142 



critical, than lust wildlife. If we are to install a legislative fix for conservation, it 

 must generate funds to first address these overall issues, not to dedicate $350 

 million annually to just one portion of the problem. 



If the conservation community adopts this proposed Teaming with Wildlife 

 strategy, then how will we pay for the endless other conservation issues that 

 need funding? 



As this initiative moves towards actual legislation, it is increasingly being 

 presented as a great "conservation, recreation and education" benefit (Teaming 

 with Wildlife, a Natural Investment). As such, those who do not support it run 

 the risk of becoming very unpopular - especially with organizations which could 

 derive great (and direct) benefits if enacted. Not supporting "Teaming with 

 Wildlife" is especially risky for an organization like the AWA which is involved in 

 both conservation and human-powered recreation. However, support for this 

 initiative is not simply a choice between wildlife or recreation - it is a question of 

 conservation priorities and how to best fund these priorities. 



Proponents of this bill say that user fees are a "proven mechanism" for 

 conservation. As an example, they use the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration 

 Act (Dingell-JohnsonAA/allop-Breaux), and the Federal Aid in Wildlife 

 Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) which are user fees paid by hunters and 

 anglers. 



There is a significant difference between these Act's and the proposed Teaming 

 with Wildlife initiative. Under the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act and the 

 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, hunters and fishermen were directly 

 involved in establishing these programs and were able to guarantee that the 

 money raised went back to hunting and fishing programs. Teaming with Wildlife 

 assumes that wildlife habitat is at the top of every outdoor user's priority list, and 

 it is only now involving the broad spectrum of these users (and only after many 

 of these users complained that it does not meet their needs). In fact, the 

 Sportsmen's Coalition, which includes many members involved in establishing 

 the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, has not endorsed Teaming with 

 Wildlife. The cost of their endorsement is a guarantee that hunting and fishing is 

 "retained ... on any public land acquired through the use of these funds." 



Bill Proponents also say that "By paying very small user fees on a wide range of 

 outdoor equipment, from binoculars to camping gear, everyone who has a stake 

 in a wildlife-rich outdoors will benefit," AWA does not disagree with this ~ 

 although the amount of the tax has yet to be fully determined. However, this is 

 again a question of priorities and the degree of benefit for those paying the bill. 

 Many forms of outdoor recreation require expensive equipment, or are "gear" 

 intensive (climbing and Whitewater boating are good examples). These outdoor 

 users spend much more than those purchasing just a backpack or binoculars. 



