31 



portion of those who do pay do not derive any benefits. That is the 

 case with the proposed "Teaming with WildHfe" Initiative. 



Here are some important facts. Based upon national research 

 funded and performed by the Recreation Roundtable and Sports 

 Market Research Group/Market Facts, a large number of the pro- 

 posed taxed products are never used in the great outdoors. A rel- 

 atively low percentage of campers, hikers, and other recreationists 

 report that they watch wildlife or go bird-watching. 



Recreationists proposed to be taxed are generally satisfied with 

 their present activities, including opportunities for wildlife-associ- 

 ated activities, and they do not appear to be very motivated to pay 

 additional taxes for additional services. 



Further, those who view wildlife or watch birds are also quite 

 satisfied with current opportunities. Our camping customers are 

 generally less optimistic than wildlife viewers about whether recre- 

 ation opportunities are getting better presumably because of budg- 

 et cutbacks at the Federal and State recreation-sites. 



A great deal of emphasis has been placed upon the success of the 

 Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson Programs by proponents of 

 the initiative. We see a clear and fundamental difference between 

 Teaming and Wallop-Breaux. Wallop-Breaux imposes taxes on a 

 narrow band of fishing and boating products and dedicates all reve- 

 nues to programs with clear and direct benefits for American an- 

 glers and boaters. The Teaming proposal would tax a broad range 

 of products and dedicate use of those receipts to a narrow range of 

 programs at best indirectly benefiting most of those paying the tax. 



There are other inherent difficulties associated with an excise 

 tax. First, taxes are imposed early in a product's manufacturing to 

 shelf life and may well double or increase even more by the time 

 the product is sold at retail. An excise tax unfairly penalizes qual- 

 ity. It will be exceedingly difficult to apply the tax equitably across 

 all the product lines to be affected. 



Wallop-Breaux documents how imported product values may be 

 manipulated to the financial disadvantage of domestic producers. 

 There will inevitably be efforts to avoid the tax through the cre- 

 ative classification of products. It is likely that some small manu- 

 facturers will bear an excessive administrative burden, while other 

 small enterprises may well fall through the cracks and pay no tax. 



Most importantly, the government-imposed tax may serve as a 

 disincentive for companies to continue to develop voluntary private 

 initiatives that are emerging and increasingly popular in today's 

 marketplace. We need to be innovative and comprehensive in our 

 efforts to address the nation's outdoor needs. 



I would reiterate that the recreation community is strongly sup- 

 portive of the goal of a healthy and diverse wildlife population 

 habitat. We offer our cooperation and assistance to those who have 

 worked so hard and so long on the initiative, in defining the high- 

 est national goals for the great outdoors, and then developing ap- 

 propriate strategies and tactics to achieve these goals. 



ARC finds the "Teaming with Wildlife" fails to meet the recre- 

 ation community's criteria for an acceptable user fee and, therefore, 

 is something that we unfortunately cannot support. While noble in 

 intent, it is flawed in design and scope and will not accomplish our 

 goals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



