Re: TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE
Tom Loomis (escs@erols.com)
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:27:52 -0500
Rick -
I am intrigued by both your concerns regarding the TWW proposals and Norm's
cogent response. I agree that the items suggested for taxing are not used
exclusively for outdoor recreation purposes but I fail to see how a better
allocation could be made. Perhaps a better, more equitable system would be
licensing the various outdoor recreation activities - both for participants
and observers.
Bird feeders in backyard - $5/feeder/yr.
casual roadside bird observing - $10/yr
white-water canoe/kayak - $25/yr
Wilderness trips - $10/day
etc
Seriously, I think that at this time we should be endeavoring to provide
suggestions as to how the tax can be most equitable, mechanisms for
effective local input to fund allocation, and how the state agencies and
politicians can be held accountable.
Alternatively, perhaps you can suggest a better funding mechanism for
preserving and enhancing wildlife habitat and populations.
Tom Loomis
----------
> From: Rick Blom <rblom@blazie.com>
> To: mdosprey@ARI.Net
> Subject: TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE
> Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 3:52 AM
>
> 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
>
>