98 



Beyond the inequity and inefficioncy associated with the proposed tax. ARC 

 believes that the "Teaming' proposal inappropriately favors state-level wildlife 

 protection to the virtual exclusion of most other basic recreation needs such as visitor 

 services, trail construction, road access, campground maintenance and the like. While 

 wildlife diversity is an important value, basic recreation services should not be given 

 short shrift. Recreation use fees ultimately should benefit recreation users. The 

 relative success of the Dingell-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux taxes 

 make this case — fishing and hunting opportunities have demonstrably improved with 

 the funds provided. However, it is questionable how much of the "Teaming" excise 

 taxes would actually be available to improve the recreation infrastructure, given the 

 numerous wildlife management objectives that have been identified. The wildlife focus 

 of "Teaming" leaves little for recreation, calling into question the applicability of the 

 aforementioned taxes as valid "models" for this proposal. 



CONCLUSION 



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

 nation's outdoor needs. The wholly compatible goals of protecting our nation's natural 

 resources and ensuring opportunities for our citizens to recreate in a safe and healthy 

 manner must be integrated. Any effort to address our nation's conservation and 

 recreation needs must be balanced and mounted in a way to gain and retain public 

 support. We cannot approach this challenge in a piecemeal fashion. ARC believes 

 that the "Teaming with Wildlife" program is not the solution to the real problems facing 

 the Great Outdoors. 



The recreation community is strongly supportive of the goal of a healthy and 

 diverse wildlife population and habitat. In addition to the improved quality that wildlife 

 can bring to the outdoor recreation experience, we recognize the basic conservation 

 imperative of protecting habitat and ecosystems. Reflecting this commitment, many of 

 America's outdoor companies already contribute significantly to a wide variety of 

 conservation initiatives nationally and locally. 



We offer our cooperation and assistance to those who have worked so hard and 

 so long on the "Teaming with Wildlife" initiative in defining the highest national goals 

 for the Great Outdoors and then developing appropriate strategies and tactics to 

 achieve these goals. The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors and the 

 1994 National Park Service Advisory Board's review of the Land and Water 

 Conservation Fund offered some important recommendations. Both studies called for 

 strong national leadership on recreation and conservation matters but emphasized the 

 importance of state- and community-level and private sector efforts reflecting 

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

 set-asides in Missoun and Texas attract our attention. The Great Outdoors Colorado 

 program, funded through lottery proceeds, also appears to be working. We also favor, 

 and would be willing to support through communications assistance, voluntary efforts to 

 raise funding for wildlife and conservation programs including, but not limited to, 

 promotion of special license plates, income tax 'check-offs' ar>d conservation stamps. 



