147 



The Honorable Jim Saxton 

 June 13, 1996 

 Page Two 



lot of things that do not suffice, such as voluntary stamp sales. However, the experience also 

 reminds us that the PR Program remains sentinel among wildlife programs that do work. 

 Consequently, we have no logical choice but to support modest taxes on certain outdoor gear to 

 furnish dependable financial support to wildlife currently under flinded, but treasured and used 

 substantially by the American people. We believe that the "user pay" feature of this proposal is a 

 considerable plus, given the need to balance federal budgets and eliminate national debt. 



We recognize that all of the items that would be taxed under this proposal are not used 

 exclusively in association with wildlife. The same is true with sporting arms and ammunition. A 

 goodly amount of those products, for example, are used in target shooting, law enforcement and 

 armed forces, and not directly related to wildlife. 



Finally, Mr. Chairman, we urge the subcommittee to be thoughtfiil with inevitable claims 

 that a modest tax (less than half of that already imposed on sporting arms and ammo) would 

 destroy business. These were the claims in the 1950s when taxes were levied on certain fishing 

 equipment to finance fisheries conservation under the Dingell-Johnson Program, in the early 1970s 

 when a tax was put on archery equipment to boost the PR Program, and in the 1980s when 

 Wallop-Breaux was enacted with taxes on boats and more fishing equipment. The predicted 

 business calamities did not and will not happen. 



We encourage the subcommittee fo proceed with this much-needed proposal. 



Sincerely, 



^-V Lonnie L Williamson 



