7938 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a similar to the user fees placed upon manufacturers of sport fishing and sport hunting equipment by the Dingle-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson acts. The concept being explored is to put a manufacturer's excise tax on equipment that would be used for non-game wildlife pursuits, with the objective to provide a stable base of funding. Initial contacts with Congressional leaders through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, had indicated they thought this was a good idea. If looked at optimistically, there may be attempts to introduce legislation to this effect in the Fall of 1995. The sensitive points may be with particular governors and Congressional representatives, rather than the Congressional leadership or conservation agencies, resource management people, or the industries affected. There was some concern from FWS personnel that their contacts with the outdoor equipment manufacturing industry indicated there had not been coalitions for support started at that level, and that the manufacturers were, in fact, not very supportive or optimistic. Mr. Molini indicated r that by and large, the industry had not been contacted. A-program was contemplated to develop that support through the equipment-buying public which was understood to strongly support such a concept, as well as support from the tackle and weapons manufacturers who could relay the successes of the DJ and PR programs. Mr. Curran (NV) spoke to the successful utilization the last two or three years of Section 6 ESA funds, which have been apportioned to NV by FWS, in part based on the number of species of special concern (species which are being considered for future listing). Fifty percent of state apportionment is based on competitive needs among species which are threatened and endangered, and the other 50% on a non-competitive basis which is especially valuable in a situation like the CRFWC is initiating, because some of the fish species in the River cannot hope to compete with social issues generated by the Spotted Owl, California Condor and others. Perhaps the CRFWC should keep this type of approach in mind should it appear another approach in gaining funding support may be needed. FWS personnel indicated that by and large, there has not been total apportionments sufficient compared to the large number of threatened and endangered species, to fund the program for them, much less provide for any of the non- listed species of concern. The thought was also made by FWS that an excise tax on user equipment might also work to fundamentally change the ESA. These monies could be used for funding the groundwork recovery of species of concern and threatened and endangered species, and then responsibility for the management and recovery implementation could be turned over to the states. There seems to be some support among state Congressional representatives to have individual states implement the ESA. CRFWC agreed that work should be continued on the subject of obtaining new funding or diverting other funding to obtain resources for the needs of the Colorado River native fish and riparian species. The subject should appear on the agenda for annual meeting in 1996. 4 6 4