TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE
Rick Blom (rblom@blazie.com)
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:52:27 -0500
Since Norm got the ball rolling, I am jumping in with the letter I
sent to Marketplace. The other view ought to be heard.
Rick
I suppose I am in the minority of active bird watchers and
environmentalists in opposing TWW. It certainly seems to have a lot of
steam, although it is optimistic to think that this Congress will pass a
new tax.
My objections are not anti-tax. I believe we are at least fairly
taxed and perhaps undertaxed for the services we demand. My objection to
TWW is grounded in environmentalism. I think environmentalists are making a
major tactical mistake with this proposal.
First, when the rhetoric is peeled away, this tax is nothing more
than a funding mechanism for state governments. All the monies will go to
state agencies, and only a portion will be used to benefit nongame,
nonendangered wildlife. The rest will go for recreation and education,
amorphous concepts at best. None of it will go to other groups working to
protect species or the environment.
I am in favor of larger and more stable budgets for state wildlife
agencies and I am in favor of taxes to support the increases. But TWW is
being presented as a program to protect species that are not otherwise
funded, and that is not where most of the money will go.
Reading the priorities for spending created by state agencies and
posted on the TWW Web page, it becomes clear that most of the money will go
to creating recreation opportunities. Parks, trails, parking lots, and
other facilities are high on the list of most states. There is nothing
wrong with outdoor recreation, but it is often at odds with the protection
of wildlife. Most of the companies supporting this proposal are producers
of outdoor recreation equipment.
Second, the argument that the tax will be paid by the people who
are most directly involved ignores reality. A large portion of the money
will be raised by a tax on backpacks. That is because more backpacks are
sold in any medium-sized state then tents and sleeping bags are sold
nationwide. Anyone who has a child in school knows who buys 95% of the
backpacks. Virtually every school child in America carries one to school
each day, and most of them replace them every year. It is misleading to say
that these people are the primary noncomsumtive outdoor enthusiasts and
that they are putting something back. The proposal to tax film and other
peripheral equipment means that an even larger portion of the monies will
be paid by people who are not "putting something back."
Another significant problem is that the legislation has not been
fully written yet. The proponents are telling potential supporters that the
money will go for the protection of habitat and species, but we have no
assurance that the final bill will contain provisions protecting those
goals. In fact, at least two Congressmen have said that the bill has no
chance of passage unless there is a provision that all lands bought or
managed with TWW funds are open to hunting and fishing. I am not
anti-hunting or anti-fishing, but those activities are often in conflict
with the goals of preservation. Managing land for multiple use often means
destroying its value for species of concern. The supporters of the bill are
being asked to buy blind, not knowing what they are going to get.
I am offended by the deliberately misleading argument that the
people who are the primary nonconsumptive users of recreational lands are
not paying their fair share. That language has been used many times by the
proponents. It is not true, and they know it is not. Environmentalists,
primarily bird watchers in this case, are among the most deep-pocketed and
generous of any group. They support thousands of clubs and organizations
with dues and donations. They give a great deal of money to environmental
projects. What the backers of TWW are offended by is not that this group is
not open-handed, but that state governments do not get the money. Remember,
this is, at its heart, a funding bill for state goverments. They are doing
it this way because states are unwilling to go directly to the citizens and
ask for the money.
Implicit in the argument that environmentalists do not pay their
fair share is the comparison with hunters and fishermen, who pay a tax on
equipment that funds management programs. They pay the tax because they are
consumers of wildlife. When a hunter takes a deer, or a fisherman takes a
trout, someone has to put it nback. There are huge state agencies whose
sole prupose is to mitigate the effects of consumptive users of wildlife.
Nothing an environmentalist or bird watcher does reuqires the government to
spend a penny.
The most important reason for opposing TWW is philosophical.
Starting with Teddy Roosevelt, we have, as a nation, held to the belief
that the preservation of our natural resources is a national obligation,
that every citizen has a vested interest in a clean environment and in
making certain that species do not go extinct. Despite the environmental
battles of the past several decades, we have not abandoned that belief.
This tax does. It accomplishes what the opponents of environmental law have
been unable to do: It paints environmentalists as a special interest group.
It shatters the tradition and concedes that we are the ones that should pay
because we are the ones who care. It lets everyone else off the hook.
Once we conspire with our opposition to define ourselves as a
special interest, we are in deep trouble. We lose moral authority and we
lose the ability to ask for any additional funding. It is a posture we can
never recover from.
I am not willing to sacrifice the crucial principal behind
environmentalism for a few dollars for state government. TWW was put
together with public monies, donated by each state to fund the effort. When
environmentalists are told that they are being asked to supprt a bill that
has not been written and may not resemble the one being talked about, and
when they are told all the money will go to state governments, and when
they see how the states propose to spend it, they frequently withdraw their
support. There is a great deal of uneasiness in some national enviromental
organizations about this bill. Until we know exactly what the legislation
contains, and until the people being asked to endorse TWW are assured that
the money will be spent on goals they support, with adequate controls and
oversight, it is foolish for the envionmental movement to spend their
political capital on this measure.
Rick Blom
"A writer is somebody for whom writing is more difficult than it is for
other people."
Thomas Mann
Rick Blom
rblom@blazie.com
Bel Air, Maryland