125 



Even though the tax may indeed touch some larger segments of the 

 population, it is the outdoor enthusiasts who be contributing to this 

 plan practically every time they turn around. They will contribute 

 when they buy their sleeping bags, their tents, their camp stoves, their 

 hiking boots, their canoes, their PFDs, their paddles etc. Despite this 

 significant increase in cost to certain users, with "Teaming" there is no 

 guarantee that any of the money will go toward those resources that 

 these outdoor enthusiasts care about. It certainly will not if they 

 recreate on federally managed resources. 



This proposal Is very different from the other user-tax funds lAFWA 

 claims to be emulating. While lAFWA constantly compares "Teaming" 

 to initiatives such as Dingell-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson, and Wallop- 

 Breaux, each of these funds is far more specifically targeted toward 

 those who pay the tax than "Teaming" is. The "Teaming" proposal is 

 also different, in that the funds will be made available to agencies that 

 do not have a history of service to the users that will be paying for the 

 plan. The success of any user pay fund lies in the support it enjoys 

 from those who pay for it. "Teaming" does not have such support. 



lAFWA has indeed compiled a list of more than 800 groups who they 

 say currently support "Teaming With Wildlife." The vast majority of 

 the outdoor recreation community is absent from that list. lAFWA's 

 list represents years of recruiting groups that have only been presented 

 with one side of the issue. The vast majority of these groups have 

 relied only on lAFWA's rhetoric and signed onto the plan having not 

 even seen the draft legislation. I can assure this committee that there 



25-856 0-96 



