124 



the money should go. Furthermore, the wide array of educational and 

 building projects that "Teaming With Wildlife" seeks to fund are big 

 money projects offering much opportunity for waste. The cost of 

 education consistently outpaces inflation by an amazing margin, 

 building projects regularly exceed their cost estimates, and the cost of 

 one research project can easily run into the millions. The ACA fears 

 that, if interjected into a natural resource funding plan, these projects 

 will compete with more pressing resource needs such as land 

 acquisition and the operation of existing parks and forests. 



The ACA also believes there are a number of fairness issues with 

 respect to the "Teaming" initiative. Other testimony before this 

 Subcommittee will take issue with "Teaming's" unfairness to those 

 who will buy products subject to its excise tax, but who will not use 

 them for wildlife oriented outdoor recreation. There is an equally 

 compelling argument that "Teaming" unfairly targets serious outdoor 

 enthusiasts, a relatively narrow segment of the nation's public land 

 users. 



A person who enjoys wilderness backpacking gets hit really hard by 

 "Teaming's" tax on outdoor equipment, whereas someone who prefers 

 to drive their car through our parks and forests is hardly touched. A 

 private paddler who kayaks wild rivers also gets hit hard, while a 

 person who uses an outfitter for a rafting trip does not. "Teaming" 

 does not treat resource users equally. 



