116 



There is no increased 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 

 RECREATIONISTS 



Since being approached by the lAFWA 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 this 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 trailhead. 

 I'm not so sure that same climber would see the direct benefit 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 many 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 provide 

 recreation services to our customers. 



