118 



HOW DOES THIS PROGRAM FIT IN THE BIGGER PICTURE? 



Recreation is affected by a broad range of agencies and resource needs. This initiative 

 seems to be focusing on one piece — driven by one agency's request for funds — rather 

 than the bigger picture. What are the biggest resource needs? Where should the federal 

 government's efforts be made? At the State level? At the Federal level? What services are 

 needed or need greater funding? How can we best target efforts and keep the National Park 

 System, the forest service recreation programs, the state park systems, local park and 

 recreation programs, and fish and wildlife agencies all running? How can we best maintain 

 the natural resources so important to our country? Which agencies can best provide those 

 services? We believe all of these questions are important and should be answered before 

 forging ahead with this major funding initiative, or any other. 



WHAT KIND OF PROGRAM SHOULD WE DEVELOP? 



Fmally, What kind of program should we develop? It should be voluntary. It should be 

 flexible, allowing companies to choose what type of resource needs will best match their 

 user's needs, rather than "force-fitting" consumers into a particular type of "user" group. It 

 should allow consumers the opportunity to give. 



Frankly, there are some good models out there. I mentioned the National Forest 

 Foundation (NFF), and our partnership with them on the Continental Divide Trail. The 

 Foundations, including the National Park and Fish and Wildlife Foundations, allow 

 companies to provide funding to programs and to target their giving in ways that will meet 

 their users' natural resource needs. Today, over the in the Senate, the Energy and Natural 

 Resources Committee is holding a hearing on a bill that would broaden corporate America's 

 ability to help pay for the National Park System. While we have not endorsed that bill, it is 

 an important discussion, and if crafted right, could provide ways for tax money to be 

 supplemented with corporate giving to ensure adequate funding for key, natural resources 

 in this country. 



On the state level, there are some other great models. Missouri and a few other states have 

 passed a general sales tax of less than 1% to fund the wildlife and parks agencies in their 

 states. No losers there — everything is taxed at a very low rate. Citizens have been given 

 voluntary programs to give to fish and wildlife programs — "chickadee check-offs" and 

 license plate programs are offered in many states. In my state of Colorado, proceeds from 

 the lottery go to park and wildlife programs. It has been enormously successful. In 

 Indiana, voluntary programs have purchased 5,000 acres of public lands. Many other states 

 have seen similar results. We are aware that voluntar>' contributions have trailed off in 

 some states. However, perhaps some renewed marketing of the programs would help. That 

 would be an excellent partnership between fish and wildlife agencies and a local business - 

 help in marketing the voluntary programs. 



In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while we support the concept of increasing funding for 

 wildlife diversity and other natural resource programs, we cannot support the funding 

 mechanism for this particular initiative. It forces businesses into a "one-size-fits-all" 

 resource conservation program when company and user needs are very diverse; focuses on 

 one aspect of resource conservation when a broader initiative is needed; and would create a 

 new tax on our products, putting us in a competitive disadvantage with other, untaxed 

 products. We encourage you to champion voluntary solutions that allow companies and 

 recreation ists choices in the resource programs they wish to support. We look forward to 

 working with you in the future to promote positive recreational opportunities for all 

 Americans. Thank you for your time and attention. 



