120 



Honorable John D. Dingell 



Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 



June 6, 19% 



Page 2 



Like the Dingell-Johnson Act, Teaming with Wildlife could be another partnership 

 between recreational industries, recreationists, educators and conservationists. As my father 

 and his colleagues did almost 50 years ago, today we recognize the need for a broader base 

 of support for fish and wildlife management programs that serve a wide variety of users, and 

 which provide additional recreation access and enhanced education. 



Today more than 160 million Americans take part in wildlife- related activities. This 

 is larger than the entire population that existed in the United States when Congress passed 

 Dingell-Johnson. This speaks even more urgently to the need for expanding the user-fee 

 program base so that our lands can support this increased activity. Just as American hunters 

 and fishers have contributed to wildlife for several decades, they look to others who seek out 

 the benefits of our nation's precious natural treasures to contribute to their well-being 



I believe most outdoor enthusiasts will be willing to contribute a little more for some 

 recreational equipment if they know the money is dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation, 

 trails access, nature centers and conservatioD education. The Teaming with Wildlife proposal 

 would provide a dedicated and permanent fund for these purposes. 



Some may argue, in heat of debate about devolution of federal powers, that the 

 federal government should stand aside and let the states implement 50 separate programs. 

 There is little reason to assume that financially-strained states wLU assume this additional 

 conservation responsibility themselves. In fact, through the International Association of Fish 

 and Wildlife Agencies, the states are supportive of the historic federal -state partnership, and 

 have been integral players in the development of the Teaming with Wildlife proposal. 



The proposal being discussed today is non- regulatory, incentive-based and flexible, 

 allowing state fish and wildlife agencies to determine how best to spend conservation money 

 in their states. Based on early discussions, it is clear that one potential barrier to enactment 

 is the selection of products to which excise fees would be applied and the level of those fees. 

 The proponents of this proposal have been open-minded to criticism and continue to show 

 creativity and flexibility in the development of the fee. I urge the Subcommittee to consult 

 carefully with the industries which would be affected and to encourage a collaborative effort 

 which will make clear the mutual benefits which could result from expanded recreational fee 

 collections. Already, Teaming with Wildlife is supported by almost 700 organizations, 

 including forward-looking businesses which understand the need for this sound investment 

 and its possible returns. 



Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your kindness in allowing me to discuss Teaming with 

 Wildlife. I look forward to following the continued development of this proposal, one 

 jvhich, if enacted, would assure the continued viability of our wildlife and habitat for future 

 generations. 



