<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:40567.wais]
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IMPROVEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 511
A Bill To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1996 to improve the management of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and for other purposes
H.R. 512
A Bill To prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for the creation of new National Wildlife Refuges
without specific authorization from Congress pursuant to a
recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to
create the refuge
__________
MARCH 6, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-567 cc WASHINGTON : 1977
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Carolina SAM FARR, California
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
John Rayfield, Legislative Staff
Christopher Sterns, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 6, 1997....................................... 1
Text of:
H.R. 511..................................................... 63
H.R. 512..................................................... 88
Statement of Members:
Dingell, Hon. John D., a U.S. Representative from Michigan... 3
Farr, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Representative from California........ 20
Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California... 9
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey; and
Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife
and Oceans................................................. 1
Tanner, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from Tennessee...... 5
Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and
Chairman, Committee on Resources........................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Babbitt, Bruce, Secretary of the Interior.................... 9
Prepared statement....................................... 95
Baranek, John, President, Herzog Company..................... 40
Prepared statement....................................... 120
Beard, Daniel, Vice President, National Audubon Society...... 43
Prepared statement....................................... 130
Craven, Jeff, Cloverdale, OR................................. 41
Prepared statement....................................... 128
Dewey, Robert, Director, Habitat Conservation Division,
Defenders of Wildlife...................................... 44
Easterbrook, Robert, Sr., President, Safari Club (prepared
statement)................................................. 144
Horn, William, Director of National and International
Affairs, Wildlife Legislative Fund of America.............. 23
Prepared statement....................................... 55
Lamson, Susan, Director, Conservation, Wildlife and Natural
Resources, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle
Association of America..................................... 27
Prepared statement....................................... 110
Myers, Gary T., Executive Director, Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency........................................... 28
Prepared statement....................................... 114
Peterson, R. Max, Executive Vice President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.................. 25
Prepared statement....................................... 104
Richter, Bernie, Assemblyman, State of California............ 37
Prepared statement....................................... 116
Schlickeisen, Rodger, President, Defenders of Wildlife
(prepared statement)....................................... 56
Additional material supplied:
An African trip yields a trophy rhino for Teddy Roosevelt
(picture).................................................. 102
Audubon, John James (picture)................................ 103
Dingell, Hon. John D., testimony of August 9, 1994, before
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries............. 90
How to create an entitlement program without Congressional or
Executive Oversight in 10 easy steps--a case study: Stone
Lake NWR................................................... 126
Interior Department:
Co-equal purposes of refuges............................. 22
Progress report on implementation of Executive Order
12996.................................................. 99
Refuge water rights...................................... 20
Communication submitted:
Peterson, R. Max: Letter of February 27, 1997, with
attachment to Charles W. Johnson........................... 141
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997 AND THE NEW
REFUGE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
JERSEY; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans will come to order. The Subcommittee is
meeting today to hear testimony on the National Wildlife Refuge
System. Under committee rules, any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the ranking member.
This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help
members keep their schedules. Therefore, if other members have
statements, they can be included in the record.
We will be discussing two bills today, H.R. 511, The
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and
H.R. 512, the National Wildlife Refuge Authorization Act of
1997.
The third district of New Jersey, which I represent, is the
home of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, named
in honor of my predecessor in Congress. The people in my
district are proud to safeguard this fragile land. Clearly, as
long as the local environmental community and the local
sportsmen are supportive of the refuge and its uses, it will
remain an important and well-regarded part of the community. I
am happy to lend my support to H.R. 511, because I believe it
fosters good will toward the refuge, which is sometimes sorely
needed.
The fundamental goal of H.R. 511 is to bring up to date the
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966. The author
of the 1966 act, John Dingell of Michigan, is a cosponsor of
H.R. 511 and will submit testimony on behalf of the
legislation. H.R. 511 will establish a system-wide set of
purposes for our refuge system. It makes wildlife-dependent
recreation--fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and
environmental education--purposes of the system. It also allows
these existing historical wildlife-dependent uses to continue
on newly acquired lands unless those uses are determined to be
incompatible. The term compatible use is defined. I joined in
sponsoring this legislation because it makes much-needed
improvements to the way our National Wildlife Refuge System is
used and run.
H.R. 512 would prohibit Land and Water Conservation Fund
monies to create a new refuge without Congressional
authorization. The bill's sponsor, Don Young of Alaska, will
explain H.R. 512 in his opening statement.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
[Statement of Hon. Don Young and Hon. John Dingell
follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and
Chairman, Committee on Resources
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you for scheduling this
hearing on H.R. 511, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, and H.R. 512, the New Wildlife Refuge
Authorization Act.
H.R. 511 is an improved version of a measure the House of
Representatives overwhelmingly adopted last year, and it would
be the first comprehensive refuge reform legislation since the
enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of
1966.
Our Refuge System is now comprised of 511 units located in
all 50 States and five territories. It includes 94 million
acres of Federal lands. A portion of the System has been
purchased from proceeds of duck stamps, import duties on arms
and ammunition, and refuge entrance fees.
These Federal lands provide essential habitat for thousands
of species and they offer recreational opportunities for
millions of Americans. It is important to remember that the
vast majority of our refuge lands are not national parks,
marine sanctuaries, or wilderness areas. They are multi-use
lands.
While my legislation has sparked a lively debate on the
future of our Refuge System, it is essential that the public
understand that H.R. 511 is modest, pro-environment
legislation.
The fundamental goals of this bill are:
First, to provide for the first time a nationwide set of
six purposes for our Refuge System--to establish a nationwide
network of lands to conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and
plants; to conserve, manage, and restore fish and wildlife
populations, plant communities, and refuge habitats; to
conserve and manage migratory birds, anadromous fish, and
marine mammals; to allow compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation, which is defined as fishing, hunting, wildlife
observation, and environmental education; and to fulfill
international treaty obligations. These are equally weighted
purposes and I am perplexed why anyone would object to the
inclusion of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
Second, my bill defines the term ``compatible use'' by
using the language the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
incorporated within their operating regulations years ago.
While a refuge manager will retain the power to determine what
is a ``compatible use'', this statutory definition should
provide the guidance needed to make the proper decision.
Third, wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed to
occur during the interim period after the land has been
acquired, but before the implementation of a management plan,
unless the refuge manager determines that those activities are
incompatible. There are a growing number of Americans who are
frustrated over the Service's refuge land acquisition process.
These Americans strongly support our Refuge System, they have
encouraged elected officials to set aside certain lands for
inclusion in the System, and they have contributed through the
purchase of certain items, like duck stamps, millions of
dollars. Sadly, they have learned that, for no rational reason,
their favorite fishing or bird watching spot has been placed
off limits during open-ended periods of government study. My
``open until closed'' provision will restore the public's faith
without undermining or delaying the completion of the necessary
management studies.
Fourth, this legislation provides that fishing and hunting
should be permitted unless a finding is made that these
activities are inconsistent with public safety, the purposes of
the specific unit, or are not based on sound fish and wildlife
management.
Fifth, H.R. 511 incorporates the President's ten
``directives'' to the Secretary of the Interior on how the
Refuge System should be managed in the future. These are
contained in his Executive Order of March 25, 1996.
Finally, the proposal requires the formulation of
conservation plans for each of the 511 refuges within 15 years
of the date of enactment. We need to know what kind of
archaeological, natural, and wildlife resources exist on these
lands. This inventory has been a goal of the environmental
community for many years.
With that brief overview, let me now tell you what H.R. 511
does not address. For instance it--
<bullet>does not permit or require hunting and fishing to
occur on every wildlife refuge. These activities must be found
``compatible'' and must meet H.R. 511's three-part test;
<bullet>does not affect Federal, State, or local water
rights. This bill does not limit the ability of the Federal
Government to secure water for a refuge;
<bullet>does not facilitate nonwildlife-dependent uses such
as grazing, farming, mining, or oil and gas development. As
under current law, nonwildlife-dependent uses may continue to
occur when they are found to be compatible. This bill does not
mandate, enhance, or protect such uses;
<bullet>does not increase or decrease the size of any of
the 511 refuge units;
<bullet>does not limit the Service's ability to regulate
pesticides used by row farmers or anyone else in the Refuge
System;
<bullet>does not permit the commercialization of our Refuge
System. To repeat, this bill makes only compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational uses a purpose of the System. They are
clearly defined as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and
environmental education; and
<bullet>does not limit the Fish and Wildlife Service's
ability to acquire new refuge lands.
The National Wildlife Refuge System needs to have a
statutory list of purposes, uniform guidelines to determine
what activities are permissible, comprehensive conservation
plans, and the enthusiastic support of the American people who
finance this System with their hard-earned tax dollars.
These are the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. This bill is supported by many
organizations, and it will ensure that our Nation's Refuge
System is managed more effectively in the future. It is a sound
piece of conservation legislation that reaffirms the legacy of
President Theodore Roosevelt and the vision of the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our distinguished
colleagues, John Dingell, John Tanner, and Duke Cunningham, for
joining with me in sponsoring this vital legislation and for
your collective leadership in this historic effort.
Finally, I am pleased that we are obtaining testimony on
H.R. 512, the New Wildlife Refuge Authorization Act. Under the
terms of this legislation, no funds can be expended from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to create a new refuge
without prior Congressional authorization.
Currently, the U.S. Congress authorizes coastal barrier
units, flood control projects, highways, national parks, scenic
rivers, and weapon systems. In my judgment, it is now
appropriate to require Congressional authorization in those
limited circumstances when a new refuge is created with LWCF
money. This bill will not affect any additions to the existing
511 refuge units nor those created with money from Migratory
Bird Conservation Fund.
What it will do is to ensure that private property owners
and their hard-earned tax dollars are fully protected in the
future. After all, we are talking about the expenditure of
millions of dollars. I want to compliment our colleague,
Richard Pombo, for his tireless work and leadership on this
issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witnesses. I also remain hopeful that Secretary
Babbitt will soon respond to the offer John Dingell and I made
to him on December 5, 1996, to discuss those provisions in H.R.
511 that may continue to cause concern within the
Administration.
------
Testimony of the Honorable John D. Dingell, a U.S. Representative from
Michigan
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to
present testimony this morning on H.R. 511, the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. For the second
straight Congress, I am honored to have the chance to work with
my good friend and colleague, Chairman Young, who asked me to
join him in offering a bill that will meet the next generation
of needs in our growing, and in many cases troubled, refuge
system. Unfortunately, I am unable to join Chairman Young this
morning because I am accompanying President Clinton to Michigan
for his address to the Michigan State Legislature. It is my
hope to have the chance to provide him with a few good words
about our efforts.
In the past few days, I have had the chance to talk to
Chairman Young about H.R. 511, and I know he is truly committed
to passing a bill which not only makes common-sense
improvements, but that President Clinton can sign into law
without hesitation. Sensing that common ground is in reach, I
also have talked to officials from the Administration to
continue to seek their help in guidance in passing a bill in
the House that will be acceptable to both the Senate and the
President.
In the last Congress, I was a strong supporter and
cosponsor of the National Wildlife Refuge Act (H.R. 1675), a
bill which is the result of thorough consideration, debate and
consultation between all parties with a sincere and strong
interest in our National Wildlife Refuge System. While it
passed the House, there remained several problems to resolve
which probably prevented even the Senate from taking up the
measure. H.R. 511 addresses nearly every concern that has been
raised by the Administration and groups interested in the
refuge system's future. Is it a perfect bill? No. But it is a
good place to begin the discussions which can lead to enactment
of needed reforms during this Congress.
Ihave been personally involved in a number of ways with
most of our refuge system's units. I served as Chairman of the
Subcommittee from 1965 to 1974, during with time I led efforts
to pass the National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966. I have
also served for 27 years as the Democratic representative of
the House to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, where
we have worked together to acquire over 600,000 acres of
habitat for countless migratory birds and other wildlife.
Thirty-one years after passage of the Refuge Administration
Act, I am proud to see the accomplishments made as a result of
that bill. I am pleased that the System helps to recover
threatened and endangered species; for contributing to the
diversity of refuge areas; and for serving more traditional
fish and wildlife-related purposes such as hunting, fishing and
wildlife observation.
In fact, it is important to recognize the unique role that
our nation's hunters and fishermen play in providing constant
support for the expansion and maintenance of our Wildlife
Refuge System. America's sportsmen and women provide this help
not only with their votes, but also through the purchase of
duck stamps--a substantial portion of the public dollars
expended in support of the Refuge System. Last year, the
President expressed his support of the sporting community by
issuing Executive Order 12996, which recognizes sporting uses
as a priority use of the System. Having hunted with the
President, I know of his strong interest in our Refuge System
and I am pleased that he took the initiative with his Executive
Order almost one year ago. It is my hope that he, and others in
his Administration, will recognize the merits of the
legislation before us, which codifies much of that order and
gives us the opportunity to update refuge law.
H.R. 511 provides some long-sought legislative improvements
for the refuge system. For many years, environmentalists and
sportsmen and women have called for an organic act which lays
out clear purposes of the system and requires the completion of
conservation management plans for each refuge. A number of
studies by the General Accounting Office and the Fish and
Wildlife Service have found many problems on our refuges. These
problems range from overuse and toxic contamination to a lack
of funding and proper management. H.R. 511 is the result of a
thorough examination of these problems and an attempt to make
improvements in the management of the System which will require
better planning, compatible uses, and a clear list of purposes
for the System.
When Chairman Young approached me about cosponsoring this
legislation, I said yes so that Congress could give the Fish
and Wildlife Service the tools it needs to do the proper job.
There is no doubt that this bill has caused the Fish and
Wildlife Service some reservations, and I am pleased that
Secretary Babbitt has chosen to show his interest in the refuge
system by appearing before this distinguished panel today.
While some differences most certainly remain, I believe that
the gaps in thought are not insurmountable, and that surely we
can close those gaps if all parties truly want to improve the
management of the refuge system.
The largest source of remaining concern is whether hunting
and other wildlife dependent recreation should be elevated to a
purpose of the System. This issue is very important to
America's sportsmen and women. However, I believe there are
many ways to assure that the first Clinton Administration's
expansion of hunting opportunities can be preserved. Again,
there are ways in which all interested parties can find a
solution, perhaps similar to the approach put forward in the
other body during in the 103rd Congress. That approach,
introduced by Senator Graham, would create a two-tiered set of
purposes for the refuge system. This perhaps is not the perfect
solution, but to date, I have heard none better by any
reasonable party. I hope the Committee will be open to hearing
suggestions for improvements before this bill once again comes
before the full House.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by thanking Chairman
Young for working so hard to address the legitimate concerns of
mine and many others who, like me, have a strong affection for
our natural resources and work hard to assure they are
protected. That work is not done, and I look forward to having
the chance to engage the Interior Department in some productive
discussions that lead to final passage and enactment of H.R.
511. I further hope that the bill will see responsible
consideration by the other body, so that we can give the
President a bill he will gladly sign.
First and foremost, any refuge reform bill must protect
each of our 511 refuges and improve their management in a
manner consistent with the purposes for which we have created
these refuges and the refuge system. H.R. 511 meets that test,
and it provides other provisions which will ensure a continued
commitment by the Fish and Wildlife Service to species
preservation and compatible public access and use throughout
our National Wildlife Refuge System.
Mr. Saxton. The Chairman now would recognize the ranking
member if one were here. I now introduce our first panel of
witnesses, our colleague, John Tanner, who is one of the prime
original sponsors of H.R. 511. Mr. Tanner, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN TANNER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TENNESSEE
Mr. Tanner. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I want
to thank Chairman Young and Representative Dingell for their
leadership on this issue, as well. Thank you for holding this
hearing and allowing a fellow Tennessean, Mr. Gary Myers, who
is on a later panel and who is the Director of the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency, to participate today as well.
Mr. Chairman, America's National Wildlife Refuge System
includes 511 refuges and more than 92 million acres of land and
water. Five of those refuges are not only in Tennessee, but can
be found either in part or entirely in our congressional
district of Tennessee. These refuges are a treasure trove for
wildlife observation, environmental education, fishing, hunting
and the restoration of threatened or endangered species. H.R.
511 enhances the ability of the refuge system to meet those
needs and for the first time calls for detailed conservation
plans to be developed for each refuge over the next 15 years,
the time Fish and Wildlife Service officials say they need for
such purposes.
Our bill also for the first time outlines six purposes for
our refuge system, including the permission of wildlife-
dependent activity such as hunting and fishing, and may I
emphasize, only as long as those activities are compatible with
public safety and sound fish and wildlife management practices
on each particular refuge emphasis. Already hunting is
permitted on 283 refuges and fishing on 274. This is in no way
a threat to the future viability of the refuge system.
A vibrant system, on the other hand, is important to
America's sportsmen and women, particularly since they have
over the years put up roughly two-thirds of the funding used to
purchase land for the refuge system through the purchase of
Federal duck stamps, land and water conservation fund, user
fees and so on.
We passed this bill in the Congress, in the House last
year, with wide bipartisan majority. As a co-chairman of this
year's 105th Congressional Sportsmen Caucus, we would like to
see that happen again.
In no small part due to the leadership of yourself and
Chairman Young, our refuge bill enjoys broad support among
America's fish and wildlife managers and those in the sporting
community, like Ducks Unlimited, the American Sportfishing
Association and Waterfowl USA.
At this point I would like to ask that my full statement be
included in the record. Thank you all once again for your
attention to this matter.
[Statement of Hon. John Tanner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John Tanner, a U.S. Representative from Tennessee
Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Committee,
distinguished guests, I want to thank everyone for the time and
interest you all have dedicated to the future of our National
Wildlife Refuge System.
Thank you as well for allowing me the opportunity to
express my support for the future well being of our National
Wildlife Refuge System. Representatives Don Young of Alaska,
John Dingell of Michigan, James Saxton of New Jersey and myself
introduced H.R. 511, The National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 because we believe this resource must
be conserved for future generations of wildlife enthusiasts.
The leadership of Chairmen Young and Saxton on this bill and
other issues is to be applauded. What's more, I want to thank
Gary Myers, the director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency, for taking the time to join me here today. Mr. Myers,
like most of us, is an avid sportsmen concerned about the
future of not only our refuge system but our natural resources
in general.
Nearly 10 decades ago (1903), President Theodore Roosevelt,
a well known sportsman, created America's National Wildlife
Refuge System. It's been more than three decades since we last
examined the way we manage and conserve the more than 92
million acres in 511 national wildlife refuges that make up our
nation's refuge system.
America's sportsmen and women have a vested interest in the
future and well-being of our refuge system since they have
contributed roughly two-thirds of the funds used to acquire
land in our refuge system through the purchase of Federal Duck
Stamps, entrance fees, and other sportsmen's funds. As hunters,
anglers, conservationists, ornithologists, wildlife
enthusiasts, and citizens in general, we know the value of the
refuge system as a natural resource and we will continue to
play a leading role in the conservation, preservation, and
management of that invaluable natural resource.
In Tennessee, we have five National Wildlife Refuges: The
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge, The Tennessee National
Wildlife Refuge, Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge, The
Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge, and The
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which just received U.S.
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission funds to acquire 437
additional acres. These wildlife refuges are in the heart of
the Mississippi Flyway and are either in part or entirely in my
congressional district.
So I don't have to look far to see the value of this
resource to our people. Tennesseans can hunt and fish at every
one of our refuges. In addition to attracting migratory
waterfowl, all five refuges offer some of the finest turkey,
deer, and small game hunting in the state. We have Bald Eagles
nesting around Reelfoot Lake, which was created in 1811 and
1812 by two earthquakes. Down at the Hatchie National Wildlife
Refuge, Marvin Nichols is pushing a program called Project Fish
to promote fishing among disabled and elderly citizens that is
spreading beyond West Tennessee. It is a program aimed at
developing the kinds of access these anglers need to not only
continue fishing, but possibly to begin participating for the
first time in this American tradition. This is one stop on the
Hatchie Refuge's environmental education tour. Marvin Nichols
has marshalled the resources only possible through a public
private partnership to promote Project Fish and make it work
for our citizens.
Knowing all of that, it is my view that this bill is needed
to focus on the future of our refuge system so that our
children's children will be able to benefit from this resource
much the same way we have benefitted. It is the first
significant reform since the enactment of the National Wildlife
Refuge Administration Act of 1966, which was written by our
colleague Representative John Dingell of Michigan. Mr. Dingell,
whose father was the driving force behind the Dingell-Johnson
Wallop-Breaux sport fishing trust fund, knows the value of our
natural resources and the contributions America's sportsmen and
women make to preserving and conserving that resource. His
knowledge and experience is invaluable.
So when Messrs. Young, Dingell, and Saxton, introduced this
bill two years ago, The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus was an
early proponent because of the focus for the first time on
system-wide requirements for the development of conservation
plans and the delineation of a consistent set of purposes for
our refuge system. As a co-chairman of The Sportsmen's Caucus,
I can say today the Caucus is again joining other organizations
including the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, Ducks Unlimited, Quail Unlimited, Waterfowl U.S.A.,
the American Sportfishing Association, the Wildlife Legislative
Fund of America, the North American Waterfowl Federation,
Safari Club International, and many others, who support the
legislation's goals. Indeed, the measure was approved in the
House last year with broad bipartisan support by a vote of 287
to 138.
The Young-Dingell-Saxton-Tanner National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 will bring some needed focus to
ensuring a bright future for America's 511 refuges. I would add
here that I believe President Clinton took a positive step with
the executive order he issued this past spring. However, little
certainty is ensured with an executive order that can be
reversed over night. Therefore, the need for this legislative
step continues to exist.
Right now, detailed conservation plans are not required on
our nation's refuges. This bill requires refuge managers for
the first time to develop detailed conservation plans for their
refuges and gives them the time and flexibility to do this in
ways that will most benefit each individual refuge.
H.R. 511 also for the first time sets a list of purposes
for our refuge system. First, the refuge system must be managed
as a national network of lands and waters designed to conserve
and manage fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Second,
it must be a tool to restore and recover threatened or
endangered species. Third, we must abide by our obligations
under international treaties relative to the conservation of
fish and wildlife. Fourth, our refuge system must be managed to
protect and conserve migratory birds and waterfowl. Fifth, it
must be used as a resource to protect marine mammals and
interjurisdictional fish species. And finally, it should be
managed to provide opportunities for compatible wildlife
dependent activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, and environmental education.
Today, hunting is already permitted on 283 national
wildlife refuges, and fishing is permitted on 274 national
wildlife refuges. This is all done considering public safety
and sound fish and wildlife management practices, which
America's 15 million hunters and 30 million anglers support.
We statutorily define compatible use using the same
definition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has relied upon
for decades. H.R. 511 calls for hunting and fishing to be
permitted on newly acquired refuges until and unless a finding
is made that these activities are inconsistent with public
safety, sound fish and wildlife management, or the overall
purpose of the refuge. It also gives the Interior Secretary the
authority to halt any recreational use at any time if it is
found to be inconsistent with the management of the refuge.
The legislation codifies the President's Executive Order
issued on March 25, 1996, regarding the National Wildlife
Refuge System. And it requires the development of conservation
plans for each of America's 511 wildlife refuges within 15
years, which is the time Fish and Wildlife Service managers
have said they need to complete such an ambitious task.
Before I close I want to mention a few things that this
bill does not do.
First, it does not permit hunting and fishing on every
national wildlife refuge. These activities must be deemed
compatible with the management of each individual refuge and
sound fish and wildlife management practices. No one believes
you should necessarily be allowed to hunt in the John Heinz
National Wildlife Refuge that is inside Philadelphia's city
limits.
Second, it does not effect local, state, or federal water
rights and it does not limit the federal government Is ability
to secure water for a refuge.
Third, it does not facilitate nonwildlife-denendent
activities like grazing, mining, jet-skiing, or oil and gas
development.
Fourth, it does not allow the use of unapproved pesticides
or permit the commercialization of our treasured wildlife
refuge system.
And finally, it does not prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service from acquiring new lands for the refuge system, nor
does it increase or decrease the size of any existing refuge
unit.
More than a year ago I asked Gary Myers and his staff at
the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, one of America's
premiere fish and wildlife agencies, to review the refuge bill.
When he wrote to me after the review, he told me, ``It would be
extremely beneficial for Congress to identify wildlife-
dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, as an
objective of the Refuge System. We feel this legislation will
address important issues which will provide direction for the
operation of our National Wildlife Refuge System.''
I could not have said it better. We have the finest
collection of natural resources within America's National
Wildlife Refuge System. This bill will ensure the collection of
lands and waterways continues to be the finest in the world.
Iwould urge my colleagues on the committee to favorably
report this bill. What's more, I would urge my colleagues in
The Sportsmen's Caucus specifically and the House generally to
continue their support of the measure and I look forward to its
passage in the House this year with the same broad bipartisan
support it enjoyed last year.
Finally, Chairman Saxton, Chairman Young . . . your
leadership on this issue cannot be overlooked or overemphasized
in this process. The work that both of you as well as Mr.
Dingell have done to preserve our refuge system for future
generations is to be applauded not only because it is important
to protect this resource, but also because it preserves the
legacy of President Teddy Roosevelt who had the vision and saw
the need for such a treasure in the first place.
I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the work of
Harry Burroughs, the Wildlife, Fisheries and Oceans
Subcommittee's staff director.
Thank you for allowing me to participate in today's
hearing.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Tanner. I don't believe any of
the Members have questions at this point, unless I am wrong. We
thank you very much for coming to support the bill, which
several of us here have cosponsored.
Mr. Tanner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I once again thank
you for your time and attention to this matter. And I am glad
to see your ranking member showed up.
Mr. Saxton. He is a great American, too.
Mr. Tanner. He adds a lot to the dais, I know.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Tanner. It is always a
pleasure to see you. I am glad you could take out time from
your very busy schedule, your more arduous duties, to come over
here and spend a little time with some of us lesser mortals.
Mr. Tanner. Always a pleasure. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. We are going to move on, thank you very much.
We are going to move now to our next panel. And of course if
Secretary Babbitt would come forward. And when you are ready,
Mr. Secretary, we will be more than happy to hear your
testimony. I would just like to say, Mr. Secretary, a special
welcome to you. I know how hard you work at your job, and I
would just say that I know this is in some quarters a
controversial bill. And it reminds me of four years ago when
President Clinton was elected. The reporters all called and
asked well, you served with President Reagan and President
Bush, how do you suppose it will be serving with a Democrat in
the White House. And I said well, it is my job to try to find
areas where we can agree. So I hope that this is one of the
areas where we can find enough provisions in common, so that we
can have a meaningful wildlife refuge bill. So, sir, if I may
turn to you at this point for your testimony.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, just before the Secretary
begins, may I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
statement by the ranking member, Mr. Miller, on H.R. 511 and
H.R. 12?
Mr. Saxton. Without objection.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much.
[Statement of Hon. George Miller follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Miller, a U.S. Representative from California
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have scheduled this
hearing to discuss two bills affecting wildlife refuges. I
would like to bring to your attention another bill that I
believe will make an important contribution to the debate about
the future of our wildlife refuges. As you may be aware,
yesterday I introduced the Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy
Act. Unlike H.R. 511, my bill clearly reaffirms President
Roosevelt's original intent in establishing our first wildlife
refuge in 1903--to conserve fish and wildlife for the enjoyment
of present and future generations.
I oppose H.R. 511 because it would fundamentally alter the
purpose and undermine the conservation mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. In the last Congress, a vote against a
very similar bill, H.R. 1675, was counted by the nonpartisan
League of Conservation Voters as one of the key environmental
votes of 1996.
H.R. 511 would undermine wildlife conservation on our
refuges by elevating hunting, trapping, and other forms of
recreation to a purpose of the System co-equal to conservation.
But Members and the public should not be led to believe that
this is a philosophical debate about whether hunting should be
a purpose of the Refuge System, because H.R. 511 would also
restrict the ability of the wildlife management professionals
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service properly to manage
recreational activities. Hunting, if properly controlled, is an
important tool in the kit of the wildlife manager. However, if
not managed properly, it can rapidly deplete wildlife
populations.
The Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy Act, on the other
hand, reaffirms conservation as the purpose of the Refuge
System and establishes an objective process for evaluating
whether recreational activities are compatible with wildlife
conservation. It recognizes wildlife dependent recreation,
including wildlife observation, hunting, and fishing, as
priority uses of the System, but ensures that they are
subordinate to conservation goals.
While the National Wildlife Refuge System provides world
class opportunities for hunting and other outdoor recreation,
which I support, the approach taken in H.R. 511 is dead wrong.
The overwhelming majority of visitors to our wildlife refuges
come not to hunt or trap, but to observe and enjoy nature in
other ways. Yet those who do wish to hunt and fish enjoy broad
access to refuge lands; in fact, over half of all refuges
(comprising more than 90% of the System's acreage) already
permit these recreational uses.
To ensure that all Americans continue to get a fair return
on their investment in the National Wildlife Refuge System, all
activities on wildlife refuges must be held to the same
standard. Anything less serves special interests at the expense
of the greater public good. H.R. 511 is a solution in search of
a problem, and that solution will undermine 94 years of fish
and wildlife conservation.
In 1903, President Roosevelt had the foresight to set aside
a place--a small place--where wildlife came first. We should
maintain a place in our increasingly crowded world where there
is room for people, but where wildlife comes first. That place
is the National Wildlife Refuge System and we should keep it
that way.
I look forward to hearing the testimony today from our
distinguished witnesses.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, committee members, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to testify
on H.R. 511 and H.R. 512. I would like to state at the outset
in a spirit of frankness and candor that I am strongly opposed
to both of these bills, and I would be compelled to recommend
that the President veto either one or both if they are enacted
in their present form. But let me also say that I have spoken
in some length to Congressman Dingell yesterday morning, and I
promised him that in his absence as he goes to Michigan with
the President that I would explain my objections carefully to
this committee and that I would do that in hopes that, as
Chairman Saxton suggests, that perhaps we can eventually work
out our differences and in fact produce legislation that would
strengthen and improve our wildlife refuge system.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's greatest
system of lands dedicated to the conservation of fish and
wildlife. It is a system uniquely American in its origins,
founded on the notion that in a country as bountiful, diverse,
and large as ours there ought to be special places that are set
aside exclusively for the conservation of our common heritage
of fish and wildlife and natural resources. These, of course,
are the National Wildlife Refuges. Unlike other areas where
wildlife is shunted aside by the relentless forces of the
bulldozer, the chain saw, and the plow, the conservation of
wild creatures, large and small, reigns supreme in wildlife
refuges. In these refuges conservation needs of wildlife are
paramount.
The central, over-arching purpose of this system is, and
should be, the conservation of fish and wildlife and their
habitat. If we do that job well, then there will be ample
opportunity for compatible recreational uses which depend on
diverse and abundant wildlife. Wildlife conservation, Mr.
Chairman, is our purpose. It has been for 100 years. It was
when Theodore Roosevelt established Pelican Island and it has
been ever since. Compatible recreational uses are the benefits
that flow from our success in carrying out the over-arching
purpose of the system.
Now I emphasize this distinction, because this is where
H.R. 511 and I part company. The bill scrambles the crucial
distinction between purpose and use. It has been at the heart
of the refuge philosophy ever since the days of Theodore
Roosevelt. It does that by mixing hunting and fishing, wildlife
observation, and environmental education as ``purposes'' rather
than what they truly are, which is uses of the refuge system.
Section 4(a)(3) of this bill effectively elevates recreational
uses to mandatory parity with the traditional over-arching
conservation purpose of the refuge system.
What are the implications of that? Well, let me explain.
This bill, as I read it, would give the groups mentioned in
Section 4(a)(3)--that is hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, and environmental education--it would give all of
those groups a statutory right to sue each other for materially
affecting the ability of any of those other users to use a
refuge. In other words, under this bill a bird watcher now has
a statutory right to go to court and to sue a duck hunter under
Section 6, simply claiming that the hunter is materially
interfering with the bird watcher's right, which is a protected
purpose of the refuge under Section 3.
Similarly, under this bill the duck hunter now has the
statutory right to sue, to go to court, to stop children from
participating in any environmental education program that might
in any way materially affect the rights conferred by this bill
on the duck hunter. The duck hunter could sue bird watchers
from observing migratory birds on the refuge. Hunters now have
the right to sue fishermen. Fishermen now have a right to sue
hunters. The combinations are nearly as endless as the lawyers
looking for work.
Now I am quite certain, Mr. Chairman, that you and the
members of this committee did not intend this result. And I
don't think the drafters did either, but the fact is that it
illustrates a fundamental defect of this bill by attempting to
deprive refuge managers of sound discretion and to substitute a
detailed system of statutory micro management. What it does is
imports lawyers and judges ever more deeply into the management
of our national wildlife refuge system. Now I should also note
that Section 6, which provides that--and I quote. ``When
managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and
wildlife management,'' hunting, along with fishing, wildlife
observation, and environmental education, in a refuge is
``generally a compatible use.''
Now when you take that phrase with the definition of
management in Section 3, this section could amount to a
statutory presumption that all wildlife refuges shall be open
to hunting, including the John Heinz Wildlife Refuge in the
city limits of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, including the
Balcones Refuge inside Austin, Texas, including Rancho San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge in the city limits of the city
of San Diego.
Now undoubtedly some will cast H.R. 511 as a litmus test of
support for hunting and fishing, but let me say to you clearly
this debate isn't about hunting or fishing on wildlife refuges.
It is about two fundamental contrasting philosophies on how we
are going to manage these wildlife refuges. And it is in that
respect that I must remain true to the tradition of Theodore
Roosevelt and the sportsmen and sportswomen who have helped to
build this system.
Mr. Chairman, if you were to suggest to me that bird
watching should be a statutory purpose of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, I say no. Wildlife photography, I say no.
Conservation education, I say no.
It is not because I am opposed to any of these uses. To the
contrary, I enthusiastically support all of them, including
hunting and fishing. But I believe that the statutory purpose
of the refuge system is, and must remain, singular, the
conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitat.
Now, incidentally, this is not a new debate. Back in 1968
under one of my predecessors a departmental committee on
wildlife management, now known in the history books as the
Leopold Committee, named after its Chairman, Starker Leopold,
addressed this same issue. And I would like to just quote from
their conclusion, because it rings true today as it did in
1968. And I quote. ``We concur that recreation on the refuges
should in all cases be secondary to the primary purpose of
management for wildlife enhancement, and under no circumstances
should general recreation be permitted to interfere with this
primary dedication.''
Now the advice of the Leopold Committee has been followed
by the department ever since. And I would like to just point to
the results of this management success, because as a result of
that success wildlife-dependent recreation like hunting, bird
watching and fishing is flourishing in our refuges. Among our
509 refuges, 285 allow hunting; 276 allow fishing. More refuge
lands and waters are being opened to these uses each year.
Let me give you just one example. Last year, 1996, the list
of refuges opened to recreational fishing grew by 12. New
hunting programs were begun on nine refuges. That is just last
year. Since I became Secretary of the Interior, 24 new refuge
hunting programs have been initiated. Also in the past year the
Fish and Wildlife Service has begun new refuge partnerships
with groups as diverse as the National Audubon Society, the
Safari Club International, the North American Photography
Association. These agreements will directly support management
activities. They will increase volunteerism and, of course,
promote compatible recreational use.
The Service has also embarked on an ambitious Friends
Initiative in cooperation with the National Wildlife Refuge
Association. These efforts will provide a framework for
interested private citizens to become involved and to become
active participants in refuge management.
Mr. Chairman, just a word about the President's 1998
budget. In our budget we have asked resources for the Service
to develop comprehensive management plans for all of our
refuges within the next eight years. This effort will obviously
involve unprecedented numbers of Americans in the management of
our refuge lands.
Mr. Chairman, we have also worked hard to eliminate
unnecessary impediments to allowing compatible wildlife-
dependent recreation within refuges. For example, we have
addressed an issue which you raised and called to our attention
in a prior hearing. I think it was last year. Previously when
new areas were added to the refuge system they were often
closed to public use for long periods of time while the Fish
and Wildlife Service completed planning for the area.
Now Mollie Beattie made a commitment to you that we would
address that, because we understood the dislocation caused by
terminating recreational uses for this period of time only to
bring them back up after a long, elaborate process created a
lot of misunderstanding and really wasn't necessary. So we
published a new policy requiring preacquisition consideration
of existing recreational uses. And through this policy the Fish
and Wildlife Service will make interim determinations of
compatibility for ongoing recreational uses prior to the area
being acquired for the refuge system. And that in turn will
avoid the immediate closure of refuge areas upon acquisition
and will inform the public prior to acquisition as to which
wildlife-dependent recreational uses will be allowed to
continue on newly acquired lands.
As in other areas of our work in the department, this
amounts to a no-surprises policy. It makes good sense and, I
think, ultimately generates good will and makes good neighbors.
I could talk about many other positive things that are
happening within the refuge system, new and enhanced
partnerships, a renewed commitment to strengthening the
system's biological management, the continued elimination of
incompatible uses and so on.
These things didn't just happen. On March 25, 1996,
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12966 on Management
and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
This Executive Order, the first one ever issued regarding the
management of the refuge system, establishes a clear and
singular mission for the refuge system. And I quote, ``to
preserve a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation and management of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources of the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations.'' To carry out this mission and principles,
the Executive Order has a detailed list of directives, which
are in fact being implemented.
Now one of these directives particularly relevant to our
deliberations today is in the area of public use, where the
Executive Order identifies four specific classes of wildlife-
dependent uses as priority public uses for the refuge system.
They are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Where compatible and in the public interest, refuge managers
are instructed to provide increased opportunities for these
uses and to enhance the attention they receive in refuge
management and planning. Now let me, if I may, briefly compare
this conceptual approach in President Clinton's Executive Order
with the approach taken in H.R. 511.
The Executive Order maintains the crucial distinction
between wildlife conservation as refuge purpose and compatible
wildlife recreation as priority public use. It articulates a
singular and clear mission for the system, conservation. But it
recognizes that the use of our refuge lands and waters, to the
extent that such use is proper and allowable, shall be reserved
first to those recreational activities which depend and thrive
on abundant populations of fish and wildlife. The obligation of
the refuge manager is thus made clear; wildlife conservation is
foremost. Where recreational activity is appropriate, let
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and
fishing, come first.
My earlier comments illustrate how this concept is in fact
working on the ground level. And I am submitting with this
testimony a report summarizing progress over the first year of
the Executive Order's implementation.
[Statement of Bruce Babbitt may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Secretary, I wonder if we could ask Mr.
Young if he could ask his questions. He has another obligation
at 11. I wonder if we could ask you to summarize the rest of
your testimony in a minute or so.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to Mr.
Young right here. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Let me--before Mr. Young begins, let me ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Pombo be permitted and welcomed to
the Subcommittee this morning and that he be permitted to ask
questions.
Mr. Young, would you like to----
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to have
Mr. Pombo ask some of my questions. I have to go over to the
Budget Committee and justify our existence and pay the salaries
of our staff. Without doing that, I am sure, something would
really occur. That is the reason I have to go.
Mr. Secretary, unfortunately, I had hoped that you would
have come in support of this legislation or had some
suggestions. I understand your reasoning. One of the things,
though, that bothers me, is on what authority do you think the
special interests could sue one another or the U.S. Government
under this bill? You cite that quite heavily. Is there any case
law or precedent that has occurred? And if so, would you
suggest legislation or language that would prevent special
interests from getting into a dog fight over the refuge lands.
Mr. Babbitt. Well, Mr. Chairman, the problem, as I
explained, is that the groups accorded priority use, hunters,
fishermen, wildlife observation, whatever that language is, are
all accorded a pre-
ferred right, but then if you go to Section 6, those rights are
asserted only to the extent that they do not materially
interfere with the right of another preferred class whose use
is defined as a purpose of the refuge system.
Mr. Young. OK, now you----
Mr. Babbitt. That means they can all sue each other.
Mr. Young. I am about out of time. What I am suggesting,
though, why--and I think we can. I think the committee would
agree we can avoid those lawsuits.
Mr. Babbitt. Well----
Mr. Young. We can write it in there so they can't sue,
because the purpose of this bill--frankly, this would never
have come up if it hadn't been for a few refuges that the
refuge manager decided on his own, without justification, that
hunting and fishing was not to be allowed. And my purpose in
this legislation is--and I have told you this before, is to
maintain the strength and the vigor of the refuge system. You
will not support it with bird watchers. You will not support it
with those that believe hunting and fishing is not compatible,
because we created those refuges. That is where Mr. Dingell and
I agree. We created them.
And we have got to somehow put in legislation, not at your
discretion, not at your management discretion, that the
priority use--unless there is another reason, that hunting and
fishing is the action of the refuge. Now you can shut it down
right here on page 13. The Secretary shall permit fishing and
hunting on refuges if the Secretary determines that the
activities are consistent with the principle of sound fish and
wildlife management, are compatible with, consistent with, the
purpose of the system under the subsection which excludes those
areas such as San Diego and downtown New York. You have that
authority, but the priority reason for this legislation is
basically like your Executive Order. But that is at your
discretion.
Now why couldn't we write into this legislation that there
can't be lawsuits?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the
lawyers that drafted this bill have made a fundamental mistake.
They want a statute which sets out statutory micro management
of the refuges. There is no way that you can prevent that from
degenerating into litigation. And we are going to have judges
sort of----
Mr. Young. All due respect----
Mr. Babbitt. [continuing]--running these refuges.
Mr. Young. All due respect, we can write this legislation
if you will help us, advise us, because that is primarily your
reason for objecting to it, so lawsuits cannot take place and
still recognize the value of the refuge. I mean, I--when I look
what happened in Oklahoma, it was a classic example of that.
That is a ridiculous situation when that was supported by the
people there and then by arbitrary decision the Fish and
Wildlife Service manager said no. We finally removed that
manager, by the way. Mollie Beattie helped achieve that. But I
am saying that is an incorrect position to take and we are
trying to avoid that in the future.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, if I may, two thoughts. First of
all, look at the numbers of refuges that have been opened.
Secondly, I sat in several Congressmen's offices with Mollie
Beattie dealing with that refuge issue. Now with all due
respect, that is an appropriate way to deal with a refuge
dispute. If a Congressman representing a district says I
believe a wildlife manager is abusing his discretion, that
Congressman ought to call the Secretary of the Interior and the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service over to his office,
and keelhaul them until one side or the other prevails. That is
what this process is about in this town.
Mr. Young. Well, see, we disagree on that. Our refuges were
set up by acts of Congress with the support of the fishing and
hunting groups, you know, and I keep hearing people refer to
Teddy Roosevelt. I have got a picture of Teddy Roosevelt
standing over one of your endangered rhinos now. And his
statement was in civilized and cultivated countries wild
animals only continue to exist with all that will be preserved
by the sportsmen.
[The picture may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Babbitt. I agree with you.
Mr. Young. I am tired of hearing Teddy Roosevelt being cast
as the white knight in shining armor, as if he never
participated in the actual harvesting or management of fish and
wildlife. And I don't think it should be at the discretion of
some individual that is a government appointee or a
professional who says I don't like hunting and fishing and he
can shut it down. In the meantime we have got a year delay.
We have got a picture of the founder of the Audubon
Society, John James Audubon, down in the White House. We have
got him standing there with a nice flintlock rifle across his
arm, because he was a hunter.
[The picture may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Young. But for some reason we are getting this attitude
in hunting--you say you support it. Maybe you do. I am not
sure. But I am a little bit convinced that some of your
professional people don't think--I have had people on this
committee say that we ought to save all the fish and wildlife
on these refuges because the refuges are for fish and wildlife,
period. They weren't created for that. They were created for
fish and wildlife, but with the support and the involvement of
man. And that is all we are trying to do in this legislation.
And we will pass it. You may recommend a veto, but it will
pass, I think, by about 300 votes. And we will see what happens
as far as a veto.
I don't have much more time, Mr. Chairman. I will ask Mr.
Pombo, if he would, to ask my remaining questions because he
has some time. And I will give you the rest of my time, Mr.
Pombo.
Mr. Saxton. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, I will yield time to Mr.
Pombo to finish whatever questions Mr. Young needed to have
asked.
Mr. Pombo. Well, I thank you. I thank you, the ranking
member, for yielding. Mr. Young had a number of questions, Mr.
Secretary, that he wanted answers to.
In September of '94 when you appeared before the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and in response to questions
from Representatives Billy Tauzin and Bart Stupak, you stated
that wildlife refuge units ought to be open for hunting and
fishing in the absence of a good reason to close them. H.R. 511
includes exactly that kind of presumption. Do you still support
building that kind of presumption into the law?
Mr. Babbitt. Not in the language of this bill.
Mr. Pombo. How would you do it?
Mr. Babbitt. In language which begins with the President's
Executive Order of last year.
Mr. Pombo. That begins with that. How would you complete
that?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, let us look at it. Let me see if I can
find it.
The President's Executive Order makes the distinction that
I talked about in my testimony. And beneath the definition of
the purpose of the refuge it has guiding principles and
directions. Now, let us look through those. First is public
use. It provides important opportunities for hunting and
fishing. Now let us go to directives, because that is the third
tier. Under directives, A, it says recognize compatible
wildlife-dependent activities, including hunting and fishing;
B, provide expanded opportunities for these priority public
uses; C, ensure that such public priority uses, including
hunting, receive enhanced attention in planning and managing.
Mr. Pombo. Just to make that clear, all of the directives
that you are stating that were in the Executive Order are
included in the bill.
Mr. Babbitt. Well, then I support those if they are
included in this form. I supported them when they were put in
the President's Executive Order. Matter of fact, I even had a
hand in writing them, therefore I support them.
Mr. Pombo. The dispute or the part that you don't like,
then, is over the purposes section of the bill, then. And it is
not over the directives. It is not over the bulk of the bill.
It is over the purposes section of the bill.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Pombo, when I spoke with Congressman
Dingell yesterday, he said to me can we find common ground. And
what I said to him I say to you. I said, Mr. Congressman, I
believe that we ought to try, but I have two fundamental
objections to this bill. One is, as I have explained, this
business of departing from wildlife conservation as the central
purpose of wildlife refuges. The President's order makes that
distinction, and I think it is important. The second one is
this, conferring legal rights on all the priority users to file
lawsuits and let the courts determine who has which priority
over other users whenever there is a conflict. I think that is
really wrong headed.
Mr. Pombo. In the bill, the primary purpose of the fish and
wildlife system, it states the overall mission of the system is
to conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats within the system for the benefit of present and
future generations of the people of the United States. And then
there are six purposes which follow that which I believe is
where you object to that, but it does say that the overall
mission--I think you would agree with that part of it.
Mr. Babbitt. Well, in fact some of that language is taken
directly from the President's Executive Order.
Mr. Pombo. Correct.
Mr. Babbitt. The problem is that this thing is an omelet.
It scrambles very badly. And the reason it does that is because
when people go to court, Mr. Congressman, over this bill,
everybody is going to move right past the mission statement.
Mission statement is really sort of like a statement of
legislative intent that you always put in front of bills.
Judges never pay any attention to that. They go to the hard
language. And the hard language is what you call purposes. And
you mix--you know, you throw everything but the kitchen sink
into your purpose section. And by doing that, you are giving
them coequal priority as an initial presumption.
Mr. Pombo. Are you in favor of limiting the citizen suits?
Are you concerned about citizen suits in other areas under your
jurisdiction as you are in this jurisdiction?
Mr. Babbitt. No, the citizen suits are a legitimate part of
this democracy, and, of course, you know, citizens should have
access to the courts. All I am saying is I find it ironic that
you are drafting a bill which is going to omit litigation by
conferring statutory entitlements on duck hunters, hunters,
wildlife observation, bird watchers, and photographers to sue
each other because they are going to have a specific bill which
says I am entitled to my use as a purpose of the refuge and
anybody who materially interferes with my use is going to be
subject to judicial injunction. That is what the bill says.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Secretary, I think you are--and I am not an
attorney, but I think you are reading a lot more into that
provision than is actually there. I think that there are
specific things within a number of pieces of legislation which
have resulted in citizen suits occurring. And I think that in
this particular instance you are reading a little bit more into
that part. I would like to move on, if we can.
In the bill, it provides that the refuge unit should be
open to fishing and hunting unless these traditional activities
are inconsistent with the purpose of the specific refuge unit,
inconsistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife
management or inconsistent with public safety. Are these the
kind of good reasons to close a refuge unit that you referred
to in your caucus presentation? Can you support at least this
section of H.R. 511?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, frankly, Mr. Congressman, that section
is all scrambled up, too, because it says inconsistent with the
purpose. Then you have got to go back and read the six
purposes. They are all poured into that segment, so, you know,
it circles. The snake swallows its tail in that section.
Now, the problem with the sound management is you have got
to look at the definition of management in Section 3. And when
you add it all up, it sort of circles right back to a statement
that there is a presumption that hunting and fishing is to be
allowed. And I don't think that is an appropriate way to manage
a wildlife refuge, to set forth that kind of presumption.
Mr. Pombo. In this particular section they are talking
about the purpose of the individual wildlife refuge, and that
is what they are referring to there. When you establish--
according to the provisions in this bill, when you establish a
wildlife refuge and the management of that, it is at the
Secretary's discretion. As the Chairman read to you from the
bill earlier, the Secretary still has broad discretion in
establishing what is a compatible use within each indi-
vidual unit. And what this is referring to is the individual
management of that particular refuge.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Pombo, there are two problems. One is that
there is going to be litigation over the extent to which my
discretion in an individual refuge is limited by the purposes
which are set out at such length in that section. Secondly
there is in Section 6 a presumption that hunting would be
allowed. Now, will that lead to hunting in the John Heinz
Refuge inside the city limits of Philadelphia? Well, maybe not,
but I guarantee you there will be a lawsuit and a judge will
finally be ruling on that, and I don't think that is a good way
to run this system.
Mr. Pombo. I don't believe that that would be a compatible
use with that refuge, and I don't foresee any Secretary of the
Interior ever finding that a compatible use, and I don't see
any judge ever determining that that is a compatible use with
that particular refuge, just as the other refuges that you
mentioned that are within city limits or within urban or
suburban areas. No one would ever find that that was a
compatible use, so that is kind of just something that has been
put out there as a scare tactic, and it really has very little
to do with the management of our wildlife refuges.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Pombo, I respectfully, completely
disagree.
Mr. Pombo. You believe that a Secretary of the Interior
would find that hunting within those refuges would be a
compatible use of that refuge?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, this Secretary will not. What James Watt
or his successors will determine, I think, is open to a
considerable amount of discussion.
Mr. Pombo. Did he propose using that as hunting within that
wildlife refuge when he was Secretary of the Interior?
Mr. Babbitt. I have no idea.
Mr. Pombo. I think that is way out of line in terms of what
we are talking about today.
Another question that Mr. Young had was that America's
anglers and hunters have been our nation's best supporters of
the refuge system, contributing millions of dollars to land
acquisition and operations of the refuges. Through this bill,
we are seeking to recognize this contribution, provide the
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation as a purpose of the
refuge system, and protect these environmentally benign
traditional activities from those who would protest that. Why
are you opposed to affording the sporting community this
recognition and legal protection?
Mr. Babbitt. I agree with the first sentence of Mr. Young's
question. Hunters and fishermen have been the single strongest
constituency of the National Wildlife Refuge System for 100
years. Now the reason I disagree with the second part is I
don't see how you are helping hunters and fishermen by
conferring on bird watchers a statutory entitlement to go to
court to restrain hunting and fishing whenever it materially
interferes with the rights of bird watchers.
Mr. Pombo. I think----
Mr. Babbitt. I don't think that is helping hunters at all.
Mr. Pombo. [continuing]--we have an honest disagreement. I
think that there--that the authors of the bill have a
disagreement over that part of it. And it seems that your
opposition to this bill is centered around that part. Maybe
they can work with the attorneys to figure out a way to change
your opposition.
H.R. 511 outlines six purposes for the refuge system,
conservation of fish and wildlife and related habitat; number
two, to restore where appropriate fish and wildlife and related
habitats; number three, to conserve migratory birds and
fisheries; number four, to conserve and restore endangered
species; number five, to fulfill conservation treaty
obligations; and number six, to provide opportunities for
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Are endangered
species found within the 511 refuge units?
Mr. Babbitt. Yes.
Mr. Pombo. Are migratory birds found on all 511 units?
Mr. Babbitt. No.
Mr. Pombo. Do all 511 units have a direct relationship to
our treaty obligations?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, it depends upon--look, there are a lot
of treaties. To the extent that migratory birds are found on
all 511, I said no because you had said all. And, you know,
migratory birds are found on most wildlife refuges, but whether
they are found on all 511, I respectfully defer to
knowledgeable people. Now to the extent that they are,
obviously there are treaty obligations.
Mr. Pombo. Are fisheries an important part of all refuge
units?
Mr. Babbitt. No.
Mr. Pombo. If these----
Mr. Babbitt. That is a lot of refuge units----
Mr. Pombo. Yes.
Mr. Babbitt. [continuing]--that don't have enough water on
them to support a fish.
Mr. Pombo. If these purposes are not applicable to all
refuge units, should they be specified purposes in this or in
any refuge bill?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, let me just say that the public priority
uses that are spelled out in the bill, uses, I think are
absolutely appropriate. I agree with them.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pombo, with the vote on,
the yielding of my time, do you suppose that we could perhaps
have some of the other members ask some of these questions and
we move on?
Mr. Saxton. Well, let me interrupt for just--Richard, how
many more questions do you have? One more question?
Mr. Pombo. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Secretary, what is your time like, your
requirement of time?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I am here at your disposal. I
will be prepared to stay until sunset and beyond.
Mr. Saxton. Well, I hope we don't do that. Mr. Pombo, do
you want to conclude your questioning, then, prior to the time
we go to vote?
Mr. Pombo. Sure.
Mr. Saxton. OK, thank you.
Mr. Pombo. I have a final question here, Mr. Secretary,
from the Chairman. Are you aware of these provisions in the
bill, one, that nothing in this act shall affect any water
right in existence on the date of the enactment of the act, and
two, quantity on refuge units, nothing in this act shall affect
any Federal or State law in existence on the date of enactment
of this act regarding water quality or quantity?
Mr. Babbitt. Yes.
Mr. Pombo. Isn't it misleading to contend that H.R. 511
would strip refuges of water rights?
Mr. Babbitt. I would be happy to answer that in writing,
Mr. Pombo. I do not believe that the language entirely disposes
of this issue. I read the language. I recognize the intent of
the draft. I am not certain that it achieves that affect. And I
would like to explain that in writing, if I may.
Mr. Pombo. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The following was received:]
Refuge Water Rights
I did raise a concern regarding the Committee Report for
the predecessor bill in the last Congress, H.R. 1675. In my
letters to Chairman Young on that bill as reported, and as
brought to the House Floor, I stated that Committee Report
language could be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating
refuge water rights.
Subsequent to that, Chairman Young and Congressman Dingell
held an extension colloquy during House consideration of the
bill (April 24 Congressional Record, Page H3773) stating that
this was not the intend and that the bill should not be so
interpreted.
That colloquy effectively resolved the issue insofar as
H.R. 1675 was concerned. Since there has been no Committee
Report on H.R. 511, the issue has not arisen, and I would
strongly hope that in light of last year's Young-Dingell
colloquy, it will not do so in the future.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Secretary and Mr. Pombo, it seems to me
that there has been an expression on Mr. Young's part and on
the Secretary's part and certainly on my part and, I think, Mr.
Pombo's part that we would like to look at some of these issues
to see if in fact there is common ground. We have got a bill
which we can pass. The Secretary, I think, is serious about the
veto. And it seems to me that perhaps outside of the forum of
this hearing we could get together and talk about some of these
issues and see if, in fact, it is possible to find common
ground. And I don't know whether you are coming back after the
vote, but if we could just proceed along keeping in mind that
in the next several weeks that would be a step that I would
like to see taken. Thank you.
And we are going to go and vote on the journal, and I
understand there is a five-minute vote after the journal vote,
so we will probably be 20 or 25 minutes getting back here.
[Recess.]
Mr. Saxton. Hopefully that will be our last interruption of
the day, as that was, I believe, the last recorded vote. We are
going to proceed with questioning for Secretary Babbitt. And I
would like at this point to call on Mr. Farr, a gentleman from
California.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFRNIA
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased that we were able to have a little bit of a break,
because I couldn't believe what I was hearing or reading as I
sat here this morning. You know, we should pull ourselves away
from the bill in front of us and just think about it, in
America we have wildlife refuges. If you ask anybody in the
country what that means, they'll probably say it is the same
thing that the dictionary defines a refuge as, which is a place
providing protection or shelter; a haven. You know, until I got
elected to Congress I never knew that you could hunt on a
wildlife refuge. I don't think most Americans know that. And I
think they would be appalled to find out that you can. And if
indeed that is the purpose, then we ought to strike the name
refuge, because people do believe it is a place to provide
protection and shelter.
As I read the bill, what struck me is that this bill really
does elevate a special interest to give it a legal standing,
and I would argue that it is perhaps an even stronger legal
standing than the other purposes for which refuges were
created, which is essentially, you know, to enhance wildlife
opportunities. I have got into this issue on the water issues
in the Central Valley, which Mr. Pombo knows a lot about,
because I have been trying to protect the wetlands in the
Central Valley. And it is interesting that the Oregon and
Washington and Canadian legislators and the Mexican legislators
are very much interested in protecting that area, because it is
their game as well as ours that lands on those refuges.
What I also am surprised to have this Congress not realize
is that if you read some of the books of what is happening in
America--Megatrends is a good example--what they will tell you
is that the biggest increase in outdoor recreation is what they
call watchable wildlife. There are more people watching
wildlife than are watching national sports, a remarkable
figure.
Mr. Saxton. That is because they are watching C-Span.
Mr. Farr. So to take this legislation, and as I read it--I
am not a lawyer either, Mr. Pombo, but as I read it, it states
that one of the purposes, the new purpose of the system, is to
provide opportunities for compatible uses of refuges consisting
of fish--I am reading on page 7, line 10, of fish and wildlife-
dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting. This
overrides what the 1966 legislation intended to do, which was
to manage it for conservation and wildlife. And then when you
get into other parts of the bill, you essentially see that on
page 13 and line 3, that the Secretary shall permit fishing and
hunting on the refuge if the Secretary determines that the
activities are consistent with the principles of sound fish,
wildlife, and management and are compatible and consistent. And
then it goes on on page 16, line 7, to say that these are
generally compatible uses.
So essentially you have defined it in different parts of
the bill that there shall be fishing and hunting on these
refuges. And the question I have, is whether the refuge system
really is broke and needs fixing. And I would argue that it
ain't broke, that these use decisions are best left to
discretionary methods to determine what is appropriate. I think
it has worked well. Yes, there have been lawsuits, but there
have been lawsuits in every field, and as the Secretary said, I
don't think you are going to be able to avoid that in this
society. But to now put into law the way this bill is drafted
that these activities are almost mandatory, I think, is the
wrong step and certainly leads to the bill being a very special
interest, very special purpose bill. And I think that is
inappropriate, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I don't know that I
have any further questions at this time. I would just comment
for the record that I--I will turn to you in just a moment if I
may, Mr. Pombo. I share a concern that other members, and I
think that you have, as well, that we are able--that we
continue to be able to maintain public support for the refuge
program and the refuge system. As you know, each year at
appropriations time I run to the appropriators to try to get
money to expand the system in my district, Forsythe Refuge. And
I do that because I understand the biological need for the
refuge system. In my case it has some pretty specific purposes
and needs for migratory waterfowl and for other purposes which
I think are very, very valid.
At the same time, I recognize the growing resistance in
some quarters because of the perception of undue restrictions
from time to time when the refuge manager--and I might say not
the current one--manages to raise the hackles of a significant
part of the population surrounding the refuge. And I think that
is what concerns the members who cosponsored this bill have.
And I know that you share those concerns, as well, although you
may have a different approach to dealing with them.
So I guess I would just reiterate my request for
consideration in a different forum where maybe we can get
together and chat about common goals and different approaches
to get there. And perhaps we can find a common path that we can
follow to accomplish what we all want to accomplish.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I accept that offer, because I
believe that it should be possible to work toward a mutually
acceptable solution. And to the extent that that is an offer to
join together and try to explore those possibilities, I eagerly
accept that.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. I appreciate that very much, and I
will look forward to those conversations. I think Mr. Pombo
would like to----
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Chairman, I just was asked to ask one
follow-up question. And it deals with the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska that has in its creation a provision
in the statement of purpose to provide in a manner compatible
with these purposes opportunities for fish and wildlife-
oriented recreation. So in that instance it has a similar
purpose to what is included in this bill. And I was wondering
if the Secretary is aware of any wildlife-dependent recreation
interests that have sued under that provision that has been in
effect for 17 years.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Pombo, I am not familiar with that
situation. I would be happy to answer in writing.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The following was received:]
Co-Equal Purposes of Refuges
The current situation at Kenai is not the same as would
exist if H.R. 511 were enacted in its current form. Rather than
having recreation as a co-equal purpose, it is subordinated to
all of the conservation purposes of the refuge, and to
environmental education. Section 303(4)(B) of the Alaska
National Interest and Conservation Act (ANILCA) sets forth two
conservation purposes for the refuge and then provides:
``(iv) to provide in a manner consistent with subparagraph
(I) and (ii), opportunities for scientific research,
interpretation, environmental education, and land management
training; and
``(v) to provide, in a manner compatible with these
purposes, opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented
recreation.''
Secondly, current refuge system regulations require that we
determine recreational uses are ``practicable'', and that we
make a public interest determination when allowing hunting and
fishing on a refuge. Clearly, having two competing uses at the
same time and place is not ``practicable'', so when we decide
to give hunting a priority over wildlife observation at
specific times and places on Kenai, we have both practicability
and a public interest determination behind our decision. This
leaves little if any basis for litigation.
In contrast, H.R. 511 makes all fish- and wildlife-related
recreational uses equal purposes of the System, and
specifically provides that ``no other determinations'' are to
be made relating to hunting and fishing. This equality of uses,
reinforced by prohibitions on taking other factors into account
in making decisions, is what led to my conclusion that the
users would be able to sue over other preferred uses
interfering with their use.
Of course, it is important to note that I was speaking
figuratively when referring to groups of users suing one
another. H.R. 511 would enable the competing users to sue me
for allowing the other user to interfere with their use, not to
literally sue each other. The end result of course would be the
same; one group of users taking legal action to thwart another
group, with our managers caught in the middle, and in the
courthouse rather than in the field.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us this
morning, and we look forward to working with you in the near
future.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you.
Mr. Saxton. I would now like to introduce our third panel.
First is William Horn, Director of National and International
Affairs and Washington Counsel of Wildlife Legislative Fund of
America; Mr. Max Peterson, the Executive Vice President of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Ms.
Susan Lamson, Director of Conservation, Wildlife, and Natural
Resources Division of the National Rifle Association; and Mr.
Gary Myers, the Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency.
Welcome to all of you. We are very pleased to have you
here, some of you for--I guess I should just say some of you
again. And we look forward to hearing your testimony. And we
will begin with Mr. Horn. And incidentally, because of
constraints on our time, we will be adhering rather strictly to
the five-minute rule, and those little lights in front of you
will give you the appropriate indications. So when the red
light comes on, if you would please conclude your remarks and
at least summarize them.
Thank you very much. And, Mr. Horn, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HORN, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, WILDLIFE LEGISLATIVE FUND OF AMERICA
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am appearing today on
behalf of the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America and the 1.5
million hunters, anglers, and conservationists it represents.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear today and
present testimony to you in strong support of H.R. 511.
H.R. 511 would rectify a situation and provide finally an
organic act for the National Wildlife Refuge System as well as
clearly spell out its mission and purposes to carry it into the
21st Century. This bill is a carefully refined measure that
reflects continuing efforts begun in 1994 that have involved
the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus, this committee, the State fish and wildlife agencies,
and work by dozens of sporting conservation organizations. And
that careful work persuaded the House to pass essentially the
same bill by a lopsided bipartisan two to one majority on April
24 of 1996.
This year's measure reflects further refinement. I would
like to tell you that the WLFA supports the changes in H.R. 511
and is convinced that issues regarding land acquisition
authorization, military overflights, and the consequences of
government shutdowns ought to be dealt with in separate
measures.
The debate on this bill really boils down to one provision,
and that is Section 4(d), which states that one of the six
purposes of the refuge system is to ``provide opportunities for
compatible uses of refuges consisting of fish and wildlife-
dependent recreation, including fishing, hunting, wildlife
observation, and environmental education.'' I urge the
committee to read this provision carefully. It does not mandate
fishing and hunting on all refuges. It does require that
fishing and hunting and wildlife-dependent recreation
activities be compatible. It does not commercialize the refuge
system, nor does it eliminate or override the fundamental
wildlife conservation mission of the system.
And why is it important to have the law spell out that
compatible fishing and hunting be made a purpose of the system?
From our perspective it is very simple. The sporting community
needs a statutory shield from the animal rights extremists who
have made it their mission to terminate all fishing and hunting
on the refuge's public lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service
over the past years has had to fight off lawsuits from the
animal rights organizations seeking to end all hunting on
refuge lands.
And in virtually every Congress, bills have been introduced
to end these traditional activities on the public lands. As
Congressman Farr noted previously, there are many Americans who
have been misled by the name refuge and believe that these
lands are somehow sanctuaries that are off limits to these
traditional activities. Making these activities merely a
priority use gives America's anglers and hunters short shrift.
They should be entitled to a simple statutory declaration that
provides compatible fishing and hunting as one of the purposes
of the system. No Federal judge or no Department of the
Interior is going to be able to ignore or explain away such a
straightforward, plain-spoken declaration recognizing these
practices.
Now the behavior of many of the bill's critics also
demonstrates the need for a clear declaration along these
lines. H.R. 511 and its predecessor bill last year have been
the subject of an incredible campaign of distortion,
disinformation, and misinformation. Critics have speciously
alleged that the bill eliminates the conservation mission.
Section 4 does precisely the opposite. They have argued that
the bill mandates hunting and fishing everywhere. Section 8
does the opposite. They have argued that the bill
commercializes the refuge system or drenches the system in
pesticides or allows grazing and oil and gas and jet ski use
everywhere. My review of the bill indicates that those sections
must be written in invisible ink, because they are not present
in the bill.
Today we discover a couple of new fictions have been added.
The Administration, after three years, now discovers that
setting forth specific purposes will allow refuge users to sue
each other. I should point out and follow up, I think, on Mr.
Pombo's question, that some existing refuges, like the Kenai
unit in Alaska, have wildlife recreation as a statutory
purpose. And that has been a statutory purpose of that one unit
for 17 years. Similarly, the Service's, Fish and Wildlife
Service's, present manual sets forth the ``materially
interfere'' compatibility standard, and that has been on the
books for well over a decade.
Notwithstanding the fact that you have got language on the
books right now that is essentially similar to what is in the
bill, there have been no lawsuits that I am aware of, as a keen
observer of this program, for at least the last 16 years. I
fail to see how this bill is going to create any opportunities
for new lawsuits. I am simply convinced that this is just the
newest example of the Administration concocting creative and
tortured readings of this bill to invent new excuses to oppose
the legislation.
We appreciate the leadership you, Mr. Chairman, and the
Subcommittee have played on this legislation, and we look
forward to working with you to quickly enact H.R. 511. Thank
you.
[Statement of William Horn may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
comments. Mr. Peterson.
STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Max Peterson,
representing the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. As you know, Mr. Chairman, all 50 State fish and
wildlife agencies are members of the association. And we are
particularly pleased this morning to have the President of our
association, Mr. Duane Shroufe, with us here. He has been
working with us the last several days. And also another member
of our association, Mr. Gary Myers, the Fish and Wildlife
Director in Tennessee, who will testify separately.
Mr. Chairman, you have my written statement. If you accept
it for the record, I will try to brief it to save you some
time.
Mr. Saxton. We would appreciate that.
Mr. Peterson. We are here today to basically support H.R.
511. In doing so, I would like to thank you and Chairman Young
and Congressman Dingell for your continuing efforts in working
with us to improve the bill for the benefits of our fish and
wildlife resources, our system, and our citizens.
We appreciate the fact that H.R. 511 as written out does
not contain specific refuge management direction, which we were
concerned about in a previous version. We are also pleased that
you incorporated much of President Clinton's Executive Order
into the bill. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the
dialog earlier today, and much of what the President said in
the Executive Order--you know, he cleverly avoided the use of
the word purpose in the Executive Order. And he just--he set
forth guiding principles. Those guiding principles are the same
ones that are in this bill.
And if--as you know, Mr. Chairman, going back and reading
Mr. Dingell's testimony of 1994, who was the author of the bill
in the 60's, he pointed out very clearly that they intended at
that time to distinguish between general recreation of a
refuge, which was the rage at that time with new use of public
lands, from wildlife-dependent recreation, which he considered
had always been a purpose of the refuge. And he was the floor
manager of the bill that passed at time. So we find--it is
interesting we find that historical part. So I would like to
suggest that we provide to you the 1994 statement of
Congressman Dingell, which contains the historical sketch on
those original bills, because some of the rhetoric you hear
today simply does not reflect the reality of the history of the
refuge system.
[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. In order that we not be misunderstood, Mr.
Chairman, let me emphasize that the State fish and wildlife
agencies recognize full well what Mr. Farr just said, that one
of the most--the most rapidly increasing use of the out of
doors is to watch for wildlife. That is one of the reasons this
bill has wildlife observation among its uses, along with
conservation education. I don't really believe our vision
differs substantially from Secretary Babbitt and most others
who want to see a constructive organic act for the refuge
system. Our differences, I believe, are how to outline that
vision in the statute which will provide useful guidelines and
processes.
I would point out that anybody can sue anybody now any day
of the week on the refuge system and have, in fact, done so in
recent years. So the idea that anybody can sue each other is
not a new idea.
As stated in both the Executive Order and in your bill, we
have always believed that the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System was, as stated in this bill and the Executive
Order, to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
use and enjoyment of our citizens. As far as I know, everyone
can stand on that common ground, the States, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, anglers, birders, hunters, nature
photographers and so on.
It is convenient to quote Starker Leopold at times, but he
said in his report on the National Wildlife Refuge, the
National Wildlife Refuges should stand as monuments to the
science and practice of wildlife management. We fully concur.
We believe also that fish and wildlife dependent uses, such
as environmental education, fishing, hunting, birding and
nature photography should be given statutory recognition as
priority uses of the National Wildlife Refuge where appropriate
and when these uses are compatible with sound principles of
fish and wildlife management and consistent with the purposes
for the individual--for which the individual refuge was
established. The idea that somehow this would force hunting in
downtown Philadelphia is ludicrous, to tell you the truth.
There is nothing in this bill that would do that.
We also believe that any National Wildlife Refuge bill
should direct the Secretary to provide these opportunities
where appropriate and compatible.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe we need a little time out,
maybe, for people to sit down and draw back from this bill a
little bit and look at the Executive Order and see if there is
a more com-
mon ground than maybe what has come forth. And we are willing
to do that and engage in that good-faith effort to see if there
is a bill we all can agree on that does--is faithful to the
history of the wildlife refuge system and does provide
something that the American people will continue to find useful
and support and that sportsmen and women and bird watchers and
everyone else can agree on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Max Peterson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mrs. Lamson.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN LAMSON, DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION, NATIONAL
RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mrs. Lamson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Rifle
Association appreciates the invitation to testify today on a
subject that likewise is of vital importance of our membership,
and that is the future management of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. We wholeheartedly support H.R. 511, and we
applaud the efforts of the author and the bill's primary
cosponsors in addressing issues that were raised about H.R.
511's predecessor.
I would like today to focus my remarks on Section 4 and
state that NRA unequivocally supports the addition of purpose
D. Making wildlife-dependent uses a statutory purpose
recognizes that people are a critical element to the present
and future support of the refuge system. This belief is borne
out in the findings of the bill, which recognize that the
American people have a right to enjoy the benefits derived from
the investment they make through their tax dollars, Federal
duck stamp purchases and entrance fees. It is also expressed by
the Fish and Wildlife Service, which recognized in the opening
pages of its booklet on the refuge system, entitled Promises
for a New Century, that wildlife refuges are gifts to ourselves
and to generations unborn, simple gifts whose treasures are
unwrapped every time someone lifts binoculars to the flash of
feathered color, every time a child overturns a rock, and every
time a hunter sets out the decoys or an angler casts the water.
But elevating wildlife-dependent uses to a purpose of the
system does not mandate that these types of uses occur on all
refuges. Neither does H.R. 511 mandate that the Fish and
Wildlife Service ensure that the other five listed purposes of
the system be applied on all refuges. This point is reinforced
in the requirements for preparing refuge plans, whereby the
purposes of the system applicable to a particular refuge must
be identified and described. Furthermore, purpose D does not
speak to wildlife-dependent uses, but to compatible wildlife-
dependent uses. Making wildlife-dependent uses a purpose of the
system does not make them coequal to conservation or the other
purposes because of the compatibility review test that that one
purpose has to go through.
In the definition section of the bill it clearly states
that uses, wildlife-dependent and all other uses, must be
compatible with the purposes of a refuge or the overall
purposes and mission of the system. It also anchors the
determination of compatibility upon the rock of sound resource
management and scientific information. Ad-
ditionally, in Section 5, instructions to the Secretary, the
word compatible is tied to each and every statutory instruction
relating to the recognition of priority public general uses,
expansion of these opportunities and identification and
provision for such uses on refuge lands.
I believe the burden of proof falls to the opponents of
purpose D to show how that purpose could materially interfere
with or detract from the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to
fulfill the purposes of a given refuge or the overall mission
and other purposes of the system.
Now another reason why NRA strongly supports the inclusion
of wildlife-dependent uses as a purpose, and this was just
mentioned, is to ensure that the system is shielded from
lawsuits such as the one filed by the Humane Society of the
United States in 1984 to shut down the system to hunting and
trapping. There are several examples of numerous statements
that HSUS made at the time. For example, ``of all the
inappropriate activities now taking place on wildlife refuges,
surely sport hunting and trapping represent the most blatant
betrayal of the refuge system. Hunters wish to deliberately
destroy wildlife and defeat the whole purpose for which the
system was established. HSUS will do everything in its power to
end this travesty.''
The NRA is concerned that unless wildlife-dependent uses
are made a statutory purpose, the hunting community and the
Fish and Wildlife Service can expect future litigation over the
definition of refuge in the context of the system's mission and
purposes. In response to the HSUS lawsuit, refuge managers
compiled over 2000 pages of administrative record and 5000
pages of discovery material. The NRA believes that refuge
managers ought not to be made conservators of paper but rather
conservators of wildlife.
The bill before you today will minimize such a diversion of
refuge resources. This legislation presents the opportunity for
the Congress to ensure that compatible wildlife-dependent uses
such as hunting are expressly allowed.
NRA fully supports the compatibility review process. We
believe it provides for a conscientious review without
exhausting fiscal and administrative resources to manage the
system. And it is especially important inasmuch as the
operation and maintenance backlog of the system need not be
exacerbated by unnecessary and burdensome standards and
procedures.
In summary, we appreciate the opportunity to be here and
look forward to assisting you in the process of making this
organic legislation a reality. Thank you.
[Statement of Susan Lamson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very, very much, Mrs. Lamson. Mr.
Myers, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF GARY T. MYERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE
WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY
Mr. Myers. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 511. I head
the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency, which is the State
agency responsible for the management of fish and wildlife in
Tennessee. I want to make you aware of a movement in the
conservation com-
munity which I believe will become a significant force driving
the future expansion of the Federal Refuge System, and I want
to make you aware of the importance of H.R. 511 to the success
of that movement.
As you probably know, in 1986 the Canadian Minister of
Environment and the U.S. Secretary of Interior signed the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan. The plan, developed with
heavy State and provincial involvement, established acreage
targets for priority waterfowl habitat areas in the United
States and Canada over a 15-year period from '86 to the year
2000 and estimated that $1.5 billion would be required to
accomplish these objectives. Since then, about one billion has
been spent. In the United States, over a million acres have
been protected, 420,000 acres restored, and over 1.5 million
acres enhanced for waterfowl. I don't have the numbers, but I
am aware that a good many acres were added to the Federal
Refuge System as national waterfowl habitat needs were
addressed.
In 1990, Federal, State, and private interests joined
together to likewise address the needs of neotropical birds
through Partners in Flight. This group is following in the
footsteps of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in
their development of a North American plan for neotropical
birds. A large body of experts will eventually reach a
consensus on the habitat needs of neotropical birds across our
nation. Already those experts are folding songbird habitat work
into the Lower Mississippi Valley waterfowl joint venture.
A common goal for songbirds and waterfowl is the
reforestation of thousands of acres of bottom land hardwoods.
Thus, an important component of one plan is also part of
another, creating additional support for action. Bottom land
hardwood reforestation also benefits other game species, which
leads toward possible partnerships with the National Wild
Turkey Federation, Audubon, Ducks Unlimited, and others to
leverage State and Federal dollars.
These types of activities are occurring to some extent now.
Shorebird experts are also developing a national plan and
efforts are underway to bring fish into the equation. It is
likely that flooded bottom land hardwoods serve as rich nursery
areas for fish from the Mississippi River, and it is no secret
that ducks also thrive in flooded bottom land hardwoods. These
are the same forests that songbirds, turkey, deer, squirrel,
some threatened and endangered species frequent, providing
additional opportunity for support and funding.
Over time, strengthened migratory bird partnerships will
facilitate the development of an International Migratory Bird
Management Plan that will become a major force driving the
expansion of the Federal Refuge System. Partnerships developed
through that plan and others will evolve into biodiversity
initiative, and ultimately impact ecosystems, and that impacts
wildlife populations, plant communities and more. This
evolution opens new doors for funding, partnerships and
leveraging, but may create the possibility that we lose sight
of the original purpose of each refuge.
H.R. 511 ensures that this does not happen. Many of us old-
fashioned, single-species managers would be uncomfortable
without this assurance.
Likewise, some hunters are convinced that hunting will one
day be phased out on Federal lands designated primarily to meet
the needs of migratory songbirds. And I suspect that some bird
watchers are fearful that they may eventually be excluded from
some Federal refuges that meet the habitat needs of game
species. H.R. 511 provides assurances to both groups to the
extent practical, paving the way for an evolution of
partnerships never before thought possible.
The fair treatment guaranteed by H.R. 511 of hunters and
non-hunters is crucial if we are to realize the partnerships
essential to the formation of a national network of lands and
waters designed to conserve and manage fish, wildlife, plants,
and their habitats across America.
H.R. 511 does more than ensure the integrity of the
existing refuge system and provide a level playing field for
hunters and non-hunters. It establishes purposes which clearly
posture the refuge system to play a major role as the nation
and industry address habitat needs of a host of species,
including interjurisdictional fisheries and all migratory
birds, as they work to recover endangered or threatened
species, fulfill treaty obligations, and provide for recreation
and environmental education.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency strongly supports
passage of H.R. 511. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Gary Myers may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very, very much. Thank all of you
very much for what I consider to be very articulate and
worthwhile testimony.
Mr. Pombo, would you like to lead off the questioning of
this panel?
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Peterson, I found
your testimony very interesting. I was wondering on the other
bill that we are having the hearing on, H.R. 512, what your
feelings are on that in terms of requiring Congressional
approval for new wildlife refuges.
Mr. Peterson. I think now, as you probably remember, before
you can acquire land in a State using the duck stamp money it
requires the approval of the governor of the State. So it seems
to me like that is an appropriate type of thing. I wonder if
Congress wants to be involved in every little refuge. I think--
I cannot think of a single case that a Member of Congress has
not supported the idea of establishing a refuge, so it seems to
me fairly superfluous. But we haven't really taken a firm
position on that bill. We would be glad to talk to you more
about it.
Mr. Pombo. All right, thank you. Mr. Horn, in your
statement you talked about some of the other refuges that have
similar purposes to what is included in this bill. And I know
that you are very familiar with a number of those. In your
experience and in the history, especially with the one in
Alaska, have they had any problems with the way that that
language was worded 17 years ago?
Mr. Horn. No, sir. Matter of fact, that is one reason, I
think, that the threat of litigation arising from this bill is
absolutely de minimis. We have had similar language on the
books for all these years in Alaska. Recently when Congress
passed an Arkansas Land Exchange Bill that acquired major land
holdings along the Cache and the White Rivers, there was
language included to maintain existing hunting opportunities
and recognize them as important in that newly established
refuge unit. And the only lawsuits that have arisen challenging
uses of the refuge have been brought either by, as Ms. Lamson
pointed out, by the Humane Society to try to shut down all
hunting activities on all refuges or some of the other lawsuits
brought by Audubon Society and company against the Service
seeking to shut down a number of non-hunting type matters.
The whole notion of litigation among the user groups is
really just--it hasn't occurred. It hasn't occurred under the
language that is on the books, and I think it is exceedingly
unlikely to occur under the language that is in H.R. 511.
Mr. Pombo. You said non-hunting type recreational
activities. What were you referring to?
Mr. Horn. Well, the--a group of environmental plaintiffs
brought lawsuit to close down some boating activities,
picnicking activities on a couple of refuges. Essentially that
suit was broadly aimed at a lot of what were called secondary
uses of the refuge system, and they pressed to have the agency
go through and try to eliminate a lot of those secondary uses.
I know that this Administration complied by executing an out-
of-court settlement to that effect.
Mr. Pombo. But when you talk about Mr. Farr's watchable
wildlife and what Mr. Peterson testified to about how people
really want access to these wildlife refuges so that they can
see the wildlife out there, wouldn't that--eliminating the
secondary activities as you call them, wouldn't that be
detrimental to being able to get in and see the wildlife?
Mr. Horn. There has been a considerable debate over, you
know, how do you appropriately manage the units. In some cases
recreation for watchable wildlife has resulted in the
construction of roads so you can take a tour through an area
and the construction of visitor's centers and such. I know that
there are some interests out there that believe any type of
those human intrusions into a refuge are totally inappropriate
and that we shouldn't be building facilities or picnic grounds
and we shouldn't be facilitating that type of public recreation
use.
That is one of the reasons, I think, that we all believe
that making these wildlife-dependent recreation uses--and that
language was very carefully selected. It doesn't just say
hunting and fishing. It says wildlife-dependent recreation
because we wanted to ensure that other users who relate to
wildlife, the bird watchers, the observers, get a similar level
of protection.
Mr. Pombo. So I know that the bulk of this hearing is
centered around the hunting and fishing part of the bill, but
the other provisions that were listed as purposes of the
wildlife refuge, there has been a threat to the continued
activity on those, as well.
Mr. Horn. That is correct.
Mr. Pombo. Well, I don't have any further questions at this
time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to apologize
because I have to go after this, but I just want to make an
observation. And I think that in all due respect we have got to
tell the full story here. And that is that when you do elevate
hunting and fishing as one of the purposes for the refuge
system and then you include wildlife-dependent recreation,
including wildlife observation and environmental education,
which is the Section D that you all have alluded to, it is very
important. However when you go on to the real meat of how the
Secretary shall interpret these uses, you drop out the wildlife
observation and environmental education.
You indicate that the Secretary shall permit fishing and
hunting and you don't include the others, and you say ``that
they are compatible with the purposes of the system,'' not the
refuge, not the refuge, but the whole system, which you have
already defined is for the purposes of hunting and fishing. And
then you go on to say on page 13 no other determinations or
findings are required to be made for fishing and hunting.
So essentially, although you incorporate these others in
your general purposes, when it comes down to the fact finding
of what should be done, you elevate hunting and fishing to a
more superior purpose. And I contend that I don't know what is
broken that needs fixing. I didn't know we hunted on any
refuges and I understand we hunt on more than half of them. And
I guess what the panel is saying is that is not enough.
Mr. Peterson. No, I think you are misinterpreting what we
are saying. In the first place, I wouldn't quarrel at all by
adding wildlife observation in some of those places. I think
that is a good idea to add those. There is no intention of any
of us to elevate hunting and fishing over other kinds of
wildlife-dependent recreation. And again, I would commend you
to read Congressman Dingell's history of the wildlife refuge
system.
Mr. Farr. Well, I am familiar with that. I also read his
statement that he gave on the Floor, which was different 30
years later, if you want to put that into the record. It is
contrary to what he said in committee, so----
Mr. Peterson. Well, anyway----
Mr. Farr. Mr. Dingell has also changed his opinion from the
very beginning.
Mr. Peterson. Let me just say on a here and now basis--and
maybe the trap, Congressman Farr, is the whole way we have
traditionally talked about the purposes of the refuge. I think
we recognize a hierarchy of purposes, if I can use that word,
recognize that the fundamental purpose of the refuge system is
to conserve the refuge for fish and wildlife. I mean, that is
sort of number one. Like, if you have a house, a fundamental
purpose is to take care of the house. Once you take care of the
house, you might like to have some people sleeping in it,
though, and you might like to have some people using it. So in
the hierarchy thing we see that fish and wildlife-dependent
recreation ought to be a priority use just as the Executive
Order says. Now whether you call it a priority use or priority
purpose, I am not quite sure how that differs.
Mr. Farr. But with 285 refuges you are able to fish and
hunt on, why--what is the problem?
Mr. Peterson. Well, for example, take--there are brand new
refuges in both Arkansas and West Virginia right now. OK, under
current provisions the minute those are set aside they are
closed to public use. There isn't any reason for it. It is just
our policy. We close them to public use. Only in Arkansas where
Senator Bumpers put a specific provision in there that said it
will remain open to these traditional uses during the planning
period is that area open. So unless there is a--unless public
use is recognized as a purpose of the system, they end up being
closed and they may never be open to any kind of public use, at
least within six or ten years. That has been a problem in a lot
of places, because until the planning is done they are closed
to public use. Now why should the public put money into a
refuge system and then have it closed the day that it is made a
refuge if there isn't any reason to?
Mr. Farr. Well, it makes very good sense to me. For
example, when we don't know how we are going to eventually use
something when we use other land in our local communities, we
put moratoriums on development of that land until we figure out
how we are going to use it.
Mr. Peterson. No question we would--this bill the way it is
written now says if the Secretary wants to discontinue any of
those uses he can do it, but it doesn't require him to
discontinue it until he does a plan.
Mr. Farr. Well, that makes sense. A plan is done in an
open, public manner--every park in America and every park in
our State and local governments, they have to have a plan. You
develop a plan for those uses. And it seems to me, that is the
process that ought to determine whether or not these other uses
are appropriate.
Mr. Peterson. And we agree----
Mr. Farr. Not mandating it in law that you have to.
Mr. Peterson. We didn't do that, Congressman Farr.
Mr. Farr. Yes, you did.
Mr. Peterson. We did----
Mr. Farr. You may not have intended to do it, but that is
the way the bill is worded.
Mr. Peterson. We would respectfully disagree that it
mandates that. It says it permits it to continue till the--
unless the Secretary determines----
Mr. Farr. No, it says the Secretary shall permit. Shall is
mandatory, not permissive.
Mr. Peterson. Well, read the rest of the phrases, though.
Providing it is compatible with the principles of sound
wildlife management and is compatible with public safety.
Mr. Farr. But on the mandatory process you don't include
that other language that you wanted in your Section D, which
was the language on wildlife observation and environmental
education. You drop that in the rest of these mandates--and you
indicate that no other determinations or findings except the
determination of consistency with State laws and regulations
are required to be made for fishing or hunting.
Mr. Peterson. You have to read the entire section there.
You are reading----
Mr. Farr. Well, I am reading it. I do know how to read the
law.
Mr. Peterson. We would be glad to sit down and go over that
with you, but there is no forcing of wildlife-dependent
recreation on a refuge without it being compatible with the
principles of sound wildlife management and public safety.
Mr. Farr. Well, it appears that if you--you know, that
you----
Mr. Peterson. It is a bill----
Mr. Farr. Why don't you include all the wildlife
observation and environmental education as well in that?
Mr. Peterson. I think that is a good suggestion. I think we
could reasonably do that.
Mr. Farr. But again, you know, I have got to run, but my
concern is: I don't think it is so broken that it needs fixing,
that you have got to go into law and then make this law so
strong that you are going to make it mandatory that fishing and
hunting have to be a use. I mean, if over half of the refuges
that are created in America are allowing these activities, and
it is up to the discretion of the plan that is devised, and
that plan includes input from the people that are most
participatory in the refuge area, the local people, it is a
bottoms-up plan. That process can determine whether these
issues are compatible.
That seems to me a much more democratic process than
telling the country that whomever the Secretary of Interior is
that he must or she must allow fishing and hunting. And that is
the way I read the law that you have drafted. Now that is maybe
not the way you intended it, but I think that is the way it can
easily be interpreted.
Mr. Peterson. We would be glad to work with you to be sure
that that is not the interpretation. That is not our intention.
Mr. Farr. OK, thank you very much.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, gentlemen. Let me just make two
points, one on this provision that Mr. Farr was just talking
about. And actually I don't know whether it was one of your
ideas or my idea, but I came back from home with a concern that
had to do with open till closed provision, because I was
actively pursuing the expansion of the Forsythe Refuge and all
of a sudden I found--I went to a dedication one day of an
island that we secured which we thought was environmentally
sensitive and I went back the next day and Fish and Wildlife
had erected a sign to keep out. I said I don't think that was
what I intended. And so we wrote this language, and whether it
is perfect or not I don't know, but it is intended to provide
for traditional uses of the land until a comprehensive
management plan has been adopted so that people won't feel that
we are arbitrarily closing the land to all uses, all historic
uses.
Now to the Secretary's credit, I am told this morning that
a new process has already been put in place, which modifies the
old process somewhat to outline continuing permitted uses on an
immediate basis. And I think that is progress. Now I have not
seen it work yet. I do not know any more than what I just
repeated from what I was told earlier by the Secretary and his
people, but that is progress. And I for one appreciate the fact
that we don't have the old policy anymore and we have a new one
that seems to make more sense. Now I don't know whether that
satisfies the whole situation, but at least we are moving in
the direction of the bill. And I thank the Secretary for that.
Let me make one other point. Wildlife refuges are not
designed to be wilderness areas or sanctuaries where no human
activity can occur, either by the letter of the current law or
through practice that has been established over the years.
Wildlife refuges are intended to be highly managed environments
designed to enhance the production of specific species, control
other non-target species through hunting, trapping, and often
this requires the requirement for managers of these refuges to
be actively involved for the purposes, again, of specific
species.
Would you agree that that is a fair characterization of the
current refuge system, and do hunting and other uses that we
are talking about fit within that definition that I just gave?
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, I would say yes. And I think that
the other point worth making here is that you point out that
what the Secretary announced this morning in terms of new lands
is a policy. The Executive Order is a policy. What we are
talking about in this bill is enshrining policy, which is
subject to change, into statute so that it is in place once and
for all.
And the reason we need a statute is that in terms of all
the hunting examples that continue and now exist on the units,
we are looking for the statutory shield from the next animal
rights lawsuit so it doesn't end up with one judge closing down
92 million acres of public land. So I think that many of the
policies are in pretty good shape right now, but there ought to
be codification of those policies into statute to provide long-
term assurances to the American public that uses and invests in
the refuges.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that. And on
the Secretary's policy statement about opening some land, you
know, I think the only problem we have seen with that is that
is on an acquisition by acquisition basis. And sometimes those
acquisitions are as small as 40 acres. It is pretty hard when
you are acquiring 40 acres in a major refuge to make a judgment
about what the future use of that 40 acres is going to be. We
would rather see it be done on the basis of a plan for the
refuge system--the refuge--the specific refuge.
That is an interim decision, by the way, that one that he
has mentioned. It is an interim decision which can be changed
the next day without any protocol at all. So it is a pretty
slender reed, as Mr. Horn said. There is nothing in the statute
that recognizes that. It is purely a policy. So we need to put
something more than that into the statute.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. With regard to the argument made just in
the last points, surely you don't think that by enacting a
statute that is going to limit the judiciary from entering if
someone decides that they think that the statute as written is
inadequate? I mean, part of the whole discussion that has been
held here today is that this language may not accomplish what
you want, so I am not sure that that is going to ensure
anything.
What bothers me in this discussion is there is an
implication that hunting and fishing is somehow clinging--I
think the word was a slender reed with respect to the policy,
but that hunting and fishing activities--seen as a legitimate
activity in the refuge system--is scarcely able to sustain
itself now. Now my information is is that in over half of the
refuges which comprise 90 percent of the system's acreage,
hunting and fishing are now part and parcel of the activity
that goes on. So I am not entirely sure as to what the
necessity of legislative activity is at this point, because
once you have that underway, I think that it is not an accurate
reflection of the political world as it exists to think that
suddenly hunting and fishing would be eliminated at the whim of
somebody.
Mr. Peterson. Congressman Abercrombie, let me back up a
little bit and say that the Constitution of the United States
places in the U.S. Congress the responsibility for determining
the guidelines for management of public lands. Now the Congress
has really not ever passed an organic act for the fish and
wildlife refuge system. And the real question here is should
Congress say how they want that system to be managed, or should
it simply rely on different Secretaries of the Interior and
different Presidents through Executive Orders and other policy
to determine that, because the Constitution says it is your
responsibility as Congress to do that for the public lands.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, I am quite content to do that, but
do--is it your understanding--is my information correct that
well over half of all the refuge parcels now, designated refuge
now, have hunting and fishing as a part of the recognized
activities and that in terms of the actual acreage the hunting
and fishing is now permitted on 90-plus percent of all the
acreage now designated refuge?
Mr. Peterson. I don't know about the percentage. I think
the number is correct, but let me----
Mr. Abercrombie. OK.
Mr. Peterson. Let me again point out that----
Mr. Abercrombie. I understand what your point is, because I
know the Chairman needs to move on. I am merely saying that I
think the Chairman's suggestion that this language be looked at
so that you avoid further litigation--now I know that some of
the members said that the Secretary was reading too much into
it. That is precisely what you don't want to do.
I am not going to argue with you that maybe the Congress
should set the legislative boundaries in an organic act sense,
but if we do it then we should make sure that whatever language
we write will minimize the litigation and minimize the possible
confrontations between nature photographers and bird watching
and hunting and fishing and hiking and simple observation, and
as well within the context of conservation. I am sure you would
all agree with that, could we not?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, but I don't know of a single lawsuit
between those groups so far----
Mr. Abercrombie. Not yet.
Mr. Peterson. [continuing]--on the refuge.
Mr. Abercrombie. The Secretary's point, I think, was is
that if we pass the legislation in its present written form,
perhaps that might occur. And I think the Chairman's suggestion
was is that maybe we could take a look at the language to see
whether or not compatible uses that are respectful to the
conservation mandate could be written in a way that could
achieve a broader consensus.
Mr. Peterson. We would be glad to work with that.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I don't believe that there is any
further questions of this panel. I just want to thank you all
very much for your testimony and for your patience in sticking
around for the rest of the hearing. Thank you very much.
I would like to call up the fourth panel. The Honorable
Bernie Richter, Assemblyman, State of California; Mr. John
Baranek, President, Herzog Company; Mr. Jeff Craven,
Cloverdale, Oregon; Mr. Dan Beard, Vice President, National
Audubon Society; and Mr. Roger Schlickeisen, President,
Defenders of Wildlife.
OK, I am told that Mr. Robert Dewey is going to testify in
his place.
Thank you very much. I would like to start with Assemblyman
Richter.
STATEMENT OF BERNIE RICHTER, ASSEMBLYMAN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Richter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. I represent the Third Assembly District,
which is extreme Northeast California, from the Oregon border
to Highway 80 and from the Sacramento Valley to the Nevada
border. And it is a pleasure to be here because I have some
pertinent information that relates directly to this bill, and I
hope that it is useful to you in making a decision as to how
you will act in this matter.
Mr. Chairman and members, I want to tell you about three
people and how their lives relate to the bill that is before
you. 75-year-old Flair Royal was a much respected, retired
schoolteacher who taught for 20 years at Far West Elementary
School at Beale Air Force Base before retiring in 1988. She was
viewed as an outstanding teacher and highly respected in the
community. She positively affected the lives of many young
children.
Bill Nogagawa was a loyal 86-year-old former employee of
Numous Incorporated. He has faithfully worked for the company,
his former employer, until he retired 20 years ago.
Marian Anderson was a 55-year-old wife of Reclamation
District 784 manager Gene Anderson. She was a mother of nine
children and was a friend of all who knew her.
There is indeed a strange and eerie connection between Gene
Anderson's job and his pleas to government agencies as it
relates to the story of the tragedy that I am going to describe
to you here today.
If they could, all three of these people would be here
today to testify at this hearing and to speak with unflinching
support for the position I am taking here today. Unfortunately,
they cannot be here because they are dead. I believe and the
residents of Yuba County, California, who I represent in the
California State Legislature, believe that these three people
were killed by the negligence and irresponsible action of
several Federal agencies, in particular the Federal Fish and
Wildlife Service.
But let me start from the beginning of the story. As you
ponder the bill that is before you, I urge you to note that the
new opportunities to create wildlife refuges will require
careful evaluation to be sure that the very act of placing or
creating these refuges does not in itself create a new or
enhanced danger to human health and safety, much less the
wildlife refuge itself. In my home State of California, the
placement of wildlife refuges has exacerbated and interfered
with the systematic maintenance of levees which are re-
quired to provide and protect the integrity of the very levees
which protect the wildlife refuges from destruction in the
first place.
Levees are essentially piles of dirt, sand and rock, and
must be maintained so that certain natural elements don't
destabilize the levee walls. It is critical that repairs of
levees be conducted in a consistent and timely manner. However,
many levee maintenance and repair issues are held hostage to
the Endangered Species Act. Levees are in essence dams anywhere
from 10 to 40 feet in height. It is as if we would allow great
dams to be undermined by natural elements and take belated or
no action to repair such dams and risk the dam failure in
behalf of protecting certain plants and animals that happen to
live in the dam wall.
Maintenance of levee requires the removal of overgrown
vegetation. Vegetation must be removed because its roots
provide pathways for water and also provides opportunity to
snag passing debris, causing a tangle of driftwood, plants and
manmade trash. These obstructions impede the flow of water down
in between the levees, and it is particularly critical during
high water times when restrictive flows put enormous pressure
on the levee walls, which are more likely to be weakened by
plant roots and rodent animals.
The control of vegetation in our levee system on the
Feather River is restricted by the elderberry bush habitat for
endangered elderberry beetle. For example, due to the harm and
harass provisions of the Endangered Species Act, nothing can be
done to control the vegetation which may impact the beetle or
its habitat. By the way, no one, neither native or imported
entomologists, have ever seen any of these beetles on this
portion of the Feather River in question. In our case, the
Reclamation District 784 determined that repair work was needed
on 30 miles of levees. No new levees were planned, only
maintenance to restore original levees to their original
condition.
By the time the project was implemented--and this was--this
took years, years from the 1986 flood in which we had a
horrendous flood and a large loss of life in this area--by the
time the project was implemented, the Army Corps of Engineers
identified 43 clumps of elderberry bushes that would be
disturbed during the restoration process. The Corps determined,
because of requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
before any levee work could start it was necessary to create an
80-acre mitigation preserve or site. $1.9 million was to be
spent on this site, which was located on the river side of the
Feather River levee. Further discussion by Federal resource
agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, added a
large 17-foot deep pond to the mitigation project for the
wetlands habitat adjacent to the levee wall.
To make matters worse, the Corps committed to its
mitigation project without consulting the agency charged with
the maintenance of the levees, mainly District 784. Minutes
from the RD 784 board meetings confirm that the Corps of
Engineers was not familiar with the details of the local
topography. The minutes further show questions raised by board
Chairman Rex Archer that the Reclamation District 784 had not
been told about the 17-foot deep pond and that the Reclamation
District 784 objected to the construction of the pond so close
to the levee. The minutes show that the Corps said, ``we will
look into the problem.'' And the Corps re-
assured the board, ``it (the pond) would create no problem,''
besides, it would be ``very expensive to fill the hole back up
again.''
In further discussions in the same meeting, the minutes
show that Reclamation District Manager of 784, Gene Anderson,
the husband of Marian Anderson who was drowned as a direct
result of the levee failure, expressed concern that, ``the hole
dug'' by the Corps and required as part of the mitigation
effort intercepted the original river channel which ran under
the levee, which allows water to come up on the land side as
boils. Finally, the minutes show that board attorney Steve
Jones suggested the district should follow up with a letter
voicing concern, giving a history of that section of the levee
and stating that the Reclamation District 784 thinks a grievous
error was made.
Please let the record show that the minutes indicate that
at the time the pond was dug in the middle of the summer, with
the water at its lowest level in the river, seepage was noted
on the land side of the levee after the pond was dug.
My point, the disastrous levee failure in January of this
year that claimed the lives of three of my constituents and
injured many others, that flooded 500 homes and 9000 acres of
prime farmland, displaced 35,000 people and flooded the
employers in one of California's poorest counties, and
simultaneously destroyed the $1.9 million mitigation project
and major amounts of wildlife and additional habitat occurred
at the lower end of the mitigation-site.
As to the mitigation project, all of the seedlings, all of
the shrubs and all of the beetles that have never been seen or
whatever other habitat that existed are gone.
I would like to add a footnote to this story which proves
the adage that truth can be stranger than fiction. Keep in mind
that the requirements that caused this disaster was not forced
upon local people by some foreign occupying army. It was in
fact the Government of the United States that instituted this
plan and carried it to its conclusion.
At both the Federal and State level statutes have been
enacted, and you have enacted them and we in California have
enacted them, the essence of which is to say to private owners
and private managers be a manager, go to jail. Among other
things, statutes say that any person who knowingly places
another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily
injury is guilty of a public offense and shall upon conviction
be punished by fine or imprisonment.
I would hope that you would be willing to apply to the
government bureaucrat managers the same standard you apply to
private industry managers. In this particular case in point
local people asked, in fact begged, Federal agency bureaucrat
managers not to go forward with this project because it would
cause a disaster, which it in fact did. Being forewarned and
having no knowledge of local conditions, these government
officials from afar, having run amuck and far from being under
the control of the U.S. Congress, inflicted themselves on our
community and caused the disaster that I have described to you.
The law authorizing this agency, the law before us today,
is a law that you should enact. Among other things, it seems
too that you should also amend that law to provide that the
people and the managers at the Federal level who caused this to
happen after being forewarned are held personally responsible.
This is a sad story. This was an avoidable tragedy, but in your
hands is the opportunity not to allow it to ever happen again.
[Statement of Bernie Richter may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Baranek.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BARANEK, PRESIDENT, HERZOG COMPANY
Mr. Baranek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify today. My name is John Baranek. I am President and
General Manager of the Herzog Company, a family farming
corporation located in Courtland, California. I am a third
generation steward of the land. My grandfather bought the land
in the Courtland area in the 1890's and the land we presently
farm in 1902. Our farm is comprised of 600 acres of premium
wine grapes and 230 acres of levees, slough, and riparian
habitat.
As required by the House Rule 11, clause 2(g), my resume is
attached which outlines my professional background in
viticulture. Neither my corporation nor I personally are
recipients of any Federal grants.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a bad
neighbor. The Service began its involvement in Stone Lakes by
creating an interagency policy group. This was made up of nine
government agents and excluded landowners. It immediately
proceeded to misrepresent to the public the true magnitude of
its plans.
Stone Lakes area property owners felt comfortable with the
original 5000 acre refuge proposal in North Stone Lakes. Most
of it was already under a combined ownership of the State of
California and the County of Sacramento. To our surprise, at a
meeting of the county board of supervisors in 1991 we were
introduced to a 74,000 acre study area as a proposed refuge.
The supervisors then instructed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to add two directors from local reclamation districts to the
group. They were added, but the group never had another
meeting.
General public opposition forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to an EIS. The result was a reduction from the 74,000
acre proposal to a 9000 acre core area, with an additional 9000
acres in cooperative management. However, the current proposed
boundary is still well in excess of the 5000 acre plan that was
originally presented. We are also still waiting for a refuge
management plan, which was supposed to be due or completed
somewhere around 1994.
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has supported
the local residents and landowners throughout the ordeal. For
the past several years, and recently as February 24, 1997, the
supervisors have refused to sign a memorandum of understanding
allowing the county land to join the refuge, primarily because
of lack of a management plan.
State and Federal officials representing Stone Lakes have
also supported our efforts to get a straight answer from the
willful misleading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bureaucrats
in Sacramento and Portland. The Portland office, in its report
to employees in February of 1993, acknowledged that its
greatest problem was add-
ing land without adequate staffing or funding to handle these
new acquisitions, and yet this power-hungry bureaucracy
continues to expand its reach.
Environmental concerns with the refuge. The location of the
refuge, surrounded by levees that have flooded five times in 20
years, is a crime. This bath tub effect acts like a large
animal trap. Most species drown or are displaced to become feed
for predators, or become road kill on the surrounding highways
and roads. It does not make sense to intensify population of
animals only to destroy them by man's good intentions.
The Stone Lakes area is a major floodway for South
Sacramento. In wet years, most of the refuge area floods. Major
flooding has occurred in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995 and most
recently in January of 1997. Pictured in the accompanying
exhibits in the back is a map. I have a better copy here if you
can't see the Xerox copy. This is the 1986 flood which covers
the entire refuge area. The refuge manager, Tom Harvey, admits
major problems in achieving goals of the refuge. He stated in
March of 1995, ``a huge body of scientific literature exists
that proves that water level differences, even as small as a
few centimeters, have a great effect on wetlands and riparian
communities, especially on species establishment.''
Regional sanitation district drainage and non-treated
surface runoff from the Sacramento urban population flows
through the Stone Lakes Refuge. Part of the water is then
pumped into the Sacramento River at Freeport. The California
State Water Control Board has identified the entire Beach Lake
area, which is part of the North Stone Lakes, and adjacent
Sacramento River from the towns of Freeport to Hood a candidate
for toxic hot spots. These toxins may create health problems
for migratory waterfowl and in an extreme case this could
result in deformity of wildlife as happened in Kesterson Refuge
near Los Banos, California.
Most recently, the Service has considered new ways of
managing the refuge. They have asked the county for a
suspension of grazing prohibitions on the county owned land.
They are considering controlled burns and livestock grazing,
among other options. Actually, these are not new ideas. It is
what local residents have been doing for over 100 years, to the
benefit of wildlife abundant in the area.
We need H.R. 512, which requires concurrence from both the
Service and Congress in order to create a refuge. This will
eliminate the kind of bureaucratic land grabbing over the
objections of area residents that is occurring at Stone Lakes.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have a bumper sticker that
proposes what is best for people and wildlife in the Stone
Lakes area. It says save the Delta from the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[Statement of John Baranek may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Craven.
STATEMENT OF JEFF CRAVEN, CLOVERDALE, OREGON
Mr. Craven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Jeff Craven. I am a fourth generation
dairy farmer from Cloverdale, Oregon. Our farm has been in the
family for 111 years.
As a result of our farming practice, our pastures have
become an important habitat for many species of geese, ducks
and other wild-
life. The habitat is protected by zoning laws, till and removal
laws and the Clean Water Act. In June 1990, landowners were
notified that the refuge was being proposed in the Nestucca Bay
area. The Nestucca Bay Refuge included 4800 acres, nearly all
of the farmland in the Lower Nestucca drainage.
We discovered that the one dairy farm had been purchased by
the Nature Conservancy at the request of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. We became very concerned about the impact of
the proposed refuge on the local economy and on the dairy
industry. Would our farm values be affected? What were the
threats to wildlife? How would the short-grass goose habitat be
maintained without the dairy farms?
Within three months, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had
completed their draft environmental assessments for the
proposed refuge. We could not accept the Fish and Wildlife
Service's conclusion that Federal ownership and control was the
best way to protect the habitat we were providing. We took the
opportunity to comment on the draft environmental assessment,
thinking we would be listened to.
By December 1990, the final environmental assessment was
complete. Our concerns were not addressed. No changes had been
made to reflect public comment. The finding of no significant
impact was due to become final after a 30-day comment period.
We were totally frustrated. A last resort we hired legal
counsel. With the help of local, State and Federal officials,
we were able to put the project on hold, except for the
purchase of the Nature Conservancy property that the Fish and
Wildlife Service was committed to.
We negotiated an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to develop a cooperative resource management program to
protect the goose habitat. The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service recognizes the importance of the dairy industry in
meeting the objective. We now have a memorandum of
understanding between the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and local landowners that meet the objectives of
providing habitat but still keeping lands in private ownership.
The Service has revised the environmental assessments so that
the preferred alternative is for the wildlife habitat to remain
in private ownership. The acreage of the refuge area was also
significantly reduced to more clearly identify important
habitats.
It has been five years since we signed the memorandum of
understanding with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Our dairy farms have continued to provide the important habitat
to wintering Canadian goose populations. There has been no
habitat loss, nor has there been any threat to the habitat
identified. Despite a few promises to operate the refuge
property as a dairy, it has been out of production for five
years. The Service now relies on the remaining area farmers to
maintain the short-grass habitat that the geese need. Fish and
Wildlife Service has struggled to establish a management plan
and gain funding to provide habitat.
Mr. Chairman, I believe H.R. 512 will help prevent some of
the mistakes that happened in our situation from being made. We
were lucky. We were able to come to a reasonable solution, but
at a cost that was high both financially and emotionally. With
the Congres-
sional oversight provided by H.R. 512, I believe that creative
solutions are more likely to be found. There are better ways to
protect wildlife than converting private land to public, and
Congress and the American people need more opportunities to
explore that. Thank you.
[Statement of Jeff Craven may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Craven. Mr. Dan Beard.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL BEARD, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON
SOCIETY
Mr. Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the
opportunity to be here today on behalf of the 550,000 members
of the National Audubon Society, who are located in 520
chapters throughout the United States, Canada and Central
America.
The National Audubon Society has been involved with the
National Wildlife Refuge System since its inception. In fact,
after the establishment of the first refuges, the Audubon
Society paid for the managers of those refuges, two of whom
were killed in the line of duty.
In the last year, our board of directors has approved the
establishment of a national campaign to provide assistance to
the National Wildlife Refuge System. We have created a National
Wildlife Refuge Campaign. We have hired a campaign director,
and we are systematically undertaking a wide assortment of
activities to try to involve our members in assisting refuge
managers to preserve and protect the resources that they
manage.
I think it is important as we look at this legislation to
remember that the National Wildlife Refuge System, as Secretary
Babbitt pointed out, is very unique. It is the only one of its
kind in the world. And this refuge system does have
international importance. We should only make changes in the
system of laws and policies which provide a foundation for the
system with great care. I think everybody who you have heard
testimony from today would agree that there is a need for a
permanent policy foundation for the system, that something is
lacking, but the question is what should that policy foundation
be and what should it say.
There has been a consistent thread over the last 94 years
dealing with the National Wildlife Refuge System. That
consistent thread has been that wildlife comes first in
national wildlife refuges. This is why each refuge was
established in the first place. That is why the system was
established. And there is substantial Congressional direction
to that effect going back as far as 1934 with the Duck Stamp
Act, 1962 with the Refuge Recreation Act, 1966 with the Refuge
System Administration Act.
In our view, H.R. 511 would deviate from 94 years of policy
direction. And the question is why. In our view, no compelling
case has been made that there is a need to change the policy
direction that we have been pursuing nearly 100 years. I think
it is very important for us to remember why we established the
system in the first place. Each area is unique. Each refuge is
unique. It protects unique resources and unique values. And in
each case we are protecting wildlife, either birds or other
wildlife for a special reason. And that reason has either been
determined to be important by the director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Secretary or the Congress itself.
The challenge I think we all face is how do we manage these
lands. And the most difficult challenge we have is how do we
manage the people and the associated uses. In our view, we must
protect wildlife first and foremost, which is the reason that
we set these lands aside. Protection of wildlife ought to be
the highest priority for the use of these lands. This has been
the policy to date.
Secondly, we believe there are a second tier of uses which
are fundamentally important. These are wildlife-dependent uses
such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. They ought
to have a priority over all other uses which are not consistent
with wildlife. These are sort of general recreational uses that
oftentimes conflict with wildlife and wildlife-dependent uses
of those refuges.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that I think we are much
closer on consensus legislation than a lot of the discussion
has left the impression with today. Should we have a bill? I
think people agree that we do need a bill to provide a solid
foundation. And we all agree that there ought to be a
foundation. How should we implement this legislation? I think
we all agree on how to do that, through a public planning
process that involves the refuge managers and citizens.
The only question we have left is what place should
wildlife have in this debate. We were not far off at the end of
the 103rd Congress. We reached compromise on a bill, but
unfortunately we ran out of time to get it enacted. We think we
can reach agreement again. And I would urge that we take the
opportunity suggested by Mr. Peterson and others to take the
next month or so to try to sit down and see if it is possible
to resolve the differences among the various groups which are
here and have testified today on this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be with
you.
[Statement of Daniel Beard may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Dewey.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DEWEY, DIRECTOR, HABITAT CONSERVATION
DIVISION, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Mr. Dewey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Robert Dewey.
I am Director of the Habitat Conservation Division at Defenders
of Wildlife. First of all, I just want to thank you for the
opportunity to substitute for Roger Schlickeisen, the president
of our group. He had a previous speaking engagement, and I am
sorry he wasn't able to stay. The hearing has run long. I will
try and be brief.
First I would like to thank the committee for its interest
in the future of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Defenders
has long believed that additional statutory direction could
provide the system with greater unity of purpose, future
direction, and the expanded authorities needed to strengthen
its ability to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants. H.R. 511
attempts to tackle many of these complex issues.
But make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, we believe that
legislation to accomplish the over-arching goal of H.R. 511,
expanding recreational activities, would fundamentally weaken
the refuge system. We strongly oppose enactment of H.R. 511 and
the closely related bill, H.R. 512.
Defenders believes H.R. 511 contains numerous provisions
which collectively would cause a dramatic and historic shift in
the refuge system. This shift would be away from wildlife
conservation and toward increased public use. The bill would
take the refuge system away from the conservation ethic that
has been its cornerstone ever since its founding by Theodore
Roosevelt 94 years ago.
With 4500 secondary uses now permitted on national wildlife
refuges, Defenders also questions the need for the bill.
Providing recreational activities, in particular, is already an
extremely high priority. Hunting, for example, now occurs on
over half the national wildlife refuges. Just last year
President Clinton further amplified the emphasis on
recreational activities in an executive order.
Recreational activities should have an important role in
the refuge system. They should not, however, be elevated to
such a priority that they are placed in direct competition with
wildlife conservation for management priority and funding. When
this happens, resource and recreational enthusiasts both lose.
H.R. 511 damages the refuge system in four principal
respects. First, the bill undermines Fish and Wildlife
Service's ability to effectively regulate certain secondary
uses. It would essentially establish a separate and weaker
compatibility standard for some types of recreational
activities. This would occur through the subtle interaction of
various provisions relating to definitions, system purposes and
compatibility standards. The net effect of these provisions is
to give certain uses special and preferential treatment.
Defenders believes that all uses, including ones that are
wildlife dependent, should be held to the same effective
regulatory standard.
The second fundamental concern relates to the fact that the
bill makes certain recreational activities coequal with
wildlife conservation as purposes of the system. While various
types of recreational activities and environmental education
should play an important role in the refuge system, they should
not be afforded equal status with the system's wildlife
conservation purposes.
Another one of Defenders greatest concerns relates to the
impact this legislation would likely have on Fish and Wildlife
Service's already insufficient budget. This bill is likely to
force the Fish and Wildlife Service to devote increased agency
resources and staff to recreational uses, which would
ultimately come at the expense of wildlife conservation
programs.
A fourth concern relates to the future management emphasis
of the wildlife refuge system. The bill focuses the system on
providing more recreational activities while ignoring
increasingly important management challenges relating to
biological diversity. The absence of diversity languages in the
purposes section of H.R. 511 is likely to discourage the Fish
and Wildlife Service from ever making biological diversity an
important management consideration.
As the Nation approaches the 21st Century, this is simply
unacceptable for the only network of Federal lands established
to conserve fish and wildlife.
Let me now just briefly turn to H.R. 512. This bill would
erect a substantial new roadblock to the acquisition of habitat
by requiring a separate Congressional authorization in addition
to the al-
ready-required appropriation law, before any land and water
conservation funds can be used for the establishment of a new
refuge. Even under the existing acquisition process, landowners
are routinely told by the Fish and Wildlife Service that they
must wait at least one and a half to two years for Congress to
appropriate funds. Requiring Congress to enact an additional
law could effectively stymie the protection of biologically
important and imperiled wildlife habitat.
In closing, Defenders has long recognized the need for
greater statutory authority for the refuge system. Although we
believe that the system would be better served by current law
than the changes proposed in H.R. 511, we also think the system
could benefit from enactment of a bill along the lines of the
Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy Act [H.R. 952]. This bill
was introduced just yesterday by Representative George Miller.
It establishes management objectives vital to the functioning
of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the 21st Century, and
does so without threatening the integrity of the system. The
Roosevelt Act provides a constructive approach. We urge the
committee to consider it as an alternative to H.R. 511.
This concludes my remarks. I would be glad to answer any
questions that the committee might have.
[Statement of Rodger Schlickeisen may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Dewey, in your
testimony, when I read it yesterday, you state that--in
reference to H.R. 512, that it would require additional
legislation, which it would. It would require a Congressional
authorization before a wildlife refuge can be started. But you
state in here that the already-required appropriation law--the
way that the system has operated, yes, there is the requirement
that an appropriation be drafted, but there is no requirement
that that occur before the refuge is put on the map. And they
can establish the refuge and then come in and lobby Congress
for money to buy the property. And that is one of the problems.
And I don't know if you paid attention to some of the
testimony from some of your fellow panelists, but that was one
of the problems that we faced, is that the refuge will be
established, it will be put on the map, and then they will come
in and ask for money to purchase the private property that is
included in that.
And the idea behind H.R. 512 is that some of these problems
can be avoided if there is Congressional oversight before
someone comes in and asks for an appropriation to purchase
land. And that is the purpose behind that. And I just wanted to
clarify that, because in reading your testimony I don't think
it was exactly clear as to actually how this works.
Do you or did you support the President's Executive Order
that has been referred to so many times today?
Mr. Dewey. The President's Executive Order provides
emphasis on recreational activities in the Wildlife Refuge
System. In general, I would say there are many elements of the
Executive Order that we do support. The concept that several
people have alluded to about the hierarchy of uses with respect
to prioritizing certain wildlife-dependent uses over non-
wildlife-dependent uses is a use-
ful model and was probably one of the cornerstones of the
Executive Order.
The other fundamental principle in the Executive Order was
this important distinction between purposes of the system and
uses of the system. In fact, this a critical distinction that
was reflected very strongly in the bill I mentioned earlier,
the Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Protection Act. That bill was
introduced yesterday by Mr. Miller and establishes priority
public uses. And this is a bill that we strongly support. So to
that extent, I think Defenders is enthusiastic about the
President's Executive Order.
There are certain aspects of the Executive Order that are
of concern to us and I would find particularly troublesome if
they were codified in the context of statutory language.
Certain language suggests that additional resources in the
management of the system should go toward recreation. It is one
thing to state that in an Executive Order and another to do so
in a statute. The Executive Order also makes clear that this
priority is in the context of existing laws, which include a
provision in the 1962 Refuge Recreation Act that requires that
funding be available before uses are allowed. Codification of
the Executive Order without clarification of that point would
be a mistake.
Mr. Pombo. Let me ask you specifically, does your
organization support hunting and fishing within the system,
within the Wildlife Refuge System?
Mr. Dewey. We look at hunting and fishing on a case-by-case
basis. We are not an organization that opposes hunting per se
or supports it per se. I think that inference that you might
draw from that is in the context of the refuge system we are
interested in activities that are compatible with the purposes
for which a refuge was established. The Fish and Wildlife
Service has determined in many cases that hunting and fishing
are compatible with those purposes, and I think we accept that.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Beard, along the same testimony, does your
organization support the Executive Order of the President and
the purposes that were outlined in that Executive Order?
Mr. Beard. Yes, we supported the Executive Order at the
time that it was issued. Yes.
Mr. Pombo. Do you support hunting and fishing within the
refuge system?
Mr. Beard. Yes, where it is appropriate. That determination
has to be made by the relevant official, which could be the
Congress, the Secretary or the Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, but yes, we support hunting.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Richter, Assemblyman Richter, in
your testimony you talked about the creation of a refuge
habitat area along the river within your district. Is it your
opinion that if proper oversight had been given to that
particular situation before it was created that it would have
been created in the place it was or in the manner that it was?
Mr. Richter. It is my view that if the Federal officials
had the knowledge that local people had, and had they been
willing to listen to local people, and even after they had
constructed it, as I mentioned to you, the record clearly shows
that water was leaking out on the land side of the levee when
there was no--when the lev-
ees didn't have any water, really, between them, when it was in
the summertime. Had they been willing to accept that
information and evaluate it and weigh it so that it would
affect the decision that even had already been made, they would
have reversed themselves.
I might tell you that there was a multitude of evidence.
Basically what you have in this whole area is silt that is
anywhere from 30 to 40 feet deep that has come down with the
gold mining that took place in the middle of the 19th Century.
It has raised the elevation of the valley and those areas by
that much. That silt acts like a kind of a seal over the old
river bed, which winds around and under this. Mappings clearly
show where the old river bed was. In this particular case, the
objection to the preserve and the pond that I referred to
indicated that the old river bed ran right under the levee near
or adjacent or right on where the pond was being built.
We had testimony after the 1986 disaster, which many people
died in and it was a much greater disaster in the residential
area of Linda and Solano, of the area that I represent. We had
a civil court trial in 1992 in which Mr. Mayhan, an engineer,
laid out maps showing exactly where these underground--the old
river beds were. And he predicted in that civil trial that the
next break in the levee would take place almost exactly where
it took place. And that was without the pond being dug.
So my answer to you is that what we had were people come
from the outside, decide to do a project, no control, for
whatever good reasons they had--and I certainly don't question
their motives here, but I am questioning their judgment and
their knowledge of what was going on. Disregard local people,
don't take any advice, go ahead with the project, not even
notify the agency that was charged with the maintenance of the
levee, and create something that turned into a huge disaster
costing tens of millions of dollars and people's lives.
Yes, they did disregard the information that was available,
went ahead with the project, and local people were helpless to
do anything about it.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Baranek, in your statement
dealing with the Stone Lakes Wildlife Refuge, we had testimony
earlier today or a comment from one of the members that the
wildlife are a bottom-up plan, that they are requested by local
people, that the management plan for the area is designed with
the input of local people. In your experience with the Stone
Lakes Wildlife Refuge, was that the case?
Mr. Baranek. Well, in Stone Lakes--the Stone Lakes area has
a long history of Federal involvement. At one time the Corps of
Engineers wanted to make a retardation base out of it and so
forth. Well, there is a lot of complicated things that led up
to everything that is there, but to make it very simple a group
of developers, local government and various--I don't know, you
would call it a consortium or allies of wildlife and so forth--
put together a unit and invited Fish and Wildlife Service to
come in the area, excluding the landowners that were basically
involved. And like I mentioned, we were misled, thinking it was
this area in North Stone Lakes, and they had far-reaching
effects. So what happened is we had no local input as far as
the landowners put into the whole planning process. And so we
ended up with something that really shouldn't be a refuge at
the level that they have designed it for.
Mr. Pombo. Is that area in any danger of urbanization?
Mr. Baranek. The South Stone Lakes area absolutely never
was in that position. North Stone Lakes, there was some
developers that owned property that originally wanted to
develop that property, but they realized because it was a
floodplain they couldn't develop it and they wanted to get some
monetary returns out of it. So it ended up being a good
mitigation bank and ended up being paid fairly handily and
walked away from the project and got what they wanted. And I
think it is a good area for an interpretive center for the
inner city. I think for a small-type refuge that we can invite
the public out and show them what is going on, I think it has
very good effects. But this whole full-blown refuge is just
going to be a big animal trap.
Mr. Pombo. You say a small refuge, urban-type refuge. You
are talking about 5000 acres in the Sacramento area.
Mr. Baranek. Yes, but that is already under public
ownership. And there is the State of California, the regional
sanitation district and the State of California and CAL Trans.
CAL Trans has the mitigation bank in there. And it probably is
a good area for a small-type refuge. But to expand it beyond
that point, the rural area through cooperative agreements and
so forth and working with the wildlife can do an awful lot of
things without any land purchases at all. And the boundary,
what it does is encumbers all this property to where it limits
it as to what its future is.
Mr. Pombo. If H.R. 512 had been law, say, five years ago,
how would it have changed the outcome with the South Stone
Lakes area?
Mr. Baranek. Well, I personally feel that if the law--and
we had an impartial oversight, we would have a 5000 acre refuge
today. It would have never expanded beyond that point. All
these problems would have been brought forward and they would
have seen the waste of taxpayer's money down the road in
establishing wildlife habitat that probably never is going to
achieve what goals--and here we have no management plan and we
still don't know what they want to do and how it is going to
impact everybody. All we can visually see is what is really
going on.
Mr. Pombo. The property owners never opposed the North
Stone Lakes area?
Mr. Baranek. No, there was no opposition. And this is why
when you hear all of the environmental people in the area
saying there was overwhelming support for the refuge, the 6000
comments, because all of us did comment that we supported North
Stone Lakes. And so there was no opposition from the farming
and landowner community. We supported it. In fact, it was going
to do something with that county ground that was just lying
there doing nothing.
It was originally going to be a county park and other
things and the county has no money and so they thought they
would bring the Federal Government in that would bring extra
money into the area that would do something with that. And we
all support that, so we are not against the refuge system per
se, but we are against the agency that is out of control, that
will not listen to local landowners and constituents to design
a better refuge and spend tax-
payers dollars better. And what it ends up doing is committing
you to funds for things that probably shouldn't be there.
I would invite your whole committee to come out and really
take a look at it.
Mr. Pombo. Maybe we can talk them into it.
Mr. Abercrombie. You have got to talk them into giving us
the money first to come out. So if somebody complains in
somebody else's constituency, why, you will be there to defend
us, right?
Mr. Baranek. We will be there to defend you.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you.
Mr. Baranek. No, but I think it is important that we have
that impartial review process. And that is why I do support
this bill.
Mr. Abercrombie. Does that include the committee coming out
to Hawaii?
Mr. Pombo. I don't think we are going to touch that one.
Mr. Craven, do you believe that the public participation
process used by Fish and Wildlife Service was fair and open in
your experience?
Mr. Craven. Not at all. Our experience was Fish and
Wildlife Service had already cooked the deal with Nature
Conservancy to make this a wildlife refuge. They had gone ahead
and made verbal commitments for reimbursement to the Nature
Conservancy if they would purchase the property and therefore
become the willing seller. I guess a good way of putting it is
the train had already left the station by the time we heard
about it. Fish and Wildlife Service had no intentions of
moderating their plans or making any other changes, deviation
from their plan through the whole process. The only thing that
brought them around to even working with us was the threat of
losing funding through the appropriations committee. And that
is what brought them back to the table. Otherwise they would
have steamrolled us.
Mr. Pombo. When this refuge was put on the map or when you
were made aware of it, had there been an appropriation?
Mr. Craven. No. No, there hadn't.
Mr. Pombo. So this was created without Congressional
consent?
Mr. Craven. That is right, and created by Portland Region
Fish and Wildlife Service almost taking on a life of their own,
I guess.
Mr. Pombo. So in your--what you are telling me is that they
had the ability to go out and create a refuge and then after
that happened, then they would come in and request funding in
order to buy what they already created?
Mr. Craven. Right, in essence. It is not quite--they didn't
actually create the refuge. They created the concept, but they
already had the--the Nature Conservancy had bought the land
that they wanted to give them the justification of having a
willing seller. They kept telling us well, they had a willing
seller, that is why they had the--you know, they could go ahead
and justify the refuge.
Mr. Pombo. I don't remember. Did Fish and Wildlife Service
eventually buy that?
Mr. Craven. Yes, they did.
Mr. Pombo. They did buy it from----
Mr. Craven. Yes, they did. That was one real strong
stipulation they had when we made any settlements with them,
was that that had to be--they had to reimburse Nature
Conservancy because Nature Conservancy had gone out on a limb
on their behalf.
Mr. Pombo. Did they actually tell you that?
Mr. Craven. Yes, we have documentation of that, of them
admitting that, yes.
Mr. Pombo. Can you provide that to the committee?
Mr. Craven. Yes, I could. I don't have it today, but I can
get that sent to you, absolutely.
Mr. Pombo. Please provide that for the committee. I think
that that is a serious issue that we have dealt with in the
past, and if you do have documentation on that, please provide
it for the record.
You say in your testimony that you entered into an MOU with
Fish and Wildlife Service to manage it as a wildlife area or to
benefit the wildlife in the area. I take from that that the
farmers in the area didn't oppose wildlife or weren't in some
way trying to get rid of the wildlife that was in the area?
Mr. Craven. Absolutely not. The wildlife are there because
of us, and we have always taken it in stride. In fact, hunters
had--where the endangered species was had already--the only
reason the endangered species was there, they shut off hunting
30 years ago and let the species continue to survive there. It
is a very small, 120 head of geese that winter there. That is
the only thing that we are concerned about. And it was through
private farming activities that preserved those geese to begin
with.
Mr. Pombo. Well, thank you very much.Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Assemblyman Richter, you tell a very compelling story, but I am
not precisely sure how 511 and 512 relate to that, particularly
in the light of the Army Corps of Engineer activity. I wonder
if you have some suggestions with respect to the language of
the bill that would address the question that you raise, or
maybe you didn't raise it exactly but what is implicit in your
testimony that the refuge--I don't quite get the connection
between the refuge act itself and rules, regulations or
procedures which may have been either inadequate or perhaps
even civilly liable.
Mr. Richter. OK, the refuge was--the lead agency in all of
this was the Corps, however in putting together the so-called
refuge and the mitigation they were--in regards to the
elderberry preserve and the marshland that was created, they
were doing what Fish and Wildlife Service people wanted them to
do. And in that case, although they were the lead agency
responsible for it, they were doing--they were complying with
the requirements of that agency.
As I sat here listening to all of this discussion, I was
thinking that in my judgment there ought to be, whether in this
statute, there ought to be a categorical exemption from the
Fish and Wildlife Service, or any other agency that is involved
in so-called species preservation, from having jurisdictions on
dams and levees, on the walls of dams and levees. They ought to
be just categorically exempt from doing that.
I mean, it would be--you know, Oroville Dam, which is one
of the largest earth-fill dams in the world, which is in my
district, is a--has sides where things could grow. Hopefully,
you know, the statutes do not have people trying to grow things
on the side of that dam or allowing animals or natural elements
to burrow into the dam so as to ultimately undermine it, but--
--
Mr. Abercrombie. I understand.
Mr. Richter. [continuing]--and I am sure it wouldn't, but
levees are--what people don't understand, and I have a statute
to require standards for levees, not the same as dams, but
standards. We don't have any standards for levees in
California. I don't know that we have any standards anywhere in
the United States for the standards for the construction of
levees. And my position is that a levee is a dam and its
foremost and primary function is to protect the urban areas
that these levees are around from being inundated and flooded.
It is not appropriate that somebody is trying to grow bushes or
trees--and that is another thing I didn't even mention, trees
on the sides of these levees and then when the water rises the
trees wash out and a huge hole is created in the levee as the
tree creates this--with all of the roots and everything going
downstream.
But the fact is that the relationship that I am saying is
that it was Fish and Wildlife Service that came up with the
refuge, if you will, and the pond. That was their solution to
the problem of the beetle.
Mr. Abercrombie. I understand that. The reason that I was
speaking to you first is because you understand the legislative
responsibilities that accrue to any legislative body. They are
all similar. They may be of different context, but the process
is the same, because you were quite adamant about the idea, and
I think this reflects also what Mr. Baranek and Mr. Craven were
referring to, is whether or not you can get local input,
perspective, experience, history, all of which can and should
bear a direct relationship to what kind of decision is made.
Mr. Richter. That is correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. But precisely for that reason, I think you
would find some of us a bit reluctant to insert a Congressional
decision. We all represent different constituencies. While I
quite welcome the idea of coming out to visit where you are,
Mr. Baranek, I would be very hesitant to vote on something here
anymore than I would be--not that I have any doubt as to the
integrity and the purposefulness and good will and intentions
of any member here, but if it comes to, say, a whale sanctuary
in Hawaii, it would be very--I would find it difficult to ask
others to say well, just trust me on this and vote. So I am not
quite sure where we would be going with the legislation to
answer the very real problem that--other than the standard.
That was a good suggestion you made about perhaps where
levees and dams are concerned we need to consider legislation
as to how that issue should be addressed, but I am interested
in what we could do institutionally here, legislatively here,
to be of assistance in these circumstances rather than becoming
a kind of court of last vote.
Mr. Richter. Well, I guess----
Mr. Abercrombie. Court of first vote, even.
Mr. Richter. Let me put it this way, and we do have similar
functions. And this is--you have raised some very good
questions that you would be asked to vote on something you
don't have knowledge of and so on, but I would much rather deal
with you and have my Congressman, whether it be a Democrat or a
Republican representing my district, who understood that he is
not going to be a representative if he doesn't understand some
of these things that are going on in the district. Believe me,
no matter what party he is from, I would rather have that
Congressman talking to you about what the problems are with
this particular refuge than for me to try to deal with some--I
hate to say this--some bureaucrat manager who is not beholden
to the voters of the district and does not have any connection
to the voters of the district. And that is a much preferable
system to appealing it to people that don't listen. I mean, the
story here of these people attempting to get these guys to
listen is incredible. It is really--it is almost like fiction.
You couldn't have written it. They did everything to get them
to recognize the mistake they were making. They never did
recognize it. They never did acknowledge it. If it were in your
hands, a committee or whatever, yes, you don't know but the guy
who represents this district knows and he is going to talk to
you. And he is going to say listen, there are problems here.
Maybe you would make the wrong decision.
Mr. Abercrombie. Would it be fair to say that also to avoid
the idea of pork barrelling, which we are accused of all the
time in that context, I suppose you don't escape it either.
Mr. Richter. Well, I have been in the minority a lot of the
time, so we didn't get any of the pork, but I----
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, see, that is what I am saying. I
don't really consider that. I consider it a public investment.
But, you know, we could be subject to that. In other words,
there could be local considerations. You could have--and
presumably we at least have the aim that the government agency
is trying to act for the common good and in the public
interest. So there is a necessary tension there between local
knowledge and desires and the public interest and how to work
that together. That is what we want to get the legislation to
aim at.
If we could do that, perhaps with Congressional
authorization as is suggested in the legislation here, with
some provisions that insure that we just don't simply end up
with a local special interest being accommodated at the expense
of the common good, even including in the local area, right,
because politics is politics whether it is at the village or
the levee and dam level or whether it is at the White House and
the various national committees. The political process is still
the same. So that--we need to work that tension out in a way
that accomplishes this.
Mr. Richter. The bureaucracy, I think, under this
legislation, or certainly under the way it is now, is well
represented.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK.
Mr. Richter. And I don't think that we have to worry about
the bureaucracy not being heard and not making their points.
They do it quite well.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK, in that context, then. Thank you very
much, Mr. Assemblyman. I appreciate your candor and your
insight.
In that context, Mr. Beard--and I must say, Mr. Chairman,
for purposes of the record Mr. Beard and I are old friends and
that he very ably served the people of this country when he
worked here in United States Congress.
And also you, Mr. Dewey, taking into account the testimony
and for conversation sake let us accept the premises of the two
gentlemen to your left and what Mister--what Assemblyman
Richter was positing. How do we have the public interest--which
again for conversation sake I will say that you represent here
at this table and grant you your good intentions and good will.
How is the public interest, then, to be--in the context of
these bills, how is the public interest to be represented
simultaneously taking into account, properly taking into
account local knowledge, history, respective, et cetera?
Mr. Beard. Is the question for me?
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes, for both of you. How is this to be
accomplished? Or if this bill doesn't accomplish that, can you
suggest how these bills--how could that be accomplished?
Although I know that Mr. Dewey, I believe, said that he with
just a preliminary reading is probably supportive of the
Wildlife Legacy Act that Mr. Miller introduced.
Mr. Beard. Well, in my view both H.R. 511 and Mr. Miller's
bill, really address that particular issue in essentially the
same way. The Congress lays out the rules on how the system
ought to be managed and how various uses ought to be treated,
and then there is a public process, public planning process,
which is undertaken for each refuge.
Mr. Abercrombie. So would you agree----
Mr. Beard. And so there is a debate at that time----
Mr. Abercrombie. OK.
Mr. Beard. [continuing]--on how you manage----
Mr. Abercrombie. Would you agree, then, Mr. Dewey, that as
it stands now, then, perhaps, there is not sufficient
Congressional legislation direction as to how this should take
place and it is left too much in the--within the purview, say,
of Fish and Wildlife Service or whoever it might be to act or
not act lacking that direction, Congressional direction and
law?
Mr. Dewey. You had alluded to the legislation I indicated
support for, the Roosevelt Act. That bill has provisions
regarding Congressional direction for planning on national
wildlife refuges. I think that would be a useful thing,
statutory direction to have. I think----
Mr. Abercrombie. Do you think it would address the concerns
raised by the other three gentlemen at the table?
Mr. Dewey. I don't know in a particular, in a specific
context.
Mr. Abercrombie. No, I am not asking that, but I am saying
is it your understanding the intention of the bill is to try to
address not the specific concerns but generically what has
obviously caused great consternation to Mr. Baranek and Mr.
Craven and obviously Assemblyman Richter's constituents.
Mr. Dewey. One of the fundamental goals of the Roosevelt
Act is to ensure adequate public participation in
decisionmaking by the Fish and Wildlife Service affecting
refuges. It does so through provisions relating to the planning
process that applies to individual refuges.
Mr. Abercrombie. It would be Congressionally mandated?
Mr. Dewey. Right.
Mr. Abercrombie. Is that your--you haven't read the bill,
Mr. Beard, yet?
Mr. Beard. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. You have? Is that your understanding also?
Mr. Beard. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. Congressionally mandated?
Mr. Beard. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK, that is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. I appreciate this panel and the
composition of it. I think it enlightens the committee.
Mr. Pombo. Well, thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. I just had one
follow-up question for Mr. Baranek and Mr. Craven. You both
stated that you dealt with the Portland Office of Fish and
Wildlife Service. Do either of you happen to know the name of
the person that you dealt with?
Mr. Craven. Yes.
Mr. Pombo. Excuse me?
Mr. Craven. John Dobul. He is Assistant Regional Director,
I believe, or was at that time.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Baranek, do you happen to know?
Mr. Baranek. Yes, it was John Dobul who we dealt with. And
Peter Jerome, the lead person locally, said John Dobul is still
in that position. He is the Assistant Regional Manager.
Mr. Pombo. He is still there?
Mr. Baranek. He still is there.
Mr. Pombo. OK, thank you very much. And I would like to
thank the panel very much for your testimony and especially for
your patience in sticking around all day with this. I really do
appreciate that. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]
Statement of William Horn, Wildlife Legislative Fund of America
Mr. Chairman:
My name is William Horn and I am appearing on behalf of the
Wildlife Legislative Fund of America (WLFA) and the 1.5 million
hunters, anglers, and conservationists it represents. We
greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear today and present
testimony in strong support of H.R. 511.
The National Wildlife Refuge System represents 92 million
acres of public land dedicated to wildlife conservation. With
units in all 50 states, the System conserves a vast array of
habitats and associated fish and wildlife. These public lands
also provide irreplaceable recreational opportunities to hunt,
fish, bird watch, and interact with North America's wildlife.
H.R. 511 would provide an organic act for the Refuge system
and clearly spell out its mission and purposes to carry it into
the 21st Century. It is a carefully refined measure that
reflects the 1994 efforts of Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Bob
Graham (D-FL), the bi-partisan leadership of the House
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in the 104th Congress,
contributions by the state fish and wildlife agencies via the
International Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and
work by dozens of sporting conservation organizations. That
careful work persuaded the House to pass essentially the same
bill by a lopsided bi-partisan two-to-one majority on April 24,
1996.
This year's measure reflects further refinement. The WLFA
supports the changes in H.R. 511 and is convinced that issues
regarding land acquisition authorization, military overflights,
and the consequences of government shutdowns should be dealt
with in separate measures.
It is also apparent that, with one exception, there is
wide-spread support for the bill's provisions. There seems to
be little argument about the provisions specifying wildlife
conservation as the system mission, defining the compatibility
process, establishing Refuge unit planning requirements,
recognizing state primacy over fishing and hunting regulation,
expressly preserving Refuge water rights, and requiring that
management decisions be based on scientific data and
principles.
The debate focuses instead on one provision--Section 4(d)--
which states that one of the six purposes of the Refuge system
is ``to provide opportunities for compatible uses of refuges,
consisting of fish and wildlife dependent recreation, including
fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental
education.''
Read this provision carefully. It does not mandate fishing
and hunting on all Refuge units. It does require that fishing
and hunting be compatible uses. It does not ``commercialize''
the Refuge system nor does it eliminate the wildlife
conservation mission of the System. Note too that this is one
of six specified purposes; the other five are (1) habitat
conservation, (2) conservation of migratory birds, (3)
conservation and restoration of endangered species, (4)
conservation of anadromous fish, and (5) fulfillment of
international treaty obligations.
Why is it important to have compatible fishing and hunting
made a purpose of the system? Very simple--the sporting
community needs a statutory shield from the animal rights
fanatics who have made it their mission to terminate all
fishing and hunting on the public's Refuge lands. The Fish and
Wildlife Service has had to fight off lawsuits seeking to end
hunting. And in virtually every Congress, bills are introduced
to end these activities on Refuge lands. Making these
activities merely a ``priority use'' gives America anglers and
hunters short shrift. They should be entitled to a simple
statutory declaration that providing compatible fishing and
hunting is one of the purposes of the Refuge system. No federal
judge, or no Secretary of the Interior, is going to be able to
ignore or explain away such a straightforward plain spoken
declaration recognizing that hunting and fishing have a place
on Refuge lands.
The behavior of the bill's critics--most notably the major
environmental interests--also demonstrate the need for a clear
and plain declaration in support of hunting and fishing. H.R.
511 and H.R. 1675 have been the subject of an incredible
campaign of distortion, disinformation, and misinformation.
These critics have speciously alleged that the bill eliminates
the conservation mission of the system (section 4 does
precisely the opposite), mandates hunting and fishing
everywhere (section 8 does the opposite), ``commercializes''
the Refuge system (section 4(a)(3) sets forth six
``conservation'' purposes) ``drenches'' the System in pesticide
use, and allows grazing, oil and gas activity, and jet ski use
everywhere (these sections must be written in invisible ink).
H.R. 511 is an important wildlife conservation measure which
will ensure that our Refuge system is managed effectively into
the next century. And making compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation a purpose of the System ensures that Congressional
support for these traditional activities will not be
misconstrued.
We appreciate the leadership this Subcommittee has played
on this legislation and we look forward to working with you to
quickly enact H.R. 511.
------
Statement of Rodger Schlickeisen, President, Defenders of Wildlife
Mr. Chairman, I am Rodger Schlickeisen, President of
Defenders of Wildlife. I appreciate your invitation to testify
today on behalf of Defenders' nearly 200,000 members and
supporters.
First, I would like to thank the Committee for its
interest in the future of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Defenders of Wildlife has long believed that additional
statutory direction could provide the System with greater unity
of purpose, future direction and the expanded authorities
needed to strengthen its ability to conserve fish, wildlife and
plants. H.R. 511 attempts to tackle many of these complex
issues. In particular, we support efforts in H.R. 511 to
formalize the ``compatibility process'' used to regulate
secondary uses of refuges and the recognition of the System's
role in contributing to the conservation of the nation's
ecosystems in its continued growth.
But make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, Defenders of
Wildlife believes that legislation to accomplish the
overarching goal of H.R. 511--expanding recreational activities
in the National Wildlife Refuge System--is not necessary and
would fundamentally weaken the Refuge System. We strongly
oppose enactment of H.R. 511 and the closely related bill H.R.
512.
Defenders of Wildlife is a national conservation
organization with a long history of involvement with issues
relating to the management of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. In the 1970's, we published a report with
recommendations for improving the management of the Refuge
System and later served on a special Department of the Interior
sponsored task force that developed Final Recommendations on
the Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System, another
report containing recommendations for major changes in refuge
administration. Since then, Defenders has been involved in a
wide range of administrative, legislative and judicial
activities concerning the management of individual units of the
Refuge System and the System as a whole.
In 1992, we released a report by the Commission on New
Directions for the National Wildlife Refuge System entitled
Putting Wildlife First. That report contained recommendations
of an independent, blue ribbon, panel of wildlife scientists,
conservation historians, state natural resource managers, legal
scholars and academics who conducted an eighteen-month review
of the Refuge System. The Commission reviewed the history of
the Refuge System and current management issues. Its report
makes recommendations regarding the present management and
future direction of the System. We believe that H.R. 511 and
H.R. 512 are fundamentally inconsistent with both the history
of the Refuge System and the important future conservation
challenges identified by this distinguished and independent
commission.
Legislation to Accomplish the Principal Goal of H.R. 511 is
Not Necessary and Would Be Damaging to the National Wildlife
Refuge System
Over 4,500 secondary uses are now permitted in the
National Wildlife Refuge System. (A list of uses permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as of 1995 is included
as Exhibit I.) Providing recreational activities, in
particular, is already an extremely high priority for the
Refuge System. As of Fiscal Year 1995, more than 95 percent of
the 92 million acres in the Refuge System were open to hunting.
Hunting now occurs on over half of the 509 national wildlife
refuges. Just last year President Clinton further amplified the
current emphasis on recreational activities. Executive Order
12996 directs the Interior Secretary to ``provide expanded
opportunities'' for ``priority public uses ''including
``hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.'' Recreational
activities should have an important role in the Refuge System.
They should not, however, be elevated to such a priority that
they are placed in direct competition with wildlife
conservation for management priority and funding. When this
happens the resource and recreational enthusiasts both lose.
H.R. 511 contains various provisions which collectively
would cause a dramatic and historic shift in the Refuge System
away from wildlife conservation and toward increased public
use. The bill would take the Refuge System away from the
conservation focus that has guided the System since its
establishment by Teddy Roosevelt ninety-four years ago.
Wildlife refuges are fundamentally different from other federal
land systems, such as national parks and forests. Wildlife
conservation always has been the System's principal focus. Over
the years, numerous statutes, such as the 1962 Refuge
Recreation Act and the 1966 National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, have reaffirmed the fundamental principle
that recreational uses are important but secondary to wildlife
conservation on federal refuges. We believe that the cumulative
effect of various provisions in H.R. 511 would fundamentally
change this relationship.
H.R. 511 undermines the Refuge System in four principal
respects.
1. The bill severely weakens the FWS's current statutory
authority to regulate certain recreational uses and codifies
the existing weak administrative standard used to regulate all
uses.
2. The bill makes certain recreational uses co-equal with
wildlife conservation as purposes of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
3. In this time of tight federal budgets, the bill would
cause the FWS to devote increased agency resources and staff to
recreational uses, which would come ultimately at the expense
of wildlife conservation programs.
4. As the National Wildlife Refuge System moves into the
21st Century, H.R. 511 focuses the System on providing
additional recreational activities while ignoring increasingly
important management challenges relating to biological
diversity.
Regulation of Recreational Uses
H.R. 511 impairs FWS's ability to regulate certain
recreational activities on national wildlife refuges in several
specific respects:
<bullet>Section 3 of the bill defines key terms such as
``conserving'' and ``manage'' to include live trapping and
regulated taking (hunting and fishing). Since these terms are
used throughout the purposes section (4) of the bill, and that
section is the basis for determining whether or not to permit a
particular use, these definitions would frustrate efforts to
effectively regulate hunting, fishing and trapping.
<bullet>Section 4(D) makes providing opportunities for
``compatible'' fish and wildlife dependent recreation a System
purpose. This is problematic because the definition section (3)
makes these activities synonymous with words used throughout
the pur-
poses section (4). Since compatibility is measured, in part,
against System purposes, the definition section makes the
standard for review circular. Moreover, in section 3,
compatibility is defined in terms of consistency with either
System purposes or individual refuge purposes. Due to the
circularity problem detailed above, all the recreational
activities specified in the bill could be determined compatible
per se.
<bullet>Compounding this circularity problem, Section 6
contains a provision that creates a presumption that specified
recreational uses are ``generally compatible.''
<bullet>Section 6 also contains a provision that gives
special and preferential treatment to hunting and fishing on
national wildlife refuges by essentially subjecting these uses
to a different and weaker standard than any other category of
secondary use. The provision stands on its head the FWS's
existing discretionary authority to permit these uses and
virtually mandates that they be allowed. Under this provision,
these activities effectively must be allowed unless they can be
proved to be: 1) incompatible (which is nearly impossible under
the process established in the bill); 2) inconsistent with the
principles of sound wildlife management; or 3) inconsistent
with public safety.
<bullet>Language in Section 8(a) states that hunting and
fishing are only to be allowed after the review process
specified in the bill has been followed. As noted above,
however, this process makes it virtually impossible for the FWS
to ever find these activities incompatible.
<bullet>Section 5 defines a ``compatible use'' as one that
``will not materially interfere with or detract from'' the
purposes of a refuge or the mission and purposes of the System.
Since the controlling phrase is stated as an ``either-or,'' the
practical effect of this language is to enshrine the existing
weak administrative ``materially interfere'' definition as the
statutory basis for determining the compatibility of all
secondary uses.
Effectively conserving wildlife in the midst of increasing
demand for use of national wildlife refuges has been a
longstanding challenge for refuge managers. Over the past 30
years a seemingly endless stream of reports by government
agencies and private organizations has repeatedly expressed
concern over excessive use of refuges. (A summary of some of
those studies prepared by The Wilderness Society is included as
Exhibit II.) In 1989, for example, the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) issued National Wildlife Refuges: Continuing
Problems with Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action. The GAO
report, based on confidential questionnaires sent to 444 refuge
managers and responses from 428 managers, revealed that 59
percent of the national wildlife refuges suffered from harmful
uses that adversely affect the ability of refuge managers to
manage for the wildlife purposes for which their refuge was
created. Following the GAO report, the FWS appointed a
Compatibility Task Group to conduct interviews with the
managers of wildlife refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas.
The Task Group's 1990 report, Secondary Uses Occurring on
National Wildlife Refuges, surveyed 478 units of the Refuge
System, and found that 63 percent of the refuges had harmful
uses. The FWS report identified Florida's ``Ding'' Darling
National Wildlife Refuge as having the greatest number of
incompatible uses. Most of the incompatible uses at ``Ding''
Darling were attributed to levels of public use exceeding the
carrying capacity of the resource. Wildlife observation and
wildlife tour routes were identified as two of the incompatible
uses at this refuge.
Today, the concerns raised in the GAO and FWS reports have
been, or are being, brought under control. However, the long
history of the reports demonstrates that widespread secondary
use problems have a predictable habit of again taking root
after a major reform effort. Thus, a familiar cycle exists in
the management of refuge: In response to widespread problems,
FWS places greater emphasis on controlling incompatible uses
and on and on. This ``fixed-broken'' cycle has repeated itself
over and over again in recent decades.
H.R. 511 undermines FWS' ability to effectively regulate
secondary uses in two general ways. First, it would effectively
establish a separate and weaker compatibility standard for
certain types of recreational activities. Second, it would
codify the existing but weak administrative definition of what
constitutes a compatible use. Report after report has shown
that, depending upon the circumstances, any type of use can be
incompatible. All uses, including ones that are ``wildlife
dependent,'' should be held to the same effective regulatory
standard.
Purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge System
H.R. 511 makes certain recreational uses co-equal with the
conservation purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
<bullet>Section 4(D) makes providing opportunities for
``compatible'' fish and wildlife dependent recreation a System
purpose.
The bill establishes, for the first time ever, a set of
system-wide purposes for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The importance of Congress establishing System purposes should
not be overlooked. H.R. 511 would define in statute an identity
for the only network of federal lands dedicated to wildlife
conservation. The System purposes articulated in section 4
constitute the essence of the so-called ``organic acts'' that
have long provided the basic management philosophy for our
national parks, forests and Bureau of Land Management areas.
While various types of recreational activities and
environmental education can, and should, play an important role
in the Refuge System, such uses should not be afforded equal
status with the System's various wildlife conservation
purposes. Since the inception of the Refuge System, a clear
distinction has always existed between ``purposes'' and
``uses.'' That distinction must continue.
Allocation of Agency Resources and Staff
H.R. 511 gives certain recreational uses a leg up in the
competition for increasingly scarce agency resources and staff
and could lead the FWS to spend a disproportionate share of its
resources on administering public use programs instead of
conserving waterfowl, migratory birds, endangered species and
other important elements of the nation's biological diversity.
<bullet>A provision in Section 6 states that ``no other
determinations or findings, except the consistency with State
laws and regulations provided in subsection (m), are required
to be made for fishing and hunting to occur.'' This language
could easily be interpreted as implicitly repealing an existing
requirement, contained in the 1962 Refuge Recreation Act, that
the FWS must find that funding is available to administer
public use programs before those programs are permitted.
Chronic funding shortfalls for the Refuge System led
Defenders of Wildlife and other groups to join together in 1995
to form the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE).
CARE works to educate the American public and Congress about
the need for greater federal funding for the Refuge System.
Testifying on behalf of CARE earlier this week, the Wildlife
Management Institute told the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee that management programs to help recover
endangered, threatened and candidate species, restore habitats
and address resource threats are left unaccomplished on an
increasing number of refuges. Another important but unmet
resource conservation priority, I might add, relates to
inventorying and monitoring the status and trends of fish,
wildlife and plants in each refuge. As an active member of
CARE, Defenders has supported the current federal resource
allocation. This allocation places strong emphasis on providing
recreational opportunities while assuring that this emphasis
does not overshadow the need for important programs which
directly benefit species and habitat. This balance must not be
tipped in favor of public use over conservation.
Preparing the National Wildlife System for the Challenges
of the 21st Century
Apart from inappropriately boosting the role of recreation
in the National Wildlife Refuge System, H.R. 511 fails to
recognize long overdue conservation needs relating to
management of the System for species diversity. Refuge
management legislation sponsored in the 103rd Congress by Sen.
Bob Graham and Rep. Sam Gibbons stated explicitly that
conserving biological diversity was one of purposes of the
Refuge System. There is a strong international scientific
consensus that depletion of biodiversity through the loss of
species and natural habitat is one of the world's most serious
environmental problems. The 1992 Putting Wildlife First report
pointed out that any serious effort to protect biodiversity
must start with the national wildlife refuges, the only system
of federal lands for which protecting species and habitat is
its top priority. The urgency of placing greater emphasis on
biological diversity was further amplified by a 1995 Defenders
of Wildlife study entitled Endangered Ecosystems: A Status
Report on America's Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife. The
scientific study found that natural ecosystems throughout the
nation are in serious decline, especially those in Florida,
California and Hawaii.
In articulating a set of purposes for the Refuge System, a
careful balance must be struck between FWS's obligation to
manage for traditional so-called ``trust species'' and the
Refuge System's need to help conserve the diversity of this
nation's fish, wildlife and plants. The absence of species
diversity language in the purposes section of H.R. 511 is
likely to discourage the FWS from even making biological
diversity an important consideration in the management of
federal refuges. As the nation approaches the 21st Century,
this is simply unacceptable for the only network of federal
lands established to conserve fish and wildlife.
H.R. 512: Discouraging the Establishment of New Refuges
Several recent reports, including Putting Wildlife First
and the Endangered Ecosystems report, underscore the importance
of acquiring and protecting represent-
ative portions of unique habitat types before they are lost
forever. Unfortunately, H.R. 512 would erect a substantial new
road block to habitat acquisitions that may be needed to
improve the Refuge System. H.R. 512 requires a separate
Congressional authorization, in addition to the already
required appropriation law, before any Land Water Conservation
Funds can be used for the establishment of a new refuge. The
bill is identical to a committee amendment offered by Rep.
Richard Pombo that added the provision to refuge management
legislation considered in the 104th Congress (H.R. 1675). H.R.
512 would severely constrain FWS's ability to purchase quickly
important habitat offered by willing sellers.
Even under the existing acquisition process, landowners are
routinely told by the FWS that they must wait at least one and
one-half to two years for Congress to appropriate funds. This
delay has already proven unacceptable to some willing sellers.
In Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, for example, FWS has apparently
lost the opportunity to establish a new 7,700 acre refuge to
protect wetlands and migratory birds and other species because
the owners of the 5,000 acre Latanier Bayou tract could not
wait for federal funds to become available. Lengthening an
already long wait will only serve to further discourage willing
sellers and exacerbate FWS's difficulties in acquiring land for
new refuges. Requiring that Congress enact a separate law could
effectively stymie the protection of biologically-important and
imperiled wildlife habitat through the establishment of new
refuges.
Does the Refuge System Need New Legislation?
Proponents of H.R. 511 point out there is no statutory
list of purposes for the National Wildlife Refuge System, and
no statutory definition of what constitutes a ``compatible''
use of a refuge, and that the refuges are not managed as a
national system. If these were the primary goals of H.R. 511
Defenders of Wildlife could be a ready supporter. Indeed,
Defenders and other conservation groups earlier urged Congress
to enact the National Wildlife Refuge System Management and
Policy Act, a bill sponsored by Senator Bob Graham.
Unfortunately, the primary thrust of H.R. 511 is to
inappropriately and unnecessarily elevate recreation at the
expense of wildlife conservation. Defenders of Wildlife
understands that Representative George Miller has, or will
shortly, introduced refuge management legislation entitled the
``Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy Act of 1997.'' We have
reviewed a draft of this bill and believe that it accomplishes
management objectives vital to the functioning of the National
Wildlife Refuge System in the 21st Century without threatening
the integrity of the System. The Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife
Legacy Act provides a constructive approach that we urge the
Committee to consider as an alternative to H.R. 511.
We urge the Committee to support the Theodore Roosevelt
Wildlife Legacy Act as a balanced and sensible alternative to
the step backward that H.R. 511 and H.R. 512 represent.
------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0567.090