"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" INITIATIVE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOlVIlVIITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

vVILDLIFE .i\1\D OCEAN'S 

OF THE 

COl\11VIITrrEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVERSITY 

FUNDING INITIATIVE KNOWN AS 

"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" 

25-856cc"" 

JUNE 6, 1996-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-71 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale hy the U.S. Govcmrncm Printing Office 

Superintendcm of J)ocumt:nt:-.. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 2()402 

ISBN 0-16 -05 29 10-7 
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 Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MACI 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, California 

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 KIS!I, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/ Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

WAYNE T. GILCREST, Maryland 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

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 Bt:RROUGHS, Staff Director 

JOHN RAYFIELD, Professional Staff 

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel 
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 Chairman, 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 Affiliation (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 (prepared 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, Conservation and Youth Development, Bass Pro Shops ........................................... 10 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 67 

Mallman, James, Manager, Commodities Trading, American Agco Trading 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 

(Ill) 
IV 

Page 

Communications submitted-Continued 

Knowles, Gov. Tony (Alaska): Letter of June 19, 1996, to Hon. Jim 

Saxton ....... .... ............ .... ............. .... ..... .. .......... ......... .... .. ............... ................. 148 

Williamson, Lonnie L. (Wildlife Management Institute): Letter of June 

13, 1996, to Hon. Jim Saxton .. . . .. . .... .... ...... .... . .. . . .. . . .. .... ... .... .. .. . ... ... .. ...... ..... 146 
"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" INITIATIVE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (Chairman 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 wildlife species for which no reliably funded conservation program exists. These species include butterflies, chipmunks, fish, frogs, herons, 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 necessary step in preserving these species. While funding authorization for nongame species has been approved consistently by the 

Congress, the program has never received any money in the appropriations 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 R ESOURCES 

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, including 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) 
2 

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 r esolved. For instance: What is the justification for a tive percent excise fee and what is 

magical about the figure of $350 million a yea ' 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 Inte rnational Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for framing 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 panelist, an old friend from this 

committee, Mr. Dan Ashe , who is currently serving as Assistant Director 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 proposal 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 gratitude. 

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 endorsement. 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 wildlife 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 successful conservation programs: Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program 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 
3 

Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act after its sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and 

Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. The primary purpose 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 Federal 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 geographic 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 successful Pittman-Robertson Act. The new Act was known as DingellJohnson after its sponsors, Representative John Dingell, Sr., of 

Michigan, and Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado. Following enactment in 1984 of substantial changes to that Act, the program 

began to be called the Wallop-Breaux program after Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, 

the visionary sponsors of those new provisions. The Sport Fish Program is funded by revenues collected from the 

manufacturers of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies, and artificial baits who pay an excise tax on these items to the U.S. Treasury. 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 communities all across America. When you see a flock of geese or ducks 
4 

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 wildlife resource users. Wildlife populations are dwindling due to the fragmentation of forest habitat, changing land use, and farming practices. Certain nongame species, such as neotropical birds, have declined 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 conservation from taxes on certain merchandise is a well-demonstrated success 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 Endangered 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 legislation 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 particular, 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, including 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 declines. 

Another big category would be amphibians in general and, you 

know, again, serious concerns about large-scale declines in populations of amphibians and really no consensus yet as to why but 

extreme concern. And a program like this would really provide the 
5 

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 nonregulatory 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 questions. Mr. Ashe, in your statement on page five, you made reference that wildlife populations are dwindling due to the fragmentation 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 patterns 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 trying 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 trying to go with this is to understand 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 higher 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 figure; 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. Whc.:t I would like to do is provide you 

with a response for the record in regard 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 in urban a reas and certainly along 

the kind of heavily urbanized 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 loss and fragmentation of grassland and 

prairie habitat in the Midwest. And so it is not only a problem associated with urban and suburban environments. It is also a problem associated with rural environments as well. 
6 

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 critical 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 overabundance 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 Service, 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 numbers 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 obviously 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 traditional 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 enhance 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-! am not sure that as a nation we are really addressing 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. 
7 

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 maintain 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 landowner 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 Government. 

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 agencies 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 effectuate a major land transfer which will trade lands in Oklahomaforestlands in Oklahoma between the Weyerhaeuser Corporation 

and the Forest Service and the BLM, and we will be the beneficiaries of that with a 25,000-acre cl.ddition to the refuge system in 

Arkansas. 

So that concept of trading lands and taking advantage of opportunities on a regional or national basis is a fairly well-developed 

concept, and where we have those opportunities, we take advantage of them. But I am not aware of any kind of comprehensive 

look. 

Mr. LONGLEY. Well, I recognize the issue I am raising is an extremely sensitive issue from a lot of different perspectives. But it 

strikes me that having visited the Northwest that a lot of the controversy that exists in some of the western states, you know, between 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 protect 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 country could pose some very interesting conservation and habitat issues. 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 Director 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 special point to welcome you here this morning, Bob, and hopefully we 

can get the Northeastern flyway Canada goose situation under control before theMr. 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 Relations of the Conservation and Youth Development of Bass Pro 

Shops; Mr. David Weizenicker, who is President of the National Association 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, Commodities 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 opportunity 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-
9 

gered species. But these nonendangered species represent a big opportunity 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 International, from Missouri; Bob Bachman from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Josh Zant, also from the same organization; Andy Manus and Lloyd Alexander from the State of Delaware; David Waller from Georgia; Ira Palmer from the DC Fisheries 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 conservation 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 Barnegat 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 without-! mean, it is an obvious thing that this has been very successful. We have provided fisheries management under the DingellJohnson 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 examples 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, camping 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 license 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 wildlife agencies will be making the decisions on 

how the money is spent for conservation and with our partners involved 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 outdoor 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 opportunities. 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 CORPORATE 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 associates that I was going to be here, and I got numerous phone calls 

before I came to Washington, DC, and they are outdoor enthusiasts. 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 merchant 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 Wildlife" and our company, our associates, 

and our customers see "Teaming with Wildlife" as an investment 

in the future, bringing positive benefits to, one, outdoor recreation; 

two, conservation; three, conservation education; four, to the outdoor 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 resource. "Teaming with Wildlife" benefits the resource. 

This is also important to us from a business perspective. The outdoor recreation industry is dependent on a natural resource baseno 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 resource perspective that this will bring, it brings a very powerful return on investment. 

We also see it as a capital investment. With more recreational 

opportunities being created through trails, access points, land acquisition, instructional guides, nature centers, and stronger conservation education, we feel that this is actually the way of the future 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 investment is going for. We are spending some extra time this year 

to support wildlife restoration and sportsfish restoration so the customer knows what it is doing because it has done significant 

things. 

And it is very important for the customer to know what is happening 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 Missouri. There is a conservation tax in Missouri, and if I could bring 

each of you and the constituents that you represent to my neighborhood 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 provides 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 creates a partnership between the outdoor user, the outdoor recreation, the states, the Federal Government to enhance conservation. We couldn't do it totally with the investment that we do in conservation, but together we can create wonderful things. We have a 

slogan at Bass Pro Shops, "The great outdoors pass it on." This initiative 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 DffiECTORS 

Mr. WEIZENICKER. Good morning. I am Dave Weizenicker, President of the National Association of State Park Directors. This organization 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 organization's resolution of support for "Teaming with Wildlife" and my 

statement in its entirety. And I will just highlight several key features 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 opl?ortunity 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 reasons. 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 increase since 1987. 

Secondly, and I think this is especially important, this 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 

to improve health, reduce stress, family togetherness. Our constituencies are telling us across the country that they are willing to pay 

a fair share for more benefits, more opportunity so long as the additional 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 resources. 

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 stakeholders 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 accelerating. In many situations, the same acreage and capital investments 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 Resources, 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 youngsters, 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 understand wildlife; number 3, giving grants to neighborhood associations or communities to encourage restoration -of neighborhoods in an urban setting as wildlife sanctuaries, a program to bring wildlife into people's yards and lives-just a few examples of how badly 

additional funding is needed to accomplish more partnering and enhance the resource not only for wildlife, but for access for recreation 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 million 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 obsession, and I am hooked. 
14 

Almost extinct at the turn of the century, there now are over 4 

million wild turkeys. The nonprofit National Wild Turkey Federation was founded in 1973 and has over 140,000 members in all 50 

states, and we work closely with the professional, State, and Federal agencies to make sure this remarkable wildlife restoration success story continues. 

With our partners, with our own moneys, and our partner moneys, 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 PittmanRobertson 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; also to conserve millions of acres of habitat and to provide countless hours of enjoyment for all Americans on our lands 

and waterways. 

Sportsmen and women know the value of a longstanding commitment to conservation and have continually demonstrated their financial commitment to this goal. We believe that now is the time 

for all Americans who enjoy our fish and wildlife resources to financially 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 ~Nith 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 proposal to expand this proven approach and address the broader challenges 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 Wallop-Breaux a step further by putting dedicated user fees on a variety of items used by outdoor enthusiasts. This will achieve conservation 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 purchase 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 America'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 Federation wholeheartedly supports the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative. 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 establish a consistent and invariable funding source for the conservation 

of those resources that my industry depends upon for its very existence. 

I too believe that nature-related recreation and tourism is a burgeoning interest in this country. For the past decade, I have studied 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 represents a $365 million industry. This industry now supports the 

livelihoods of nearly 5,000 Texas workers. 

These wildlife appreciation activities are quickly eclipsing hunting and fishing as the primary link between Americans, particularly 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 viability of the business itself. 

In order to capitalize upon the economic opportunities that resource-based travel and tourism pr2sent to many of our communities, we must secure a stable source of funding for the conservation of these nongame wildlife resources. Therefore, I speak today 

in support of "Teaming with Wildlife," a funding initiative dedicated to conservation of the fish and wildlife resources of this country 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 example, in Texas, a survey of birders indicated that nearly 70 percent favored or strongly favored the addition of a sales tax on outdoor equipment if the funds were dedicated to conservation. 

"Teaming with Wildlife," therefore, should be viewed as an economic development effort, as well as a conservation initiative. In 

the nonpartisan White House Conference on Tourism held in October of 1995, where I represented Texas as a delegate, representatives of the United States tourism industry urged the preservation 

of "our natural, historic, and cultural resources for future generations and to expand urban and rural economic development opportunities for a national strategy for fostering environmental and cultural 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 conservation tools is a profit. In a State such as Texas, where 97 percent of the land is in private hands-97 percent of the land-wildlife resource conservation is strictly in the hands of private landowners. 

Many would now like to expand their economic strategies into resource-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 expansion. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the local State 

agency, simply lacks ~he resources to provide such assistance. "Teaming with Wildlife" 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 initiative 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 tremendous change in the past 60 years. We have also, like most businesses, 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 depiction of what is going on in the United States with our natural 

resources. 

Larger and more intensive farms, increased concentration of livestock 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. Unfortunately, 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 company brought us into contact with the Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources. And through a coalition of business and the Departments 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 deteriorating 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 entitled "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 increased 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 government 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 wildlife in this 

country continue to deteriorate. 

We, therefore, see the "Teaming with Wildlife" Program as a sensible 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 support 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 agricultural-based corporation, American Agco acknowledges that our 

very existence depends on our ability for the land to reproduce. Agriculture 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 significant piece of wildlife preservation legislation passed by our generation. 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. Mallman statement follows:] 

REMAINDER OF MH. 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 remained 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 publications 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 gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for 

holding the hearing. I would also like to thank Mr. Mallman for explaining 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 repeal, 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 pajamas, 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 environment, why would they even consider paying the tax at all? 

For example, in my district, I mean, literally thousands of mountain 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 outdoors 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 offirst 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 specialist, but all the users that we have spoken to will identify with the 

"Teaming with Wildlife" logo on these things-this equipment, hiking boots, bicycles, whatever-and will identify that with contributing back to the resource. They are more likely to stick to the products 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 voluntary 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 provide recreational opportunities there, we don't provide value there, 

then that population worldwide is going to be in trouble. The people will identify with that. The people will identify with the products 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, whatever 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 voluntary 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 advantage 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 important one, and that is when you mentioned the luxury tax and its 

impact on sales of certain things, this has been the biggest objection 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 figures, which are accurate, we grew 40 percent during the same period. 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 effects 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 demand. 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 appreciate 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 private 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 constitutional 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 expanding 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 officials have stated that the future of the King Ranch is in resourcebased 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 existence. 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 Christi. 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 nowadays just to stay on the land. So in the State of Texas, we have added legislatively. At the Federal level, if we deal with the inheritance tax problem and are allowed 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 information. 

And I will tell you Texas has a fairly large nongame department 

compared, for example, to Mr. Tauzin's State that has but one person 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 review 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 because of the basic tax policy encouraging land sale and divestiture--

Mr. E UBANKS. 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 setasides, 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-! am not sure honestly that adding another system of Federal taxation on top of what is already an onerous system of taxation that is already causing many of the problems we are seeking to resolve-! 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 resources are attracting them. Our industry is based on an experience. 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 travelers, our tourists, who are interested in resource-based tourism 

going to Costa Rica, Kenya, Mexico, and other countries. These dollars are leaving. We have a chance, I believe, to retain those dollars 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 private 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 actually 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 allowing me-l 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, endangered 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 Nation 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-watchjust 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 proposal, 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 district 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 burden 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 diminished, 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 comments. 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 involved 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 community 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 little 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 completely. 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 people 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 Conservancyhave gone out and purchased things ahead of the government and 

have created preserves and protected lands. And I don't think anybody resents that. The problem is when it is taken from them without 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 International 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-<:ompetition. 

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 overlooked. 

You talk about your background in Boy Scouts and learning 

about conservation. At our company, our greatest philanthropic effort for the future is going to be in youth development and conservation. And if nothing else happens related to this, the potential 

for youth development and education to teach individuals, particularly 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 enjoyed. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. The gentleman's timeMr. 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 important, 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 percentage 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 wholesaler 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 transportation. 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 mechanics that have to be ironed out. This is a very, very complicated 

proposal. 

And 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 almost 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 collect 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 minutes 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 Association 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 president, 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 represents over 320 major ski resorts in the country. 

SIA alone encompasses a total workforce of over 197,000 individuals 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 diverse 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 resources of our national, regional, and local parks and outdoor recreation areas. In support, SIA has been instrumental in the formation 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 program 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 sustaining the remarkable maintenance and growth of the many environmental 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, especially involving the private sector and local and State level funding 

measures. However, the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal is illtimed 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 constant. 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 escalated, 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 participation 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 participation 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 assessed, 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" proposal 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 philosophy of a fair and equitable user fee . Teaming's proposed mechanism 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 participants or potential participants in our sports. 

We share the concerns of others regarding the problems with inadequate administration of collected funds and certainly with the 

25- 856 0 - 96 - 2 
30 

ad valorem inflationary factor that would accompany imposing the 

tax at the manufacturer's first point of sale. The subsequent markup of a product, as you noted earlier, as it moves through the commerce stream results in costs to the consumer in excess of the percentage 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 concept of the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal. On behalf of the SIA 

and NSAA memberships, I thank you for this opportunity to express 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 associations actively involved in satisfying the nation's need for quality 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 find 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. 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 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 commitment 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 message, I believe, was understood and shared by Messrs. Young and 

Breaux. They made clear their hopes that voluntary means to generate 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 wildlife 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 proportional 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 Wildlife" 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 proposed taxed products are never used in the great outdoors. A relatively 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-associated 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 recreation opportunities are getting better presumably because of budget 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 revenues to programs with clear and direct benefits for American anglers 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 quality. 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 creative classification of products. It is likely that some small manufacturers 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 supportive 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 highest national goals for the great outdoors, and then developing appropriate strategies and tactics to achieve these goals. 

ARC finds the "Teaming with Wildlife" fails to meet the recreation 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 opportunity to discuss the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal today. The 

Coalition for Vehicle Choice is a nonprofit organization that was 

created to preserve the freedom of Americans to choose safe and affordable motor vehicles that meet their individual needs and their 

freedom to travel. 

eve includes about 40,000 groups and individuals from all walks 

of life who believe that freedom of choice and mobility are important values that must be considered as society develops its governmental policies. eve 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 obligation 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 preservation of our nation's wildlife population and habitat, is definitely 

well intentioned, eve 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 customers 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 applications 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 increased. 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 unpopular 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 

J?rice 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 average consumer. 

In sum, the Coalition for Vehicle Choice believes that the 

"Teaming with Wildlife" proposal as it applies to sport utility vehicles 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 special 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 motorists to participate, and contributions can be made annually. And we 

think this type of approach is preferable to mandating a tax on motorists who purchase one class of vehicle. Moreover, the license 

plate alternative provides a tangible and visible recognition of support for wildlife conservation programs, whereas the excise tax constitutes what we would term a hidden tax. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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 overall 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 natural resources. We are talking about what may be necessary to alleviate the regulatory burden-the property rights burden on landowners 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 testimony 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 oneto-one link between trying to buy a backpack and necessarily demanding 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 raising 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 trying to avoid an excise tax on a particular product. 

The system also tends to be arbitrary. At what point does a CDROM beeome 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 revenue they raise. 

The sensible thing to do, if you want to allocate goods and resources 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 excise taxes and to abolish the agencies within the Treasury that administer 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 everything 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 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. DUFFICY. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 

invitation to testify. I am Tom Dufficy with the National Association 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 excise 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 Federal 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 appropriate 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 conservation and outdoor recreational activities. We, however, do not 

believe an excise tax or a user fee should be imposed on photographic film. We don't think it is fair. Photographic film should not 

be considered an appropriate item under the outdoor type of product 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 pictures 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 particular sections is on subject matter and most popular subject matters. 

The report reports that only 16 percent are taken of nature and of 

landscapes. And, of course, not all of those nature and landscapes 

are taken in parklands. 

One of our larger member companies, Kodak, conducted an inhouse 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 photographs 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 pictures 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 bighorn 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 activities. 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 

~dentify the organization Mountainsmith. I don't know what that 

lS. 
37 

STATEMENT OF DAVID PERI, DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, 

MOUNTAINSMITH 

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 opportunity to help alleviate that deficiency. Mountainsmith manufactures 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 America (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 support this initiative for several reasons. 

It chooses State fish and wildlife programs when the natural resource needs of our consumers are more diverse. The proposed excise tax cannot be fairly called a user fee. And the initiative creates 

a new inefficient and largely hidden tax affecting hundreds, perhaps 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 company and consumers. Let me tell you about a Mountainsmith program I helped devise that shows how manufacturers, retailers, consumers, 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 athletes the world over. Our equipment has summitted nearly every 

major mountain in the world. 

Mountainsmith sees trail access and development directly affecting and benefiting our customers, and so we have developed a program that will generate cash for the construction of the Continental 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 embroidered 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 percent 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 retailers receive increased traffic in their stores and positive public relations for participating in the CDT Program. 

And, five, Mountainsmith benefits by selling more packs, differentiating 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 affected by the tax. And this is a tax, not a user's fee. As the data in Mr. Mcilwaine'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 affects 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 marketability 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 including 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 because 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 programs 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 Colorado, 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 neighbor 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 representative of manufacturers or wholesalers or retailers, and without 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 manufacturing 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 operating 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 percent 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 general 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 environmental quality. If there were a closer link between using highways, demanding highway services, demanding highway construction, 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 signals 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 defines 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 ::ure 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 Committee, 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 collected 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 testimony. 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 letters regarding the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal. The majority 

of the letters were statements of support for the proposal. All letters will be kept on file at the Subcommittee. 
42 

TESTIMONY OF DAN ASHE , ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, UN~TED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, BEPORE 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 FUNDING INITIATIVE" 

JUNE6 , 1996 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to he here today to discuss tho ··reaming With Wildlife" 

Initiative . I wnnt \Q congratulate the States for developing tbis proposnl und bringing it l!l the 

attention of Congress. Their leadership on this i~suc signals their recognition uf and 

commitment to maintaining n diversi ty of plont 1 thh and wildlife . both f0r game anU on~ 

game ~pecies. In this alone they deserve our gl-dtitudc. 

At this point, I wnnt to cl~rify that the views in tills testimony constitute the Deportment's 

position ou the need to expand support for managemem of mm-~:amc wildlife and our 

prdimi nary comments on the Teaming With Wildli fe proposal. It is not an endorsement. 

However, we look forv•ard to providing the Committee with n formal position ond detailed 

comments, once legislation has heen actually introduced . The Departm~nt also rccugni:ocs 

and supports the goub of this proposal, and we ce>mmend the States !IIld particularly the 

International Association or Fi~h and Wildlife Agencies fo r their initiative and leJdcrship. 

The '"Teaming With Wildlife" in itiative proposes to authori7.e the Flsh and Wildlife Service to 

provide grants to State fish and wildlife agencies and U.S. territories fnr the development, 

revision and implementation of conservntie>n programs for fish •nd wildlife that are neither 

fished nor hunted. If properly designed, such an imtiativc cou ld si gnificantly enhance fis h 

and u.·i ldJife-associ~ucd recreation, educalion and restoration prot:rams fur Sldles. The 

Service would wekome the opportunity to expand wildlife -aS<ociated recreational 

opportu nities. Mnny States arc experiencing decilnes in the am<~unt of funds available ior 

wlidli fe resources. This proposal "''auld provide State tish and wildlife agone'"' u.ith the 

funds to undertake projects to improve these resuurccs and thereby expand wildlife-associated 

recreational opportunities. For e~ amplc . Now Jersey could t>uild viewing platforms on the 

Delaware !3ayshore which would allow visitors to view migratory shorebirds. raptors and 

songbirds without disturhing them. Alaska would he abl e to enhoncc wi ldlife education 

efforts. We look forward to increasing stewardship c•pabi liti es through appropriate 

kgislation. 

Potential bc:ncfits of this initiative ore illustrated t l)' the ftH.:l thi:ll it 1s patterned after two of 

this Nation's most $Ucct:-ssful (,;onscrvalion progrDms: Federal Aid in 'W'ildlifc Restomtion 

Pr ~m (l'ittman-Robcrtson Program) und FeJcral 1\ id in f ish Restc>ration Program 

in gc ll- Jo !1S on!Wallo p-llr~ux Program). 1 con think of no hcll er modob for this effort 

than these two hi~hly succ~.:.s: ~fu l progrruns. \\'e helie.ve that the d::s,rc:e to which this proposal 

mimic$ those programs Will cnhan~..:c: its potentbl fur ~u cccss . l wi ll begin with a shan 

discussio u of these two programs. 

The federal Aid in W1ldlife Restur~tion Program began July 1. 19:18, following enactment by 
43 

President Roosovelt of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act on September :2, 1937. 

The Act is popularly known u~ the Pittman-Robcrtson Act (P-R Act) after its sponsors, 

Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Roprescntativc A. Willis RobeJ1<<>1l of Virginia. It has 

been amended seveml time~ to improve its effectiveness. The primary purpose of the law is 

to provide a stable and secure funding source for States to munage and restore wildlife 

resources. 

11te Act authorizes funds for the program to be derived from Federal exci<e taxes on sportins 

arms and ammunition, pis\tJi> and revolvers and certain archery equipmclll. The total amount 

of the funds from sporting amts and ammunition ami fifty percent of the funds from pistols 

md rovo!vers are app011ioned to the States bnscd on the geographic area and number of 

huntiog license hnl<.lefl; in each Stau:. The remaining fifty percent of the funds from pistols 

!l!ld revolver~ and archery eguipment i~ nppnrtioned to th~ State> based on the pupc;lation, and 

us~d by tha States for hunter education projects. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, 

America Samoa, and the Northern Marian Islands each receive~ fixcd-pcrcclllagc of the funds 

apportioned. 

Responsibility for selection, planning, and execution of wildlife restoration projects rests with 

the States through their designated wildlife management agency. Stutes may be reimbursed 

hy the Federal Goverrunent for up to 75 percent uf the total cost of approved proi.xts. 

ProJect proposals are sctbmittcd by the designated Stnte agencies to the Regional Directors of 

the FWS who have the authority to approve or dis<tpprovc a project. Projects mny include 

acquiring areas of (!l!ld or woter for feeding, resting. or as breeding place< fnr wildlife; 

rehabilitating or improving land or waters for the benefit of wildlife management area,, 

public hunting urea.< and public usc facilities lor the benefit <>f wildlife, such as wildlife 

manu~:ement areas, public hunting areas and public use facilities; regular maintenance of 

completed projects; management of wildlife resources (~xclusiv~ of law enforcement or public 

rel11tions activities); wildlife management research; conducting hunter safety courses and 

building target ranges; and coordinating rrojem necessary to efficiently administer wildlif~ 

resources. 

:O.bout $42 ~nillion w"-' made available for fiscal yeM 1996 to help State' finance hunter 

education programs. This program trains 700,00(1 new hunt<rs 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 bbout S25 million worth in volunteer sen•ice annually. 

In the more than 50 years since the Pittman-RobertSon progrll111 wus created, over $3 billion 

in Federal excise taxes have been matched by more than $1 hi1liun in Stale funds (chiefly 

frum hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration. Benefits to the econonty have been 

equally impre"ivc. National surveys show that hunters now sprn<.l >orne $12 billion every 

year l>n equipment and trips. Non·hunting nature lovers spend even larger sum~ to enjoy 

wildlife on travel and on items that range from bird food t<> binoculars, frum special footwear 

to camera equipment. Area< famous for their wildlife have directly benclitcd from this 

2 
44 

spending, but so have sporting goods llnd outdoor equipment manufactures, distributors and 

dealers. Thousands of johs h.ave been created. 

h~re is no doubt that without a "Pittman·Ruhcnsun'' program the nation v.'Quld have been 

poorer in terms of knowledge. science, and the confidence that we can ind~e;:d change things 

for the better. 

On August 9, 1950, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, modeling 

the legislation after the highly successful Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. The new 

Act, was known as the Dingcli-Johnson Act, after its sponsors, Representative John Dingell, 

Sr., of Michigan, ond Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado. ft,llowing enactment in 19&4 of 

substanti al changes to the Act, the progrdlll began to he called the "Wallop-Breaux program" 

a1\er Senator Malcolm Walle>p of Wyoming nnd Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, the 

visionary sponsors of the new provisions. 

The Sport Fish Restoration program is funded by revenues ce>llcctcd tre>m the manufacturer< 

of fi~hing rods, rocb, creels. lures, !lies and artificial baits, who pay an excise lax on these 

items to the U.S. Treasury. Funds are alse> re~eiv<d fn1m imp<lrl duties on spon fishing 

equipment, pleasure boats !lnd yachts. One other source of revenue is an excise tax from the 

sale of motorboat fuels. 

These excise ta:~:es, collected directly from the exponer or manufact urer, arc p~id to the U.S. 

Treasury and then transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service for distrihutinn among the 

States and territories. Each State's share is based 60 percent Cln the numb<Or of licensed 

fishermen and 40 percent on the area of land and water " State may receive more than 5 

pr:.rccnt or less than 1 percent (,f ~:ich )'t:tir's lolal apporlionmeaL Puerto Rico receives 1 

percent, and the Virgin Islands, Guam, American San\Oa, Nor:hern Marianna Islands. and the 

District of Colutnbia each receive one·rhird of I percent. 

For fiscal year 1996 the sum of $197 million was apporti oned to the States and territories 

with Alaska, CaliforntH and lexll.S roceiving the ma•im um an"1cnts ($9.8 million), and the 

District of Columbia and the territories receiving the min imum amount ($657,123). 

Up to 75 percent of the cost of every Spun Fish Restor•tion proJeCt is borne by Federal funds 

and 25 percent by matching State fund s. Though the U.S. Fish anJ Wildlif~ Service assures 

adherence: to the Jaw, provides technical assistance, sets standards for performance, and 

monitors progress, each St:1tc selects. plans and perform~ h~ management work. 

So, unda the Sport Fish Restoration program one state may choose to devote much of its 

Federal Aid money to improvement of aquatic habitats for certain wann water species of ftsh, 

while another may stress land acquisition Q!td construction of fishing areas for the public. 

Still another might cmphasi7.e Jong·range fisht:ri~:- rc!'itarl;h using sophisticated laboratory investigati nns 

The Sport Fish Restoration Act program serves a> the States' financial cushion with which 
45 

they may undertake long-term pro~:rams to b~ndit Ji~h - a cushion they lack without a stable, 

dependable national source of funds. 

The c~pabilitics of State fisheries agencies have bl0ssomcd under the Spon Fish Restoration 

Act. Previously, many of them had li!tle money except for stocking of fish and traditional 

law enforcement duti~ s. Federal Aid encouraged higher standurds and provided additional 

money so States could afford to employ more professional hiologisb to pl n more long-tenn 

restorations such as establishing self-sustaining p0pulntions of fish . 

Management plans have paid off handsomely over the past four decad~s . N uh•ance plants 

were making life di!licult for fish and anglers alike in some lakes; projects to lower water 

levels at certain times of the year corrected thb prllhlom. Likewise, proj~ets to r~move 

undesirable species of ftsh that had been competing with game !ish made existing restockin~: 

efforts more effective. 

"New•· species of sport flsh. including striped baS>, ~<>h<> salmon, ;,nd northern pike have been 

introduced into favorable waters to increase sport fishing opportunitie~ . Managers have 

developed technique< in <ome southern inland lakes so that ocean species like the red drtlm, 

spotted sea trout, and soulh~rn flounder have prospered in them much to the delight of 

•ngl ers. 

Research has contwlled fish diseases C\\r more economical and efficient hatchery production. 

Retter designs have been developed for fish ladders to enable migrating salmon and stedhcad 

to reach spawning grounds. Careful monitorins has pinpointed sources of water pollution that 

have interfered with fish reproduction and stlrviva\. 

The Sport Fish Resl<>rilti on Act has yielded benefits unimasined in I :so that hove 

transformed the American fisheries scene Jrom one of depletion and decline to one of 

renewed vigor and optimism. 

Virtually unchanged since 1950, th ~ b~sic Sport Fish Re~toration legislation was 

supplemented in 1984 with new provisions thal e"tcndcd the excise tax to previously untaxed 

ilem$i. {)f sporling equipment. Under new provisions, named for Semttor Malcolm Wallop of 

Wyoming and Reprcsenunivc John 1.3reaux of l.<>uisiana, the I 0 percent tax was extended to 

include tackle boxes and other types of recreatinnal Hshing equipment, a 3 percent tax was 

applied to electric trolling motors and flasher-type sonar fish finders, and import dutie s on 

fishing tackle and pleasure boats were channeled into fisherie s restoration. In addition, a 

portion of the exist in~ Federal tax on motorboat fuels was devoted to thi$ program. 

The "Wa!lop-13rcaux' provisions intrllduced a numher of historic firsts to the sport fish 

restoration program. Twelve and one-half percent of all restoration money must now be spent 

on projects prov iding boating access 10 public waters. Cm"tui States are r~qu ir ~d to apply a 

portion of their new "Wn!lop-Brenux" fund< to pmgrams enhancing marine recreationnl 

tisheries. And Sta'l.~s m ((y now elecl h.) use up a 10 p!!rcent. of their wallnp~Brenus" funds 

4 
46 

for aquatic resource education rrograms. 

"Wallop-Breaux" has revolutionized the Spon Fish Restoration Act in its scope and the 

pcnential it holds for ti.sheries restoration well into the next century. Its provisiom have 

transformed the Spmt Fi>h Restoration Act from a program amouming to roughly $40 million 

aomually to one five times thar size - over $!97 million in 1996 This signific1111t infusion of 

new money bode:" well fnr the future of spon fi>h resToration lor many years to come. 

"Wallop-Breaux" was aho expanded in 1991. Revenues derived from "small engine" fuel 

excise taxes support Coastal Wetlands Restoration. These grants to State agencies have 

improved nursery areas for marine spon fish and helped to preserve one of our more li!nited 

eeosysrems. 

Mr. Chnirmo.n, a preliminmy review of the "Tcmning With Wildlife" proposal indkates great 

potential to build on the winning 1'-lVD-.1 model. l'illman-Robertson, Dingcli-Johnson and 

the Teaming With Wildlife Program should be compatible . Likewise the direct and indirect 

beneft!s of the proposed program should support P-R an<.! D-J dTorls. Multiple use an<.! 

sustainable use of these resources is more impon ant today than ever before. 

The Service agrees with the States that there is a growning need to accommodate increasing 

numbers of nonconsumptive wildlife resource users. Wildlife populations arc dwindling due 

to the fragmentation nf forest habitat, changing nf land usc and farming practices. Cenain 

nongame species, such as neotropical hirds, have declined drastically. With respect t<• 

numerous other species, there is inadequate infnrmation to determine whether these 

populations are expanding or decreasing. The chan1>ing public altitudes toward nonconsumptive recreational opponunities require 1ish and wildli1e agencies to expand their 

prosn:uns to meet the needs of a more sophisticoted public . A generation of children has 

grown up watching mslurl! program:-- on puh)i~,; tdt=...,ision, becoming more krwwlcdgeable and 

interested in their natural environment. For example .• in 1991 , 24.7 millinn people took 

trips away from home to observe, feed , or photograph birds. This illustrated a growing need 

to provide better services for birders, such :lS. trails, boardwalks, observation \owers, 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, •nd Wildlife-Associated Recreation, approximately 76 

million citizens, or 39 percent of the U.S. population 16 year> of age or older, enjoyed 

nongame recreational activities in 1991 . While the J\dmlnistration is not in n p()5ition to 

endc>rse this proposal or this time, the concept o!' funding wildlife conservation from taxes on 

t.:.t:rluin merchundisc: j~ a weli-UcmonstrateJ succ.:t!ss under Pittman-Robcrtson uncl WaiiC'IpBr<au:<. 

1 appreciate the opportunity to c.onuncnt on this maucr . 
47 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

ON THE "TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" INITIATIVE 

Robert L. McDowell, SecretaryrTreasurer 

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 SecretaryrTreasurer of the International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (IAFW A) 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 tor 

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 

TWW, 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 

funded by sportsmen through habitat enhancement, acquisitions and other conservation 

endeavors. More dedicated funds are vitally needed for projects focused specifically on 

these species as well as providing support for associated outdcor recrt"ation. 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-govenunent organization of public agencies 

charged with the protection and management of North America's fish and wildlife resources. 

The Association's govenunental members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, 

provinces, and federal govenunents 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 be,. del's "'1d 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 species of 
48 

2 

reptiles and amphibians, such as New Jersey chorus frog and bog turtle, all of which contribute 

to recreational opportur.ities for our citizens, and the general 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 been 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 

elC!inction because of their crisis status. However, the 90"/o of other (than game, sportfish and 

threatened/endangered species) fish and wildlife species suffer from a lack of adequate funding 

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 constituencies, the State fish and 

wildlife agencies serve a wide variety of fish and wildlife enthusiasts since we manage these 

public trust resources for all of our citizens. While some programs in the States are directed at 

meeting these user needs, such as land and habitat conservation on our 200,000+ acres of 

Wildlife Management Areas in New Jersey, much more is needed. Bird watchers, nature 

photographers, those who feed birds, and hikers and cancers all benefit from robust fish and 

wildlife populations. Sustainable fish wd wildlife populations in healthy habitats will provide 

for enhanced recreational and educational opportunities by ~ who enjoy these resources. 

Funds now available to the States to secure this future for fish and wildlife resources are simply 

not enough. TWW will pro"Vide those funds that are so vitally needed. 

Like the hunter and angler constituency which supports Pittman!Robertson and 

DingeiVJohnson-Wallop/Breaux, a broad coalition of sportsmen and 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 their willingness to pay a nominal excise fee on certain 

outdoor products as long as they can be assured that the funds will be statutorily and 

permanently dedicated to enhanced 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 most recent coalition list and the letters 

of endorsement from Governor Knowles of Alaska, Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon, Governor 

Chiles of Florida, Governor Miller of Georgia, Governor Dean of Vermont, Governor Tucker 

of Arkansas, Governor Foster of Louisiana, and Governor Johnson of New Mexico. We 

expect other Governors to also endorse TWW soon. 

Like the Pittman/Robertson and DingeiVJohnson-Wallop/Breaux programs, under TWW 

nominal excise fees (proposed on a sliding scale from WVo to 5% based on product value) will 

be imposed at the manufacturer's level on certain outdoor products, collected by the US 

Treasury, and permanently appropriated to the USFWS to be apportioned to the State fish and 

wildlife agencies on a 3: I Federal: State matching fund basis based on 2/3 population and 1/3 

land area. No State (or territory) would receive more than 5% of the total funds, nor less than 

0.5% of the total funds. We estililllte an annual income stream to the States of $350 million 
49 

from the excise fees. Since existing administrative 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 Pittman/R.obertson 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 funds, but they don't 

necessarily have to originate from the State agency. We fully expect our partners in this 

endeavor in each State - non-government 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 wouki facilitate the availability of match funds. 

Let me now give you some historical and prospective perspectives from our home State, Mr. 

Chairman. 

First, two success stories of the TWW model: Pittman!R.obertson and Dingell/JohnsonWallop-Breaux in New Jersey: 

I) PRIDJ-WB funds helped the Division to acquire Pemberton Lake Wtldlife 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 protect 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: 

I) One example is the Division'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 increase 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 May 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 world 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 

4 

economic and ecological benefits of nature-bast."CC tourism to local economies should not be 

underestimated. And, Teaming with Wildlife can make it all happen. 

3) Other potential project in our state that would benefit from TWW funding include the 

development of an interpretive program along the Cedar Creek Water Trail in Ocean 

County that would allow canoeists to identiJY cultural and natural areas of interest 

4) In Morunouth County funding 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 funds will be applied to projects in these three general areas: 

I. Fish and Wildlife Conservation -· includes preventative management for non-game species 

which allows the use of voluntary non-regulawry, incentive focused conservation efforts 

with landowners to address species needs befc![~ 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 funds. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chainnan, the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies, with the support of almost 

I, 000 organizations representing about 50 million citizens from the broad conservation 

community, strongly believe the time has come to act on TWW. The need is both meritorious 

and great, the support from 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. Chainnan, for this opportunity and I would be pleased to r"SJX)"d to any 

questions. 
51 

TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE 

COALITION LIST 

970 woups support Teaming Wirh Wildlife as of June 3, 1996 All 50 state fish and wildlife 

agenctes are members of the coalitwn. *=.\lember1· of.)'reamg Commltlee spearheading 

!mtiatlve Compames wh1ch are part of the'--c"o"'a::;lifccw"'-n-"a"-'"'-'""'n-"'de"-':.::lin"-'e"'d~. -----------

ABR Inc 

Adventure Travel Soc1ety 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 Env1ronment 

Alaska Cooperative Extension, UAF 

Alaska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Umt 

Alaska-Denali Guiding Inc 

Alaska Dept of Commerce & Economic Development 

Divis1on of Tounsm 

Alaska Discovery Inc 

Alaska Division of Tourism 

Alaska Kids Foundation 

!>' -k.a Manne Highway System 

~.:a Natural Hentage Program 

Alaska Natural History Assoc1at1on 

Alaska Deptartment of Natural Resources 

Parks & Outdoor Recreation 

Alaska Department of Transportation/Public Facilities 

Alaska Natural Resource & 

Outdoor Education Association 

Alaska Ramforest Tours 

Alaska Sc1ence & Technology 

Alaska Sportfishing AssOciation 

Alaska Travel Hotline 

Alaska University Museum 

Alaska Watchable 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 Livmg Ocean 

Amencan AGCO 

Amencan Bird Conservancy 

American Birding Association 

American Fisheries Society • 

AFS·Dakota Chapter 

AFS-Idaho Chapter 

AFS·IIIinois Chapter 

AFS-Introduced Fishes Sect1on 

AFS-Iowa Chapter 

AFS·Kansas Chapter 

AFS·Mississippi Chapter 

AFS·New York. Chapter 

AFS·Oregon Chapter 

AFS·Virginla Chapter 

AFS-West Virginia Chapter 

American Oceans Campa1gn, CA 

Amencan Ornithologists Union 

American Rod & Gun 

American Soc1ety of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists 

American Wildlands 

American Wildlife Research Foundation 

Appalachia·Science in 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 M1dwest Fish & Game Law 

Enforcement Officers 

Association of Northwest Steel headers 

Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks 

Audubon Naturalist Society 

Audubon Soc1ety of New York State. Inc 

Auk.let Charter Services 

B&B Custom Services 

Bare Island Charters 

Bare Island Originals 

Barrick Museum. UNLV 

Basin Airmotive 

BAS.S. Inc 

Florida 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 Lodae 

Big Marsh Bowhunters 

Big River Specialtv Company 

Big Sky Wildcare 

Billings Rod & Gun Club 

Biodiversity Inc 

B1rd House & Habitat 

BIRD Treatment and Learning Center 

Bismarck-Mandan Bird Club 

Black Swamp Bird Observatory 

Boone & Crockett Club 

Boyer Valley Environmental Foundation, lA 

Brasstown Wildlife Rehabilitation Center 

/nJernational A.uoci#tion of Fish & Wildlife Axencin, 444 .Vortll Capitol Street, :vw, Suite 544, Wallington, DC 10001 
Bremer County So11 & Water Conservation Di strict lA 

P 'Sush Nature Center 

l ol Bay Nat1ve Associat1on 

Broadcast Serv1ces or Alaska 

Buck Creek GUide Service 

Bucks County ConservatiOn 01stnct. PA 

The Camp F1re Club of Amenca 

Canoe Safan 

Canyon B1rders 

Cape-Atlantic Soil Conservation 01str1ct 

Carbon Co. Environmental Ed Center 

Caribbean ConservatiOn Association 

Canbou A1r Serv1ce & Enterpnse 

Carl Ze1ss Oplical 

Carneg1e Museum of Natural History 

Carohn a 8 1rd Club. Inc 

Cass County W ildhfe Club. NO 

Cedar Creek Cloth1ng Company 

Center for Manne Conservation 

Center for the Study of Trop1cal Birds, Inc 

Central Flonda Native Flora, Inc 

Centre County Women's Resource Center 

Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center. Inc 

Chequamegan 81rd Club 

Chesapeake W ildlife Heritage 

Chestnut R1dge Reg tonal Park of Mongolia County. WV 

The Chewonkt Foundat1on, ME 

Chthuly's Charters 

Chmook Northwest. Inc 

Churchtll Area Env1ronmental Counc1l 

Cmcmnat1 Zoo and Botan1cal Gardens 

zens Committee to Save the Cacne R1ver. Inc 

_ .dzens United to Protect the Maur1ce R1ver 

and 1ts Tnbutaries. Inc 

Clear Lake Fnendly Garden Club 

Cleveland Metroparks Zoo 

Cloudberry Lookout Bed & Brea kfast 

Coalition of Concerned Pennsylvania Anglers 

Colorado B1rd Observatory 

Colorado Bow Hunters Assoc1a11on 

The Colorado Mountain Club 

Colorado Outward Bound School 

Colorado River Wildlife CounCil 

Columbia Basm Fish & Wildltfe Authonty 

Commtttee for Idaho's Htgh Desert 

Concerned Fnends of lhe Wtnema 

52 

Defenders ol Wildlife • 

Delaware Advtsory Council on Game and Fish 

Delaware Rtverkeeper Network 

State of Delaware Parks & Recreation Counc 1l 

Delmarva Ornithological Soctely 

Delta Wa!ertowl Foundation 

Oenah Back;c:ounlry Lodge 

Desen F1shes Council 

01s covery Voyages 

Otve R1te Manufacturing. Inc 

OJ Case & Associates 

Dogwood City Grotto of the 

National Speleologtcal Soctety 

Don's Round Island Boat Char1ers 

Ouck;s Unhmtted. Inc 

D&R Canal Watch 

Eagletail Ranch 

Eagleta1l W ilderness Soctety 

Eastern lllirto1s Sportsman Club 

Eastern Kena1 Penmsula Environmental Action Assn 

ECO Educa!IO"'' 

Eco Tours o• Oregon 

Elko County Wildlife Adv1sory Board, NV 

Elmore Man.J factunng Company 

Emerald Isle Sea Turtle Conservation Project 

Env1romat Inc 

Environmental Action Commrttee 

n'V nmen l Defense Fund 

Envtronmen:al lnlerpretation. 

Env1ronmen:al Educatton Associatton of utino1s 

nv1ronmen~a l Education Association of Indiana 

Enwonmen;ally Concerned Citizens of the Lakeland Area 

Eruk's Wilderress Float Tours 

Everglades Coordinating Counctl 

Exot1c Pels 

Falconers ot NYS 

Falcon Press 

Farmton Hunt.ng & Sportsmen Assn Inc. 

Federation of 'lew York State Btrd Clubs 

Federation of ·tvestem Outdoor Clubs 

Fernhlll Wetlands Counctl, Inc. 

Fin & Feather. Inc 

Fishmg & Flying 

Five Valleys Audubon Society 

Florida Bowhunters Counc11 

Flortda Oelt-nders of the Environment 

Connecttcut Ormtholog1cal Assoc1atton Flonda Hawking Fraternity 

The CMservancy of Montgomery County Flonda Hound Hunters Assoc1ation. Inc. 

ConservatiOn Explorer Post 171, Iowa Flonda Sportsmen's ConservatiOn Assoc1ation 

Conserval ton Federat1on of Missouri Flonda StiUhunters AssOCISIIon 

Cooper Ornrtholog1cal Soctety Flondaa Wildlife Unlim1te<:1 Inc. 

Copper Rtver & Northwest Tours Foothtlls Lano Conservancy 

Country Ecology For Our Birds 

Cordova Water Sports For the 81rds, Inc 

Corn ell Laboratory of Orn1thology FoundaliOr't for North Amer1can W ild Sheep 

Costa R1ca Exped1t1ons Freshwater F1shenes Coaht1on. SC 

Crawford County Conservation Board, Iowa Fnends of Bnaroush Nature Center 

Crescent Harbor H1de A W ay Fnends of Chehaw. GA 

Cnner Company Fnends of Creame(s Fte!d, AK 

~&R Sporting Goods Fnends of Dragon Run 

, he Comm1ttee tor National Arbor Day Frtends of Endangered Wildlife, Inc 

The Conservation Fund i="riends of Ftsh and Wildlife 

TCF-Aiaska Office Fnends of Poner Marsh 

Cntter Control of Rochester Friends of the Earth 

DaUas County Conservation Boa rd Friends of F1sh and Wildlife. Inc 

Darby Creek Valley Assoc1ation Fnends of McNeil River 

Debbie S Miller. Author Frtends of Smoots Creek/Pure Water for Kansas 

flllrrnGii1JnGl .·tuodalion of Fiflt d: Wild/if~ Agtncin . ./U .\'ortll Capitol Stud, .\'W, $11.ile U4, Wtultingtoff, DC 10001 
The Friends of the Red Rock Canyon 

F•' 'ds of the Wapsi Center 

F js of West Hills Streams 

Kathy Frost, 1995 Women's World Champion Sled Dog Racer 

F urt"larvesters Club of Iowa State Umversity 

Fur Takers of America, Chapter 17 -B. JL 

Garden Clubs of Georgia 

Geanng Up 

General Federated Women's Club of Clarkside. Iowa 

George Miksch Sutton Avian Research Center, Inc 

The Georg1a Conservancy 

Georgia Ornithological Soc1ety 

Georgia Recreat1on & Parks AssociatiOn 

Georg1a Wildlife Federation 

Ges•ne's At Four Corners 

Gilcrease B•rd Sanctuary 

Gilmore Ponds Conservancy, Inc. 

Glen Helen Outdoor Education Center 

Glen Helen Raptor Center 

Golden Crescent Nature Club 

Governor of Alaska, Tony Knowles 

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 Kitzhaber 

Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, M.D. 

Great Lakes of South Dakota Assoc•at1on 

Great Plains Trails Network, Nebraska 

~·eater Ecosystem Alliance 

ater Yellowstone Coalition 

Greater Watchung Nature Club 

Greensboro Beautiful. Inc 

Greenwood & Gryphon, Ltd 

Grounded Eagle Foundation, Inc. 

Gustavus Inn at Glacier Bay 

Gwylan Sa• I Charters 

Harns Center for Conservation Education 

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association 

Hawk Watch International 

Headwaters Landtrust 

High Desert Ecological Research Institute 

The Holden Arboretum 

Hocking Va!!ey Wildlife Center 

Hook-n-Shot 

Ho11 on's of Helena, Ltd 

Holden Beach Turtle Program. NC 

Hot Yens 

Th e Holden Arboretum, Ohio 

Howard County Conservation Board 

The Highlands Coalition, NJ 

The Humane Society of the U.S 

Hyalite Outfiners 

Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation 

Idaho Conservation Officers Associat1on 

Idaho Falconers Association 

Idaho Herpetolog•cal Society 

17 Idaho Rocky Mountain Elk Foundat•on Chapters 

aha Reg1on IV Wildlife Council 

odaho Trasls Council 

Illinois Musk1es Alliance 

Illinois Audubon Society 

l!!ino1s AssOCiation of Hunting Preserves 

Illinois Bownunter's Society 

Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board 

53 

Illinois Environmental Council 

Illinois Native Plant Soc1ety 

Illinois Nature Preserves Commission 

Illinois Ornitholog•cal Soc•ety 

lllino•s Professional Assn. of Conservation Resource Managers 

IllinOIS Tree Farm System 

Illinois W ildlife Feoerat1on 

Institute for Bird Populations 

International Assn _ for Bear Research & Management 

International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies • 

International Society of Tropical Foresters, Inc 

Tl"le International Sonoran Antelope Foundation 

International Wolf Center 

Iowa Academy of Sc•ence 

Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards 

Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards. D1stnct II 

Iowa Association of County ConseNation Boards. D•stnct VI 

Iowa Association of Naturalists 

Iowa Audubon Counc•l 

Iowa C1ty Bird Club 

38 Iowa Counties' Conservation Boards 

Iowa Conservat1on Education Council 

Iowa Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Un1t 

Iowa Environmental Counc1! 

Iowa Falconers Association 

Iowa Lakes Commun1ty College Conservation Club 

Iowa Lakes Community College 

Environmental Studies F'rogram 

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 Counc11 

Iowa Wildlife Rehabllitators Association 

Iowa Women in Natural Resources 

lzaak Walton League of Amenca 

IWLA-Ames Chapter 

IWLA·Eigin Chapter. IL 

IWLA·Emmet County Chapter, lA 

IWLA·Fort Dodge/F'hil Fox Chapter, lA 

IWLA·Frank Anetsberger Chapter, IL 

IWLA·Franklin Co. 

IWLA·Greater Atlanta Chapter, Inc 

IWLA·Greene County Chapter 

IWLA-Homewood Memonal Chapter 

IWLA·Indiana DiviSIOn 

!WLA·Iowa Oiv•sion 

IWLA·Lmn County Chapter 

IWLA·Maquoketa Valley Chapter 

IWLA·Oregon Chapter 

IWLA·South Dakota Division 

IWLA· Three Rivers Cl"lapter 

IWLA·Virgin•a Division 

JD Summers & Assoc1ates 

Jefferson County Conservat•on Board, lA 

Jersey Falconry Club 

Johnson County Songb•rd Project 

J.N. "DING" Darling Foundat1on 

Kachemak Air Service, Inc 

Kachemak Bay Conservation Society 

Kachemak Bay Wilderness Lodge & 

Olenik Brown Bear Camp 

Kane County Natural Areas Volunteers 

Kan&-OuPage Soil & Water Conservation Distnct 

Keep Sedona Beaut1ful. Inc. 
54 

Keep Winter Haven Clean & Beautiful Mississippi Ornithological Society 

t< ing Track. Inc. Miss issippi Valley Ouck Hunters of IL 

1\ .t Peninsula Condos & Apartments Missouri Audubon Council 

Kenai River Sportfishmg Association Missouri Botanical Garden 

Kirkvtood Ecology Commtttee Mtssouri Native Plant Society 

Kntk Cancers & Kay akers Association of Missouri Interpreters 

Knoxville Zoo Missouri Prairie Foundation 

Kodiak Stale Parks Advisory Board Missouri Wildflowers Nursery 

Kossuth County Conservation Board Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater, NJ 

LA 8. Flying Services Inc Montana Bald Eagle Wor1<ing Group 

Ladage Photography Montana Environmental Education Association 

LaGrande Bird Group Montana Falconers Association 

lahontan Wetlands Coalition. NV Montana Loon Society 

l ake Clark lodge. Inc. Montana Natural History Center 

Lake Erie Nature & Science Center Montana State Parks & Wildlife Interpretive Assn 

lake Polk Hunt Club Montgomery County Conservation Soard 

Lake Region Photography Club Musco netcong Watershed Association 

Lakeland Runners Club Nat1onal Association of Conservation Districts 

Lancaster County Conservancy National Association for Interpretation 

land Trust Alliance National Association of State Foresters 

LaSalle County Natural Area Guardians. IL National Association of State Outdoor 

Lasso-E-Camper Sales Recreation Liaison Officers (NASORLO)• 

The Laurens Federated Women's Club National Association of State Park Directors • 

lCSC Biology Club, 10 National Assn. of Univ. Fisheries & Wild. Program 

league ot Women Voters of Cedar Rap1ds/Manon. lA National Audubon Society • 

Lee County SWCO Natural Area Guardian Com . IL Anchorage Audubon Society, Inc. 

Lehigh Gorge Outdoor Club Arctic Audubon Society, AK 

le1f Selkregg Associates Arkansas Valley Audubon Society 

Leopold Center for Susta1nabfe Agriculture Atlanta Audubon Society 

Lewis & Clark Wildlife Club Big Bend Audubon Society 

libeny Prairie Conservancy Big Bluestem Audubon Society 

e Creek Nature Center Foundation Birmingham Audubon Society 

Lnln County Resource Enhancement Protection, lA Bitterroot Audubon 

Long Island Pine Barrens Society Black Hills Audubon Society 

Lost World Adventures Boulder County Audubon Society 

Low Impact Wildlife Photography Bucks County Audubon Society 

Lower Marion Conservancy Cape Henry Audubon Society 

Lowry Park Zoo. FL Cedar Rapids Audubon 

lycoming County Conservation District. PA Chequamegon Audubon Society, WI 

MPA Coeur d'Alene Chapter 

Maine Environmental Education Association Columbia Audubon Society, SC 

Manatee-Sarasota Fish and Game Assoc., Inc. Columbia Audubon Society, MO 

ManitO'Msh River Canoes & Kayaks Conococheague Audubon Society 

Manomet Observatory Audubon Society of Corvallis 

Maritan Wildlife Sanctuary & Wilderness Trust Dakota p~-·e Au. dubon Society 

Martie Hills Waters hen Association, PA elawar . o Audubon Soc1ety 

Mary Ingles Trail Blazers ' n11er Audub Society 

Marlyland Ornithological Society 0 Moines Au~on Society 

Massacnuset1s Audubon Society Det it Audubon ~iety 

Mat-Su Valley State Pants CitiZens Advisory Board, AK Oubu e Audubon SOciety 

Menasha Ridge Press Fargo- rhead Audubon Society 

Men's Garden Club or Des Moines. lA Flathead dubon Society 

Men's Garden Club of Mason City, lA Fort Collin · _udubon S09ety 

M1ami County Park District. OH Four Rivers~ubOn So<:iety . 

Michigan Alliance for Environmental & Outdoor Sdud'IJ!tion ·Golden Eagle ~dubon Counc1l 

Michigan Environmental Council Greater Wyo~i~ ValleX Audubon Society 

Mici'ligan Loon Preservation Association Huachuca Audubon.._ Soc1ety 

Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council Huntington Audubon~oc•ety 

Mid-MJssouri Conservation Society Idaho Audubon Counci1 

'idwest Raptor Research Fund Audubon Council of Illinois 

.Jiigratory Waterfowl Hunters. IL Iowa Audubon Council 

M1kal Kellner Foundation for Animals Juneau Audubon Chapter 

Miller. Debbie, Author Juniata Valley Audubon Society 

Minnesota land Trust Audubon Society of Kalamazoo 

Minnesota Ornithologists' Union Kansas Audubon Council 

Mississippi Flyway Council Kanza Audubon Ci'lapter 

Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Associatibn Kissimmee Valley Audubon Society 

b•UrnGJiotud AssociG1io11 of Filla & W&ldJjf~ Ag~ncia, 44-4 ,Vortll Ct~pilol Slrtn, NW, Suit~$#, WMiain6f011, DC 1()(}()1 
55 

Kodiak Audubon Soc1ety Alabama Wildlife Federation 

Lakota Audubon Society Wildlife Federation of Alaska 

Last Chance Audubon Society Arizona Wildlife Federation 

Loess Hills Audubon Society Arkansas Wildlife Federation 

Lycoming Audubon Society, PA Colorado Wildlife Federation 

Mad•son Audubon SOciety Flonda Wildlife Federation 

Mame Audubon Soc1ety Idaho Wildhfe Federalion 

Mecklenburg Audubon Society Indiana W1ldlife Federation 

Mich•gan Audubon Society Iowa Wildlife Federation 

Audubon Society of Missouri Kansas Wildlife Federation 

Missouri Breaks Chapter Audubon Society Lowsiana Wildlife Federation 

Monmouth County Audubon Soc•ety. NJ MLSSLSSLppi Wildlife Federation 

Montana Audubon Council Montana Wildlife Federation 

Moms Higt'llands Audubon Soc1ety, NJ Nevada Wildlife Federation 

Nebraska Audubon Council New Hampshire Wildlife Federation 

New Hope Audubon Soctety North Carolina Wildlife Federation 

Audubon Council of NY State, Inc South Carolina Wildlife Federation 

Audubon Council of North Carolina South Dakota Wildlife Federation 

Northeast Pennsylvania Audubon Society Stutsman County W ildlife Federation, NO 

Northern Fhnt H1lls Audubon Soc1ety Tennessee Conservation League 

Northern Iowa Prairie Lakes Audubon Chapter Twin Falls Wildlife Federation, 10 

Northwest IllinOIS Audubon Soc1ety Virgm1a Wildlife Federation 

Oconee Audubon Soc1ety W1scons1n Wildlife Federation 

Ocmulgee Audubon Soc1ety Wyom1ng Wildlife Federation 

Ogeechee Audubon Society, GA National Wildlife Rehabilitators Assoc1ation 

Onondaga Audubon Society National Wlldnower Research Center 

Audubon Society of Omaha The Nat1ve Fish Society 

Owashtanong Islands Audubon Soctety, Ml Native Nurseries of Tallahassee. Inc. 

Palouse Audubon Society, 10 Natural Areas Association 

Audubon Council of Pennsylvania Natural Area Guardians Jo Daviess County 

Peoria Audubon Society Natural Land Institute 

Phoenix Audubon Society of So. Illinois Natural Resources Technology 

Audubon Society of Portland Nature Alaska Tours 

Portneauf Valley Audubon Society The Nature Conservancy of Alaska 

Potomac Valley Audubon Society The Nature Conservancy-Delaware Field Office 

Pra1ne Falcon Audubon Chapter The Nature Conservancy -SO C,apter 

Pra~rie Hills Audubon SocietyiWe$tern SO The Nature Shop of Field View Photo & Design 

Prairie Woods Audubon Society Nebraska Counctl of Sportsmen's Clubs 

Quad C1ty Audubon Society, lA Nebraska Family Campers & RV'ers 

Quittapatitla Audubon Society, PA Nebraska Ornithologists' Union 

Red Rock Audubon Society Nevada Public Land Access Coalttion. Inc 

Rolling Hills Audubon Society New Hampshire Audubon Society 

Seneca Rocks Audubon Society New Jersey Association Conservation Districts 

S1skiyou Audubon Society New Jersey Audubon Society 

SE Kansas Chapter of Audubon Society New Jersey Conservation Foundation 

Topeka Audubon Society New Jersey School of Conservation 

Tulsa Audubon Society New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc. 

Upmpqua Valley Audubon Society New Mexico Falconry Association 

Upper Iowa Audubon Society New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Inc. 

Vandalia Audubon Society New Pione« Co-op 

Wake Audubon Society New York State Conservation CtJ.Ji.cil. Inc. 

Warioto Audubon Society, TN North American Falconers' Association (NAFA) 

West Virginia Audubon Council North American Fishing Club 

Audubon Council of Washington North American Hunter 

Wayne County Audubon Society, NC North American Loon Fund 

W1ldcat Audubon Society North American Wott Society 

Wyncote Audubon Soc1ety North Carolina Falconers' Guild 

National Bowhunters Education Foundation - IL Chapter North Carolina Herpetological Society 

National Ecological and Conservation Opportunities Institute North Country Trail Association 

'lational Fish & Wildlife Foundation Northern Illinois Anglers Association 

.3 tional Military Fish & W ildlife Association Northern Iowa River Greenbelt Association 

Natl. Museum of Nat. History/Smithsonian lnstJtutiOn Northern RockteS Natural History 

National Parks & Conservation Associat1on. DC Northwoods Limited Falconry Equipment Company 

National Shooting Sports Foundation Northwoods Wildlife Centltf 

National Wild Turkey Federation Ocean Isle Beach, Turtle Watch 

NWTF-Georgia Chapter Ohio Biological Survey 

National Wildlife Federation • Ohio Historical Society 

llflenulliM4l A.J.Joci4tiOII of Fisll & Wildlife ~tteMiD, U4 Nortlt Cyilol Sired, NW. SMile J.U, WasliU.ftOII, DC 10001 
56 

Ohio Huskie Muskie Club Pure Water for Kansas Program 

Ohio Odonata Survey Purple Martin Conservation Association 

r State Trappers Assoc1ation PVL Minnow Mart 

G,.,>J Wildlife Center Quail Hollow Nature & Bird Club, Ohio 

Ohio Wildlife Rehabilitators Association Quail Unlim1ted. Inc 

01' Sam Peabody Company QU-IIIinois 

Old Harbor Books QU-New MeXICO 

Openlands Project _ Quakertown Recreation Club 

Orca Book & Sound Com;:;a0'y -~ Quality Sportsmen's Club 

Oregon An1mal Welfare Allianctl Quartz Creek Homeownwers Association 

Oregon Environmental Council Rainforest Alliance 

Oregon Humane Society Reflective Images Photography 

Oregon Hunters Association- Bend Chapter The Reluctant Fisherman Inn 

Oregon League of Conservation Voters Resource Management Associates 

Oregon Natural Desert Assoc1at1on Responsive Management 

Oregon Trout Revere Land Conservancy 

Organization of Fish and Wildlife Information Managers Richardson Wildlife Foundation, Illinois 

Outdoor Escape Ridgerunner Forestry Services 

The Ormthological Society River Keepers, North Dakota 

Pac1fic Seabird Group Riverwear 

Palisades Nature Association Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Partners In Flight NGO Committee Rob & Bess1e Welder Wildlife Foundation 

Passa1c River Coalition Rome-Floyd Parks & Recreation Authority 

Paunacussing Watershed Association Ron Levy Photography 

Payless Drug Store, Burley, Idaho R&R Sports, Inc. 

Penn State College Bird Club Leonard Lee Rue, Ill, Wildlife Photographer 

Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust The Ruffed Grouse Society 

Penn State-Allentown Outdoor Club TRGS-IA Chapter 

Penns Woods G1rl Scout Council The Salisbury Zoological Park 

Pennsylvania Assoc1ation of Conservation 01stricts. Inc Saskatchewan Wetlands Cons. Corporation 

Pennsylvania Deer AsSOCiation Save the Dunes Council 

.-~,nsylvania Falconry & Hawk Trust Save the Prairie Society 

nyslvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. Inc Safan Club International 

Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commiss1on SC-GA Chapter 

Pennsylvania Game Commission SC-AK Chapter 

Pennsylvania Land Trust Association Sawtooth Wildlife Council 

Pennyslvania Travel Council Seaward Assoc1ation for Advancement of Manne 

Pennsylvania Wildlife Federation Sc1ence (SAAMS) 

Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust Second Chance Wildlife 

Peoria Academy of Science Schramm Nature Photography Club 

Pete Petersen's Wild Bird Shop Scott County Soil & Water Conservation District 

Pheasants Forever, Inc - ID Chapter Shaker Lakes Regional Nature Center 

Pheasants Forever, Inc- Grundy County, IL Sibley-Ocheyedan High School Wildlife Biolog:,· Class 

Pheasants Forever, Inc- NV Chapter Sierra Club 

Pheasants Forever, Inc - OR Chapter Cedar Prairie Group, Sierra Club 

Pheasants Forever, Inc - WA Chapter East River Group Sierra Club, SO 

Phillipsburg Area Chamber of Commerce, NJ Great Basin Chapter of the Sierra Club. NV 

Phi Sigma Biological Honor Society Heart of Illinois Sierra Club 

PSBHS-Eastern Illinois University Chapter Pennsylvania Sierra Club 

Phototake Sierra Club Appal. Reg. Cons. Com 

The Phoenix Zoo Sierra Club Blackhawk Group, IL 

Picture Perfect Frames Inc Sierrra Club, Florida Chapter 

Pike County Conservation District Florida Sierra Club, Public Lands Comm1ttee 

Pineland Canoes. Inc. Illinois Chapter. Sierra Club 

Pmelands Preservation Alliance Central Iowa Sierra Club 

Platte & Prairie Audubon Society. CO To1yabe Chapter of the Sierra Club 

Pocono Environmental Education Center Sheriff Tom Tramel, FL 

Point Reyes Bird Observatory Simpson College- Dept of Biology & Envir Science 

Powdermill Nature Reserve S1tka Center for Art and Ecology 

orairie Enthusiasts of the Neskowin Coast Foundation 

South Central Wisconsin Chapter Lawton L Sk1pper, Real Estate Broker 

r'redatirs /defense Council of Oregon Snow! me Bed & Breakfast 

Preferred Adventures Ltd Snowline Manne Adventures 

Preserve Anzona's Wolves Societas Biophilia 

Prince William Motel Soc1ety for Ecological Restoration 

Pro•Wildlife Company Society for the Study of Amphibians & Reptiles 

Public Lands Foundation Soc1ety of American Foresters 

[nUrniJiional A.uocUJtion of FUh & Wildlif~ Ag~ncks, 444 .Vorth C~~pilol Strut, .VW, Suit~ 544, Wt1Shington, DC 20001 
57 

SAF-New Jersey Student Chapter Nat1ona1 Cap1tal Chapter 

So• • for Conservat1on Biology TWS-Nebraska Chapter 

SFCB-Aido Leopold Chapter TWS-New England Chapter 

SFCB-Cotorado Plateau Chapter TWS-New Jersey Chapter 

Sourdough Outfitters. Inc. TVVS-New Jersey Student Chapter 

South Branch Watershed Association TWS-New Mex1co Chapter 

South Carolina Open Shooting Dog Championship TWS-New York Chapter 

South Dakota Assn. of Conservation Districts TV-IS-North Carolina Chapter 

South Dakota Discovery Center & Aquanum TWS-North Central Section 

South Dakota Ornithologists' Union TWS-NC, Haywood Comm. College Stud. Chapter 

South Dakota Sc1ence Teachers Association TVVS-North Dakota Chapter 

South Dakota So11 & Water Conservation Society TWS-Oh10 Chapter 

South Dakota State Wildlife Conservat•on Club TWS-Oregon Chapter 

South Jersey Land Trust TWS-Pennsylvilnia Chapter 

Southeast Alaska Coalition of Outdoor Educators TWS-Penn State Student Chapter 

Southeastern Fishes Council TWS-Southern lllino•s Univ. Student Chapter 

Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen. NM r!NS-South Carolina Chapter 

Southwest Iowa Birders TWS-South Dakota Chapter 

Sportsmans Atlas Company TVVS-Tennessee Chapter 

Sportsmen Conservationists of Texu. Inc TVVS-Texas Chapter 

St. Hubertus Outdoor Enterprises TWS-Un1v. of AK Fairbanks Student Chapter 

Stan Stephens Cruises TWS-Virgima Chapter 

Starbuck Charters Alaskan Guide SeMce TWS-West Virg•nia Chapter 

State College Bird Club TVVS-West Virginia Univ. Student Chapter 

Don and Lillian Stokes, Nature Authors lWS-Western Illinois Univ Student Chapter 

Stonefly Angler TWS-Univ.of WI Student Chapter-stevens Point 

Sugar Creek Protection Society, OH TWS-Wisconsin Chapter 

Sunshine Electric & Plumb.ng Supply Company iWS-Wyoming Chapter 

Sustina Air Service Thompson/Center Arms Co., Inc 

Suwanee River Dog Hunters Association Three Rivers Resources 

Swarovski Optik North America, ltd. Trails & Recreational Access for Alaska (TRAAK) Citizens 

~ Instruments, Inc. Advisory Board 

Tan Timbers Trails Club of Oregon 

Tampa W ingmaster Trails North 

Taylor Outfining Tortoise Group 

Tenany Nature Center Assoc•ation Tracker Marine 

Tennessee Environmental Education Association Trailside Discovery 

Tennessee Ornithological Society Trees Forever 

TOS-Greeneville Chapter Trout Unlimited 

Tennessee Traits Association TU-Cumberland Valley 

The Conservation Fund, Alaska Office TU-Ferdinand Hayden Chapter, CO 

The Environmental Resource Network (T.E.R.N.) TU-Forks of the Delaware 

The Wildlife Society • TV-Frank Horn berg Chapter, WI 

TWS-Aiabama Chapter TU-Georgia Council 

TWS-Aiaska Chapter TU-Montana Council 

TWS-Arizona Chapter TU-Mountain Streams 

1WS-Ciemson Unrv. Student Chapter TU-South Platte Chapter. CO 

TWS-Colora<lo Chapter TU-Sagebrush Chapter 

TWS-Colorado State Univ. Student Ctlapter Trumpeter SWan Soctety 

TWS-Cornell Univers•ty Chapter Tucker Aviation, Inc. 

TWS-Flonda Chapter Turnstone Ecolog. Res. Assoc. ltd. 

lWS-Georgia Chapter Ty Smedes Nature Photography 

TWS-Idaho Chapter Underwater Services 

TWS-Idaho Student Chapter United Sownunters of Illinois 

TWS-IIIinots Chapter University of Alaska. Ancho1age 

TWS-Ind1ana Chapter Alaska Natural Heritage Program 

TWS·Iowa Chapter Umversity of Alaska, Farrbanks 

TWS-Kansas Chapter Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit 

TWS-Un1vers1ty of Maine Student Chapter Dept. of Biology & Wildlife 

TWS-Maryland\Delaware Chapter Dept. of Resources Management 

TWS-Michigan Chapter lnst•tute of Arctic Biology 

TWS-Minnesota Chapter Un.vers•ty of Alaska Museum 

TWS·Miss•ssippr Chapter University of Delaware 

TWS-Mtsstss•ppt State Univ Student Chapter W1ldlife ConseNation Club 

TWS-Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Student Chapter Univ. of Iowa Environmental Health Sciences Res. Center 

TWS-Montana Chapter Un1v. of Kentucky Student Forestry & Wildlife Assn 

TWS-Murray State University Chapter Univ. of Tennessee Wildlife & Fisheries Society 

lnUrttlllionlll AJSO<illlioff of Fislt &: WiU/Iift Agt~tein, 444 Nt,tlt Capitol Strut, NW, SIU/t J-14, WiBitilrtfOff, DC 20001 
Univ. of WISConsin- Women 1n Natural Resources 

U · Miss tsstppi River Conservation Commtttee 

u .. , .r Rantan Watershed Association 

Upper Rockaway River Watershed Associatton 

Urban W ildlife Resources 

U S Pratne Pothole Joint Venture Mgmt. Soard 

Utah Falconers' & Raptor Breeders' Assoctation 

The Van Buren County Conservation Board 

Vermont Ecology Tours 

Vermont Falconers Assocration 

Vermont Woodlands Magazine 

Vicl<sbtrders 

Virginta's E)(plore Park 

Virgm1a Society of Ornithology 

'1/V'VSP Rock Climbing Club 

Washington Falconer's Association 

The Waterfowl Festival. Inc. 

Webster Groves Nature Study Soc•ety 

West Virgmta Scenic Trails AssoctaiiOn. Inc. 

West Virgima T ratls Coalition 

Western Regional Environmental Education Council 

(WREEC) 

Weston & Assoctates. Inc 

Wetlands for the Americas 

Wetlands lnstttute 

Wheaton Park 0 1stric:t. IL 

W tulefish Pomt Bird Observatory 

White Mountain Conservation League 

W hitetails Unlimited, Inc . • lA Chapter 

Whooptng Crane Conservation Assoc•allon 

Wild Canid Survival & Res . Center 

J W ing Project, Inc. 

Vv11derness Birding Adventures 

Wilderness Photography 

The Wilds 

The Wild Bird Feeder 

The W ildfowl Trust of North America , Inc 

W ildlands Conservancy 

W•ldlife Action. Inc 

W ildlife Action of South Carolina 

W tldlife Action of Georg ~a 

The Wtldlife Authority 

Wildlife Conservation Adv;sory Council 

Wildlife Conservation Society 

Wlldltfe Federation of Alaska 

W lldhfe Forever 

Wildlife Management Institute • 

Wildlife Preservation Trust International 

The Wildlife Center of Virginia 

The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America 

Wild Sentry 

W•ldstock 

W •lson Ornithological Society 

W1nd R1der Images 

W iscons•n Sharp-Tailed Grouse Soctety 

W•sconstn State Tra•ls Council 

W•sconsin Soc•ety for Ornithology 

Women's Voices for the Earth 

Woodbury County Conservation Foundation 

'oods Sporting Goods 

Noods & Wetlands W ildlife Center 

World Wildlife Fund • 

York College Biology Club, PA 

Yukon Rtver Tours 

Z1on Lutheran Church 

Zoo Atlanta 

58 

lnJrrnillional AnocitUiotl of Fi.slt & Wildlife Axencit::J, 444 .'lionlt C"''ilol Strut, .'VW, Sllile $U, Waltin,rott. DC 10001 
o'' K'n" 1.F:s GOVE NOA 

59 

e ... ~ 

S TATE OF A LASKA 

OFFICE OF THE QQVEANOA 

JL .... EAl.' 

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: 

P O Bo • 110001 

Juneau A. la :oo ~< a 99811 ·0001 

,gon 465 ·3500 

Fa• 1907) 465 ·3532 

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 Alaska, 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 

opportunities for Americans from throughout the country to enjoy Alaska's spectacular 

wildlife and wildlands. 

l 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, 

~!,~ Governor 

cc: 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. KIT;~HABER 

Go'VERNC•R 

• . 

December 18. 1995 

R. Max Peterson. Executive Vice President 

International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies 

444 N Capitol Street. NW 

\\'ashiag:ca. DC :!0001 

Dear Mr. Peterson: 

'?r::·::::·":::': ::: 2 1995 

RECE:i'!EC c: ~ i99S 

This nation is blessed with a rich diversity of fish and w1ldlife resources. and it is up ro each and 

every one of us to ensure that this legacy is passed on to fJture generations. I am pleased to 

endorse an initiative that I believe can help us with this challenge : ·reaming With Wildlife : A 

N a rural lnvesunent. • 

Management of fi:;h and wildlife species that are not hunte:d 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 Diversiry Plan, keep species off state and federal 

endangered species lists, and provide a wide array of ren•!ational 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 

the ir ha!:!l!at for the future . 

Sincerely , 

/~) 

r~ John A. Kitzhaber. M.D. 

JAK/sm 
LAWTON CHn.Es covtRNOR 

\1r \la_x Peterson 

F. xecuu,:e Vice President 

61 

STATEOffl..ORIDA 

rnE CAPITOL 

TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA ll399-0001 

Januar~ ~- 1996 

lntematwna l Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

444 '\;ort h Capitol Street. '< .W. 

uu~ .5 -t..t 

Washingto n. D.C. 2000 1 

Dear 1a : 

r.r:rElHD J<\ l 1 l99i 

On behalf o f the State of Florida. I am pleased to endorse the ~- ildlife Diversity Funding 

lnitiarive. 

As a committed sponsman and lifelong outdoor enthusiast. I am very aware of the successes of 

the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts. :-.Jotwithstanding that funding source. in Florida . 

\\ e struggle each year to find sutliciem revenues to prevent further decl ines in our tish and 

wildlife populations. to ensure high quality outdoor recreation. and to meet the rising need for 

conservation education. We are certain that we can put the money procured by this new 

initiative. should it pass, w immediate good use. lt is particularly anractive to me because it 

.:t llows eve ryone who has a stake in a wildlife-rich outdoors to contribute 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 

!n1tiati'-e. and other good works. I am happy tn off~r our full support. 

With kmd regards, I am 

0AWTON 

~ CHILES 

l.Cmlp 

(1.:: Congressional Delegation 

25-856 0 - 96 - 3 
Zell Moller 

62 

~ <-- ---:., i 

· I 

ST/>.TE OF GEORGIA 

ATc .<NTA 3033 4·09C O 

Mr. R. Max Peterson, Executive Director 

International Assoc iation of Fish and Wildlife Agenciols 

Haii of States 

444 North Capitol Street. N.W .. Suite 544 

Washington, D.C 20001 

Dear Mr. Peterson: 

REC'= ' : "C:; , .. 1996 

January 5. 1995 

The United States boasts a rich divers1ty of fish and wildlife resources which we, as 

citizens of this nat ion, 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 w ildlife ce~r servati<'n , recraation and education 

programs which will benefit a wide array of wildlif1! as well as the many citizens who 

gain enjoyment from them. 

In Georgia, Teaming With Wildlife would not only pr-ovide 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 Dingeii-Johnson Acts have allowed 

sportsmen and women to support game and sportf ish conservation programs, the Fish 

and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative will allow other wildlife enthusiasts to contribute 

to wildlife conservation programs that will have fa1• reaching benefits for nongame 

species. 

I am pleasecl to join the growinl!li· t of f"lVernors, 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 . 

Sinc-erely, 

( 
63 

"'EC~.\icJ • ,,. · S.T!11&99F ARK.-\'ISAS OFFICE OF THE GOVER:\OR 

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: 

Jim f.uv Tuckt'r 

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 

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. 

Th~s concept pr.ovides a fair and inrtovative approach for 

funding conseriration and outdoor recreation in the United 

States. Just ·as sportsmen and women have -su-pported 

conservation for over 50 ye~rs, "Teaming With Wildli-fe ~' offer.s 

an opportunity for all outdoor enthusiasts to contribute their 

share toward conserving our wild heritage. 

As this legislation begins to mov.e through Congress, I will be 

pleased to help in any way I can. 

Jim Guy Tu,Cker 

JGT/lg/vj 
HOWARD DEAN, M.D. 

Governor 

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, 

64 

RECEIVED APR 

State of Vermont 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

Montpelier 05609 

Tel.' (802) 828·3333 

FaJc (802) 828·3339 

roo, <802 ) 828·3345 

April 2, 1996 

a 19$ 

On behalf of the State of Vermont, I am pleased to endorse the Wildlife Diversity Funding 

Initiative, commonly r~ferred 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 perperuation 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. S~~r~eys conducted by our Fish and 

Wildlife Department also show tbat 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 tbat has been extremely successful for mOC"e tban SO years 

with the Sporttish and Wildlife Restoration Acts pas3Cd by Congress in 1934 and 19SO 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. 

HD:tw 

cc: Allen Elser 

Sincerely, 

Howard Dean, M.D. 

Governor 
65 

Jhah af ~<111isiaaa 

Mr. R. M.u Petersou 

Executive Via: President 

lntemational Associaaoo of Ftsb lllld 

Wildlife Apacies 

444 Nolth Capitol S~ NW 

Saiae S« 

Wuhini(On, DC 20001 

Dear Mr. Pell:noo: 

April IS, 1996 

The Stare ofl.aaisiOD& is kDowll as the "Sportsmm'a Pandile." In~ it bas m """""'ive 

n=utionallllld co.,.,...ol iDdasiJy bo...t upon tba lbundiDce oC oar~ resources. Those 

industries ...,enre billioas of dol1an to !be ea1110my, lllld lilnN&b a comltned elf or! of tbc stote 

and federal govemJDI!n!S .,..-t111011e)'to suppart--p ~ sucb ao die 

Dinpll-JobDson, Pit!DWI-Robauoa, aDd Wlllop-Breaux !eden~ iDicilli-. Aldlougb !besc 

prosrams ~ biabJy aua:euflll, !he .,_ 1llllll llnlgle -=II year witll f"mug sufficient funds to 

contiDue lllld eu~utnce oar p<OCrOID&. 

The Wildlife DifttSity.f'aadiD& lililiobw -a tO pnmde odditianal mo'*- fn>m wildlife 

endluliasu to furtbcr !be millica ol ~ biodiwnity. Ill~ 86 pen:cm of our 

_._ ·apecicl of wildli!B ... 1IIX balld.. filbocl, .,.. cnpped. The ~ lqislalian would 

allow tbc -to focaa elfolts 011 ~~~a~~y wildlifoo spa:ies.-r ~ in de<:li,.. prior to tbcir being 

liSbld as~ or enclmpnd. Tile~ 10 wildlife ~t would become 

prooctive ms-1 ol .....:live. Tbia iailimve IS portiall.wly mnaiw t:D a. bec:IUie <be products 

proposed to be IIIUd .., DCRI -rial or IUX11!7 it.ms. ll .now. nayooe wbo bas a stalce in 

""'*-teaalioo to c:ot>lribula 10 valiOil. edacaliotl, aDd~ -t.s. I am plcued to join all !bose wbo.., -r....mc wilh W'~" IDd to ba'fe lhe s~ of 

l.oWsiaD& lilted u • member ot,.,... llllioaal c:oalitlotl. 

c: Seuaror 1. .BeanellJolmsron 

Senamr Iolm Breaux 

Coo..- Robert Liviop!OII 

Coocreunwt WiDiam Jed'asoo 

Cotl!f"SS11W1 W J. "Billy" T..m. 

Coapasman Cleo F~elds 

Conpe~~~N~~Jim McC.tery 

COIIIJ1'SIUIID Ricbad Balcor 

~Jimmytlaya 

Vl'fr. 1-H. JCIIkiDI, Jr .• Secnary, LA~~ oC Wildllfe IDd FISbcriea 
66 

015 / 0JdUI OZ : 08 FAX 505 827 7801 GA1lE l Fl SB l4ii!002 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

GARY E. JOHNSON GOVER.NOil .June 4, 1995 DO~) 827-3000 

Mr. R. Max Peterson 

Executive Vica Pres~dent 

Internationa~ AssociatLon of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

~:~~N~fc::~:~~ St. NW, SuLt~ 544 

Washington D.C. 20001 

Dear Mr. Peterson: 

I have reviewed information, pro and con, on the Teaming w~th 

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 Wil~i£e Restoration programs; an existing 

co11ect~on and dLsbursement system; resoiution of tax~g and funding isSues between sportsmen and other outdoors and 

wildlife users; the substantive fundLng for additional outdoor recreational opportunities and non-gaae wil~Lfe; and the opportun..i.ty to bene~it our state econoaUca11y through . expanded outdoor recreat~ona1 and educationa1 programs. 

I am encouraging our Department of Game and Fish and State Game Commission to work ~th the you, the public and our 

Congressiona1 delegation to inform them of my support and reasons for it. 

Thank you for your 1eadership in t~s important 1egis1at1ve i.nitiative. 

GEJ: jc: lh 

Si.ncere1y, 

Gary E. Johnson 

Governor of New Mezico 
67 

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 YOIJTIJ DEVELOPMENT 

BASS PRO SHOPS 

FOR: 

ENDORSEMENT OF 

"TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE" 

TilE WILDLIFE DIVERSITY FUNDING INITIATIVE 

Keeping Nets Wet Around The World 

@ pnnrea on recycled paper 
68 

. 

.=G~E~N~ER~A~L~O~F~~I=CE~S~--------------------------------- 1935 Souttr Campbell • Springfield, Missouri 65898 • (417) 887-1915 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, My name is Martin G. Mac Donald . I am the 

Director of Corporate Public Relations, Conservation and Youth Development for BASS Pro 

Shops. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. 

My first statement to you, is that the B2ss Pro Shops Corporate family "enthusiastically and 

wholeheartedly'' endones uTeaming With Wildlife". 

This endorsement comes from John L. Morris, President and Founder, our affiliated companies, 

and our associates and numerous customers who have expressed wriuen suppon for this 

initiative 

Bass Pro Shops is a leading merchant of outdoor recreational products and services with a special 

pan of its mission focused on conservation of our natural resources_ The following Bass Pro 

Shops aftiliated companies endorse this initiative: 

Bass Pro Shops Ca~ 

Producing 36 million catalogs. 

The leading supplier of quality fishing tackle arounc the world. 

A :~.jor 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 #I tourist attraction with 4 million 

visitors per year 

T racker Marine 

The largest manufacturer of freshwater fishing boats in the world 

The brands we build and sell include Bass Tracker. Sun Tracker, Nirro. Fisher. 

Spectrum, a11d Myacht 

Martin G, Mac Do nald 

Bass Pro Shops KHping N•ts Wet Around TM World Page I 

@ 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 bsnefits to: 

Outdoor Recreation 

Conservation and Conservation Education 

Outdoor Enthusiasts and Outdoor Recreation Custorfters 

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 againn that they will support a user fee .... if it benefits the resourr:e. 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 resmurces 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-theground projects as having been funded through this initiative, our company can cultivate 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 I) the excise tax (and hence, the price increase) is applied across the board for all 

companies, 2) the excise tax is minimal, and 3) there is considerable customer support for these 

funds cannot be divened 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 I% 

conservation sales tax initiative voted in by the citizens of the state, I can 

Martin G. Mac Donald 

Bass Pro Shops 

Page3 
71 

Travel just 20 miles for a shooting sports experience at the Andy Dalton Shooting 

Range and Training Center Complex. 

F1sh at the nearby James River through a Conservation Department access area. 

Hunt at the Bois D'Ark Conservation Area 

Birdwatch and walk the nature trails of the Springfield Nature Center 

Implementing the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative would create a full senrice 

conservation department for each state in our nation ... thus meeting the needs of today's 

outdoor enthusiast. 

The key benefits to this initiative would be as follows: 

CONSERVATION & CONSERVATION EDUCATION 

To sustain a diverse array of fish and wildlife and their habitats with an emphasis on preventing 

~peciesfrom being endangered. To foster a responsible stewardship ethic through conservation 

educatwn efforts. 

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 an~ 

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 Donalrt 

Bass Pro Shops 

Page 4 
72 

RECREATION 

To enhance the outdoor recreational experience. 

To provide appropriate access for hiker, canoeists, photographers, birdwatchers, mountain 

bikers and other outdoor enthusiasts through trails, viewing blinds and observation towers. 

To provide recreation information to the outdoor enthusiast from guide books to "How 

To" clinics. 

To provide a nationwicie network of wildlife viewing areas. 

Spe<ial Note: Wildlife viewing is the fastest growing outdoor recreation leisure activity. 

To publish and distribute backyai"d 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 1111d learn why butterflies are an imponant indicator species for the 

quality of our environment. 

I 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 Watchable Wildlife, but due to dwindling state dollars are forced with allocating 

hunting and fishing license jets to general conservation initiatives. This trend must not continue 

as these funds should always ~ designated to improve hunting and fishing. The "T earning with 

Wildlife" Initiative would provide the funds 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 Spotts Fish Restoration Act (Dingeii-Johnson Act) in 1951 and the Wildlife Restoration 

Act (Pittman-Robenson) passed in 1937. 

For over 50 years, hunlers and anglers have paid user fees on hunting and fishing 

equipment to the Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration Funds. These funds have restored 

populations of once crtically low species such as the wild turkey, wood duck, pronghorn 

antelope, and striped ~ss; conserved millions of acres ofhabitat across our nation; and 

provided countless hours of enjoyment on our nation's lands and waterways for hunters, 

anglers, and many othoc outdoor enthusiasts. 

Martin G. Mac Donald 

Bass Pro Shops 

Page 5 
73 

Some funds from the Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Programs have benefited 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 tile outdoor usen, the outdoor recreation industry, and the states and 

the federal govemment to enhance the conservation and management of the wide arr11y 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-off 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 achievem~nts of John L Morris our President and Founder and a 

fist of some investmenls we have made in conservation. 

Martin G. Mac Donald 

Bass Pro Shops 

Page6 
74 

GENERAL OFFICES 

1935 South Campbell• Springfield, 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 conservation 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, Fisherv and Wildhfe'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 Missou ri Department 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 it's a conservation area project or a planning 

session. Since 1986, BASS PRO SHOPS has been the sole corporate sronsor 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 

@ prinf9<J on recycled paper 
75 

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 being 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 Conservation 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 conservation. 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 National 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 f 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 environmental 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 All-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 cons~rvation 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. 
OFFICERS 

President 

David L. Weizenicker 

Wisconsin 

Vice President 

Fran P. Ma1nella 

Fk)rida 

Secretary-Treasurer 

Kenneth E. TrBVOus 

Arizona 

DIRECTORS 

Yvonne S. Ferrell 

IdahO {1 997) 

Gregory A. Marshall 

New Jersey ( 1 997) 

Laurie M.!thews 

Colon 1997) 

Ron Holltday 

Texas (1999) 

Phil1p K. McKnelly 

North Carohna ( 1999) 

Geralel J Pagac 

lnd1ana ( 1999) 

PAST PRESIDENT 

Edward J. Koenemann 

Vermont 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Ney C Landrum 

126 Mill Branch Road 

Tallahassee. Fl 32312 

Phone: 904-893-4959 

() Prmted on recycled paper 

77 

STATEMENT BY 

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 
78 

various purposes: to improve health. reduce stress. promOte family togetherness, etc. 

Our constituencies generally tell us they are willing to pay a fair share for increased 

outdoor resource related benefits so long as the additional cosUfee 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 1n Wildlife restoration and the Sport 

Fish Restoration programs, which have endured for a ~1alf-century with the strong 

support of hunters and anglers . Due to competing needs of federal and state dollars 

for other high priority 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 v1sitors 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 li-nited access to areas for 

recreation. Teaming with Wildlife can provide the necessary funds to provide 

addit1onal recreat1onal opportunities and allev1ate these problems. 

In addition to serv1ng 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 tool we can provide. All of these recreation groups and many 

more are part of the Teaming with Wi ldlife "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 ride 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 experiences, 

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 Wildl ife'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 f1sh 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 of fish, wildlife, 

and plants, often including members of threatened or endangered species. At this time, 

Memorandums of Understanding are being forged 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 wildl ife 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 bring 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. 
OFFICERS 

President 

David L Weizenicker 

Wisconsin 

Vice President 

Fran .P Maine II a 

Florida 

Secretary· Treasurer 

Kenneth E. Travous 

Arizona 

DIRECTORS 

Yvonne S. Ferrell 

Idaho (1997) 

Gregory A. Marshall 

New Jersey ( 1997) 

Laurie Malhews 

Colorac" qg7) 

Ron Holliday 

Texas (1999) 

Philip K. McKnelly 

North Carolina ( 1999) 

Gerald J_ Pagac 

Indiana {1999) 

PAST PRESIDENT 

Edward J_ Koenemann 

Vermont 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Ney C Landrum 

126 Mill Branch Road 

Tallahassee. FL 32312 

Phone: 904·893-4959 

81 

-- ..... ·-- ~ECEIVEQ 

MAR 2 2 1996 

~UREAU OF PAR~S 

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 

and increasing outdoor recreation pressures, 

efforts are necessary to protect, preserve and 

forms of wildlife throughout the country; and 

populations 

intensified 

manage all 

WHEREAS, the Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative has 

been proposed by the International Association of Fish and 

Wild! i fe 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; 

0 Printed on recycled paper 
82 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National 

Association of State Park Directors that it does hereby offer 

its ful l endorsement and s upport for the proposed Wild! i fe 

Diversity Funding In itiative in its evolving concept, and 

extends to the International Association of Fish and Wildlif e 

Agencies and othe r participating interests its commitment to 

assist whole-heart edly in the further development, promotion 

and i mplementation of the proposed Initiative. 

ADOPTED by the National Associat ion of State Park 

Directors pursuant to referendum vote, effective this 

~day o f b A.."-.t;;fi , 19~. 

Signed: aL~ · ·-e...._k.e--

\1'esident 

~ 

Attested: 
83 

Rob Keck 

Executive Vice President/CEO 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

Verbal testimony by Bob Jenks 
84 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present to the subcommittee 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. I 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 I ,250,000 and hunting 

seasons were open in 31 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 tum 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, pronghorn 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 193 7, 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 license 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 Dingeii-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 iong-standing commitment to 

conservation and have continually demonstrated their fipaocial 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 offish 

and Wildlife Agencies and, as of today, they have endorsements of over I ,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. 

2 
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 $1 00 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 of fish and wildltfe 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 jish 

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 ofgame 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, birdwatchers, 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 of fish 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 marveied at the over I ,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 future. 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 future. As 

we enhance our wildlife and fish resources, it will only, as we have every reason 

4 
88 

to believe, 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 funding 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. 0. 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 

Initiative, an effort to establish a consi~tent and invariable funding source for the conservation of 

those very nature resources that my 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 

they 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 

imponantl~ ·- among this group. 30 million people took trips for the primary purpose of enjoying 

wildlik Including those who watch and feed birds around their homes, over 60 million 

Americans are directlv involved in birds and birding. During 1991 nearly 25 million Americans 

were activeh· engaged in birding away from their residences. 

In 1991. four million Te:us r<:sid<!tlts 16 years old and older participated in nonconsumptive 

acti' ata~' such as observing. [.;:.;:ding, or photographing wildlife. In 1991 , 1.4 million Texas 

r~sadc~ll' 16 , ·ears old and older enj ed primary nonresidential nonconsumptive recreation 

ac11n11es withm the state. Of this group, I .3 million participants observed wildlife, 739,000 fed 

"ildhk and 49-1.000 photographed wildlife. An additional 2.8 million observed wildlife, 3.3 

million f<!d wildlife. and 516.000 photographed wildlife around their hom<:s. 

Retail sales from Texas birders exceeds S5 billion. creating 191.000 jobs and generating 

(including induced and indir<:ct economic contributions) over $15 billion in economic impact. In 

my home state of Texas. for example. birding represents a $365 million industry. This industry 

now suppons the livelihoods of nearly 5000 Texas workers . 

.-\t the national level. many types of wildlife were enjowd by the 30 million people who take trips 

for the primary purpose of observing, feeding. or photographing fish and wildlife . Birds attract 

the anention of the largest number of people. 24 .7 million individuals, 82 percent of all 

nonresidential panicipants 16 years old or older. Land mammals such as deer, bear, and coyotes 

draw almost as much anention as birds. Twenty·two and a half million panicipants, 75 percent of 

all nonresidential panicipants. observe. feed. or photograph land mammals. 
90 

The wildlife appreciation activities are quickly eclipsing hunting and fishing as the primary link 

berween 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 ObservatOJY'. Black Swamp Bird Observatory. Gulf 

Coast Bird Observatory, 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 SanctuaJY' 

Laguna Atascosa ~WR 

Santa Ana !'WR 

60.000 birders 

48.000 birders 

99.000 birders 

$9 million 

$6 million 

S15 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 inYentoJY· threatens the viability of the business itself. The conservation 

and management of game resources has been ensured b~· the funding measures such as Pittman 

Roberston and Wallop Breaux. but as of this moment these wildlife appreciation interests are, at 

best. onh indirectlY 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 Je,·d for the conserYaticin of th>!se nongame wildlife re sources. 

2 

Therefore I speak today in support of Teaming with Wildlik a funding initiative dedicated to the 

conservation of the fish and " ·i ldlife resources of this countrv upon which mY indus!JY· depends. In 

the studies of wildlife watchers (particularlY birders) that I ha ve 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 exampk in Texas a survev of birders indicated that 66.8~ o "favored or 

strongly favored" the addition of a sa les tax on outdoor equipment 

In general. birders are a middle-aged. well-educated. and financiallv successful consumer group . I 

see no indication that purchase decisions are price sensitive . To the contraJY'. d~tcrrnination s about 

where and when to travel (as well as the equipment to pack) appears more directl y related to the 

quality of the experience. To this end nature-related tourism is expenential (in a sense inquisitive 

rather than acquisitive). The conserYation of these nature re~ urc es. therefore. affects these 

well-traveled consumers' decisions about destinations. In this way the United States does compete 

with countries such as Costa Rica. Kem·a. and :\epa I in the competitive world of nature tourism. 
91 

Obviously, we would like to attract international travelers to our nature destinations as well as 

keep our American tourists at home. 

3 

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 by birders, butterfly watchers, and beetle collectors have a substantial impact on 

communities struggling to develop alternative economic strategies. In the nonpartisan White 

House Conference on Tourism held in October 1995, representatives of the United States tourism 

industry urged the preservation of"our narural, historic, and cultural resources for future 

generations and expand urban and rural economic development opportunities through a national 

strategy for fostering environmental and cultural travel and tourism." I suggest that Teaming with 

Wildlife is a key 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 

industry. Please allow conservation to pay. 
92 

STATEMENT BY CHARLES MCILWAINE, VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN RECREATION 

COAUTION, 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 COMMITIEE ON 

RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITIEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, JUNE 6, 

1996. 

Good morning and thank you for this opportooity 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 oxrent chairman of this committee, 

Representative Don Young, and now-Senator Jotvl Breaux, who had just experienced 

notable success in the creation of ..mat we now reter to as the Wallop-Breaux Fund. At 

that time, I underscored the recreation convnunity'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 'Mlich 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 convnunity supports today, as 

we did then, the user fee philosophy and we have been wori<ing 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. 

1 
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 1985 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' recreational 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 fabric. 

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 1985 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 lntermodal 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 

2 

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 1995 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. 

3 
95 

Relatively low percentages of campers, hikers and other recreationists 

also report that they watch wildlife or go birdwatching. 

The Recreation 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: 

I Ffrlmatv§!YlwtmtMMMI\ti\llmwwlrwnant&\Vf&W!nawmwl::erra;watroi®!ml 

Picnicking 

Camping (all) 

Tent camping/campground 

Backpacking 

RVcamping 

Mountain biking 

Canoeing 

Downhill skiing 

Cross-country skiing 

Off-road vehicle riding 

Rock climbing 

And, for comparative 

purposes, the percentages 

for activities which would 

not be taxed: 

Driving for pleasure 

Rigorous walking 

Swimming 

4 

47% 42% 

46% 23% 

28% 14% 

27% 12% 

12% 10% 

11% 5% 

10% 9% 

8% 9% 

6% 5% 

16% 10% 

9% 7% 

60% 51% 

73% 56% 

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 subsequent finding, are also drawn from the 

1996 Recreation Roundtable in-person survey of 2,000 Americans during 

April and May 1996. 

Extremely satisfied 24% 46% 48% 46% 40% 

Qu~e satisfied 35% 40% 39% 41% 42% 

Not satisfied 10% 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. 

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. WallopBreaux 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 benefitiniJ most of those paying the tax. 

5 
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. Ail 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: 

eTread Lightly 

eLeave No Trace 

ewoW-Wonderful Outdoor World 

eAmerican Discovery Trail 

econtinental Divide Trail 

eAppalachian Trail 

ePresident's Commission on Americans Outdoors 

6 
98 

Beyond the inequity and inefficiflncy 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 Dingeii-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" leave1s little for recreation, calling into question the applicability of the 

aforementioned taxes as valid "models" for this proposal. 

CONCLUSION 

We naed to be innovative and comprehensive in our efforts to address the 

nation's outdoor n1~eds . 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 prote1cting 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 Fun:l offered some important recommendations. Both studies called for 

strong national leadership on recreation and conservation matters but emphasized the 

importance of stat,e- and community-level and private sector efforts reflecting 

specialized needs and opportunities. Successful state-level approaches like sales tax 

set-asides in Missouri 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' and conservation stamps. 

7 
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 Recreation Coalition 

c/o The Coleman Company, Inc. 

1526 Cole Boulevard, Suite 300 

Golden, CO 80401 

(303)202-2418 

8 
100 

Testimony of James P. Lucier, Jr. 

Director of Economic Research, 

Americans for Tax Reform 

be fore the 

U.S. House of Representati ves Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wi ldlife, and Oceans 

June 6, 1996 

Hearing on the proposed 

"Fish and Wildli fe 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 j ust 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 fe e 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 fo r distribution to the states. This is allegedly the 

price you pay fo r 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 manufac turers' 

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 IAFWA, the tax would be passed on to consumers, but in fact the costs of the tax will 

be distributed more wide ly 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 fu lly 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. Bean or Eddie Bauer catal og regardless of whether the user specifically intends 

to do anything that could justify spending 0 11 state wildlife agencies. As Americans for 

2 
102 

Tax Reform President Grover Norquist has suggested, one could just as easil y 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 

de fi ned. 1\ 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 serv ices. However, it is important to note that most sportspeople do not 

reali ze they are paying this tax when they buy their eq uipment. I have certainly never 

noticed it when l go shopping myself. 

When asked what constitutes a tax increase, former OMB 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: 

3 
103 

They are distortionary. An excise tax interferes with the rational allocation of goods 

and services by disrupting the price signals that link suppl y and demand. The cost o f 

excise taxes is not just borne by producers and consumers of taxable items; in fact, 

the entire economy suffe rs 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 

subj ect to annual change, much of it is subj ect to arbitrary interpretation by tax 

collection agenc ies, and none of it makes much sense. Thus exc ise 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-effi cient ways to raise revenue. Some studi es estimate the 

total cost of collecting non-trust fund excise taxes that is, the small er 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 lc'\JC'J.)'er. The "Teaming with Wildlife" 

background sheets suggest that products 'nbject to the tax will display some kind of 
104 

logo explaining where the tax goes. This is hi ghly unlikely to occur in practice. A 

tag might indicate that a tax of some kind is being paid, j ust as some products 

advertise their co ntribution to worthwhile charity, but in fo rmJtion concerning the 

manufacturer's wholesale price is not the sort of informati on consumers normall y 

rece ive. 

A tax is like the price of any good or service in that it signals to the taxpaye r the full 

cost of gov rnm nt he or she is demanding. By concealing this in formation or simply 

not communicating it in a meaningful fashion - the message ··teel 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. 

• f inally 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 possi ble. It will be 

diffi cult enough to collect the tax in a reasonably consistent and fair way from U.S. 

domesti c producers, but I suspect the tax on outdoor equipment manufactured 

overseas - especially the cheaper stuff made in China - will border on uncoll eetablc. 

So again, why bother'! 

5 
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 I ,000 wildlife 

species will benefit from the proposal, it is really not clear where the money wou ld go or 

why we need to adopt this approach as opposed to some other one. 

I 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 arc 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 docs 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 alternati ves to 

traditional bureaucratic methods, I think it is a mistake to perpetuate and even expand a 

6 
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 trying something different. 

Americans for Tax Reform generall y opposes earmarked tax revenues for any reason. 

Any valid public purpose that is gcnuindy worthwhile should compete with other 

spending possibilities for money from the general fund. And, when the purpose of the 

program is achieved, or when other priorities become more important, any spending 

program should automatically terminate. The last thing we need is slush fund that once 

established, wi ll stay around another fi!iy years regardless of whether better possibi lities 

for using the money 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 level. By distributing money, 

we create an organized interest group with every incentive to continue lobbying for 

increased fundi:1g and increased bureaucracy in the future. 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. What's worse. funding is certain to go not only to 

state agencies but also to tax-funded advocacy groups, which will lobby aggressively for 

more and more funding of grant programs to groups such as themselves. 

Congress shoul.d not abdicate its responsibility to set prioriti es and use the taxpayers' 

money wisely. This proposal docs not deserve serious consideration. 

7 
107 

Before tile 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

U.S. DOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 

Committee on Resources 

Oversight Hearing 

.June G, 1996 

'Teaaing with Wildlife" 

Fish and Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative 

Testiaony of 

Thomas .J. Dufficy 

Exeeutive Vice President 

National Association of Photographic Manufacturers, Inc. 

550 Mamaroneck Avenue 

Harrison, New York l 0528 

(914) 698-7603 
108 

Statement of T.J. Dufficy, NAPM 

''Teaming with Wildlife"- June 6, 1996 

The Natmnal 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 1980. We believe it would be a 

good place to :>tart the conceptual discussion of the "Teaming with Wildlife" 

initiative. The 1980 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 12 of the 

Act required ;~ , 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 

2 

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 

1980 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: 1 

"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 115-117 of the report. However, the Postal Service points 

out significant problems with that method in their enclosed letter." 
110 

3 

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 

16 percent. 2 

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. 

peopie, 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 
111 

4 

basis, animals comprised 8 percent of the principal subject matter and nature 

photographs accounted for approximately 13 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 

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 1980. Page.48. 

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 

~~ 

~ 

ORCA 

~ -~ 

-t-t..f -.~35 ) 

1-':L'i: 1-t 'l+5lH4 

1'.0. Bm. 15 19 

Boultkr. CO 

;-\()_1\)(J 

TESTIMONY OF 

DAVID PERI 

DIRECTOR OF MARKETING 

MOUNT AINSMITH 

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. Chainnan and mt:mbers 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 600-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. Chainnan, 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. <md have supported initiatives 

in this Congress to cr ~ate new recreation fee programs to support those agencies and 

activities. We believe that the fundin g crisis for public lands demands creative, but 

economically sound solutions. 

However, we do not :mppo1t the funding mechanism proposed for this initi ative. 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 fairly 

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 Din gel!-Johnson and PittmanRobertson 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. Mountainsrnith'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 imponant 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. 

Mountainsrnith 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 over40 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 I 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 3100 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 CDT A 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: 

I) 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. 

2 
116 

There is no increasc::d 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 

RECREA TIONISTS 

Since being approached by the JAFW A 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 thiE. 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 trai lhe<td. 

I'm not so sure that same climber would see the direct benef1t 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 m<tny 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 pro\' ide 

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. [ 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 WDDEN 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". 

4 
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 se:rvice 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? 

Finally, 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 Committ,~e 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 sal•es tax of less than I% 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 voluntary 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 

recreationists choices in the resource programs they wish to support. We look forwa rd to 

working with you in the future to promote positive recreational opportunities for all 

Americans. Thank you for your time and attention. 

5 
119 

Statement of the 

Honorable John D. Dingell 

before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheri.:s. Wildlife and Oceans 

House Committee on Resources 

on 

"Teaming with Wildlife' 

June 6, 1996 

Mr. Chainnan, I appm:iate the opportunity to be beard today on 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 

stablished in federal law under three programs: the Pinman-Robertson program . the DingeiiJohnson 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. 

DingeU, Sr. (D-Michigan), who co-authored the Federal Aid in Sportfish Recreation Act of 

1950 (P.L. 81-681) with Senator Edwin Carl Johnson (D-Colorado) This law places an 

~~c e tax on angling quipment in pann~rsh p betw en industry and cons.:rvationists. 

Working together, they agreed nearly a half century ago that restoring our nation's fisheries 

was worth paying a linle more for fish tackle and related equipment . Indeed . the continuing 

decline of America's sport fisheries in the first pan of this cenrury clearly demonstrated the 

need for a vigorous effort to restore our fishery heritage. 

Following the establishment 13 years earlier of a comparable excise tax for wildlife 

recreation equipment (Pinman-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 Diogeii-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 

rerumed to the states for sportfish recreation. 
120 

Honorable John D. Dingell 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

June 6, 1996 

Pagt: 2 

Like the Dingeli-Johnson Act, Teaming with Wildlife could be another partnership 

between recreational industries, recreationists, educators and conservationists. As my father 

and his coUeagues 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 

Dingeii-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 wildlik 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 conservation 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 fmancially-suained states will assume this additional 

conservation responsibility themselves. In fact. through the International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agenc1es. the >tates are ,uppc,rti\e of the historic federdhtate 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 tlexible. 

allowing state fish and wildlife agencies to determine bow 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 tlexibility in the development of the fee. I urge the Subcommittee to consult 

carefuUy with the industries which would be affected and to encourage a coUaborative effon 

which will make clear the mutual benefits which could result from expanded recreational fee 

coUections. 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 "''turns. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your kindness in allowing me to discuss Teaming with 

Wildlife. I look forward to foUowing the continued development of this proposal, one 

Nhich, if enacted . would assure the continued viability of our wildlife and habitat for future 

~enerations. 
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 8-226 

Springfield, VA 221 50 

(703) 45 1-0141 
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 (IAFWA) . 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 a-ffiliate membership of over 50,000 individuals, clubs , 

summer camps, paddl ing 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 erving the interests of the 24.8 million Americans who 

go canoeing, l<ayaking 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 IAFWA 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 w ill 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 ar<;Jument 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 IAFWA 

claims to be emulating. While IAFWA constantly compares "Teaming" 

to initiatives such as Dingeii-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson, and WallopBreaux, 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. 

IAFWA 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. IAFWA'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 IAFWA'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 - 5 
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 IAFWA' 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 w ishes of the outdoor community. If a user 

supported fu nding 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 organizati,•m 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 constiruency 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 is:me 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 BATF), 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 accoum and to provide meaningful information to 

the public on an annual 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 cenrum. of the revenues covered into said fund in each fiscal year as 

the Secretary of the Interior may estimate 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 apportion such part 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 $1.6 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 intem 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. Suci1 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 func.ing 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 cor.cerns 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 administmive funds under WDI will be used. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opporrunity 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 .. Ievel conservation programs and project~ direc ted 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 supporr such an initiative if it diminishes, 

transfers. or dilues 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 curr•:ntly pay, and protects the sporting community 's contributions under current 

excise tax programs. 
131 

APPENDIX A 

r 

.OJECT TITLE, COST, AND YEAR WILDLIFE MIGRATORY NEITHER 

RESTOR- BIRDS 

ATION 

The Public and Fish and Wi ldlife Management: A Handbook for Fish and X 

Wildlife Managers: Resp. Mgmt. 1996-97 (166,320) 

Update "Wildlife Agencies" booklet, Wildlife Management lnst. 1996-95 X 

(5 1,850) 

Hunter and Conservation Council for Wildlife Conservation & Ed Inc. X 

1995-95 (96,750) 

Proactive Strategies·lnt'l Ass. Fish & Wildlife Agencies I 990-97 X 

( 1,203,245) 

Field Guides to Wildlife Disease National Biological Survey \995-98 X 

(600,000) 

Humer Education & Hunter Training-Resp. Mgmt. 1995-96 (98,9 18) X 

F&W Damage Mgmt. Utah State Univ. 1994-96 (440,242) X 

Hunter Ed. Program Review-Wildlife Mgmt. lnst. 1994-96 (228,000) X 

F&W Law Handbook-Center of Wildlife Law 1994-96 (340.345) X 

Wildlife Success Stories 1993-94 X 

ri:... . . 1hunrer Education-Nationa l Bow hunters Ed. 1993-94 (99,880) X 

Wildlife Mgmt. in Schools-Nat'! Shooting Sports Foundation 1993 X 

(229,250) 

Factors related to Fishing & Hunting· Western Ass. for Fish & Wildlife X 

Agencies 199 1-94 (33 1,800) 

Fishing & Hunting Survey· lnt'l Ass. ofFish & Wildlife Agencies 1991·94 X 

(20 I ,960) 

Economic Bene fits ofHunting·lnt'l Ass. ofFish & Wi ldlife Agencies X 

1993 (56,579) 

Sociocultural Importance of Hunting & Trapping-Cornell Univ. 1993-94 X 

(44,734) 

Fish and Wildlife Laws Newslener-University of New Mexico 1993·94 X 

(236,694) 

Wildlife Mgmt. in Urban Spaces 1993-94 (2 1,04 1) X 

Fish & Wildlife Diversity Initiative·lnt'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies X 

1993-94 (329,000) 

[' ~Video· Northeast Deer Technical Comminee 1993-95 (91 ,240) X 
132 

)JECT TITLE, COST, AND YEAR 

Publ ic Understanding, of Wildlife Mgmt.-Nat'l Shooting Sports 

Foundation 993~94 <I 0 I ,2.50) 

WILDLIFE MIGRATORY NE ITHER 

RESTOR· BIRDS 

AT ION 

---------------------------~------~---------+-------1 Wild life Disease Jder.tification and Control Workshops for State 

Conservation Agenci~s~National Biological Survey I 989 (360.000) 

Stare Wildlife Laws Manual ( 181,25 1) 

Guide to Tech. and Proceed for Waterfowl Habitat Restoration. 

Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway 1992-94 

Mon itorin g Conse rv1:.tion Re ervc Lands-Nat'! Bio logical Survey 1987 

(1,100,000) 

Outdoors-Women Univ. of Wisconsin-Stevens Point 1995-96 

( 147,206,000) 

Hunting as a Choice-l nt'l Ass. of Fish & Wild life Agencies 1994 

(-!20,000) 

Outdoor Ethics Confl!rcnce-l zaak Wa lton League 1994 (200,000) 

Outdoor Ethics-Izaak Walton_l_,c_a:.gu_e_I_9_9_3-_9_5_(_I5_o_,o_o_o_) ------l-----l------11-----j 

f' " ' Information Program FWS-MBMO 1996-97 (1,750,000) 

rEnhancing NA WMP Partncrship-[nt'l Ass. of Fish &Wildlife Agencies 

1995-97 (222,891) 

Shooting Range Syrnposium-- lnt'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1995 -

96 ( 150,080) 

4-H Wetl ands Educational Pilot Proj ect-Texas A& M t.:ni v. 1995-96 

(1 15,248) 

Management of Predation to Enhance Recruitment of North American 

Birds-fm'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies & Berryman Ins. \995-97 

(287,200) 

Communication Outreach-Int'l Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 1994 

( 155.550) 

Flyway Council-lnt' Ass. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies \994-96 (59.740) 

Socioeconomic Hanjbook 1992-94 (87,929) 

----------------------~~----~~-------+------~ Migration Routes and Winter Ranges ofNeartic Migrant Birds 1993-96 

(85,000) 

Trapper Survey-Int'l Ass. ofFish & Wildlife Agencies \992-94 (77,..1.00) 

Se""'ld Nat' I Shooti:lg Sports Range Symposium- lnt'l Ass. of Fish & 

\\ Jfc Agencies 1993 (IOS.:,,o_o_o,;_) _____________ l-____ l-_____ 1-____ .J 
133 

I >JECT TITLE, COST, AND YEAR WILDLIFE MIGRATORY NEITHER 

RESTOR- BIRDS 

ATION 

Nesting and Foraging Ecology and Habitat Use of Brand-tailed Pigeons in X 

Western Oregon-Nat') Biological Survey 1992 (447,345) 

Survival Movements and Habitat Use of Female Woodcock in South X 

Central LA. 1992 (150,000) 

Development of Antifungal Agents-Nat'! Biological Survey 1992 X 

(450,000) 

KDES Environmental Studies for DeafChildren-FWS & Gallaudet Univ. X 

1993-95 (30,000) 

Neotropical Bird Plan-lnt'l Ass. ofFish & Wildlife Agencies 1995-98 X 

(587,925) 

Scanning 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 ofNeartic Migrant Birds 1993-96 X 

(85,000) 

R• ion of "Management of Migratory Shore and Upland Game Birds in X 

Nc .... America"-Texas A&M 1993-96 (80,000) 
134 

·1 1-11.0 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION 

OF !\MERICA 

K~solution 

W_HEREAS, Ov~r the past 58 years hunters and shooters have contributed nearly $2.5 billion for the 

conservallon and restoration of game and non-game wildlife populations through the purchase of firearms ammunition 

bo_ws and arrows upon which manufacturers' excise taxes are levied by the Federal Aid in Wildlire R~storalion Aci 

(P1IIman-Robertson); and 

~HEREAS , These contributions are further enhanced by revenue from the sale of hunting licenses and game 

tags wh1ch 1s used by the states lo match the Federal revenue generated by the Pillman-Robertson excise taxes: and 

. WHE~EAS, In spi~e of the hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal revenue collected e~h year from the 

exase t~x es 1mpo~ed by P!ltman-.Robertson as well as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, the states find 

that sufflctent montes are not avatlable to fund the conservation and habitat restoration necessary for all wildlife and fish species, especially non-game species; and 

W~EREAS, The objective o~ the WOI, initiated by the International Association of Fish ancf Wildlife Agencies 

(IAFWA). IS to generate new lundmg sources for state conservation efforts by reaching those who do not now 

contribute into the two conservation excise tax accounts: and 

WHEREAS, The NRA continues lo be resolute in maintaining lhe leadership role or lhe sporting community in 

wildlife conservation: and 

. . WHEREAS, The NRA Board or Directors adopted a resolution in January, 1989 opposing any attempl lo limil, 

~~'7;"ate or mtsapply the Ptltman-Robertson funds contrary to the original purposes of its enactment; now, therefore, 

RESOLVED, That the NRA acknowledges the need for a new source or funding for w ildlife conservation and 

restoration, but that 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, the following: 

Requirement 1. Although the NRA is in agreement with IAFWA that WDI funds should be managed in a 

separate account, it will nonetheless be necessary to amend Pillman-Robertson so that the expenditure of its funds 

is directed to plans or projects that "primarily benefit game species. • The WOI is designed to .. primarily benefit nongame species ... but Pitlman-Rbbertson was enacted to fund res toration projects for all wildlife, including projects that 

benefit non-game species. If the WDI targets non-game species, Pittman-RobertSOn should be amended to target 

game species. 

Requirement 2. Enabling legislation must allow WOI funds to be spent on projects that benefil stale- 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 for non-game species (see Requirement 1). 

Requirement 3. The Federal-State match ror the WOI must be the same as for PiUman-Robertson, otherwise 

Pillman-Robertson must be amended to renect the WDI match. The Federal-State match for Pittman-Robertson is 

75%-25%. II has b•!en suggested lhat the WDI match be 90%-10%. 

Requirement 4. The WDI enabling legislation must prohibit any portion of a state's revenue from the sale or 

hunting licenses, tags and stamps to be used as all or part of the state·s matching funds for the WDI. States should 

be compelled to find new sources or matching funds to compliment the WDI. Without such a prohibition, expenditure 

or Pittman-Robertson funds would be jeopardized by a failure or the state lo provide the necessary matching funds 

which otherwise the stale could, and likely would, use for its malching share of WOI funds. 

Requirem<,nt 5. The WDI enabling legislation must provide an exemption from lhe WDI lax or user fee for 

those who have pr!lof of previous contribution(s) to Pittman-Robertson by means of a valid hunting license, or proof 

of purchase of a handgun, rine, shotgun (including a copy of Form 4473), bow, arrows, ammunition, or other items 

subject to taxation under Pittman-Robertson. Unlike Pittman-Robertson, it is not possible for the WOI to impose a tax 

on items that wou!d be purchased exclusively by a distinct group of consumers, I.e. the non-sporting community. 

Hunters. s11ooters and other firearms owners should nol be subject to double laxation. but should be recognized for 

their existing contributions. 

Requirement 6. Pittman-Robertson musl be amended to require the U.S. Department or the Interior to provide 

an annual accounting of the monies expended from the Pill man-Robertson and WDI accounts with a brier description 

of the projects for which funding was approved under bolh programs. Presently, the only published Departmental report 

lists the Federal e:(tise tax revenue apportioned to the states, but not how the funds are spent. 

Requirement 7. Hunting musl be permilled 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: 

~~ ,19~ 
till . 

-

. . 

-

. 

. 

135 

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

5410 Grosvenor Lnne • Bethesda, MD 20814·2197 

Tel: 13011897-9770 ·Fax 13011530-2471 

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 future 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 an~ wildlife resources for the benefit of current and future 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 funding 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. 

Exccllazcc in Wildl!f'e Stev.Hndship Through Srienu and Education 
136 

In addition to ecological concerns, there is a need to satisfy a growing interest in "ildlife among 

outdoor recreationists. Many Americans pursue wildlife-related activities such as 'iewing, 

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 

(optical equipment), American AGCO (wild bird products), and Arundale Products (bird feeder 

manufacturer) strongly endorse Teaming With Wildlife As leaders in 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 after 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 in how the 

funds are spent at the state level. 

2 
137 

Teaming With Wildlife seeks to expand the same "user pay/user benefit" concept to additional 

outdoor recreation equipment such as hiking, 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 

Ser.vice. 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 conser.ve 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 conser.vation needs. The funds 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 
RECREATION 

VEHICLE 

INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATION 

-t:-· - · r:-~ 

. ~ -- . 

P.O. Box 2999 

1896PrH1onWhiteDr. 

Reston, VA22090-0999 

703/ 620-6003 

Fox: 703/ 620-5071 

138 

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 Recrea tion Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) is the 

national trade associa tion representing the manufacturers of recreation 

vehicles (motorhomes, travel trailers, truck campers and foldin g 

camping trailers) and their related supplie rs. Its members account for 

over 98'Yo of the production of such vehicles in the United States. 

RVIA submits this statemen t for the record on the Teaming With 

Wildlife proposal as before the House Resources Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife and Ocea ns. 

RVIA enthusiastica lly supports w ildlife management programs 

at the fede ral and state levels, yet we believe the Teaming With 

Wildlife proposal is inappropriate and inequitable. In particular, we 

oppose the imposition of any spec ial excise tax to fund non-game fish 

and wildlife programs when the tax bears no relation to the cost of 

services provided. We fa il to understand the conclusion that buyers of 

high-ticket items such as recrea tion vehicles (RVs) are more d ire ct 

beneficiaries of wild life management programs than the public at large. 

While it is relati vely easy to dete rmine the beneficiaries of game 

fish and w ildlife prog rams and thereby tax the users for the ir 

maintenance, the direc t beneficia ries of non-game fish and wild life 

programs are not so easily determinable. Nature lovers, bird-watchers, 

young ch ildren, 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 w ildlife are 9f ecological, 

educa tional, esthetic, cu ltural, recreational, economic and scientific 

value to the Na tion. " (16 USCS Section 2901 (a)(l )). There is no 

apparent correlation between RV use and any special responsibility for 

non-game wild life management, and beca use of the many faceted uses 

of RVs, it is unreasonable to assume that an RV purchase by itself 

constitutes the buye r a special beneficiary of the program. This is true 

of many of the prod ucts to be taxed by the proposaL Moreover, the 

Teaming With Wildl ife proposa l does no t provide for any funding 

from p a rties invo lved in ecologica l, educa tional, 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 attemp t 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 availabi lity of services. Properly structured, such proposals 

uenefit 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 fa cilities 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 Wild life proposal to levy an excise tax on a loosely defined list of 

"outdoor" products. 

-2-

Respectfully submitted, 

fw,:J,q_)u"ULI~ David J. Humphreys 

President 
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 

2 

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 approximatHiy 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 .i.Y.§i_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 ~1reat "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. A:> an example, they use the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration 

Act (Dingeii-Johnson/Wallop-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 equipme1nt, 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 imd whitewater boating are good examples). These outdoor 

users spend much more than those purchasing just a backpack or binoculars, 
143 

4 

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 will 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 wildl ife 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 

C 0 N S E R V E ...•.......•.••....••. _ .•••.•...•.•......•.....••.....•.......•.•• 

a tiona! relea ses 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 draw-down Oows tha t now 

exist. 3) Raising the winter pool level will make it easier for 

the Corp. to reach its surr.mer pool elevation. Reaching summer pool is a requirement for fall recreational releases. A 

new pool level could allow the Corps to provide fall releases 

in dryer years (like the drought ofi9B8). 4) The awesome 

put-in for the Upper Gauley will be lost forever. New penstocks 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 Creek Hydro Proposal (Wa) On March 20th, the FERC held a public scoping meeting to 

help prepare an EIS fo r 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 Sulli van Lake in October at 

about SOOcfs. which provides a boa table flow for the 1.5 mile 

Class II upper run (Mill Pond to N.F. Sullivan Creek) and the 2 

mile Class V Sullivan Creek Gorge Run (around 20Dfoot per 

mile gradient). 

The AWA expects to intervene in this project, and to study 

how power generation either hurts or might improve whitewa ter boa ti ng. The deadline for comments was April22, 

but we would appreciate any boater info rmation we can get. 

Please call A WA at (301) 589·9453.• 

Recreation Excise Tax Moves Ahead 

by Rich Bowers. AWA Con.e;ervation Director 

I

n 1994, American Whitewater reported 

that the International Association of 

Fish & Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), 

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 rece~tly this tax, referred to as the Teaming with Wildlife Initiative has been gathering support among wlldllfe advocates and other conservation groups (Including many 

groups that are working along with A WA 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 Conservalion 

Enhancement Act of 1996, may already be working its way 

through Congress. Since the beginning. the A WA has opposed 

this tax because: 1. It is yet another tax without representation (in this case outdoor recreationists), and 2. The fees generated 

wi.ll not provide ror the needs oft hose paying the bill. 

Perhaps the most irritating issue is that bill proponents continuously try to separate outdoor recreation users from conservation issues. This guilt·trlp 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 A WA 

(it's why we spend 80% or 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 narrow range of IAfWA priorities (fish and wildlife). 

ContinuaUy, we hear that recreation users are not paying 

the ir way. That other recreation based user funds (like the 

Sport Fish and Wild life Restoration Act) ha ve been successruJ 

in the past. But these efforts have limited funding to projects di· 

rectly impacting those paying for them. This initiative takes 

the shotgun approach to a narrow target·· in the case of censer· 

vat ion. 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 bill are Wl· 

aware that it exists. or how it will affect them. Even bill propo· 

nents are unsure exactly how much it will cost: 

To be fai r, 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 rar along. 

when the programs to be funded have alre ady been locked it, 

and when these programs are so narrowly focused. 

According to recent literature. this initiath-·e will benefit outdoor users by: securing additional lands ror hikers, bikers, 

canoeists and others: involving fish and wildlife agencies with non-traditional user groups (like boaters), and; providing lm· 

proved access to lands and waters. 

Unfortunately, in many cases these benefits are either non· 

existent or mis-d irected. For instance, nothing in the drat\ pro· posal guarantees that recrea tionists will be able to use this 

land. The Sportsman's Caucus (a strong alliance or fishing and hunting advocates. including many Congressional Representa· 

tives) has stated, up front, that it will support no bill 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 h\lbits ··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· 

tion. but ora tax that funds only one small aspect of the probArm:rKanWhi!e.,.·ltn V ~hy I June 1996 
145 

•.••••••........................••.•• 

lems effecting our rivers and lands. Is wildlife important? It 

sure is. But is it worth funding before other issues such as 

river restoration, watershed and ecosystem management, improved biodiversity, hydroelectric impacts. or additional and 

necessary land purchases? All of these goals cost do:lars, and each of these issues_ is 

broader in scope, and ::-:.ore critical, than just wildlife. Dollars 

are a very scarce resoc.rce for rin·r work, especially recre· 

at ion issues. Retailers, o:nfitters. adYocacy groups, and ulti· 

mately end users simply cat·~not cdTord to pay separate fees for 

each problem. 

What You Can Do! . Write or call your elected Representati\·es (tell them that 

while you support funCing for conserYation. you are opposed 

to a tax that targets only one s:nall part of:_hjs issue) . Talk 

with local and regional conser\"ation groups, e~pecially those 

who support this initiatj\·e io:p~ain why this is not a conservation v. recreation issue, but a Lmding priorjties issue_) . Keep 

up to date as this bill progrt.sses I call the A \\'A at 301-589-9453 

or email at 72732.40l,i{compusene com) • 

E.R. techniques to outdoor 

dicinei~theuniques~ciJir\ 

of Dr. EricA. WdM, th ~ leJdin~ 

authority on modern "·ildern<:~' 

Green Summer 20min..tes 

$21.95 

Sowhern Fried 

Creekin' 

45rniru1es 

$26.95 

Plunge! 

45rnirJ...ues 

$26.95 

Vertical 

Addiction 

45rni:rlut=s 

S26.95 

.' It's 90 minutes of 

paddling action as GVP takes you to eight regions 

United States to paddle over 30 creeks and 

JocaJ experts. Features runs in Maine, Alaska, West 

the Southeast, Colorado, Yellowswne Area, the 

and California.Only S29.95 plus $3.00 shipping. 

Gentry Video Productions, 646 Deer Creek Trail, Hoschton. 

GA 30548. (706) 654·2725. gentvid@mindspring.com 

site: hnp://www.mindspring.con>hi"""'idlinGfex.,,tml 

Hi2h Performance 

Canoe and Kavak Paddles. 

• Hand crafted from 1he finest materials 

• Cuslom orders from 9 styles of blades 

• Composit~ reinforcement oplions 

• Repairs 

Call or write for 

more information: 

2450 Jones Road 

Lenoir City, TN 3777, 

(6,5) 98~-9367 

--~­ ~ 
146 

Wild I ife Management Institute 1101 14th Street, N.W. • Suite 801 • Washington, D.C. 20005 

Phone (202) 371-1808 • FAX (202) 408-5059 

ROLLIN D. SPARROWE 

President 

LONNIE L. WILLIAMSON 

Vice·President 

RICHARD E. McCABE 

Secretary 

The Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman 

Suhcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

805 O'Neill House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Saxton:. 

June 13, 1996 

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 n~spond 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 establi!;h conservation programs that cover all wildlife. This experience revealed a 
The Honorable Jim Saxton 

June 13, 1996 

Page Two 

147 

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 funded, 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 sponing 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 thoughtful with inevitable claims 

that a modest tax (less than half of that already imposed on sponing arrns 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 Dingeii-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 to proceed with this much-needed proposal. 
l'flNY KNO"-'LI:,~ 

00v£RNOfll 

The Honorable Jl:rn ~n 

U.S. House of Representatives 

339 CanDon Ho~IC Office Buildini 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chai:men s IXIlm: 

148 

B'tATE 01'' Al.A!UI:A OP:P'\e~ !')• Tl-la G~~NOJII 

JliNl:AU 

June 19, 1996 

Ao_lt'IIIIIOI:III» 

..hJn•f\IJ, Ala1lla "'11<1QQ'1 ,..,_00 

P"t\,.('1107)11U ... 3:l 

I IUbrcit the following flatcmGD.t to be lnoluded in the =ni of the ovenisht hearing on the 

Fish ~1d Wildlife D!vcnity l'lllldlnB Initiative (FWDn) held by the 8\lbcommlttoe on 

Fi9hcrie•, Wllcilli~, and QQcans on June 6, 1996 • 

.u· Governor of i\JWA, I ltiOIIiiY IAlppOI't the propoiiCd fcdeml FWDFI legislation oallcd 

"Teaming With Wildlife" whi= II bein& spearheaded by the lnlmlational Auociation of Fiah. 

and Wildlife AgeDQics (IAFW A) IDd the National Association of State Parka Directors 

(NASPD). ThiJ 'lcgisl11tion, which will generate fodcral ~ funds for wildlife 1 

cO!lle:rVatlOll, 011~~ ~R:IIlinn. md education progr&~~~~ Dllllllllcd by orllte fioil ....t wildlik 

ed .w. park """'""'"· i. ..rtttl;llly JICC(Ied 11\d loq overd\lc. Modclccl after the IIIICeellf\d 

Sport Fi.sh and Wildlife R.cltDralion hts. the PWDFI will eatabliah 11 dcdicat,ed uaer fee, in 

lhc form of • small excise tax 011 tbc Ill8llllfacturer'• coat or outdoor rc,;rc;ation equipment. 

Revenue aenemed from this user f« will be distributed to states under the Federal Aid to 

Wildlife Reatoratlon Prcpm on a 7S:2S peroent federal:state llllliChing buis. 

The "Teaming With Wildlife" laili&livc will help the Alaska Dcp6{tmcnt of Fish and Game 

(ADF&O) wl tbe Division at Parka lllld Outdoor Recreation meet the 0Jqllllldln2 public 

deJlUIIld. for outdc>Or reuCIItion, strcng1hen Alaska's visitor indll31ly, md provide J!~ificant 

c:conomic benefits to all Alaakao!. ln addition. These funds will enable ADF&:O to lllAintain 

its role u the primuy wildlife mAD4iCIDCill aaency In the stat., and enhance Alaska's ability 

to proactively mflnaae nongame aptoiCII of fii!h and wildlife and prevent the ncod for co!lly 

endangered species listing. Cumntly, ADF&G's sport fish and w!hilife progrlllllJI are t\U:lded 

~ly by Jnmt.era 11.11d lll8lera. This nc:w lcl!islation would provide an oppottunity for other 

rco;reatiollll usen• to contribu111 their shal'll towml manaaement of Aluka' a li:ah, wildlife, and 

ouuloor reulll.tion. 

Our in!onnation S\li&estB outdoor recrutionist& (the ~on»Wllm) are willing to pay an 

additional 91Dl111 amount on the purchase of outdoor gear to aupport comc:rvatirul, l'ecreation. 

and eclucauon prcgranu !hat are now threatened by limited 1\mding. 'l"bc lo!li·l.e!tn !rllceeu of 

the Pittman-R.ohonson and ~U..John!on ActJ dmnoMtn.tes ~heir cifcc;tive~~eas and broad 

puhllc support. · 
The Honorable Jlm Saxton 

June 19, 1!196 

Pago2 

149 

Alona with tiJWA Gild NASPD, cmr 1,000 orpnlaliona from uolllld. tho COIIIllly have 

joined the eoalltion~~~pportiaa ''Tcam~Dg With WUdllfl." They include the American 

FiJheriea Society, Boeue and Crockeu Club, Ducb Unlimited, lzaak Walton ~ NltiODal 

Audubon Society, Nltional Wildlife Pedm'ation, Soolct)' of Anlerican For..-a, The Wildlift: 

Society, and Wildlife Managcmem lnltitl.lte. Ill Alulca, over 120 orpuizationa bavo cmtorsed 

the "Teaming with Wildlife" IDililttvc. 

Thank you for havlns aa ovcni&bt boariua on this imporlallt propoaal&Dd fet adding my 

voice io tbe thoiii&Dda of othcrl celliDa on Congreu to eDICt le;!alatlon to eetabllab. tho 

"Teamlzla with Wlldlife" prolfllll. 

s-.ty, 

Governor 

T~ 

Ene\oaure: ADF&:G "TMIIIIDa with Wildlife" brodi~ 

cc:: !illlltllr Ted Stevem 

Senator frank Milrkowaki 

consreumm Don Yo11111 
·;Tune 5, .J 996 

Congressman H. James Saxton 

8050HCiB 

150 

Subco=ittee O!J~sheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Wa.sltington. DC20515 

Re: Overright Hearings Teaming Witlt Wilt!Iife Initiative, June 6,1996 

Dear Co::igressman Saxton: 

lt .is my 1mderstanding thai the Subcommittee on rJ.She::ies, Wildlife and Oceans scheduled 

an overs'ight nearing on the Teaming for Wildlife Tniti"tive on June 6, 1996. Tne trade 

association, which our compzny is a member of, the Wild Bird Feeding Instirute, was not 

invited ~J appe:u- at the hearing. Therefore, as a national mancrfacturer of v:i!d b:Xd food, 

with dis1iiootion tl-.roughom the United Stales, I am submiting this Iette:c for yo::r 

infonnation as well as me rest of the committee. 

Kaytee ProductS is a farr.i!y ow:Jed business employing ever 500 employees 11·it'o. pr'.ncipcl 

offices b _Chiltcn, i'iL We have brznch plants in Cressona, PA, Abilene KS, Rialto <md 

Onr.irio, eJ>: . Our products are diStriomed tllroughouc t.be Uciree S<ates and 2.re available i.~ 

supenn:u:kets, pet ~~ores, tn2.SS merc~andisi:ng accoun:s ~ ~av.n and ganieil ce~t:rs , and 

bdepcndcnt :retail accounts. As a manufacrurer and a leading producer of v.ilC Oird fcod, 

we are ,.er; concemei over the proposed 5'k excise taX on wild ':Jird iocii. 

T.o.e:-e is no question that we all must be cOncerned over the rapid!y deteriC":"atir.g State of 

ow: natural environ•·nent ac.d vd:at aife:...'"tthiS !-s ha.~1.g or. our ecosystem and OL!! individual 

lives. The systematic destruction of our nan::....ral en"1ron.ment and rhe reperc-..:ssicns that 

:ccur a::. a resulc of it is qcickly beccming ;:he nnmbe~ or.e i~sue cf C1.!r time. Tne tvi:d~e in 

the U.S., or migrating til:roug!l it, :rre quickly disc.ppe-.:...ri...!:.g a.o--1~ ~: :nmy cas~-:; 2.:::e tb:e 2..te~ed 

with eXIinctioll. Failcre for us to aL."'t effe:ctivciy and e.xpcditi.ousl:.~ can h~ve cataclys:nic 

eff~"tS ('n our generation and future gen~tions to carr..<::. The coc.cept of Teaming ~lith 

Wildlife is ·aD other exa:npie cf people trying :o address tr.is issue: in 2. well ~e<icing manner. 

There ~; no doubt that the federal, stare, md lOcal govcr.ments. as well as the :housands of 

voluntary organi.z.::.rio?-5 3..Dd foundations, ell have an impc:r-tant role to ?lay jj we are to 

succeeC .. 

Kaytce Pl-oduct<; nco~or::ued P_Q_ Eox 230 .. :292 E. Gr~nd s~. Clilton. \\<l.sconsin 53Gl 4 

WATS: :SOO) 669·95SO 
151 

Congressman Sa.xton 

June 5, 1996 

Page2 

We at Kaytee Products feel, however, that selectively taxing people that feed wild birds in 

order to help fund the Teaming Wl!h Vlildlife Initiative is critically flawed: 

1. Singling out the people who feed wild birds and taxing them at the 5% level is like 

ta>cing the preacher so be= preach to you. It is the very people th.ar are feeding 

wild birds that are partiCtilarly sensitive to the envirorunent They are providing 

food, shelter, and backyard landscaping in order to promote bird rep:ocucrion and 

habitation. Tb= zre me people who are teaching their chilii.-en and gta!!dchildren 

the importance of preserving me envirorunent They are the ones that belong to the 

• foundations and cbatitable organizations that help preserve our environment and 

promote our conservation practices. Unlike fishing and h~nting , wt= participants 

take from the environment, and a replenishment program is requiroi to sust2in their 

hobby, wild bird feeders actually contribute tc ~the envircn.-nent If anything, 

they could justifiably be subsidized. 

2. Our independent research i.l'!dicates that roughly 50% of U.S. citizens are feeding 

wild birds; 70% of me people that feed wild birds are over age 40: 60% ate over age 

50. Tbll$, the proposed 5% excise taX is discriminatory of age bebg i:."a'-ilY 

weighted toward our senior citizens. 

o. The cost of wild bird food flucruar.es drastically with me commodites marke~ At 

the present time ~ corrunodities are at a record high, thus already creating an 

inhibiting effect on purchases. For example~ the cost of com alone has doubled in 

tl1e last twelve months. Thus taxes would i.l'!crease when the cost of the ingredients 

are highesL 

.:1.. There are :u.umercus small grail;. elevators that in processing grai..cs. end up selling 

th-=re own "wild bird" food. Trying to effeeti.vely police m"-'-o:: of:he5e small feed 

mills and feed outlets would be vory difficult. Thus the larger manlria=ers would 

be discri.m.in2.ted agaiJJst in t.Ce open market. T'ne cost of e;llorc:::meni. needs to be 

identified. 
152 

Congr·essmo..'l Sa.,·ten 

JW1e 5, 1996 

Page3 

5. Most importantly, preservation of our natural resources and saving wildlife is not a 

selective issue ilin to an effort to save fish for fuhe::man md wildlife for hl!Ilters. 

Birds !lie the one animate thing that many of us take for granted, but yet see and 

enjoy everyday. Without birds, we would be ovemm by ir.socts, crops and forests 

would be at risk, and our whole ecosystem would be out ofbalanct. HJs issue is 

one of total national and intemational concern. 

6. The proposed excise rax on selective manufacD..rers is unjust. Does it make sense to 

taX somebody who looks at r..lJe environment through binocda:s but :lOt ti>.!"ough 

their naked eye? Am I using c:p the eavironmerrt if I take a picrure of my favociu: 

bird? Should I be taXed if I want to b~y a book to help identify birds and teach my 

children about wildlife? Does it make sense fer me to pay a fee ( j o/c '.:2...x) o~ food I 

put in my bird feeder on a told v.i.mer's day to help the bird survive:; sev~re ~ter? 

The b•:Jttom line is that the se.Iectiviry in the prcposed exc :\e tax is discrimi. ~! ry ar.d 

regressive. Preservation of our na.tu::r-::.1 reso:.::::rces anC thlll wildlife is no~ i! s~ e.;ti e issue 

but a national issue. The message. cbzr needs to be sem to Congress is the.: ·;.;e as w.....vpc.yer3 

and as citizens of this country warn to preserve our naru.ral enviroOJ.lleot fo: ·c:.:r usc a:.1d for 

generations to come. This is tr'.Ily a g:!nC:ral revenue issue. Ce:ta.L......:y, a b:-caci-based effort 

voluntarily SL'Pporred by all our citizens is needed. 

In t.l--i :; regard, we at Kayte~ have jusr camplered and ope~ed a S.CCO squ::.: ~ foot Education 

Cento.'!r where people ca.a come and 1~ ::...-n .abour. birds. :heir habit:i.t,. u.1:ir S:s:-..:.:.~c2..'1 'C2 m us. 

and h JW each of us has a role if W!! c. ;:o:; ·· sav ~ &.!! birds". Thi.5 :S 5CO.OCC ~~:li.ry ·.~· .:.±i ts 

exhi bits has aiready attracted eve:- ~3 .0(; 0 pc:ople in the ~:X rr.on;;.r.s di a~ i.: h~::. been :~pe n., 

over hili of wh.:ch Cave been sc.:hoo: ..::.Udre.::1. In l.:id:tioii. we ho:." e crt:3Jt.: :b.~ !<.~~ ~e e 

A vi a.::;, Folli:da:.ion whos:: IT'is;ion l.l r.:• sJ.ve bird$ thrcl!gb e.C.uc2.t:.(· n. COG!:-,·::.tion =-~..: 

reseax:h .. This year ulone we have (.'Orr.r':"ir.ui over $90,000 to.,;-.uds speci<=-: p: oje::.<:s ir: 

ordc~ to "help save t.'rJe birds''. We i..-:.:end to c cncim.:e tO step 1Jp OI.:I effor..s 2..5 re ~.:;n ble 

corpctrd.!C citizens in a voluntary manner. 
153 

Congressman Saxton 

June 5, 1996 

Page4 

I therefore urge yon and your subcomrni= not to support a special excise tax on your 

constiwents that choose to feed wild birds. To slap the v;rists of the hand 1hat is already 

"feeding" the cause does not make sense. If any group is to be selectively taxed it should be 

those that use products that tend to destroy the environment. A "sin" tax if you would. 

Please file this letter with the nonconnnittee members for their considoration. Thank you 

for =eiving this letter. 

ORATED 

WDE,tjw 

0 

25-856 (160) 


ISBN 0 - 16-052910-7 

90000 

9 780160 529108