation and conservation will likely not be forthcoming, creating a monetary void which the user fee can fill
A user fee incentive will be of immeasurable assistance as "seed money" to encourage organizations and citizens to match, thereby maximizing the "bang for the buck". There is much evidence across the nation with our parks of groups of citizens asking how we in charge of the programs can help them to help us in turn be better stewards of their natural resources This program will go a long ways toward facilitating more public/private partnerships to leverage the available financing and accomplish what no one group or agency can accomplish on its own
Park visitors gravitate toward water bodies and natural areas of the parks, hoping to observe fish and wildlife in their natural habitat. Not only does this activity provide them the opportunity to observe , and educate themselves, but it also provides an opportunity to renew the human spirit For these reasons and others, more and more people are taking to the outdoors, with projected increases in activities like wildlife observation and photography of about 20% from 1989 to 2000.
Due to the large scale increases of user groups in a wide array of activities, two problems have arisen: conflicts between different user groups over areas and resources, and increased discontent of users from overcrowded conditions in recreational areas. Both problems have resulted in limited access to areas for recreation Teaming with Wildlife can provide the necessary funds to provide additional recreational opportunities and alleviate these problems.
In addition to serving as a remedy for the above mentioned problems. Teaming with Wildlife also allocates money for three important purposes: conservation, recreation, and education The recreation goal is simply to enhance the outdoor recreational experience by providing trails and access to land and water for hikers, paddlers, photographers, bird watchers, and mountain bikers. Organizations such as the Wisconsin Trail Council, North Country Trail Association, West Virginia Scenic Trails Association, Tenn Trails Association among others stress that trails are the most
79
important recreational fool we can provide All of these recreation groups and many more are part of the Teaming with Wildlife "team " They believe that Teaming with Wildlife will provide them tangible benefits, providing a real solution to the problems they see facing both recreationists and wildlife
Lands secured under Teaming with Wildlife will serve the dual purpose of wildlife habitat and places to hike, paddle, and hde a bike Restored riverways will provide important fish and wildlife habitat while adding to the aesthetic experience for recreationists Teaming with Wildlife also provides opportunities to enhance the outdoor recreation experience without disturbing wildlife, through the construction of observation towers, platforms, and viewing and photographic blinds. Additionally, a national network of wildlife viewing areas will offer a wide range of hiking expenences, from short nature trails near urban areas to remote trails in wilder terrain. These viewing areas serve as an outdoor learning centers to pass on a land stewardship ethic to our children
Teaming with Wildlife's education goal is to foster a responsible stewardship ethic through conservation education efforts such as: creating and maintaining nature centers, training teachers in conservation education, and providing sorely needed resources for schools. Teaming with Wildlife gives the gift of the outdoors to children, the next generation of conservation stewards
Citizens of our states are eager for more information on where to go and how to enjoy the outdoors Additionally, information on interpretive trails is in hot demand due to the lack of resources within agencies Teaming with Wildlife offers brochures, guides, maps, and other information to citizens on how to best enjoy their favorite outdoor activity
The "Teaming with Wildlife" initiative also provides the impetus for strong alliances on the part of conservation and recreation groups The Coalition List, with over 900 groups already in support, underscores the win-win outcomes for a wide variety and diversity of stakeholders, including not only
public park and fish and wildlife agencies but many citizen groups as well. These groups are representative of those who will be asked to help pay the bill. They should have a voice in determining the destiny of this initiative
The parks, forests and natural areas help provide sanctuary to all kinds offish, wildlife, and plants, often including members of threatened or endangered species. At this time, Memorandums of Understanding are being Gorged on the part of fish and wildlife and park agencies in many states An MOU on the national level with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the National Association of State Park Directors is being developed The MOU'S, designed to enhance a growing partnership on the part of fish and wildlife and park agencies, not only conserve the habitat for fish and wildlife species but also increase public awareness, education and appreciation for fish and wildlife in its natural habitat
80
In summary, there is a growing urgency to come up with ways and means to conserve fish and wildlife habitat At the same time, the demand for more outdoor recreation areas and opportunities is sharply accelerating. In many situations, the same acreage and investments can accomplish both needs through appropriate integration of conservation and recreation programs.
This paradigm, Teaming with Wildlife" coordinated by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, with assistance of a steering committee representing a broad spectrum of interest groups, offers a bold opportunity to provide a mechanism whereby those actually participating in the outdoor experience can help provide the financing to sustain, protect and enhance the outdoors for all to enjoy Additionally, the proposal provides an inherent "catalytic force" to bnng many groups together and form and encourage partnerships to optimize the available funding
On behalf of the National Association of State Park Directors, I urge action on the part of Congress to implement the Teaming with Wildlife concept.
81
itct
y\^^
y^^ "i '
^^^^^^ nstlonsl association of e- •
ISJ state park
Ol directors .eceived:
MAR 22 1996
UREAU OF PARKS
President
David L Weizenicker
Wisconsin
Vice President Fran P Mainella Florida
Yvonne S Ferrell Idaho (1997)
Gregory A Marshall New Jersey (1997)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, America is blessed with a wide diversity of native wildlife which in various ways enriches the lives of the human population of this country; and
WHEREAS, this variety and abundance of wildlife, including especially the non-game species, forms the basis for much of the outdoor recreation, interpretation and education experiences and enjoyment in the nation's thousands of state parks; and
WHEREAS, in the face of declining wildlife populations
and increasing outdoor recreation pressures, intensified
efforts are necessary to protect, preserve and manage all forms of wildlife throughout the country; and
Ron Holliday Texas (1999)
Philip K McKnelly North Carolina (1999)
Gerald J Pagac Indiana (1999)
PAST PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ney C Landrum 126 Mill Branch noad Tallahassee FL 32312 Phone 904-893-4959
WHEREAS, the Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative has been proposed by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to provide funding for a comprehensive, nationwide program of wildlife protection and management, aimed particularly at the numerous non-game and non-listed species that are now largely taken for granted and neglected; and
WHEREAS, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and its co-sponsors have demonstrated a desire and willingness to work closely with the National Association of State Park Directors and other recreation-related organizations to ensure that the proposed Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative fully recognizes and addresses the importance of wildlife to outdoor recreation, interpretation and education in general and the nation's state parks in particular; and
WHEREAS, the success of the proposed Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative would be immeasurably beneficial to the nation's state parks in maintaining and enhancing fish and wildlife associated outdoor recreation, interpretation and education opportunities, and would be in the best interests of all concerned;
# • Printed on recycled paper
82
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Association of State Park Directors that it does hereby offer its full endorsement and support for the proposed Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative in its evolving concept, and extends to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and other participating interests its commitment to assist whole-heartedly in the further development, promotion and implementation of the proposed Initiative.
ADOPTED by the National Association of State Park Directors pursuant to referendum vote, effective this ^^ day of /h.A,AuC~// \^f/C .
^9 -'^
iigned: C^^:X^^
.tested: J/n^^J^^A^Ji^
"{^ Executive Director
83
Rob Keck
Executive Vice President/CEO
National Wild Turkey Federation
Verbal testimony by Bob Jenks
84
Thank, you Mr. Chairman tor the opportunity to present to the sub- committee of Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans support for the Teaming with Wildlife Initiative.
First, let me introduce myself I am Rob Keck, Executive Vice President and CEO of the National Wild Turkey Federation. 1 love the outdoors. I hunt, fish, canoe, bird watch and am an active member and past board member of the Outdoor Writers Association of America. The organization I represent was founded in 1973. By our first years end, we had 1,300 members. Today it is made up of 140,000 members in all 50 states and 8 foreign countries. Correspondingly, in 1970, the wild turkey population in this country was 1,250,000 and hunting seasons were open in 3 1 states. Today that number has increased four-fold and includes 49 states. This diverse group is dedicated to the conservation of the American Wild Turkey and works hand in hand with professional state and federal agencies to further the cause, not only of the wild turkey, but for conservation of our other wildlife in this country. With our partners, we have spent over 55 million dollars on over 4,000 projects for the wild turkey. Our diverse membership ranges from blue collar workers to CEO's of Fortune 500 companies. Their common bond is the wild turkey, one of the conservation success stories of this century.
The wild turkey was on the brink of extinction at the turn of the century, but now numbers 4.2 million birds which allows for spring hunting seasons in every state, but Alaska which has no turkeys. Those 2 million of us who love the sport, generate over $750 million annually to support the economy of the small communities of this country by buying groceries, staying in motels and supporting landowners through paying of trespass fees. This purchasing power also contributes to the clothing and accessories industry for products which hunters purchase (calls, clothing, blinds, etc) to pursue their sport. In this case, as with many other similar circumstances, good conservation translates into good business!
None of this or the comeback of the white-tailed deer, pronghom antelope, and black bear and other species would have been possible without the foresight of early conservationists and the Congressional leaders in the 1930's. When the Pittman-Robertson Act was passed in 1937, it opened the door to the management of habitat and ultimately the comeback of our nations valuable wildlife resources.
85
The self-imposed excise tax on arms and ammunition purchased by sportsmen and their hcense dollars have provided the necessary billions of dollars of funds to begin buying and improving habitat, hiring biologists and law enforcement professionals, and is the largest single reason we have been able to bring back a number of species to healthy numbers.
In 1950, the Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux (D-J/W-B) Act did for fisheries what P-R had done for wildlife. In both of these efforts, hunters and anglers joined businesses to establish legislation mandating a user fee to restore populations of once critically low fish and wildlife species, conserve millions of acres of habitat and provide countless hours of enjoyment on the nation's land and waterways. There is no question that today we would not have wild turkey hunting seasons in 49 states without P-R, nor the fishing resources of this nation without D-J/W-B monies.
Sportsmen and women know the value of a long-standing commitment to conservation and have continually demonstrated their financial commitment to this goal! We believe that it is time now for all Americans who enjoy our fish and wildlife resources to financially contribute to their conservation, as hunters and anglers have done for decades.
This broader coalition of outdoor enthusiasts advocate a proposal to expand on this proven approach to address the broader challenges of today and raise $350 million desperately needed annually for state fish and wildlife diversity programs to complement existing Federal Grant-in-aid and license dollars. Teaming With Wildlife will take P-R and D-J/W-B a step further by putting a dedicated user fee on a variety of items used by outdoors enthusiasts. Hikers, canoeists, nature photographers and birdwatchers would be able to pay their fair share to contribute to fish, wildlife, recreational and educational projects when they purchase certain outdoor products, just as hunters and anglers have done with guns, ammunition and fishing tackle since 1937 and 1950.
The initiative is being spearheaded by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and, as of today, they have endorsements of over 1,000 groups and companies including all 50 state fish and wildlife agencies, private non-profit conservation organizations like us and companies like Bass Pro Shop.
86
Teaming With Wildlife dollars would be administered through the existing Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts collection framework and distributed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the state fish and wildlife agencies. This would eliminate the need for any new bureaucracy and allow individual states to use funds for priority conservation, recreation and education projects in their states. Funds provided through Teaming With Wildlife will complement existing funds. The user fee would never exceed five percent of the manufacturer's cost on a product, which would add about 30 cents to a $10 field guide or $2.50 to a pair of $100 binoculars.
With public input, each state fish and wildlife agency will undertake local projects to respond to the following needs:
Conservation—Conserve a diverse array offish and wildlife and their habitats, with an emphasis on preventing species from becoming endangered. Learn about their needs and take action to prevent declines. Over 90% of the fish and wildlife species in this country are neither game , sport fish or listed threatened and endangered species. As a consequence, these species have not received the same type of necessary conservation attention which has led to the overall good health of game and sport fish, nor which is necessary because species are threatened and endangered. Teaming With Wildlife would provide funds to the states:
• Conserve habitat for fish and wildlife, from songbirds to minnows and oak forests to marshes.
• Find out which animals are in trouble by taking inventories and tracking populations.
• Bring back native species, like Hawaiian geese and swift fox, to their original ranges.
Recreation— Enhancing the outdoor recreational experience.
• Provide appropriate access for hikers, paddlers, photographers, bird- watchers, mountain bikers and other outdoors enthusiasts through trails, viewing blinds, observation towers and protection and enhancement of
87
lands and the water base.
• Facilitate participation through recreation information, guidebooks and how-to-clinics.
• Provide a nationwide network offish and wildlife viewing areas.
• Publish and distribute backyard habitat guides for wildlife enthusiasts wishing to do something wild outside their homes.
Education— Foster a responsible stewardship ethic through conservation education efforts.
• Interpret the natural work along roads, trails, wildlife viewing areas, picnic and area campgrounds.
• Establish and maintain nature centers.
• Offer wildlife and outdoor recreation and education programs, activity guides and curricula for schools and community groups. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the future of conservation is in the hands of our children.
• Provide advice to interested landowners on how to enhance their lands for wildlife and outdoor recreation, from suburban backyards to large ranches.
For all of these reasons, the National Wild Turkey Federation supports the Teaming With Wildlife Initiative. In January, I had the opportunity to attend the Shooting Hunting & Outdoor Trade Show commonly known as the SHOT Show in Dallas, Texas. As I walked the isles and marveled at the over 1,400 vendors representing 30 billion dollars in sales that resulted at the show, from gun and ammunition companies to camping, cooking, optical, and boating manufacturers, I wondered how many realize they wouldn't have an industry without hunters generating 3 million dollars a day or 4 billion dollars since 1937, through P-R and W-B to conserve the habitat and the fish and wildlife that lures Americans to the out-of-doors.
It is time we take the conservation of our fish and wildlife resources to the next level. It has been good for the industry in the past and it will help the industry expand into the fiature. The user fee, administered by the state fish and wildlife agencies within existing framework, will assure that more can be done to maximize our opportunities to conserve and enhance habitat and wildlife and to educate our public to the value to our natural resource heritage and our fiiture. As we enhance our wildlife and fish resources, it will only, as we have every reason
88
to belioNc, improve our economy and the industry that supports it. If the future mirrors the past sales will increase accordingly.
In summary, the National Wild Turkey Federation and I wholeheartedly support the Teaming With Wildlife Initiative. Quite frankly, we cannot afford to let this opportunity slip by. Our state fish and wildlife resource agencies are in dire straights to secure fijnding to carry out these important programs that the general public expects and what we as responsible stewards feel obligated to pass on to future generations. This is the only way to accomplish the objective. It is fair to the public, the industry and ultimately the fish and wildlife of this country. It's the right thing to do at the right time.
The legacy we leave for those who follow us is a rich heritage of natural resources. Help us make 1996 another milestone year as was 1937 and 1950 as we assure our children's children a bright future in the out-of-doors. Anything less is not acceptable.
Thank you for allowing me to comment, and I will be glad to address any specific questions to my remarks. National Wild Turkey Federation, P. O. Box 530, 770 Augusta Road, Edgefield, SC 29824 or call me 803-637-3106.
89
STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS REGARDING TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE
Presented by Ted L. Eubanks Jr.
June 6, 1996
Good morning. My name is Ted Lee Eubanks, and I am a resource-based tourism consultant from Austin, Texas. I appear before you today to speak in support of the Teaming with Wildlife Initiarive, an effort to establish a consistent and in\ariable flinding source for the conservation of those very nature resources that m>' industry depends upon for its existence.
.As stated in the proposed legislation, I too believe that nature-related recreation and tourism is a burgeoning interest in this country, supporting an outdoor recreation industry "catering to the rising number of hikers, campers, paddlers, and wildlife viewers." For the past decade I have studies the economic impacts of these wildlife viewers, in particular birdwatchers (or birders, as the\ preferred to be known). I am before you today to share with you my experiences with this one specific wildlife user group.
In the United States wildlife viewing has become a billion dollar industry. Observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife was enjoyed by 76.1 million people 16 years old or older in 1991. More importanti\-. among this group, 30 million people took trips for the primary- purpose of enjoying wildlife Including those who watch and feed birds around their homes, over 60 million .Ajnencans are directK involved in birds and birding. During 1991 nearly 25 million Americans were acti\el\ engaged in birding away from their residences.
In \9^)\. four million Texas residents 16 years old and older participated in nonconsumptive acinities such as observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife. In 1991, 1.4 million Texas residents 16 \ears old and older enjo\ed pnmary nonresidential nonconsumptive recreation aciiMiies vMihm the slate Of this group. 1.3 million participants obser\'ed wildlife, 739,000 fed wildlife, and 494.000 photographed wildlife. .An additional 2.8 million observed wildlife, 3.3 million fed wildlife, and 516.000 photographed wildlife around their homes.
Retail sales from Texas birders exceeds S5 billioa creating 191,000 jobs and generating (including induced and indirect economic contributions) over SI 5 billion in economic impact. In m> home state of Texas, for example, birding represents a S365 million industry. This industry now supports the livelihoods of nearU 5000 Texas workers.
At the national level. man>' types of wildlife were enjoved by the 30 million people who take trips for ttie pnmar\ purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife . Birds attract the attention of the largest number of people. 24 7 million individuals, 82 percent of all nonresidential participants 16 \ears old or older. Land mammals such as deer, bear, and coyotes draw almost as much attention as birds Twenty -two and a half million participamts. 75 percent of all nonresidential participants, observe, feed, or photograph land mammals.
90
The wildlife appreciation activities are quickly eclipsing hunting and fishing as the primarv' link between Americans and the outdoors. Consider the following examples of the rapidly increasing interest in birding experienced during the past decade:
• Growth in Birding Organizations (1985-1996)
Cape May Bird Observatory - 400+%
New Jersey Audubon Society - 350%
American Birding Association - 350%
New Observatories - Colorado Bird Observatory, Black Swamp Bird Observator>', Gulf
Coast Bird Observator\'. Southwest Arizona Bird Observatory, Golden Gate Raptor
Observatory
• Growth in Bird Magazine (year established and current readership)
Wildbird 1986 200,000
Birder's World 1987 80,000
Bird Watcher's Digest 1978 75,000
• Birding Tourism
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary 60,000 birders $ 9 million
Laguna Atascosa NWR 48,000 birders S 6 million
Santa .4na NWR 99.000 birders SI 5 million
Consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife activities, such as birding, are founded upon an enduring base of nature resources. Using a business analogy, this resource base is an inventory, and any depletion of this inventory threatens the viability of the business itself TTie conservation and management of game resources has been ensured by the funding measures such as Pittman Roberston and Wallop Breaux. but as of this moment these wildlife appreciation interests are, at best. onl> indirectK- secured In order to capitalize upon the economic opportunities that resource-based travel and tourism presents to many of our communities, we must secure a stable source of funding at the state level for the conser\'ation of these nongame wildlife resources.
TTierefore I speak today in support of Teaming with Wildlife, a fimding initiative dedicated to the conservation of the fish and wildlife resources of this country upon which m\' industr>' depends. In the studies of wildlife watchers (particularK' birders) that I have conducted around this nation. I have yet to see an\' indication that these consumers are not willing to pay for the conservation of these resources. For example, in Texas a survey of birders indicated that 66.8% "favored or strongh- favorcid" the addition of a sales tax on outdoor equipment.
In general, birders are a middle-aged, well-educated, and financialK' successfiil consumer group. I see no indication that purchase decisions are pnce sensiti\'e To the contrar\'. determinations about where and when to travel (as well as the equipment to pack) appears more directly related to the quality of the experience. To this end nature-related tounsm is experiential (in a sense inquisitive rather than acquisitive). The conservation of these nature resources, therefore, affects these well-traveled consumers' decisions about destinations. In this way the United States does compete with countries such as Costa Rica. Ken\a. and Nepal in the competitive world of nature tourism.
91
ObviousK, we would like to attract international travelers to our nature destinations as well as keep our American tourists at home.
Teaming with Wildlife, therefore, may be viewed as an economic development effort as well as a conservation initiative. Nature-based tourism is predominantly non-urban, and the moneys contributed b\' birders, butterfly watchers, and beetle collectors have a substantial impact on communities struggling to develop aitemarive economic strategies. In the nonpartisan UTiite House Conference on Tourism held in October 1995, representatives of the United States tourism industry urged the preservation of "our natural, historic, and cultural resources for future generations and expand urban and rural economic development opp)ortunities through a national strategy for fostering environmental and cultural travel and tourism." I suggest that Teaming with Wildlife is a ke>' component of this national strategy. Please lend your support to this critical initiative to conserve the nature resources which is the foundation for this critically important industp. . Please allow conservation to pay.
92
STATEMENT BY CHARLES MCILWAINE, VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION, AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS OF THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC., ON A PROPOSED EXCISE TAX ON RECREATION AND CERTAIN OTHER PRODUCTS TO FUND THE PROPOSED TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE PROGRAM BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, JUNE 6, 1996.
Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the American Recreation Coalition. My name is Charles Mcllwaine and I serve as Vice Chairman of the American Recreation Coalition, a national federation of more than 125 corporations and associations actively involved in satisfying the nation's needs for quality outdoor experiences. I am the Vice President for Corporate Communications of The Coleman Company, Inc., which is based in Golden, Colorado, and is one of the oldest and largest manufacturers of outdoor recreation equipment in the world. The Coleman Company has played an active role in the American Recreation Coalition since its inception. As the Chairman may know, recreation-related spending in America today exceeds $300 billion annually.
In some respects, I find my appearance here today quite ironic. Just over eleven years ago, I testified down the hall before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on funding non-game wildlife programs. Members who took part in that hearing continue to be involved in this issue: the current chairman of this committee. Representative Don Young, and now-Senator John Breaux, who had just experienced notable success in the creation of what we now refer to as the Wallop-Breaux Fund. At that time, I underscored the recreation community's commitment to good management of our natural resources, including non-game species, but emphasized that an excise tax was the wrong mechanism to fund a non-game wildlife grants program. My message was understood and shared by Messrs. Young and Breaux then, and they made clear their hopes that voluntary means to generate revenues could be found, specifically encouraging consideration of what was referred to as semi-postal stamps.
My earlier testimony further described the major policy and program changes underway in public recreation programs, changes which had precipitated the creation of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors that very year. The late Chairman of The Coleman Company, Sheldon Coleman, served in a very active capacity on that important body. One of the key changes we forecasted involved recreation fees, with those who are the beneficiaries of specific public services and facilities expected to assume a greater share of these costs. The recreation community supports today, as we did then, the user fee philosophy and we have been working actively with federal and state agencies and the Congress to reduce the jeopardy recreation programs face when they rely almost solely upon the political allocation of resources through the appropriation process.
93
I return to testify with three messages. First, the Congress and the recreation community can take a great deal of satisfaction in the new programs which have been implemented since 1 985 to boost recreation opportunities — and incidentally have very positive impacts on wildlife. Second, the recreation challenges facing the nation continue to be very large, as recent news reports focusing on the national parks emphasize. And third, the recreation community continues to strongly oppose an excise tax on broad categories of equipment to underwrite a specific and specialized program which neither uniquely nor significantly enhances the experiences of those paying the tax.
Let me spend a few moments on the first message. Parks, playgrounds, public forests and preserves, wild and scenic rivers, trails, greenways, wildlife refuges and recreation centers-together they form an infrastructure to provide healthy, educational, uplifting outlets for millions of Americans' reaeational pursuits. These resources contribute to the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities. They create jobs and yield economic benefits. They bring people together, breaking down economic, racial and geographic barriers, and enhance family and community relationships. They protect species and habitat as well as precious cultural resources. They are integral threads of the American fabhc.
The recreation community has a responsibility to protect — and enhance — the invaluable legacy of our national, regional and local outdoor treasures. In recent years, the recreation community has established important new efforts involving trails and rivers, scenic byways and greenways, rails-to-trails conversions and heritage corridors, and improvements in access to public lands and waters. In virtually every case, these same programs improve wildlife protection. The Conservation Reserve Program, created in the 1 985 Farm Bill, has set aside millions of acres of important wildlife habitat and has boosted bird populations dramatically. We were proud to play a role in the initial advocacy of the measure as well as its reauthorization earlier this year. The National Scenic Byway Program and the STP Enhancement Requirements, created under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 , have funneled millions of dollars into easements and local land use planning efforts which will protect open space and corridors, thus supporting wildlife habitat and migration as well as human transportation needs. The Rivers and Trails Conservation Program of the National Park Service has had dramatic impact on local communities from one end of the nation to the other, shaping growth and protecting valued community features, including wildlife habitat. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has combined recreation fees, offshore oil and gas revenues and state and local funding to acquire more than $10 billion in new public lands, used for recreation and conservation purposes alike.
Recreationists pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually in entrance and recreation fees to federal, state and local agencies, and we fully expect that number to increase dramatically over the next five years. The recreation community is leading efforts to reform recreation fee policies in an effort to ensure an increase of hundreds of
25-856 0-96-4
94
millions of dollars annually in the operating budgets of federal land managing agencies. Anglers and boaters and archers and gun users contrbute to the Wallop-Breaux and the Pittman-Robertson Funds, providing hundreds of millions of dollars for land acquisition, habitat improvements and conservation and environmental education efforts.
Our second message is that, despite these advances, the recreation and conservation needs of our nation are intense and growing. High levels of visitation and limited budgets threaten environmental damage at some of our most loved national sites. Development reduces open spaces near our cities — places already least endowed with public lands. Lack of interpretative services squanders precious educational opportunities during the estimated two billion annual visits to federal recreation sites. Competing economic priorities tear at our traditional valuation of natural resource protection. Crime and environmental degradation restrict access of many urbanites, especially children, to local recreational facilities and natural areas. A fee system that fails to recognize that Americans are willing to pay for good services and facilities starves agencies financially, making them rely upon a political allocation of funding, with very poor results. For example, 40% of all visitors to national forests today receive experiences below the agency's own standards for acceptable quality — and the agency predicts a growth in that percentage of poorly served visitors. The agency thus faces a future of growing numbers of disgruntled customers who will be paying more for facilities and services that are in decline. In another example, in the face of growing numbers of trail enthusiasts, the network of trails on federal lands is actually declining in quantity and quality.
Our third message addresses the specifics of the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal, including the very focused grants program to aid non-game wildlife and the excise tax mechanism. ARC's position is that the excise tax does not qualify as a recreational user fee. By definition, a "user fee' becomes simply a specialized tax if a substantial portion of "users" do not pay, or do not pay proportional to the benefits they derive, and a different substantial portion of those who do pay do not derive any benefits. That is the case with the proposed 'Teaming with Wildlife" initiative. Here are some facts to support our position:
A large number of taxed products are never used in the Great Outdoors.
Based upon 1 995 research by Sports Market Research Group/Market Facts, 27% of all sleeping bags sold, including those sold by Coleman, are used indoors; 69% of all backpacks sold are used by school children and another 24% are used for travel and work. Similar studies show that high proportions of our lanterns are stored for emergency use during power outages and very large portions of our cooler production are used for sporting events, around the home and for commercial uses.
95
Relatively low percentages of campers, hikers and other recreationists also report that they watch wildlife or go birdwatching.
The Reaeation Roundtable's1996 survey of recreation participation and satisfaction allows us for the third consecutive year to determine what percentage of those participating over the past 12 months in an activity proposed for an excise tax also engaged in either wildlife viewing or bird watching. The study made clear that the American public looks to recreation for multiple benefits. The top overall motivations for participation in specific recreation activities are fun, fitness and family time together. Time in a natural setting - including such motivations as wildlife viewing - ranks in the next tier of reasons for participation. Findings about participation of recreationists in activities proposed for taxes follows:
|
1 Primary Activitv |
Wildlife VIewina Bird Watchina 1 |
|
|
Picnicking |
47% |
42% |
|
Camping (all) |
46% |
23% |
|
Tent camping/campground |
28% |
14% |
|
Backpacking |
27% |
12% |
|
RV camping |
12% |
10% |
|
Mountain biking |
11% |
5% |
|
Canoeing |
10% |
9% |
|
Downhill skiing |
8% |
9% |
|
Cross-country skiing |
6% |
5% |
|
Off-road vehicle riding |
16% |
10% |
|
Rock climbing |
9% |
7% |
|
And, for comparative purposes, the percentages for activities which would not be taxed: |
||
|
Driving for pleasure |
60% |
51% |
|
Rigorous walking |
73% |
56% |
|
Swimming |
55% |
31% |
96
Recreationists proposed to be taxed are generally satisfied with their present experiences, including opportunities for wildlife-associated activities, and do not appear to be very motivated to pay taxes for additional services. Further, those who view wildlife or watch birds, too, are quite satisfied with current opportunities.
This data, and that for the sutjsequent finding, are also drawn from the 1996 Recreation Roundtable in-person survey of 2,000 Americans during April and May 1996.
|
Total |
Campground ^amcer^..... |
Wilderness ..camfisrs. |
RV .CMmeis |
Wildyfe 1 viewers 1 |
|
|
Extremely satisfied |
24% |
46% |
48% |
46% |
40% |
|
Quite satisfied |
35% |
40% |
39% |
41% |
42% |
|
Not satisfied |
10% |
4% |
4% |
3% |
4% |
Our camping customers are generally less optimistic than wildlife viewers about whether recreation opportunities are getting better, presumably because of budget cutbacks at federal and state recreation sites.
|
1 |
Total respondents |
Campground cancers |
WBdemess campers |
RV camwrs |
Wildlife 1 |
|
Getting better |
29% |
31% |
32% |
36% |
36% |
|
Getting worse |
9% |
13% |
20% |
15% |
13% |
|
Staying ttie same |
57% |
51% |
44% |
48% |
47% |
A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the success of the Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson programs by proponents of the "Teaming with Wildlife" initiative. The Coleman Company is proud that it was a supporter of the legislation which created Wallop-Breaux and has aided its operations subsequently. Our company is in the boating and fishing businesses and does generate revenues for the Wallop-Breaux fund through Coleman brand products. We see a clear and fundamental difference between "Teaming" and Wallop-Breaux, however. Wallop- Breaux imposes taxes on a narrow band of fishing and boating products and dedicates all revenues to programs with clear and direct benefits for American anglers and boaters. The "Teaming" proposal would tax a broad range of products — from skis to sport utility vehicles to tents to hiking boots - and dedicate use of the receipts to a narrow range of programs, at best indirectly benefiting most of those paying the tax.
97
There are other inherent difficulties associated with an excise tax. First, it is imposed early in a product's manufacturing and marketing, meaning that the initial additional tax imposed may well double or more by the time the product passes through the distribution channels and is finally sold at retail. An excise tax also penalizes quality, even if that quality adds no burden - or even reduces the impact - of the activity on government or the environment. Excise taxes are especially inappropriate for higher cost items with long useful lives, since it is virtually impossible to recover the full operational costs over the product's life at the initial time of sale.
Administratively, it will be exceedingly difficult to apply the tax equitably across all the product lines to be affected. The experience of the Wallop-Breaux tax documents how imported product values may be manipulated to effect a financial disadvantage for domestic producers. Given the fluid nature of the list of taxable products, as well as the difficulty in defining some products, there will inevitably be efforts to avoid the tax through creative classification of products. (Hiking boots could become "casual footwear," for example, or backpacks could become "bookbags.") We fear that the "Teaming" tax system would create artificial winners and losers in the marketplace, based not on economic forces but rather on governmental regulations.
It is likely that some, probably small, manufacturers will bear an excessive administrative burden in trying to comply with the paperwork of the tax, while other small enterprises may fall through the cracks and pay no tax.
Perhaps most importantly, the government-imposed tax may serve as a disincentive for companies to continue to develop voluntary, private initiatives that are emerging in today's marketplace. Successful cause-related marketing, where portions of product sales are donated to the protection of parks, trails, rivers and other resources offer tremendous opportunities for sizable, voluntary contributions. These initiatives can be extremely flexible, targeted and attractive to customers. Customers directly see and understand the relationship between purchase of a product and support for a resource. We favor allowing potential competitive advantages within the private sector to drive innovation in attracting donated funds. The Coleman Company is active in this area. Among those programs which we now provide with substantial financial support, or have supported in the recent past, are:
•Tread Lightly
•Leave No Trace
•wow-Wonderful Outdoor World
•American Discovery Trail
•Continental Divide Trail
•Appalachian Trail
•President's Commission on Americans Outdoors
98
Beyond the inequity and inefficioncy associated with the proposed tax. ARC believes that the "Teaming' proposal inappropriately favors state-level wildlife protection to the virtual exclusion of most other basic recreation needs such as visitor services, trail construction, road access, campground maintenance and the like. While wildlife diversity is an important value, basic recreation services should not be given short shrift. Recreation use fees ultimately should benefit recreation users. The relative success of the Dingell-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux taxes make this case — fishing and hunting opportunities have demonstrably improved with the funds provided. However, it is questionable how much of the "Teaming" excise taxes would actually be available to improve the recreation infrastructure, given the numerous wildlife management objectives that have been identified. The wildlife focus of "Teaming" leaves little for recreation, calling into question the applicability of the aforementioned taxes as valid "models" for this proposal.
CONCLUSION
We need to be innovative and comprehensive in our efforts to address the nation's outdoor needs. The wholly compatible goals of protecting our nation's natural resources and ensuring opportunities for our citizens to recreate in a safe and healthy manner must be integrated. Any effort to address our nation's conservation and recreation needs must be balanced and mounted in a way to gain and retain public support. We cannot approach this challenge in a piecemeal fashion. ARC believes that the "Teaming with Wildlife" program is not the solution to the real problems facing the Great Outdoors.
The recreation community is strongly supportive of the goal of a healthy and diverse wildlife population and habitat. In addition to the improved quality that wildlife can bring to the outdoor recreation experience, we recognize the basic conservation imperative of protecting habitat and ecosystems. Reflecting this commitment, many of America's outdoor companies already contribute significantly to a wide variety of conservation initiatives nationally and locally.
We offer our cooperation and assistance to those who have worked so hard and so long on the "Teaming with Wildlife" initiative in defining the highest national goals for the Great Outdoors and then developing appropriate strategies and tactics to achieve these goals. The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors and the 1994 National Park Service Advisory Board's review of the Land and Water Conservation Fund offered some important recommendations. Both studies called for strong national leadership on recreation and conservation matters but emphasized the importance of state- and community-level and private sector efforts reflecting specialized needs and opportunities. Successful state-level approaches like sales tax set-asides in Missoun and Texas attract our attention. The Great Outdoors Colorado program, funded through lottery proceeds, also appears to be working. We also favor, and would be willing to support through communications assistance, voluntary efforts to raise funding for wildlife and conservation programs including, but not limited to, promotion of special license plates, income tax 'check-offs' ar>d conservation stamps.
99
ARC and The Coleman Company support recreation use fees that are equitable, understandable to those paying, cost-efficient to administer, and dedicated to supporting the programs and facilities for which they were collected. Those charged with paying a user fee must be provided a direct and identifiable service. We support the enactment of H.R. 2107, a bill approved by this committee with bipartisan support to expand greatly the collection of recreation use fees across all federal lands, because it reflects these principles.
The concept of a user fee is not in question; rather the issue is what constitutes an appropriate user fee and where and how collected funds are spent. ARC finds that the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal fails to meet the recreation community's criteria for an acceptable user fee and therefore is not something we can support. While noble in intent, it is flawed in design and scope, and will not accomplish our goals. It is the wrong tool for the task. The recreation community does pledge its efforts to pursuing comprehensive conservation programs which will produce quality outdoor experiences for all and which sustain the ecosystems which are vital to environmental quality.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on this issue of vital importance to the recreation industry.
Charles B. Mcllwaine
Vice Chairman, American Reaeation Coalition
c/o The Coleman Company, Inc.
1526 Cole Boulevard, Suite 300
Golden, CO 80401
(303)202-2418
100
Testimony of" James P. Lucier, Jr.
Director of Hconomic Research,
Americans for Tax Reform
before the
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans
June 6, 1996
Hearing on the proposed
'Fish and Wildlife Conservation Enhancement Act of 1996,
a/k/a, "The Birdwatchers' Tax"
Let's not mince words: The Birdwatchers' Tax proposed by self-interested state wildlife agencies is no way a "user fee" or "investment" in any honest sense of the word. Instead, it is the classic case of government agencies and non-profit advocacy groups assuming that what is good for their budgets and their established way of doing things is good for the public as well. This proposal is not just bad public policy: it is silly, and deserves immediate dismissal.
The theory behind the Birdwatchers' Tax is that if you enjoy the great outdoors, you should pay a user fee that goes to fund state agencies. For instance, if you buy binoculars, a camera, or an Audubon guide, you should pay a special excise tax that goes to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for distribution to the states. This is allegedly the price you pay for being a birder.
101
As proposed by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the "Fish and Wildlife Conservation Enhancement Act of 1996" would impose a manufacturers' excise tax on "outdoor equipment" broadly construed to include everything from cameras and film, to birdseed and books, to camping equipment, possibly to clothing, and to mountain bikes, recreational vehicles, and sport utility vehicles. The applicable tax would range from .25 percent to 5 percent. According to support literature prepared by the lAFWA, the tax would be passed on to consumers, but in fact the costs of the tax will be distributed more widely through economic dislocations.
This is a tax, not a user fee.
Americans for Tax Reform holds that any involuntary spending obligated by government fiat is a tax. But to clarify the point, in what context could a tax conceivably also be called a user fee? The basic test is a clear, one-to-one link between demanding a good or service and paying the price for it, so that the purchaser is fully aware that a specific cost is being incurred.
The proposed Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act - also known as "Teaming with Nature" - fails this test. Essentially, the tax applies to almost anything that can be found in an L.L. Beem or Eddie Bauer catalog regardless of whether the user specifically intends to do anything that could justify spending on state wildlife agencies. As Americans for
102
Tax Reform President Grover Norquist has suggested, one could just as easily propose a a tax on eyeglasses to fully fund our nation's art museums. The idea is ridiculous.
The current excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment is at least more narrowly defined. A fishing rod can be used only for fishing or for decoration, so conceivably there is a close link between purchasing the equipment and "demanding" fish and wildlife conservation services. However, it is important to note that most sportspeople do not realize they are paying this tax when they buy their equipment. I have certainly never noticed it when I go shopping myself
When asked what constitutes a tax increase, former 0MB Director Richard Darman famously said, "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." The proposed "user fee" for photographic film, birdbaths, and four-wheel drive automobiles quacks like a duck. Of course it's a tax.
Any Excise Tax is Bad Tax Policy
Excise taxes are uniquely damaging to the economy and constitute bad tax policy. As we move toward a rational revenue system, our goal should be to eliminate all excise taxes, not add new ones at random.
The basic problems with excise taxes are as follows:
103
• They are distortionary. An excise tax interferes with the rational allocation of goods and services by disrupting the price signals that link, supply and demand. The cost of excise taxes is not just borne by producers and consumers of taxable items; in fact, the entire economy suffers from efficiency losses and lower productivity due to the tax.
• Excise taxes are arbitrary. Indeed, it is hard to find a more flagrant example of arbitrary taxation driven by the vagaries of special interest politics than the question at hand. How do we determine which of our favorite products from L.L. Bean is taxed at .25 percent, one percent, or five percent? All of it is politics, all of it is subject to annual change, much of it is subject to arbitrary interpretation by tax collection agencies, and none of it makes much sense. Thus excise taxes not only impose efficiency costs on the economy; they also corrupt the political process and subtly undermine public confidence in government.
• Excise taxes are not cost-efficient ways to raise revenue. Some studies estimate the total cost of collecting non-trust fund excise taxes - that is, the smaller excise taxes - is about the same as the revenue they bring in. And so the question becomes, why bother?
• The excise tax will be invisible to the taxpayer. The "Teaming with Wildlife" background sheets suggest that products subject to the tax will display some kind of
104
logo explaining where the tax goes. This is highly unlikely to occur in practice. A tag might indicate that a tax of some kind is being paid, just as some products advertise their contribution to worthwhile charity, but information concerning the manufacturer's wholesale price is not the sort of information consumers normally
A tax is like the price of any good or service in that it signals to the taxpayer the full cost of government he or she is demanding. By concealing this information or simply not communicating it in a meaningful fashion - the message "feel good about buying this product because it has a green dot on the logo" is not meaningful - the Birdwatcher's Tax denies valuable information to the voting citizen.
Finally, this tax imposes real enforcement issues. We already have problems deciding whether certain Japanese-made vehicles qualify as "light trucks" or passenger vehicles. The wide range of disparate products to be taxed under this proposal and the great variance in tax rates - from .25 to five percent - simply invites gaming of the system and evasion or avoidance of the tax through any means possible. It will be difficult enough to collect the tax in a reasonably consistent and fair way from U.S. domestic producers, but I suspect the tax on outdoor equipment manufactured overseas - especially the cheaper stuff made in China - will border on uncollectable. So again, why bother?
105
At Americans for Tax Reform, we are not particularly in favor of taxes on anyone. But if there are to be any taxes at all, we prefer not to have taxes which make a mockery of the law.
The Real Problem with this Proposal
The most disturbing aspect of "Teaming with Wildlife" is the basic presumption that a federally funded, bureaucratically directed, command-and-control model of environmental regulation is the appropriate way to advance environmental quality in the United States. Aside from a suggestion in the literature that more than 1,000 wildlife species will benefit from the proposal, it is really not clear where the money would go or why we need to adopt this approach as opposed to some other one.
1 think it is a fair question whether we really get the benefits ascribed to the current excise tax, or whether most of these alleged benefits are in fact due to a wide range of other programs administered by the states, or whether better incentives for property owners are playing a role. Simply spending money on a problem does not make it better, as anyone who has studied spending on the D.C. public schools can attest.
At this exciting time in Washington, when we are studying many alternatives to traditional bureaucratic methods, I think it is a mistake to perpetuate and even expand a
106
tax because, in the opinion of agencies that receive funding from it. it has appeared to work for the past fifty years. This is actually an argument for tr> ing something different.
Americans for Ta.x Reform generally opposes earmarked tax revenues for any reason. Any valid public purpose that is genuineK worthwhile should compete with other spending possibilities for money fixtm the general fund. And, when the purpose of the program is achie\ ed, or when other priorities become more important, any spending program should automatically terminate. The last thing we need is slush fund that once established, \sill stay around another fifty years regardless of whether better possibilities for using the mone\ become available.
It does no good to pretend this money is merely a block grant that will be spent at the states' discretion in order to reach goals set at the federal le\ el. By distributing money, we create an organized interest group with every incentive to continue lobbying for increased funding and increased bureaucracy in the fiiture. A tax such as this, similar in its complexity and stealth to the European value-added tax, offers every possibility for becoming a runaway money machine. \Miat's worse, funding is certain to go not only to state agencies but also to tax-funded advocacy groups, which \sili lobby aggressi\eiy for more and more funding of grant programs to groups such as themselves.
Congress should not abdicate its responsibility to set priorities and use the taxpayers' money wisely. This proposal does not deserve serious consideration.
107
Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
U.S. HOLSE of REPRESEVTATIVTES
Committee on Resources
Oversight Hearing June 6, 1 996
Teamiag \»itk \lildlife" Fish and Wildlife Diversity- FnBdimg Imitiative
Testimony of
Thomas J. Dufficy
Executive \ ice President
National Association of Photographic Manufacturers, Inc.
550 Mamaroneck Avenue
Harrison, IN'ew York 1 0528
(914) 698-7603
108
Statement of T.J. Dufficy, NAPM •Teaming with Wildlife " - June 6, 1996
The National Association of Photographic Manufacturers, Inc. (NAPM) is for reasonable and equitable funding initiatives to support wildlife conservation and outdoor recreational activities. We do, however, wish to go on record in opposition to the imposition of an excise fee (tax) on photographic products under the "Teaming with Wildlife" or the Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative.
The NAPM is a voluntary not-for-profit trade association composed of companies which manufacture image technology products such as photographic film, paper, chemicals and equipment. Our members account for over 90% of the products shipped to the U.S. market. They include Agfa, Eastman Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Konica, Polaroid and 3M..
Our concern about excise fees (taxes) in funding initiatives dates back to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1 980. We believe it would be a good place to start the conceptual discussion of the "Teaming with Wildlife" initiative. The 1 980 Act authorized the imposition of excise taxes on "appropriate items" as one method of funding the plans and actions under the Act. The Act was silent on what "appropriate items" are. Section 1 2 of the Act required a study of potential funding sources to make a determination of their relative effectiveness and equity. Two criteria were applied to evaluate equity: [1] benefits received and [2] ability to pay.
109
The potential revenue sources identified in the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior included the following:
- Annual appropriations
- Excise taxes on a wide range of products
- Fees for use of lands and waters
- Volunteer contribution by Federal Income Tax checkoff
- Sale of semi-postal stamps
The conceptual approach of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1 980 emphasized the direct linkage between the potential tax (fee) payer and participation in, or benefits from, the activities for which the funds would be used. We would like to see this concept firmly imbedded in any legislative effort under the "Teaming with Wildlife" funding initiative.
The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife was required by the study to provide to Congressional Committees his recommendations. His letter which transmitted the study report stated as follows:
"Given the present fiscal situation and Administration policies on Federal spending and taxation, I cannot recommend either the raising of new taxes or appropriations from the general fund of the Treasury for financing the Nongame Act this year. The study does identify a method that would encourage voluntary contributions. That method would be the issuance of semipostal stamps as discussed on pp. 27, 28, and 1 1 5-11 7 of the report. However, the Postal Service points out significant problems with that method in their enclosed letter."
no
Much of our information on the direction of the "Teaming with Wildlife" initiative has come from letters of solicitation written by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It is our understanding that the funding process is to be modeled after the user fees that hunters and fishermen pay on their guns, rods and other equipment. We believe the concept of direct benefit to the user is a good one. However, we do not see the direct benefit and linkage to wildlife conservation and outdoor recreational activities to photographers as we see to hunters and fishermen.
A recent study in the Wolfman Report of the Photographic and Imaging Industry delineates the "Most Popular Subject Categories" ~ people make up 66.9 percent of the total. The breakout for nature/landscapes is 1 6 percent. ^
The Eastman Kodak Company shared the results of an internal analysis they had made on approximately 30,000 color photographs, both prints and slides. This multi-directional analysis includes one by principal subject, i.e. people, animals, buildings, nature and a variety of other specific subjects. The data indicates that people rank first as a photographic subject ~ approximately 65 percent of the photographs were of people. On the same
Ill
basis, animals comprised 8 percent of the principal subject matter and nature photographs accounted for approximately 1 3 percent.
The Polaroid Corporation has user data which indicates that only 5 percent of consumer instant pictures are taken out-of-doors.
Based on the foregoing usage patterns of consumer type film, it does not appear to us that amateur photographers have a significant linkage to wildlife and outdoor recreation to warrant the inclusion of consumer film in a list of products that will be burdened with an excise fee (tax). We believe it would be unfair and discriminatory to levy an additional fee (tax) on all of the purchasers of consumer photographic film when only a very small portion of them will take photographs in a wildlife/outdoor setting. We strongly urge that film and all other photographic products be excluded from consideration for an excise fee (tax).
We thank you for the opportunity to participate in this conceptual discussion and will be pleased to provide any additional information you might require
112
References
1
U.S. Department of the Interior December 1984. Summary of the Report and Recommendations on Funding Sources to Implement the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1 980. Page.48.
2
Wolfman Report, 1993-94. On the Photographic and Imaging Industry in the United States. "Most Popular Subject Categories." Hachette Magazines, New York, NY Page 41 .
113
^v
ORCA
Coalition ot America
303-444-3353 Fax: 444-3284 P.O. Box 1319 Boulder. CO 80306
TESTIMONY OF
DAVID PERI
DIRECTOR OF MARKETING
MOUNTAINSMITH
on behalf of
OUTDOOR RECREATION COALITION OF AMERICA
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON "TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" JUNE 6, 1996
114
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee ~ My name is David Peri and I am Director of Marketing for Mountainsmith, a backpack and outdoor gear manufacturer based in Golden, Colorado. I am here representing my company, but also the Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, a 6C)0-member trade association of the human-powered outdoor recreation industry. ORCA's membership includes manufacturers, retailers, distributors and suppliers of hiking, backpacking, paddling and climbing equipment as well as outdoor educators.
Mr. Chairman, ORCA supports increased funding for wildlife programs. We are supportive of maintaining habitats and protecting America's natural resources, and our members have shown that support through corporate giving and through their work on conservation projects in their communities. We have been working with the user and conservation communities for solutions for inadequate funding for the agencies that manage our country's public lands and outdoor recreation facilities, and have supported initiatives in this Congress to create new recreation fee programs to support those agencies and activities. We believe that the funding crisis for public lands demands creative, but economically sound solutions.
However, we do not support the funding mechanism proposed for this initiative. It forces consumers and companies to support one aspect of resource conservation when company and user resource and recreation needs are very diverse. We don't believe it can be fairiy called a user fee. General consumers as well as those only marginally connected to the services of state fish and wildlife programs would pay, while others who directly benefit might not. Those who are already paying through the Dingell-Johnson and Pittman- Robertson programs may have to pay again. This initiative would create a new, largely invisible tax on many products, affecting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of manufacturers and untold numbers of retailers and consumers in this country.
I will get into a little more detail on each of those in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, but I also want to talk about the broader needs of public lands and outdoor recreationists in this country, and what individual companies can do when given some vehicles and some flexibility to provide assistance where they believe it best befits their company.
MOUNTAINSMITH AND THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL
Mountainsmith is a relatively small company employing about 240 people. We are based in Golden, CO with a sister company in Cotter, Arkansas. Mountainsmith's main business is designing, building, and selling backpacks at wholesale, although we also make cycling gear and equestrian products. Our backpacking line consists of about 65 packs, from small lumbar or fanny packs, up to 7500 cubic inch expedition backpacks. Our packs are used by professional and amateur mountaineers, hikers and backpackers the world over. Most of our sales take place in the U.S., although Japan is an important market for us as well. We are hoping to expand and grow our business here, and start selling around the world. In the backpack world, our product is considered rather technical, yet we know that at least 25- 30% of our packs are not used for truly outdoor recreation purposes. We have no firm numbers regarding how many are used for wildlife-related activities.
Mountainsmith makes all of its products in the United States and hopes to continue to do so in the future. Our backpacks are sold primarily in specialty outdoor retail stores. As with most growing small businesses, our margins are relatively small. This business is very competitive, with over 40 brands competing for the backpack market in the U.S. This has
115
led to great competition on features and price. It is our experience that even a few dollars difference in cost can affect a consumer's choice in product.
Mountainsmith takes its role in the outdoors seriously. Patrick Smith, our founder and the creator of many of our products, is an avid outdoorsman. This company started in his garage 17 years ago. When I announced at a staff meeting last fall that 1 was coming out here to talk to some of the Colorado delegation about adequate Forest Service trails funding and in support of recreation fee pilot projects in the Interior Appropriations bill, the Mountainsmith staff cheered. They were very proud and saw it as positive that the company was playing a role in outdoor recreation issues. We have expressed that role through several other initiatives that mesh with our company's and user's beliefs, needs, and wants.
An innovative program that we're spearheading is a marketing program associated with the Continental Divide Trail. Congress designated the trail in 1978, but it is only about 70% complete. The trail would stretch 3 100 miles along the Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico, providing spectacular views and incredible but challenging hiking, mountain bicycling, horse back riding and cross country skiing opportunities. The last great border to border trail, we hope it will be a western version of the Appalachian Trail.
Mountainsmith sees trail development and access directly affecting and benefiting our customers, and so we have developed, with the Continental Divide Trail Alliance (CDTA), a program that will generate cash for construction of the trail, while increasing public awareness, support and volunteerism. The CDTA is an organization devoted to working with all of the federal and state land agencies involved with, or affected by, the trail to complete the trail's development. It organizes volunteers to work on the trail, and hopes to become much like the Appalachian Trail Conference or Appalachian Mountain Club — organizations that are extremely active in physically maintaining, through volunteer labor, the Appalachian Trail and facilities associated with it. The money raised by Mountainsmith's efforts will complement funding provided by the National Forest Foundation and other outdoor recreation companies.
Our program works as follows: we take one of our best-selling expedition packs ~ the Crestone - and offer it with a special top pocket/lumbar pack. This is embroidered with a large CDTA emblem and is offered through our normal retail distribution. It sells for a $30 premium above the cost of the normal Crestone pack. All $30 is donated to the CDTA; 50% in the name of the participating retailer; 50% in the name of Mountainsmith. Through this innovative program everyone is served:
1) new money is generated for the Continental Divide Trail;
2) the consumer willingly makes that donation and is recognized for doing so for the life of the pack by her/his peers on the trail ;
3) it increases the exposure of the trail, attracting more attention, volunteers and support;
4) the retailer is willing to carry and sell a more expensive pack - and forgo normal mark-up - because of the increased traffic the pack will attract and because of the positive affinity all of his customers have for a business that is participating in protecting access and with creating another natural asset; and
5) Mountainsmith benefits because we will sell more packs and differentiate ourselves from the other pack companies by investing in this project.
116
There is no increased burden for anyone except those who willingly carry or purchase the product, and everyone who does participate directly benefits. While this is the first season we have offered the CDT pack, we hope other companies will join us in creative endeavors that will raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the CDT in this fashion. The National Forest Foundation, created by Congress, has contributed $50,000. Already, the outdoor industry has contributed over $100,000 to the CDT effort, some of it leveraged by the National Forest Foundation grant, and it is just the beginning.
We believe this program is an example of how a manufacturer, retailers, consumers and agencies and foundations like the National Forest Foundation can work together voluntarily to make projects happen.
Unfortunately, the program that is the subject of this hearing today does not allow the same choices — for anyone involved. It chooses for us that state level programs are best. It chooses for us that the focus should be wildlife diversity, regardless of our company's or consumer's outdoor resource needs and interests. It choose a "one size fits all" program that will not —cannot - possibly meet the needs of the diverse group of users and companies that would be affected by this tax.
THIS IS A NEW TAX, NOT A USER FEE, AND IT IS NOT AN EFFICIENT WAY TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO OUTDOOR RECREATIONISTS
Since being approached by the lAFWA several years ago to support this initiative, ORCA's membership and board thoughtfully considered this program. ORCA declined support, concluding the initiative would significantly tax general consumers (the consumer who buys a product with little or no wildlife-related outdoor activity in mind, which could be the case for many products on the proposed tax list), and that funding a wildlife diversity initiative would not be an efficient way to provide services to hikers, backpackers and climbers. While supporters call this a "user fee", there is no sure user connection between the products proposed for taxation and services received from state fish and wildlife programs. That was an important threshold to reach before we as a business association would consider a special tax on our products.
Taxes would be levied on products that have many uses. On the metro here in Washington I can guarantee that you'll see many backpacks and hiking boots on any given winter day, and I know it's the same at schools, campuses, malls and other transit systems all over the country. Under this proposal, all would be taxed, and proceeds would go to state fish and wildlife programs.
For those who do use taxed products for outdoor recreation, the consumer may not see any direct, identifiable services in return. For example, a climber would likely support an increased fee for entering a climbing area on Forest Service land, because he's likely to see better maintenance of the climbing access trail and/or a cleaner bathroom at the trailhead. I'm not so sure that same climber would see the direct benefit he or she is receiving from the state fish and wildlife agency when he or she pays a tax on climbing rope. The climber may be deriving an indirect benefit, but perhaps no more or less than the general public.
We do recognize that recreation is one of many ways this new tax could be spent, but do not believe that, given the huge needs and number of agencies involved in outdoor recreation, that funding state fish and wildlife programs is the most efficient way to provide recreation services to our customers.
117
RECREATIONISTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TARGETED FOR NEW, TRUE USER FEES
One other thought in that area: The folks we consider "users" of our products, when they're used on a trail — hikers, backpackers, climbers, canoeists - have already been targeted for more, true user fees — through the recently passed omnibus appropriations bill and through HR 2107, a bill recently approved by the House Resources Committee. These fees will hit only recreationists, and recreationists will see direct, identifiable services for these fees — on the ground where they paid them. Unlike the proposal being discussed today, the dollars will follow the user to the agency and facilities that they use. Hopefully those users will see the new fees as a reasonable cost of participating the in the outdoor activities they've chosen. I think this committee should carefully consider whether the same group should also be targeted for a new tax for wildlife programs.
SUPPORTERS HAVE UNDERESTIMATED THE HIDDEN COSTS THIS PROGRAM MAY HAVE FOR AFFECTED BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS.
As I mentioned earlier, we have small margins in this business, and consumer behavior can change based on just a slight change in price. Our experience tells us it is entirely possible that the consumer will be paying a great deal more for this tax than the Treasury is taking in. Once you take into consideration the manufacturer's costs associated with administering the tax and the way products are marked up from one level to the next to cover costs up the line of commerce, the consumer could be paying double or quadruple the amount actually going to the program. We believe these increased product costs will result in shifts in consumer behavior and decreased sales. None of these costs, including the tax, will appear on a store receipt The cost to the public would be largely hidden.
This is not an efficient tax collection method, and we would also note that it does not mesh with the "visibility" principal of the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform — that is, to have taxes and costs of government be visible. That Commission called value-added taxes and manufacturer's excise taxes the "least visible taxes of all."
THIS TAX CREATES WINNERS AND LOSERS
Because it is difficult to pinpoint wildlife-dependent recreationists by the products they use, the tax proposal creates artificial winners and losers. For example, many bird watchers watch birds in running or rugged walking shoes. Those are unlikely to be taxed and could be the beneficiary if hiking boot prices increase because of this tax. In addition, higher-end (and higher quality) products in each taxable category would probably suffer.
While supporters of the initiative say there will be no competitive disadvantage because all camp stoves, or all tents, will be taxed, taxed products will be competing for consumer dollars with other, untaxed products. One Mountainsmith example: Emergency Medical Technicians purchase large amounts of our gear every year, as do photographers and videographers. Because the expedition packs used for these other purposes are very expensive, the increase in costs to these special consumers would dramatically increase. Mountainsmith could very likely lose this market to bag manufacturers that are untaxed because their product is not a "backpack".
118
HOW DOES THIS PROGRAM FIT IN THE BIGGER PICTURE?
Recreation is affected by a broad range of agencies and resource needs. This initiative seems to be focusing on one piece — driven by one agency's request for funds — rather than the bigger picture. What are the biggest resource needs? Where should the federal government's efforts be made? At the State level? At the Federal level? What services are needed or need greater funding? How can we best target efforts and keep the National Park System, the forest service recreation programs, the state park systems, local park and recreation programs, and fish and wildlife agencies all running? How can we best maintain the natural resources so important to our country? Which agencies can best provide those services? We believe all of these questions are important and should be answered before forging ahead with this major funding initiative, or any other.
WHAT KIND OF PROGRAM SHOULD WE DEVELOP?
Fmally, What kind of program should we develop? It should be voluntary. It should be flexible, allowing companies to choose what type of resource needs will best match their user's needs, rather than "force-fitting" consumers into a particular type of "user" group. It should allow consumers the opportunity to give.
Frankly, there are some good models out there. I mentioned the National Forest Foundation (NFF), and our partnership with them on the Continental Divide Trail. The Foundations, including the National Park and Fish and Wildlife Foundations, allow companies to provide funding to programs and to target their giving in ways that will meet their users' natural resource needs. Today, over the in the Senate, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is holding a hearing on a bill that would broaden corporate America's ability to help pay for the National Park System. While we have not endorsed that bill, it is an important discussion, and if crafted right, could provide ways for tax money to be supplemented with corporate giving to ensure adequate funding for key, natural resources in this country.
On the state level, there are some other great models. Missouri and a few other states have passed a general sales tax of less than 1% to fund the wildlife and parks agencies in their states. No losers there — everything is taxed at a very low rate. Citizens have been given voluntary programs to give to fish and wildlife programs — "chickadee check-offs" and license plate programs are offered in many states. In my state of Colorado, proceeds from the lottery go to park and wildlife programs. It has been enormously successful. In Indiana, voluntary programs have purchased 5,000 acres of public lands. Many other states have seen similar results. We are aware that voluntar>' contributions have trailed off in some states. However, perhaps some renewed marketing of the programs would help. That would be an excellent partnership between fish and wildlife agencies and a local business - help in marketing the voluntary programs.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while we support the concept of increasing funding for wildlife diversity and other natural resource programs, we cannot support the funding mechanism for this particular initiative. It forces businesses into a "one-size-fits-all" resource conservation program when company and user needs are very diverse; focuses on one aspect of resource conservation when a broader initiative is needed; and would create a new tax on our products, putting us in a competitive disadvantage with other, untaxed products. We encourage you to champion voluntary solutions that allow companies and recreation ists choices in the resource programs they wish to support. We look forward to working with you in the future to promote positive recreational opportunities for all Americans. Thank you for your time and attention.
119
Statement of the
Honorable John D. Dingell
before the
Subcommittee on Fisheries. Wildlife and Oceans
House Committee on Resources
on
"Teaming with Wildlife"
June 6, 1996
Mr Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be heard today oo a proposal which matches the intent of existing federal programs that have long provided many benefits for the management and preservation of our nation's fish and wildlife resources.
This proposal is called "Teaming with Wildlife, " the result of much effort to determine a fair and responsible way to expand existing user fees on hunting and angling gear so that it includes other outdoor recreational equipment. This concept is well established in federal law under three programs: the Pittman-Robertson program, the Dingell Johnson program, and the Wallop-Breaux program. Based on their well-documented success, I believe an excise fee on other outdoor recreational equipment could work simply and smoothly to build on the success of these acts, if done in a manner that does not place undue or unexpected burdens on businesses or individuals. Before moving forward, it is crucial that a consensus is reached about the scope of any fee collection. I hope this Subcommittee's work will result in a proper balance that will enjoy widespread support.
One of these two laws is especially dear to me. since it was my father, John D. Dingell, Sr. (D-Michigan), who co-authored the Federal Aid in Sportfish Recreation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-681) with Senator Edwin Carl Johnson rD-ColoradoV This law places an excise tax on angling equipment in pannership hetueen industry and conservationists Working together, they agreed nearly a half century ago that restoring our nation's fisheries was worth paying a little more for fish tackle and related equipment Indeed, the continuing decline of America s sport fisheries in the first pan of this century clearly demonstrated the need for a vigorous effort to restore our fishery heritage.
Following the establishment 13 years earUer of a comparable excise tax for wildlife recreation equipment (Pittman-Robertson), it was apparent that existing state fisheries programs needed additional fmancial security to assure the quality and quantity of angling that was valued by anglers and non-anglers alike. Projects tied to management programs, sound technical information, and improved public access were required. As a result of continued needs in the states, my father and Senator Johnson created the most ambitious program for fisheries improvement in the United States. Today, the Dingell- Johnson program, with the Wallop-Breaux amendments, brings in over $200 million each year. These funds are administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and returned to the states for sportfish recreation.
120
Honorable John D. Dingell
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
June 6, 19%
Page 2
Like the Dingell-Johnson Act, Teaming with Wildlife could be another partnership between recreational industries, recreationists, educators and conservationists. As my father and his colleagues did almost 50 years ago, today we recognize the need for a broader base of support for fish and wildlife management programs that serve a wide variety of users, and which provide additional recreation access and enhanced education.
Today more than 160 million Americans take part in wildlife- related activities. This is larger than the entire population that existed in the United States when Congress passed Dingell-Johnson. This speaks even more urgently to the need for expanding the user-fee program base so that our lands can support this increased activity. Just as American hunters and fishers have contributed to wildlife for several decades, they look to others who seek out the benefits of our nation's precious natural treasures to contribute to their well-being
I believe most outdoor enthusiasts will be willing to contribute a little more for some recreational equipment if they know the money is dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation, trails access, nature centers and conservatioD education. The Teaming with Wildlife proposal would provide a dedicated and permanent fund for these purposes.
Some may argue, in heat of debate about devolution of federal powers, that the federal government should stand aside and let the states implement 50 separate programs. There is little reason to assume that financially-strained states wLU assume this additional conservation responsibility themselves. In fact, through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the states are supportive of the historic federal -state partnership, and have been integral players in the development of the Teaming with Wildlife proposal.
The proposal being discussed today is non- regulatory, incentive-based and flexible, allowing state fish and wildlife agencies to determine how best to spend conservation money in their states. Based on early discussions, it is clear that one potential barrier to enactment is the selection of products to which excise fees would be applied and the level of those fees. The proponents of this proposal have been open-minded to criticism and continue to show creativity and flexibility in the development of the fee. I urge the Subcommittee to consult carefully with the industries which would be affected and to encourage a collaborative effort which will make clear the mutual benefits which could result from expanded recreational fee collections. Already, Teaming with Wildlife is supported by almost 700 organizations, including forward-looking businesses which understand the need for this sound investment and its possible returns.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your kindness in allowing me to discuss Teaming with Wildlife. I look forward to following the continued development of this proposal, one jvhich, if enacted, would assure the continued viability of our wildlife and habitat for future generations.
121
TESTIMONY OF
DAVID E. JENKINS
DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY
AMERICAN CANOE ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND OCEANS REGARDING
WILDLIFE DIVERSITY FUNDING INITIATIVE: "TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE"
JUNE 6, 1996
American Canoe Association
7432 Alban Station Blvd.
Suite B-226
Springfield, VA 22150
(703) 451-0141
122
The American Canoe Association (ACA) would like to go on record before this Subcommittee as opposed to the funding plan known as "Teaming With Wildlife" which is being promoted by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (lAFWA). The ACA maintains that this plan is not targeted toward our nation's most pressing natural resource needs and that it will not serve the needs of the outdoor recreation community being called on to fund it.
INTRODUCTION
The American Canoe Association (ACA) is a national organization with a direct and affiliate membership of over 50,000 individuals, clubs, summer camps, paddling schools and small businesses. The bulk of this membership is comprised of individuals who enjoy canoeing, kayaking and rafting as lifetime recreational pursuits. The ACA is the nation's oldest recreation based conservation organization, and the nation's largest paddlesport organization. As such, the ACA is dedicated to serving the interests of the 24.8 million Americans who go canoeing, kayaking or rafting each year. The ACA is concerned with issues related to waterway access for paddlers and to the quality of the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, coastal waters, and their surrounding environments.
BASIS FOR OPPOSITION
For the ACA, the most troubling aspect of "Teaming With Wildlife" is that this is not a comprehensive funding initiative targeted at the
123
nation's most pressing state and federal resource needs, but instead is primarily an effort by lAFWA to fund its own constituency: state fish and wildlife agencies. This plan limits too narrowly which agencies get funded and defines too broadly how the money is to be spent. "Teaming With Wildlife" allows for money to be spent on a wide array of projects that do not address the principal concerns of those who will be paying for the plan.
Projects that "Teaming With Wildlife" proposes to fund include: the building and maintenance of nature centers, observation towers, interpretive signs, blinds and shelters; the conducting of wildlife population studies; the production of backyard guides for wildlife watching and the creation of wildlife curricula for schools. While these projects are worthwhile, they primarily serve the general public and ignore pressing public land issues that are facing the outdoor recreation community.
This Subcommittee is well aware that many of our nation's parks and forests are overcrowded to the point of diminishing the recreational experience. Despite this fact, as well as the fact that outdoor recreation is a rapidly growing segment of tourism in this country, funding for our natural resources is in a constant state of decline. Any plan to raise money via the outdoor recreation community should be tightly focused towards solving these problems.
The "Teaming With Wildlife" plan has not allowed the outdoor recreation community to play a significant role in determining where
124
the money should go. Furthermore, the wide array of educational and building projects that "Teaming With Wildlife" seeks to fund are big money projects offering much opportunity for waste. The cost of education consistently outpaces inflation by an amazing margin, building projects regularly exceed their cost estimates, and the cost of one research project can easily run into the millions. The ACA fears that, if interjected into a natural resource funding plan, these projects will compete with more pressing resource needs such as land acquisition and the operation of existing parks and forests.
The ACA also believes there are a number of fairness issues with respect to the "Teaming" initiative. Other testimony before this Subcommittee will take issue with "Teaming's" unfairness to those who will buy products subject to its excise tax, but who will not use them for wildlife oriented outdoor recreation. There is an equally compelling argument that "Teaming" unfairly targets serious outdoor enthusiasts, a relatively narrow segment of the nation's public land users.
A person who enjoys wilderness backpacking gets hit really hard by "Teaming's" tax on outdoor equipment, whereas someone who prefers to drive their car through our parks and forests is hardly touched. A private paddler who kayaks wild rivers also gets hit hard, while a person who uses an outfitter for a rafting trip does not. "Teaming" does not treat resource users equally.
125
Even though the tax may indeed touch some larger segments of the population, it is the outdoor enthusiasts who be contributing to this plan practically every time they turn around. They will contribute when they buy their sleeping bags, their tents, their camp stoves, their hiking boots, their canoes, their PFDs, their paddles etc. Despite this significant increase in cost to certain users, with "Teaming" there is no guarantee that any of the money will go toward those resources that these outdoor enthusiasts care about. It certainly will not if they recreate on federally managed resources.
This proposal Is very different from the other user-tax funds lAFWA claims to be emulating. While lAFWA constantly compares "Teaming" to initiatives such as Dingell-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson, and Wallop- Breaux, each of these funds is far more specifically targeted toward those who pay the tax than "Teaming" is. The "Teaming" proposal is also different, in that the funds will be made available to agencies that do not have a history of service to the users that will be paying for the plan. The success of any user pay fund lies in the support it enjoys from those who pay for it. "Teaming" does not have such support.
lAFWA has indeed compiled a list of more than 800 groups who they say currently support "Teaming With Wildlife." The vast majority of the outdoor recreation community is absent from that list. lAFWA's list represents years of recruiting groups that have only been presented with one side of the issue. The vast majority of these groups have relied only on lAFWA's rhetoric and signed onto the plan having not even seen the draft legislation. I can assure this committee that there
25-856 0-96
126
are far more groups who either currently oppose "Teaming," or who will oppose the plan once they learn of it, than the 800 on lAFWA's list.
An excise tax on outdoor equipment is a serious card to play, a card that the ACA believes could hurt outdoor recreation and should be relied upon only as a last resort. Even if such a measure is needed today, "Teaming" is not a plan that addresses the nation's most critical resource needs. This is a poorly conceived plan with priorities that are inconsistent with the wishes of the outdoor community. If a user supported funding plan is necessary, now or in the future, it should be one devised by the broader outdoor recreation and natural resource community to address specific needs, not a piecemeal plan driven by an organization primarily seeking to fund its own constituency.
127
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
of the
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
on the
HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS SUBCOMMITTEE
on the
WILDLIFE DIVERSITY INITIATIVE
June 6, 1996
The National Rifle Association of American appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Wildlife Diversity (or Teaming With Wildlife) Initiative (WDI). WDI is designed by its proponents to generate new funding sources for state conservation efforts by reaching those who do not now contribute into the Federal Aid in Wildlife (PR) and Sport Fish (DJ) Restoration excise tax accounts. We are in agreement with the states' perspective that the hundreds of millions of dollars generated by the sporting community each year through the excise taxes imposed on firearms, ammunition and sporting equipment are not sufficient to fund the states' conservation and habitat restoration needs for non-game species. Finding a way to relieve the sporting community's burden in this regard is a goal all of us should be striving for. At the same time, the NRA must acknowledge and protect the vital role that the sporting community occupies in the conservation of this nation's fish and wildlife resources. With these broad philosophical goals as a backdrop, the NRA has reviewed WDI draft legislation over the past 18 months and has the following comments to offer.
Our initial response to the WDI draft legislation is that a needs assessment of non-game funding requirements should be conducted at the state level. Information published about the WDI estimates that the initiative could generate $350 million a year. That figure certainly represents a respectable sum of money for conservation. However, it doesn't tell us how it relates to the conservation needs of state fish and wildlife agencies. Rather than determining how much can be raised based on the array of products which potentially could be taxed, a needs assessment would be helpful in more clearly establishing the rationale for the new tax. In essence, the WDI should start with what is needed, rather than how much can be raised.
The WDI envisions the establishment of a new excise tax account, patterned after PR and DJ, which would reach that segment of the public who enjoy the benefits of wildlife management through outdoor recreation, but who do not pay into either the PR or DJ excise tax accounts. While the intended goal is to broaden the constituency supporting fish and wildlife restoration projects, WDI draft legislation indicates that those currently paying excise taxes - the sporting community - will be caught up in the new tax as well. Several years ago, our Board of Directors adopted a resolution opposing any attempt to limit, eliminate, or misapply the PR funds contrary to the original purposes of its enactment. Thus, we have a stake in this issue since the provisions of WDI legislation will affect our membership and PR.
128
We are concerned that WDI, with the specific directive to primarily benefit nongame, may create the incentive to reduce funding for game species under PR. Unlike the WDI, the mission of PR is broadly based to provide funds for "wildlife restoration," with no specific direction on which species or types of wildlife are to be primarily benefited. This means that PR funds can and are being spent on non-game wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. No assurance is provided to the hunter and shooter that PR funds will not be co-mingled with WDI funds for the primary benefit of non-game species. To ensure that attention to game species conservation is maintained, PR must be amended to "primarily benefit game species," in effect, making PR a mirror image of WDI.
We support provisions in draft legislation which provide WDI funding for projects benefiting threatened and endangered species. Earlier drafts would have disallowed such expenditures. Unless WDI funds can be spent on a "diverse" array of fish and wildlife, then PR will be relied upon to meet those needs. Recognizing that for the foreseeable future, states cannot rely upon Federal appropriated dollars in the Endangered Species Act grant program to address protection and restoration of listed species, the only other funding source for many states is PR. Thus, it is critical that a purpose of the WDI be to support threatened and endangered species projects at the state level.
Because WDI is designed to mirror the existing excise tax accounts, which provide a 75-25 split between Federal and state contributions to the cost of a project, we are pleased that recent drafts incorporate this match percentage for WDI. Earlier drafts had provided a 90-10 start up match.
Another issue we have raised, and touched on earlier in this statement, is the application of the tax to those who enjoy the outdoors but who do not presently pay for its benefits. The WDI seeks to tax apparel, outdoor equipment, and sport utility vehicles as the method of reaching a new constituency. However, it assumes that sportsmen and women are not also consumers of these products. The fact is, they are. The WDI is reaching out to the non-sporting community to gain their support for a new tax. But the question has not been asked of the sporting community if they want to incur a new tax. A constituency that has been supporting conservation for 6 decades, with a total to date of nearly $3 billion in PR funds and $1 billion in state licenses and tags, should not be subjected to double taxation.
Instead, sportsmen and women should be invited to voluntarily contribute. We suggest, then, that those who pay into PR be exempt from WDI taxation if they can show proof of previous contributions to PR by means of a valid hunting license, or proof of purchase of a firearm (sales receipt or a copy of Form 4473 required of firearms dealers by BATE), ammunition, or other items subject to taxation under PR. We believe that many hunters and shooters will contribute voluntarily, but give them that option. How to provide for such an exemption may be somewhat problematic, but nonetheless is deserving of serious discussion.
Of equal concern is that WDI's objective to generate new sources of revenue is applied only at the Federal or excise tax level. Draft legislation indicates that the states' will not be restricted from using revenue from hunters' licenses and game tags as their match to the Federal
129
WDI dollars. If the initiative is to be true to its stated objective, then the states should be required to find new sources of revenue to fund their match. Hunters and shooters who pay into PR should be guaranteed a dedicated source of funds for the states' match of PR dollars. To suggest that the state fish and wildlife agencies have full discretion on how this revenue is allocated does not provide needed assurances that the revenue will not be diverted to match WDI funds, especially in those states where alternative sources of funds are not available at this time.
We also share the views of Members of Congress who expressed concern over how lands acquired by WDI will be managed for public benefits, such as recreation. We want to be sure that it is made crystal clear to all the stakeholders in WDI that the initiative is not designed to foreclose hunting opportunities. We recommend that language be incorporated in legislation which ensures that these lands will be opened to hunting unless special public safety and wildlife protection considerations disallow such access and use.
The last issue we would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, relates to the accounting of monies expended under PR. The Resolution adopted by our Board of Directors this past January (attached) recommends that the Department of the Interior be required to provide an annual accounting for the monies expended with a brief description of the projects for which funding was approved. Having had discussions with Fish and Wildlife Service's Federal Aid Division subsequent to the adoption of the Resolution, we are pleased with the steps that the Division is taking to enhance oversight of the account and to provide meaningful information to the public on an armual basis.
However, on a related front, we draw the Chairman's attention to the administrative expense account of PR. The administrative expense provision of PR, contained in Section 669c, states:
So much, not to exceed 8 per centum, of the revenues covered into said fund in each fiscal year as the Secretary of the Interior may estunate to be necessary for his expenses in the administration and execution of this chapter and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act ... shall be deducted for that purpose ... [and] the Secretary of the Interior shall apponion such pan thereof as remains unexpended by him ... to the State fish and game departments on the same basis and in the same manner as provided ... by this chapter.
Since the 1980's, some of the administrative funds in excess of the FWS's needs for administering PR and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act are held by the Service, rather than apportioned to the states, in order to fund regional and national projects that have multi-state benefits. For FY 1997, the FWS is making available Si. 6 million from PR administrative funds for funding these multi-state projects. Appendix A of this statement is an overview of the funding allocations that have been made through PR's administrative expense account for the past several years.
It does not appear that the intent of Congress when enacting PR was that regional or national programs and projects, no matter how beneficial or important, would be funded as administrative expenses under this section. Further, some of the projects highlighted in Appendix A do not relate to the subject of wildlife restoration or migratory birds. This is not say that the NRA would support the elimination of project funding from the administrative expense account. We agree that
130
funds should be pooled to address issues at the national and regional levels, yet statutory language does not appear to provide authority to use administrative funds in this manner.
We therefore suggest that the Committee consider amending PR to provide statutory language allowing for such use. In addition, FWS should be provided guidance on administrative fund allocations. Such guidance should include protection against using PR monies for budgetary offsets, a prohibition against using PR funds for legislative initiatives, guidelines for determining what level of funding may be withheld for these projects, direction to the FWS on how the project review and approval process will be conducted, and whether the Director of FWS may use such funds for Directorate-sponsored projects.
Although the concerns we are raising about the administrative account of PR can be viewed as separate and distinct from the subject of this Subcommittee hearing, it should be reviewed in light of how administrative funds under WDI will be used.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the WDI. To reiterate, the NRA acknowledges that state-level funding for nongame species is inadequate and that finding a new way to fund state-level conservation programs and projects directed at nongame fish and wildlife, including threatened and endgangered species, is needed. However, as a representative of over three million PR excise tax providers, we cannot support such an initiative if it diminishes, transfers, or dilutes the sporting community's contributions to fish and wildlife conservation through PR and state licensing fees. The NRA looks forward to working with the members of the Subcommittee and others in the conservation community in developing legislation that provides the states with the funding they need, broadens the funding base to include fish and wildlife users who do not currently pay, and protects the sporting community's contributions under current excise tax programs.
131
APPENDIX A
|
. OJECT TITLE, COST, AND YEAR |
WILDLIFE RESTOR- ATION |
MIGRATORY BIRDS |
NEITHER |
|
The Public and Fish and Wildlife Management: A Handbook for Fish and Wildlife Managers: Resp. Mgmt. 1996-97(166,320) |
X |
||
|
Update "Wildlife Agencies" booklet, Wildlife Management Inst. 1996-95 (51.850) |
X |
||
|
Hunter and Conservation Council for Wildlife Conservation & Ed Inc 1995-95(96.750) |
X |
||
|
Proactive Strategies-lnt'l Ass. Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1990-97 (1.203.245) |
X |
||
|
Field Guides to Wildlife Disease National Biological Survey 1995-98 (600,000) |
X |
||
|
Hunter Education & Hunter Training-Resp. Mgmt. 1995-96 (98,918) |
X |
||
|
F&W Damage Mgmt. Utah State Univ. 1994-96 (440.242) |
X |
||
|
Hunter Ed, Program Review- Wildlife Mgmt. Inst. 1994-96 (228,000) |
X |
||
|
F&W Law Handbook-Center of Wildlife Law 1994-96 (340,345) |
X |
||
|
Wildlife Success Stories 1993-94 |
X |
||
|
L /hunter Education-National Bowhunters Ed. 1993-94(99,880) |
X |
||
|
Wildlife Mgmt. in Schools-Nat'l Shooting Sports Foundation 1993 (229.250) |
X |
||
|
Factors related to Fishing & Hunting- Western Ass. for Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1991-94(331,800) |
X |
||
|
Fishing & Hunting Survey-Int'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1991-94 (201,960) |
X |
||
|
Economic Benefits of Hunting-Int'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1993 (56,579) |
X |
||
|
Sociocultural Importance of Hunting & Trapping-Cornell Univ. 1993-94 (44,734) |
X |
||
|
Fish and Wildlife Laws Newsletter-University of New Mexico 1993-94 (236,694) |
X |
||
|
Wildlife Mgmt. in Urban Spaces 1993-94 (21,041) |
X |
||
|
Fish & Wildlife Diversity Initiative-Int'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1993-94(329,000) |
X |
||
|
r - Video-Northeast Deer Technical Comminee 1993-95 (91,240) |
X |
132
|
1 JJECT TITLE, COST, AND YEAR |
WILDLIFE RESTOR- ATION |
MIGRATORY BIRDS |
NEITHER |
|
Public Understanding of Wildlife Mgmt.-Nat'l Shooting Sports Foundation 1993-94(101.250) |
^ |
||
|
Wildlife Disease Identification and Control Workshops for State Conservation Agencies-National Biological Survey 1989 (360.000) |
X |
||
|
State Wildlife Laws Manual (181,251) |
X |
||
|
Guide to Tech. and Proceed for Waterfowl Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway 1992-94 |
X |
||
|
Monitoring Conservation Reserve Lands-Nat'l Biological Survey 1987 (1,100.000) |
X |
||
|
Outdoors- Women Univ of Wisconsin-Stevens Point 1995-96 (147.206,000) |
X |
||
|
Hunting as a Choice-lnt'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1994 (420.000) |
X |
||
|
Outdoor Ethics Conference-lzaak Walton League 1994 (200,000) |
X |
||
|
Outdoor Ethics-lzaak Walton League 1993-95 (150,000) |
X |
||
|
H -st Information Program FWS-MBMO 1996-97 (1,750,000) |
X |
||
|
Enhancing NAWMP Partnership-Int'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1995-97(222,891) |
X |
||
|
Shooting Range Symposium-lnt'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1995- 96(150,080) |
X |
||
|
4-H Wetlands Educational Pilot Project-Texas A&M Univ. 1995-96 (115,248) |
x |
||
|
Management of Predation to Enhance Recruitment of North American Birds-lnt'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies & Berryman Ins. 1995-97 (287,200) |
X |
||
|
Communication Outreach-lnt'l Ass of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1994 (155,550) |
X |
||
|
Flyway Council-lnfl Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1994-96 (59,740) |
X |
||
|
Socioeconomic Handbook 1992-94 (87,929) |
X |
||
|
Migration Routes and Winter Ranges of Neartic Migrant Birds 1993-96 (85.000) |
X |
||
|
Trapper Survey-Int'l Ass of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1992-94 (77.400) |
X |
||
|
Se'-'^nd Nat'l Shooting Sports Range Symposium- Int'l Ass. of Fish & W ife Agencies 1993 (105,000) |
X |
133
|
I >JECT TITLE, COST, AND YEAR |
WILDLIFE RESTOR- ATION |
MIGRATORY BIRDS |
NEITHER |
|
Nesting and Foraging Ecology and Habitat Use of Brand-tailed Pigeons in Western Oregon-Nafl Biological Survey 1992 (447,345) |
X |
||
|
Survival Movements and Habitat Use of Female Woodcock in South Central LA 1992(150,000) |
X |
||
|
Development of Antifungal Agents-Nat'l Biological Survey 1992 (450,000) |
X |
||
|
KDES Environmental Studies for Deaf Children-FWS & Gallaudet Univ. 1993-95(30,000) |
X |
||
|
Neotropical Bird Plan-Int'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1995-98 (587,925) |
X |
||
|
Scannmg for Mig Bird HIP-FWS/Migratory Bird 1994 (170,000) |
X |
||
|
state Asst. in Mig. Bird HIP-FWS -Migratory Bird 1994-97 (1,500,000) |
X |
||
|
Colonial Waterbirds-FWS Migratory Bird 1994-95 (397,935) |
X |
||
|
Migration Routes and Winter Ranges of Neartic Migrant Birds 1993-96 (85,000) |
X |
||
|
R' 'on of "Management of Migratory Shore and Upland Game Birds in Nl. ..i America" -Texas A&M 1993-96 (80,000) |
X |
134
I l-lt NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION or AMERICA
WHEREAS, Over Ihe past 58 years hunters and shooters have contributed nearly $2.5 billion for the conservation and restoration of game and non-game wildlife populations through the purchase of firearms, ammunition, bows and arrows upon which manufacturers' excise taxes are levied by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson); and
WHEREAS, These contributions are further enhanced by revenue from Ihe sale of hunting licenses and game lags which is used by the stales to match the Federal revenue generated by Ihe Pittman-Robertson excise taxes; and
WHEREAS, In spile of the hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal revenue collected esif h year from Ihe excise taxes imposed by Pittman-Robertson as well as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, Ihe states find that sufficient monies are not available to fund the conservation and habitat restoration necessary for all wildlife and fish species, especially non-game species; and
WHEREAS, The objective of the WDI, initiated by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (lAFWA), is to generate new funding sources for stale conservation efforts by reaching those who do not now contnbute into the two conservation excise tax accounts; and
WHEREAS, The URA continues to be resolute in maintaining Ihe leadership role of Ihe sporting community in wildlife conservation; and
WHEREAS, The Nf^ Board of Directors adopted a resolution in January, 1989 opposing any attempt to limit, eliminate or misapply the Pittman-Robertson funds contrary to the original purposes of its enactment; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the I^RA acknowledges Ihe need for a new source of funding for wildlife conservation and restoration, but thai it cannot consider supporting the WDI unless enabling legislation contains specific language that incorporates all of the Association's requirements including, but not limited to, Ihe following:
Requirement 1. Although the NF?A is in agreement wilh lAFWA that WDI funds should be managed in a separate account, it will nonetheless be necessary to amend Pittman-Robertson so that the expenditure of its funds is directed to plans or projects that "primarily benefit game species." The WDI is designed to "primarily benefit non- game species," but Pillman-Rbbertson was enacted to fund restoration projects for ajl 'jvildlife, including projects that benefit non-game species. If Ihe WDI targets non-game species. Pittman-Robertson should be amended to target game species.
Requirement 2. Enabling legislation must allow WDI funds to be spent on projects that benefit state- and Federal-listed threatened and endangered species. Funding for such species should not be solely dependent upon Congressionally-appropriated dollars under the Endangered Species Act nor that portion of Pittman-Robertson that can be spent lor non-game species (see Requirement 1).
Requirement 3. The Federal-State match for the WDI must be the same as for Pillman-Robertson, otherwise Pittman-Robertson must be amended to reflect the WDI match. The Federal-State match for Pillman-Robertson is 75%-25%. II has been suggested that Ihe WDI match be 90%-10%.
Requirement 4. The WDI enabling legislation must prohibit any portion of a stale's revenue from Ihe sale of hunting licenses, lags and stamps to be used as all or part of the stale's matching funds for Ihe WDI. Stales should be compelled to find new sources of matching funds to compliment the WDI. Without such a prohibition, expenditure of Pittman-Robertson funds would be jeopardized by a failure of the slate to provide Ihe necessary matching funds which otherwise the stale could, and likely would, use for its matching share of WDI funds.
Requirement 5. The WDI enabling legislation must provide an exemption from the WDI tax or user fee for those who have proof of previous contribution(s) to Pillman-Robertson by means of a valid hunting license, or proof of purchase of a handgun, rifle, shotgun (including a copy of Form 4473), bow, arrows, ammunition, or other items subject to taxation under Pittman-Robertson. Unlike Pillman-Robertscn, it is not possible for the WDI to impose a lax on items that would be purchased exclusively by a distincl group of consumers, i.e. the non-sporting community. Hunters, shooters and other firearms owners should not be subject to double taxation, but should be recognized for their existing contributions.
Requirement 6. Pillman-Robertson must be amended to require the U.S. Department of the Interior to provide an annual accounting of the monies expended from the Pittman-Robertson and WDI accounts with a brief description of the projects for which funding was approved under both programs. Presently, the only published Departmental report lists the Federal excise lax revenue apportioned to Ihe states, but not how the funds are spent.
Requirement 7. Hunting must be permitted on lands acquired with WDI funds except when special public safety and wildlife protection considerations disallow such access and use. Such a requirement will ensure that acquisition of land under the WDI is not designed to foreclose hunting opportunities.
Attest:
On this
ky day of JOyy^U^i^^^ . 19 oj^
135
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
5410 Grosvenor Lane • Bethesda, MD 20814-2197 Tel: (301) 897-9770 • Fax: (301) 530-2471 E-mail: tws@wildlife.org
Testimony of THOMAS M. FRANKLIN, WILDLIFE POLICY DIRECTOR, THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY, concerning the FISH AND WILDLIFE DIVERSITY FUNDING NEEDS submitted to the FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 6 June 1996
The Wildlife Society is pleased to offer comments on Teaming With Wildlife (the Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative) on behalf of professional wildlife biologists and managers. Teaming With Wildlife likely is the most important fish and wildlife conservation initiative proposed in the last half century. A creative way to invest in the futtire of natural resources during a time of reduced funding, Teaming With Wildlife is a national trust fund for state-level fish and wildlife conservation, recreation and education. The program complements existing programs that benefit primarily game and endangered species. Teaming With Wildlife will promote species and habitat conservation, cultivate a responsible stewardship ethic through enhanced environmental education, provide additional recreational opportunities for Americans to enjoy wildlife and nature, enhance the quality, and stimulate local and national economies.
Need For Funding
Today's state fish and wildlife agencies are charged with a difficult mission of conserving all resident fish and wildlife resources for the benefit of current and fiiture generations. In the past, Congress recognized the difficulty of this challenge and responded by passing various laws to assist the states in meeting their mandates. The Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux fish and wildlife restoration acts established dedicated sources of funding for management activities of state wildlife and fish agencies. Wildlife and sportfish restoration programs are a tremendous boon for wildlife conservation, recreation, and industry nationwide. Restoration of the white-tailed deer and the wild turkey are two important examples of how dedicated ftinding can bring species back from severely depleted populations. The source of funding, a user fee tax on hunting and fishing equipment, has focused programs on game management in response to sportsmen involvement and support.
Some states have sought funding to broaden support for nongame species through income tax checkoff programs or the sale of license plates, for example, but these sources have not generated enough funding to sustain viable nongame programs. Thus, the 1800+ species not pursued as game have not received adequate attention. As a result of the lack of funding, nongame populations often decline, sometimes leading to endangerment or listing under the Endangered Species Act. Research shows that many nongame species such as some forest and grassland migratory songbirds, frogs and toads, and certain fish species are declining rapidly. However, fish and wildlife agencies wish to take a more proactive approach to prevent endangered species problems and to more effectively manage all wildlife resources.
Excellence m Wildlife Stewardship Through Science and Education
136
In addition to ecological concerns, there is a need to satisfy a growing interest in wildlife among outdoor recreationists Many Americans pursue wildlife-related activities such as viewing, feeding, and photographing of wildlife, hiking, backpacking and camping According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife- Associated Recreation, in 1991, approximately 76 million Americans participated in these activities, and spent a total of $59 billion on trips and related equipment to support their interests These data suggest that user fees on outdoor recreation products can indeed generate significant funding to support comprehensive wildlife programs throughout the country Outdoor recreationists are willing to pay a small fee to support the conservation of all wildlife
In 1980, Congress recognized the needs of this expanding group of constituents by passing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act This law recognizes the value of nongame species programs at the state level, but unfortunately it was never funded Teaming With Wildlife is the legislative proposal that can make comprehensive programs work
Support Of The Initiative
A broad coalition of over 900 groups, including industry, sportsmen's and conservation organizations, support Teaming With Wildlife In addition, the scientific wildlife and fisheries management communities represented by The Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society endorse it. Collectively, these groups represent millions of Americans who are willing to pay for conservation benefits
Importantly, there are leaders in the outdoor recreation industry who do support the initiative as well Companies such as BASS Pro Shops (retail outdoor recreation products), Swarovski Optik (optica! equipment), American AGCO (wild bird products), and Arundale Products (bird feeder manufacturer) strongly endorse Teaming With Wildlife As leaders m their various market niches, these companies understand the value and growth that the initiative will bring to their respective businesses As for the support at the state-level, several governors from across the nation endorse the initiative, including the governors of AK, GA, OR, VT, NM, AR, LA and FL These state political leaders support Teaming With Wildlife as indicated by endorsements from all the wildlife agencies in the 50 states
Mechanics Of The Initiative
Teaming With Wildlife is modelled af^er the highly successful Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration programs, supported actively by sportsmen and industry The minimal excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment goes to the states in the form of grants to develop and promote fish and wildlife research, conservation, and management efforts All interested parties have a say m how the funds are spent at the state level.
137
Teaming With Wildlife seeks to expand the same "user pay/user benefit" concept to additional outdoor recreation equipment such as hikmg, camping and photography gear The fee would be collected at the manufacturer's level and be distributed to the states through the Fish and Wildlife Service This approach is easily administered with low overhead costs and is not burdensome to industry The states would be granted funds based on a formula that uses 2/3 of the human population and 1/3 land area of each state Approved projects would be financed on a 75% federal 25% state basis Congress will have oversight to ensure that agencies are held accountable, much like the Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration programs
In these times of downsizing, the "user pay /user benefit" concept is the most viable option available Teaming With Wildlife creates a permanent, dedicated funding source that guarantees states reliable and adequate income for fulfilling their mandates to manage and conserve the fish and wildlife resources in their states, and to satisfy growing public demands for wildlife-related recreation and education opportunities
Conclusion
Teaming With Wildlife provides the Congress with an immediate unique opportunity to help meet pressing fish and wildlife conservation needs The fijnds are badly needed to respond to public interest and demands for improving resource management We urge your support and prompt enactment of legislation to provide the essential funds
Thank you for your support of scientifically based natural resource programs Please enter these comments into the official hearing record
138
Recreation
Vehicle
Industry
Association
-/-S-ivJ^^rNi-
ISfSHidiiii/^
:4i^
1896 Pteilon While Dt
Reslon, VA 22090 0999
703/6206003
Fox 703/620 507 1
June 5, 1996
STATEMENT OF THE RECREATION VEHICLE INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION
ON THE TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE PROPOSAL
Before the
HOUSE RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) is the national trade association representing the manufacturers of recreation vehicles (motorhomes, travel trailers, truck campers and folding camping trailers) and their related suppliers. Its members account for over 98% of the production of such vehicles in the United States. RVIA submits this statement for the record on the Teaming With Wildlife proposal as before the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
RVIA enthusiastically supports wildlife management programs at the federal and state levels, yet we believe the Teaming With Wildlife proposal is inappropriate and inequitable. In particular, we oppose the imposition of any special excise tax to fund non-game fish and wildlife programs when the tax bears no relation to the cost of services provided. We fail to understand the conclusion that buyers of high-ticket items such as recreation vehicles (RVs) are more direct beneficiaries of wildlife management programs than the public at large.
While it is relatively easy to determine the beneficiaries of game fish and wildlife programs and thereby tax the users for their maintenance, the direct beneficiaries of non-game fish and wildlife programs are not so easily determinable. Nature lovers, bird-watchers, young children, senior citizens, and scientists are only a few which could be mentioned; in reality, the nation as a whole and every citizen could be seen to benefit from the programs. Congress has reached the same conclusion and has declared "[f]ish and wildlife are pf ecological, educational, esthetic, cultural, recreational, economic and scientific value to the Nation." (16 USCS Section 2901 (a)(1)). There is no apparent correlation between RV use and any special responsibility for non-game wildlife management, and because of the many faceted uses of RVs, it is unreasonable to assume that an RV purchase by itself constitutes the buyer a special beneficiary of the program. This is true of many of the products to be taxed by the proposal. Moreover, the Teaming With Wildlife proposal does not provide for any funding from parties involved in ecological, educational, esthetic, cultural, economic, or scientific pursuits.
139
Because the funding scheme proposed is based upon the cost of the item taxed rather than the cost of the program offered or benefit received, buyers of expensive items would bear the brunt of the funding burden and without regard to their use of, or benefit from, the programs offered. Any attempt to single out specific categories of products upon which to impose a tax for the funding of programs benefiting the nation as a whole is grossly inappropriate and discriminatory. Such funding should more readily be provided out of the general fund of the United States.
Alternatively, however, if funding is required from other than the general treasury, then a much more positive approach is required. RVIA supports funding approaches which create a partnership between government and business, taking advantage of the needs and expertise of both parties and providing economic incentive for business participation such as advertising, positive public relations, land grants or the availability of services. Properly structured, such proposals benefit all parties concerned.
Finally, RVIA does support the concept of user fees as a mode of funding programs if the fee is equitable, understandable to those paying, cost-efficient to administer and dedicated to supporting the programs and facilities for which they were collected. A user fee that meets these principles provides a direct and identifiable benefit to those individuals paying the fee, which is in sharp contrast to the Teaming With Wildlife proposal to levy an excise tax on a loosely defined list of "outdoor" products.
Respectfully submitted.
David J. Humphreys President
-2-
140
TESTIMONY OF
RICHARD J. BOWERS
CONSERVATION DIRECTOR
AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFILIATION
BEFORE THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
REGARDING
WILDLIFE DIVERSITY FUNDING INITIATIVE "TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE"
JUNE 6, 1996
American Whitewater Affiliation
1430 Fenwick Lane
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301 ) 589-9453 fax (301) 589-6121
141
The American Whitewater Affiliation (AWA) does not support "Teaming with Wildlife". However, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our viewpoint on how this proposed legislation will adversely impact funding for other, often more comprehensive conservation efforts. Equally important, we believe that this proposed legislation will especially hurt those who rely on the outdoors for recreation, leisure and enjoyment (including AWA's constituency - Whitewater boaters).
AWA'S CONSTITUENCY AND CONCERNS
The AWA is a national boating and river conservation organization with a membership of approximately 5,000 individual members and 100 local kayak and canoe club affiliates, representing some 30,000 Whitewater paddlers across the country. The AWA was organized in 1957; its mission is to "conserve and restore America's Whitewater resources and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely. "
The two key concerns of our members and of our affiliate clubs are the conservation and restoration of Whitewater rivers, and the enhancement of public river access.
To further our conservation mission, AWA maintains a complete national inventory of Whitewater rivers, monitors threats to those rivers, publishes information on river protection, provides technical advice to local groups, works with government agencies, and ~ when necessary - takes legal action to prevent the destruction or degradation of Whitewater rivers.
REASONS FOR OPPOSING "TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE"
As mentioned above, the American Whitewater Affiliation (AWA) does not support this tax, and we would like to offer what we believe is the other side of the issue.
AWA supports improvements for wildlife habitat and we agree that wildlife is a great benefit - no matter how one chooses to enjoy and connect with the outdoors. However, as a river conservation organization, we see a longer list of needs and urgent problems affecting our river resources.
Improving wildlife is certainly on the list, but it is only one part of a very big picture. Issues such as river restoration, watershed and ecosystem management, improved biodiversity, hydroelectric impacts, or additional and necessary land purchases are all critical issues which need funding. All of these goals cost dollars, and each of these goals are broader in scope, and more
142
critical, than lust wildlife. If we are to install a legislative fix for conservation, it must generate funds to first address these overall issues, not to dedicate $350 million annually to just one portion of the problem.
If the conservation community adopts this proposed Teaming with Wildlife strategy, then how will we pay for the endless other conservation issues that need funding?
As this initiative moves towards actual legislation, it is increasingly being presented as a great "conservation, recreation and education" benefit (Teaming with Wildlife, a Natural Investment). As such, those who do not support it run the risk of becoming very unpopular - especially with organizations which could derive great (and direct) benefits if enacted. Not supporting "Teaming with Wildlife" is especially risky for an organization like the AWA which is involved in both conservation and human-powered recreation. However, support for this initiative is not simply a choice between wildlife or recreation - it is a question of conservation priorities and how to best fund these priorities.
Proponents of this bill say that user fees are a "proven mechanism" for conservation. As an example, they use the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (Dingell-JohnsonAA/allop-Breaux), and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) which are user fees paid by hunters and anglers.
There is a significant difference between these Act's and the proposed Teaming with Wildlife initiative. Under the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, hunters and fishermen were directly involved in establishing these programs and were able to guarantee that the money raised went back to hunting and fishing programs. Teaming with Wildlife assumes that wildlife habitat is at the top of every outdoor user's priority list, and it is only now involving the broad spectrum of these users (and only after many of these users complained that it does not meet their needs). In fact, the Sportsmen's Coalition, which includes many members involved in establishing the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, has not endorsed Teaming with Wildlife. The cost of their endorsement is a guarantee that hunting and fishing is "retained ... on any public land acquired through the use of these funds."
Bill Proponents also say that "By paying very small user fees on a wide range of outdoor equipment, from binoculars to camping gear, everyone who has a stake in a wildlife-rich outdoors will benefit," AWA does not disagree with this ~ although the amount of the tax has yet to be fully determined. However, this is again a question of priorities and the degree of benefit for those paying the bill. Many forms of outdoor recreation require expensive equipment, or are "gear" intensive (climbing and Whitewater boating are good examples). These outdoor users spend much more than those purchasing just a backpack or binoculars.
143
often thousands of dollars per year. Even a small percentage of this expenditure is significant. For this reason, AWA and others representing user groups have a significant stake in guaranteeing that any user tax v^ill target the conservation priorities of our members.
CONCLUSION
There is one final issue, a "recreation" issue which is of utmost importance to groups like the AWA who are involved in both recreation and conservation. Teaming with Wildlife proposes to "raise $350 million annually that will return to state fish and wildlife agencies for the threefold purpose of conservation, recreation and education." However, state fish and wildlife agencies often do not represent recent changes in outdoor recreation or recreation needs. More importantly, a few of these agencies do not understand that "new" outdoor users are also interested in conservation, even if their priorities are not identical to the goals of that particular agency.
Any general tax to fund these agencies must include guidelines on how these agencies will: represent their new "constituents"; broaden agency mandates to include new priorities; and encourage new and more traditional users to work together on conservation. More importantly, these guidelines must be explained and in place before outdoor users pay for agency representation.
If these guidelines were included in the proposed legislation, it would prove a great benefit to conservation, including wildlife habitat!
If user fees were to be dedicated to a broader set of conservation priorities, if outdoor users were included in the planning and dedication of funds, and if this funding provided a mechanism for linking agencies with other users, then we could support such an initiative.
Teaming with Wildlife falls short in each of these categories, the proposed legislation is perhaps two months away from Congressional introduction, and the funding has already been dedicated, and prioritized - we see no way to change these fundamental differences at this time except to create a new proposal which addresses these issues.
AWA is willing to work with wildlife groups and other conservation organizations in developing a revised proposal which is more comprehensive, more representative of user priorities, and provides a larger "vision" for conservation funding.
Thank you for hearing the "other side" of this issue.
144
attonal releases during the summer {and increased flow for fish). However, this is an unproven benefit for Whitewater. While it may provide more dependable summer flows, it may eliminate the natural spring drawdown flows that now exist. 3) Raising the winter pool level will make it easier for the Corp, to reach its summer pool elevation. Reaching sum- mer pool is a requirement for fall recreational releases. A new pool level could allow the Corps lo provide fall releases in dryer years (like the drought of 1988) 4) The awesome put-in for the Upper Gauley wUl be lost forever. New pen- stocks will replace the existing tubes, and water will flow through the powerhouse and be released directly into the river.
Until the study is completed, the benefits from raising the winter pool is mostly guesswork. AWA will continue to monitor the situation, get involved in the study process, fight for Whitewater, and report back when we have more information. ■
Sullivan Greek Hydro Proposal (Wa)
On March 20th, the FERC held a public scoping meeting to help prepare an EIS for the Sullivan Creek Hydro project near Metaline Falls, Washington.
The Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) of Pend Oreille County has proposed adding hydro generation to an existing dam. Currently, the PUD drains Sullivan Lake in October at about 500 cfs. which provides a boatable flow for the 1 Smile Class II upper run (Mill Pond to N.F. Sullivan Creek) and the 2 mile Class V Sullivan Creek Gorge Run (around 200 foot per mile gradient).
The AWA expects to intervene in this project, and to study how power generation either hurts or might improve Whitewater boating. The deadline for comments was April 22, but we would appreciate any boater information we can get. Please call AWA at (301) 589-9^53-B
Recreation Excise Tax Moves Ahead
by Rich Borers, AWA Conservation Director
I
n 1994, American Whitewater reporte(i that the International Association of Fish & WUdlife Agencies (lAFWA), was pushing for an excise tax on outdoor equipment to fund the efforts of state fish and wildlife agencies. The money raised by this tax (approximately $350 million per year from sales of kayaks, climbing gear, hiking boots, etc.) would be spent to im- prove non-game wildlife habitat.
More recently this tax, referred to as the Teaming with Wildlife Initiative has been gathering support among wildlife advocates and other conservation groups (including many groups that are working along with AWA on river conserva- tion). If this proceeds at the present schedule, testimony on the merits of this program may be presented before Congressional Representatives as early as may be the time this issue hits your door, a legislative proposal, the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Enhancement Act of 1996, may already be working its way through Congress. Since the beginning, the AWA has opposed this tax because: 1. It is yet another tax without representation (in this case outdoor recreationists), and 2. The fees generated will not provide for the needs of those paying the bill.
Perhaps the most irritating issue is that bill proponents con- tinuously try to separate outdoor recreation users from conser- vation issues. This guilt-trip tactic says that if you use the out- doors, then you owe something back to nature. Actually, many people and organizations agree with this. Including the AWA (its why we spend 80% of our budget on conservation). How- ever, this initiative steps far beyond, and says that what we owe (millions annually) should be dedicated to funding only a nar-
row range of lAFWA priorities (fish and wUdlife).
Continually, we hear that recreation users are not paying their way. That other recreation based user funds (like the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act) have been successful in the past. But these efforts have limned funding to projects di- rectly impacting those paying for them. This initiative takes the shotgun approach to a narrow target - in the case of conser- vation, just the tip of the iceberg.
1. Tax Without Representation
This bill IS perhaps two months away from being introduced into Congress. Yet most of those who will pay the blU are un- aware that It exists, or how it will affect them. Even bill propo- nents are unsure exactly how much it wiU cost!
To be fair, the LAFWA and other proponents have spent time trying to include recreationists in this initiative. How- ever, this IS an impossible task when the bill is this far along, when the programs to be funded have already been locked it. and when these programs are so narrowly focused.
According to recent literature, this initiative will benefit outdoor users by: securing additional lands for hikers, bikers, canoeists and others: involving fish and wildlife agencies with non-traditional user groups (like boaters), and: providing im- proved access to lands and waters.
Unfortunately, in many cases these benefits are either non- existent or mis directed. For instance, nothing in the draf^ pro- posal guarantees that recreationists will be able to use this land. The Sportsman's Caucus (a strong alliance of fishing and hunting advocates. Including many Congressional Representa- tives) has stated, up front, that it will support no bUl that does not retain hunting and fishing on any public land acquired through the use of these funds. Access, as defined in this bill, relates only to boat ramps, and there is absolutely no mention of how fish and wildlife agencies will be directed to change years of work habits - many of which have been harmful rather than helpful to recreation.
2. Mis-directed funding
The real problem is not an issue of recreation v. conserva- . but of a tax that funds only one small aspect of the prob-
American \Vhilcwaief
V
May / Junt 1996
145
lems effecting our rivers and lands. Is wildlife important? It sure Is. But is it worth f\inding before other issues such as river restoration, watershed and ecosystem management, im. proved biodiversity, hydroelectric impacts, or additional and necessary land purchases?
All of these goals cost dollars, and each of these issues is broader in scope, and more critical, than just wildlife. Dollars are a very scarce resource for river work, especially recre- ation issues. Retailers, ouifmers. advocacy groups, and ulti- mately end users simply cannot afford lo pay separate fees for each problem.
What You Can Do!
. Write or call your elected Representatives (tell them that while you support funding for conservation, you are opposed toa tax that targets only one small part of this issue) .Talk with local and regional conservation groups, especially those who support this initiative (explain why this is not a conserva- tion v. recreation issue, but a funding priorities issue.) . Keep up to date as this bill progresses (call the A\V..\ at 301-589-9453 or email at 72732.40lacompuserve.com) ■
Vertical Addiction
45minuBss S26,95
Announces the release of Creekin ' L'SA ! lis 90 minules of hardcore paddling action as GVP takes you lo eight regions around the United Slates to paddle o%er 30 creeks and rivers with the local experts. Features runs in Maine, Alaska, West Virginia, the Southeast, Colorado. Yellow sione Area, the Northwest, and Califomia.Only 529.95 plus S3.(XI shipping. Gentry Video Productions, 646 Deer Creek Trail. Hoschton. GA 30548. (706) 654-2725. geni\id@mindspring.co7n .New Web sile: /ir;p.//» m-k; mindsprmg coni/~gennid/indexhtml
DON'T GET CAUGHT UP A CREEK WITHOUT IT
Vfhen you're caught on ih< with a medical emergencv can depend on Adventure Medical Kits. Adapting ER_ techniques to ouido^pr medicine is the unique spei ofDr. Eric A. Weiss, the le authonry on modem uilde medicine. Dr. Weiss, an a^ is the Associate Director of Tr and Emergency Medic
ir>' Medical Center and a Board Member of the Wilderness Medical Socierv- Hu extensive medical knowledge and techniques have rcvolut.oni:ed medical kits for kayakers. canoeists and other ad\'cnture fpon enthusiasts.
Adventurer! Medical ^;p
Hifih Performance Canoe and Kayak Paddles.
• Hand cratled (torn ihe finest malenals
• Custom ofdeis Irom 9 styles ot blades
• Composite remlorcement options
• Repairs
Call or write for more information:
2450 Jones Road Lenoir Dly.TN 37771 (615)98^-9387
^^^
Amcncan N^liiictt'
May / June 1996
146
Wildlife Management Institute
1101 14th Street, N.W. • Suite 801 • Washington, DC. 20005 Phone (202) 371-1808 • FAX (202) 408-5059
ROLLIN D. SPARROWE President
LONNIE L. WILLIAMSON Vice-PreskJent
RICHARD E. McCABE SecrMaty
June 13, 1996
The Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman Suhcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Committee on Resources 805 O'Neill House Office Building Washington, DC. 20515
Dear Congressman Saxton:
The Wildlife Management Institute strongly supports the "Teaming With Wildlife" initiative, and we appreciate the subcommittee's willingness to conduct oversight hearings on this important matter. We also are grateful for this opportunity to supply brief comments for the hearing record.
The Institute was initiated in 1911 by the sporting arms and ammunition industry solely to promote restoration and improved management of wildlife throughout North America. Since 1937, manufacturers' excise taxes on our industry's products have been invested in state wildlife conservation programs via the Pittman-Robertson (PR) Program. Through the years, these monies have become the backbone of wildlife conservation in this country Our industry has been very supportive of this effort because it helps ensure huntable populations of wildlife that is so important to future hunting equipment sales.
Unfortunately, the amount of conservation effort supplied by the existing excise taxes on sporting arms and ammunition are not sufficient to cover all species for which state wildlife agencies have responsibility. Therefore, these receipts are used to a large degree on species of primary interest to those paying the taxes.
States have tried numerous ways to gain funds to expand their programs to include all wildlife and thereby respond to their entire mandate and citizenry. These efforts have failed. Also, led by former Congressman Ed Forsythe (NJ), Congress attempted to ease this problem more than a decade ago with passage of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 However, that statute has not been funded.
For more than 20 years, Mr. Chairman, the states and Congress have tried unsuccessfully many ways to establish conservation programs that cover all wildlife This experience revealed a
147
The Honorable Jim Saxton June 13, 1996 Page Two
lot of things that do not suffice, such as voluntary stamp sales. However, the experience also reminds us that the PR Program remains sentinel among wildlife programs that do work. Consequently, we have no logical choice but to support modest taxes on certain outdoor gear to furnish dependable financial support to wildlife currently under flinded, but treasured and used substantially by the American people. We believe that the "user pay" feature of this proposal is a considerable plus, given the need to balance federal budgets and eliminate national debt.
We recognize that all of the items that would be taxed under this proposal are not used exclusively in association with wildlife. The same is true with sporting arms and ammunition. A goodly amount of those products, for example, are used in target shooting, law enforcement and armed forces, and not directly related to wildlife.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we urge the subcommittee to be thoughtfiil with inevitable claims that a modest tax (less than half of that already imposed on sporting arms and ammo) would destroy business. These were the claims in the 1950s when taxes were levied on certain fishing equipment to finance fisheries conservation under the Dingell-Johnson Program, in the early 1970s when a tax was put on archery equipment to boost the PR Program, and in the 1980s when Wallop-Breaux was enacted with taxes on boats and more fishing equipment. The predicted business calamities did not and will not happen.
We encourage the subcommittee fo proceed with this much-needed proposal.
Sincerely,
^-V Lonnie L Williamson
148
^^l^' Km (■on 4M'4nB
State or Alaska
OrnCC a« TV4I OO^ANOA JUNEAU
JUDC 19, 1996
Tbtf Hononbl« iln fUxton U.S. HouM of RcptcKoUtivBg 339 Cvmoa House Ofike Buildinf Wuhington, DC 20S1S
Dear Ch«inn«a Sixtoo:
I lubmit th« fbllowiag atstODent to be i&elud«d in th« rocoid of the svenight Iwuiag oo te Fuk tad Wildliiie Dlvenity Funding Isitittive (FWDFI) held by ttte Subcoannittoe oa FiakeriM. Wildlife, uid Oceau on June 6, 1996.
As Oovemor of Aluka, I Mronsly nippon the propoted fiDdexal FWDFI legUlttion oallod "Teuning W1& Wildlife" wfaioh U heisg ^etrheaded by the Intcnuiumal Aieoeiaiion of Fiah and Wildlife Ageocies (lAFWA) ad the Nadooal Aaaociallon of Sou Park* Dirtctors (NASPD). This legislation, which wUl genetate fadenl matching funda for wildlife ( cooMsvation, outdoor ractefliloi\« nd educatioB piogxiios mauaBsd by mte fiih uai vni4^£o aad (t«te pMk H*a«M, is cdtlctUy needed and long overdue. Mod^ed after d» aucceafiil Sptttt Piah and Wildlife Reatontioa Acts, the FWDFI will establiA a dcdicatjiid uaer fee, in the form of a small axsiae tax on die manufkcturer'* eoit of outdoor recicatiea equipment Rerenue generated from this uaer fee will be distributed to states uoda tlie Fedenl Aid to Wildlife Restontlon Prognm on s 7S-.23 percent fedenLstate matching basis.
The Teaming With Wildlife" Initiative will help the Alaska Dcpeitmeat of FUh and Oame (ADFAO) aad the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation meet the oqpanding public demsod for outdoor reaeetion, strengthen Alaska's visitor industry, and provide signifieant economic benefits to all Alaskans. In addition, these flindi wiJl aaklc ADFAO to maintain its role u the primary wildlife managemenl agency in the state, axtd cnhanoe Alaska's ability to proBCllvely fnanage aoegame speoiea of fish and wildlife and ^veat die need for costly eodangeied species listing. Currtndy, ADF&G's sport fith and wildlife pregrams are fluded entirely by huniMt sad anglers. Thia new legislation would provide an opportunity for other recreational users to contribute their shsre toward management of Alaska's Cah, wildlife, and ouidoor reueatlon.
Our information suggests outdoor reeteationists (the coniumen) are wiUvng to pay an additioaal small amount on ^ purchue of outdoor gear to support cooserv^un, Yeci«ation. and •ducation programs that ore now tfareateaad by limited funding. The long-term ■oceess of the Pittman-Rcbertaon aad DingeU-Johnson Acts dmonslntss their e&cdveoess and broad public support
149
The HoBorable Jim Saxton
June 19, 1996
P«ee2
Along with lAFWA and NASPD, ow 1,000 organlzatJooi from wound th« couatiy have Joined the cotlition tuppordng 'Tcamiag With WUdllft." They include the Amerlcaa Fiiheriea Society, Boooe and Crockea Club, Ducka Unlinvited, IzMk Walton League, National Auduhon Society, Notional Wildlife Fedoration. Society of American ForMters, The Wildlifb Society, and Wildlife Management Institute. In Alaska, over 120 organizatioiu have endoised the "T«affling with Wildlifs" initiative.
Thank you for having an ovenight boaring on this important proposal and for adding my voice to the thouaasda of othcn calling on Congress to ettaot legation to cstabliah tb« Teaming with V^dlife" program.
Slnscnly.
T^^^^wlei Oovemor
Encloaure: ADF&O Teaming with Wildlife" brochure
cc: Sanator Ted Stevena
Senator Fnnk Murkowdd Congressman Don Youag
150
r
-June 5, 1996
Coagressmac R James Saxton
805 OHOB
Subcommittee on Fisheries, 'Wildlife and Oceans
WasWngton, DC 20515
Re: Oversight Hearings Teaming Wiih Wildlife Initiative, June 6, 1996
Dear Congressman Saxton:
It is my understanding thai the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans scheduled an oversight iTearing on the Teaming for Wildlife Initiitive on June 6, 1996. Tne trade association, which our company is a member of, the Wild Bird Feeding Instinite, was not invited to appear at the hearing. Therefore, as a national mantifactnrer of -TrUd bird food, with distribution throughotit the United States, I am submitting this letter for you: information as well as the rest of the committee.
Kaytee Products is a family owned business employing over 500 employees with principal offices in Chilton, WX We have branch plants in Cressona, PA. Abilene KS, Rialto and Ontario, CA. Our products are distrioined throughout the United States and axe available in supermarKets, pet stores, mass merchandising accounts, la.w-n and gaiden centers, and independent retail accounts. As a manufacturer and a leading producer of ■mid bird food, we are very concerned over the proposed 5% excise tax on wild bird food.
There is no question that v/e all must be concerned over the rapidly detericrating state of our natural environment and what affect this is having on our ecosystem and our individual lives. The systemadc destruction of our natural environment and the repercussions that occur as a result of it is quickly becoming the number one issue of ourtims. The wildlife in the \J.S., or migrating through it, are qtrickly disappe-aiing and in many cases are threatened with extinction. Failure for us to ajct effecdvely and expediuously can have cataclysmic ■ effects on our generation and future generations to come. The concept of Teaming With Wildlife is another example of people trying to address this issue in a well meaning manner. There is no doubt that the federal, state, and local governments, as well as the thousands of voltmtary organizations and foundations, all have an important role to play if we are to succeed. Kavtce Product? Incotporared P.O. Box 230. 292 E. Grend Sl Cnilton. Wisconsin 5301'^
cdlil !!40-2:^21
WATS; (800)669-9530
F.-vX: {■^W 849-47
151
Congressman Saxton
June 5, 1996
Page 2
Wc at Kaytee Picidncts feel, however, that selectively taxing people that feed wild birds in order to help fund the Teaming With Wildlife Initiative is critically flawed;
1 . Singling out the people who fised wild hiiids and taxing tiiem at the 5% level is like taxing the preacher so he can preach to you. It is the very people tiiat are feeding wild birds that are particularly sensitive to the cnvironinenL They are providing food, shelter, and backyard landsc^ing in order to promote bird reproduction and ■ hafaitanon. These are the people who arc teaching their children and grandchildren the importance of preserving the environment. They are the ones that belong to the foundations and chariiable organizations that help preserve our environment and promote our conservation practices. Unlike fishing and hunting, where participanis take ftom the environment, and a replenishment program is reqaired to sustain their hobby, wild bird feeders actually contribute to help the environment If anjthing, they could justifiably be subsidized.
2. Our independent research indicates that roughly 50% of U.S. citizens are feeding wild birds; 70?o of the people that feed wild birds are over age 40; 60% are over age 50. Thus, the proposed 5% excise tax is discriminatory of age being hea\-iiy weighted toward our senior citizens.
. 3. The cost of wild bird food flucmaies drastically widi the commodities market. At the present time, grain commodities are at a record high, thus already creating an inhibiting effect on purchases. For exarrple, the cost of com alone has doubled in the last twelve months. Thus taxes would increase when the cost of the ulgredients are highesL
4. There are numerous small grain elevators that in processing grains, end up seUing there own "wild bird" food- Trying to effectively police many of these small feed mills and feed outlets would be very difficult Thus the larger manof acaurers would be discriminated against in the open market Tne cost of enforcsmeni needs to be identified
152
Congressma Saxton
June 5. 1996
Page 3
5. Mast iiTtportantly, preservation of our natural resources and saving uildlife is not a selective issue akin to an effort to save fish for fisheaman and wildlife for hunters. Birds are the one animate thiag that many of ns take for granted, but yec see and enjoy everyday. Without birds, we would be overrun by insects, crops and forests would be at risk, and our whole ecosystem would be out of balance. Tnis issue is one of total national and intemational concern.
6. The proposed excise tax on selective manufacturers is unjust. Does it make sense to tax somebody who looks at the environment through binoculars but not through their naked eye? Am I using up the environment if I take a picture of my favorite bird? Should I be taxed if I want to buy a book to help identify birds and teach my children about wildlife? Does it make sense for me to pay a fee (5% 2x) on food I put in my bird feeder on a cold winter's day to help the bird sunive 2 severe winter?
The bottom line is that the selecti\itv in the proposed excise tax is discrimi-a;or>' and regressive. Preservation of our natural resources and thus wildlife is no: a seiecdve issue but a national issue. The message [hi! needs lo be sent to Congress is tha: we as tiixpayers and as citizens of this country want to preserve our natural environment for cur Uie and for generations to come. This is trjly a general revenue issue. Certairiy, a bread-based effort vnlnnmrfly supported by all our citizens is needed.
hi this regard, we at Kaytee have just completed and opened a 6.CC0 square foot Education Center where people can come and leim about birds, their habitat, their jigriricance to us, and how each of us has a role if we are to 'save the birds". This S5G0,0CC ficSit}- wii its exhibits has already attraaed over 13.000 people in the six months that it hi.5 been open, over half of which have been school ciiidren. In addition, we have create.! ie Kaytee Avian Foundation whose mission is t? sa". e birds thrcugh educacien. conser.aaon and research- This year alone we iiave corrrriKed over $90,000 towards speria! project in order to "help save the birds". We intend to continue to step up our efforts zs responsible corporate citizens in a voluntary manner.
153
Congressman Saxton
June 5, 1996
Page 4
I therefore urge you and yonr subcommincc not to snpport a special excise tax on yonr constituents that choose to feed wild birds. To slap the wrists of the hand that is already "feeding" the cause does not make sense. If any grotip is to be selectively taxed it should be those that use products that tend to destroy the cnvironmenL A "sin" tax if you would.
Please file this letter with the noncomminec members for their consideration. Thank you for receiving this letter.
RespectfoIIy Submitted,
KAYTEE PROI5i:CTSJN"Q3RPOR,^TED
Wlliam D. Engler, J> Chief Executive Ofticer^
\VDE/5w
O
25-856 (160)
ISBN 0-16-052910-7
9 780160"529108
90000