128 



We are concerned that WDI, with the specific directive to primarily benefit nongame, may 

 create the incentive to reduce funding for game species under PR. Unlike the WDI, the mission 

 of PR is broadly based to provide funds for "wildlife restoration," with no specific direction on 

 which species or types of wildlife are to be primarily benefited. This means that PR funds can 

 and are being spent on non-game wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. No 

 assurance is provided to the hunter and shooter that PR funds will not be co-mingled with WDI 

 funds for the primary benefit of non-game species. To ensure that attention to game species 

 conservation is maintained, PR must be amended to "primarily benefit game species," in effect, 

 making PR a mirror image of WDI. 



We support provisions in draft legislation which provide WDI funding for projects 

 benefiting threatened and endangered species. Earlier drafts would have disallowed such 

 expenditures. Unless WDI funds can be spent on a "diverse" array of fish and wildlife, then PR 

 will be relied upon to meet those needs. Recognizing that for the foreseeable future, states cannot 

 rely upon Federal appropriated dollars in the Endangered Species Act grant program to address 

 protection and restoration of listed species, the only other funding source for many states is PR. 

 Thus, it is critical that a purpose of the WDI be to support threatened and endangered species 

 projects at the state level. 



Because WDI is designed to mirror the existing excise tax accounts, which provide a 75-25 

 split between Federal and state contributions to the cost of a project, we are pleased that recent 

 drafts incorporate this match percentage for WDI. Earlier drafts had provided a 90-10 start up 

 match. 



Another issue we have raised, and touched on earlier in this statement, is the application 

 of the tax to those who enjoy the outdoors but who do not presently pay for its benefits. The WDI 

 seeks to tax apparel, outdoor equipment, and sport utility vehicles as the method of reaching a 

 new constituency. However, it assumes that sportsmen and women are not also consumers of 

 these products. The fact is, they are. The WDI is reaching out to the non-sporting community 

 to gain their support for a new tax. But the question has not been asked of the sporting 

 community if they want to incur a new tax. A constituency that has been supporting conservation 

 for 6 decades, with a total to date of nearly $3 billion in PR funds and $1 billion in state licenses 

 and tags, should not be subjected to double taxation. 



Instead, sportsmen and women should be invited to voluntarily contribute. We suggest, 

 then, that those who pay into PR be exempt from WDI taxation if they can show proof of previous 

 contributions to PR by means of a valid hunting license, or proof of purchase of a firearm (sales 

 receipt or a copy of Form 4473 required of firearms dealers by BATE), ammunition, or other 

 items subject to taxation under PR. We believe that many hunters and shooters will contribute 

 voluntarily, but give them that option. How to provide for such an exemption may be somewhat 

 problematic, but nonetheless is deserving of serious discussion. 



Of equal concern is that WDI's objective to generate new sources of revenue is applied 

 only at the Federal or excise tax level. Draft legislation indicates that the states' will not be 

 restricted from using revenue from hunters' licenses and game tags as their match to the Federal 



