‘Wildlife Tax’ Has Potential, Some Objectors

Several men and women were sipping espresso the other day in a Spokane coffee shop as they chuckled over a newspaper story.

Laughter seemed a strange reaction to reports that the decline in hunting and fishing license sales is pushing Western state wildlife agencies to the verge of bankruptcy.

“It won’t break my heart to see the end of hunting and fishing,” one woman said.

The gist of the conversation was that hunting and fishing are bad, and we won’t need wildlife agencies when these sports are dead.

That’s almost as funny as suggesting their coffee didn’t come from a denuded rain forest.

Or that the next subdivision won’t displace any songbirds.

Or that achieving the perfect green lawn has no secondary affects on downstream trout, that clearcuts don’t jeopardize mule deer, that the growing wave of bikers, hikers, paddlers and climbers won’t have an impact on the wildlife we all seem to enjoy.

Truth is, if every hunting and fishing season were closed forever, the world would not become a Disney cartoon.

The crush of nature lovers has the potential to be more lethal to wildlife than the hook or bullet.

A movement gaining steam across the nation seeks to bring the legion of so-called passive wildlife appreciators into the realm of wildlife supporters.

The plan involves an excise tax on a sliding scale ranging from to 5 percent on the manufacturer’s cost for products used in wildlife recreation.

For example, birdwatchers would pay an extra 25 cents on a $10 bag of bird seed. Hikers would pay $2.50 on a $100 backpack.

Across the country, this puny assessment would raise roughly $350 million a year to conserve fish and wildlife, support wildlife education and research and enhance trails and other associated recreation resources.

Washington’s cut under a proposal circulating in Washington, D.C., would be $8-$10 million. Idaho would get $4 million a year.

The concept isn’t new.

Industries that sell hunting and fishing equipment saw the light more than 50 years ago. They supported a 10 percent excise tax on their products, which hunters and anglers have gladly paid for generations.

The tax has supported fish and game management, as well as fund ing hunter education courses, boat launches, wildlife research and other beneficial programs that enhance outdoor pursuits.

This in turn boosts sales of hunting and fishing products.

Outdoor recreationalists will be hearing more and more about the “Teaming For Wildlife Initiative,” which is being spearheaded by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to get financial support for non-hunted wildlife.

But you won’t hear much about it from major retailers who have profited for years at the expense of wildlife.

The executives of Recreational Equipment Inc., in Kent, Wash., for example, refuse to talk to reporters about the proposal.

However, David Secunda, executive director of ORCA, the outdoor retailers trade group, gave four main concerns:

The proposed tax covers products that might never be used outdoors. About 80 percent of footwear never hits the trail, 70 percent of backpacks are bought to carry books and 20 percent of sleeping bags are used only indoors, he said.

Funneling the money to state fish and wildlife agencies is too narrow a conduit for this type of recreation tax.

The tax wouldn’t show on customer receipts, which means people wouldn’t know they’re paying it.

Too many questions remain about the products involved and how the money would be used.

“The industry is really struggling with this because it’s pitted us against friends and allies in fish and wildlife agencies and conservation groups,” Secunda said.

“We’re in support of user fee concepts at park and national forest trailheads,” he said.

“When we check with customers, they are willing to pay when they know the fees go back into the areas where they are recreating.”

But in most cases, there is no way to collect a fee from the general public for wildlife conservation.

Funding for Idaho’ nongame management comes from a hodge podge of sources: A measly $50,000 from the income tax checkoff, $37,000 from vanity license plates, $250,000 from federal agencies for work on Endangered Species, and other grants and donations.

On a good year, Idaho’s nongame program is likely to have only $615,000.

That doesn’t go very far in teaching people that improper bird feeding kills thousands of songbirds. It doesn’t help build nature trails to keep people from spoiling what they’ve come to see.

“We simply need a stable mechanism to get more of the nonhunting public to contribute,” said Wayne Melquist, Idaho’s nongame program manager.

“If we could get a small excise tax on bird seed alone, it would generate a tremendous amount of money.”

For information on the Teaming for Wildlife Initiative, call (202) 624-7890.