Rick, Thanks for joining in this debate. You raise some excellent points, some of which I agree with wholeheartedly. > 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. The initiative, which, by the way has been drafted (insofar as any piece of legislation can be written before the politicians get their hands on it) and calls for the moneys collected to be shared out to state government wildlife agencies, true. In Maryland's case it would be DNR, an agency that has a dismal record of funding non-game wildlife programs. Specific projects would be proposed by DNR to the collecting agency, along with a commitment to shoulder 25% of the cost of the project or projects. If approved, the TWW money would then be granted to the State to fund the remaining 75%. So, first off, the money would not be given to DNR as a blank check. Second, the DNR has signed a memorandum of understanding with the members of the MD Coalition to include them in the project proposal process. This is the part where we get to make our voices heard in deciding how the money will be spent. I admit to being suspicious of the motives of the other members of the Coalition---clearly they are staking claims as well, but then they use the outdoors too. I am suspicious of the intent of the DNR---they need to be watched very closely. I look around me and each day I see new developments where before was prime bird habitat. I see this happening not just in Montgomery County but in every County in the State. I see it happening at an increasing rate. My wife and I give a lot of money to The Nature Conservancy each year, but TNC has basically written off many Eastern States as being lost beyond hope. We give as much as we can each year to the MD State Tax Checkoff for nongame wildlife programs, virtually the entire funding for much of the relatively miniscule nongame conservation programs of the DNR. We do this and many others like us do this. And yet it isn't enough, Rick. So, knowing that TWW is imperfect, knowing that there are a lot of risks inherent in the proposed legislation, knowing that perhaps I am wasting my time, I nonetheless support the initiative. I support it by going to the monthly Coalition meetings, by encouraging other birders to also attend those meetings, by taking part as fundamentally as possible in the process. If I don't, and then later I'm upset by the results, I have no grounds for complaint. > 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. The proposed legislation is aimed at "conservation and enhancement of nongame wildlife and encouragement of outdoor recreational opportunities." I agree with you on this one, Rick! The more people can get out into areas they may not have visited in the past because of lack of access, the more they become aware of the world out there that they're missing, the better are the chances that my alarm over the loss of habitat will spread through a greater proportion of the population. I agree that that the money will not go 100% to conservation efforts, but we are talking here of a potential of $5 million a year JUST TO MARYLAND. This is almost 5 times the current DNR budget for nongame wildlife programs! Nonetheless, the public will need to watch very, very carefully what DNR is doing with the money and that's what I'm hoping that this debate will engender--a closer critical look at the DNR and their priorities. > 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. I agree that the tax may be broader-based than it should be, but surely you could have found a better example! What about all those mommies who have traded in their monster kid-carrying vans for monster kid-carrying 4x4s? But let's assume your argument for the moment. How much is a kid-style backpack for school? $20? The TWW would add 60 cents to the cost of that. So to say that the TWW will be funded on the backs of school children just doesn't work. We could just as easily argue that this is proper, since we are hoping to preserve some of our natural environment for later generations. What better way than on the backs of those self-same later generations??? Grin.... > 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. Come on, Rick! You know as well as I do that NO piece of legislation can be considered "fully written" until the President signs the bill after it has been approved by Congress. That's why I am urging people to get more involved NOW with the proposed legislation, to voice their concerns to their Senators and Representatives, and let those representatives know how the bill should be worded. The hunting lobby is extraordinarily strong in Congress and anyone who ignores it does so at their peril. Life is a risk, nothing is certain. To say "Let's not do this because we don't know how it will turn out," doesn't seem to me to be an acceptable argument. If we bury our heads in the sand we KNOW how things will turn out! > 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. I agree completely with your sentiment about the generosity of birders. They give back over and over again. But if the money they give is not going to state governments, then where is it going? Habitat is still being lost at an alarming rate and maybe we need to rethink the way in which we are directing some of the contents of those deep pockets. Maybe we need to work harder to ensure that more of that money is spent right here in Maryland! > 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 back. There are > huge state agencies whose sole purpose is to mitigate the effects of > consumptive users of wildlife. Nothing an environmentalist or bird > watcher does requires the government to spend a penny. I disagree. We live in housing developments in suburbia. We drive large, gas-consuming vehicles, we enter sensitive habitats in increasingly large numbers, leading sometimes to the diminution of those habitats simply by our presence. We don't consume in such blatantly bloody ways as do anglers and hunters, but we consume nonetheless. > 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 > support 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. To hark back to Teddy Roosevelt and say that we as a Nation care about our environment is patently absurd. Every piece of environmental and conservation legislation on the books today has been a hard-fought battle and every one of those pieces of legislation is currently under attack! We cannot sit back and stop fighting, not for one instant! I believe that the United States is people by profit-motivated opportunists who don't give one damn about future generations or anything else beyond their short-term bottom line. For Congressional Members, the "long-term view" is the amount of time until their next re-election bid. We are a nation of people who DO NOT look to the future! No piece of legislation is ever perfect, Rick. I myself have a lot of problems with TWW and I have a lot of fears about being able to work effectively with other members of the Coalition and with the DNR when that legislation becomes law. Still, I feel it is one hope we can have for an effective partnership that ultimately may help wildlife in Maryland. By the way, I appreciated hearing your point of view, Rick! You helped me put my finger on some of the uneasiness I still feel about TWW. Let's continue this debate! Best, Norm =============== Norm Saunders Colesville, MD osprey@ari.net