boots, mountain bicycles, recreational vehicles, and wild bird seed. The proponents 

 hope to raise some $350 million a year. 



While I support the fundamental goal of having everyone who enjoys our parks, 

 refuges, and wildlife pay their fair share, there are a number of questions about this 

 proposal that must be resolved. 



For instance: What is the justification for a five percent excise fee and what is 

 magical about the figure of $350 million a year? Who will determine which species 

 should be given priority status and how will these conservation programs interact 

 with recovery efforts under the Federal Endangered Species Act? And, how can we 

 ensure that these new fees do not become just another financial burden on those 

 Americans who already finance the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux Pro- 

 grams? 



I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses and I hope answers 

 to these and other questions will be forthcoming. This is an important hearing and 

 I compliment the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for fram- 

 ing this debate. 



Mr. Saxton. Many questions have arisen concerning the concept. 

 We have three distinguished panels to address those concerns 

 today. Let me now turn to our first paneUst, an old friend from this 

 committee, Mr. Dan Ashe, who is currently serving as Assistant Di- 

 rector of External Affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 And, Dan, you are familiar with the subcommittee's five-minute 

 rule so why don't you just jump right in. 



STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



Mr. Ashe. All right. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. I am pleased to be 

 here today to discuss the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative, and I 

 want to start by congratulating the states for developing this pro- 

 posal and bringing it to the attention of Congress. Their leadership 

 on this issue really signals their recognition of and commitment to 

 maintaining a diversity of plant, fish, and wildlife, both for game 

 and nongame species. And in this alone, they deserve our grati- 

 tude. 



At this point, I need to clarify that the views in this testimony 

 constitute the Department's position on the need to expand and 

 support management of nongame wildlife and our very preliminary 

 comments on the "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal. It is not an en- 

 dorsement. But we look forward to providing the committee with 

 formal position and detailed comments once legislation has actually 

 been introduced. 



The "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative proposes to authorize the 

 Fish and Wildlife Service to provide grants to State fish and wild- 

 life agencies and U.S. territories for the development, revision, and 

 implementation of conservation programs for fish and wildlife that 

 are neither fished nor hunted. 



The proposal would provide State fish and wildlife agencies with 

 the funds to undertake projects to improve these resources and 

 thereby expand wildlife associated recreational opportunities. The 

 Service would welcome these opportunities. 



This initiative is patterned after two of the nation's most success- 

 ful conservation programs: Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Pro- 

 gram and Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Program. I can think of 

 no better models for this effort than these two highly successful 

 programs. 



The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program began in 1938 

 following enactment by President Roosevelt of the Federal Aid in 



