94 



millions of dollars annually in the operating budgets of federal land managing agencies. 

 Anglers and boaters and archers and gun users contrbute to the Wallop-Breaux and 

 the Pittman-Robertson Funds, providing hundreds of millions of dollars for land 

 acquisition, habitat improvements and conservation and environmental education 

 efforts. 



Our second message is that, despite these advances, the recreation and 

 conservation needs of our nation are intense and growing. High levels of visitation and 

 limited budgets threaten environmental damage at some of our most loved national 

 sites. Development reduces open spaces near our cities — places already least 

 endowed with public lands. Lack of interpretative services squanders precious 

 educational opportunities during the estimated two billion annual visits to federal 

 recreation sites. Competing economic priorities tear at our traditional valuation of 

 natural resource protection. Crime and environmental degradation restrict access of 

 many urbanites, especially children, to local recreational facilities and natural areas. A 

 fee system that fails to recognize that Americans are willing to pay for good services 

 and facilities starves agencies financially, making them rely upon a political allocation 

 of funding, with very poor results. For example, 40% of all visitors to national forests 

 today receive experiences below the agency's own standards for acceptable quality — 

 and the agency predicts a growth in that percentage of poorly served visitors. The 

 agency thus faces a future of growing numbers of disgruntled customers who will be 

 paying more for facilities and services that are in decline. In another example, in the 

 face of growing numbers of trail enthusiasts, the network of trails on federal lands is 

 actually declining in quantity and quality. 



Our third message addresses the specifics of the "Teaming with Wildlife" 

 proposal, including the very focused grants program to aid non-game wildlife and the 

 excise tax mechanism. ARC's position is that the excise tax does not qualify as a 

 recreational user fee. By definition, a "user fee' becomes simply a specialized tax if a 

 substantial portion of "users" do not pay, or do not pay proportional to the benefits they 

 derive, and a different substantial portion of those who do pay do not derive any 

 benefits. That is the case with the proposed 'Teaming with Wildlife" initiative. Here 

 are some facts to support our position: 



A large number of taxed products are never used in the Great Outdoors. 



Based upon 1 995 research by Sports Market Research Group/Market 

 Facts, 27% of all sleeping bags sold, including those sold by Coleman, 

 are used indoors; 69% of all backpacks sold are used by school children 

 and another 24% are used for travel and work. Similar studies show that 

 high proportions of our lanterns are stored for emergency use during 

 power outages and very large portions of our cooler production are used 

 for sporting events, around the home and for commercial uses. 



