143 



often thousands of dollars per year. Even a small percentage of this expenditure 

 is significant. For this reason, AWA and others representing user groups have a 

 significant stake in guaranteeing that any user tax v^ill target the conservation 

 priorities of our members. 



CONCLUSION 



There is one final issue, a "recreation" issue which is of utmost importance to 

 groups like the AWA who are involved in both recreation and conservation. 

 Teaming with Wildlife proposes to "raise $350 million annually that will return to 

 state fish and wildlife agencies for the threefold purpose of conservation, 

 recreation and education." However, state fish and wildlife agencies often do 

 not represent recent changes in outdoor recreation or recreation needs. More 

 importantly, a few of these agencies do not understand that "new" outdoor users 

 are also interested in conservation, even if their priorities are not identical to the 

 goals of that particular agency. 



Any general tax to fund these agencies must include guidelines on how these 

 agencies will: represent their new "constituents"; broaden agency mandates to 

 include new priorities; and encourage new and more traditional users to work 

 together on conservation. More importantly, these guidelines must be explained 

 and in place before outdoor users pay for agency representation. 



If these guidelines were included in the proposed legislation, it would prove a 

 great benefit to conservation, including wildlife habitat! 



If user fees were to be dedicated to a broader set of conservation priorities, if 

 outdoor users were included in the planning and dedication of funds, and if this 

 funding provided a mechanism for linking agencies with other users, then we 

 could support such an initiative. 



Teaming with Wildlife falls short in each of these categories, the proposed 

 legislation is perhaps two months away from Congressional introduction, and the 

 funding has already been dedicated, and prioritized - we see no way to change 

 these fundamental differences at this time except to create a new proposal which 

 addresses these issues. 



AWA is willing to work with wildlife groups and other conservation organizations 

 in developing a revised proposal which is more comprehensive, more 

 representative of user priorities, and provides a larger "vision" for conservation 

 funding. 



Thank you for hearing the "other side" of this issue. 



