    [House Hearing, 108 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            H.R. 1006 and H.R. 1472

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 June 12, 2003

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 108-25

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     house
                                       or
             Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                                     ______

    87-680              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                     RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska                    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana     Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey                   Samoa
    Elton Gallegly, California           Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Ken Calvert, California              Calvin M. Dooley, California
    Scott McInnis, Colorado              Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
    Barbara Cubin, Wyoming                   Islands
    George Radanovich, California        Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North          Jay Inslee, Washington
        Carolina                         Grace F. Napolitano, California
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Tom Udall, New Mexico
    John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania       Mark Udall, Colorado
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada,                 Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
      Vice Chairman                      Brad Carson, Oklahoma
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Greg Walden, Oregon                  Dennis A. Cardoza, California
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona               George Miller, California
    Tom Osborne, Nebraska                Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
    Jeff Flake, Arizona                  Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana           Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
    Rick Renzi, Arizona                  Joe Baca, California
    Tom Cole, Oklahoma                   Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
    Rob Bishop, Utah
    Devin Nunes, California
    VACANCY

                         Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                     James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
                   Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

                     WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
            FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska                    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana         Samoa
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey               Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North          Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
        Carolina                         Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
    Richard W. Pombo, California, ex         ex officio
        officio
                                     ------
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on June 12, 2003....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Dingell, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan, Prepared statement of...................    30
        Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Maryland......................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        McKeon, Hon. Howard ``Buck'', a Representative in Congress
          from the State of California...............................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     9
        Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, Prepared statement of.................   106
        Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Virginia..........................................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Pallone, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New Jersey........................................     3
        Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Minnesota.........................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of New Jersey..............................................     5
        Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan, Prepared statement of...................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Baughman, John, Executive Vice-President, International
          Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies..................    42
            Prepared statement of....................................    44
         Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and
          Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
          Agriculture................................................    40
            Prepared statement of....................................    41
        Haleen, Stephen J., National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force.    94
            Prepared statement of....................................    96
        Hedren, Tippi, President, The Roar Foundation................    57
            Prepared statement of....................................    60
        Hogan, Matt, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
          Department of the Interior.................................    35
            Prepared statement of....................................    37
        Horn, William P., Director, Federal Affairs, U.S. Sportsmen's
          Alliance...................................................    97
            Prepared statement of....................................    99
            Letter submitted for the record..........................   111
        Jonkel, Dr. Charles, Co-Founder and President, Great Bear
          Foundation.................................................    79
            Prepared statement of....................................    82
        Marlenee, Hon. Ron, Director of Legislative Affairs, Safari
          Club International.........................................    75
            Prepared statement of....................................    77
            Juneau Empire article submitted for the record...........    79
        Miller, Eric, D.V.M., Director of Animal Health and
          Conservation, St. Louis Zoo, American Zoo and Aquarium
          Association................................................    63
            Prepared statement of....................................    67
        Pacelle, Wayne, Senior Vice President, Humane Society of the
          United States..............................................    84
            Prepared statement of....................................    87

    Additional materials supplied:
        Albert, Thomas L., Vice President, Government Relations, Feld
          Entertainment, Letter submitted for the record.............   114
        Amand, Wilbur, V.M.D., Executive Director, American
          Association of Zoo Veterinarians, Statement submitted for
          the record.................................................    64
        Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Letters submitted for the
          record by The Honorable Collin Peterson....................    12
        Etter, Dwayne R., Ph.D., Wildlife Research Biologist,
          Wildlife Division, Michigan Department of Natural
          Resources, Letter submitted for the record.................   100
        International Fund for Animal Welfare, Statement submitted
          for the record on H.R. 1006................................   107
        Michigan House of Representatives, Letter submitted for the
          record on H.R. 1472........................................   112
        Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Letter submitted
          for the record on H.R. 1472 by The Honorable Collin
          Peterson...................................................    10
        National Rifle Association, Letter submitted for the record
          on H.R. 1472...............................................   108
        New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Letter submitted for
          the record on H.R. 1472....................................    32
        North American Bear Foundation, Statement submitted for the
          record on H.R. 1472........................................    13
        Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Letter submitted
          for the record on H.R. 1472................................   109

        LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1006, A BILL TO AMEND THE LACEY ACT
      AMENDMENTS OF 1981 TO FURTHER THE CONSERVATION OF CERTAIN WILDLIFE
    SPECIES; AND H.R. 1472, A BILL TO REQUIRE THE ADOPTION AND ENFORCEMENT
    OF REGULATIONS TO PROHIBIT THE INTENTIONAL FEEDING OF BEARS ON FEDERAL
       PUBLIC LANDS IN ORDER TO END THE HUNTING PRACTICE KNOWN AS ``BEAR
       BAITING'' AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DANGEROUS INTERACTIONS BETWEEN
                                PEOPLE AND BEARS

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, June 12, 2003

                         U.S. House of Representatives

          Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

                             Committee on Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
    Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Young, Saxton,
    Gallegly, Pombo (ex officio), Pallone, and Bordallo.
        Also Present: Representatives Kind and Moran.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good
    morning, everyone. Welcome to the hearing and to Washington.
    Collin, Jim, welcome, this morning.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, Wayne. Nice to see you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. We will hear testimony on two wildlife bills
    this morning, H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, and
    H.R. 1472, the Don't Feed the Bears Act. That sounds like a
    good story.
        Mr. Gilchrest. The first bill, H.R. 1006, introduced by our
    colleague Buck McKeon, would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of
    1981 to designate certain large exotic cats as prohibited
    wildlife species. Many of us, including myself, are cosponsors
    of this measure and feel it is appropriate to restrict the
    ownership or possession of certain large cats, such as lions,
    tigers, and leopards, to those organizations who have expertise
    to properly care for them.
        I want to thank and compliment Congressman McKeon for his
    leadership on this legislation, and I note that one of our
    witnesses today, Tippi Hedren, is not only a famous Hollywood
    actress, but also has dedicated her life to saving and caring
    for dozens of animals that have been mistreated or abandoned.
        The second bill, H.R. 1472, has been introduced by our
    Committee colleague, Elton Gallegly, of California. I look
    forward to hearing the testimony and the witnesses' thoughts on
    how this measure could impact some of the sportsmen and ethical
    issues it raises, including the management of bear populations
    on Federal lands and the traditional long-standing interaction
    between State Fish and Wildlife agencies, Federal land managers
    and their constituents.
        I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
    on both sides of pieces of this legislation, and we look
    forward to the hearing today. The hearing will, in all
    likelihood, be interrupted about 11 or 11:15 for possibly a
    series of votes. So just be ready to anticipate that.
        I look forward to the testimony the witnesses will give on
    both of these pieces of legislation. We are here to preserve,
    to a great extent, the long-standing practices of understanding
    nature, of the importance of wildlife, the importance of
    habitat, the importance of States rights, and the importance of
    ethical treatment of all of God's creatures.
        At this point I will ask for a UC. I will recognize the
    gentleman from New Jersey, but before doing that I ask
    unanimous consent that Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Miller be allowed
    to sit with the Subcommittee for the purposes of opening
    statements and asking questions.
        Without objection, so ordered. And I now recognize the
    distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
     on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, on H.R. 1006 and H.R.
                                      1472

        Good morning, today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on two
    wildlife bills, H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act and H.R.
    1472, the Don't Feed the Bears Act.
        The first bill, H.R. 1006, introduced by our Colleague Buck McKeon
    would amend the Lacey Act amendments of 1981 to designate certain large
    exotic cats as ``prohibited wildlife species.'' I am a co-sponsor of
    this measure and feel it is appropriate to restrict the ownership or
    possession of certain large cats such as lions, tigers and leopards to
    those organizations who have the expertise to properly care for them.
        I would like to compliment Congressman McKeon for his leadership on
    this legislation and I note that one of our witnesses today, Tippi
    Hedren, is not only a famous Hollywood actress but also a person who
    has dedicated her life to saving and caring for dozens of animals that
    have been mistreated or abandoned.
        The second bill, H.R. 1472, has been introduced by our Committee
    Colleague Elton Gallegly of California. I look forward to hearing the
    testimony and the witnesses' thoughts on how this measure could impact
    some of the sportsman and ethical issues it raises including: the
    management of bear populations on Federal lands; and the traditional
    and long-standing interaction between State Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
    Federal land managers, and their constituents.
        I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on both
    of these pieces of legislation.
        I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey but before doing that
    I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Miller be allowed to
    sit with the Subcommittee for the purpose of an opening statement and
    asking questions. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Pallone.
                                     ______

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome all
    our colleagues and the panelists, and if I could just ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement by Mr.
    Stupak.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress
                    from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 1472

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for allowing
    me to submit my testimony in opposition to the Don't Feed the Bears
    Act, H.R. 1472.
        H.R. 1472 seeks to end the hunting practice of bear baiting. I am
    opposed to this bill because it is unnecessary and counterproductive to
    managing the growing Black bear population in this country. H.R. 1472
    would limit the ability of states like Michigan, along with the eight
    other states which allow bear baiting, to manage their bear population
    and to effectively reduce the number of bear--human conflicts.
        The World Wildlife Fund has conducted population surveys that show
    a significant increase in the Black bear population. In every state the
    Black bear has historically inhabited, the population of this animal is
    either increasing or stable. From 1988 to 1996, the number of Black
    bears in the country has increased from an estimated range of 253,000 -
    375,000 to 339,000 - 465,000.
        Wildlife officials in my state of Michigan have estimated that the
    Black bear population has increased to an estimated population range of
    15,000 to 19,000 animals. This is up from the 12,000 animals state
    officials estimated in 1996. In just six years this population has
    increased by at least 25 percent from its 1996 population estimate.
    Doesn't it make sense to leave in place a highly effective hunting
    technique like baiting to manage this growing population? A ban on bear
    baiting would prevent state wildlife officials from using this
    population management tool and may actually lead to a further increase
    in the number of bear - human conflicts.
        In Michigan a ban on bear baiting would be especially harmful to
    the management of these animals because our forests are dense and
    visibility is extremely low. Bear baiting provides hunters with the
    chance to identify that the bear they are hunting is not a sow with
    cubs. This means that hunters can selectively harvest these animals
    ensuring the cubs have a mother to nurture them through development.
    Bear baiting promotes a healthy growing bear population. Banning this
    practice would only lead to out of control bear populations and more
    problem bears foraging for human food.
        The fact is that bear baiting works in states like Michigan. In the
    most recent harvest, of the estimated 2000 animals taken, 82 percent of
    those animals were harvested through bear baiting. This form of hunting
    provides state wildlife officials an effective technique to manage a
    healthy and growing population of Black bears. The federal government
    should not attempt to usurp the states'' authority to manage their
    wildlife.
        Finally, consider the fact that in my state of Michigan the voters
    soundly defeated an anti- bear baiting proposal that was on the ballot
    in the 1996 general elections. If Congress enacts a national anti-
    baiting measure it would disregard the will of millions of voters in my
    state.
        I hope the committee will not agree to this anti-hunting measure.
    We should leave wildlife management where it belongs, with the states,
    and preserve bear baiting.
        Thank you for allowing me to submit my testimony.
                                     ______

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I am pleased that you have
    scheduled this morning's hearing to allow us to reassess
    certain aspects of the important relationship we share with
    wildlife. H.R. 1472, sponsored by our Committee on Resources
    colleague Mr. Gallegly, seeks to ban bear baiting on Federal
    lands. This legislation was introduced in March and currently
    has 86 cosponsors, including myself, and six other members of
    this Subcommittee from both sides of the aisle.
        Bear baiting is a controversial hunting practice whereby
    large quantities of human food or animal remains are placed in
    a 55-gallon drum or piled directly on the ground in order to
    lure bears out into the open. Hunters then hide near the drum
    and kill the bears attracted to the bait. As you know, Mr.
    Chairman, it is Federal policy to allow State law to govern
    wildlife management on Federal lands so long as it does not
    conflict with Federal law. Given that nine States allow bear
    baiting, the practice is also allowed on certain Federal lands
    within those States and, obviously, H.R. 1472 seeks to change
    that circumstance.
        I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman. We do not oppose the
    principle that State laws should govern wildlife management on
    Federal lands where appropriate, nor do we oppose hunting on
    Federal lands, as some will no doubt charge. Rather it appears
    this is an instance where a particular hunting practice
    conflicts with prudent and necessary Federal policy and should
    be curtailed. Each of the four land management agencies
    included in this legislation have core policies prohibiting
    visitors from feeding wildlife whether they are bears or any
    other species. Such a policy protects the health and safety of
    the animals as well as the human visitors. Given the obvious
    prudence of this policy, it is inconsistent to allow hunters to
    feed bears as a hunting practice.
        Enactment of H.R. 1472 will not ban hunting, nor will it
    trample States rights; rather it will resolve an obvious
    conflict between Federal and State policies in a very small
    number of States in favor of a Federal policy that will better
    protect both bears and people on Federal land.
        Now, with regard, Mr. Chairman, to the second bill to be
    considered this morning, I just want to commend our colleague
    from California, Congressman McKeon, for introducing his
    legislation, H.R. 1006, to amend the Lacey Act to make it
    illegal to own lions, tigers, or other large exotic cats as
    pets. Evidence indicates that few, if any, private owners have
    the ability or financial resources to adequately protect the
    requisite needs of these large animals at maturity.
    Furthermore, large predatory cats present an unacceptable
    threat to public safety that cannot be ignored.
        The private ownership of exotic large cats is an
    extravagance out of step with the times and with our ethics of
    wildlife conservation. Wildlife should remain wild, and H.R.
    1006 is sensible legislation that recognizes this simple truth.
    This issue, I think, is worth our thoughtful consideration.
    Again, I thank you for having the hearing this morning.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Saxton.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
    put in my two cents here to kind of frame this discussion, if I
    may.
        It just seems to me that, first of all, I think this bear
    baiting bill is a bad idea and I want to say why. I am not very
    fond of the notion of luring some species of wildlife into a
    trap for the purpose of slaughtering it, but I think there are
    some very important issues here that I am sure we will hear
    more about from our colleagues and from others, but the issue
    of wildlife management is really at the heart of this issue.
        Wildlife management means one thing in a State like New
    Jersey and another in a State like Wyoming or Alaska or any of
    the other 50 States. So in terms of wildlife management and
    States rights, this is an enormously important issue. Let me
    just give one example from my experience. I am from New Jersey,
    of course, and for whatever reason the deer population in the
    northeastern part of the country over the last several decades
    began to grow, and it grew and grew and grew to the point where
    deer were sleeping in suburban backyards, and ruining shrubs
    and gardens. And with the coming of, what is the tick fever,
    Lyme disease from deer ticks, they became a health problem,
    but, of course, deer baiting in New Jersey was never allowed.
    But the New Jersey Division of Wildlife, Fish and Game, I guess
    it is, finally came to the conclusion that something had to be
    done to control the deer herd. So today, in New Jersey, during
    deer hunting season, deer baiting is permitted as a wildlife
    management tool.
        It seems to me that the same concept holds true to bears
    when we talk about States rights and designing a wildlife
    management plan for the needs of that State.
        There is another issue here too that has to do with
    wildlife management, and I suspect that some of the support for
    this bill comes from people who are against hunting at all, and
    I understand that, but I think that should be made part of the
    record, too. There is some of that at play here. But for those
    folks who have been in the woods bear hunting, it is important,
    just as there are bag limits and seasons for whitetail deer in
    the Northeast, there should be a way to discriminate between
    the bears you want to kill and the bears you don't want to
    kill.
        Now, for those of you who have been bear hunting and seen a
    bear in the wild, they do not often stand still when there is a
    hunter around. And so when a bear or several bears become
    concerned about people being around, they run. And if you have
    ever seen a family of bears running, you cannot tell the mother
    from the father from the cub. It is impossible. So while most
    people who hunt understand that there are some among the
    species that you would not want to kill and hunt, if you can't
    tell the difference, oftentimes the wrong bears get killed.
        With regard to reducing the size of the bear population,
    therefore, with a general hunting permit we kill the wrong
    kinds of bears, but when bear baiting is used a hunter can
    discriminate between big bears and little bears and sometimes
    between males and females. So as a wildlife management tool and
    States rights issues, this issue is of immense importance. And
    this bill, therefore, in my view, is wrongheaded to outlaw in
    all States bear baiting.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. Mr. Pombo.
        Mr. Pombo. Pass, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Gallegly.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Chairman, I am pleased that you have scheduled this hearing
    today on H.R. 1472 to develop a consistent policy on Federal
    lands with respect to the feeding of bears.
        I have long served on the Subcommittee of National Parks,
    Recreation and Public Lands, and I have had the privilege and
    pleasure of visiting a large number of national parks
    throughout this country. In parks inhabited by bears, the
    National Park Service goes to great efforts to educate visitors
    about the perils of feeding bears. The Park Service strictly
    enforces the anti-feeding law. While the Forest Service and
    Bureau of Land Management issues similar warnings to visitors
    about not feeding the bears, they do not consistently apply
    this principle in the field. In fact, they allow bear baiting
    on Federal lands in States that permit the practice,
    undermining their very own warnings about the damages of
    intentional feeding of bears. If it is wrong and reckless to
    feed bears in parks, it is also wrong to do so in national
    forests and on BLM lands.
        Bears fed by humans can be dangerous, regardless of where
    they are fed, be it in parks, forests, refuges or BLM lands.
    Once fed, the bears, we are told by the experts, are more
    likely to lose their natural weariness of people and to
    confront them in search of food. This can only result in
    dangerous encounters for both bears and people.
        Baiting is not needed on Federal lands. We know the
    majority of States ban bear baiting on all their lands, public
    and private, and maintain successful bear hunting programs,
    including in my home State of California, where over 25,000
    bears live in a State with 34 million people. However, should
    law enforcement need to use baiting, my bill provides for
    exceptions in those circumstances.
        I want to emphasize that in no way am I opposed to the
    practice of hunting, and I am an advocate of sportsmen's
    rights, but the rights have responsibilities. We will hear
    testimony today that reveals after voters put a stop to baiting
    in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, hunters in these States
    adapted and learned quickly to pursue bears in a more
    sportsmanlike manner. What is more, the sale of bear licenses
    dramatically increased after the baiting bans were imposed,
    returning more revenues to the State.
        I have introduced this legislation to protect bears and,
    moreover, to protect the people. It is a common-sense approach.
    I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation. I
    appreciate the opportunity to be here today, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress
                   from the State of California, on H.R. 1472

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have scheduled a hearing on
    H.R. 1472, the bill I introduced, with my colleague Jim Moran of
    Virginia, to develop consistent policies on Federal lands with respect
    to the feeding of bears. I have long served on the Subcommittee on
    National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, and I have had the
    privilege and pleasure of visiting parks throughout our great country.
        In parks inhabited by bears, the National Park Service goes to
    great effort to educate visitors about the perils of providing food to
    bears. The Park Service strictly enforces an anti-feeding law. While
    the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management issue similar
    warning to visitors about not feeding bears, they do not consistently
    apply this principle in the field. In fact, they allow bear baiting on
    Federal land in states that permit the practice, undermining their very
    own warnings about the dangers of intentional feeding of bears.
        If it is wrong and reckless to feed bears in parks, it is also
    wrong to do so in national forests and on BLM lands. Bears fed by
    humans can be dangerous regardless of where they are fed, be it on
    parks, forests, refuges, or BLM lands. Once fed, the bears, we are told
    by experts, are more likely to lose their natural wariness of people
    and to confront them in search of food. This can only result in
    dangerous encounters for both the bears and people.
        Baiting is not needed on our Federal lands. We know that the
    majority of states ban bear baiting on all of their lands--public and
    private--and maintain successful bear hunting programs, including in my
    home state of California, where over 25,000 bears live in a state with
    34 million people. In no way am I opposed to the practice of hunting
    and I am an advocate of sportsmen's rights, but with rights come
    responsibilities.
        We will hear testimony today that reveals that after voters put a
    stop to baiting in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, hunters in these
    states adapted and learned quickly to pursue bears in a more sporting
    manner. What's more, the sale of bear hunting licenses dramatically
    increased after the baiting bans were imposed, returning more revenues
    to the state.
        I have introduced this legislation to protect bears and moreover,
    to protect people. It is a common sense approach, and I urge my
    colleagues to support this legislation.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gilchrest. We will now hear from the witnesses on the
    legislation dealing with the Lacey Act, introduced by Mr.
    McKeon, and I guess I will go to McKeon, the author of the
    legislation, unless Mr. Peterson or Mr. Moran, who were here
    first, have a time conflict.
        Mr. Moran. This is going to take less time, I imagine, so
    let's go ahead.
        Mr. Gilchrest. All right. Gentlemen, thank you, we look
    forward to your testimony. Mr. McKeon, you may begin.

          STATEMENT OF THE HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, A
        REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, and I thank Mr.
    Moran and Mr. Peterson for letting me go first. I apologize for
    being late.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking Member
    Pallone, the distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
    Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for holding this
    important hearing to discuss the problems associated with the
    private ownership of exotic cats, such as lions, leopards,
    tigers, cheetahs, and cougars. I also want to thank the
    Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to talk about H.R.
    1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, that my friend and
    colleague, George Miller, and I introduced earlier this year,
    which would put an end to the attacks, hopefully, by these
    animals that bring harm and danger to our families and
    communities. I also want to thank Chairman Pombo for his help
    in moving this legislation forward. I appreciate that help.
        I would also like to acknowledge Tippi Hedren, who has been
    leading this fight for many years. She is a good friend and
    constituent and I understand will be testifying later before
    the Committee.
        The Captive Wildlife Safety Act makes necessary
    improvements to the Lacey Act, which originally was enacted to
    prohibit the ability to import, export, transport, sell,
    receive, acquire, or purchase reptiles, fish, amphibians,
    plants, and other animals taken, possessed, transported or sold
    in violation of U.S. or State law. The law, however, does not
    include these dangerous exotic cats.
        Some estimates state that there are more than 5,000 tigers
    in captivity in the United States. While some are held in
    zoological institutions and preserves, most of these animals
    are maintained as pets, caged in backyards, basements, or
    closets. This problem is not isolated to tigers, as the
    unregulated commercial trade of big cats is flourishing
    throughout the country. These animals can now be purchased at
    auctions or on Web sites that advertise and sell exotic
    animals.
        Lions and tigers are not domesticated animals like your
    family dog or your playful cat, and are inherently hard-wired
    to hunt, attack and defend themselves with brutal force when
    feeling threatened. It is for this reason that the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, the American Veterinary Medical
    Association, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, and The
    Humane Society of the United States have taken public stands
    against keeping dangerous carnivores as pets.
        The dangers these big cats pose to people are self-evident
    and well-documented. In Loxahatchee, Florida, last February, a
    58-year-old woman was bitten in the head by a 750 pound pet
    Siberian-Bengal tiger mix. In Lexington, Texas, in October of
    2001, a 3-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather's pet
    tiger. This past April alone, two people fell victim to tiger
    attacks, a 35-year-old woman in Adair, Oklahoma, and a 32-year-
    old man in Hennepin, Illinois. Both these tigers were being
    held at unaccredited animal parks. And as you can see, the
    result is all too clear.
        These animals require trained personnel equipped with the
    proper tools and facilities to ensure that they are kept in an
    environment where the probability of an attack is dropped to
    the lowest possible level. How can we expect a person with no
    experience in caring for a tiger or lion to have the knowledge
    and education to take the necessary safeguards to prevent an
    attack? People in neighborhoods and communities all across the
    country should no longer have to take that risk.
        This legislation would add the big cats to the Lacey Act to
    prevent these animals from being sold or purchased in
    interstate or foreign commerce. This, I believe, will greatly
    decrease the commercial aspect of wanting to keep these tigers
    and transport them and, I think, will help lessen the danger of
    an attack.
        In closing, I urge the Subcommittee to quickly consider
    H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which already has
    the bipartisan support of over 40 Members of Congress to
    protect our families and communities from any further terrible
    attacks. I again want to thank the Subcommittee for your
    attention to this issue and once again for inviting me to
    testify today. I appreciate this very much.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, a Representative
             in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 1006

        Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone and the
    distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
    Wildlife and Oceans for holding this important hearing to discuss the
    problems associated with the private ownership of exotic cats, such as
    lions, leopards, tigers, cheetahs and cougars. I also want to thank the
    Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to talk about H.R. 1006, the
    Captive Wildlife Safety Act, that my friend and colleague George Miller
    and I introduced earlier this year, which would put an end to attacks
    by these wild animals that bring harm and danger to our families and
    communities.
        This Captive Safety Wildlife Act makes necessary improvements to
    the Lacey Act, which originally was enacted to prohibit the ability to
    import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase
    reptiles, fish, amphibians, plants and other animals taken, possessed,
    transported or sold in violation of U.S. or state law. The law,
    however, does not include these dangerous exotic cats.
        Some estimates state that there are more than 5,000 tigers in
    captivity in the United States. While some are held in zoological
    institutions and preserves, most of these animals are maintained as
    pets caged in backyards, basements, or closets.
        This problem is not isolated to tigers as the unregulated
    commercial trade of big cats is flourishing throughout the country, as
    these animals can now be purchased at auctions or on web sites that
    advertise and sell exotic animals.
        Lions and tigers are not domesticated animals like your family dog
    or your playful cat and are inherently hard-wired to hunt, attack and
    defend themselves with brutal force when feeling threatened. It is for
    this reason that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American
    Veterinary Medical Association, the American Zoo and Aquarium
    Association and The Humane Society of the United States have taken
    public stands against keeping dangerous carnivores as pets.
        The dangers these big cats pose to people are self-evident and well
    documented. In Loxahatchee, Florida, last February, a 58-year-old woman
    was bitten in the head by a 750-pound pet Siberian-Bengal tiger mix. In
    Lexington, Texas, in October 2001, a three-year-old boy was killed by
    his stepfather's pet tiger. This past April alone, two people fell
    victim to tiger attacks: a 35-year-old woman in Adair, Oklahoma and a
    32-year-old man in Hennepin, Illinois. Both these tigers were being
    held at unaccredited animal parks and, as you can see, the result is
    all too clear.
        These animals require trained personnel equipped with the proper
    tools and facilities to ensure that they are kept in an environment
    where the probability of an attack is dropped to the lowest possible
    level. How can we expect a person with no experience in caring for a
    tiger or lion to have the knowledge and education to take the necessary
    safeguards to prevent an attack? People in neighborhoods and
    communities all across the country should no longer have to take that
    risk.
        In closing, I urge the Subcommittee to quickly consider H.R. 1006,
    the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, to protect our families and
    communities from these heinous attacks.
        I again want to thank the Subcommittee for your attention to this
    issue and, once again, for inviting me to testify today on the dire
    need for the transaction of these animals to cease once and for all.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Buck. Mr. Peterson.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure if I
    am a cosponsor, but add me on because I had an issue like this
    in my district and I support and commend what you are doing.
        But I came here today to testify on H.R. 1472. But before I
    begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record
    extraneous material from the Minnesota Department of Natural
    Resources, the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, which I am a
    former co-chairman of, and also the North American Bear
    Federation, if that is possible.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The letters referred to follow:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.004

                  Statement of Brian Bachman, President/CEO,
                         North American Bear Foundation

        The North American Bear Foundation (NABF) wants to thank
    Representative Collin Peterson for testifying on the behalf of
    responsible management of our natural resources. We believe that the
    states are responsible for managing the wildlife within their borders.
        Minnesota has always used baiting for black bears in their
    management program. Since black bears came under protection and listed
    as a big game species in 1971 in Minnesota their population has
    steadily risen. It is now estimated that around 25,000 black bears now
    inhabit the state up from as little as 8000 animals by estimates in the
    early 1980's. This is at or above the goal that the Department on
    Natural Resources has set as a desired level. Because of the dense
    vegetation in the majority of the black bear range, other hunting
    techniques are not as effective as they are in other parts of the
    country- Baiting allows a hunter to get close to the animal making for
    positive identification and proper shot placement thereby reducing the
    chance of wounding loss. With this being said, baiting of black bears
    is nowhere near a sure thing. Of the 14,639 licensed hunters in 2042
    only 1915 bears were harvested with a hunter success rate of 14%.
    Application permits have fell off this year with fewer applying than
    the number of licenses available. There is some speculation as to the
    reasons for this, but the low hunter success has to play a role.
    Without baiting you will see hunter success decline to where the
    majority of the black bears killed will be nuisance bears. The North
    American Bear foundation does not want the black bear to be return to
    varmint status as they had been for many years.
        Most people will agree that we need black bears inhabiting our
    forests, but when they show up in their yards they are sometimes not so
    supportive. As bear populations continue to rise and people move out
    into natural areas, human/bear conflicts will increase. Hunting helps
    reduce these conflicts by keeping populations stable and instilling the
    natural fear of humans. Minnesota has found the use of baiting a
    valuable tool in managing their black bears. As a point of interest,
    baiting for black bears is not a vanishing method for hunting them, in
    fact after the NABF consulted with the State of Arkansas in 2001 they
    chose to allow baiting for black bears to help manage their increasing
    black bear population. They have been very pleased with the results
    over the last 2 years.
        State wildlife departments have the knowledge and ability to manage
    our wildlife effectively and humanely, keeping the balance between the
    wildlife and the people that inhabit their states.
        Thank you, if you have further questions please do not hesitate to
    contact me.
                                     ______

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, 1472
    would prohibit the use of bear baiting on Federal public land,
    and my home State of Minnesota is one of 10 States that allow
    bear baiting.
        I have been involved in this issue for some time, not
    directly on baiting, but I served in the Minnesota Senate for
    10 years and was chairman of the Fish and Wildlife Committee
    and we had many go-rounds over bear hunting. Back in 1977, we
    set up the current quota system where we split the State into
    areas so that we could better manage the population, and it has
    been fairly successful. Although at the time we started, back
    in 1971, they changed the bear from a varmint, basically, that
    could be shot any time it was causing problems, it was
    basically not protected, we made it a big game animal and set
    up the possibility for hunting seasons. I think in 1977 we set
    up the quota. But at the time we made it a big game animal
    there were 8,000 bear in Minnesota. Today, there are 25,000
    bear. So what has happened, through the management and paying
    attention to the bears, we have actually tripled the population
    in Minnesota.
        In Minnesota, because of the cold weather and the early
    winter and so forth, there is really no other way to hunt bears
    other than baiting. You are not going to see them. They go to
    their dens early. Having a longer season is not going to solve
    it. We have 400,000 deer hunters in the woods every fall for a
    week or 10 days and they see very few bear. So if we didn't
    have this ability to manage, we would not be able to hunt or
    have any way to control the population.
        Now, with 25,000 bears we are actually now above the level
    that the Department has used as an optimum population. Last
    year, the people that applied for permits was down considerably
    because the year before that the success rate went down to 100
    out of seven being successful. And because they had such a poor
    harvest, the Department actually gave everybody a second bear
    permit to try to increase the harvest. This year, the people
    that applied went from 22,000 down to 14,000. So we are having
    problems getting enough hunters into the field and being able
    to manage these bears the way it is without having this extra
    burden put on top of us.
        As Mr. Saxton said, it would be a very bad policy for the
    Federal Government to get involved in managing species that are
    not migratory and are native to the State. That is something
    the States are much better at. They know what the situation is.
    And there is no way you can have a Federal rule that is going
    to work in all the different States.
        What has been the big issue in Minnesota over the years
    when I was there, we had a bunch of people that wanted to hunt
    them with dogs and we made a decision that hunting with dogs
    was a much less preferable way and less humane than baiting,
    because they actually start off with a feeding situation, they
    start the dogs there and then run them all over through the
    woods and then run them up a tree and shoot them, which I would
    argue is not, at least we decided in Minnesota that this is not
    the way that things should be done. Some States allow running
    them with dogs still. I think there are five or six States that
    do that.
        In terms of feeding the bears, this whole idea that this is
    going to cause some kind of problem, unfortunately, we have
    people that feed bears. They are not supposed to but they do.
    We also have bears, especially when we get this many bears,
    where they get into people's groceries. They break into these
    cabins that are not occupied all the time, and these bears
    become a problem because they become less afraid of humans and
    they are the ones that interact and can cause problems. We also
    have a lot of bears ending up in garbage dumps feeding out of
    that.
        Bears are very much sensitive to human scent and the ones
    that have not been fed and have not been around humans are
    unlikely to come into the bait if there is any kind of human
    scent around. The bears that you are going to harvest are more
    likely the bears that have been fed by people or have been in
    garbage dumps or have been breaking into cabins, and so forth,
    and are the ones causing the most problems in their interaction
    with people.
        So it would cause us a lot of problems in Minnesota if this
    bill passed. I don't think it makes sense. The Department of
    Natural Resources is very much against this, the American Bear
    Foundation is very much against this. They have done a lot of
    work to improve habitat and the situation status of bears. And
    what the Bear Foundation is concerned about is that the bear is
    going to go back to the status that it had before, which is a
    nuisance, a varmint, that will be killed any time that it is
    doing damage. And in Minnesota the law is that if a bear is
    doing any kind of damage, you can take that bear whenever you
    want, even though it is now a big game animal.
        So I think this is a misguided piece of legislation. I
    think the people that have proposed it are not familiar with
    what the situations are in certain States like mine, and we
    would just as soon they leave us alone and let the State do
    what they do best in managing these resources.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the time to
    testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

        Statement of The Honorable Collin Peterson, a Representative in
               Congress from the State of Minnesota, on H.R. 1472

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today against H.R. 1472, legislation that would
    prohibit the practice of bear baiting on Federal public lands. My home
    state of Minnesota is one of ten states that permits the regulated
    hunting of bears through baiting. As a matter of fact, as a Minnesota
    state Senator I spearheaded the effort to legalize a hunting season for
    bears and was a strong supporter for the use of baiting as a means to
    control a growing population of black bears.
        The Minnesota black bear population is estimated at a stable
    25,000, that is 17,000 more bears than when the practice of baiting was
    legalized. The primary means of harvest, accounting for virtually 100
    percent of the bears taken by sport hunters in Minnesota in 2002, is
    through the use of baiting. The dense forests and the long winters in
    Minnesota take away other harvest options that are used by hunters in
    other states, such as spot-and-stalk and relying on deer hunters to
    harvest bears in the fall. Ideal bear habitat in Minnesota consists of
    densely wooded lowland conifers where visibility is extremely limited,
    and because of the long winters, bears are usually in their winter dens
    before the deer hunting season begins in November.
        Contrary to the belief of many non-hunters, and thanks in part to
    misleading and emotional representations by anti-hunting groups,
    harvesting a bear using bait is not easy. Bears have a keen sense of
    smell and hearing and generally are wary of humans, so bait hunters
    must be skillful and patient to harvest a bear. The Minnesota
    Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has issued specific guidelines
    and restrictions to regulate the use of bait for bear hunting,
    including requirements that the hunter must remove any unused bait once
    the baiting site is no longer in operation. To illustrate the
    difficulty in harvesting black bears from bait, in the state of
    Minnesota in 2002, only 14 percent of the bear hunters were successful
    in harvesting a bear.
        If it were not for sport hunting and bait use, Minnesota's bear
    population would be expected to grow at a rate of approximately 20%
    percent per year. Through the use of a quota system for most of the
    state, and requirements to tag and report all bears harvested within
    the state, Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is able to
    monitor and control the harvest of bears to reflect acceptable social
    and biological carrying capacities.
        The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources authorized licensed
    Minnesota bear hunters statewide to take two bears in 2001, in an
    attempt to increase the harvest and stabilize the population. Since
    then, the DNR has continued a two-bear limit in portions of the state
    where they do not set a quota on licensed hunters. In 2001, there were
    nearly 27,000 applicants for a total of 20,710 permits. The DNR ended
    up with 16,510 licensed hunters (not all hunters drawn end up
    purchasing licenses) and they harvested 4,936 bears. We have seen a
    declining number of applicants for bear licenses over the past four
    years (2000--29,275; 2001--26,824; 2002--21, 886; 2003--14,968). This
    year, for the first time, we had fewer applicants than total permits
    available, therefore the DNR offered the leftover licenses over the
    counter to non-applicants who would like to purchase them.
        In 2002, hunters harvested 1,915 black bears or approximately 7.5%
    of the estimated Minnesota population. According to the Minnesota DNR
    bear experts, this is not only a sustainable harvest, but necessary to
    keep the bear population in check.
        Approximately 13 percent of land open to bear hunting in Minnesota
    is Federally owned. In the three most successful units in 2002, units
    25, 31 and 51, ranged from 7% to 37% percent of the land is in Federal
    ownership. By eliminating baiting as a means to harvest bears on these
    Federal lands, a necessary management tool would be taken away from the
    Minnesota DNR and bear populations could increase beyond the acceptable
    carrying capacity.
        Congress specifically and repeatedly has affirmed the states'
    rights to manage non-migratory wildlife, including on most Federal
    lands except for the National Parks system. This legislation would
    preempt these rights and set a dangerous precedent. Sound science and
    professional wildlife management through the state wildlife agencies
    has been the backbone of America's successful wildlife management
    program, and regulating the method of harvest is a key tool in their
    management options. The state wildlife agencies that would be affected
    by this legislation have determined that regulated use of baiting to
    hunt bears is an appropriate method to harvest bears, and in the case
    of Minnesota, the only viable option to use harvest as a management
    option for black bear populations.
        The history of species protection and recovery in America is a
    tribute to these professional state wildlife agencies and the sportsmen
    who willingly pay the license fees and excise taxes to support wildlife
    conservation. The American black bear, like the white-tailed deer, wild
    turkey, elk and many other game and non-game species, are great
    examples that this system is working, with stable black bear
    populations across its entire range. So, let's leave the management of
    black bears to the state wildlife professionals and view H.R. 1472 for
    what it really is, a thinly veiled attempt by the anti-hunting
    extremists to get the Federal Government to do what they clearly could
    not at the state level.
        Mr. Chairman and my fellow colleagues on the Subcommittee, I urge
    you to let sound science and wildlife professionals manage our wildlife
    resources, and therefore hope that you would join me in opposing H.R.
    1472.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Moran.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pallone mentioned that we had, what, almost 90
    cosponsors. We are up now to almost 120. In explaining the
    practice to colleagues, most of them immediately understood.
    This is a very unfair, unsportsmanlike method of hunting, with
    one exception. I asked Barbara Lee yesterday, our colleague, if
    she would go on the bill to ban bear baiting, and she was got
    very emotional and had a very negative reaction, which I was
    surprised at. But in further discussion I had to explain that I
    was talking about bear baiting, not bare bathing; that I was
    using the term B-E-A-R, while she thought I was using B-A-R-E,
    but when we cleared that up, she went on as a cosponsors as
    well. So I want to make sure what we are trying to do here.
        Mr. Gilchrest. It is that Massachusetts accent.
        Mr. Moran. I think that is what the problem was, Wayne. I
    think that this is an important piece of legislation. It
    prohibits a dangerous and an unsportsmanlike practice. I want
    to thank Representative Gallegly for his hard work in raising
    awareness of this issue.
        For many years, every Federal land management agency,
    including the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service,
    the partner Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service have issued countless warnings to the public
    discouraging the feeding of bears. So this bill simply
    establishes a consistency of policy among all those Federal
    agencies.
        At the same time that we have these warning issued, though,
    hunters continue to be allowed to set up bait stations on
    Federal lands in States where bear baiting is permitted. These
    bait piles are known to consist of hundreds of pounds of human
    scented food, often including pastries, fruits, grease, and
    animal carcasses that are simply dropped on the forest floor or
    loaded into large cans awaiting the attention of bears and
    other animals. There are very few differences between bait
    piles and what a bear might find in a garbage can, dump or
    campground. In fact, one guide boasts on his Web site he goes
    through ten tons of pastries and eight tons of meat so that he
    can guarantee a successful shoot to urban hunters.
        But unlike garbage cans or campground trash stations, these
    bait piles often are not even picked up at the close of the
    hunting season. Bears, as we know, and as Mr. Peterson said,
    are born with a natural wariness of humans. The taste for human
    food, though, causes bears to lose their natural precaution and
    become emboldened in approaching people and their property.
    Hungry human-fed bears cause millions of dollars in property
    damage each year and pose a serious safety threat, occasionally
    result in attacks on humans. They get labeled as nuisance
    animals, they come into conflict with people so that they are
    killed as a means to protect people and their property.
        In recognition of this fact, the National Park Service
    developed a number of bear management plans that include such
    techniques as installing bear-proof dumpsters and bear-proof
    garbage cans. Since adoption of these policies, the number of
    contacts with humans and bears has decreased dramatically.
    Those have been common-sense methods. This is another common-
    sense approach.
        In my home State of Virginia, the Department of Game and
    Inland Fisheries became aware of this dangerous practice where
    they become used to human food, so they made it illegal to use
    bait as a training tool for hunting dogs. And in their
    rationale, they said to protect the public as well as bears, we
    need to avoid the dangers of conditioning bears to finding
    food, human food, around human habitat. Artificial feeding and
    resulting concentrations of black bears increases nuisance
    complaints and chances of bears interacting with humans. And it
    is working. This is consistent with that type of policy.
        But beyond that, beyond that common-sense practical method,
    the practice of bear baiting really calls into question the
    sporting nature of hunting. Many wildlife advocates and hunters
    alike have compared the practice to shooting fish in a barrel.
    A lifelong hunter, the former Governor of Idaho and the former
    Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, has stated, in my
    opinion, bear baiting does not fit within the definition of
    hunting as a sport.
        And just as Federal regulations prohibit duck hunters from
    baiting for waterfowl with corn and millet, because it
    virtually guarantees a successful hunt, so there should be a
    law prohibiting bear baiting on Federal lands. That is why we
    have gained a number of cosponsors on this bill. In the case of
    bears and waterfowl, the use of bait gives hunters an unfair
    advantage because of the animals' overwhelming attraction to an
    easily obtained and highly appealing food source.
        Shooting a bear in the back while its head is stuffed in a
    garbage can to feed does not constitute a fair sport. I think
    we understand that. It is not ethical. So opponents of this
    legislation, we know, are going to argue this should be
    entirely left up to State wildlife managers, but Congress has
    already spoken decisively on these kinds of issues in the past.
    Since the 1930's, the Federal Government has regulated the
    hunting of migratory waterfowl, and in 1971 we reacted to
    restrict the shooting of animals with the use of aircraft. This
    is not treading on untrodden ground. This is clearly consistent
    with previous legislation with regard to hunting regulations.
        So what we are trying to do is to establish a uniform
    policy on Federal land in all 50 States. It is inconsistent and
    detrimental to public safety that Federal land management
    agencies demand citizens not to feed bears but then make an
    exception for bear baiters. Our legislation would protect the
    integrity of the bear population, the public safety, and would
    reduce the number of dangerous and costly encounters with
    humans visiting or living near Federal land.
        So, Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I strongly urge
    your support for consideration of this bill to rid our Federal
    lands of what is a dangerous and an unsportsmanlike practice.
    It is wrong, it is cruel, and I think it runs counter to the
    American principle of fair play.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable James P. Moran, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Virginia

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me to
    address the Subcommittee today regarding the ``Do Not Feed the Bears
    Act of 2003,'' a vital piece of legislation that would prohibit the
    dangerous and unsportsmanlike practice commonly known as bear-baiting.
    I would also like to give a special thanks to Representative Gallegly
    for his hard work and dedicated efforts in raising awareness of this
    issue within the halls of Congress.
        For many years, every Federal land management agency including the
    U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
    Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have issued countless
    warnings to the public discouraging the feeding of bears.
        At the same time, however, licensed hunters continue to be allowed
    to set up bait stations on Federal lands in states where bear baiting
    is permitted. These bait piles are known to consist of hundreds of
    pounds of human scented food, often including pastries, fruits, grease
    and even animal carcasses. They are simply dropped on the forest floor
    or loaded into large drums, awaiting the attention of area bears and
    other animals. There are few differences between bait piles and what a
    bear might find in a garbage can, dump or campground. And unlike
    garbage cans or campground trash stations, these bait piles are often
    not picked up after the close of bear hunting season.
        Born with a natural wariness of humans, the taste for human food
    causes bears to lose their natural precaution and become emboldened in
    approaching people and property. Hungry, human fed bears cause millions
    of dollars in property damage each year and pose a serious safety
    threat, occasionally resulting in attacks on humans. Labeled as
    nuisance animals, bears that come into conflict with people are often
    killed as a means to protect people and property. In recognition of
    these facts, the National Park Service has developed a number of park
    bear management plans that include such techniques as installing bear-
    proof dumpsters and bear-proof garbage can covers on garbage cans in
    parks where bears exist. Since adoption of these policies, the number
    of reported bear-human encounters has decreased dramatically.
        In my home state of Virginia, the Department of Game and Inland
    Fisheries has been aware of the dangerous nature of human/bear
    encounters for a number of years. Banning the practice of bear-baiting
    in 1999, the department more recently made it illegal to use bait as
    training tool for hunting dogs. As stated in their rationale for
    adopting these regulations, the Department acknowledged that ``To
    protect the public, as well as bears, the department needs to avoid the
    dangers of conditioning bears to finding food around homes. Artificial
    feeding and resulting concentrations of black bears has been identified
    to increase both nuisance complaints and chances of bears injuring
    humans.'' The effect of these new pro-active Virginia regulations
    mirrors our effort to ban the feeding of bears on Federal land.
        Aside from endangering the public's safety, the practice of bear-
    baiting also seriously calls into question the ``sporting'' nature of
    this hunting method. Many wildlife advocates and hunters alike have
    compared the custom to ``shooting fish in a barrel.'' A lifelong
    hunter, the former Governor of Idaho and former Secretary of the
    Interior, Cecil Andrus has stated, ``In my opinion bear baiting does
    not fit within the definition of hunting as a sport.''
        Just as Federal regulations prohibit duck hunters from baiting for
    waterfowl with corn and millet because it virtually guarantees a
    successful hunt, so should there be a law prohibiting bear-baiting on
    Federal lands. Rep. Gallegly and I, along with a large number of
    cosponsors of this legislation, are seeking to extend this logical
    principle to bear-baiting. In the case of both bears and waterfowl, the
    use of bait gives hunters an unfair advantage because of the animals
    overwhelming attraction to an easily obtained and highly appealing food
    source. Let me be very clear, shooting a bear in the back while it's
    head is stuffed in a garbage to feed, does not constitute a fair chase.
        Opponents of this legislation will argue that hunting laws should
    be left entirely up to state wildlife managers and that adoption of
    this bill would represent an unprecedented effort by the ``anti's'' in
    Congress to over-regulate hunting in the U.S. Besides the fact that
    this legislation has the broad support of over 120 cosponsors
    representing Republicans and Democrats of all stripes, Congress has
    already spoken decisively on these issues in the past. Since the
    1930's, the Federal Government has regulated the hunting of migratory
    waterfowl and in 1971, Congress acted to restrict the shooting of
    animals with the use of aircraft. Clearly this legislation is not
    treading on untrodden ground.
        In closing, of the states where bear hunting occurs, a large
    majority have already banned the practice of bear baiting. The ``Do Not
    Feed the Bears Act'' would uniformly implement these states' sound
    decisions on all Federal land in all 50 states. It is inconsistent and
    detrimental to the public's safety that Federal land management
    agencies demand citizens not feed bears, while making an exception for
    bear-baiters. Our legislation would protect the integrity of the bear
    population, the public's safety, and would reduce the number of
    dangerous and costly encounters with humans visiting or living near
    Federal land
        Mr. Chairman and present Committee members, I strongly urge your
    support for consideration of this bill to rid our Federal lands of this
    dangerous and unsportsmanlike practice. It is wrong. It is cruel. And
    it runs counter to the American value of fair play.
        Thank you very much for your time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
        I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Kind to sit with the
    Subcommittee. Without objection.
        Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony this morning. We
    may have just a couple of quick questions. I am not sure we
    will have too many for the Members, but, Mr. McKeon, can you
    tell us what it is your legislation would do, after it is
    signed into law, to large cats that are now in captivity?
        Mr. McKeon. Make it illegal to transport them from one
    State to another, and I think will lessen their commercial
    value. I don't know why they were originally excluded in the
    act, but I think it will lessen their commercial value and
    hopefully then people will not have the desire to keep them in
    unsafe conditions.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So we are not looking at confiscation of
    animals that are now in captivity in other than unsuitable
    places?
        Mr. McKeon. Well, this doesn't go as far as we would
    probably like to go, but at the Federal level it is probably
    all that we can do right now.
        Ms. Hedren will talk later, and she knows much more about
    this than I do. I have been to her preserve where she does take
    in animals and keeps them in a safe environment that is good
    for the animals and for people. You don't walk up and try to
    pet them, you don't get close to them, and that is how they
    should be kept, rather than in a closet or in somebody's little
    backyard. I think this bill will discourage that.
        Mr. Gilchrest. We appreciate the legislation that you have
    proposed here and will move it through in an expeditious
    manner.
        Mr. McKeon. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Buck.
        Mr. Peterson, is there any restriction in Minnesota State
    law on the kind of bait that can be used for bears?
        Mr. Peterson. Yes, it has to be biodegradable. So that
    feature is in there.
        Mr. Gilchrest. If it is biodegradable, can it be left? I
    have seen, in an interesting fashion in Idaho, not in
    Minnesota, where somebody, and I guess it doesn't make any
    difference in the long run, but somebody spent about 4 hours
    filling up their pickup by unwrapping Twinkies. They spent that
    amount of time putting the Twinkies in the pickup.
        Mr. Peterson. I am not aware of anybody in Minnesota using
    Twinkies. We are not that kind of people, so.
        Mr. Kind. Mr. Chairman, that sounds like the Twinkie
    defense to me.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Well, these two fellas were from Nebraska,
    so I don't know if there is anybody here from Nebraska. I guess
    you leave the Twinkies for the snack food at your schools.
        The other question dealing with that, and I guess we would
    have to look to see if Twinkies are biodegradable, but do they
    clean up after the hunt? Do they go in and take away what is
    left over?
        Mr. Peterson. Yes. I have not heard of any instances where
    we have had problems with people leaving bait out in the field.
    We have quite a few people that do this professionally, that
    guide. We have a lot of people that do it. I have two brother-
    in-laws that hunt bear every year and usually are successful on
    Federal land. So the people are, I think, pretty ethical in the
    way they go about this in Minnesota.
        But the point is, and I don't know if I made this clear
    enough, if you pass this, we have the Chippewa and Superior
    National Forests in Minnesota, and that is a lot of where this
    hunting goes on. If we don't have this way to control bears,
    because it is the only way we can hunt them and control the
    population, we are going to have way more bears than we know
    what to do with. Because bears are going to get into dumps,
    they are going to be fed by some people, they are going to move
    out into the area where there are private people and we are
    going to have a lot of problems. We already have three times as
    many bears as we had when we started, and maybe we were too
    conservative in giving out permits to let this thing get out of
    control a little bit, and now we don't have the hunters out
    there.
        It would really tie our hands, cause a lot of problems, and
    would be worse for the bears in the long run because people
    would start shooting them because they are causing problems in
    their backyards or at garbage dumps, and like we used to do
    before when they didn't really have a status.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Overpopulation.
        Mr. Moran, just one quick follow-up. On the Eastern Shore
    of Maryland, we don't have a problem with bears, but as Mr.
    Saxton mentioned, we really have an overabundance of deer, we
    have Mute swans that really wreak havoc on the subaquatic
    vegetation and other water plants, and now a problem with
    resident geese. So to some extent we have increased the hunting
    season to protect the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, and we
    also allow baiting of deer during much of the hunting season.
    In your mind, do you see any reason that that same type of
    management shouldn't be applied to a bear population?
        Mr. Moran. It is a very good question, Chairman Gilchrest.
    I think it is a matter of judgment and what strikes us as fair
    and reasonable.
        There is an overpopulation of deer, clearly, and there is
    really too much contact between deer and residential areas.
    Some of that is because we are developing, as you know, in
    areas that used to be fields, and so on, where they were
    accustomed to living. But I think the deer population is out of
    control in a number of areas and we have to take measures to--
    not only for the deer's sake but for many other reasons, you
    have to have a reasonable control of the population.
        With regard to bear baiting, though, I think the difference
    is that this presents a real threat to human safety. You are
    deliberately attracting bears out of rural areas, where, as Mr.
    Peterson said, you don't find bears like you find deer when you
    drive down a country road. But you are deliberately attracting
    them, getting them almost addicted to human food, and then they
    lose their natural wariness of humans and they destroy property
    and you can have serious encounters with human beings.
        That is one of the purposes of this, and that is why so
    many States have banned this practice for public safety
    reasons. Deer don't present much of a threat to human beings,
    and so I think that that distinction is an important one. Plus
    the fact that the bear population in most areas is not
    something that has been out of control, and bears generally
    would much prefer to be in a clearly rural area away from human
    scent, away from human activity. Deer have become almost
    domesticated in some areas.
        So I do think there is a distinction. And at this point
    consistent Federal policy and good sound judgment and even
    ethical practice dictates that we ought to have this kind of
    restriction.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Moran.
        Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I am really over my time, Mr. Peterson. But
    you can probably include that in a question that some other
    member has.
        Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to ask Congressman McKeon about
    this Los Angeles Times article that basically exposed a black
    market in the traffic of exotic cats that was essentially
    fueled by illicit private breeders. I read the article, and I
    have it in front of me, but is this widespread? Do we have any
    evidence to the extent to which this kind of illicit breeding
    is that this covered?
        This is talking about a specific case, but is there
    evidence that this type of practice that was in that article is
    widespread or there are other instances of it?
        Mr. McKeon. I guess ``widespread'' is a relative term, but
    I would say, yes, it is widespread. And, again, Ms. Hedren will
    be able to address that in more detail. She was telling me some
    stories yesterday that kind of curl your hair when you hear
    things that are going on. Like I say, widespread, if you talk
    about 20,000 bears in one State and 5,000 tigers in the
    country, but relatively, I would say yes, it is widespread.
    Enough to be a problem.
        Mr. Pallone. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Saxton.
        Mr. Saxton. I would just like to use my time to put
    something in the record and then let Mr. Peterson say what he
    wanted to say at the end of your time.
        Our great staffer here, Harry Burroughs, took the time to
    call all the wildlife or bear biologists in each of the nine
    States where baiting is permitted, and in Alaska, for example,
    where the estimated bear population is between 100,000 and
    200,000 total bears, harvested was 2,460, and 414 of those bear
    were killed over bait. In Idaho, there is an estimated 23,000
    bears, and there was a total harvest of 1,830, and 455 were
    killed over bait. In Maine, there are a total of 23,000 bears,
    3,903 were estimated harvested, and 3,173 of them were killed
    over bait. In Michigan, a total estimated population of 17,000
    bears, there were 2,221 bears harvested, and 1,998 were killed
    over bait. In Minnesota, an estimated 25,000 bears, 1,915 were
    harvested, 1,900 of them killed over bait. In New Hampshire,
    there are 5,000 bears, estimated, 338 were taken, and 92 killed
    over bait. In Utah, there is a 3,500 estimated bear population,
    85 bears harvested, only 8 were killed over bait. In Wisconsin,
    13,000 estimated population, 2,437 harvested, 1,720 killed over
    bait. And in Wyoming there is no estimated bear population, but
    there were a total of 324 taken and 171 were killed over bait.
        I think this demonstrates the point I was trying to make in
    my earlier remarks, that States have different needs in terms
    of wildlife management and these numbers point out that the
    policies and the hunting patterns in different States reflect
    those different needs. So, again, it seems to me to have a
    Federal policy would eliminate the flexibility that States have
    on this issue and is incorrect.
        I yield at this point to Mr. Peterson.

        [A chart submitted for the record by Mr. Saxton follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.005

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Saxton, I appreciate that. And
    as he pointed out, in Minnesota, just about the entire harvest
    was over bait, which corroborates what I said. It will take
    away our management tool.
        I really disagree with Mr. Moran's assertion that deer do
    not cause danger to human population. In these areas where we
    have all this deer, we are having car accidents and people
    injured. There is way more people injured by deer than by bear
    because of all the interaction they have with automobiles. So
    if his theory is that it is somehow or another good to
    eliminate baiting of bear on Federal land, then it seems to me
    it would also be good to eliminate baiting of deer or any other
    wildlife, if you are going to follow that logic, which I don't
    support. But it is hard for me to understand why you would pick
    out bear and not pick out these other species, which in
    Minnesota we don't allow baiting of deer and is very much
    opposed by our hunters. They would rather hunt in the normal
    way.
        But in the case of bear, as I said earlier, if we don't
    have this, we are not going to have a way to control them. And
    what will happen, Mr. Moran, is that the bear that are now in
    the State forests that are not interacting with humans are
    going to be forced, when we get this population explosion, will
    go out into the private area, just like happened with timber
    wolves.
        We had timber wolves way outside of their range because we
    had way more timber wolves than we should have and we were
    prohibited from shooting them or trapping them. That is now in
    the process of being changed. But I had timber wolves down
    where I grew up, where it would be unheard of. It was 100 miles
    out of their range. But we had way too many of them. And that
    will happen with bears if you eliminate baiting in Minnesota on
    the Federal land. We are going to cause more conflict with
    humans and more problems, not less. So I want people to be
    clear about that.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr.
    Saxton.
        The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Pombo.
        Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Peterson, just so I
    understand this, when you talk about the bear hunting that goes
    on and the baiting, is that in a suburban area? Are you trying
    to draw the bears into suburban areas?
        Mr. Peterson. No. There is no bear hunting that goes on
    anywhere--well, there is some north of the Twin Cities, 50, 60
    miles. But most of it goes on up in the northern forests, in
    the Superior and Chippewa National Forests, which is a big
    area, northeastern Minnesota, north central Minnesota. That is
    where the majority of this hunting goes on.
        What we have seen in the last couple of years, with this
    increase in population, we have seen the bears now move out
    into the private areas. For example, I have a bee farmer, a
    honey farmer up in Greenbush, that is imploring me to come up
    and help him shoot bears because he has too many bears getting
    into his honey and causing problems. And this is going to be
    what is going to happen. You are going to see more and more of
    that. But there is nothing going on in the urban or suburban
    areas.
        Mr. Pombo. So when they talk about the bears that get used
    to human food, it is not the bears that are in the suburban
    area?
        Mr. Peterson. No, it is generally, if that is happening, it
    is because they are in the garbage dumps. That has been the
    traditional problem, and you do have some people in the city
    that don't know any better that feed them. They have a cabin up
    north, or whatever. And we try to educate them not to do that.
    It is not our people up there that are doing it, it is people
    that come up for the weekend out of the city that don't know
    any better that do that, and then we have problems.
        Some of these cabins that sit empty during the week and the
    bears might break into them and get into the food. And as I
    said earlier, the ones that are likely to be drawn into the
    bait are these bears that have gotten into food not by baiting
    but have gotten into human food by other reasons that are more
    likely to come into the bait. Those are the ones that are
    causing us troubles in the first place. So the management ends
    up taking the bears that are the ones that probably should be
    taken, that are going to cause us problems.
        Mr. Pombo. So if the bears are in the garbage dumps and
    near the suburban areas, there is not a season on those bears?
        Mr. Peterson. In Minnesota, we have a quota by areas, and
    there is not hunting that I am aware of that goes on around or
    in the metropolitan areas.
        Mr. Pombo. But if a bear becomes a problem?
        Mr. Peterson. They will shoot them. The law allows you to
    shoot a bear that is causing you a problem in your house or
    backyard or is causing some kind of problem in an urban area.
        Mr. Pombo. So you are talking about two separate areas of
    the State and different types of management?
        Mr. Peterson. Yes. But the bears very seldom get into the
    Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. We have more problem with deer.
    Deer is a big problem there. We have had to have archery people
    go in there and shoot them early in the morning so people
    aren't offended to try to protect them from themselves where
    this is getting out of control.
        And, as Mr. Gilchrest mentioned, we have a big problem with
    Canadian geese now. But primarily in the Twin Cities area it is
    deer and geese. The bear don't go into--moose sometime get in
    there and run around, but I don't know of a bear.
        Mr. Pombo. But it is your position that this is an issue
    that should be left to the State wildlife management?
        Mr. Peterson. Absolutely. If we don't have this ability to
    do this, we are going to basically not be able to harvest bears
    at all. And what is going to happen is they are going to move
    out into the private land area, in my district, basically. They
    are going to move out of Oberstar's district into my district
    and they are going to cause all kinds of problems with
    livestock, with bee farmers. And that is what is going to
    happen if we don't have a way to harvest them and keep the
    population in check.
        Mr. Pombo. Mr. Moran, just quickly, just so I understand
    what your position is in terms of the deer baiting, what Mr.
    Gilchrest was talking about, that--it is your position that
    that is part of the management tool that they have in Maryland,
    and that is OK in that particular case? I am not trying to lead
    you, I am just trying to understand.
        Mr. Moran. As I said, I think this is a matter of judgment,
    Mr. Pombo. And at this point, I think there is a difference
    between the deer population and the bear population. And I
    think to some extent we are creating the problem with the--with
    bear baiting. We have a problem with deer population in a
    number of areas. I don't think we ought to deliberately create
    one by getting bears accustomed to human food. And you see a
    number of ads of hunters advertising an almost guaranteed kill
    of bears. And the way they do that is by deliberately
    attracting bears into areas where there is human food. And it
    is--I think that, at this point, it would be in the public's
    interest, and I think would be consistent policy for the
    Federal Government to ban that form of bear baiting because I
    don't think that is consistent with normal hunting practice. A
    number of people who are far more expert than I have said that.
    And the majority of States have banned it. So I think makes
    sense to have a consistent Federal policy, only on Federal
    land.
        Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I was not aware that they did baiting
    on deer in Maryland. I hadn't heard of that before, but that is
    an interesting twist to this.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. [Presiding.] Ms. Bordallo.
        Ms. Bordallo. No questions.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Kind.
        Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    Chair and Ranking Member for allowing me to sit up on the dais
    today.
        I do appreciate the well intentions of the authors of what
    you are trying to get at, but I would have to concur with Mr.
    Peterson. Obviously, as a Representative from Wisconsin, it is
    one of the States that do allow, through the State and wildlife
    agencies, bear baiting. It really is a management issue.
        Just to preface my remarks, I have never bear hunted
    myself, although I love to hunt and I love to fish, but I do
    know a lot of people who do. Those who are familiar with bear
    hunting will be the first to admit it is a very difficult sport
    to go out in the woods and try to find them, locate them.
    Typically, they are in very thick terrain, thick underbrush, in
    order to locate them.
        But this really is, as Mr. Peterson has already testified
    to, a very crucial management tool in the States. We need to
    remind ourselves, however, that it has been long-standing
    policy of Federal land management agencies to defer to State
    agencies in the management of their own fish and wildlife
    within the State borders. And I see Mr. Hogan is here, Deputy
    Director of Fish and Wildlife, already the Park Service and
    Fish and Wildlife have the authority they need to ban baiting
    in the national parks throughout the Nation, as well as the
    refuge systems throughout the Nation. But it is not an issue
    that has gone without much thought and consideration. In
    Wisconsin alone, each county, of 72 counties, has their own
    conservation offices in the county. The State itself has a
    conservation board. The DNR holds hearings every year,
    throughout the entire State, public hearings, where people can
    come out and testify with regard to these management practices
    of wildlife and fish in the State. There is a lot of vetting
    and consideration that takes place, at least in the State of
    Wisconsin, in regard to the practice of what is being done out
    in the field.
        This is a growing problem, as Mr. Peterson testified, in
    northern Wisconsin especially, the management and control of
    the bear population. Just last year we had two kids who were
    assaulted by bears in northern Wisconsin, one that was mauled
    pretty badly.
        Last spring in my hometown of La Crosse, which is a fairly
    large urban city, one of the elementary schools just on the
    outskirts of town, it was quite a thrill for the kids during
    recess when a black bear was found meandering through the field
    right next to the school. DNR and law enforcement were called
    out in order to track down the bear. It was tranquilized and
    tested, and it was found to be rabid.
        Just 2 weeks ago, there was a relative of mine in northern
    Wisconsin who actually had to kill a bear at his doorstep
    because it was very aggressive, and it was trying to get into
    the house, and there was a young child in the house at the same
    time. So these issues have been vetted, and I think well-
    thought-out, in the States that allow this type of baiting. And
    I think we need to be very careful on what we are calling here
    the one-size-fits-all approach given the uniqueness of each
    State.
        Mr. Moran, I appreciate your intentions, the motivation
    behind the bill and that, but even you are saying that, as a
    matter of judgment, it should be fair and reasonable. I think
    that is the standard that is being applied in all the States
    that do allow some form of bear baiting. Is it fair and
    reasonable given the management problems we now have in
    controlling the bear population? I think that is really what is
    at stake right now. Do we really want to instill the value
    judgment or perception here in Washington on the various States
    that might have different unique challenges in controlling this
    population? One that, if it does get out of hand, we are going
    to be see more incidents of what I just described here today.
        Mr. Peterson, in the question for you is what is--I am not
    as familiar, with what the procedure is in Minnesota, but is
    there a similar type of vetting process in Minnesota, where
    there are public hearings held throughout the State, giving the
    public a chance to come out and comment in regard to wildlife
    management issues?
        Mr. Peterson. When I was Chairman Of Fish and Wildlife
    Committee, we went to Wisconsin and studied your system. You
    have a process where your people are much more involved than
    ours, but the DNR goes out and holds hearings on the different
    seasons, not as structured as yours and not by county, but they
    do go out and allow people to have input. And it is--we were
    harvesting, I think, about 3,500, 4,000 bears, something like
    that. Last year it went down to 1,900. They tried, as I said,
    to give people two permits, and this year, for whatever reason,
    the application for licenses went from 23,000 down to 14,000. I
    think because the success was so bad the year before; I think
    one out of 7 hunters were successful. So it is not an easy
    thing. Normally--
        Mr. Kind. I would agree with you. It is a very difficult
    sport. It is hard to find them to begin with, and when do you,
    it can be very dangerous with the hunting of bears. So I
    certainly appreciate the members' testimony today and the
    motivation that might be underlying the legislation, but I
    think we need to be careful in regard to establishing a one-
    size rule on all the States, given the unique challenge that is
    some of the States are facing.
        In regard, to the deer population, we had close to 15,000
    automobile accidents in Wisconsin because of the exploding deer
    herd there. We are baiting, but for a different reason, because
    of the spread of chronic wasting disease in the State, and we
    don't want the congregation of deer in certain locations for
    fear that the disease is going to spread. But, again, that is a
    management decision that had to be made given the unique
    situation in Wisconsin. I think that is how we need to look at
    this, on a State-by-State basis, and give some credit to the
    State agencies and to the public in the various States, who
    have to live with the rules within their own borders.
        And, again, I appreciate you allowing me to sit on the
    Committee today. Thank you.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Saxton.
        I would like to ask my good friend from Minnesota, Mr.
    Peterson, a couple of questions. But before I do, I would like
    to preface my questions with a statement. That is, the record
    is very clear on my involvement with sporting activities. This
    is my 9th term on this Committee. I have served with several
    chairmen, including one Ranking Member that ended up as the
    Secretary of the Interior. My voting record is one I am very
    proud of, and I think is consistent with sportsmen across this
    Nation for over 17 years. However, this particular issue, I
    believe, has really pushed the envelope with me. And that is
    the reason that I introduced this bill.
        Mr. Peterson, you made reference to timber wolves and the
    fact that they migrate. Do you see any correlation at all
    between timber wolves and bears as it relates to their natural
    instinct and the way they interface? I am not suggesting that
    we ban baiting for timber wolves.
        Mr. Peterson. I am not a biologist, but the timber wolf
    range in Minnesota is similar to the bear range. And they are
    very secretive animals. They are very difficult to hunt or to
    trap, but we have been banned from doing anything to control
    them. And they have moved way out of their range and caused all
    kinds of problems with taking livestock and so forth. And I
    think the same thing will happen with bears if we don't have a
    way to manage them. That was my point.
        Mr. Gallegly. That was one of the reasons I asked the
    question, was if the natural migration and so on and the psyche
    of the animal is similar. And that gets back to the threshold
    issue here. Forty-one of the 50 States in this Nation, 41 of
    50, ban the practice of bear baiting.
        Now, there is one State that I think is clearly an
    exception, and that is the State of Alaska. I am sure the
    gentleman from Alaska, my good friend, and he is, I like to
    think of him as a good friend, Don Young, a person I have
    admired and respected for many, many years. He has a unique
    situation in Alaska. Alaska is not contiguous to any one of
    these other 41 States that do ban bear baiting.
        Getting back to the issue of the timber wolf. As you said,
    sometimes they will get as far as a hundred miles out of their
    natural habitat. And the reason I asked the question do bears
    migrate in a similar way, and I think I understood the answer
    as yes, how do we get the bears--let's say that Minnesota, we
    do believe in States' rights. And on that issue, how do we get
    a bear to stop at the State line where you have a bear baiting?
    Is there--
        Mr. Peterson. Well, the bear in Minnesota, if they are
    going to go across the State line, they will probably go to
    Wisconsin or they will go to Canada. And they are not going to
    go to North and South Dakota, because you are getting into farm
    country. They very seldom go over that way. Both Manitoba and
    Ontario allow baiting of bear for the same reason that we do,
    because that is the only way that they can control, have a
    management practice that is workable.
        You know, we are, I think, unique, like Alaska. There is no
    other way to harvest bear in Minnesota than to bait. And as Mr.
    Saxton--
        Mr. Gallegly. The issue is certainly different in Alaska
    because it is not contiguous to any--I understand your
    argument.
        Mr. Peterson. It is contiguous to Canada, like I am. But
    the thing is, there are some of these States that ban deer
    hunting--or ban bear baiting that allow deer baiting. In
    Minnesota, we see that as reprehensible, as you see bear
    baiting, the sportsmen do. They don't believe in deer baiting.
    And you know, you could argue that that is as inhumane as bear
    hunting over bait, if you want to look at it that way. I don't
    particularly see it that way.
        Mr. Gallegly. So you are not going to be introducing a bill
    to ban--
        Mr. Peterson. I am just suggesting that following this,
    what you want to do is maybe you ought to ban deer baiting on
    Federal land as well. But Maryland, for example, allows baiting
    of deer but not baiting of bear. Well, I don't see the logic.
    There is not a lot of difference.
        Mr. Gallegly. In any event, I think the issue, having to do
    with the sportsmen issue, of shooting a bear in the butt when
    he has his head in a can eating domestic food--
        Mr. Peterson. That isn't what happens. They are not
    shooting them while their head is in the can. It is the same
    thing, when you have a deer baiting situation, the deer come in
    on that field where the--
        Mr. Gallegly. I am talking about bear not deer.
        Mr. Peterson. It is the same thing. The deer come into that
    bait, they are shot coming into the bait, the same way the bear
    is shot coming into the bait. There is no difference. That is
    my point.
        Mr. Gallegly. I see my time is expired.
        I have great respect for the gentleman from Minnesota, the
    gentleman from Alaska. But let's just say that I would rather,
    much rather, be trying to make my argument the than yours. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the
    testimony of the Honorable John Dingell, who opposes this
    legislation, and a series of letters I received from different
    interest groups covering the whole spectrum including
    Governors, most of the State fish and game people, even from
    those States that do not have baiting or do not allow baiting
    but which oppose this legislation. So I ask unanimous consent
    to submit.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]

        Statement of The Honorable John D. Dingell, a Representative in
               Congress from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 1472

        Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone, Former Chairman Young,
    distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify.
        We are today again discussing another anti-hunting piece of
    legislation, which is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by non-
    hunters to restrict the rights of hunters and sportsmen. Legislation of
    this character is introduced in almost every Congress. And in every
    Congress, those of us from states that permit the baiting of black
    bears--a legitimate and necessary management tool--are forced to defend
    against needless attacks from anti-hunting organizations.
        Let me be clear. H.R. 1472 is a totally unnecessary preemption of
    state authority by Congress and should advance no further than this
    hearing.
        This legislation is properly described as an anti-hunting
    enterprise. I would note that it has been attempted in previous
    Congresses without success. As you know, the authority of state game
    agencies for fish and wildlife management on most Federal public lands
    has been affirmed by Congress in numerous Federal statues. The issue of
    wildlife management, including the lawful means of hunting game, is
    specifically the domain of the states.
        State fish and wildlife agencies have authority and responsibility
    for managing bears and are doing a commendable job. Contrary to the
    assertions of the proponents of this legislation, black bear
    populations in North America are robust and generally increasing. From
    the late 1980's to 2000, the overall black bear population has
    increased 21 percent. Black bear populations across the United States
    are at historic highs, and hunting is a valuable management tool in
    keeping rising bear populations in check.
        Baiting is a means and method of take, and as such is regulated by
    the states. Ten states, including my home state of Michigan, allow
    regulated baiting as a method of hunting bears. This is principally in
    order to harvest an appropriate number of bears to maintain them at
    levels consistent with society's tolerance level, which is generally
    below the biological carrying capacity for black bears. The
    professional opinion of the state wildlife agency in Michigan is that
    baiting is ethical and legal and one of the best ways to reduce bear
    numbers.
        The proposed legislation would reduce the annual bear harvest in my
    home state of Michigan. As a historically legal harvest method, baiting
    has remained an integral part of Michigan's bear management strategy.
    About 83 percent of Michigan hunters used bait in 2002.
        The management of bear harvest should be left up to the states.
    Most of the states that do not allow bait for hunting bears tend to
    have habitat which allows for ``spot and stalk'' hunting; have many
    more hunters than Michigan does; or have climates that allow bears to
    den late in the year, so they can be hunted during deer and elk season.
        Bear hunting in Michigan is different than in other states. When we
    hunt bears in Michigan, it is in densely wooded forest terrain where
    visibility is low. We have less than half as many bear hunters as
    several states that do not allow bait hunting. Furthermore, Michigan's
    bear population is already in dens by the time firearm deer season
    begins in November. These are just a few of the reasons why it is
    imperative for state wildlife agencies to have the authority and
    responsibility for managing wildlife. A one-size-fits-all Federal
    approach to wildlife management is neither necessary nor warranted.
        I should also note that the people of Michigan have also spoken on
    this issue. In 1996, voters in Michigan soundly defeated a proposal to
    ban bait hunting for bears.
        Almost 15 percent of land open to bear hunting in Michigan is
    Federally owned. Additionally, almost a quarter of the western end of
    the Upper Peninsula is in Federal ownership, and almost half of the
    bears harvested annually in Michigan are from this area. The proposed
    legislation would have far-reaching and serious negative consequences
    for Michigan's annual bear harvest.
        In summary, this legislation is unnecessary, unwarranted and
    unwise. Simply put, this is an anti-hunting measure, and I urge the
    members of the Subcommittee to reject it.
        Thank you, again for the opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.006

        [NOTE: Additional letters and articles submitted for the
    record have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to my good friend
    from California, I don't think you quite understand those
    States that do allow baiting. We shoot very few bears over bait
    in Alaska. Most of our bears are shot for consumption, and are
    usually shot primarily by watching where they are eating, berry
    patches or fishing streams. We harvest quite a few bears in
    Alaska because most of my Native people do eat bears. I frankly
    have eaten a lot of black bears. I do not eat grizzly bears. I
    don't even shoot grizzly bears anymore--unless they are messing
    with me. By the way, they will mess with you.
        This really is about the State management of game, and how
    they decide it is best to do so. I know for a fact that hunting
    bears over bait is actually probably more legitimate in the
    sense that you can choose which bear you are going to shoot.
    Primarily, you want a large bear for two reasons, one it is a
    trophy, and, second, the bear, if he has his way, will kill the
    cubs so that the sow will get into estrogen, and we will have a
    period of heat, and he can breed her. That is the facts of
    life.
        So if you want to manage bears, you actually use the
    sporting or the baiting system for a much better way than
    trouncing through the woods and saying where, bear, are you,
    and hoping you jump one because you don't know what you are
    going to jump. It is usually a snap shot. You talk about
    shooting one in the butt when his head is in the can, most of
    the time, bears run away from you. Most of the time, you will
    probably hit that bear in the lower side of his body. That is
    unfortunate. I, frankly, have had the privilege of shooting a
    very large brown bear. Three of them, in fact. But, one, I
    learned how to shoot very well, because I shoot a very small
    weapon. I shoot a 308. I got in a bunch of seven of them eating
    fish out of a heavy Salmon stream. And I watched the bears eat
    and picked out the biggest one. When he finally ate his full
    and laid down and went to sleep, I shot him. There was a reason
    for that. I didn't want him to know where I was. You may not
    think that is very sporting, but it is similar, in fact, to the
    baiting with the artificial baits. So although your intentions
    may be well and good, it's not what, as Mr. Moran says, this is
    not an attempt to, I think, mislead the bear. It is an attempt
    to manage it correctly. It is a State issue. No time has this
    Congress ever picked out an individual species to manage from
    the Congressional floor. Never. And we should not be doing it
    today. We shouldn't even think about it. So I do know you have
    good intentions, but with all due respect, this is an ill-
    thought-out piece of legislation. I can ask Mr. Moran. How many
    bears do you have in Alexandria?
        Mr. Moran. Mr. Young, we both know that we represent very
    different districts, very different demographics and
    geographies. I respect your representation of the people that
    you are elected to serve. You represent them extraordinarily
    well. I do think, on this issue, there is some inconsistency,
    at least in the argument that if you don't manage, harvest the
    bear population then they are going to--the implication is
    overwhelming, eventually, the human population.
        But then, on the other hand, we are told by most of the
    people who have argued in favor of this that they are very
    difficult to find and that is one of the reasons why you need
    to bait, because it is so difficult to find them in the wild. I
    don't think we have an over abundance of a bear population. We
    do with the deer population. I think you can make a legitimate
    argument, as people in Minnesota have done, that even baiting
    of deer takes away the sport. If you have got that many deer,
    then it is relatively easy to find enough to shoot, but I am
    not going to get into the issue of baiting the deer population.
        I think this is a different issue. For one thing, since we
    have gotten into the comparison between deer and bears, the
    fact is that deer don't eat foods that attract bears. They are
    not a serious safety threat unless you are driving.
        Mr. Young. I just asked you how many bears were in
    Alexandria. What you are trying to do now is regulate--
    reclaiming my time. You are trying to legislate what is right
    for my people. Now, if your people don't want bear hunting, you
    pass a resolution in your district saying no bear baiting, I
    would support it. That is your prerogative. You have no right,
    nor do your people have any right, of telling Alaskans how to
    manage their game. That is the thing irritates me the most. We
    had this argument once before, and you know my reaction to it.
    You know you are wrong. You may be right for Alexandria, but
    you don't know anything about Alaska. You are sitting down here
    in Washington D.C. saying how they are going to manage their
    game. That is incorrect. That is not Democracy.
        Mr. Moran. Don, I fully respect and understand where you
    are coming from. But I also--we have run into lot of issues in
    the past where, because we represent such different
    constituencies, we do come into conflict with Federal policy.
    But I would suggest that here we are only talking about Federal
    land. I understand an awful lot of Alaska is Federal land. But
    let me say--
        Mr. Young. Now, you are on the track. Ninety percent is
    Federal land.
        Mr. Moran. But your response is, basically, you are saying
    why are you city slickers telling me what I should be doing in
    Alaska, when you are representing an urban area? The fact is,
    though, that my constituents do, through their taxes, provide
    the means to purchase and to maintain that Federal land. As
    long as it is Federal land, every constituent of this, of the
    United States of America, does have a vested interest in the
    way it is maintained.
        We are not talking about the management of private land or
    State-owned land in any State. We are talking about Federal
    policy. We are trying to make that Federal policy consistent.
    When 41 out of 50 states have decided it is a wrong practice, I
    think it is a legitimate legislative approach to have a
    consistent policy.
        Mr. Young. OK. Jim, you don't know what you are talking
    about, No. 1, and No. 2, my constituents live on that Federal
    land. They live off those bears. And you ain't going to mess
    with it. This bill ain't going to see the light of day. I
    guarantee you that. Because you are messing with my people and
    that is the wrong thing to do. You are doing something totally
    wrong. I wish I had my Native people in this room right now,
    you would walk out of here with no hair on. Thank you.
        Mr. Saxton. On that note--
        Mr. Moran. How do you feel about this issue, Mr. Young?
        Mr. Saxton. We would like to thank you both for being here
    with us to express your points of view this morning. We will
    excuse you now and move on to the next panel.
        Thank you for being here.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Panel II is made up of Mr. Matt Hogan, the Deputy Director
    of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Ms. Elizabeth Estill,
    Deputy Chief Programs, Legislation and Communications, U.S.
    Forest Service, accompanied by Jim Gladen, Director of
    Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service; and Mr. John Baughman, Executive
    Vice-President International Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies.
        While you are taking your places, we have been informed
    that we will be having a vote in the next 10 to 20 minutes. And
    so when that occurs, we will be taking a short recess.
        Thank you for being with us this morning. We are, as you
    have noted, operating under the 5-minute rule. So each of
    your--in each case, your written testimony will be included in
    its entirety in the record.
        Mr. Moran. And if you would like to start, Mr. Hogan, and
    we are anxious to hear your testimony.

               STATEMENT OF MATT HOGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
                     U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Mr. Hogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Good
    morning to the members of the Subcommittee.
        As you said, I am Matt Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify here today on H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety
    Act, and H.R. 1472, the Don't Feed the Bears Act.
        H.R. 1006 would amend the Lacey Act to define prohibited
    wildlife species as any live lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah,
    jaguar or cougar. The bill declares it a prohibitive act, with
    some exceptions, for any person to import, export, transport,
    sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign
    commerce any of these prohibited wildlife species.
        In sum, while we share the Subcommittee's concern about the
    presence and proliferation of big cats in the pet trade, we
    cannot support this legislation for the reasons I will briefly
    outline.
        H.R. 1006 would provide little additional protection to big
    cat species in the wild, a high priority for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service. It may even fall short of its goal of
    regulating the big pet trade. In addition, we are concerned
    about the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to meet the
    extended enforcement mandate created by this legislation which
    introduces new prohibitions without providing additional
    resources for their enforcement. Moreover, the mechanism
    created by this bill appears to provide, at least in some
    instances, coverage that is duplicative of existing law. The
    Endangered Species Act already prohibits the interstate sale
    and the international trade of tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and
    jaguars. While H.R. 1006 would extend such prohibition to two
    unregulated species, it would not ban private ownership or
    intrastate sale of the prohibited species. It would also exempt
    numerous groups and individuals from its prohibitions.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service has an authorized force of
    253 special agents to enforce our wildlife laws and treaties
    that protect trust resources, including endangered species,
    marine mammals and migratory birds. Given the scope of the
    agency's conservation mission, the limited manpower available,
    and our need to focus on our highest priority needs, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service concentrates its enforcement efforts on
    preventing illegal activities that jeopardize the continued
    viability of wild populations of protected species.
        In this respect, most of the thousands of big cats in the
    pet trade in this country are captive-bread animals. While big
    cat trafficking maybe be a public safety problem and animal
    welfare concern, it is not, at its core, a wildlife
    conservation issue. H.R. 1006 would expand Fish and Wildlife
    Service's enforcement responsibilities into an area that is not
    a high priority for us at this time. By including lions and
    cougars in the list of prohibited cats, this bill would also
    extend the Fish and Wildlife Service's enforcement mandate to
    policing currently legal activities involving interstate and
    foreign commerce of species that exist in abundant numbers in
    the wild and that are currently not subject to the same
    rigorous protection as the other defined species.
        In closing, I would like to reiterate that we share the
    Subcommittee's concerns about the increased presence of big
    cats in the pet trade. However, because of the issues I have
    outlined today, we cannot support this legislation.
        I am also presenting the Department's views on H.R. 1472,
    the Don't Feed the Bears Act. H.R. 1472 could a require the
    adoption, where necessary, and enforcement of regulations to
    prohibit the intentional feeding of bears on Federal public
    lands in order to end the hunting practice known as bear
    baiting.
        Although it is unclear from the bill text whether the
    legislation is applicable to black bears or all bears in
    general, I should point out that in North America most black
    bear populations are currently robust and generally increasing.
    Overall, it appears that States are doing an excellent job
    managing this species.
        In the interest of time, I am not going to provide an
    overview of the various Interior Department Agencies'
    management policies in their relationship to the general
    management of wildlife species, but they are in my written
    testimony.
        However, from such a review, we can take the following
    broad principle. In general, States possess broad trust and
    police powers over resident fish and wildlife, including fish
    and wildlife found on Federal lands within a State. Congress
    has, through numerous acts, reaffirmed this basic
    responsibility and authority to the States. For example, even
    though Congress has charged the Secretary of Interior with
    responsibilities for the management of certain unique national
    fish and wildlife resources, for example, endangered species
    and threatened species, migratory birds and certain marine
    mammals with limited exceptions, State jurisdiction remains
    concurrent with Federal authority.
        Federal frameworks work best in situations where a broad
    perspective on populations and habitats is required, such as in
    the case of migratory birds. This is not the case in bear
    management. By universally prohibiting bear baiting on Federal
    public lands, this legislation would eliminate the flexibility
    required at the State level to adjust harvest to meet
    sustainable population levels of resident species. Therefore,
    we believe H.R. 1472 would unnecessarily interfere with
    traditional State authority over management of resident
    wildlife populations and reduce State flexibility to manage
    bears at desired levels on Federal lands. We believe that
    management decisions for the State resident wildlife
    populations are most appropriately made at the State rather
    than the Federal level. For these reasons, the Department of
    Interior opposes this legislation.
        Mr. Chairman this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you or the members of the Subcommittee
    might have. Thank you.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much Mr. Hogan.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hogan follows:]

     Statement of Matt Hogan, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
                 U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1006

        Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Matt Hogan,
    Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and
    Wildlife Service). I appreciate this opportunity to testify today on
    H.R. 1006, the ``Captive Wildlife Safety Act'' and H.R. 1472, the
    ``Don't Feed the Bears Act.''
    H.R. 1006, Captive Wildlife Safety Act
        H.R. 1006 would amend the Lacey Act to define ``prohibited wildlife
    species'' as any live lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar.
    The bill declares it a prohibited act, with some exceptions, for any
    person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or
    purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any of these prohibited
    wildlife species.
        Although we acknowledge that the increasingly popular practice of
    keeping ``big cat'' species as pets has created a growing concern about
    both the safety of the public and the welfare of these animals, the
    Department cannot at this time support this legislation for the reasons
    outlined below.
        In sum, while we share the Subcommittee's concerns about the
    presence and proliferation of big cats in the pet trade, this bill
    would provide little additional protection to big cat species in the
    wild--a high priority for the Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition,
    it may even fall short of its goal of regulating big cat pet trade. We
    are also concerned about the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to
    meet the extended enforcement mandate created by this legislation. The
    new prohibitions introduced in this legislation would need to compete
    against other Fish and Wildlife Service mission-critical priority
    activities within the context of the President's Budget.
        Moreover, the mechanism created by this bill appears to provide, at
    least in some instances, coverage that is duplicative of existing law.
    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) already prohibits the interstate sale
    and international trade of tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and jaguars.
    While H.R.1006 would extend such prohibitions to two unregulated
    species (lions and cougars), it would not ban private ownership or
    intrastate sale of the prohibited species. It would also exempt
    numerous groups and individuals from its prohibitions.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service has an authorized force of 253
    special agents to enforce our wildlife laws and treaties that protect
    trust resources, including endangered species, marine mammals, and
    migratory birds. Given the scope of the agency's conservation mission,
    the limited manpower available, and our need to focus on our highest
    priority needs, the Fish and Wildlife Service concentrates its
    enforcement efforts on preventing illegal activities that jeopardize
    the continued viability of wild populations of protected species.
        In this respect, most of the thousands of big cats in the pet trade
    in this country are captive-bred animals. While big cat trafficking is
    a public safety problem and animal welfare concern, it is not, at its
    core, a wildlife conservation issue. H.R. 1006 would therefore
    emphasize and expand Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement
    responsibilities into an area that has not been considered a high
    priority. By including lions and cougars in the list of prohibited
    cats, this bill would also extend the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    enforcement mandate to policing currently legal activities involving
    interstate and foreign commerce of species that exist in abundant
    numbers in the wild, and that are currently not subject to the same
    rigorous protection as the other defined species.
        The bill's definition of ``prohibited wildlife species'' would, in
    and of itself, limit the extent to which this legislation would control
    big cat pet trade because it does not cover all species that are part
    the problem. For example, H.R. 1006 does not include lynx, serval,
    caracal, clouded leopard, or snow leopards in that definition. Nor does
    it regulate hybrids, mixed species that are of little concern from a
    conservation standpoint but that account for an increasing percentage
    of the big cats bred, bought, and sold as pets in this country.
        The effectiveness of this bill would further be limited by the
    scope of its exemptions. We believe that, at most, such exemptions
    should cover only those entities that are licensed by a state or the
    Federal Government. Such criteria would ensure that exempt
    organizations are otherwise accountable for any interstate or
    international transactions involving big cats. For example, both the
    Service and the Department of Agriculture offers licenses and regular
    inspections; many state agencies do the same.
        For these reasons, the Department cannot at this time support this
    legislation.
    H.R. 1472, Don't Feed the Bears Act
        H.R. 1472 would require the adoption, where necessary, and
    enforcement of regulations to prohibit the intentional feeding of bears
    on Federal public lands in order to end the hunting practice known as
    ``bear baiting.''
        Although it is unclear from the bill text whether the legislation
    is applicable to black bear or all bears in general, I should point out
    that in North American most black bear populations are currently robust
    and generally increasing. In fact, there has been an overall 21 percent
    increase in black bear populations from the late 1980s to 2000.
    Overall, it appears that states are doing very well managing this
    species.
        In addition, hunting over bait for grizzly bears is not permitted
    anywhere in the United States. In the lower 48 states, grizzly bears
    are protected as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
    throughout their range; in Alaska, while baiting for black bears may be
    allowed in accordance with State laws and regulations, baiting is not
    permitted when hunting for grizzly bear.
    Federal Agencies and the Management of Resident Wildlife
        In general, states possess broad responsibility and authority over
    resident fish and wildlife, including fish and wildlife found on
    Federal lands within a state. Congress has reaffirmed this authority
    through numerous Acts. As discussed in more detail below, we must
    recognize these traditional roles in our evaluation of this
    legislation.
        Let me begin with an overview of the various Federal agencies'
    management policies and their relationships to the general management
    of wildlife species. The major Federal land management agencies are the
    Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service (Park Service),
    and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), within the Department of the
    Interior; and the Forest Service.
    National Wildlife Refuge System Lands
        The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) mission, established by
    the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
    (Improvement Act), is:
            to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
            conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of
            the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
            within the United States for the benefit of present and future
            generations of Americans.
        The Improvement Act established a clear hierarchy for uses in the
    System. As noted in accompanying House Report 105-106, ``wildlife-
    dependent recreational uses, when determined to be compatible, are
    appropriate and legitimate uses of the System.'' The Improvement Act
    defines six wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing,
    wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
    interpretation, and states these uses should be facilitated and should
    receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
    (Administration Act), as amended by the Improvement Act, further
    provides that the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as the
    Secretary of the Interior's (Secretary) designee, will, among other
    things, ensure that regulations allowing hunting or fishing of fish and
    wildlife within the NWRS are, to the extent practicable, consistent
    with state fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans.
        Traditionally, the basis of most hunting regulations for national
    wildlife refuges is the hunting regulations of the state or states in
    which a particular refuge lies, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    regulations reflect this fact. For purposes of this discussion, state
    fish and wildlife agencies that currently permit bear baiting for
    hunting activities are Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New
    Hampshire, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
        The Improvement Act further directs the Secretary to cooperate and
    consult with the states on fish and wildlife management activities on
    national wildlife refuges, including hunting programs, in order to
    ``complement the efforts of other State--conservation efforts.'' (House
    Report 105-106) This makes sense, because while both Federal and state
    fish and wildlife agencies have authorities and responsibilities for
    management of fish and wildlife, it is often the state agencies which
    possess the unique expertise and knowledge about resident fish and
    wildlife needed to establish effective laws, regulations, and
    management plans.
        As noted in section 2 (c) of H.R. 1472, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service currently has regulations largely prohibiting baiting and
    hunting with bait on NWRS lands. This prohibition is largely based on
    the effects that baiting wildlife can have on relatively small areas,
    such as refuges. For example, baiting can attract wildlife from
    adjacent non-refuge lands, thus altering normal concentrations of
    refuge and non-refuge populations; it can alter behavioral patterns of
    target wildlife species; or it can attract undesirable species,
    complicating refuge management. (See 50 Fed. Reg. 36736, Sept. 19,
    1984) Other regulations provide refuge managers the authority to waive
    this prohibition to allow bear feeding or baiting in support of
    research, human safety, animal welfare, or in other cases of emergency.
    The situation is somewhat different in Alaska, where baiting is
    authorized on Federal lands, including NWRS lands, in accordance with
    State regulations. Even there, however, baiting is not permitted for
    grizzly bear hunting.
        In sum, bear hunting is currently allowed on less than 6 percent of
    refuges, with bear baiting allowed, in accordance with State law, only
    on all or part of 11 Alaskan refuges.
    National Park System Lands
        On national park lands, human feeding of bears, whether deliberate
    or inadvertent, is a significant management problem wherever it occurs
    and is an activity that the Park Service works very hard to prevent on
    its lands. In fact, the Park Service evolved stringent bear protection
    and visitor use policies during the 1970s in response to clear
    recognition of the impacts to bears, property, and people caused by the
    improper handling of foods and trash brought into parks.
        Hunting in general is allowed on Park Service land only where
    Congress has authorized such activity, and hunting and trapping
    activities are currently either mandated or discretionary in only 57
    units of the National Park System. Where allowed in the park system,
    hunting activities are governed by Federal law and applicable non-
    conflicting state law. However, the Park Service allows black bear
    baiting, in accordance with State law, for both subsistence and sport
    hunting in a number of units in the State of Alaska. (See 36 C.F.R.
    13.21(d); 13.48)
    BLM-managed Lands
        Federal land management statutes under which the BLM operates also
    acknowledge the states' traditional role in managing fish and wildlife.
    These include, for example, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, the
    Wilderness Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
        Under its own regulations, BLM defers to the states on management
    of fish and resident wildlife on public lands located within each
    state. While BLM works closely with states in the management of habitat
    that supports fish and resident wildlife, each state establishes and
    enforces regulations on hunting, trapping, and fishing on these lands.
    Except in emergency situations, BLM does not involve itself in
    determining or authorizing the type of hunting techniques allowed on
    public lands.
        As a consequence, where it is permitted by state law, bear hunting
    with bait is currently permitted on BLM-managed lands. If problems
    arise, they would be treated as site-specific issues and would be
    resolved through coordination with the respective state wildlife agency
    at the BLM field or state office level.
    Conclusion
        We take from this review the following broad principle: in general,
    states possess broad trustee and police powers over resident fish and
    wildlife, including fish and wildlife found on Federal lands within a
    state. As noted above, Congress has, through numerous Acts, reaffirmed
    this basic responsibility and authority of the states. For example,
    even though Congress has charged the Secretary of the Interior with
    responsibilities for the management of certain uniquely national fish
    and wildlife resources--e.g., endangered and threatened species,
    migratory birds, and certain marine mammals--with the limited exception
    of marine mammals, state jurisdiction remains concurrent with Federal
    authority.
        Moreover, practically speaking, we recognize that Federal
    frameworks work best in situations where a broad perspective on
    populations and habitats is required--for example, with regard to
    migratory species such as ducks and geese. By prohibiting bear baiting
    on Federal public lands, we eliminate the flexibility required at the
    local level to adjust harvest to meet sustainable population levels of
    resident species. As previously noted, black bear populations are
    currently robust and generally increasing. Without a wide array of
    management tools at their disposal, state managers may experience an
    increase in dangerous interactions between people and bears.
        We believe that management decisions for individual resident
    wildlife populations are most appropriately made at the local, rather
    than Federal, level. For these reasons, the Administration opposes this
    legislation.
        In closing, I would like to state that we are committed to working
    to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants species
    and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American public.
    As such, we welcome the opportunity to work with all of our partners to
    identify and address problems associated with the management of our
    fish and wildlife resources.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer
    any questions that you might have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Saxton. We are going to go to Ms. Estill. Then when
    have you concluded your testimony, we will have to take a
    little recess here for these votes.
        Thank you.

         STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF PROGRAMS,
         LEGISLATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
     ACCOMPANIED BY JIM GLADEN, DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE, U.S. FOREST
                                SERVICE

        Ms.  Estill. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today concerning
    H.R. 1472.
        Historically State fish and wildlife agencies have
    maintained the primary responsibility for protection and
    management of wildlife populations on the National Forest
    System lands, particularly with respect to hunting and fishing.
    The Forest Service enters into a memorandum of understanding
    with each State which lays out a framework for cooperation. The
    States issue regulations regarding hunting licenses, methods,
    seasons, locations and bag limits for resident game and have
    the primary responsibility for enforcement of the State's fish
    and wildlife laws and regulations on National Forest Service
    lands.
        Federal land management statutes acknowledge the States'
    traditional role in managing fish and wildlife, including the
    National Forest System Organic Administration Act, the
    Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, Sikes Act, Wilderness Act and
    so on and so forth. Because of consistent Congressional
    direction to defer fish and wildlife management to the States,
    the Forest Service is generally reluctant to override State
    regulations, except where Federal interests, such as the
    protection of forest land, resources and users requires Federal
    intervention.
        In 1995 after extensive public comment, the Forest Service
    published a policy on baiting for the purpose of hunting on
    National Forest System lands. It spells out the procedures to
    be used by the Forest Service when State regulations conflict
    with Federal laws regulations and policies. The policy retains
    the long-standing reliance on State hunting regulations,
    including the State regulation of baiting resident game. But it
    also provides for case-by-case safeguards where those
    safeguards might be needed. Although various States may have
    policies that, again, vary annually, the Forest Service
    consistently ensures protection of those Federal resources.
        In 1996, the District Court of Columbia--District Court
    upheld the Forest Service policy to continue the traditional
    reliance on the States to regulate hunting practices, including
    baiting game. Again, with those safeguards. The District of
    Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the
    District Court.
        Currently in North America, the black bear populations are
    robust and generally increasing. We believe that H.R. 1472
    would unnecessarily preempt State authority over management of
    resident wildlife populations and reduce the flexibility of
    State and local wildlife managers to manage bears on Federal
    lands.
        This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
    to answer your questions.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Estill follows:]

    Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation, and
    Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R.
                                      1472

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to meet with you today regarding H.R. 1472, the ``Don't
    Feed the Bears'' Act. Accompanying me today is Jim Gladen, Director of
    Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants for the National Forest
    System.
    H.R. 1472 ``Don't Feed the Bears'' Act
        H.R. 1472 would require the adoption, where necessary, and
    enforcement of regulations to prohibit the intentional feeding of bears
    on Federal public lands in order to end the hunting practice known as
    ``bear baiting.'' The Administration opposes the bill.
    Bear Baiting on National Forests
        Historically, State fish and wildlife agencies have maintained the
    primary responsibility for protection and management of wildlife
    populations on National Forest System lands, particularly with respect
    to hunting and fishing. This responsibility includes adoption of State
    fish and wildlife laws and regulations affecting the taking of resident
    game animals. The Forest Service enters into a Memorandum of
    Understanding with each State in order to lay out a framework for
    cooperation. These agreements emphasize the traditional role of the
    States to administer State hunting regulations such as season, harvest
    levels, and methods of harvest, with respect to hunting of resident
    game on National Forest System lands. The States issue regulations
    regarding hunting licenses, methods, seasons, locations, and bag limits
    for resident game and have the primary responsibility for enforcement
    of the state's fish and wildlife laws and regulations on National
    Forest System lands.
        Federal land management statutes acknowledge the States'
    traditional role in managing fish and wildlife. These include the
    National Forest System Organic Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 480), the
    Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 528), the Sikes Act (16
    U.S.C. 1732), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133 (d)(8)), and the
    Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1732). Because of
    consistent Congressional direction to defer fish and wildlife
    management to the States, the Forest Service is generally reluctant to
    override State regulations except where Federal interests, such as the
    protection of forest land, resources, and users, requires Federal
    intervention.
        An exception to this general policy of deferring to the States, is
    the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3111-16)
    whereby Congress determined that Federal control should supersede that
    of the state, with Federal control of fish and wildlife subsistence in
    Alaska.
        The practice of placing bait (food or scent to attract wildlife) is
    a hunting activity subject to State laws and regulations. State fish
    and wildlife agencies that permit the baiting of black bear (Urus
    americanus) as a hunting activity on Federal lands are: Alaska, Idaho,
    Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Utah, Wisconsin, and
    Wyoming.
        In 1995, the Forest Service published its policy on baiting for the
    purpose of hunting on National Forest System lands. The policy retains
    the longstanding reliance on State hunting regulations including state
    regulation of baiting resident game. Where state law and regulation
    permit baiting, the practice is permitted on National Forest System
    lands unless the authorized officer determines on a site specific basis
    that the practice conflicts with Federal laws or regulations, or forest
    plan direction, or would adversely affect other forest uses or users.
        The 1995 policy clarifies the Forest Service role with regard to
    regulation of baiting as a hunting method that is authorized and
    regulated by the states. It spells out the procedures to be used by the
    Forest Service when State regulations conflict with Federal laws,
    regulations, and policies. It relies on existing relations with each
    State and prevents the duplication of regulations by both levels of
    government and provides for case-by-case safeguards where needed. It
    also provides a consistent Federal approach to baiting throughout the
    National Forest System. Although various States may annually vary their
    policies, the Forest Service's will remain consistent while ensuring
    protection of Federal resources.
        In the 1996 case of the Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Thomas, 932 F.
    Supp. 368 (D.D.C. 1996), the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Columbia upheld the Forest Service policy of ``leav[ing] the decision
    to prohibit baiting, or to allow but regulate it as a ``hunting
    practice'' or technique, to the individual states in which a particular
    national forest is situated.'' Id. at 369. And as the Thomas court
    observed, ``[t]he common law has always regarded the power to regulate
    the taking of animals ferae naturae to be vested in the states to the
    extent `their exercise of that power may not be inconsistent with, or
    restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal Government by the
    Constitution.''' Id. at 369-370 (quoting Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S.
    519 (1896)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    subsequently affirmed the judgment of the District Court. See Fund for
    Animals, Inc. v. Thomas, 127 F.3d 80 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
        Currently, in North America, black bear populations--specifically
    mentioned in H.R. 1472--are robust and generally increasing. We believe
    that H.R. 1472 would unnecessarily both preempt state authority over
    management of resident wildlife populations and reduce the flexibility
    of state and local wildlife managers to manage bears on Federal lands.
    Conclusion
        That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer
    your questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Saxton. So that you don't have to stay in this room
    unless you want to, we are going to recess until 12:00, 12:05,
    something like that. We will see you in a little while.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Gilchrest. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee will come to
    order.
        I apologize for my absence, but the testimony of the
    previous witnesses will be in the record, and it will be
    reviewed.
        So it is now in order to recognize Mr. Baughman. The other
    three witnesses have testified.

         STATEMENT OF JOHN BAUGHMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT,
        INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

        Mr. Baughman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pallone, thank
    you.
        Mr. Chairman, I am John Baughman, Executive Vice-President
    of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
    All 50 of the fish and wildlife agencies are among our members.
    I am also talking to you from the perspective as the former
    Director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Wyoming is
    one of the nine States that allows bear baiting on Federal
    lands.
        Our more detailed written testimony has been made available
    to the Subcommittee, but I can summarize it as follows: First,
    the Association is strongly opposed to H.R. 1472 and urges that
    the Subcommittee give this bill no further consideration. The
    States have broad statutory, and often constitutional,
    authority for the conservation of resident wildlife, including
    bears. Congress has given Federal agencies certain
    responsibilities for migratory birds, listed threatened
    endangered species, and anadromous fish, where current and
    State Federal jurisdiction is clearly needed to meet national,
    State and international conservation objectives. We see H.R.
    1427 as an unnecessary and inappropriate preemption of State
    authority to manage resident wildlife.
        The States are doing a commendable job managing bears.
    Black bear populations are robust, and they are either stable
    or increasing in most States. And nearly every State, that has
    bear populations, already has areas where bear populations
    exceed the level of human tolerance.
        Fourth, there is no evidence to suggest bear populations
    become self-regulating or density-dependent before exceeding
    the levels of society's tolerance. Black bears are a long-
    lived, prolific species, and since bears are at the top of the
    food chain, unchecked bear populations continue to expand to
    the point of becoming a nuisance. The net result is that bears
    do and will continue to die at the hands of humans, either by
    hunters, people protecting private property, or, more likely,
    by government employees, usually at the cost of thousands of
    dollars per bear.
        Fifth, the States that do permit bear baiting have
    concluded that it is a legitimate and necessary management tool
    to achieve harvest and conservation objectives and to keep bear
    populations within the limits of human tolerance. Baiting
    facilitates harvest in dense cover habitats and in large areas
    with relatively low bear densities and low hunter numbers.
    Baiting also allows easier identification of sows with cubs,
    which are legally excluded from harvest. Baiting also allows
    hunting efforts to be directed toward problem bears and toward
    areas with nuisance problems.
        Research suggests that those bears most likely to cause
    nuisance problems, and that is usually wandering adolescent
    male bears, are those that are most susceptible to baiting.
        Sixth, even where bear baiting is permitted, it is still
    tightly controlled. I will use Wyoming as an example. Baiting
    is regulated as to the size of the bait, type of bait
    container, type of bait substance, number and density of baits,
    no hunter can have more than two baits, minimum distance from
    trails and roads and campgrounds, when baits can be placed,
    removal and clean up requirements, and requirements for
    identifying ownership of baits. Additionally, total harvest is
    limited by area-specific mortality quotas on bears. The season
    closes once those quotas are reached. And all those
    regulations, as someone asked earlier, are subject to public
    review at the State level through the State Administrative
    Procedure Act.
        Seventh, in 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    District of Columbia upheld the District Court ruling that bear
    baiting was a method of hunting on Federal lands, thus subject
    to State authority.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Nation's successful State-based
    system of professional fish and wildlife conservation is
    justifiably the envy of the rest of the world. Congress has
    repeatedly affirmed the merits and utility of our system of
    wildlife conservation, while appropriately continuing to
    encourage cooperation between State and Federal agencies. The
    States successful record on black bear conservation speaks for
    itself. Thus H.R. 1472 is unnecessary and inappropriate from a
    biological, resource management perspective. And our
    Association strongly urges that you do not report the bill
    favorably out of the Subcommittee.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer
    questions.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Baughman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:]

             Statement of John Baughman, Executive Vice-President,
     International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, on H.R. 1472

        Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to share the
    perspectives of the International Association Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies on H.R. 1472, the ``Don't Feed the Bears Act''. The
    Association strongly opposes H.R. 1472 as an unnecessary Federal
    preemption of state wildlife management authority. The issue of baiting
    bears as a method of hunting is already subject to public discourse at
    the state level where determinations of means and methods of take are
    appropriately made. Also, black bear populations in the United States
    are robust and generally increasing in most states, a testament to the
    success of science-based wildlife management by State fish and wildlife
    agencies. Thus we conclude that H.R. 1472 is an unnecessary and
    inappropriate preemption of state wildlife authority and we urge that
    H.R. 1472 not be reported favorably by the Subcommittee.
        The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was
    founded in 1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of the public
    agencies charged with the protection and management of North America's
    fish and wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members
    include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and
    Federal Governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are
    members. The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound
    resource management and strengthening Federal, state, and private
    cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their
    habitats in the public interest.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, the states have statutory, and often
    constitutional, authority for the conservation of resident fish and
    wildlife (including bears) within their borders for the sustainable use
    and enjoyment of their citizens. Where Congress has given Federal
    agencies certain conservation responsibilities for migratory birds,
    listed threatened and endangered species, and anadromous fish, that
    authority remains concurrent with the states' jurisdiction, as Congress
    has affirmed. Further, state authority for resident fish and wildlife
    extends to most Federal public lands, as affirmed by Congress in the
    National Forest Management Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management
    Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and the Sikes
    Act. Additionally, both the Departments of Interior and Agriculture
    have regulations (see, e.g., 43CFR Part 24) and policies that implement
    the relationship between the Federal agencies which control the land
    and habitat, and the State fish and wildlife agencies which have
    conservation responsibility for ensuring the sustainability of fish and
    wildlife. This relationship obviously compels close coordination and
    cooperation.
        The States conservation authority for fish and wildlife extends to
    the establishment of regulated take, where appropriate, and a
    determination of the allowable means and methods of hunting. Baiting
    for the purpose of hunting bears is a method of take that is allowed
    under certain conditions in 10 States, 9 of which also allow it on
    Federal lands. The establishment of all regulations regarding hunting
    (seasons, bag limits, and allowable means of take) are based on
    scientific data collected by the State fish and wildlife agencies and
    are subject to extensive public review at the state level. In those
    States where baiting for bears is allowed, it is used as a regulated
    management tool that is necessary in order to harvest a sufficient
    number of bears to maintain bear numbers at society's tolerance level
    while ensuring a healthy, sustainable bear population. In states with
    large areas of dense forest habitat, or with a low bear density over a
    wide area, it is necessary to employ baiting in order to harvest the
    appropriate number of bears. Using Wyoming as an example, even where
    baiting is permitted it is tightly regulated as to the size of bait,
    type of bait container, number and density of baits (no more than 2 per
    hunter) where and when baits can be placed, requirements for bait
    removal and clean-up, restrictions on the type of bait substances
    allowed and identification of the hunter must be attached to the bait
    container. Furthermore, the total bear harvest by area is controlled by
    a female mortality quota. Permitting baiting in these circumstances
    helps achieve the desired harvest, it facilitates identification of
    sows with cubs (which are not allowed to be legally harvested), and it
    allows agencies or landowners to focus hunters on problem bears.
    Research suggests that those bears which most often cause damage,
    depredation, or nuisance problems (i.e. wandering adolescent males) are
    the same bears that are most susceptible to baiting. All aspects of
    bear bating and other hunting regulations are reviewed annually by our
    agencies and are also subject to annual public review and comment
    through state administrative procedure processes.
        Further, as you are likely aware Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1997 upheld a district court
    ruling that baiting for bears was a means and method of hunting on
    National Forests and thus subject to state authority (127 F.3d 80).
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me point out that, whatever one's
    opinion is regarding baiting as a method of take, the states are doing
    a commendable job in managing bears in the United States. Black bear
    populations are robust and have increased 21% in North America from the
    end of the 1980s to the year 2000. Black bears are a long-lived,
    prolific species and with the possible exception of some remote parts
    of Mexico, people in some fashion control all bear populations in North
    America. Since bears are at the top of the food chain, if left
    unchecked bear populations will continue to expand to the point of
    being a nuisance. The net outcome is dead bears at the hand of hunters,
    people protecting private property, or by government employees usually
    of the cost of thousands of dollar per bear.
        Mr. Chairman, the States' successful record on black bear
    conservation speaks for itself, thus, H.R. 1472 is neither necessary
    nor appropriate from a biological resource management perspective. The
    Nation's state-based system of professional fish and wildlife
    conservation is justifiably the envy of the rest of the world. Congress
    has repeatedly affirmed the merits and utility of our system of
    wildlife conservation, while appropriately continuing to encourage
    cooperation between state and Federal agencies. There is no need in the
    instance of bear management, to set aside our system of wildlife
    management and the Association strongly urges that you not favorably
    report the bill out of the Subcommittee.
        Thank you for opportunity to share our perspectives and I would be
    pleased to answer any questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Can you give us some more information on the
    court case that you referenced, the Fund for Animals versus
    Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of Forest Service?
        Mr. Baughman. Mr. Chairman, I can, but if it pleases the
    Chairman and the Subcommittee, Mr. Paul Lenzini, our legal
    counsel, is with me, and he was right in the middle of things.
    If we could defer to him?
        Mr. Gilchrest. That would be fine if there is no objection
    from the Subcommittee. If you could give us a brief summary of
    the situation and the findings of the court.
        Mr. Lenzini. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Paul
    Lenzini. I am legal counsel to the International Association.
    Up until about 9 or 10 years ago, not all of the States that
    permitted bear baiting intentionally regulated the baiting of
    bears. And because baiting could be thought of as on National
    Forests, a couple of forest supervisors, one in Idaho and one
    in Wyoming, in States that had really no regulations on bear
    baiting, decided that they would control the practice by
    issuing special-use permits. So you had to have a special-use
    permit if you were a hunter and you wanted to put out bait.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Is that still the case right now?
        Mr. Lenzini. That has been changed.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So you don't need a special permit?
        Mr. Lenzini. That gave rise to the litigation. What
    happened was the Forest Service saw that this practice was
    being regulated unevenly across the country. In some States,
    you needed a special-use permit on a National Forest. In most
    States, not.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Special-use permit in order to bait?
        Mr. Lenzini. In order to place bait on National Forest
    lands. So they decided a national policy would be in order. And
    they decided that the national policy should be one in which
    they continue the practice of deferring to State authority if
    the States regulated the baiting practice. If they didn't, then
    the Federal Government would come in and the land managers
    would say, well, we are going to have special regulations
    because the State is not regulating. At that point, the States
    decided that they would have to regulate. So Wyoming and Idaho
    then introduced fairly intense baiting regulations. And the
    Forest Service decided that the national policy would be that
    the State, in the first instance, does the regulation, and if
    it falls short on a site-specific basis, then the Forest
    Service would step in and regulate the practice. And that--.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Does that mean that there are Federal
    standards for getting a permit to bait bears?
        Mr. Lenzini. The standards are now State standards and it
    is only when a site-specific situation occurs that a Forest
    Service officer decides, well, this is a problem here. But
    generally the standards and regulations of the State, of the
    States, are pretty close to what the Forest Service had in mind
    prior to 1995. For example, you have to be a certain distance
    away from a trail, a certain distance away from a stream
    because of the possible pollution.
        Mr. Lenzini. So at this point, the States that permit
    baiting pretty intensely regulate that practice. And the
    lawsuit arose over the allegation of the Fund for Animals that
    the move from special use permits to reliance on the States
    constituted major Federal action requiring full environmental
    analysis. The District Court and the Court of Appeals said, if
    it is Federal action at all, it sure isn't major Federal
    action. NEPA is not applicable.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Baughman, I have a list of States that allow bear
    baiting, and it gives the bear population in those States from
    Alaska down to Wyoming and the number of bears that are
    harvested in those States. In Wyoming, the bear population is
    unknown. Can you give us an explanation for that?
        Mr. Baughman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Bears are a very secretive
    species and it is very difficult to precisely measure
    population numbers. Wyoming, in some areas of the State, has
    made some precise estimates of bear populations, and they know
    in given types of habitat roughly how many bears there are. To
    repeat that kind of estimate statewide and get a real good
    estimate, it would literally cost millions of dollars. In fact,
    the Congress, I believe, is putting money into the Department
    of the Interior's budget to make a bear estimate in Glacier
    National Park, and I believe that is going to cost $1 million
    or $2 million for that one bear estimate.
        So usually, for States, it is more of a guesstimate where
    they have expanded from a small area where they have good
    numbers. They have expanded over a known bear habitat. So those
    are not real precise numbers you have for those States. Wyoming
    doesn't use a number. Based on the studies where they have made
    the precise estimates, they have come up with characteristics
    of expanding and decreasing bear populations based on the age
    and the sex of the harvest, and they follow the bear harvest
    very closely. Every bear harvest has to be turned in to the
    game and fish offices within 72 hours. So they are very closely
    monitoring population trends, but they do not really have a
    complete estimate.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I am not sure of the source of
    the information that I am reading from, but it did say that
    Wyoming, and I would like to ask you if this figure is
    accurate, the number of bears harvested in the State of Wyoming
    was 324. Is that about right?
        Mr. Baughman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, those are precise figures.
    Those are collected through surveys of hunters.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I have some more questions but I
    will yield first to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask our
    witnesses a couple of questions, I just felt compelled to
    register a procedural complaint about the Federal witnesses.
        As you know, under the rules of the Committee on Resources,
    all witnesses invited to testify at a hearing are required to
    file 75 copies of their written testimony within 48 hours of
    the hearing unless the Chairman, in consultation with the
    Ranking Minority Member, expressly extends this time period.
        In addition to written statements, all witnesses are
    required to submit other pertinent background information to
    better inform the Members of the qualifications of each
    witness. And the punishment to fail to meet this deadline is
    clear: The written statement may be excluded from the record
    and/or the witness may be barred from making an oral
    presentation.
        Mr. Chairman, I raise this procedural matter only because I
    believe that it has become far too common, if in fact the norm,
    for this Administration to fail to meet this requirement. Once
    again, testimony from the Forest Service and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service arrived late last night, which left virtually
    no time for the members or the staff of this Committee to
    consider the views of the Administration and formulate
    questions for the witnesses.
        This dereliction of responsibility is very frustrating, and
    I think essentially an insult to every member of this Committee
    and I don't think we should continue it. After all, we are
    coequal branches of the Federal Government. And I want to say,
    Mr. Chairman, that I think this Committee should take action or
    communicate our discontent with this Administration's repeated
    recalcitrance and indifference to the rules of procedure. I
    know that all the other witnesses were able to meet the
    deadline and only the Federal witnesses were not.
        I know I could move to have the written statements excluded
    from the record, but I am not necessarily interested in doing
    that. I just wanted to mention this to you and see if we could
    do something to correct it in the future. It just seems to be
    becoming the norm rather than an exception. If you would
    comment on that, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I was not aware that
    the testimony was not given to us promptly. I think what we
    will do in the future is do what we can to help the witnesses
    run the maze of bureaucracy for approval of their statements in
    a more expedited fashion.
        I think this has been a problem, I don't know if it has
    been a problem since the dawn of this institution, because I
    wasn't here, but I think it has been a problem with every
    Administration and every agency and department since I have
    been in Congress. So maybe we can work together to help
    expedite the process of witnesses' testimony coming to the
    Committee on time, certainly in the future, and I thank you for
    your statement.
        Mr. Pallone. I would appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Let me ask a couple of questions. One, I wanted to start
    out with, I guess Mr. Hogan, with regard to the issue of the
    exotic cats. I was just a little confused about your testimony
    because you seem to give the impression that it was already
    illegal in some fashion for people to possess these exotic cats
    and that you were not in the position to enforce whatever law
    there was that prohibited it. That is not at all clear to me.
        In other words, it is not at all clear to me that this is a
    prohibited practice, and I guess my question is even if you
    think that it is prohibited, if you don't enforce it, who is
    going to?
        Mr. Hogan. Well, sir, maybe I can clarify the testimony a
    little bit, and I apologize for the confusion.
        Some of the species listed in the legislation are also
    listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Those
    species fall under that jurisdiction, and, therefore, if they
    enter into interstate or foreign commerce or there is a take of
    those species, the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act
    apply and, therefore, we have enforcement. However, it is not
    illegal for those species necessarily to be possessed in an
    individual State.
        Our jurisdiction kicks in again for those species under the
    Endangered Species Act and then when they enter into foreign
    or--
        Mr. Pallone. Well, then, why would you be, or maybe you
    weren't, but I got the impression that you were opposed to the
    bill. Are you opposed to the prohibition on possession? Because
    now you are saying some species are not, others are. Would you
    be opposed to the prohibition aspect of the bill?
        Mr. Hogan. We have not taken a position necessarily on
    possession of the species. Our main concern is that under the
    bill, as written, they would fall under the law enforcement
    jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Given our
    limited resources and the number of agents we have, we would
    like to concentrate on species actually in the wild. Most of
    these species are captive.
        Mr. Pallone. I understand that and appreciate that, but the
    point for us is practical. We try not to be as bureaucratic. I
    guess you are not taking a position, but it seems to me that we
    have to make a decision whether the possession should be
    prohibited for these species and then we have to make a
    decision who is going to enforce it.
        I am not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me that
    your position is not very helpful. Because on the one hand you
    don't take a position on whether they should be prohibited from
    possession, nor do you suggest who might do the enforcement,
    other than to say you don't want to do it. Is that your
    position?
        Mr. Hogan. Yes, that pretty accurately characterizes it. We
    are really not in a position to speak for other Federal
    agencies. We were asked specifically to respond--
        Mr. Pallone. And you are not going to take a position for
    or against the actual prohibition on the possession?
        Mr. Hogan. Right.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Then let me get to the bear baiting issue.
        My major concern here, and I don't know if it has really
    been addressed by anybody so far, is the fact that it seems
    that there is a Federal policy on these Federal lands, or at
    least there is in certain circumstances, of not feeding
    wildlife. I said in my opening statement that it is
    inconsistent on the one hand to say that somehow it is not good
    policy in certain circumstances to be feeding the wildlife and
    then, on the other hand, allow bear baiting as a means of
    hunting or, as some have said, as a means of controlling the
    bear population.
        I just want to get some information. I don't know who would
    answer it, necessarily, if you would, Mr. Baughman, about this
    policy and the inconsistency that I raised. If you would.
        Mr. Baughman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pallone, I don't see it as
    inconsistent. We had a large bear education program on living
    in bear country in Wyoming, and certainly people feeding bears
    puts people in close proximity to bears where they are in a
    hazardous situation. Having bears come into campgrounds or into
    rural areas and get food rewards from the presence of people
    puts bears in situations where they are a threat to people or a
    threat to their property. Both situations result in dead bears
    eventually.
        A baiting situation is entirely different. In a very remote
    location, typically, baits are placed, and you are not
    attracting the bear to people. In fact, a successful person
    hunting over baits does not want that bear to associate people
    with the presence of that bait. So it is an entirely different
    thing.
        I have heard a lot of talk about conditioning bears to
    these foods. If any of you own dogs, you know that you don't
    have to condition your dog to a Twinkie or a donut or
    something. The first time you threw that object into the air,
    the dog recognized it as food and ate it. The fact is you have
    to make sure that there are not edible things there that those
    bears are coming into, being attracted to in an area where
    there is a human presence.
        Again, the baiting situation is a hunting situation. You
    don't want bears to know there is a human there. You are
    actually trying to downplay that presence. Bears are attracted
    to food, period, whether there are humans there or not.
        Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, could I just follow up a minute?
        I appreciate what you are saying. Again, I am not familiar
    with this type of hunting at all. We have bears, as Mr. Saxton
    pointed out, in the northwestern part of New Jersey, where the
    bear population is actually increasing and becoming a problem.
    But in my district I have not had any incidents.
        I understand you are trying to make a distinction, but it
    just seems to me that that doesn't always work. In other words,
    it is almost like you are saying there are two different areas:
    There is one area on these lands where there are people, and
    there you don't want them feeding the bears; but on the other
    hand, in these remote areas where you hunt it is OK, because, I
    assume, that is because if they come in they get shot. And so
    they are not a problem because they are dead.
        I don't want to put it that bluntly but is that basically
    what you are saying?
        Mr. Baughman. It really is. The kind of association people
    are going to have with bears, in the old days, when there were
    many bears along the roads in the national parks, there were
    almost daily conflicts with people being injured, bitten, and
    mauled by bears because you were putting people into close
    association with food and the bears.
        One of the biggest problems we have in Wyoming, and I am
    sure in rural New Jersey or California or wherever we are
    talking about, you have bears coming in to back porches to eat
    dog food.
        Mr. Pallone. But what I am saying is, isn't it possible if
    you start this practice of allowing the baiting, that some of
    the bears might get away and come back again and attack people
    and become a problem? Is there a strict separation that you
    point to?
        Mr. Baughman. The separation is that the feeding of the
    bear in a dirty campsite or dirty rural area, that attracts
    bears to the presence of people. In the baiting situation the
    bear does not associate people with that situation. It is just
    strictly being attracted to food, which is a natural instinct
    of every bear, whether it is garbage or not, if they smell
    edible things. They are attracted to dead animals, they are
    attracted to donuts, they are attracted to toothpaste, corn,
    whatever.
        Mr. Pallone. So it is the first instance, it is the actual
    presence of people--
        Mr. Baughman. Correct.
        Mr. Pallone. --that you don't want them to get accustomed
    to?
        Mr. Baughman. Not associating people or people's homes or
    buildings with food.
        Mr. Pallone. Whereas in the second situation, with the
    baiting, they do not see the people?
        Mr. Baughman. Correct. If they see the people, smell the
    people, they are generally gone. In fact, the characterization
    of bear baiting, typically those bears approach--typically, a
    person sits over a bait that a bear has been using and nothing
    happens. The bear doesn't show up. That is the most typical
    case.
        Mr. Pallone. And you don't see a situation where those two
    meet or there is a problem with overlap?
        Mr. Baughman. No, I think it has been greatly exaggerated,
    conditioning bears to eating human type foods with the baiting
    situation. Because I think the bigger problem is bears are
    conditioned to eat anything that is edible. And if people don't
    have clean campsites, clean homes in these suburban areas, they
    are going to attract bears.
        Mr. Pallone. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. I will pass.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So, Mr. Baughman, you would recommend that
    people going camping in wild areas not bring toothpaste with
    them?
        Mr. Baughman. I see some posters over here, Mr. Chairman,
    but certainly--
        Mr. Gilchrest. How about Listerine, would that be better?
        Mr. Baughman. Anything like that. Beer.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Bears are attracted to beer?
        Mr. Baughman. Toiletries, soap, anything like that. We
    recommend if people are in known bear country that they are
    hanging these objects out of reach and then camping hundreds of
    yards from where food and those types of objects are stored.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I was hoping you could recommend that to
    reduce the weight in my pack the next time I go hunting in a
    wilderness area.
        Mr. Baughman, you said that bear baiting, in most cases,
    does not condition the bear or connect the bear or reduce the
    bear's fear of humans, and I would assume that means if that is
    done correctly and appropriately.
        Mr. Baughman. Mr. Chairman, a person baiting bears for
    hunting would not want that bear to associate a human presence
    with that site. Bears are very secretive animals, and if they
    associate people they are typically--as I say, in most cases,
    those bear hunters are not successful all the time. But if a
    bear comes in, it comes in very cautiously. If the wind
    switches where they scent a human presence or see movements,
    the bear is gone. That is the typical situation.
        Certainly they are much more wary than turkeys coming into
    a person calling turkeys or sitting in front of turkey decoys.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Estill, do you see any difference at all
    between--I was not here, so I am not sure how you testified on
    behalf of the U.S. Forest Service and their position on bear
    baiting.
        Ms.  Estill. In general, we feel like the States have the
    responsibility for wildlife management. We have Memorandums of
    Understanding with each State. We work those things out in
    advance.
        We did have problems with bear baiting back until the mid-
    1990's, when we developed a policy that put some safeguards in
    the Forest Service regulations that said if a State was not
    ensuring that the management of those bear baits was done
    properly, we could close. Or if there was some sort of
    degradation of the Federal resource or danger to people, we
    could close those areas.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So each of the States that allow, and there
    are nine States that allow bear baiting, each one of those
    States has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest
    Service?
        Ms.  Estill. Yes.
        Mr. Gilchrest. In particular, for Forest Service land to
    deal with the management of bear baiting?
        Ms.  Estill. Of all wildlife, including that particular
    kind of contact.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Of all wildlife baiting. Is baiting for
    wildlife on Forest Service land done for the management of that
    species, for example? Is it the management for the population
    of that species, for the safety of communities nearby?
        I guess if you could also give me some understanding of
    when you manage bear baiting with these various States through
    your MOU or you manage baiting of wildlife, do you have an MOU
    for whitetail deer in the same way you have for bears or
    migrating waterfowl or things like this?
        Ms.  Estill. We have one MOU with each State that covers
    the whole waterfront on wildlife.
        Mr. Gilchrest. That covers the whole panorama. Is there a
    difference in the MOU between baiting bear versus baiting deer
    or snow geese or things like this?
        Ms.  Estill. Each MOU with each State is different. What we
    have is a national policy on bear baiting for the Forest
    Service. So that if we have a problem with an individual State,
    we can fall back on that national policy and it details how we
    go about resolving the situation.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much. The reason I passed a
    moment ago, I had just walked in after being caught after the
    last vote, so I wanted to collect my thoughts a little bit.
    Sometimes it takes longer for me than others to do that.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I just had one other question. I will yield
    to you your full time.
        Mr. Gallegly. That is fine, go ahead. I just had two short
    questions for Ms. Estill.
        Mr. Gilchrest. OK, go ahead.
        Mr. Gallegly. Correct me if I am mistaken, but during your
    testimony, a major part of the focus of the position of the
    Forest Service was predicated on your belief in the autonomy of
    the States; is that correct?
        Ms.  Estill. In the States--
        Mr. Gallegly. Autonomy as it relates to the issue of bear
    baiting or the issue of wildlife.
        Ms.  Estill. Well, our position is that States
    traditionally have been and are responsible for regulation of
    wildlife.
        Mr. Gallegly. OK. Do the States pay for all the signs in
    the National Forest area that warn people about feeding bears
    or does the Federal Government spend any money at all in the
    policy of asking people to not feed the bears?
        Ms.  Estill. I am quite certain the Federal Government puts
    fund into that.
        Mr. Gallegly. So the Federal Government does take the
    responsibility financially and the authority to advise people
    not to feed the bears; is that correct?
        Ms.  Estill. That is correct.
        Mr. Gallegly. OK. That being the case, if hunters should be
    allowed to set out food for bears in National Forests, why
    shouldn't photographers and wildlife watchers also be allowed
    to set out food to increase their probability of getting a nice
    photo shoot? Ms. Estill?
        Ms.  Estill. I don't have an answer for you.
        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Gilchrest. That is an interesting question, although I
    think it would be more fun to spend more time out there looking
    for the wildlife with your camera without toothpaste and other
    hygiene items.
        Mr. Gallegly. You don't even have to have a hunting
    license, either.
        Ms.  Estill. I suppose there is an answer to that, and it
    would go back to the State responsibility for managing the
    wildlife, and particularly managing hunting and managing the
    ways that that hunting is done in each State.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Very good response. It is an interesting,
    fascinating scenario. Although I don't know if I would want to
    put more Twinkies out there than we already have for the
    photographers.
        Mr. Hogan, could you tell us from your perspective, I
    understand Fish and Wildlife's hesitancy with Mr. McKeon's
    legislation. Fish and Wildlife is already, to a large extent,
    stretched beyond its capacity and its resources. So adding
    another responsibility means you have to take people from other
    critical places.
        Can you tell us what you think, and this is not only a
    ballpark, this is the whole USA, so you can be as wide open as
    you want to be, but how many people do you think it might take
    to enforce this legislation, not allowing people to have or
    trade in these big cats?
        And if we did pass this legislation, well, when we pass
    this legislation, do you see the State Fish and Game, local
    organizations, local humane societies playing a part in
    monitoring and even in some cases enforcing this Federal law?
        Mr. Hogan. Well, I don't know that I will be able to give
    you the answer you are looking for, Mr. Chairman. We really
    don't have a good idea how many of these cats are out there. So
    without knowing exactly how many cats there are, it would be
    difficult to say how many agents it would take. And, again, the
    way the bill is written does not prohibit possession, it only
    prohibits moving the cat in interstate commerce.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Do you suggest we prohibit possession as
    well?
        Mr. Hogan. I am not prepared to say that for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Would you say there is a problem with these
    big game cats being housed in areas where people don't have
    enough room, enough food, enough knowledge how to deal with
    them?
        Mr. Hogan. In certain circumstances, it certainly seems
    there are some issues out there with people who are not
    educated, informed, and are not properly--
        Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have recommendations if we do not
    pass the legislation as to what you would do?
        Mr. Hogan. Well, again, our focus is again mainly on the
    wild species. We spend a lot of time looking for enforcements
    of violations of the Endangered Species Act, which does include
    four of the species listed.
        As far as the individual possession of those species in a
    State, I am not really prepared to suggest that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, or prepared to suggest to you what would be
    the proper way to address that. Our main concern is just that,
    as you appropriately noted, it would pull our limited resources
    off of the enforcement of some of the issues that we feel are
    much more high priority for conservation of those species in
    the wild and not focus on largely domestically raised, captive-
    bred species.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Can you give me an example of an endangered
    tiger?
        Mr. Hogan. I am sorry, an endangered?
        Mr. Gilchrest. Tiger.
        Mr. Hogan. Well, tigers are listed under the--
        Mr. Gilchrest. All tigers are listed under the Endangered
    Species Act?
        Mr. Hogan. Correct.
        Mr. Gilchrest. What if somebody has a tiger in their
    backyard and somebody calls the Fish and Wildlife? They have
    possession of a tiger in their backyard, which is endangered,
    and somebody calls or gets in touch with you somehow? What do
    you do?
        Mr. Hogan. Well, possession of the tiger wouldn't
    necessarily be illegal. It would be if that person entered it
    into interstate commerce or if that person illegally took the
    tiger without a permit. So in the case if someone had a tiger
    in their backyard and they called us--
        Mr. Gilchrest. Under the take provisions of ESA why is
    possession of that tiger not illegal?
        Mr. Hogan. I am sorry? I didn't get the question.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Under the take provisions of ESA, why is
    possession of having that tiger in the suburbs of Los Angeles
    or some other place not illegal?
        Mr. Hogan. Would you allow me 1 second to confer with one
    of our law enforcement agents to make sure I get this correct?
        Mr. Gilchrest. Take as much time as you need.
        Mr. Hogan. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The Endangered Species Act
    doesn't necessarily prohibit someone from possessing the tiger,
    especially if that tiger was, for example, raised from a cub in
    captivity.
        Mr. Gilchrest. The Bald Eagle is not endangered any more,
    right?
        Mr. Hogan. No, it still is endangered.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Can I have a Bald Eagle in my house? If I
    had a Bald Eagle without a permit in my House, and somebody
    called Fish and Wildlife, what would happen?
        Mr. Hogan. You would probably get a visit by some of our
    agents.
        Mr. Gilchrest. What is the difference between a Bald Eagle
    and a tiger?
        Mr. Gallegly. They are a lot bigger.
        Mr. Pallone. And more dangerous.
        Mr. Gilchrest. All right, that is it.
        Mr. Hogan. Well, Bald Eagle possession is actually
    prohibited not by the Endangered Species Act but by the Bald
    and Golden Eagle Protection Act, so you wouldn't be in
    violation--
        Mr. Gilchrest. So we need a Tiger Protection Act. We need
    language to protect the tiger in this legislation. That is
    good. I think we will make sure we put it in there then. So
    possession of a tiger in this legislation will result in a
    statute that makes it illegal?
        Mr. Hogan. And that would be separate from the Endangered
    Species Act. Right now, possessing a tiger would not be a
    violation of the Endangered Species Act.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So there is a separate Federal law that
    protects the Bald Eagle as opposed to other endangered species?
        Mr. Hogan. That is correct.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Are there any other endangered species that
    has that type of protection like the Bald Eagle does?
        Mr. Hogan. If you give me one more second, I will find out
    for sure.
        Some species could be protected under either the Migratory
    Bird Treaty or Marine Mammals. I cannot give you the exact list
    right now, but I would be glad to supply that for the record.
        Mr. Gilchrest. OK. I was going to ask what is the
    difference between take and possession, but I will yield now to
    Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. I am going to ask Mr. Hogan another question.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We had a lot of discussion about the baiting issue and
    deferring to States on it, but my understanding is that the
    Fish and Wildlife Service prohibits baiting on refuge lands,
    with some exceptions for Alaska, for example, now. What is the
    rationale behind that policy?
        Because generally you seem to be saying you defer to the
    States. So why is baiting prohibited on refuge lands? What is
    the reason?
        Mr. Hogan. Refuges actually are closed to all human
    activity unless they are specifically open, unlike BLM units or
    Forest Service units, which are actually open until closed.
    Now, in Alaska it is a little confusing in that refuges are the
    exact opposite. Under ANOCA, refuges are open to all activities
    until closed. So on the Fish and Wildlife Service refuge lands,
    we would literally have to have regulations to allow baiting.
        Refuges, comparatively, are much smaller in size than, say,
    National Forests or units of the BLM. So in that circumstance,
    on such a small area, bear baiting could actually work against
    some of the wildlife management objectives of the State. So
    that is why in general baiting is prohibited. And it is all
    baiting, and it is mainly targeted toward waterfowl. But all
    baiting of wildlife on all National Wildlife Refuges is closed
    in the lower 48, open in Alaska.
        Mr. Pallone. Again, I understand your response and also Mr.
    Baughman's response earlier, but it just seems to me there is a
    lot more interaction than you are suggesting. In other words,
    how does the bear know when it is on refuge land versus other
    land? And in terms of what Mr. Baughman said earlier, I was
    envisioning like a hiker, and you gave me this idea, which I
    understand about how the baiting is in remote areas and it is a
    different phenomena from where there are people. But there are
    hikers and other people that go in those remote areas. So it
    seems to me you would have circumstances where, if baiting
    exists, a hiker or someone might be exposed to a bear that has
    been baited and got away.
        But I guess you see those as more isolated situations, and
    you are looking at what you consider the more likely scenario.
    There may be isolated instances like that, but that is not the
    major concern, I guess. If either one of you want to respond, I
    don't know.
        Mr. Baughman. Mr. Chairman, in Wyoming, that is a good
    point, Mr. Pallone.
        In Wyoming, baits cannot be placed within 200 yards of any
    trail and within a half a mile of any campground. Before a lot
    of these regulations were in place, I know there were problems,
    but I think those problems have largely been rectified. And in
    fact the baits have to be identified as to whose bait it is, so
    if there is a problem occurring, whether it is a Forest Service
    employee or a Wildlife officer, they can get in touch with that
    person and have that bait moved.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Mr. Gallegly, any
    further questions?
        Mr. Gallegly. Might I just have one brief follow-up
    question for Ms. Estill? Because I keep getting back to the
    issue of the States making decision on what is appropriate for
    bear hunting.
        If in fact you truly believe that the Federal Government
    should not be making these decisions, do you think, then, that
    it was unwise for Congress to pass the Federal Airborne Hunting
    Act that prohibited shooting from aircraft? That was preempting
    the States in that case.
        So what would be the difference in saying it is OK to
    prohibit one act but not OK to prohibit another act if your
    argument is predicated on a States versus Federal?
        Ms.  Estill. I am going to defer to John to respond to
    that. I would just go back to there have been a number of bills
    and statutes that reinforce the States' primary responsibility
    unless there is some danger to Federal resources.
        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Baughman, would you say it is unwise that
    we passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act? Do you think that
    was unwise?
        Mr. Baughman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gallegly, no, I don't think
    it was unwise. In fact, flying aircraft in airspace is
    regulated by the Federal Government and I think they were
    regulating practices and the way airplanes are used. And in
    fact there are exceptions in there for wildlife management.
        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Baughman, you used the reference that the
    conduit there is that the Federal Government regulates
    airspace. I might remind the gentleman that the Federal
    Government also regulates Federal lands. This bill only has to
    do with Federal lands. It does not have to do with private
    lands within States. What is the difference?
        Mr. Baughman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gallegly, I can't speak for
    the Congress, but I believe that there is human safety in terms
    of that method of flight and using aircraft. I believe there
    are safety factors there that do fall under Federal concerns. I
    don't think the same concerns were there with the baiting of
    bears on the ground and in national forests.
        Mr. Gallegly. I think the gentleman is making my argument
    for me if we are going to talk about Federal safety as well,
    because this is all about safety.
        Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman answered the question.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly.
        One more quick question for Mr. Hogan. Can you, in the
    coming days, give us, from your legal team, an explanation for
    the difference between take and possession?
        Mr. Hogan. Well, I can actually give you that definition
    now. Take is actually killing or somehow taking the animal.
    Possession, in and of itself, is just simply having the animal
    in your possession.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Really? So we need to change that. Thank you
    very much. I appreciate everybody's testimony. We thank the
    witnesses for coming today.
        Our next panel is Ms. Tippi Hedren, President of the Roar
    Foundation; Dr. Eric Miller, DVM, Director of Animal Health and
    Conservation, St. Louis Zoo, and American Zoo and Aquarium
    Association.
        Good afternoon.
        Ms. Hedren. Good afternoon to you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Miller, Ms. Hedren. Ms. Hedren, I hope
    you find us as fascinating as we find you.
        Mr. Gallegly. I doubt it.
        Ms. Hedren. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that.

                 STATEMENT OF TIPPI HEDREN, PRESIDENT,
                          THE ROAR FOUNDATION

        Ms. Hedren. I especially am very grateful to be here and I
    thank the Chairman and other members of the Subcommittee on
    Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. I am very grateful
    to my congressman, Buck McKeon, and George Miller, who
    introduced this bill a while ago.
        I am going to just tell you a little story about how I got
    started so that you will understand that I do have a validity
    in talking about these big cats and the danger that they
    provide us as pets.
        Thirty years ago, I did a film in Africa and became
    concerned about the diminishing numbers of big cats, wild
    animals in general, just due to encroaching civilization,
    sports hunting, and, of course, worst of all, poaching. We saw
    on the Ngorongoro Game Preserve a house that had been abandoned
    by a game warden because it flooded during the rainy season,
    and a pride of lion moved in and it grew to be the largest
    pride in all of Africa.
        During that time, also, environmentalists were saying if we
    don't do something right now, the editorial ``we,'' about
    saving the wildlife, by the year 2000 they will be gone. A
    great deal of awareness was going out, and my then husband and
    I decided to make a film about wildlife and the problems, and
    we decided to use the great cat after seeing that house on the
    Ngorongoro Game Preserve.
        So we got back to California, the script was written, and
    we had full intentions of using acting animals and have a 9-
    month shoot, over and out. However, as soon as the trainers of
    these actors of these wild cats heard that we would be maybe
    using 20 cats at a time, 15, whatever, they just laughed at us
    and said you can't do it because of instinctual dictates to
    fight. They suggested that we acquire our own animals to do the
    movie.
        Well, the first one was a rescue. A doctor in Mandeville
    Canyon in Los Angeles had purchased a little 8-week-old lion
    cub. Cute? Adorable? Oh, you bet. Fed it with a bottle, cuddled
    it, slept with it at night. By the time it was 7 months old, it
    had destroyed his house and it had taken a pretty good chunk
    out of him, and he was screaming someone take this unmanageable
    little beast off my hands.
        That was the beginning. Then we heard about several other
    little animals that needed a home. Pretty soon, we had seven of
    them, and we boarded them at a place that was one of the animal
    trainers. Then we heard about some excess zoo animals, excess
    older circus animals, animal parks. But the common denominator
    was the private citizen who had purchased this little cub or a
    little animal and found out they couldn't handle it.
        In fact, it had become such a major, major issue with these
    animals that our 9-month shoot became 5 years, just because of
    a lot of accidents that we had. I was bitten in the back of the
    head by a lioness, my daughter was scratched severely in the
    face--thank God for wonderful plastic surgeons--our director of
    photography was scalped, my stepson was bitten in the head. I
    mean it just goes on.
        I have three books of evidence that I took out of my
    files--I didn't bring them all because I would have had to
    bring the whole cabinet--that I would like to enter into the
    Congressional Record, along with my testimony.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
        [The three books referred to have been retained in the
    Committee's official files.]
        Ms. Hedren. Thank you. And the attacks don't stop. A little
    boy in Texas, who had put his arm in to scratch the tiger that
    belonged to his uncle, the tiger ripped the little boy's arm
    off. They retrieved the arm. It took 11 hours to attach the
    arm, and he has very little use of it.
        A little 11-year-old girl was brought into a tiger's cage,
    again in Texas, by the stepfather. The tiger jumped the little
    girl, bit her in the neck and she was instantly dead. The real
    father was on television, tears rolling down his face, saying
    why aren't there laws to prevent this kind of a problem? A
    woman in Colorado had her arm ripped off. It doesn't stop.
        The whole situation has become of such a concern that about
    5 years ago we formed an association, a number of us who have a
    sanctuary type of facility. And that means no breeding, no
    buying, no selling, no trading, no commercial use, perimeter
    fencing around this, and not just an 8-by-10 cage but a
    habitat, with adequate veterinary care. Not all veterinarians
    are capable of taking care of these animals. We formed an
    association called the American Sanctuary Association so that
    if the Shambala Preserve can't take an animal because we are
    filled, and we are always filled, there is a waiting line to
    come into these sanctuaries, but if I can't take an animal, I
    can call another one and I know that that animal is going to be
    safe and not end up in some horrible situation or in a canned
    hunt. And of course you know what the canned hunts are about. I
    don't have to go into that with you all.
        But this situation has become very bad. We have a lion who
    was living in a basement outside of Branson, Missouri; another
    little lion who was walking down the streets of Kirksville,
    Missouri all by himself; a little black leopard who was
    abandoned in a garage in the bitter cold month of February in
    Wyoming. All four pads were frost bitten. She lost 4 inches off
    her tail due to frost bite, was undernourished, and was one
    angry little animal when she came to us. It took almost 4 years
    before she wouldn't come flying at the fence at us she was so
    angry and so frightened.
        We have 67 animals at the moment, and every single one, or
    many of them came from, excuse the expression, the ``Tiger
    Rescue'' out in southern California, in the Riverside area.
    That is an area of California where just recently it was
    exposed that this man named John Weinhart had been keeping
    these animals for approximately 30 years.
        I went there 5 years ago and left in tears. Because of the
    American Sanctuary Association, it is important we check out
    different places to see if they were a sanctuary or what they
    were like. At this particular one I was very upset and appalled
    by what I was seeing. First of all, the fencing was not
    adequate, there was very little shelter for the animals. This
    was basically lions and tigers. There were dead chickens, green
    with mold, feathers and feces and the stench was horrible.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Where was this?
        Ms. Hedren. It is in the Riverside area. It is called
    Colton. It was owned by a man named John Weinhart. He is no
    longer involved in it. The Fund for Animals has sort of taken
    over.
        Last November, Fish and Game called and asked if I could
    take 13 tiger cubs that were found at John Weinhart's place. He
    didn't have a breeder's permit, therefore they could confiscate
    the animals. I said I don't have room for them, I will talk to
    my staff and see if we can take several of them, and we did
    take three. They all came in sick. They all had a terrible case
    of mange, which is a very, very communicable disease. All of
    our animals are in quarantine for a month, but we had to keep
    them in for 2 months.
        Apparently, the Weinharts home, just about 2 months ago,
    Fish and Game heard there was another tiger there. They went to
    check it out and they not only found that tiger, a young tiger
    sitting on the veranda or something, but they found two Cayman
    alligators in the bathtub; they heard scratchings in the
    ceiling, they opened the vent and a little tiger cub fell out,
    about 2 weeks old. There were nine tiger cubs and two leopard
    cubs up in the vent that they were trying to hide. This man has
    been breeding these animals to sell. There was a truck loaded
    with tiger skins. There were carcases of almost 20 tigers at
    their home, around their grounds, skinned.
        This is the sort of thing that has got to stop. There was
    another place in Idaho where there were 18 cats running free,
    just because the fencing was so poor, and the whole facility
    was falling down. There is another place in west Kansas with
    the same kind of situation.
        I don't know how many breeders there are, but because there
    are not laws, this is why this is happening. It is happening
    because nobody is stopping them. And the statement was made
    that there aren't enough investigators or there aren't enough
    people to stop this. That should be addressed, too, and should
    be rectified. Because until this whole issue is stopped, there
    are going to be more people hurt, more children killed.
        It is an unconscionable act that is going on, and you, the
    Congress, have the capability of stopping it. I wish I could.
    God knows, I wish I could. You do. And there isn't a reason in
    the world that these animals should be pets. They are
    dangerous. And, to me, in the vernacular of today, it is a no-
    brainer. You have the capability. You in the House, you in the
    Senate, you have the capability of doing something about this,
    and I urge you so fervently to vote in favor of the Captive
    Wildlife Safety Act.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Hedren. I thank you so much for inviting me to be here
    today. This is a cause I have been working on for 7 years. I
    have been to Washington often talking about it, and to be here
    is a mission I feel accomplished, and I hope you will react on
    it.
        Mr. Gilchrest. We will, Ms. Hedren. And your passion has
    been eloquently expressed.
        Ms. Hedren. Thank you. If there are any questions, I would
    be delighted to answer them.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Hedren follows:]

           Statement of Tippi Hedren, President, The Roar Foundation

        Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries
    Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I am very grateful to you for
    electing to conduct a hearing on H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety
    Act. I am especially grateful to my Congressman, Buck McKeon, and to
    Representative George Miller for introducing this important
    legislation. This bill, if enacted, would fulfill a dream I have had
    since the mid-1990's: to see a Federal law adopted to promote public
    safety and to prevent the abuse of wild cats kept as pets.
        For 30 years, since I began working with big cats, I have been
    amazed that there are no Federal laws uniformly regulating the
    transport of wild and exotic species kept as pets by private owners
    across the United States. Consider:
        Near Houston, Texas, on March 15th, 2000, four-year-old Jayton
    Tidwell watched his uncle reach into the cage of the 400-pound Bengal
    tiger named Cheyenne he kept in the back yard. Little Jayton wanted to
    pet his uncle's beautiful tiger, too. The tiger responded by tearing
    off Jayton's arm.
        Doctors reattached the arm after eleven hours of surgery, but to
    date Jayton's right arm remains largely useless. However, Jayton was
    lucky. Other children lose their lives to big cats recklessly kept as
    pets. In October, 2001, on a farm outside Lexington, Kentucky, one of
    the three pet tigers kept by Kerry Quinney snatched his three-year-old
    grandson Matthew Scott from his arms as they were having their picture
    taken in the tiger pen. Matthew died of massive head injuries after the
    250-pound tiger dragged him around the pen.
        Adults are also killed or maimed. In April, a woman who had six
    years' experience handling the big cats suffered a fatal loss of blood
    when a tiger ripped off her arm. A volunteer at Safari Joe's Rock Creek
    Exotic Animal Park in Adair, Oklahoma, she was working outside the cage
    when the tiger managed to grab her.
        Vince Lowe died at Savage Kingdom, an exotic animal ranch in Center
    Hill, Florida, where he volunteered as a way to gain experience for a
    state certificate to handle big cats. On August 1, 2001, Lowe was
    cleaning the cage of a 500-pound Siberian tiger named Tie when the
    animal tore out of an interior retaining cage to seize Lowe by the
    neck.
        Gene Light's pet tiger Rufus, who lived in Light's back yard in
    Lubbock, Texas, attacked him in May, 1999. The tiger dragged him down
    and bit his head, ripping out his jaw and right ear.
        These are only a few of the incidents involving big cats and
    people. I learn of horrific stories such as these repeated again and
    again around the nation. At Shambala, which over 30 years ago was the
    location in Southern California for a film to raise awareness about
    animals in the wild, we suffered our share of injuries when we were
    learning about the big cats. During the filming of our movie ROAR, a
    lioness pinned me down and held the back of my head in her jaws,
    requiring over 50 stitches. My daughter, actress Melanie Griffith, had
    her face deeply scratched by a lion's claws. Our Director of
    Photography, Jan de Bont, had his scalp peeled back by a lion. Our set
    photographer, Bill Dow, was hospitalized for nine days with a gash in
    his arm inflicted by a lion's jaws. My stepsons John and Jerry Marshall
    were bitten on the head and the foot, respectively. Perhaps most
    frightening of all, our Assistant Director, Doron Kauper, was very
    nearly killed by a lion that repeatedly leapt at his throat. We learned
    the hard way, and we don't want to see others learn from our bitter and
    painful experience.
        Injuries and deaths, when they occur, are never the fault of the
    animal. They are the fault of the person who puts himself or herself,
    or someone else, in jeopardy, and allows the animal an opportunity.
    Fortunately, we lived to tell the tale, learning our lessons about
    these animals from making ROAR. We are living proof that these animals
    should not be pets.
        When an attack occurs, the animal is merely acting according to its
    instinctual nature as a predator. We can never fully understand or
    control these instincts. More importantly, we deceive ourselves-
    dangerously-by believing wild animals such as big cats can ever be
    ``tamed,'' that is, taught to abandon their instincts.
        After completing ROAR, we had become a very important facility for
    rescuing big cats. State fish and wildlife departments all over the
    United States called us to take abandoned animals, as did officials
    from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, humane societies and SPCAs,
    circuses, zoos, and most of all, private citizens who had purchased a
    big cat as a pet. In 1983, I formed the Roar Foundation, a 501(c)(3)
    nonprofit organization, to financially support the Shambala Preserve.
    We had become a sanctuary with very stringent rules: no buying, no
    breeding, no trading, no selling of animals, and no commercial use.
        The Captive Wildlife Safety Act seeks to prevent the interstate
    transport of big cats for the pet trade, and it will curb the frequency
    of human injuries by shrinking the number of people who live with these
    animals. Exceptions are provided to allow for accredited facilities,
    such as zoos, sanctuaries, and humane societies, to keep these animals.
        Only 34 states have laws of any kind regulating the possession of
    wild and exotic animals. Only 17 of those states, such as California,
    have stringent laws that truly protect the public, laws with teeth.
    Even then, those laws may not be enforced due to budget constraints.
    The Federal Government can help protect people and the big cats by
    adopting a law to complement state efforts, and to fill a gap where no
    state laws exists.
        At Shambala, we recently built a new enclosure at a labor cost
    alone of $20,000 for three young tigers. These animals survived being
    bred at a deplorable facility in Colton, California, called,
    ironically, ``Tiger Rescue,'' which currently houses 72 tigers on seven
    acres. The leopard we rescued from this facility also needs a compound
    built for her. The California Department of Fish and Game originally
    asked Shambala to take 13 tiger cubs that had been bred at the facility
    illegally. The Department of Agriculture asked us to take three intact
    male tigers that have impregnated four tigresses. We expect that many
    more pregnant tigresses will be discovered over the coming year. Due to
    financial and space constraints, we had to decline to take these animal
    refugees.
        The operator of ``Tiger Rescue,'' John Weinhart, made national news
    recently when Fish and Game agents entered his home. In addition to
    coming across 58 tiger cubs in a freezer, the authorities found the
    skinned, rotting carcasses of many adult tigers littering the property,
    along with a truckload of tiger pelts. Weinhart appears to be a man who
    profited by breeding and selling tigers and their parts under the guise
    of ``rescuing'' them. A live tiger may be sold for less than the cost
    of purebred puppy, but its dismembered parts may yield more than
    $10,000, making them worth a lot more dead than alive.
        The trade in wild and exotic species grows larger each year. In
    addition to selling skins and other body parts, traders make money
    breeding the animals for sale to the public as pets or to canned
    hunting facilities. At a canned hunt, for a fee of three to twenty
    thousand dollars or more, a so-called ``hunter'' can shoot a captive
    animal at close range for a guaranteed trophy.
        Experts say the demand has created a cottage industry for breeding
    tigers and other big cats as pets, performers, or for canned hunts.
    When uncontrolled, such breeding creates conditions that make abuse of
    wild and endangered species almost inevitable.
        ``Once there are tigers in private hands, the production is going
    to go skyrocketing,'' states Richard Farinato, director of the Captive
    Wildlife Protection Program of the Humane Society of the United States.
    ``The result is too many cats, too little space, and ``'' tigers in
    places where there is no way they can care for them well.''
        In one form or another, such deceptive ``rescue'' operations as
    Weinhart's can be found throughout America, especially in the Midwest.
    Operations such as Weinhart's flourish because both state fish and
    wildlife agencies and state agriculture departments do not have the
    investigators they need to enforce the laws.
        These false ``rescue'' facilities that breed animals for commercial
    use often justify their activities by claiming they are preserving
    endangered species. In fact, they are not the answer to the tiger's
    survival, since these individuals are not involved with any reputable
    species survival plan. Accredited zoos call these crossbred tigers
    ``mutts.'' Unregulated breeding can lead to birth and genetic defects,
    compromised immune systems, and shortened life spans for the animals.
    ``The tigers that you find in the private sector will never, ever, be
    introduced into the wild, and I doubt that they have any value for
    either conservation or research,'' according to Ron Wilson, director of
    conservation at the Minnesota Zoo and coordinator of a nationally
    adopted Tiger Species Survival Plan that carefully controls captive
    breeding of tigers in zoos across the country.
        While all tigers are protected under the Endangered Species Act,
    mixed-breed tigers are subject to less stringent regulations, including
    being allowed to be sold under some circumstances. Purebred tigers
    cannot legally be sold through interstate commerce, and their owners
    must obtain Federal permits. Owners of generic tigers are not required
    to have Federal permits, according to Tim Santee, a special agent with
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These loopholes create, ``a second-
    class citizen of endangered species,'' vulnerable to black market sale
    and mistreatment, said Craig Hoover, deputy director of TRAFFIC, which
    monitors illegal trade in exotic animals for the World Wildlife Fund.
        Increased trade in wild and exotic animals creates a growing crisis
    for sanctuaries. To be considered a sanctuary like the Shambala
    Preserve, a facility must be outside city limits, provide proper
    veterinary care, have habitats and a surrounding perimeter fence, ban
    commercial use of the animals, and forbid buying, breeding, selling or
    trading animals. Any animal accepted at a sanctuary will be protected,
    cared for, and given a home for the rest of his or her natural life.
    But the need far outstrips the capacity of the sanctuaries. Zoologists
    and veterinary experts estimate that the number of wild and exotic
    animals living in backyards in the United States far exceeds 50,000.
    More tigers live in the state of Texas than in their native habitat of
    India. Texas contains the majority of the breeders and half of the
    1,000 canned hunts in the U.S.
        My desire is not to take the animals away from their current
    keepers, but to prevent the trade from continuing to put people and big
    cats at risk. I should emphasize that at no time have I proposed or
    endorsed any state or Federal legislative measure that would prohibit
    ownership of wild and exotic animals or require that animals be
    confiscated across the board from their present owners. Where would we
    put them all? Our sanctuaries are already overburdened. Such a scenario
    would be a nightmare, likely resulting in many thousands of innocent
    animals being euthanized and a large increase in deaths and injuries to
    humans due to huge numbers of animals having to be moved. Rather, my
    approach has been, both with the Shambala Wild Animal Protection Act
    and the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, to keep wild and exotic animals
    out of the hands of those who would cruelly exploit them or fail to
    protect the public from the dangers they present.
        How does an ordinary citizen obtain an extraordinary animal such as
    a lion or tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or mountain lion, the large
    cats covered in the Act?
        It is surprisingly easy. Wild and exotic animals of all types are
    available every day through newspaper ads, on the Internet, or in
    person from a breeder, who may be selling cubs out of the back of a van
    at a local mall. In some states it is more difficult to obtain a dog
    license than to keep a lion or tiger in your back yard. The cute and
    playful cub has likely had its claws removed and will be touted to an
    unwary buyer as a ``good pet.''
        A breeder attempted to illegally sell two Bengal cubs for $10,000
    each at a fashionable mall in Newport Beach, California. After they
    were confiscated, Shambala became the home to one of the tigers,
    Tamara, who has lived healthily at the preserve for many years.
    However, her sister died, as both were sick upon arrival.
        Spider, Dagger, and Whitey, three brothers who are a mixture of
    Siberian and Bengal tiger, were bred in Nevada. The breeder used them
    in television commercials when they were 6-weeks-old cubs. Had we not
    intervened to give them a home, they would have then ended up doing
    such things as providing photo opportunities in shopping malls.
        Boo, a black leopard, has a reputation as the most vicious cat at
    Shambala. He came from a private owner who kept him locked in a closet
    to protect the furniture. The owner donned heavy gloves to wrestle with
    him when he was let out, turning him into a potentially highly
    dangerous cat. Boo came to the preserve as one very angry animal. Over
    the decade of loving and respectful care he has received at Shambala he
    has gradually become less hostile to humans. But to take him for
    granted, even today, could be a terrible mistake. Only a few months of
    abuse can mark an animal for life. They never forget.
        Within a matter of weeks the buyer of an adorable, cuddly cub is
    likely to rue the decision as it becomes apparent that the rapidly
    growing animal is unmanageable, dangerous and destructive. The average
    person doesn't know the rigorous and expensive care that exotic species
    require, nor are most veterinarians familiar or experienced with their
    specialized needs.
        A desperate owner's choices are few, and may be grisly. Zoos will
    not take an animal without knowing its genetic history. State fish and
    wildlife agencies do not take in animals or routinely find them homes.
    Humane societies and community animal shelters generally deal
    exclusively with dogs and domestic cats. Thus, the animal might be
    euthanized, abandoned, or sold to an animal dealer, no questions asked,
    from where it may likely go to a canned hunt. Tigers are banned from
    such hunts under the Endangered Species Act, but the lure of the
    profits they can generate as prey may be irresistible. ``The message
    is, if you've got the money, we can provide it for you,'' says Michael
    Markarian, president of the Fund for Animals. ``For $400 or $500 you
    can buy a tiger off the Internet,'' Markarian notes. ``And if it's that
    easy for someone who wants to have a tiger in their backyard to buy it,
    it's just as easy for someone who wants to shoot that animal to get
    it.''
        Luckier animals find space in a sanctuary. A few years ago, to
    coordinate the rescue efforts of sanctuaries around the country, a
    number of true sanctuaries formed the American Sanctuary Association, a
    network of 40 facilities that follow a uniform practice code of no
    buying, breeding, selling, or trading. Furthermore, to qualify as a
    sanctuary with the ASA, the facility must allow no commercial use of
    the animals, have proper veterinary care, be outside city limits, be
    completely surrounded by a perimeter fence, and keep animals in
    habitats, not just cages.
        With the leopard, Savannah, and the three young tigers we accepted
    from ``Tiger Rescue'' in Colton, our total population at Shambala now
    comes to 63 large cats and one African elephant on 40 acres. We are at
    capacity, as are most sanctuaries nearly all of the time. A week seldom
    goes by that I am not approached to take additional animals. Accredited
    sanctuaries all over the United States are filled, with more than 400
    animals waiting to come into sanctuary.
        Each animal's care at the Shambala Preserve averages $12,315 per
    year, out of a total annual budget of $825,000. Our budget is nearly
    $70,000 per month to feed and house the animals, not including
    rebuilding, repairing, or expansion. For desperately needed
    improvements in our buildings and property, we need an additional $1
    million.
        Throughout its 30 year history, Shambala has existed entirely on
    private donations, including my own. I have never been paid as the
    Director of the non-profit preserve, the President of the Roar
    Foundation that supports the preserve, or the President of the American
    Sanctuary Association. Those who share this vision and this cause
    possess a selfless dedication and willingness to sacrifice financial
    reward out of devotion to rescuing animals. We certainly don't do it
    for the money. We do it for the love of these animals and to respond to
    this crying need for help. As such, passage of this Act will be a
    necessary reward and encouragement to those who have given their lives
    to the welfare of wild and exotic species.
        When a state department of fish and wildlife or a state agriculture
    department wants us to take an animal, it almost never sends funds to
    help us maintain the animal. We must make a commitment to feed, shelter
    and care for that animal for the rest of its natural life (which can be
    as long as 20 years or more) with no money attached. Yet the government
    has failed to pass laws to stem the growing tide of wild and exotic
    animals, many of which are destined never to find a safe, permanent
    home and thus may be subject to atrocities such as occurred at ``Tiger
    Rescue.''
        The House of Representatives--starting with the members of this
    Committee--can bring help to alleviate this crisis by passing the
    Captive Wildlife Safety Act. It is a bipartisan, common sense measure
    to safeguard the public and prevent harm to animals. It will help stop
    a largely underground and in many cases criminal economy that breeds,
    trades and butchers wild, exotic, and often endangered species.
        This inhumane, irresponsible traffic in wild and exotic animals can
    be stopped. The atrocities and accidents I mentioned earlier occurred
    only because nobody stopped them.
        I love these animals more than my next breath, but they are not
    pets. Not one more child should be hurt or killed. Not one more person
    of any age should suffer the physical pain, debilitation, and emotional
    trauma of an attack.
        I urge you to act responsibly. Pass the Captive Wildlife Safety
    Act.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. There will be. We will let Dr. Miller go
    first, and then we will ask both of you some questions.
        Dr. Miller.

     STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC MILLER, DVM, DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HEALTH
      AND CONSERVATION, ST. LOUIS ZOO, AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM
                              ASSOCIATION

        Dr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunityto
    testify on behalf of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association,
    the AZA, in support of the bill 1006, the Captive Wildlife
    Safety Act. This is a much-needed bill designed to prohibit the
    interstate and foreign commerce of tigers, lions, cheetahs,
    cougars, leopards, and jaguars for use as pets.
        My name is Eric Miller and I am a veterinarian, and
    currently the Director of Animal Health and Conservation at the
    St. Louis Zoo. Before I begin with the AZA testimony, I would
    like to also request that the written testimony of the American
    Association of Zoological Veterinarians, which represents over
    a thousand veterinarians caring for zoo animals and wildlife in
    the United States, be entered in the hearing record.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
        [The statement of the American Association of Zoological
    Veterinarians submitted for the record follows:]

            Statement of Wilbur Amand, V.M.D., Executive Director,
            American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, on H.R. 1006

        Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify this morning
    on a very important piece of legislation, H.R. 1006--the Captive
    Wildlife Safety Act.
        My name is Wilbur Amand. I am a veterinarian and the Executive
    Director of the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians (AAZV).
        The AAZV is comprised of approximately 1200 veterinarians working
    in the field of veterinary medicine dealing with captive and free-
    ranging wild animals. As an advocate for the profession, the mission of
    the Association is to improve the health care and promote conservation
    of captive and free-ranging wildlife.
        The Veterinary Standards Committee of the AAZV has established
    Guidelines for Zoo and Aquarium Veterinary Medical Programs. These
    Guidelines were drafted in response to the highly specialized medical
    needs of captive wild animals. The veterinary medical program requires
    accessibility to an adequately trained and experienced veterinarian and
    qualified personnel, sufficient resources to support staff and
    implement the program, and access to hospital facilities appropriate
    for the number and types of animals housed at the facility.
        Today in the U.S. there is an active pet trade in wild animals.
    Exotic and wild animals have become increasingly popular as pets and
    large cats (tigers, lions, cougars, jaguars, cheetah) are in high
    demand. There are an estimated 10,000-20,000 large cats in private
    hands in the U.S., with approximately 5,000-7,000 tigers, (The Humane
    Society of the United States, February 2003).
        As veterinarians specifically trained to care for exotic and wild
    animals, the AAZV is sensitive to the specialized needs of these
    animals as well as the dangers of handling these animals and the
    tremendous expense to provide appropriate care.
        Exotic and wild animals when kept as pets, often suffer from poor
    health either due to inadequate nutrition, poor husbandry or due to
    various surgical procedures, such as declawing and dental extractions,
    performed for the sole purpose of trying to turn a wild animal into a
    pet. Many practicing domestic animal veterinarians lack the training
    and experience to effectively prevent and treat health problems in
    exotic and wild animals.
        Exotic and wild animals are not suited to be kept as pets. The
    average private owner lacks the expertise and facilities to provide
    appropriate housing, secure containment, adequate nutrition,
    appropriate medical care and cannot meet the complex social, emotional,
    and behavioral requirements of these animals.
        The AAZV is in agreement with the positions of the American
    Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
    and the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health
    Inspection Service, Animal Care on the private ownership of wild
    animals as pets.
    AAZV's Position:
        Based on the experience and knowledge of our member veterinarians,
    who specialize in providing medical care to exotic and captive wild
    species, the American Association of Zoological Veterinarians (AAZV)
    believes that nonhuman primates, large carnivores and venomous reptiles
    should not be kept as pets.
        The AAZV believes keeping and trading exotic and captive wild
    animals can cause serious problems including: (1) zoonotic disease
    transmission; (2) human injury and death; (3) compromised animal
    welfare due to inadequate knowledge and experience to meet the complex
    social, emotional, behavioral and physical needs of these animals; (4)
    medical problems due to inadequate veterinary care and poor nutrition;
    (5) abandonment, suffering or death due to insufficient financial
    resources to provide a safe and humane environment; (6) potential for
    escape due to improper transport, insecure containment or lack of
    proper equipment; (7) damage to wild populations of rare species due to
    over-collection, introduction of non-native species or exotic diseases.
        Dangerous wild animals should only be maintained by qualified,
    trained experts from accredited zoological institutions or other
    professionally operated and regulated facilities. Placement of
    abandoned pets in zoological facilities is difficult because of space,
    genetic diversity and social interaction concerns, and few sanctuaries
    that are qualified to care for these animals exist.
        The AAZV position on the private ownership of wild animals as pets
    is consistent with the statements of the American Veterinary Medical
    Association and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association.
                                     ______

        Dr. Miller. It is in close agreement with the statements I
    will give from the AZA.
        I would note from the Zoo Vet Association I am a past
    president and current board member, so I am closely aware of
    their interest in this bill.
        As for the AZA, I am also a member of their board of
    directors and a veterinarian adviser to the AZA Tiger Taxon
    Advisory Group. In that role, I have had the good fortune to
    work in the conservation of South China tigers in Asia.
        AZA represents 212 professionally managed and accredited
    institutions, which draw over 136 million visitors annually,
    and we have more than 5 million zoo and aquarium members. We
    collectively care for over 800,000 wild animals. Many of these
    are extremely dangerous and require our expertise. In our
    collections, AZA institutions have 300 lions, 450 tigers, 200
    cheetahs, 140 leopards, 170 cougars, and 90 jaguars. Based on
    our member institutions' unparalleled experience and expertise
    in dealing with these animals, the AZA firmly believes that
    large wild felids cannot be properly maintained by individuals
    without the necessary resources or knowledge to care for them.
        The wild cats identified in the bill 1006 have a very
    specific physical, behavioral, husbandry, health and
    nutritional needs which can rarely be met by someone holding
    these animals as pets, as has been so eloquently pointed out.
    These powerful, unpredictable animals should only be maintained
    by qualified experts from accredited zoological institutions or
    other professionally operated government regulated facilities.
    Curatorial staff in these facilities have the requisite
    knowledge and experience to meet the behavioral and physical
    needs of these animals and understand the inherent risks
    associated with caring for them.
        It is in this context that we express our support for this
    bill. This legislation takes direct aim at the dramatic
    increase in the number of unregulated and untrained individuals
    who are maintaining large wild felids as personal pets.
    According to most estimates, there are between 5,000 and 10,000
    tigers in private hands in the United States, more than all
    their native habitats in Asia, where the numbers probably are
    below 5,000.
        Only 12 States have enacted outright bans on private
    ownership of these dangerous animals. Full enforcement of these
    bans has been inconsistent at best. The result has been a
    patchwork of laws and regulatory loopholes that have ultimately
    led to a thriving commercial trade in dangerous exotic animals
    as well as increased public safety and animal welfare concerns.
        The inconsistent enforcement of current regulations,
    coupled with this increasing demand, has fostered a not fully
    known but uncontrolled industry in exotic pets, especially
    large felids. Tiger cubs can be bought for as little as $300,
    about the price of a purebred house cat. Most of us have heard
    of the recent raid in a California home where the California
    State Department of Fish and Game found 30 adult lions and
    tigers and 58 cubs dead in a freezer. Allegedly, the adults
    were left to starve to death because they were no longer
    marketable to buyers, and the cubs were killed due to
    overproduction.
        In an unrelated event, a 3-year undercover investigation,
    led by Federal officials, uncovered a 16-member exotic animal
    ring in the Midwest that slaughtered dozens of Federally
    protected big cats for their body parts during the late 1990's.
        As we have heard, private ownership of large felids also
    creates significant public health consequences. In the past 4
    years, attacks by big cats either kept as private pets or in
    exhibited nonaccredited roadside zoos have killed at least 9
    children and adults and injured uncounted others. Often in
    private homes, these animals are subject to unhygienic
    conditions that are both a public safety and animal welfare
    concern.
        Keeping these animals as pets without proper veterinary
    care husbandry increases the neighbors' risk of contracting
    transmissible diseases from these animals. These animals are
    extremely dangerous in the hands of these private owners, and
    their presence in communities endangers neighboring adults,
    children and domestic pets.
        For the animals themselves, ignorance of their nutritional
    needs often leads to malnutrition. I brought with me, and would
    like to enter into evidence, pictures of a tiger cub that I
    personally treated that has folding fractures of one leg bone,
    which is typical of malnutrition, a lack of calcium in the
    diet. We get calls for, I am sure not as much as Ms. Hedren,
    but one case a month at our zoo, and our national association
    hears about 10 cases a month of people looking for homes for
    these maltreated animals.
        Dr. Miller. I would note that unregulated breeding also
    raises the risk of genetic birth defects among large felids
    that have included skeletal metabolic problems, crossed eyes,
    and increased mortalities. These handicapped animals may
    eventually be slaughtered in order to rid them or sell their
    parts. In addition, typically these animals have no breeding or
    genetic records, and this does present a conservation issue for
    those of us that are trying to preserve them as a species.
        This is a problem for us, as you can tell, when pet owners
    abandon their animals at accredited zoos where we are looking
    for orphanages for them because they do not fit into our
    collections, or they do not fit our established breeding
    programs because of a lack of genetic background or they are
    socially misfit.
        Unfortunately, a typical case occurred in 1995 at the St.
    Louis Zoo when I was called in the middle of the night to
    retrieve a lion cub that had been abandoned as a pet and tied
    to the zoo's gate. It was declawed and socially inept, and the
    zoo was unable to keep it as we already had a full contingent
    of lions. The animal was spayed to prevent further breeding and
    then was sent to a wildlife sanctuary in California
    specializing in large cats. However, it was never successfully
    reintroduced to other large cats in that facility and is now
    living out its life alone. It is an unfortunate outcome for the
    most social of large cats.
        The abandonment of unwanted animals is a common occurrence
    for AZA member institutions. We simply cannot take these cats
    due to limited space and our carefully managed genetic
    programs. In addition, caring for these discarded animals
    represents a huge financial burden that takes away from our
    limited resources normally directed toward animal care,
    conservation education, conservation science, and fields
    research.
        Mr. Chairman, as a zoo veterinarian and as a zoo
    professional, I believe to protect both animal and human
    welfare this unfortunate cycle must end, and this bill is the
    first logical step in a complex process.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
    comment on this important public safety and animal welfare
    issue. I also would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:]

        Statement of Eric Miller, D.V.M., Director of Animal Health and
     Conservation, Saint Louis Zoological Park, and Board Member, American
                   Zoo and Aquarium Association, on H.R. 1006

        Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before you
    and the Subcommittee regarding H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety
    Act. Before I begin, I would like to request that my written testimony
    on behalf of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) be
    included in the hearing record. I also respectfully request that the
    written testimony of the American Association of Zoological
    Veterinarians be entered into the record as well.
        My name is Dr. Eric Miller, D.V.M. I am Director of Animal Health
    and Conservation for the Saint Louis Zoological Park and a member of
    the American Zoo and Aquarium Association's Board of Directors.
        AZA represents 212 professionally-managed and accredited
    institutions which draw over 136 million visitors annually and have
    more than 5 million zoo and aquarium members. AZA institutions are the
    leaders in animal care and welfare, conservation science and
    conservation education. One of the cornerstones of AZA is its Species
    Survival Plan (SSP) program'a long-term plan involving genetically-
    diverse breeding, habitat preservation, public education, field
    conservation and supportive research to ensure survival for many
    threatened and endangered species. Currently, AZA member institutions
    are involved in 108 different SSP programs throughout the world
    covering 159 species, including African and Asian lion, three species
    of tiger--Siberian, Indochinese and Sumatran, clouded and snow leopard,
    cheetah and jaguar.
        It is in this context that AZA expresses its support for H.R. 1006.
    The bill is a logical starting point for addressing the public safety
    threats posed by the private ownership of certain wild and dangerous
    animals as pets, as well as the important animal welfare issues
    associated with the personal ownership of these animals.
        H.R. 1006 represents a much-needed step towards stemming the tide
    of the growing exotic animal pet trade. This legislation takes aim at
    the dramatic increase in the number of unregulated and untrained
    individuals who are maintaining large wild felids as personal pets.
    According to most estimates, there are between 5,000 to 10,000 tigers
    in private hands as pets in the United States--more than there are in
    their native habitats throughout Asia. In addition, there are hundreds,
    and possibly thousands, of lions, cougars, and other big cats being
    kept as pets in small cages, on tethers in backyards, holed up in
    garages, and even living in people's homes.
        Specifically, H.R. 1006 would amend the Lacey Act to prohibit the
    interstate and foreign commerce of dangerous exotic animals defined as
    lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, cougars, and jaguars for use as
    pets. This legislation would not ban the private ownership of these
    species. The legislation specifically exempts zoos, circuses,
    accredited sanctuaries, incorporated humane societies and others that
    are currently regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act.
        Only 12 states have enacted outright bans on the private ownership
    of these dangerous exotic animals with seven other states enacting
    partial bans. Full enforcement of these bans has been inconsistent. The
    result is a patchwork of laws, regulatory loopholes and a thriving
    commercial trade in dangerous exotic animals. There are hundreds of web
    sites and numerous catalogues that market exotic animals, including
    dangerous and powerful carnivores, as pets.
        The inconsistent enforcement of current regulations and increasing
    demand has fostered a dangerous underground industry in exotic pets.
    Tiger cubs can be bought for as little as $300, about the price of a
    purebred cat. The increasing demand for wild cats from exotic pet
    owners has fueled an industry of breeders who produce litters of large
    cats for sale, many times illegally in spite of USDA licensing
    requirements for breeding and Endangered Species Act protection for
    many endangered and threatened species of cats. These unlicensed
    breeders may engage in overproduction due to demand from exotic pet
    owners. In a raid of a California home in April of 2003, the California
    State Department of Fish and Game found 30 dead adult lions and tigers
    and 58 cubs found dead in a freezer. Allegedly the adults were left to
    starve to death because they were no longer marketable to buyers and
    the cubs were killed due to overproduction. In an unrelated event, a
    three-year undercover investigation by Federal officials uncovered a
    16-member exotic animal ring in the Midwest that slaughtered dozens of
    Federally protected big cats for their body parts during the late
    1990's.
        Unregulated breeding also raises the risk of genetic birth defects
    including skeletal and metabolic problems, crossed eyes, and inflated
    mortalities. These handicapped animals may eventually be slaughtered in
    order to get rid of them or sell their parts. With unregulated
    breeding, these animals have no breeding or genetic record behind them.
    This is problematic when the pet owners abandon their animals at
    accredited zoos which are unable to introduce them into their legal
    breeding programs due to a lack of genetic background information as
    well as other constraints. This type of breeding decreases the genetic
    viability of the species and increases the risk of tainted bloodlines
    getting into American zoological collections and possibly wild
    populations.
        Private ownership of large felids also creates significant public
    consequences. In the past four years, attacks by big cats kept as
    private pets or exhibited in non-accredited, roadside zoos have killed
    at least nine children and adults and injured uncounted others. Often
    in private homes, these animals are subject to unhygienic conditions
    that are both a public safety and animal welfare concern. Keeping these
    animals as pets without proper veterinary care increases the risks of
    neighbors and homeowners contracting diseases from the animals. These
    animals are extremely dangerous in the hands of private owners as pets,
    and their presence in communities endangers neighboring children,
    domestic pets and others.
        Collectively, AZA institutions care for over 800,000 wild animals
    on a daily basis--many of these animals are extremely dangerous. AZA
    institutions care for over 300 lions, 450 tigers, 200 cheetahs, 140
    leopards, 170 cougars and 90 jaguars in our collections. Based on our
    member institutions' unparalleled experience and expertise in dealing
    with these animals, the AZA firmly believes that large wild felids
    cannot be properly maintained by individuals without the necessary
    resources or knowledge to care for them. The wild cats identified in
    H.R. 1006 have very specific physical, behavioral, husbandry, health
    and nutritional needs, which would rarely be met by someone who
    possesses these animals for use as a pet. These powerful, unpredictable
    animals should only be maintained by qualified experts from accredited
    zoological institutions or other professionally-operated, regulated
    facilities. Curatorial staff in these facilities have the requisite
    knowledge and experience to meet the behavioral and physical needs of
    these animals and understand the inherent risks associated with caring
    for these animals. In addition, these facilities have the resources to
    provide the necessary housing, nutrition, veterinary care and
    enrichment to accommodate the animals' special needs and to maintain
    them in a safe and humane environment.
        The draft AZA Guidelines for Large Felids in Captivity reinforces
    this position by stating in its section on Animal and Keeper Safety:
    ``Large felids can easily cause injury or death to other felids or
    humans and great care should be used when raising young felids as they
    may become very tame toward humans, thus providing the opportunity for
    staff to get careless. It should not be forgotten that they are very
    capable of injuring their owners and that staff should not enter cages
    of juvenile or adult individuals no matter how tame they used to be as
    infants. Insuring that doors and gates are secure is critical, as is
    the constant checking of locks to insure animals cannot escape. A
    system of keeper labels on entrances will help insure that staff does
    not enter animal enclosures while animals are present. For personal
    protections, keepers should carry pepper spray.'' The practices
    described are needed in any facility to ensure the humane and safe
    management of these animals. Such standards of practice are extremely
    rare in private homes. These animals are so difficult to maintain that
    in the past two years exotic pet owners have abandoned hundreds of
    tigers at local animal shelters, sanctuaries and zoological facilities
    because they were no longer able to care for them.
        An unfortunately typical case occurred in 1995 at the Saint Louis
    Zoological Park, when I was called in the middle of the night to
    retrieve a lion cub that was abandoned and tied to the Zoo's gate. It
    was declawed and socially inept, and the Zoo was unable to keep it as
    we already had a full contingent of lions. The animal was spayed to
    prevent further breeding of surplus lions and was then sent to a
    wildlife sanctuary in California specializing in large cats. However,
    it was never successfully reintroduced to the other large cats in the
    facility and is now living out its life alone. It is an unfortunate
    outcome for the most social of the large cats. This is a common
    occurrence for AZA member institutions. We simply cannot take in
    unwanted exotic cats due to limited space, our carefully managed
    genetic diversity programs among our populations and social interaction
    concerns. In addition, caring for these discarded animals represent a
    huge financial burden that takes away from limited resources which are
    normally directed towards animal care, conservation education and
    conservation science and field research.
        There is also emerging consensus on the part of animal welfare,
    public safety and professional organizations and the Federal Government
    concerning the need for concerted action to address the issue of large
    carnivores that are kept as pets. For example, the American Veterinary
    Medical Association ``strongly opposes the keeping of wild carnivore
    species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic of
    these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.''
        The American Association of Zoological Veterinarians which
    represents over 1000 veterinarians caring for zoo animals in the United
    States points out in their testimony that keeping and trading exotic
    and captive wild animals can cause serious problems including: (1)
    zoonotic disease transmission; (2) human injury and death; (3)
    compromised animal welfare due to inadequate knowledge and experience
    to meet the complex social, emotional, behavioral and physical needs of
    these animals; (4) medical problems due to inadequate veterinary care,
    poor nutrition, poor husbandry or due to various surgical procedures,
    such as declawing and dental extractions, performed for the sole
    purpose of trying to turn a wild animal into a pet; (5) abandonment,
    suffering or death due to insufficient financial resources to provide a
    safe and humane environment; (6) potential for escape due to improper
    transport, insecure containment or lack of proper equipment; and (7)
    damage to wild populations of rare species due to over-collection,
    introduction of non-native species or exotic diseases.
        Finally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has launched an
    information campaign to educate the general public about the inherent
    personal risks and animal care/welfare issues associated with wild cats
    as pets. The agency has released a position statement which states that
    only qualified, trained professionals should keep wild and exotic cats
    because the average person lacks the specialized equipment and
    expertise to provide properly for the containment, medical care,
    husbandry and nutrition of these animals. The statement concludes by
    illustrating a tragic cycle that has become all too common: ``Large
    wild and exotic animals obtained as pets are usually acquired as
    appealing cubs, but when the animals are fully grown, owners become
    dismayed at the high cost and difficulty of providing for their upkeep.
    As a result of these difficulties, or because the animal has either
    attacked someone or otherwise shown aggression, the owners may try to
    find a new home for the animal. The subsequent placement of unwanted
    wild animal pets in zoos is difficult, if not impossible and few
    sanctuary facilities exist.''
        This unfortunate cycle must end and H.R. 1006 is the logical first
    step in this complex process.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on
    this important public safety and animal welfare issue. I would be happy
    to answer any questions that you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
        I do have a few questions to run through. Do either one of
    you--you may have suggested it--have any idea, how pervasive
    this problem is around the country?
        Ms. Hedren. All I can tell you is that it is enormous.
    Because of the fact that there are no laws, there aren't
    agencies who can count how many animals are in existence.
        I am talking about lions and tigers and leopards and that
    sort of thing. I have heard estimates, depending on which
    organization you talk to, that there could be 50--tens of
    thousands, probably even 50,000 wild animals. I am not talking
    just cats, I am talking about--whether it is the python or
    whatever kind of wild animal.
        But the numbers are enormous. With these tigers that are
    coming out of Colton right now, there are three--the Department
    of Agriculture asked me 2 weeks ago if I could take three
    intact male tigers, which have already impregnated four
    females. One of them gave birth just 2 weeks ago to four cubs.
        There are three more that they know of, and they have no
    idea how many tigresses have been impregnated by these two
    male--three male tigers. That alone is going to be an enormous
    situation, a problem of great concern to all of us who are
    trying to find homes for those animals.
        Dr. Miller. I think I mentioned that the estimates are 5-
    to 10,000. I would agree wholeheartedly, that is an estimate.
    It might be more than that. I think what is critical to
    remember, and for me and our association, where Federal
    legislation is helpful, some States regulate and some don't.
    But what happens is, it just keeps moving to the unregulated
    States.
        And for the interstate commerce, the Federal Government
    does have the capability to do that. It would just be a huge
    and helpful first step to have that interstate trade regulated.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Are there any States that prohibit
    possession of big cats?
        Ms. Hedren. Hawaii. Yes, there are.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I know my State prohibits it.
        Ms. Hedren. There are a number of States that prohibit
    ownership. There are approximately 37 States that have laws
    about--and 19 of them are stringent. California is one of them.
    That is why it is so amazing that this place in Colton was able
    to continue as it did. Nobody can figure that out.
        But it is simply because nobody did anything to stop it.
    But the laws are such that in--as an example, California has
    excellent laws. So if somebody is kicked out of California,
    they go right into another State that the laws are less
    stringent.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Miller, you said that there are more
    captive wild cats than there are wild cats in the wild.
        Dr. Miller. Tigers. Tigers in Asia, the best estimate--and
    I am familiar with this because I worked on the South China
    tiger, which is possibly the most endangered--the estimates are
    64 left in zoos and probably none in the wild.
        But if you put all the subspecies together, the Bengal, the
    Siberian, the Sumatran, numbers are certainly less than 5,000
    and perhaps less than 3,000.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Are you saying--
        Dr. Miller. Total population. Wild.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any possibility, or is there any
    plan underway to sort of, over a period of time, repatriate
    these animals that are captive to the wild?
        Dr. Miller. Certainly--well, one of the problems with these
    tigers that we are talking about today is their genetics are
    unknown. They may be cross-breeds, they may be a mix between
    Siberian found on the Russian-Chinese border, and Bengal which
    is found in India, which has two different--
        Mr. Gilchrest. So you would never want to introduce those--
        Dr. Miller. Unless we know the genetics.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Can the genetics be discovered in those
    specific animals?
        Dr. Miller. In some cases we can with new DNA testing. Many
    we know from their genetics are cross-bred.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Would it be better to have, for future
    generation, to have some cross than to have none in the wild?
        Dr. Miller. That is a good question. It is one that is
    hotly debated in the conservation community. We have chosen
    within the zoo community to carefully manage our population so
    that when it comes to repatriating Siberian tigers or Bengal
    tigers or Sumatran, that they are a pure subspecies with all of
    the benefits.
        I don't think anyone is ready to say that, well, we are
    going to totally discard a cross-bred animal. It is certainly
    not the way we want to go now.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Would you like to see--the bill doesn't
    prohibit, which I think we need to look into further as far as
    the Endangered Species Act is concerned and as far as actual
    possession is concerned--would you like us--what is your
    opinion on us going further to make it outright illegal to
    possess any type of wild cat? And the bill lists a number of
    exempted groups from this legislation. Do you think the number
    of exempted groups in the legislation is too broad?
        Dr. Miller. I would have to address that with the AZA. I
    would like to see any--this is a personal opinion now--any bill
    have--
        Mr. Gilchrest. All legislation is based on personal
    opinion.
        Dr. Miller. --strict regulations for what it would require.
    Like you have talked about the sanctuary movement now that has
    strict standards; that there would be strict and clear
    standards of what it would take to hold those animals.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Can you come up with those standards for us
    so we can take a look at them? We have some exemptions here,
    but some of the exemptions are animal shelters or societies for
    the prevention for cruelty to animals. They might not have the
    same kind of setup as a zoo, for example, would have.
        Dr. Miller. That is correct. In my experience, most of
    those have been temporary way stations, the certified American
    Humane Society, or certified by other agencies. I think it is
    more important to make sure that they are certified by someone
    so that it doesn't become a private owner saying, well, I am a
    humane society, or someone who is certified by a bona fide
    sanctuary movement that has some credentialing behind them, as
    we have done with the AZA zoos.
        There are 212 zoos that meet a standard that I am
    comfortable here defending. I would not defend every roadside
    zoo that may say, I want to hold a large cat. Not by any means.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I am going to, at this point now
    yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For the
    record, I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I think that this
    is, to quote Ms. Hedren, a no-brainer. But one of the concerns
    that I had in listening to the testimony is, I think, Ms.
    Hedren, you said that currently 37 States have some form of
    legislation as it relates to this issue on the books now.
        One of the problems that we have is--and solving problems,
    is not always just getting the correct legislation but getting
    the enforcement mechanism to enforce the laws of the land. It
    is not limited to animal issues, it goes well beyond that. You
    can put a 65-mile-an-hour speed limit on the freeway, but if
    there is no one there to enforce it, it really is moot.
        Do you feel that, while there are 37 States that currently
    have some form of legislation, that this Federal law not only
    would help the other 13 States but would also help the 37
    States because of this issue of enforcement?
        Ms. Hedren. Yes, I do think that it would help
    tremendously. It is vitally important that this happens.
    Otherwise this will continue. The breeding will continue. The
    sales as pets will continue. All of it will continue. It is
    vitally important that this issue is on a unilateral basis all
    of the way across this United States.
        Mr. Gallegly. Dr. Miller, from an enforcement standpoint,
    while you have those laws out there, are they really being
    enforced?
        Dr. Miller. It depends on the situation. But I can say on
    behalf of the AZA, and I also personally agree with it, we have
    lobbied Congress for more inspectors with the United States
    Department of Agriculture that inspects licenses to exhibit,
    and we have done the same for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. I would hate to see lack of enforcement become the
    limiting factor.
        We would feel that--we want that enforcement.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you.
        Ms. Hedren. I do, too. I feel it is very, very important. I
    admire the laws that are existing in the States, that they are
    stringent. I do think that it makes a difference. I have heard
    people from States that the laws are stringent, they can't
    believe, you know, what happens in the States that are lawless.
    They can't believe it. It just doesn't even seem possible that
    people would have these animals.
        Mr. Gallegly. In California--and you made reference to the
    operation, if you want to call it that, in Colton. And we know
    in the State of California that is there is a real economic
    crisis going on with being able to provide services to the
    people of California.
        Do you think that the enforcement aspect of this State--of
    course economic problems are not limited to California,
    although I think that ours sets a new record-- but the fact is,
    with those economic situations, problems in California and
    other States, do you believe that this has been maybe one of
    the reasons that the operation in Colton may have slipped
    through the cracks?
        Ms. Hedren. No, I think it slipped through the cracks a
    long time ago and nobody stopped him. That is what the problem
    is. I heard statements that he wouldn't let inspectors in from,
    you know, the different inspectors, that he wouldn't let
    anybody in to see what kind of damage was going on there.
        Mr. Gallegly. How do you prohibit an inspector, a law
    enforcement officer, how do you keep them from getting on your
    property?
        Ms. Hedren. Well, I don't know. Because they certainly come
    onto mine all of the time. They come onto the Shambala
    Preserve. Boy, if I have one nail out of place, I hear about
    it. And if that isn't--if that nail is out of place, it is
    repaired immediately. But I don't know, I don't have an answer
    to that. I would like to hear the answers from Fish and Game
    and the Department of Agriculture about why this place was
    allowed to continue to go.
        Mr. Gallegly. It sounds to me that they are spending time
    in the wrong places.
        Dr. Miller.
        Dr. Miller. Well, I was just going to add to that. I will
    use my own State as an example. If someone had bought a lion or
    a tiger from this Colton operation in Missouri, and they come
    to St. Louis City, we fortunately have a good local ordinance.
        But they can move to the next county and there is nothing
    that can be done about it, because it doesn't violate the
    Endangered Species Act, it doesn't violate any interstate
    trade. This legislation would allow us, then, if that person
    got caught, to say where did you get that? Trace it. It was
    from California. Now it is illegal. Right now that enforcement
    is not--there is not even the ability to approach that, let
    alone enforcement.
        Mr. Gallegly. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from
    Hawaii.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
    the lateness of my arrival. But I am so interested in what Mr.
    Gallegly is trying to accomplish.
        Mr. Gilchrest. This is not just--this is Buck McKeon's bill
    for this panel. The next panel is Mr. Gallegly's bill. You can
    ask Dr. Miller and Ms. Hedren about bear baiting, they may have
    an opinion. But this is not--you might want to wait until the
    next panel.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Well, I am interested in that. I am
    interested--I had assumed you had gotten through the first
    bill.
        Mr. Gilchrest. We got one more panel.
        Mr. Abercrombie. I see.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have any questions for this panel?
        Mr. Abercrombie. Well, I think I will wait and look at the
    record then, because I will probably go over ground that you
    already covered.
        Ms. Hedren. I would like to interject that we have a
    mountain lion that came from Hawaii, who was brought in
    illegally into the State of Hawaii. And, because of the fact
    that had this little young mountain lion cub been taken to a
    veterinarian to give the shots that would keep its immune
    system safe, they didn't take it to a veterinarian, and the
    little cub became ill and came to us with some sort of a muscle
    problem, and she wasn't able to stand up. She would--if she
    took three steps, she would fall over. And what we did was, we
    tracked--we gave her all kinds of things to chase, whether it
    was a coconut or a bowling bowl or a big plastic ball or
    something for her to track. And now she can walk pretty well.
    She doesn't fall over anymore.
        Mr. Abercrombie. I appreciate that. That is one of the
    points that I was--I didn't want to burden the Committee with.
    But because of our situation in Hawaii, we have animals
    imported all of the time that are not supposed to be there.
        And this includes--we have all kinds of difficulties that
    way. We have no snakes there, for example; at least we are
    trying to keep them out, like the brown tree snake comes in.
        We have had to deal--our problem is that is the kind of
    thing that gets publicity, because it seems rather--it gets
    into pop culture, if you understand what I mean. It can attract
    the attention of the nitwit journalism shows, so that they can
    talk about why are they spending money trying to keep snakes
    out of Hawaii, as opposed to dealing with the real issue of
    trade in exotic animals, which tends to be something that they
    think goes on Animal Planet or Discovery Channel or something
    like that, whereas this is a really--there is a trafficking in
    this that is appalling.
        Ms. Hedren. It is huge.
        Mr. Abercrombie. The consequences of it, of course, you are
    trying to deal with. So I am interested in the legislation,
    that we can deal with it. Particularly maybe just you can tell
    me one thing. Where do you see CITES in all of this?
        Ms. Hedren. I don't know that CITES is even an issue here,
    because the animals that I am talking about are born in
    captivity. They are bred and born to be sold as pets. Lions,
    tigers, leopards.
        Mr. Abercrombie. It doesn't get into the elixirs and exotic
    herbal compounds?
        Ms. Hedren. Well, no, they are doing that too. In fact, the
    tigers outside of Colton in California that were being sold,
    that is exactly what happens to these animals. They are sold
    for their body parts.
        Mr. Abercrombie. That is the point then, Mr. Chairman. I
    think this can get a lot more complicated--I don't mean to
    diminish the pet side of it, but I am really concerned that
    this kind of thing can take place.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie.
        Ms. Hedren and Dr. Miller, we appreciate your time and your
    patience with us today. And your testimony has gone a long way
    to improving our understanding as to what the problem is, and
    we will act expeditiously.
        Ms. Hedren. I thank you so much.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
        Our next panel will be the Honorable Ron Marlenee, the
    Sheriff of Montana--that is what it says, Ron--Director of
    Legislative Affairs, Safari Club International, accompanied by
    Dr. Dwayne Etter, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Dr.
    Charles Jonkel, co-founder and president of Great Bear
    Foundation; Mr. Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President, Humane
    Society of the United States; Mr. Stephen Haleen, National Bear
    Hunting Defense Task Force; and Mr. William P. Horn, Director
    of Federal Affairs, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.
        Thank you very much for coming this afternoon, gentlemen
    and for being so patient. We will start with the gentleman from
    Montana, Mr. Marlenee.

        STATEMENT OF HON. RON MARLENEE, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE
      AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL; ACCOMPANIED BY: DWAYNE
            ETTER, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Marlenee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee. It is a pleasure to be back here with you, all of
    you, my esteemed friends of the past, and I hope that you do
    not recall the transgressions or indiscretions we may have
    committed while we were still colleagues. Do not hold it
    against me.
        I represent the Safari Club International, an international
    group of sportsmen, and we have looked at this legislation, we
    have consulted with scientists and specialists all over the
    United States. The justification of a bill is usually found in
    the findings section.
        With all due respect to those who crafted this legislation,
    we find that each and every item in the findings section is
    flawed. Sound science and professional wildlife officials
    refute them, as they have today continually, time after time.
    The bill is not needed and, frankly, harms both bear
    populations, professional wildlife management, and increases
    the probability of contact between humans and nuisance bears.
        The State of Michigan states: This bill, if enacted, would
    severely limit the ability of the Michigan Department of
    Natural Resources to manage Michigan's black bear resource.
        The New Hampshire Wildlife Management specialists state
    that, ``The loss of baiting would constrain our management
    efforts and likely result in the increase of human and bear
    conflicts.''
        The findings statements are grossly misleading. Findings 1
    and 2 attempt to tie the bureaucracies' discouraging of feeding
    the bears with the management tool of baiting. They are two
    entirely different cases. The first attracts bears, leaving
    them without fear, and nobody argues against that part. The
    second is an effective management tool that actually enhances
    bear populations by allowing selective harvest rather than--
        Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, excuse me. Would you repeat
    that once again? I missed the point. What did you say is not a
    point? What is not an issue? You just read--can you repeat
    that?
        Mr. Marlenee. Which part, Congressman?
        Mr. Abercrombie. You said something is not at issue. What
    is not at issue?
        Mr. Marlenee. Well, let me go back here. Do you want me to
    go back through the findings statements that are grossly
    misleading?
        Mr. Abercrombie. Just a sentence or two back. You said
    something was not at issue--before you got to the management
    part.
        Mr. Marlenee. Was that in the first or second? Findings 1
    and 2 attempt to tie bureaucracies' discouraging the feeding of
    bears with the management tool of baiting. They are two
    entirely different cases. The first attracts bears without
    fear, leaving them without fear. Now, we don't--there is no
    argument we shouldn't do that.
        The second is an effective management tool that actually
    enhances healthy bear populations by allowing selective
    harvests rather than split-second shots at moving targets in
    heavy brush. This preserves females and cubs. Baiting
    diminishes the probability of a wounded bear and allows a
    humane harvest. In grizzly country, it greatly diminishes the
    accidental shooting of a threatened species, as you might
    guess. If you don't have to do a split-second shot, if you have
    the opportunity to sit there and evaluate the animal that you
    want to take, you should not accidentally shoot a bear. And if
    you do, you are prosecuted.
        Findings 3 and 4 attempt to portray the baiting stations as
    an abomination in the environment. This is so misleading as to
    be a fabrication. Quote, ``A typical bait station consists of
    hundreds of pounds of food,'' end quote. Would that be a
    landfill or a pickup truck backing up to the forest or a refuse
    truck that missed the landfill and just dumps out in the
    forest? The truth is that sportsmen don't want any more bait
    than necessary, because they first have to haul it out there,
    and, second, they have to haul it back out.
        They take it out, and then they haul it back out. This is a
    stinky, messy job at best. However, it discredits the idea put
    forth by animal activists that it is left in the forests. State
    and Federal law prohibit this. Generally the laws state that
    you may place bait at no more than two bait stations. Minnesota
    allows three.
        The bait must be biodegradable, as prescribed by most law.
    You must remove the bait, litter, and equipment from the bait
    station when the hunting is completed. This includes, if you
    will--goes to the extent of including contaminated soil. Bottom
    line: You either haul out your trash or you are subject to
    citation.
        Finding 5 is the paramount example that reveals the extent
    the animal activists will go to eliminate hunting. It deserves
    a special quote. And that is: The presence of bait stations on
    Federal land allows bears to increase their food intake and
    results in higher birth rates, increasing bear populations.
        Let's be realistic. Let's examine this. Let's look at this
    fat bear myth. Michigan has a total population of 20,000 bears,
    approximately, 17 to 20. Minnesota has a population somewhere
    near 30,000.
        A small amount of bait, as the witnesses have stated here,
    is used by a relatively few number of sportsmen. Now, let
    assume that every hunter used an average of 10 pounds of bait
    per station. Further assume that the entire bear population had
    access to all of the bait. It extrapolates that the bait
    consumption per bear per day would be much less than the weight
    of one of those infamous bear Twinkies that they are talking
    about feeding the bears.
        From this we get fat bears? I don't think so. The animal
    activists who believe that sportsmen set up bagel bars and
    Twinkie feeders--the baiting stations last for a relatively
    short period of time. They are controlled, and every hunt there
    is a requirement to clean it up.
        Findings 7, 8 and 9 deal with feeding bears, habituating
    bears, and conflict with people. When you give handouts to
    bears, they are on your back step. Sportsmen are not out there
    giving handouts to bears. They want to bait the bears. They
    don't want the bears to identify them as being there.
        The preponderance of the evidence from wildlife managers is
    that hunting bears increases their avoidance factor. The facts
    from fish and game departments and professional wildlife
    managers is that the very bears who have the potential to
    become problem bears or nuisance bears are those who are likely
    to be attracted, and these are eliminated by the very practice
    of baiting. Conversely, those who are wild and whose food
    supply is abundant tend to avoid human-scented food and are
    difficult to hunt.
        Finally, finding number 10. Now, this makes much of the
    National Park Service open dumps and hand-feeding of bears.
    This is an apples and oranges comparison. Again, you don't
    hand-feed bears in the national forest and you don't leave bait
    piles and refuse. The Alaska directors of Fish and Game stated
    that it should be noted that Juneau is one of the areas with
    the most chronic and persistent black bear problem, and it is
    located in a management unit where baiting is prohibited.
        Today or yesterday there was a news article that I ask be
    included with my testimony from the newspaper in Juneau that
    outlines the black bear being--coming in and killing a dog in a
    yard. This is a city that does not allow bear baiting or a
    management unit that does not allow bear baiting.
        Contrast that with Fairbanks where hunting, including
    baiting, is allowed in the outskirts of the community and where
    black bear problems are nil.
        Finally, the States were given the responsibility for
    managing wildlife. This legislation supersedes that State
    rights issue. Wildlife management is site-specific. Passage of
    this Act would usurp State authority and would establish an
    inappropriate and unscientific one-size-fits-all approach to
    the management of this particular species. This was succinctly
    pointed out by the esteemed gentleman that was the Chairman of
    this full Committee.
        NRA opposes this, SCI opposes this, the Sportsmen's Caucus
    opposes this, the Sportsmen's Alliance oppose this,
    International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In
    other words, virtually every group that represents sportsmen,
    that represent the people who have contributed the most to
    wildlife management and to wildlife expansions and wildlife
    populations and to habitat, all--you can say virtually all of
    them oppose this legislation.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Marlenee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Marlenee follows:]

             Statement of The Honorable Ron Marlenee, Consultant,
         Governmental Affairs, Safari Club International, on H.R. 1472

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for giving
    me the opportunity to address you today. My name is Ron Marlenee I am
    here on behalf of Safari Club International. SCI is the leader in
    protecting the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation
    worldwide.
        The justification for a bill is usually found in the Findings
    Section. With all due respect to those who crafted this legislation we
    find that each and every item in the Finding Section is flawed. Sound
    science and professional wildlife officials refute them. The bill is
    not needed and frankly harms both bear populations, professional
    wildlife management and increases the probability of contact between
    humans and nuisance bears. The State of Michigan states; ``This bill,
    if enacted, would severely limit the ability of the Michigan Department
    of Natural Resources to manage Michigan's black bear resource. The New
    Hampshire Wildlife Management specialists state that the loss of
    baiting would constrain our management efforts and likely result in an
    increase in bear human conflicts.
        The Findings statements are grossly misleading. Findings (1) and
    (2) attempt to tie the bureaucracies discouraging the feeding of bears
    with the management tool of baiting; they are two entirely different
    cases. The first attract bears leaving them without fear. The second is
    an effective management tool that actually enhances healthy bear
    populations by allowing selective harvests rather than spit second
    shots at moving targets in heavy brush. This preserves the females and
    cubs. Baiting diminishes the probability of a wounded bear and allows a
    humane harvest. In Grizzly country it greatly diminishes the accidental
    shooting of a threatened species.
        Findings (3) and (4) attempt to portray the baiting stations as an
    abomination in the environment. This is so misleading as to be a
    fabrication. Quote, ``A typical bait station consists of hundreds of
    pounds of food''. Would that be two pickup loads or the refuse truck
    unloading in the forest after missing the landfill? The truth is that
    sportsmen don't want any more bait than necessary because they have to
    first; haul it to the site and then secondly; clean it up and haul it
    back out. A stinky job at best, however it discredits the idea put
    forth by the animal activists that it's left in the forest. State and
    Federal laws prohibit this. Generally, the law states that you may
    place bait at no more than two bait stations. The bait must be
    biodegradable and ``you must remove bait, litter and equipment from the
    bait station when hunting is completed. This includes any contaminated
    soil''. Bottom line, you either haul out your trash or you are subject
    to citation. This is not what the Humane Society and the authors of
    this bill would have you believe.
        Finding (5) can be the subject for ridicule that reveals the extent
    the animal activists will go to eliminate hunting. It deserves a
    special quote, ``The presence of bait stations on Federal land allows
    bears to increase their food intake and results in higher birth rates
    increasing bear populations.'' Let us be realistic. Let us examine the
    fat bear myth. Michigan has a total population of 20,000 bears.
    Minnesota has a bear population of 30,000 bears. A small amount of bait
    is used by a relatively few number of sportsmen. Michigan statistics
    reveal the bait size to be from 5 to 20 pounds. Assume that every
    hunter used an average of 10 pounds of bait; further assume that the
    entire bear population had access to all the bait. It extrapolates that
    the bait consumption, per bear, per day would be less that the weight
    of one of the infamous bear Twinkies. From this we get fat bears? The
    animal activists would have you believe sportsmen had set up bagel bars
    and Twinkie feeders. The baiting seasons last for a relatively short
    time. After every hunt there is a requirement to clean it up.
        Findings (7), (8) & (9) deal with feeding bears/habituating bears/
    bears and conflicts with people. When you give handouts to bears they
    are on your back step. Sportsmen are not out there to give out
    handouts. The preponderance of evidence from wildlife managers is that
    hunting bears increases their avoidance factor. The facts from State
    Fish & Game Departments and professional wildlife managers is that the
    very bears who have the potential to become problem bears or are
    nuisance bears are those who are likely to be attracted and eliminated
    by baiting. Conversely, those in the wild whose food supply is abundant
    tend to avoid human scented food and are difficult to hunt.
        Finding (10) makes much of the National Park service open dumps and
    hand feeding bears. This is an apples and oranges comparison. Again,
    you don't hand feed bears in the National Forest and two you don't
    leave bait piles and refuse. The Directors of the Alaska Fish & Game
    stated,--``It should be noted that Juneau, one of the areas with the
    most chronic and persistent black bear problems, is located in a
    management unit where baiting is prohibited. Contrasted with that in
    Fairbanks, where hunting (including baiting) is allowed in the
    outskirts of the community and where black bear problems are nil.''
        Finally, the states were given the responsibility for managing
    wildlife. This legislation super-cedes that states rights issue.
    Wildlife management is site specific. Passage of this Act would usurp
    state authority and would establish an inappropriate and unscientific
    one-size-fits-all approach to the management of this particular
    species.
        Mr. Chairman, the states have done an excellent job of expanding
    all types of wildlife. With sportsmen's dollars, with habitat expansion
    America enjoys a plethora of viewing enjoyment and hunting. The states
    and sportsmen have provided this for the American public because we
    care about wildlife and it's habitat. The animal rights groups did not
    do this. I would suggest the Resources Committee listen closely to
    wildlife specialists and evaluate sound science not the sensationalism
    and emotionalism sounds made by the animal cults.
                                     ______

                   Bear kills family dog in Mendenhall Valley
      dog escaped bear, only to succumb to injuries at veterinarian clinic
                             by timothy inklebarger
                               juneau empire 2003
        A Mendenhall Valley black bear is being targeted for extermination
    after it dragged a dog out of its doghouse and left it with fatal
    wounds Monday morning.
        The attack happened at about 5 a.m. at the Montana Creek Road home
    of Tish and David Forrest.
        ``I've already cried buckets about this,'' Tish Forrest, 42, said.
    ``I've got a 6-year-old son and it's pretty scary.''
        The Forrests' daughter Veida, 20, woke to the desperate yelps
    coming from the family's 11-year-old Dalmatian, Freckles.
        Veida saw a large black bear drag Freckles out of the doghouse,
    between the entryway to the home and a wooded area nearby, Tish Forrest
    said.
        She said her daughter began screaming, ``A bear got Freckles! A
    bear got Freckles!'' as the bruin pulled the struggling dog into the
    woods.
        The bear shook the dog by the head and neck, but Freckles escaped
    and limped back to the house. The family rushed the dog to a
    veterinarian, but the wounds were too severe. Freckles died at about
    8:30 a.m. that morning. The family's 14-year-old black Labrador
    retriever Elvira also was in the doghouse at the time, but was not
    injured.
        The family lives in a sparsely populated area of the Mendenhall
    Valley, just west of the Mendenhall River. Tish Forrest described the
    fish stream that runs behind the home as a major wildlife corridor,
    where bears, deer and other wildlife are commonly seen.
        ``We've seen bears eating skunk cabbage across the way, but this is
    a lot more aggressive behavior than we're used to seeing in the
    woods,'' she said.
        David Forrest, 51, reported the incident Monday to the state
    Department of Fish and Game.
        Neil Barten, a Fish and Game biologist, said the agency is working
    to capture the bear and have it killed.
        He said biologists placed a large metal trap in the area Tuesday.
    The trap, known as a culvert trap, is baited with food to lure the
    animal inside. The bear's presence inside the cage triggers a trap
    door, locking the bruin inside until Fish and Game biologists can
    retrieve the animal, Barten said. The bear will be killed after it is
    removed from the area, Barten said.
        He said it is uncommon for black bears to show aggressive behavior
    and that such attacks usually come from brown bears. Barten noted,
    though, that brown bear attacks also are uncommon. Monday's incident
    was not the first time Fish and Game has been called out for a bear
    attacking a Juneau dog.
        Bill Corbus, who lives on Thane Road south of downtown, shot and
    killed a black bear last October after it tried to carry his dog
    Bruiser into the woods.
        Corbus, commissioner of the state Department of Revenue and former
    president of Alaska Electric Light & Power, said Bruiser, a 60- to 70-
    pound mixed-breed, suffered puncture wounds to the head but survived.
        Barten said the shooting was justified because the bear posed a
    threat to life and property.
        He said it can be difficult to prevent bear encounters in heavily
    wooded areas, but noted precautions can dissuade bears from returning
    to areas occupied by people.
        ``It is a case where we live in an area where there are bears
    everywhere,'' Barten said.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Charles Jonkel, welcome, sir.

                     STATEMENT OF CHARLES JONKEL,
            CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, GREAT BEAR FOUNDATION

        Mr. Jonkel. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee,
    for hearing me also. My name is Dr. Charles Jonkel. I am
    President and Scientific Advisor to the Great Bear Foundation.
    I live at 830 Evans Avenue in Missoula, Montana. I was the co-
    founder of GBF 20 years ago. I have been conducting research on
    bears and bear management and educating and communicating about
    bears for 44 years, 1 month, and 12 days as of June 12th. This
    has been all over North America and Canada, the U.S., and
    Mexico.
        I have a wildlife degree and an MSC in wildlife biology
    from the University of Montana, a Ph.D. From the University of
    British Columbia in zoology with a wildlife emphasis. I did
    research on the age of sexual maturity delayed implantation in
    Pine Martin for my master's work.
        My Ph.D. Research was on the ecology and biology of black
    bears in the spruce fir forests of western Montana. Following
    my 5 years of research on black bears, I was for 8 years a
    research scientist with the Canadian Wildlife Service, studying
    polar bears. I then returned to the University of Montana to
    conduct 5 years of research on grizzly bears outside of the
    national parks. Many of my students are active in bear
    research, just about all over the world. As always in Montana,
    east and west, we differ a great deal. I am a dedicated
    sportsman and hunter. I have hunted for 65 years, since I was 6
    years old, but do I not hunt bears. For me it would be like
    hunting family.
        The GBF is not against hunting, but our main focus is to
    bears and to preserve and protect the habitat of all bear
    species of the world. Our highest priority is teaching,
    learning, and communicating about bears, primarily in
    elementary schools, field courses, and in bear news. We serve
    teachers, students, and the general public.
        I wish to especially thank Congress for the Dingell,
    Johnson, and Pitman Robertson Acts that were introduced in the
    1930's. They earmarked tax money. And that is the money that
    brought us back to wildlife abundance after the decades of
    market hunting. We owe a lot to that--wildlife does, too--to
    that aid through hunting and fishing.
        I would like to remind people though that those taxes are
    paid even by the guy, say, in New York City who buys a gun and
    some ammo to blow away his brother-in-law. He is helping
    wildlife, too. My positions are generally broader than local
    concerns. They include data from all eight species of bears,
    and follow world standards and reflect national policies.
        I have long opposed the baiting of bears for considerable
    lists of reasons. Given today's human population, the chopped-
    up and reduced habitat, and the vocal objections of other users
    of bears, in my view baiting is no longer an acceptable form of
    bear management. It may have been once.
        Hunting over bait, sitting in a tree and shooting an
    unsuspecting animal is not a sporting form of hunting, whereas
    fair-chase hunting is far more ethical and more satisfying.
    Baiting and sitting in a tree is unfair to bears, since they
    look at ground level for their enemies and danger.
        Baiting bears causes extreme disfavor and contempt within
    large segments of our nonhunting citizens. This often becomes
    harmful to our heritage of hunting and to wildlife management,
    and I see tremendous problems down the line if we keep creating
    more antihunters out of nonhunters.
        Baiting pulls bears from their normal range and may pull
    bears to sites where they are vulnerable to attack by other
    bears, other species, parasites, and diseases. Michigan, for
    example, now has a terrible livestock TB infection which
    probably came from the bear- and deer-baiting stations that is
    costing that State millions of dollars.
        Now, I can't prove that. But one thing that did happen 3
    years before that outbreak happened, I warned the DNR in
    Michigan that they were liable to cause a major infection that
    could get into livestock. They ignored it. They have got it
    now. Baiting causes bears and other species, from insects and
    shrews, to congregate, creating unnatural food chains,
    interactions, fights and predation. Baiting changes each bear's
    relationship with other bears and with other species.
        And often after the baiting, it can go on for a very long
    time in a detrimental way. The Burlington Northern Railroad
    grain spill in Montana near Glacier Park is a good example,
    with bears being lost even yet, 15 years later. They come to
    feed on the tracks and they get hit by a train. We had three of
    them killed just in the last few weeks, three grizzly bears.
        Baiting bears habituates bears to people, no matter how
    careful we may be, and bear-people conflicts follow. Feeding
    bears and bait stations runs counter to our massive effort to
    teach the public not to feed the bears. Baiting may cause a
    dangerous setup for noninvolved third parties traveling through
    the same area. That was mentioned by someone else today.
        Baiting and shooting at bears may teach bears to avoid that
    area and to avoid certain foods or travel corridors, which has
    a subsequent loss of habitat and food. Some of the bears in
    northern latitudes sleep for up to 7 months; 2 or 3 of the
    feeding months are, in fact, poor for food gathering, leaving
    the bears only 2 or 3 months to grow and to get fat.
        Bears therefore are tremendously focused on foods and
    feeding and on problem-solving relative to getting lots of
    food. They can eat up to 100 pounds per day. They can gain up
    to 6 pounds a day. As a result, bears are particularly
    vulnerable to learning bad habits based on food seeking.
        They forget their natural ecofits where the food is more
    reliable. It took the Yellow Stone grizzly bears several
    generations to learn how to live again in Yellow Stone after
    the garbage dumps closed.
        The argument that baiting bears by hunters is a necessary
    management tool in my view is not true at all. Hunters
    following fair-chase and sportsmen's guidelines are successful.
    Stalking bears on oak ridges and meadows adds greatly to the
    hunting and gathering traditions of local people.
        There is also a problem where the grizzly bears occur with
    the black bear and causes a loss of grizzlies from mistaken
    identity. We must also remember that to many Native Americans
    and First Nation people in Canada, bears are culturally very
    important. This is so often left out of their viewpoint. In
    management research and hunting, we should show far more
    respect for bears than we do.
        The foods developed by the native peoples of the Americas
    feed over 60 percent of the people on Earth today. The native
    people always were quick to say we learned about these foods
    from the bears. It is time for Congress to show greater
    fairness and respect for the bears. And in my view 1472 is a
    great step in the right direction.
        I would like to add two points. One is that the baiting,
    basically from the bear's point of view--and I figure after my
    44 years I can speak for the bears to a degree--it is a dirty
    trick on the bears. They are not prepared for dealing with
    something like that. Their enemies are at ground level.
        I also would like to defend the kids in all of this. Kids
    are really smart. A lot of people don't seem to understand
    that. Kids nowadays are smarter than we ever were, than any 20
    of us were put together. Kids are exposed to so much
    information now, they know what is going on. When you tell them
    opposing viewpoints like we have many, many State and Federal
    agencies saying don't feed the bears, don't feed the bears,
    don't feed the bears; then we have got other people with the
    same agencies saying, feed the bears, feed the bears, feed the
    bears. Kids aren't dumb. They know what is going on. And they
    don't get mad and fight with you, they walk away and they turn
    off and leave you with a big mess.
        But we got to be more sensitive I think to the bears and to
    the kids in all of this. We are not doing it properly. There is
    a lot to be done. Don't forget the kids. Thank you.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Jonkel. You come from a
    beautiful and magnificent part of the world. I spent a little
    time in the Bitterroot Mountains and I would go to Missoula
    once a month for supplies. Precious place.
        [The prepared statement of Charles Jonkel follows:]

          Statement of Dr. Charles Jonkel, Co-Founder and President,
                      Great Bear Foundation, on H.R. 1472

        My name is Dr. Charles Jonkel, President of and Scientific Advisor
    to the Great Bear Foundation. I live at 830 Evans Ave., Missoula, MT
    59801. I was a co-founder of the GBF 20 years ago; I have been
    conducting research on bears and bear management, and educating and
    communicating about bears for 44 years, one month, and 12 days as of
    June 12, 2003.
        I have a Wildlife Tech degree, and a MSc in Wildlife Biology, both
    from the University of Montana, and a PhD from the University of
    British Columbia, in Zoology, with a wildlife emphasis. I did research
    on the age of sexual maturity and delayed implantation, in the pine
    marten, for my MSc work. My PhD research was on the ecology and biology
    of black bears in the spruce/fir forests of Western Montana.
        Following my 5 years of research on black bears, I was for 8 years
    a Research Scientist with the Canadian Wildlife Service, studying polar
    bears. I then returned to the University of Montana to conduct 5 years
    of research on grizzly bears outside of the national parks.
        I am a dedicated sportsman/hunter, but I do not hunt bears. For me,
    it would be like hunting ``family''. The GBF is not against hunting,
    but our main focus is to help bears and to preserve/protect the habitat
    of all eight bear species of the world. Our highest priority is
    teaching, learning, and communicating about bears, primarily in
    elementary schools, field courses, in the Bear News (a quarterly
    newspaper), and in children's book and video reviews. We serve
    teachers, students, and the general public.
        Through GBF, I develop ``position statements'', or ``white
    papers,'' on certain research and management topics, help to change
    regulations and management, or create new laws, all keyed to helping
    bears.
        We monitor agency actions, management plans, and law enforcement,
    and comment on needed corrections, occasionally joining in legal
    pressures to facilitate needed change. Our positions are generally
    broader than local concerns: they include data from all eight species
    of bears, follow world standards, and reflect national policies.
        I have long opposed the baiting of bears for a considerable list of
    reasons, both direct and indirect:
        1. The baiting of bears was long an acceptable form of hunting, but
    given today's human populations, the chopped-up and reduced habitat,
    the vocal objections of other ``users'' of bears, and the high-tech
    hunting techniques now common, baiting is no longer an acceptable form
    of bear management. Times have changed.
        2. Hunting over bait, sitting in a tree and shooting an
    unsuspecting animal, is not a sporting form of hunting, whereas ``fair
    chase'' hunting (though often unsuccessful) is a far more ethical and
    more satisfying form of hunting. Baiting and sitting in a tree is
    unfair to bears, since they look at ground level for their enemies and
    danger.
        3. Baiting bears causes extreme disfavor and contempt within large
    segments of our non-hunting citizens, changing them from non-hunters
    into anti-hunters, which often becomes harmful to our hunting heritage,
    and to wildlife management.
        4. Baiting ``pulls'' bears from their normal range, from their
    routines and how they use their habitats. The bears then are more
    vulnerable to a wide variety of ecological, travel, security, and other
    dangers.
        5. Baiting in some areas pulls bears to a ``low food'' habitat
    where they do not have other and convenient feeding options.
        6. Baiting may pull bears to sites where they are vulnerable to
    attack by other bears, other species, parasites, and diseases. Michigan
    for example, now has a terrible livestock tuberculosis infection which
    came from the deer, and probably from the bear/deer baiting stations.
        7. Baiting causes bears and other species, from insects and shrews
    to moose, to congregate, creating unnatural food chains and
    interactions, fights, and predation.
        8. Baiting changes each bear's relationship toward other bears,
    other species, including subtle changes hard to recognize or evaluate.
    Such changes may be detrimental long after the baiting incident or may
    build through a chain of experiences. The Burlington Northern Railroad
    ``grain spills'' are a good example, with bears being lost even yet, 15
    years later. They come to feed on the tracks and get hit by trains.
        9. Baiting bears habituates the bears to people and/or human odors,
    to humans as ``company'', and to food associations, no matter how
    careful we may be. Bear/people conflicts may follow.
        10. Baiting bears makes bears more vulnerable to dangers by
    relating their experiences to similar circumstances, areas, or even
    products. They may approach odors, or avoid areas similar to where they
    had a ``bad experience'' such as roads.
        11. Baiting bears changes their behaviors to other bears, but also
    to people. Somehow, bears consider us ``another bear species''; they
    ``use'' bear behavior on us. We should learn how to ``talk bear'', to
    reduce conflict. But bears also may become habituated to people, or to
    our foods, bringing them too close, and often into direct conflict with
    us.
        12. Wildlife agencies spend great amounts of money teaching people
    not to have attractants around, not to feed bears, not to let bears get
    into bird feeders, dog food, garbage, compost, stored grain, and etc.
    For some of the same agencies to SUPPORT feeding (baiting), and even to
    give hunters dog food and pastry for ``bear bait'', and to encourage
    bait stations, runs counter to our massive effort to teach the public
    NOT to feed the bears.
        13. The baiting of bears automatically creates a situation where a
    hunter approaches bear food, which can lead to a dangerous situation,
    since bears will defend ``their'' food.
        14. The baiting of bears may cause a dangerous ``set up'' for a
    not-involved, third party traveling through the same area.
        15. Baiting and shooting at bears in prime habitat may teach some
    bears to avoid that area, or certain foods, travel corridors, and
    anything similar, with a subsequent loss of habitat and food.
        Some bears sleep for up to seven months in northern latitudes. That
    means they have only five months to get all of their food for the year.
    Two to three of those ``feeding'' months are in fact poor food-
    gathering periods, leaving the bears only 2 to 3 months to grow and to
    get fat. Bears, therefore, are tremendously focused on foods and
    feeding. That also means that bears are constantly exploring and
    ``problem solving'' relative to getting lots of food (they can eat up
    to 100 pounds per day, and gain up to 6 pounds per day). As a result
    bears are particularly vulnerable to learning bad habits, based on
    food-seeking.
        The argument is often made that the baiting of bears by hunters is
    a necessary management ``tool'' to control bear numbers. This has not
    been true at all in places like Montana and Colorado, and more recently
    in Oregon and Washington. Our forests are tremendously thick, yet our
    hunters, following ``fair chase'' and ``sportsman'' guidelines, are
    successful. It would seem that in most areas stalking bears on oak
    ridges, meadows, river banks, or wherever, would add greatly to the
    hunting/gathering traditions of local people. Matching skill and wit
    with these remarkable bear species should be the ultimate hunter
    challenge, it would seem to me. Certainly problem bears are a
    management challenge, but to me, they are also a symptom of inadequate
    bear management, not a fault of the bears. Where grizzlies occur with
    black bears, baiting may cause the loss of grizzlies from mistaken
    identity.
        In all of this, we must also remember that for many Native
    Americans/First Nation Canadians, the bears are culturally very
    important, sometimes even in the religious sense. In management, but
    also in research and hunting, we should show far more respect for the
    bears, how we live with them, how we hunt and manage them, but also how
    we honor them, and their roles relative to people. Foods developed by
    the Native Peoples of the Americas feed over 60% of the people on Earth
    today, and the Native People always are quick to say ``we learned about
    those foods from the bears.'' It is time for our Congress, our
    agencies, to show greater fairness, and greater respect, for bears.
    H.R. 1472, in my view, is a giant step in the right direction. Thank
    you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Wayne Pacelle.

       STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, HUMANE
                      SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am representing
    the Humane Society of the United States, the Nation's largest
    animal protection group. We have 7.3 million members in the
    U.S., 1 of every 40 Americans. And we want to in particular
    thank Representative Gallegly for his leadership on this issue.
    We are grateful. We support his legislation wholeheartedly.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I want to make three main points. The
    first point is that Mr. Gallegly's bill establishes interagency
    and intra-agency consistency in dealing with policies related
    to the feeding of bears on Federal lands.
        We have heard this mentioned earlier. Every year, baiters
    set out thousands of food piles on Federal lands, principally
    national forests, in the 9 States that allow baiting. Bait
    piles do consist of hundreds of pounds of human food scraps,
    rotting fruits and meats, even the carcasses of other animals.
        Hunting guides prefer baiting, because it virtually
    guarantees that a fee-paying client will have an opportunity to
    shoot a bear. One hunting Web site says, in a normal season we
    go through 10 tons of pastries and about 8 tons of meat, boasts
    one hunting guide on his Web site again. Some guides use walk-
    in baits,s where they take an old mule or an old horse, pack
    the animal with a bunch of food, and then shoot the animal and
    leave the rotting carcass to add to the bait site.
        Most wildlife professionals realize that this is outrageous
    behavior. Tom Beck, who is a lifelong hunter and a bear
    biologist with the Colorado Division of Wildlife notes, quote,
    in Outdoor Life, a hunting magazine: ``I firmly believe that
    baiting creates nuisance bears.'' this is Beck speaking.
    ``black bears are naturally wary, instinctively avoiding close
    contact with humans. But large amounts of tasty feed easily
    obtained defeats this wariness. By baiting we create lazy bears
    who have been rewarded, not punished, for overcoming their fear
    of humans,'' end quote.
        In 2003, Michael Soukup for the Park Service wrote, quote,
    ``Human feeding of bears, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is
    a significant management problem wherever it occurs, and is an
    activity that the National Park Service works hard to prevent
    in units of the system.''
        Partly in response to the Park Service's work in this
    arena, the mantra, ``Don't feed the bears'' has become one of
    the most widely accepted precepts in modern wildlife
    management. Human-fed bears are more likely to approach people,
    to raid campgrounds, and to break into cars and cabins. And
    because bears are large and powerful, the animals can obviously
    pose a threat to people.
        Because of access to human food, bears at Yosemite National
    Park, according to the Web site, become aggressive and cause
    extensive damage to motor vehicles, trailers, tents, ice
    chests, and other camping equipment while searching for human
    food, unquote.
        Bears cost $630,000 worth in property damage in 1998 in
    Yosemite alone. Yosemite officials note, quote, ``Allowing a
    bear to obtain human food even once often results in the bear
    becoming aggressive about obtaining food in the future.''
        This is what Dr. Jonkel is talking about. Once bears learn
    bad habits, they remember them. The Park Service has noted that
    baiting in adjacent national forests causes problems for bears
    in national parks.
        Just prior to Oregon banning bear baiting in 1994, Charles
    Odegaard, the regional director of the northwest region of the
    Park Service, wrote to the Forest Service, quote: ``the
    practice of baiting on adjacent national forests has a direct
    negative impact on Crater Lake National Park. Sometimes the
    park boundary is almost ringed with bear baiting stations.
    Bears are wide-ranging animals. Stations placed within a few
    feet of the park boundary on a consistent and regular basis are
    inevitably an attractant that lures bears from the park.
    Experienced park field personnel believe the park bear
    population is on the decline,`` unquote.
        He added, quote, ``Biologically there is no difference
    between a bait station and a dump. Bait stations habituate
    bears to human-generated food, contributing to the potential
    for conflicts between bears and people in the park.''
        Consistent with these views--
        Mr. Gilchrest. Who said that, Mr. Pacelle?
        Mr. Pacelle. This is Charles Odegaard of the National Park
    Service. He was the regional director in the Pacific Northwest
    region of the National Park Service, which covers Crater Lake
    National Park which is in southern Oregon.
        The Park Service has a regulation against feeding. We
    already heard that Fish and Wildlife has also an antibaiting
    regulation. Here is the interesting part. The Forest Service
    and the BLM, along with almost every State fish and game
    agency, have expressed the same views as the folks at the Park
    Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service about the perils of
    people feeding bears.
        Mr. Gallegly had some of those posters blown up. The one
    that is lower you can't see, is the publications of the Forest
    Service, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the New
    Mexico Department of Fish and Game. It is called ``Be Bear
    Aware.'' it is the one that is being placed on the device
    there. It says, bears that are attracted to human food sources
    may cause property damage and injure people. Again, look at the
    forest service logo. It says ``A fed bear is a dead bear.'' it
    concludes, in the corner on the left-hand side, ``Most
    conflicts between humans and black bears arise as a result of
    human-supplied foods.''
        All four of the major Federal land management agencies have
    endorsed the ``Leave No Trace'' public awareness campaign,
    which warns that people should, quote, ``never feed wild
    animals.'' it doesn't have an asterisk that says, ``if you are
    doing it as a guide or an outfitter you are allowed to feed
    animals.'' it says, feeding wildlife damages their health,
    alters natural behaviors, and exposes them to predators and
    other dangers.
        Mr. Pacelle. Allowing bear baiting is inconsistent with
    these declarations. There is just no two ways about it. It
    makes no sense to think that providing food to bears is wrong,
    except if the feeding is associated with hunting. If it is
    wrong to set out food to lure bears for picture taking or just
    to watch bears, surely it is also wrong to lure bears with
    jelly donuts and rotting animal carcasses for the purpose of
    shooting them. Representative Gallegly pointed this out in his
    questions to the Forest Service.
        I do want to note before I move to the second point, the
    Forest Service has a history of criticizing this practice. In
    my testimony that I will just leave in the record, of course,
    in the northern regions and intermountain regions, which covers
    the three western interior bear-baiting states of Utah, Wyoming
    and Idaho, the Forest Service came out against baiting and said
    it was a dangerous practice that was harming wildlife.
        The second major point is that baiting is not needed as a
    management tool. Capable hunters do not need to hunt bears with
    bait. We have heard baiting is banned in the vast majority of
    States with bear hunting. In Pennsylvania, there are 2,000
    bears killed in a 3-day hunting season with no bait, no dogs.
    Montana hunters take in excess of 1,000 bears a year. They do
    not use bait or dogs.
        The groups represented today that you will hear from next,
    the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and the Safari Club, they came
    out against measures in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington to ban
    bear baiting. They said the populations would explode if you
    banned baiting and hounding. They said there is no way to
    manage the population. After voters approved these measures by
    wide margins, the bear kills in the States did not decrease and
    the number of hunting licenses for bears shot through the roof.
        Several years after voters approved the initiative to limit
    bear hunting practices in Colorado, the Colorado Division of
    Wildlife wrote, ``the passage of the 1992 initiative has had no
    detectable adverse impact on bear hunting or bear management in
    Colorado. It has clearly shown that the black bear population
    can be efficiently and effectively managed without recourse to
    bait, hounds, or a spring season. Hunters have learned to
    effectively hunt and harvest bears without using these methods,
    and the Colorado Division of Wildlife has seen a significant
    increase in revenue resulting from increased interest in bear
    hunting.''
        Please look at my testimony. The number of bear tags after
    the bear baiting ban went into effect in Washington went from
    13,000 to 38,000. In Oregon, it went from 18,000 to 41,000. In
    Colorado, it went from 3,800 bear licenses sold to more than
    14,000. What happened was that more hunters chose to
    participate because they no longer felt at a competitive
    disadvantage with other hunters who used unfair methods.
        And I do want to say quickly baiting advocates fail to note
    the role of bait stations in increasing the reproductive
    success of bears who visit bait stations. Mammals' reproductive
    rates are tied to their nutritional fitness. Bears self-
    regulate quite well. Dr. Jonkel has done a lot of the
    pioneering research on this. When you put out tons of food for
    them, they are going to be fit, they are going to reproduce
    more, and, ultimately, it is a self-defeating exercise. Yes, it
    is a more efficient hunting technique, you can kill more of
    them more efficiently, but you are recruiting more animals into
    the population.
        Finally, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, the Federal
    Government has a compelling interest in halting baiting.
    Opponents of H.R. 1472 say that the measure is an attack on
    States rights. It is important to note that the States will
    continue to control bear hunting. The States will determine
    whether bears are hunted or not, where hunting is permitted,
    what bag limits are, what the season lengths are, the closer
    zones, allowed weapons. The States will set goals for annual
    take, et cetera.
        The Federal Government has established policies. Mr.
    Gallegly noted we have a Federal Airborne Hunting Act that
    limits use of aircraft in hunting animals. We have a Federal
    baiting regulation on migratory birds.
        My final point, Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, you have
    been generous in allowing me to speak, opponents of H.R. 1472
    cannot logically argue that baiting is entirely a hunting
    issue. It is also an issue of feeding, and the feeding issue is
    precisely why we are here and why this legislation was
    introduced. The Federal Government has a clear and compelling
    interest in taking control of the human feeding of bears for
    the safety of forest users and employees, for the protection of
    public and private property destroyed by habituated bears, and
    for the protection of bears labeled as nuisance animals and
    then killed.
        To illustrate the point, let's say the Forest Service--
        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Pacelle, I will assure you that we will
    read your testimony in its entirety.
        Mr. Pacelle. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gilchrest. You also have great passion for this issue,
    and we clearly have felt your point. I appreciate your
    dedication to this issue. You have brought us a great deal of
    information, and we will continue to pursue that as time goes
    by. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]

     Statement of Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President, Communications and
     Government Affairs, The Humane Society of the United States, on H.R.
                               1472 and H.R. 1006

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify in support
    of both H.R. 1472, the ``Don't Feed the Bears Act,'' and H.R. 1006, the
    ``Captive Wildlife Safety Act.'' My name is Wayne Pacelle, and I serve
    as senior vice president for communications and government affairs for
    The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest
    animal protection group with 7.3 million members and constituents. One
    of every 40 Americans is a direct supporter of The HSUS. The HSUS urges
    the enactment of both bills, and we are very grateful to
    Representatives Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and James Moran (D-VA) for
    introducing H.R. 1472 and Representatives Buck McKeon (R-CA) and George
    Miller (D-CA) for introducing H.R. 1006.
        H.R. 1472 directs the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM) to adopt anti-feeding regulations similar to
    those promulgated by the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS). Exceptions are provided in ``extraordinary
    cases when the Secretary concerned determines that bear feeding is
    required for the welfare of the bear, preservation of public safety, or
    authorized wildlife research.''
        This legislation establishes interagency and intra-agency
    consistency with respect to human feeding of bears. The USFS and the
    BLM publish an array of materials that identify the problems associated
    with human feeding of bears, yet the agencies allow bear baiting in
    states that permit the activity (Attachment A). H.R. 1472 provides
    Congressional authorization for these agencies to square their emphatic
    and unequivocal declarations about the problems of people feeding bears
    with their on-the-ground management practices.
        Baiting is an unpopular and increasingly discredited method of bear
    hunting. States that have banned baiting have not experienced any
    wildlife management problems stemming from the prohibitions; actually,
    bear hunting participation has increased after states adopted the
    baiting bans. Baiting is a practice unpopular with Americans, including
    hunters, largely because it runs against norms of fairness and
    sportsmanship and against the widely recognized wildlife management
    principle that it is dangerous to make human foods available to bears.
    Most people believe that it is unfair and unsporting to lure a bear
    with food and shoot the animal while he or she is gorging on food.
        Every year, bear baiters set out thousands of food piles on Federal
    lands, principally national forests, in the nine states that allow bear
    baiting on public lands. Bait piles can consist of hundreds of pounds
    of human food scraps, rotting fruits and meats, and even carcasses of
    other animals. Hunting guides prefer baiting because it virtually
    guarantees their fee-paying clients an opportunity to shoot a bear.
    ``In a normal season we will go through 10 tons of pastries and about 8
    tons of meat,'' boasts one hunting guide on his web site. (Attachment
    B) Some guides even will burn honey to attract their targets from miles
    around. Others use ``walk-in'' baits, in which they load up an old
    horse or mule with food, walk the animal into a forest, shoot him, and
    then add the carcass to the bait pile.
        Baiting takes unfair advantage of the survival strategies and life
    cycle of the black bear. In the fall, bears feed for up to 15 hours a
    day--a phase known as hyperphagia--in order to build fat reserves for a
    long period of dormancy. Baiting exploits their need to feed almost
    constantly by providing a ready source of food. In some states, the
    bait can be set out a few weeks before the actual hunting season
    starts.
        Baiting in the spring also exploits the bear's unusual life cycle.
    Bears that emerge from their dens in the spring are hungry because they
    haven't eaten since the late fall, and berries and other favored foods
    often don't ripen or develop until the late spring or early summer.
        Opponents of H.R. 1472 have argued that the measure is an attack on
    states' rights to set wildlife policy. It is important to note,
    however, that the states will continue to exercise control over bear
    hunting. The states will determine whether bears are hunted or not and,
    if hunting is permitted, will determine the bag limits, season lengths,
    closure zones, and allowed weapons. The states will set goals for
    annual take and will set license fees and the number of licenses sold.
    They can also allow bear baiting on private and state lands since H.R.
    1472 applies only to Federal lands.
        Most states have already outlawed baiting, either by administrative
    rule, legislation, or ballot initiative. Of the 27 states that allow
    bear hunting, only 10 allow baiting, and one of those states, Arkansas,
    allows baiting only on private lands. In Maine, New Hampshire,
    Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, there are no BLM lands, and USFS
    lands constitute a small percentage of the total land area that bears
    inhabit in these states. In Utah, only bowhunters are allowed to use
    bait, and in 2001, there were only three recorded bear kills over bait,
    according to the state Division of Wildlife Resources (personal
    communication with Craig McLaughlin, 3/15/03).
        Capable hunters do not need to bait bears to hunt the animals with
    success. Baiting is banned in states with various forest types,
    including in the extremely dense forests of western Oregon and
    Washington. In Pennsylvania, hunters kill 2,000 bears annually in a
    three-day hunt, and in Montana hunters take in excess of 1,000 bears
    annually. Baiting and the use of dogs are prohibited in these states.
        The groups represented here today in opposition to H.R. 1472--
    primarily the Safari Club International (SCI) and the U.S. Sportsmen's
    Alliance (USSA)--argue that a ban on baiting will decrease the annual
    bear kill and allow for a rise in the bear population, resulting in an
    increase in conflicts between people and bears. But their theory has
    not proved accurate. We can simply look at the data in the states that
    have most recently banned bear baiting--Colorado, Oregon, and
    Washington--to test the theory. In these states, hunters learned to
    stalk bears without bait or dogs, and the annual bear kills match or
    exceed the kill totals that hunters amassed before voters banned
    baiting. (Attachment C)
        Several years after voters approved the initiative to limit bear
    hunting practices, the Colorado Division of Wildlife wrote, ``The
    passage of the 1992 initiative has had no detectable adverse effects on
    bear hunting or bear management in Colorado. It has shown clearly that
    a black bear population can be efficiently and effectively managed
    without recourse to bait, hounds, or a spring season. Hunters have
    learned to effectively hunt and harvest bears without using these
    methods and the Colorado Division of Wildlife has seen a significant
    increase in revenue resulting from increased interest in bear
    hunting.'' (emphasis in original) (Attachment D) Oregon and Washington
    had similar experiences.
        Hunters in these states now purchase far more bear hunting licenses
    than they did before the voters outlawed baiting. In 1996, the last
    year baiting was allowed in Washington, there were 12,868 bear tag
    purchasers. In 2000, four years after the initiative passed, 37,484
    bear tags were purchased--a three-fold increase (Attachment C). In
    Oregon, 18,412 tags were sold in 1994, the last year of baiting, and by
    2000, tag sales had more than doubled to 41,060 (Attachment C). In
    Colorado, in 1991, the last year of baiting, there were 3,852 bear
    hunters, and by 2000, there was a nearly four-fold increase in tag
    sales to 14,207. (Attachment C) It is apparent that more hunters chose
    to participate because they no longer felt at a competitive
    disadvantage with other hunters who used unfair methods.
        If baiting advocates were correct in arguing that the activity is
    needed to control bear populations, it would stand to reason that the
    states with the densest populations of people and bears would most need
    baiting. But the very states with the greatest potential for conflict
    between bears and people--including California, Massachusetts, New
    York, Pennsylvania, and Washington--outlaw bear baiting. The densely
    packed states of Florida and New Jersey not only forbid baiting, but
    they ban all bear hunting.
        Bear baiting advocates fail to note the role that their bait
    stations play in increasing the reproductive success of bears who visit
    bait stations. Thousands of bait piles not only habituate bears to
    human food sources, but they provide massive supplemental feed for the
    animals. As mentioned earlier, one bear baiting guide reports that he
    alone leaves 18 tons of food in the woods per year for bears. It is a
    well established principle that supplementally fed populations of
    mammals enjoy greater reproductive success and juvenile survivorship.
    Bears who build major fat reserves thanks to bait stations are more
    likely to produce cubs and add to the total bear population. Baiting
    is, therefore, self-defeating if the goal is population reduction.
        Some baiting advocates argue that the practice is self-correcting
    because baited bears are shot and eliminated from the population. This
    line of argument is severely flawed. Bait piles are often set out for
    months at a time, and replenished with food stuffs as they are depleted
    by bears and other animals who feed at the stations. Hunters do not
    stay continuously at their bait sites, and leave them unattended most
    of the time. Consequently, most bears that visit the bait site are
    neither observed nor shot. The bears that feed at the bait station and
    are not shot become ``nuisance'' animals.
        There has been a change in attitude among most hunters and wildlife
    policy makers in states that have banned baiting. For example, the
    Colorado Division of Wildlife noted, ``While the [Colorado Wildlife]
    Commission opposed the initiative prior to and during the campaign, the
    results of its passage have brought about a definite change in
    attitude. There is no sentiment in the Colorado Wildlife Commission in
    favor of altering the present parameters of Colorado bear hunting.
    Colorado has learned that bears can be effectively managed without the
    use of bait or hounds and without a spring season.'' (Attachment D)
        Public attitude surveys conducted within the last decade in states
    that allow bear baiting--Idaho, Maine, Utah, and Wyoming--all reveal
    widespread public opposition (including among hunters) to bear baiting,
    even if policy makers have not yet recognized or embraced the public's
    view. (Attachment E) In addition, major newspapers in many of these
    states--including the Anchorage Daily News, the Wyoming Eagle-Tribune,
    the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Duluth News Tribune--have expressed
    their support for bear baiting bans. (Attachment F)
        I want to highlight results from one of the most recent public
    attitude surveys. A 2002 study, conducted by researchers from Utah
    State University, examined Utah stakeholders' attitudes toward selected
    cougar and black bear management practices. The survey reveals
    widespread opposition to baiting among all groups surveyed. It shows
    that 22% of hunters support baiting, while 64% oppose it. Among
    anglers, 11% support baiting, while 78% oppose it. Among non-
    consumptive users, 6% support baiting, while 83% oppose it. The survey
    reveals that only 16% of rural residents approve of baiting, while 71%
    disapprove. Among urban residents, 11% approve of baiting, and 77%
    disapprove. Among men, 16% of Utahns approve of baiting, while 79%
    disapprove of the activity. For women, only 9% approve, while 84%
    disapprove (Attachment G).
        Most wildlife professionals recognize that human feeding of bears,
    including baiting, contributes to conflicts between people and bears.
    Tom Beck, a lifelong hunter and bear biologist with the Colorado
    Division of Wildlife, notes, ``I firmly believe that baiting creates
    ``nuisance'' bears. Black bears are naturally wary, instinctively
    avoiding close contact with humans. But large amount of tasty food,
    easily obtained, defeats this wariness. By baiting, we create lazy
    bears who have been rewarded, not punished, for overcoming their fear
    of humans.'' (Attachment H)
        In April 2003, Michael Soukup, associate director for National
    Resource Stewardship and Science with the NPS, wrote, ``Human feeding
    of bears, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is a significant
    management problem wherever it occurs and is an activity that the
    National Park Service works very hard to prevent in units of the
    National Park System.'' (Attachment I)
        Partly in response to the Park Service's work in this area, the
    mantra ``Don't Feed the Bears'' has become one of the most widely
    accepted precepts in modern wildlife management. Human-fed bears are
    more likely to approach people, to raid campgrounds, and to break into
    cars and cabins. Because bears are large and powerful, the animals can
    pose a threat to people if they have lost their innate fear of humans.
        Because of access to human food, for example, bears at Yosemite
    National Park ``become aggressive and cause extensive damage to motor
    vehicles, trailers, tents, ice chests, and other camping equipment
    while searching for human food,'' according to park authorities. Bears
    caused over $630,000 in property damage in 1998 in Yosemite.
        On its web site, Yosemite officials note, ``Allowing a bear to
    obtain human food even once often results in the bear becoming
    aggressive about obtaining food in the future.'' Officials at
    Yellowstone National Park admonish, ``Never leave food or garbage
    unattended.'' (Attachment J) Glacier National Park authorities warn,
    ``Human foods are one of the chief culprits in the creation of problem
    bears.'' (Attachment K)
        The NPS has noted that baiting in adjacent national forests causes
    problems for bears in national parks. Just prior to the voter-approved
    ban on baiting in Oregon in 1994, Charles Odegaard, the Regional
    Director of the Pacific Northwest Region of the NPS, wrote the
    following to the Forest Service: ``The practice of bear baiting [on
    adjacent national forests] has a direct negative impact on Crater Lake
    National Park. At some times the park boundary is almost ringed with
    bear baiting stations. Bears are wide-ranging animals. Stations placed
    within a few feet of the park boundary on a consistent and regular
    basis are inevitably an attractant that lures bears from the park.
    Experienced park field personnel believe that the park bear population
    is on the decline.'' (Attachment L)
        Mr. Odegaard added. ``Biologically, there is no difference between
    a bait station and a dump. Bait stations habituate bears to human-
    generated food, contributing to the potential for conflicts between
    bears and people in the park.''
        Consistent with these views, the NPS has a regulation barring the
    feeding of any wildlife, including bears. (Attachment M) There is a
    similar rule administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and it
    reads, ``The unauthorized distribution of bait and the hunting over
    bait is prohibited on national wildlife refuge areas.'' (Attachment N)
        The USFS and the BLM, along with most state fish and wildlife
    agencies, have expressed the same views as their colleagues at the NPS
    and FWS on the practice of people feeding bears. A publication of the
    USFS, the Arizona Game & Fish Department, and the New Mexico Department
    of Game & Fish entitled ``Be Bear Aware'' declares, ``Bears that are
    attracted to human food sources may cause property damage and injure
    people.'' (Attachment A) The publication continues, ``A fed bear is a
    dead bear,'' and concludes, ``Most conflicts between humans and black
    bears arise as the result of human supplied foods.''
        The four major Federal land management agencies have endorsed the
    ``Leave No Trace'' public awareness campaign, which warns that people
    should ``never feed wild animals.'' (Attachment O). The campaign
    materials say, ``Feeding wildlife damages their health, alters natural
    behaviors, and exposes them to predators and other dangers.'' In the
    same publications, Federal agencies address waste disposal in the woods
    saying, ``Pack out all trash and garbage, including leftover food.''
        Allowing bear baiting is inconsistent with these declarations. It
    just makes no sense to think that providing food to bears is wrong,
    except if the feeding is associated with hunting. If it is wrong to set
    out food to lure bears for picture-taking, or just to watch the bears,
    surely it is also wrong to lure bears with jelly doughnuts and rotting
    animal carcasses for the purpose of shooting them.
        Baiting proponents argue that baiters engage in selective killing
    that protects females and their nursing cubs. Bear biologists from six
    western states disputed this argument in a paper that was published in
    the 1995 Proceedings of the Western Black Bear Workshop. They wrote:
    ``The conclusion of most biologists is that it is quite difficult to
    accurately determine nursing status on free-ranging black bears, even
    when a bear is in a tree on at a bait. The appearance of nursing
    females in the kill each spring supports this notion. During the last
    year of spring bear hunting in Colorado, the number of nursing female
    black bears checked was within three of the number predicted based on
    breeding rate of females and total female kill. In other words, there
    was no selection even with regulations prohibiting the taking of
    nursing females.'' (Attachment P) Data from the Idaho Department of
    Fish and Game also do not support the argument that hunters are more
    selective in their kills over bait. (personal communication with John
    Beecham, 6/6/03). If the goal is to protect nursing cubs, the most
    effective policy response is to outlaw any bear hunting in the spring,
    when the shooting of a lactating female will invariably doom her cubs.
        The idea of halting bear baiting is hardly a notion that most USFS
    forest supervisors would find alien or unworkable. In fact, Federal
    forest supervisors in bear baiting states have a history of opposing
    the practice and making their views known to the states. In November
    1990, Stan Tixier, regional forester for the Intermountain Region of
    the USFS, which covers Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming--the only western
    states in the conterminous United States that still allow baiting--
    noted in a letter to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission that the
    Northern and Intermountain Regions of the USFS ``oppose the
    continuation of bear baiting as a sport hunting practice.'' (Attachment
    Q)
        Tixier cited concerns that baiting is publicly unpopular,
    contributes to conflicts between people and wildlife, and amounts to
    littering in the woods. He added, ``We feel it is important that
    hunting be conducted in a manner that reflects well on hunter conduct.
    The use of salt as an attractant to draw elk and other game animals is
    illegal for ethical reasons. The Forest Service believes that these
    same standards should apply to all game species, including the black
    bear.''
        In April 1991, in a letter to the director of the Utah Division of
    Wildlife Resources, William Burbridge of the USFS wrote, ``the Forest
    Supervisors [of national forests] in Utah asked me to pass on to the
    Division and the Utah Wildlife Board their opposition to the
    continuation of bear baiting for sport hunting in Utah.'' (Attachment
    R)
        Despite the support for a ban on baiting among on-the-ground forest
    supervisors who witnessed the deleterious impacts of baiting, political
    leaders at the USFS adopted a policy that leaves bear baiting decisions
    on national forests to the states. It is important to note that the
    USFS, in adopting this policy, never stated that baiting was in any way
    necessary for management purposes, nor even an appropriate use of
    Forest Service lands. Although the process by which the USFS enacted
    the baiting policy was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals for
    the District of Columbia Circuit in Fund for Animals v. Thomas, the
    court never addressed the merits of bear baiting, nor the wisdom of the
    USFS's decision to allow bear baiting on USFS's lands.
        Given that USFS administrators have decided to take no action to
    halt baiting on national forests--even in light of emphatic past
    declarations from key field personnel that baiting is inconsistent with
    agency standards and even though the agency continues to publish
    materials warning visitors that it is dangerous to set out any food for
    bears--it is appropriate that the Congress now instruct the agency, and
    the BLM, to adopt policies to ban any human feeding of bears. The
    argument for the ban on bear feeding is only buttressed by the fact
    that the public considers the practice of baiting bears to be so
    unsporting and unfair.
        The Federal Government has established policies to limit inhumane
    and unsporting hunting practices where it determines it has a
    compelling interest. In 1971, Congress adopted the Federal Airborne
    Hunting Act, forbidding the shooting of animals for sport from
    aircraft. The Federal Government also adopted a regulation banning the
    baiting of migratory birds, and that prohibition has been in place for
    decades.
        The massive and all but unrestricted feeding of bears on Federal
    lands by baiters creates a compelling Federal interest. Opponents of
    H.R. 1472 cannot logically argue that baiting is entirely a ``hunting''
    issue; it is also an issue of feeding, and the feeding issue is
    precisely the component of bear baiting that has triggered the
    introduction of H.R. 1472. The Federal Government has a clear and
    compelling interest in taking control of the human feeding of bears--
    for the safety of the forest users and employees, for the protection of
    public and private property destroyed by habituated bears, and for the
    protection of bears labeled as nuisance animals and then killed.
        To illustrate the point, consider the hypothetical of a state that
    did not forbid the shooting of bears from off-road vehicles. If the
    USFS felt that use of off-road vehicles was generally a bad practice
    because of its aesthetic effect on the landscape, its impact in
    uprooting plants and causing soil erosion and run-off, and its role in
    diminishing the quality of the recreational experience for other forest
    users, would the agency be obligated to defer to the states and make an
    exception for shooting of bears from off-road vehicles because hunting
    was an element of the recreational exercise? I think not, and I am
    confident even the USFS would agree if it were presented with a similar
    circumstance. In this case, the dumping of food in the woods is
    inconsistent with agency declarations and warrants a prohibition on the
    activity, even if it happens in this case to be associated with an
    activity generally controlled by the states.
        Finally, in terms of a compelling Federal interest, I want to
    emphasize why consistency on the bear feeding issue on Federal lands
    truly matters. The situation mentioned earlier, where managers at
    Crater Lake National Park identified major problems with bear baiting
    stations set up just over the line in adjoining national forests, could
    play out in Yellowstone, Grand Teton or other park service units that
    border national forests or BLM lands in bear baiting states. If it is a
    problem to feed bears on one side of the park boundary, it is also a
    problem to feed bears a few feet away, on the other side of the divide.
    Bears do not know boundaries; consequently, bears fed in a national
    forest may become a nuisance in a national park, damaging property and
    threatening people. And bears principally living in a park may be lured
    out of the park by bait sites and killed in considerable numbers by
    commercial baiters, diminishing the experience of park visitors who
    hoped to see a bear. Common sense and consistency demand Federal action
    to bring USFS and BLM policy in line with that of NPS and FWS. I urge
    your support for H.R. 1472.
        I'd now like to turn my attention to H.R. 1006, the ``Captive
    Wildlife Safety Act.'' For every tiger roaming free in the forests of
    Asia, another languishes in grim confinement in a backyard cage
    somewhere in America. The world's largest cat, a powerful and solitary
    predator that numbered around 100,000 at the turn of the century, is
    now a highly endangered species on the brink of extinction. Its
    fragmented populations number somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 animals
    in the wild. In the United States, roughly the same number are thought
    to be held in private hands, along with perhaps 3,000 lions, cougars,
    and other big cats.
        These magnificent carnivores--particularly easy-to-breed tigers--
    have become one of the nation's hottest new exotic pets, animal status
    symbols, advertising gimmicks, and roadside attractions. They are
    imprisoned in tiny wire mesh cages, tethered or chained in basements
    and barns, displayed outside gas stations and convenience stores to
    attract customers, used as guard animals by drug dealers, and held in
    squalid, unaccredited roadside zoos. Astonishingly, they are also
    carted around to schools and shopping malls for photo ops and petting
    opportunities.
        Genetically programmed to range over 100 miles a day, swim rivers,
    and bring down prey twice their size, tigers are hard-wired to attack
    and kill. They may appear to be tame and friendly, but the reality of
    recent attacks--many on children--reinforces their omnipresent danger
    to their owners and anyone who comes into close contact.
        In the past five years, at least nine people have been mauled to
    death by tigers, scores have been attacked, and many have suffered
    grievous injuries. Twice as many people die each year from dog bites
    but with 50 million dogs, the threat from tigers is proportionately far
    greater. A new study finds that tigers are between 360 and 720 times
    more likely to be involved in a fatal attack than a pit bull or other
    domestic canine. Consider these incidents:
         Six weeks ago on March 31, a Hennepin, Illinois man was
    killed by two tigers as he moved them between cages on his property.
    One of the cats had previously mauled a seven-year-old girl, causing
    extensive injuries.
         Two days later at a roadside zoo in Adair, Oklahoma, a
    tiger reached through a small slot in the cage and ripped off the arm
    of a woman keeper standing outside. She bled to death.
         Last September in Santa Cruz County, California, a young
    200-pound Bengal tiger exhibited in a grade school classroom by a
    company called Zoo To You attacked a 6-year-old boy, severely injuring
    the youngster and traumatizing his classmates. It took 55 staples to
    close the boy's head wounds.
         In Texas, thought to hold perhaps half of the nation's
    backyard tigers, a string of attacks over the past four years
    underscores the threat to youngsters. A 10-year-old girl helping her
    stepfather groom the animal died after a tiger clamped her head in its
    jaws. A four-year-old girl's arm was torn off, and a three-year-old boy
    posing for a photograph inside the cage was fatally savaged by his
    grandfather's pet.
        A study on tiger attacks to be published in the journal Zoo Biology
    documents incidents in 19 states (Ark., Calif., Colo., Fla., Idaho,
    Ill., Ind., Kan., Mass., Minn., Miss., Neb., Nev., N.D., N.M., Ohio,
    Okla., S.D. and Tex.) between 1998 and 2001. (Attachment S) Most
    fatalities and serious injuries occurred either in private backyard
    menageries or in small roadside zoos that are not accredited by the
    American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA).
        It also outlines in chilling detail the unpredictability of these
    alpha-predators and their threat to humans, particularly children.
    ``Despite the appearance among some trained animals of pseudo-
    domestication, [they] retain their predatory instincts and neural-
    visceral reflexes and they can inflict serious wounds using their teeth
    or claws suddenly and without forewarning.
        ``A child's smaller body size increases the potential for serious
    or lethal injury. Size also appears to influence the attack response of
    tigers. Large cats instinctively strike the neck and shoulder of prey
    to disable them, resulting in serious craniofacial and cervical spinal
    injuries. The small size of children [and their movements] may help to
    trigger the attack response . . . making human children particularly
    stimulating as prey.''
        The threat to humans is reiterated by the United States Department
    of Agriculture, which calls big cats ``dangerous animals'' whose care
    and handling should be confined to professionals. (Attachment T)
    ``Because of these animals' potential to kill or severely injure''. an
    untrained person should not keep them as pets,'' the USDA states. That
    unequivocal position is also supported by The American Veterinary
    Medical Association, the AZA, and all reputable animal welfare
    organizations.
        The rapid rise in the popularity of pet tigers is a stunning
    cultural phenomenon. In the hands of untrained exotic pet fanciers,
    roadside zoo owners, and even celebrities like Michael Jackson and Mike
    Tyson who got rid of their pet tigers because they were too difficult
    to manage, tigers are not only a danger to people. They are also
    victims.
        Tigers kept as pets or held in roadside zoos suffer from abuse,
    ignorance, poor diet, lack of veterinary care, inadequate enclosures,
    and painful physical ailments from random inbreeding. A few lucky ones
    end up in accredited sanctuaries. Most are dumped into pseudo-shelters
    that operate like puppy mills. They breed the big cats to churn out
    cubs for sale on the Internet or at exotic animal auctions. They cost
    as little as $300--the price of a pure-bred puppy. These are a few of
    the consequences:
         In April 2003, 90 tiger carcasses including 58 cubs,
    along with 11 live tigers and other animals, were discovered at an
    unaccredited facility called Tiger Rescue in Riverside County, Calif.
    Two of the cats were euthanized and the owner has been charged with 16
    animal cruelty felonies based on the condition of the live animals
    found on his property. An investigation continues into why he had 90
    dead tigers in a freezer.
         Federal authorities in March prosecuted a 16-member, 8-
    state ring of roadside zoo owners, taxidermists, and animal black
    marketeers that had purchased, shot, and butchered dozens of tigers and
    other big cats. By selling mounted heads, skins, meat, bones, and blood
    to trophy collectors, butchers and the Asian medicine trade, they
    turned a live tiger worth a few hundred dollars into body parts that
    were sold for up to $10,000--making the cats literally worth more dead
    than alive.
         Also in April, San Antonio police were forced to shoot
    and kill a lioness that escaped from an accredited sanctuary after
    vandals opened her cage. She had been rescued from a decrepit roadside
    zoo in Iowa closed down after other big cats had starved to death or
    had been killed and eaten by cage mates. The USDA reported that a male
    Bengal tiger fed on turkey carcasses died after splintered bones
    punctured its intestines. It had no drinking water to flush the bones
    through its system and in its agony, had chewed its metal water bowl to
    pieces.
        The current mania for exotic pet bragging rights is spurred in part
    by their easy availability and low cost. Tigers breed readily even in
    the worst conditions of captivity, but they aren't tabbies. As they
    grow and become increasingly hard to handle, their novelty quickly
    wears off. The difficulties of caring for these apex-predators quickly
    compounds the cruelties they suffer beyond the cramped squalor many
    exist in, and the widespread ignorance of their physical, behavioral,
    and nutritional needs.
        For example, tigers need up to 60 pounds of red meat a week, and
    feeding them a healthy diet is expensive. Many owners substitute
    cheaper poultry parts like chicken backs and necks which don't provide
    vital vitamins and minerals. The result can be severe malnourishment
    and painful ailments like metabolic bone disease that causes their legs
    to break. Veterinary care for these big cats is difficult, and often
    impossible, to obtain.
        Many tigers end up being dumped on local animal shelters that are
    ill-equipped to care for them. Humane officers reports a catalogue of
    misery suffered by the animals--from untreatable ailments requiring
    euthanasia, to cats mutilated and crippled by ignorant owners who tried
    to declaw their pets with garden shears.
        Owners often insist they are ``saving an endangered species,'' but
    that is a false argument. Their so-called ``generic'' tiger pets, the
    result of random mating in backyard cages and roadside zoos, are
    genetically inferior hybrids that cannot be used in the programs
    conducted by accredited zoos. In a word, they are inbred mutts--
    magnificent alley cats, if you will--but worthless for use in the AZA's
    Tiger Species Survival Plan that manages close to 300 tigers in its
    North American computer-matched breeding program.
        The growing public safety threat, the widespread abuse of these
    animals, and the patchwork of state and local exotic animal laws
    underscore the need for Federal action. Twelve states (Alaska, Calif.,
    Colo., Ga., Hi., Mass., N.H., N.M., Tenn., Utah, Vt., and Wyo.,)
    prohibit the private possession of exotic animals. Seven states (Conn.,
    Fla., Ill., Md., Mich., Nev., Va.,) have a partial ban. Fifteen states
    (Ariz., Del., Ind., Maine, Miss., Mont., N.J., N.Y., N.D., Okla., Ore.,
    Pa., R.I., S.D. and Tex.,) require a license or permit to possess them.
        However, enforcement is spotty, loopholes are wide, and local
    ordinances are a regulatory mish-mash. USDA does not regulate private
    ownership of these animals. From the squalid backyard menagerie to the
    seedy roadside zoo to the illegal black market in tiger parts, it's
    time for Congress to step in and complement the efforts of the states
    by banning interstate movement of big cats for the pet trade.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Next on the panel, since my glasses do not
    work anymore, Mr. Haleen, National Bear Hunting Defense Task
    Force.

                    STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. HALEEN,
                    NATIONAL BEAR HUNTING TASK FORCE

        Mr. Haleen. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am
    Steve Haleen, appearing to testify in opposition to H.R. 1472.
    I am the past President of the Michigan Bear Hunters
    Association and have been hunting black bears for over 25 years
    and represent the National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force. We
    appreciate this opportunity to be here today. With me are two
    members of the task force, Rick Posig, President of Wisconsin
    Bear Hunters Association, and Rob Sexton, Vice President of the
    U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.
        The task force represents 17 organizations across the
    United States. One of the unique aspects of this task force is
    that more than half of these members are hound hunting
    organizations, myself included, which means that I prefer to
    hunt bears with hounds rather than to still hunt over bait.
        In normal circumstances, bait hunters and houndsmen are,
    for lack of a better term, friendly rivals, each one preferring
    their own method of hunting. Yet today we have put aside our
    rivalry and present a unified front of bear hunters in
    opposition to H.R. 1472. In fact, four task force members,
    Arkansas, California, North Carolina and Virginia Bear Hunters
    Associations, are houndsmen organizations from States where
    bait is not even allowed.
        You might ask why would all of these hound hunting
    organizations rally to support still hunting over bait? Because
    they understand this bill is only one part of a bigger picture.
    Backers of this bill, the Humane Society of the United States,
    the Fund for Animals, PETA, and the Animal Protection Institute
    have provided Members of Congress with arguments criticizing
    bait hunting. What they haven't divulged to you is that they
    make similar arguments about every method of bear hunting that
    exists. They don't just oppose bait hunting or bow hunting or
    spring hunting, they oppose all hunting of bears.
        We have defended ourselves in the courts of California, on
    the ballots of Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan,
    Oregon, and Washington, and in countless state legislatures and
    in Federal courts. The arguments of the anti-hunter radicals
    are all over the board: Dogs are cruel. Baiting is unsporting.
    It is unfair in the spring. Black bears look too much like
    grizzly bears. Hunting is unsafe.
        In the end, there is one common theme: These groups do not
    like any kind of hunting. Dog organizations join this task
    force in opposition to H.R. 1472 because they know if this bill
    becomes law some other form of anti-hunting bill will be the
    next target. The antis will not be satisfied until all hunting
    is banned.
        For example, in Minnesota where hound hunting is not
    permitted, these same groups are arguing now just as strongly
    as they are against baiting to prevent hound hunting in the
    State of Minnesota. So, from a hunter's perspective, bait and
    hound hunting alike, we believe that H.R. 1472 is one step in
    an attempt to end all traditional bear hunting in this country.
        The second issue is wildlife management. There are many
    reasons why State wildlife managers permit certain hunting
    methods: effectiveness, selection, safety, terrain, culture,
    just to name a few. In Michigan, the Natural Resources
    Commission and the Department of Natural Resources have
    concluded that the proposed ban, H.R. 1472, would cause a
    significant decline in the State's annual bear harvesting--the
    estimate is 10 to 30 percent--and that under a sustained
    decline annually would result in a significant increase in the
    bear population, particularly in the western UP where there are
    large tracts of Federal land. That increase would result in
    increased human and bear conflict, conflicts that Maryland and
    New Jersey are now facing in two States where bear hunting is
    not allowed.
        The ban would also not accomplish what the slogans suggest:
    Do not feed the bears. For you see that in the State of
    Michigan and in many other States it is also legal to bait deer
    on Federal lands. There are 50 deer hunters to every bear
    hunter in Michigan. They hunt at the same time that bear
    hunters do. They are feeding the bears much more than what the
    bear hunters are so the ban would not accomplish what they are
    trying to accomplish. What it would accomplish is preventing
    bear hunters from still hunting over bait.
        The last point I want to make has to do with States rights.
    Some States have decided to ban the practice of still hunting
    over bait. Other States have decided to allow it. In 1996 when
    these same groups came to the State of Michigan and asked the
    voters in the State of Michigan to ban the use of bait hunting
    and ban the use of hound hunting, by a two-to-one margin these
    voters decided there was no need to stop either one of these
    forms of hunting. Furthermore by a nine-to-one margin, nine out
    of ten voters said that these kinds of decisions should be left
    in the hands of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
    and the Michigan Natural Resources Commission.
        I will conclude by saying there is no reason to believe
    that the voters in the State of Michigan have changed their
    minds.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Haleen follows:]

     Statement of Steve Haleen, National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force,
                                  on H.R. 1472

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Steve Haleen,
    appealing to testify in opposition to H.R. 1472. I am past President of
    the Michigan Bear Hunters Association and represent the National Bear
    Hunting Defense Task Force. We appreciate the opportunity to be here
    today and with me are two other members of the task force, Rick Posig,
    President of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association and Rob Sexton,
    Vice President of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.
        The task force represents 17 organizations across the United
    States. A complete list is included with my written testimony. One of
    the unique aspects of this task force is that more than half of its
    members are hound-hunting organizations. Myself included, that means we
    prefer to hunt bears with dogs rather than use bait.
        In normal circumstances, bait hunters and houndsmen are, for lack
    of a better term, rivals, each one believing their method of hunting is
    the ``right'' way of doing so. Yet today, we have put aside our rivalry
    and present a unified front of bear hunters in opposition to H.R. 1472.
    Four task force members, the Arkansas, California, North Carolina and
    Virginia Bear Hunters Associations, are houndsmen organizations from
    states where bait is not even allowed. Why would all these hound
    hunting organizations rally to support bait hunting? Because they
    understand that this bill is only one part of a bigger picture. You
    see, black bear hunters have been fighting for the right to exist for
    nearly twenty years.
        Backers of this bill, the Humane Society of the United States, the
    Fund for Animals, PETA and the Animal Protection Institute, have
    provided members of Congress with arguments criticizing bait hunting.
    What they have not divulged to you is that they make similar arguments
    about every method of bear hunting that exists. You see, they don't
    just oppose bait hunting or hunting with dogs or bow hunting or spring
    hunting of bears . . . they oppose all hunting of bears. That's made
    things rough for bear hunters over the past two decades.
        We have defended ourselves in the courts of California, on the
    ballot in Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington, in
    countless state legislatures and in Federal court. The arguments of the
    anti-hunting radicals are all over the board: dogs are cruel; bait is
    unsporting; it's unfair in the spring; black bears look too much like
    grizzly bears; hunting is unsafe.
        In the end, there is one common theme. These groups just don't like
    hunting--any kind of hunting. The dog organizations joined this task
    force in opposition to H.R. 1472 because they know if this bill becomes
    law, some other form of bear hunting will become the next target. The
    antis won't be satisfied until all hunting is banned.
        In Minnesota for instance, the use of dogs is prohibited, while
    bait is permitted. These same animal rights extremists are speaking out
    against dogs in St. Paul just as vigorously as they have lobbied you
    here on bait.
        These issues are being fought and debated in each state. In my home
    state of Michigan, the voters rejected a ban on baiting by a 2-1 margin
    in 1996. In Wisconsin, my colleague here has successfully defended the
    use of dogs in the state legislature several times. That is what makes
    the United States great. The people in Arkansas can do things one way,
    while the folks in Alaska do it another. Unless there is some
    overriding issue, such as endangered species or the species are
    migratory, he Federal Government has stayed out of resident wildlife
    management and that's the way it should remain.
        There are many reasons why state wildlife managers permit certain
    hunting methods. Effectiveness, selection, safety, terrain, and
    culture, just to name a few. I would hope that I don't have to come
    here to tell you why bait hunting is good. I would hope that our
    opponents would have to show you why it is bad enough for you to pre-
    empt state management authority, and I know they can't do that.
        There is no evidence that baiting habituates bears to people. The
    picture of bait hunting they have painted for you does not come from
    experience. Bait hunting is challenging. Bears don't grow old and
    heavily populate the states like they do, by being easy prey. They are
    smart and elusive. Today we are seeing bears in more states and in
    greater numbers than anytime in the last 100 years. That is causing
    some of the debate. Folks in New Jersey and Maryland are having to
    decide what to do with an exploding bear population. You see, they
    don't have a hunting season and people are having run-ins with bears.
        In Michigan, we believe that the use of bait and dogs provide the
    most effective means of controlling bears, while providing a source of
    recreation for thousands of our citizens.
        This bill is an unfair, unwarranted attack on bear hunters and
    state wildlife authority and I ask the members of the Subcommittee to
    defeat it.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. William P. Horn, U.S. Sportsmen's
    Alliance.

                STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, DIRECTOR,
               FEDERAL AFFAIRS, U.S. SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE

        Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear today and register our very strong
    opposition to H.R. 1472.
        This bill is an absolutely unnecessary and dangerous
    measure. It constitutes an unwarranted assault on the long-
    established distribution of authority between the State and the
    Federal Government regarding the regulation of the taking of
    resident fish and wildlife.
        For over two centuries control over resident fish and
    wildlife has been vested in the States, and Congress has
    repeatedly in a wide variety of statutes--most notably and
    recently with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
    Act of 1997--reiterated very expressly that the taking of
    resident species of fish and wildlife, even on Federal land,
    remains a State prerogative.
        Now, of course, this relationship that has existed since
    the founding of our Republic, grounded in the Federalism
    between the Feds and the States, of course is quite distinct
    from other areas where Congress has asserted Federal preemption
    from the very beginning. Two noteworthy examples would be
    Federal preemption of regulation of airspace through the
    Federal Aviation Administration or preemption of regulation of
    the use of the airwaves as regulated by the Federal
    Communications Commission. Those are areas where Congress said
    from the outset we will have Federal primacy and preemption,
    very, very different from the 200-year history that has existed
    vis-a-vis the regulation of wildlife.
        Clearly, the Federal Government does have certain
    preemptive powers regarding wildlife, powers that it has used
    very judiciously and sparingly over the last century. Primary
    examples are the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act to govern the
    conservation and taking of migratory birds. Another example is
    the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection
    Act, both enacted over 30 years ago.
        No significant legislation providing for Federal preemption
    of State wildlife authority has been enacted in decades. It is
    clear that Congress has exercised its preemptive authority
    infrequently and only in extraordinary circumstances either
    involving wildlife on the verge of extinction or endangerment
    or for migratory species that move over State boundaries, such
    as ducks and geese, or for species that exist and migrate
    outside of traditional boundaries, such as whales and dolphins
    and other marine mammals.
        In very sharp and marked contrast, black bears are abundant
    and nonmigratory. They do not fit the bill for any of the prior
    circumstances where Congress has seen fit to exercise its
    preemptive authority. Based on that precedent, based on the
    facts, uncontroverted facts, there is absolutely nothing that
    justifies Federal preemption in the case of black bears or
    hunting techniques for such black bears. We submit that passage
    of H.R. 1472 would represent an unprecedented break with a
    century of judicious wildlife policy and thrust Congress
    directly into proscribing highly specific forms of hunting and
    fishing.
        If Congress determines that this particular specific
    practice justifies the exercise of its extraordinary and unique
    preemptive authorities, what other specific fishing, hunting or
    trapping activities will be the subject of the next preemptive
    act? Baiting of fish through the use of chum is a very common
    practice for fishing for migratory striped bass in the
    Chesapeake Bay or for fishing for migratory bluefish off the
    coast of New Jersey. If some find this practice unethical or
    unsporting, and there are many in the animal rights community
    who find all forms of fishing are unethical and unsporting,
    should Federal legislation prohibit this form of angling in
    navigable Federal waters? We would submit not.
        This bill will so lower the threshold for Federal
    preemption that virtually any form of controversial fishing,
    hunting or trapping activity will be subject to direct
    congressional intervention; and we are persuaded that is a
    Pandora's box that this Congress shouldn't open.
        Let me close with a couple of other observations.
        Picking up on Steve's prior comments, I hope the Committee
    or the Subcommittee took note of Mr. Pacelle's comments in
    which he opened up with an attack on baiting; and we noticed
    that throughout the conversation and the testimony that we end
    up hearing references to baiting, the use of dogs, and spring
    seasons beginning to be used almost interchangeably. Make no
    mistake many of the opponents of this bill--or the proponents
    of this bill are as adamantly opposed to these other forms of
    State-sanctioned activity as they are of baiting; and I would
    fully expect if Congress passes this measure we will see
    someone persuaded to introduce a bill to outlaw the use of dogs
    in bear hunting, as is now provided in eight States, including
    Virginia and West Virginia, if someone finds these particular
    activities to be repugnant to their sense of aesthetics and
    ethics.
        We believe it is absolutely necessary for Congress to
    retain the judicious use of its preemptive authority that has
    typified its activities in the Federal wildlife field for over
    a century and not pass this bill and confine its focus to those
    areas of migratory species where it has determined that
    preemption is warranted.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Horn.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]

     Statement of William P. Horn, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, on H.R. 1472

        Mr. Chairman. My name is William P. Horn, Federal Affairs Director
    and Washington Counsel for the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. I appreciate
    the opportunity to appear today and express our strong opposition to
    H.R. 1472. The Alliance is a national non-profit entity committed to
    protecting our heritage of hunting, angling and trapping. It represents
    over 1.2 million sportsmen and women through its members and affiliated
    organizations. We are also pleased to be coordinating the efforts of
    the Natural Bear Hunting Defense Task Force.
        H.R. 1472 is an absolutely unnecessary and dangerous measure that
    would preempt the authority of state fish and wildlife authorities to
    regulate the taking of highly abundant black bears. Specifically, the
    bill would mandate new Federal regulations to prohibit the authorized
    use of bait and the related hunting of black bears on all Federal lands
    notwithstanding state law, regulations, or practices to the contrary.
    As such the bill constitutes an unwarranted assault on the long
    established distribution of authority between the states and the
    Federal Government regarding the regulation of resident fish and
    wildlife.
        Beginning with the rise of our states in the 1600 and 1700's,
    control over fish and wildlife resources has been vested in those
    states. Express recognition of state primacy in this field first
    occurred in the 1800's and Congress has continually determined that
    regulation of the taking of resident species of fish and wildlife, even
    on Federal land, remains a state prerogative (e.g., National Wildlife
    Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, P.L. 105-57, Oct. 9, 1997:
    Section 8 (a) ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the
    authority, responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or
    regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations in
    any area of the [Refuge] System.'').
        The Constitution does vest the Federal Government with preemptive
    power but in the realm of wildlife law this authority has been used
    judiciously and sparingly. The first significant Federal preemptive act
    was the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act to govern the conservation and
    taking of migratory birds. However, even in the case of migratory
    birds, the Federal Government sets a framework for hunting and leaves
    the specifics to be implemented by the individual states fish and
    wildlife authorities. Other examples of preemption are the Endangered
    Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act both enacted 30 years
    ago. No significant legislation providing for Federal preemption of
    state wildlife authority has been enacted in decades.
        It is clear that Congress has exercised this authority infrequently
    and only in extraordinary circumstances involving wildlife on the verge
    of extinction or for migratory species that move across state
    boundaries (i.e, ducks) or that exist outside of traditional state
    boundaries (i.e., whales, dolphins).
        Nine states authorize the use of bait in the taking of black bears:
    Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Utah,
    Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Fish and wildlife authorities in these states
    have made a considered professional judgement that this method of
    taking is a legitimate means of hunting abundant black bears. Of
    course, other states have come to a different conclusion and are free
    to do so in under our 214 year old system of Federalism. We should add
    too that those who disapprove of the use of bait are also completely
    free to exercise their rights and approach or petition the authorities
    in these nine states to change their rules.
        Black bears are abundant and non-migratory. Populations are growing
    and in many areas the animals are a nuisance, and sometimes a hazard,
    to people. Most states with black bears have hunting seasons designed
    to keep bear populations in check to minimize or reduce nuisances and
    hazards. And in nine cases, states have decided that the use of bait is
    an important tool to be employed in pursuit of these goals.
        Absolutely nothing justifies Federal preemption in the case of
    black bears or hunting techniques for such bears. Black bear
    populations number in the hundreds of thousands in the nine states that
    authorize the use of bait. Populations in other states are as high if
    not higher. This is a not a species in any trouble. In addition, these
    animals are also highly resident spending virtually all of their lives
    in defined territories. Black bears are not moving among the states in
    flocks or herds necessitating a direct Federal management role.
        Passage of this bill would represent an unprecedented break with a
    century of judicious wildlife policy and thrust Congress directly into
    proscribing, or prescribing, highly specific forms of hunting or
    fishing. If Congress determines that this highly specific practice
    justifies the exercise of its constitutional Property Clause power,
    what other specific fishing, hunting, or trapping activities will be
    the subject of the next preemptive act? ``Baiting'' of fish through the
    use of chum is a common practice for migratory striped bass in
    Chesapeake Bay, for migratory bluefish off the New Jersey coast and for
    migratory Spanish mackerel off Florida. If some find this practice
    unethical or unsporting, should Federal legislation prohibit these
    forms of angling? Wisconsin routinely allows the use of bait for
    hunting whitetail deer; should Wisconsin hunters anticipate preemptive
    Federal law to ban this practice? Passage of H.R. 1472 will so lower
    the threshold for Federal preemption of state regulation of fish and
    resident wildlife that virtually no form of state sanctioned fishing,
    hunting, or trapping activity will be exempt from direct Congressional
    meddling. The Sportsmen's Alliance is persuaded that neither the
    Subcommittee nor Congress will want to open this Pandora's Box.
        The anti-hunting zealots and animal rights radicals behind this
    legislation will not rest until all forms of hunting, fishing, and
    trapping are totally prohibited. Obviously they cannot achieve their
    radical agenda at once and have adopted a different more stealthy
    tactic--target more controversial and less popular practices one by
    one. That is clearly the purpose of H.R. 1472 and we strongly urge the
    Subcommittee to simply stop this unwarranted and dangerous bill and to
    not advance the animal rights agenda.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear and the U.S.
    Sportsmen's Alliance looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to
    stop this dangerous measure.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. We have a vote. We have to leave in 5
    minutes. We will have members without objection who are here or
    have left to come up with questions which we would like to
    submit to the record and submit to the panel.
        I yield now to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Marlenee. Mr. Chairman, I neglected to introduce the
    wildlife biologist, Dr. Dwayne Etter, from the State of
    Michigan. He is the biologist--the bear management specialist
    adjutant professor at the University of Michigan. He has a
    statement I would like to enter into the record.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, and we will continue our
    conversation with the gentleman as we pursue the legislation.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Etter follows:]
                               state of michigan
                        DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                                    lansing

                                 June 10, 2003

    The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
    Committee on Resources
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Room H2-187, Ford House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Gilchrest:

    SUBJECT: Written Testimony, ``Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003 (H.R.
    1472)

    Introduction
        The residents of Michigan have long lived with and hunted black
    bear. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is mandated
    to manage this valuable and important Michigan resource. If enacted,
    the proposed ``Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003 (H.R. 1472)'' would
    severely limit the ability of the MDNR to meet this mandate.
    Black Bear Social Issues in Michigan
        The black bear is an integral part of forested ecosystems in
    Michigan; however, public concerns require that the MDNR manage the
    number of bear in the state at a socially acceptable level. In the
    absence of hunting, Michigan's bear population would be expected to
    increase at a rate of approximately 15-20 percent per year.
        Approximately one million people and an estimated 16,000 black bear
    live in close proximity in the northern two-thirds of Michigan. Bear
    are expanding their range also into the highly populated areas of
    southern Michigan. This, in conjunction with the large influx of people
    living and vacationing in northern Michigan, increases incidents of
    human-bear encounters. Bears sometimes become a nuisance by searching
    for food in garbage cans and at bird feeders. Bears also can cause
    damage to buildings and crops and sometimes kill pets and livestock. On
    rare occasions, bears injure people. Regulating the size of the bear
    population can reduce the likelihood of negative bear-human
    interactions.
    Bear Research in Michigan
        The MDNR has a long commitment to research the biology of the black
    bear, its population dynamics, and habitat requirements. One of the
    pioneer black bear research projects in the country began in the Upper
    Peninsula (UP) in the early 1950s, at which time methods of live
    trapping and handling black bear were developed. In more recent years,
    radio-telemetry projects have allowed researchers to track black bear
    movements and assess the effects of human activity on bear behavior in
    Michigan. Using bait to attract bears into traps is the most effective
    way to capture bears for research purposes. In the 1990s, this
    technique was used extensively by MDNR and United States Forest Service
    (USFS) biologists on the Huron-Manistee National Forest (HMNF) to
    capture and radio-collar bears. This project is outlined in Memorandum
    of Understanding (MOU) R9-04-MU-92-007 between the MDNR and HMNF-USFS.
    Information from this project is used extensively for management of
    bears in the northern Lower Peninsula (NLP). Inability to bait and
    capture bears on Federal lands would limit severely the effectiveness
    of future bear research projects under this MOU.
        Michigan biologists have used bear baiting as a population trend
    estimator for the past 15-20 years. Baits (usually consisting of one-
    to two-pound packs of bacon and cans of sardines) are suspended from
    trees six to eight feet above the ground to ensure that only bears can
    take baits. Survey routes are established systematically to assure that
    all bears in a given survey area have a chance to be recorded. Baits
    are checked one to two weeks later, and those taken by bears are
    recorded. By comparing the number of baits taken by bears among years,
    biologists are able to project trends in bear population size. However,
    projecting trends requires multiple years of replicating the same
    survey routes. Existing survey routes in Michigan's UP and NLP include
    bait sites located on Federal lands. Eliminating these bait sites from
    future surveys would make comparisons with past surveys impractical. In
    areas where Federal lands make up a significant portion of available
    bear habitat, eliminating bait sites on Federal lands would render this
    survey technique useless.
        Advances in genetic technology provide an additional tool for
    estimating bear population size in Michigan. The MDNR and Michigan
    State University are currently conducting a research project to
    estimate bear population size in the NLP using baited hair snares to
    collect genetic material from bears. As described above, baited hair
    snares are placed systematically on private, state, and Federal lands
    to ensure potential sampling of all bears within the region. This
    research is being conducted in cooperation with the USFS and Tribal
    biologists from the region. Year one of this project shows promise for
    its future use to estimate bear populations; however, the inability to
    bait bears on Federal lands will likely limit its usefulness in most
    areas of Michigan.
    Problem Bears
        The MDNR strives to minimize conflicts between bears and people. In
    2001, the ``Black Bear Work Group'' developed the ``Michigan Problem
    Bear Policy and Management Guidelines'' outlining specific procedures
    for managing human-bear conflicts. Social intolerance of bears and
    their behavior sometimes warrants the need to capture and relocate
    problem bears.
        The MDNR began documenting bear complaints on a statewide basis in
    1991. From 1991 to 2002, over 3,000 bear complaints were documented. In
    response, bear traps were set on approximately 800 occasions resulting
    in over 350 problem bears being captured. Additionally, the MDNR
    cooperates with the USFS to trap problem bears on Federal lands in
    Michigan. The most effective means for capturing nuisance bears is in a
    baited trap.
        Critics contend that baiting habituates bears to human foods thus
    increasing nuisance bear activity. It is unclear whether baiting
    increases or decreases nuisance bear activity. Bears that are attracted
    to hunter's baits and are not harvested may be more likely to seek out
    other human sources of food. However, bears that are already adapted to
    using human foods are more likely to be harvested over bait.
        It is unclear whether baiting increases the likelihood of bears
    attacking people. However, reported bear attacks are extremely rare in
    Michigan, and the last reported human fatality from a bear was recorded
    in 1978. The MDNR personnel tend hundreds of bear baits annually for
    research purposes. No bear attacks have been reported in association
    with this activity.
    Bear Hunting in Michigan
        Regulated bait hunting helps to maintain precision in the number of
    bears harvested annually because it provides consistency in bear hunter
    success rates. (From 1996 to 2002, bear hunter success rates in
    Michigan ranged from 23 to 27 percent.) Each winter, biologists use
    population models in conjunction with indexes derived from bear bait
    surveys to estimate the bear population in Michigan. Biologists then
    use average hunter success rates from previous seasons to determine the
    number of permits required to achieve the desired harvest in the
    upcoming season. Using this technique, the actual number of bears
    harvested has fluctuated less than 6 percent from the desired harvest
    since 1998. Over the past decade, the annual number of bear harvested
    in Michigan has been adjusted annually to allow the population to
    increase at a rate of 2-3 percent per year. To achieve this, the bear
    harvest in Michigan has increased approximately 5-15 percent each of
    the last eight years.
        Bear baiting has always been a legal harvest method in Michigan,
    and it is integral to the management of the species. In 2002,
    approximately 83 percent of Michigan hunters relied on baiting to
    attract bears to their hunting area. An additional 7 percent of hunters
    used a combination of bait and dogs to locate a bear. In 1985, a formal
    baiting season was established in Michigan; since then, baiting to
    attract bears has been highly regulated. It is illegal for any person
    or their authorized representatives to establish or tend more than
    three bait stations per hunter. No metal containers, plastic, wood,
    glass, fabric cloth, tires, or paper may be used at a bait station.
    Bait can only be placed on the ground. As required by state law, any
    containers used to transport bait to the baiting site must be removed
    and disposed of properly. If using grains, the hunter is limited to no
    more than two gallons, and the bait must be made inaccessible to deer
    and elk. For the 2003 bear hunting season, the baiting period is
    limited to five weeks (August 19 to September 25) in the Lower
    Peninsula (LP) and 10 weeks (August 10 to October 26) in the UP.
        Approximately 14 percent of land open to bear hunting in Michigan
    is Federally owned. Additionally, 22 percent of the land base in the
    western end of the UP (Amasa, Baraga, and Bergland Bear Management
    Units) is in Federal ownership. In 2002, these three units combined for
    approximately 48 percent of the state's total bear harvest.
    Furthermore, 45 percent of Michigan's bear hunters hunted on public
    lands, and an additional 19 percent hunted on both public and private
    lands in 2002. Clearly, the elimination of baiting for bear on
    Federally owned lands in Michigan would affect a significant decline in
    the state's annual bear harvest.
        The harvest of black bears in Michigan is managed in ten bear
    management units (BMU). The BMUs help to distribute the bear harvest
    throughout the entire subsection, rather than allowing hunters to
    target animals in only optimal habitats. Baiting is an effective method
    for attracting bears that exist in less than optimal habitats and at
    lower densities. The BMUs also help to assure that biological
    information obtained from harvested bears is representative of the
    entire subsection population. Since 1990, a ``quota'' system has been
    used to limit the number of hunters in each BMU each year.
        Contrary to the belief of many non-bear hunters, harvesting a bear
    over bait is not easy (e.g., bear hunter success rates in Michigan
    average approximately 25 percent). Bears have a keen sense of smell and
    hearing and generally are wary of humans, so bait hunters must be
    skillful and patient to harvest a bear. Hunters can place baits at
    close range for more effective shots thus resulting in less wounded
    animals. Additionally, hunters using bait can be selective and thus
    avoid shooting young bears or mothers with cubs. (Harvesting a cub bear
    or mother with cubs is illegal in Michigan).
        Hunting bears with bait is a legal and important method of
    harvesting bears in one-third of the states that have bear hunting (9
    of 27 states) and in 8 of 11 Canadian provinces. States and provinces
    that do not allow bait for hunting bears tend to: 1) have habitat
    conducive to spot and stalk hunting (e.g., Montana and Colorado); or 2)
    have a large pool of hunters (e.g., New York and Pennsylvania); or 3)
    have climates that are conducive for bears to den late in the year, so
    they can be hunted during deer and elk seasons (e.g., Oregon and
    Washington). Ideal bear habitat in Michigan consists of densely wooded
    lowland conifers where visibility is severely limited. For the past
    three years, the bear hunter pool in Michigan has been approximately
    50,000 hunters. This is less than one-half of the number of bear
    hunters in several states that do not allow bait hunting (e.g.,
    approximately 120,000 people hunted bear in Pennsylvania in 2002). Most
    bears in Michigan are already in dens by the time deer season begins in
    mid-November. Michigan had a bear season that overlapped gun deer
    season until 1990. This season was closed due to the concerns that many
    bears were being taken when they were in the den, a method considered
    unsporting to most hunters.
        In Michigan, it is legal to bait deer and most furbearers (e.g.,
    coyotes, foxes, etc.) for the purpose of hunting or trapping.
    Enforcement of changes to bear baiting laws on Federal lands might be
    confounded by the difficulty of discerning bear baiting from baiting
    for other species. Furthermore, changes to bear baiting laws on Federal
    lands could influence also the MDNR's ability to manage other wildlife
    species.
    Baiting/Feeding and Bear Ecology
        Bears are omnivorous and opportunistic feeders, taking the easiest
    and best foods available. Bears prefer foods with high protein and fat
    content. They show preference for specific foods, but not necessarily
    bait. Hard and soft mast (nuts and berries) are important natural
    foods, and bears are known to move long distances to obtain them. In
    years of abundant natural foods, harvest of bears over bait is known to
    decrease. This suggests that if given the opportunity, bears prefer
    natural foods to bait.
        Critics of bear baiting suggest that bears with access to bait have
    increased reproduction resulting in an increased number of bears.
    Research conducted in Michigan indicates higher productivity for
    females from the LP compared to those from the UP even though the
    baiting period on the UP is twice as long as it is in the LP. This
    suggests that factors other than bear baiting are influencing
    reproduction in Michigan bears. Furthermore, the argument that bear
    populations increase because of baiting fails to consider the increased
    mortality of bears that feed at bait sites.
    State's Rights to Manage Wildlife Resources
        The Federal Government manages harvest methods used to take
    migratory species (such as waterfowl) because these species frequently
    cross state and international boundaries. The management of resident
    animals (such as bears) has long been left to individual states.
    Research in Michigan and neighboring states indicates that the vast
    majority of bears that are born in Michigan live their entire lives
    within the boundaries of the state. Baiting is an important tool for
    managing this valuable and important Michigan resource.
        In 1996, voters in Michigan overwhelmingly defeated a proposal to
    ban bait and hound hunting for bears. Furthermore, voters
    overwhelmingly supported a proposal granting the Natural Resources
    Commission (NRC) the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game
    (including bear), and required that the NRC use ``principles of sound
    scientific management'' in making decisions concerning the taking of
    bear and other wildlife.
    Summary
        Proposed H.R. 1472 would reduce the annual bear harvest in
    Michigan. As bears become more numerous and expand their range into
    areas that are more densely populated by humans, many would likely be
    killed in bear-vehicle collisions or shot as nuisance animals. The bear
    population could eventually reach a ``biological carrying capacity''
    where natural mechanisms such as cannibalism, starvation, and
    emigration would regulate population growth. However, these natural
    population control mechanisms are viewed as a waste of the resource by
    many Michigan constituents. Furthermore, the number of bears that can
    be supported biologically in Michigan likely exceeds the number that is
    socially tolerable. Furthermore, proposed H.R. 1472 would significantly
    influence the MDNR's ability to conduct present and future bear
    research and to estimate bear population levels in the state. This
    would erode the ability of the MDNR to manage the bear resource in a
    sound, scientific manner as mandated by the constituents of Michigan.

                                   Sincerely,

                             Dwayne R. Etter, Ph.D.

                          Wildlife Research Biologist

                               Wildlife Division

                                  517-373-1263

                                     ______

        [NOTE: An attachment to Mr. Etter's letter entitled ``2003
    Michigan Bear Hunting Guide'' has been retained in the
    Committee's official files.]
                                    ------

        Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand there
    will be 5 votes, so, obviously, we won't be coming back
    afterwards.
        It is good to see my old friend, Ron Marlenee. We used to
    fight a lot of battles side by side; and normally we were on
    the same side, if I recall history correctly. I also heard that
    you were introduced as the sheriff of Montana, the de facto
    sheriff; is that correct?
        Mr. Marlenee. Probably not the sheriff but the gunslinger.
        Mr. Gallegly. If you were the sheriff in Montana, bear
    baiting is illegal in Montana, if you caught someone in Montana
    bear baiting, would you arrest them?
        Mr. Marlenee. There would be no choice. You adhere to the
    laws, just like you would adhere to the laws of littering, et
    cetera.
        Mr. Gallegly. And I know you to be a good, law-abiding
    citizen. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Haleen, I have to take a little exception with a couple
    of things that you mentioned. You talked about the genesis of
    this bill; and you said this organization, this organization,
    this organization as the one that is sponsoring this bill. You
    mentioned PETA in that list. Let me just remind you that I have
    never met--I have heard about PETA, but to my knowledge there
    has never been a PETA person in my office.
        Let's set the record clear from the get-go. Elton Gallegly
    is the sponsor of this bill. If there are others who support it
    who historically may not be aligned with me on other issues, I
    welcome their support, but for the credibility of the witness I
    think it is important that we set the record straight on that
    issue who the sponsor of the bill is.
        Mr. Horn, you had a lot to say about States rights and so
    on and so forth. You check my voting record over 17 years you
    will find that I have been a very strong proponent of States
    rights in almost every issue. The issue of--and, of course,
    reasonable minds can differ from time to time as it may be the
    case on this bill. But on the Airborne Hunting Act, would you
    say that you would be opposed to that? You think that was a
    wrong decision for Congress to be involved in that?
        Mr. Horn. Congress has asserted preemptive authority over
    regulation of the airspace from the beginning of the aviation
    industry and concluded for a variety of reasons, including
    public safety and other ethical issues, that it was going to
    determine to ban airborne hunting; and that was done over 30
    years ago. I noted in reality I think the last major statute
    passed that had preemptive effect on the States was the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act in 1972, and Congress has been
    extraordinarily sparing in the use of its preemptive authority
    in the intervening three decades.
        Mr. Gallegly. I think that it would be obvious that my
    record would be supporting that thesis. The issue is that 41 of
    50 States in this Nation oppose bear baiting as a method of
    hunting bear; and as Mr. Marlenee from his home State--his own
    home State, one of the most beautiful places on the face of the
    earth, outlaws bear baiting--Ron, you mentioned that this
    procedure, that they never use any more than is absolutely
    necessary; and to quote you--correct me if I am wrong--this is
    a stinky, messy job, to bait bear; and they use absolutely no
    more than is necessary. How much is necessary?
        Mr. Marlenee. We are told by the specialist--and I would
    refer this to the Michigan Department of--the biologists. But
    in from Minnesota we get the word from the management
    specialists they use from 5 to 10 pounds.
        Mr. Gallegly. That is fine.
        Again, this timing situation is making this very difficult
    because we have 5 votes pending on the floor, and I would like
    to have more time, but that isn't going to happen. One of the
    things that seems to be somewhat of a contradiction, you
    mentioned that the bait has to be biodegradable and it has to
    be removed. Why would it have to be biodegradable if it has to
    be removed?
        Mr. Marlenee. Could I refer to Dr. Etter?
        Mr. Gallegly. Well, if he could give me a quick answer.
        Mr. Marlenee. Being a professor, I don't know.
        Dr. Etter. I can speak on behalf of Michigan only. In
    Michigan, you do not have to remove the bait at the end of the
    bear baiting season.
        Mr. Gallegly. In other words, you can let it sit there and
    rot.
        Dr. Etter. In most cases, it would be removed by bears or
    other animals in the area, including fish or martin, cats,
    bobcats.
        Mr. Gallegly. But in Michigan it is OK to just leave it
    there?
        Mr. Marlenee. How much would you use?
        Dr. Etter. In Michigan, it is OK to leave it there. Most
    hunters do not use more than 5 to 10 gallons of bait. For
    research purposes I can attract bears with as little as one
    pound of bait.
        Mr. Gallegly. There is a difference in 5 to 10 gallons and
    5 to 10 pounds, about eight times.
        I yield back. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I apologize to the witnesses for the voting
    schedule, but we probably won't be done voting for another hour
    or more. We will take all of your thoughts into consideration.
    Thank you very much.
        I have to ask unanimous consent that a statement by George
    Miller be submitted into the record. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable George Miller, a Representative in Congress
                   from the State of California, on H.R. 1006

        Members of the Committee and witnesses, I want to state my strong
    support for H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act.
        As many of you know, I introduced similar legislation last year and
    worked with Rep. McKeon on this year's proposal.
        This bipartisan bill represents a firm commitment to protect the
    safety of the American public and to protect the welfare of wild
    animals that are increasingly being maintained as pets.
        Our bill identifies and provides a solution to a growing national
    problem that must be addressed.
        The Captive Wildlife Safety Act would amend the Lacey Act and bar
    the interstate and foreign commerce of dangerous exotics, including
    lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars, for use as pets.
        The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these
    prohibited species; rather, it would outlaw the commerce of these
    animals for use as pets.
        The legislation specifically exempts zoos, circuses, and others
    that are currently regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. Instead, the bill is
    specifically aimed at the unregulated and untrained individuals who are
    maintaining these wild animals as exotic pets.
        According to best estimates, there are more than 5,000 tigers in
    captivity in the United States. There are perhaps more tigers in
    captivity than there are tigers in their native habitats throughout the
    range in Asia.
        While some tigers are held in zoological institutions, most of the
    animals are pets, kept in cages behind someone's home in a state that
    does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals.
        And it's not just tigers: there is widespread private ownership of
    other dangerous animals, including lions, cougars, and cheetahs. At a
    time when almost anything can be bought on the Internet, it is not
    surprising that the animals can all be purchased through the more than
    1,000 web sites that promote private ownership of wild animals.
        Problems arise because most owners are ignorant of a wild animal's
    needs. Local veterinarians, sanctuaries, animal shelters, and local
    governments are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing proper
    care.
        People living near these animals are also in real danger.
        There is a laundry list of incidents of dangerous exotics seriously
    injuring and killing people.
        In Loxahatchee, Florida, a 58-year-old woman was bitten in the head
    by a 750-pound pet Siberian-Bengal tiger mix.
        In Lexington, Texas, a three-year-old boy was killed by his
    stepfather's pet tiger.
        There is also the possibility that captive wildlife can become
    vectors for exotic diseases as is the case with the recent monkeypox
    outbreak and the link between civet cats and SARS.
        The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on
    the need for comprehensive Federal legislation to regulate what animals
    can be kept as pets.
        A wide range of groups and institutions oppose the private
    ownership of carnivores. The U.S. Department of Agriculture states,
    ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars and
    leopards are dangerous animals...Because of these animals' potential to
    kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained
    person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to
    family, friends, neighbors, and the general public.''
        The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes
    the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes
    that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be
    prohibited.''
        This bill is just one part of the solution to help protect people
    and exotic animals. States will continue to play a major role.
        I hope to see a continued grassroots effort directed at the state
    and local government level, to increase the number of states and
    counties that ban private ownership of dangerous exotic animals.
        Already, 12 states ban private possession of large exotic animals,
    while 7 states have partial bans.
        The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of
    Zoos and Aquariums, The Humane Society of the United States, The Fund
    for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
        I want to thank the actress Tippi Hedron for raising awareness of
    this issue on Capitol Hill.
        Tippi operates an animal sanctuary, and often has the sad and
    expensive task of rescuing these animals after their owners realize the
    lion or tiger is a safety risk and cannot be properly cared for.
        I also wanted to take a moment to state my support for the ``Do Not
    Feed the Bears Act.''
        I applaud Rep. Gilchrest and Rep. Gallegly for bringing the issue
    of bear baiting on public lands before this Committee for discussion.
        In closing, I am grateful that Chairman Gilchrest has scheduled a
    hearing on the Captive Wildlife Safety Act and I hope that this
    legislation will move through the legislative process quickly.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gilchrest. And testimony by the International Fund for
    Animal Welfare and the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus,
    National Rifle Association, State of Wisconsin Department of
    Natural Resources and the Michigan House of Representatives,
    and the United Sportsmen's Alliance.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, thank you. Have a safe trip home.
        [Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [The information submitted for the record follows:]

    Statement submitted for the record by Cindy Milburn, Director, Animals
         in Crisis and Distress, International Fund for Animal Welfare

        My name is Cindy Milburn and I am the Director of the Animals in
    Crisis and Distress Program for the International Fund for Animal
    Welfare (IFAW). IFAW is a non-profit organization with over two million
    supporters around the world. Our global headquarters is in
    Massachusetts, and we have offices in Australia, China, Japan, Russia,
    Germany, France, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada, India,
    Belgium, Kenya, South Africa, Mexico, and in Washington, D.C.
        IFAW's mission is to work to improve the welfare of wild and
    domestic animals throughout the world by reducing commercial
    exploitation of animals, protecting wildlife habitats, and assisting
    animals in distress. IFAW seeks to motivate the public to prevent
    cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation
    policies that advance the well being of both animals and people.
        I am pleased to submit this statement for the official hearing
    record in support of H.R. 1006, the ``Captive Wildlife Safety Act'' and
    want to commend Representatives McKeon, Miller and the forty other co-
    sponsors for their support of this much needed legislation.
        Humans have kept pets, or companion animals, for centuries. While
    the majority of pets are domesticated animals such as cats and dogs,
    there are a rising number of ``exotic'' animals that were either
    removed from the wild, often illegally, or bred in captivity from wild
    animals. The worldwide exotic pet trade--the buying and selling of
    exotic animals as pets--is a major component of the global trade in
    wildlife. This global industry is second only to the international
    trade in arms and narcotics. The exotic pet trade threatens the
    survival of many species worldwide while undermining international
    conservation efforts. IFAW has been very active in public educational
    programs regarding amphibians and reptiles as exotic pets. We are all
    too familiar with cruelty and safety problems associated with the
    exotic pet trade.
        H.R. 1006 focuses on captive wildlife and amends the Lacey Act to
    bar the interstate and foreign commerce of dangerous exotics cats,
    including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars and cougars. While
    not prohibiting the private ownership of these animals as pets, the
    bill is intended to halt the trade in these animals as pets. As you are
    aware, the ``pet farm'' industry has flourished in recent years and in
    just 5 minutes on the internet you will discover hundreds of web sites
    specializing in the sale and promotion of lions and leopards and
    cheetahs as domestic pets. We hope that H.R. 1006 will severely curtail
    this trade in exotic cats.
        Keeping large exotic cats as pets is dangerous not only to the pet
    owners but to the communities where they are raised or maintained.
    Authorities shot and killed three African lions after they terrified
    the community of Quitman, Arkansas in 2002. Last October police killed
    a Bengal tiger that escaped from a roadside truck stop in Bloomington,
    Indiana and in Texas a three year old boy was killed by his
    stepfather's pet tiger. These are just of few recent examples of why
    captive wildlife should not be raised or kept as pets.
        We at IFAW know from our experiences in the field that exotic pets
    are subjected to inhumane treatment and cruel living conditions. Large
    cats such as lions and cheetahs are born to run free, not be locked up
    in some small cage. Because the vast majority of exotic pet owners have
    neither the training to handle and care for these animals or the space
    to keep them, they are all too often abused and abandoned. Wildlife
    such as tigers and lions should stay in the wild and not abused as
    pets.
        We are also concerned about the proliferation of pseudo
    ``sanctuaries'' which claim to breed large cats in order to conserve
    the species. These captive bred animals would never be able to be
    released into the wild and are essentially inbred specimens of a lower
    DNA stock than wild cats. The discovery on April 24th of this year of
    dozens of corpses of young and adult tigers and other big cats in
    freezers at a nonprofit ``sanctuary'' called Tiger Rescue in Riverside,
    California is the latest example of unfortunate and tragic incidents
    spawned by a growing desire to own and exploit dangerous wild animals
    for pleasure or profit.
        Public safety and cruelty are the two major reasons why twelve
    states have banned the possession of large exotic animals and seven
    states have adopted partial bans. Because these state laws go further
    than H.R. 1006 in eliminating exotic wildlife as pets, IFAW strongly
    supports the provision of the bill that ensures that state law will not
    be pre-empted or superseded.
        While IFAW supports the inclusion of large cats in the definition
    of ``prohibited wildlife species'' we are disappointed that similarly
    dangerous wildlife such as bears, alligators and crocodiles are not
    included, especially when bears were included in last year's version of
    the bill (H.R. 5226). While we appreciate the political realities of
    the situation, IFAW urges the Subcommittee to expand the list of
    prohibited species to include bears and other carnivorous wildlife.
        With respect to enforcement, IFAW requests the Subcommittee to make
    sure that the Fish and Wildlife Service has adequate resources to
    enforce the provisions of the legislation. We are very aware of the
    fiscal restraints of the Fish and Wildlife Service's enforcement
    program and we hope that the Service will make every effort to use
    cooperative law enforcement agreements with state and local authorities
    to help enforce the law.
        Lastly, IFAW has concerns about the welfare and disposition of the
    animals covered by this bill that are currently pets. We expect that
    large cats that are currently maintained as pets will be abandoned by
    pet owners that can no longer transport their pets when they change
    their residence to another state. We are very concerned about the
    ability of state and local authorities, zoos and other exempted
    entities to absorb these animals into their facilities. We know, for
    example, that many of the more than 5,000 tigers in captivity are kept
    as pets and we should expect that some of these will be abandoned.
    While IFAW will commit resources to assist in relocation efforts we
    remained concerned that the ``system'' will not be able to absorb these
    exotic pets. We ask the Subcommittee to monitor this situation closely
    and consider adding a provision to the bill that would require the Fish
    and Wildlife Service after one year to report back to the Subcommittee
    on the impacts of the legislation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments in support
    of H.R. 1006.
                                     ______

        [A letter submitted for the record by Christopher Cox,
    Executive Director, Institute for Legislative Action, National
    Rifle Association, follows:]

                                  June 9, 2003

    The Honorable Richard Pombo
    Chairman
    House Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Pombo:

        As the leading voice for millions of American gun-owners and
    hunters, the National Rifle Association wishes to advise you of our
    opposition to H.R. 1472, the ``Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003.'' This
    legislation would prohibit the use of bait in bear hunting on all
    Federal lands.
        Although H.R. 1472 addresses one method of bear hunting, the real
    issue here is about who manages resident wildlife. H.R. 1472 opens the
    door to Federal preemption of the rights of the fifty states to manage
    resident wildlife, including establishing the means and methods of
    hunting in a safe and ethical manner. The NRA is unalterably opposed to
    such Federal infringement.
        Congress has passed legislation giving the Federal Government
    management authority over certain categories of wildlife which it felt
    required a national focus: migratory birds, marine mammals, and
    endangered and threatened species. At no time in its history has
    Congress selected an individual species for Federal management. H.R.
    1472 sets this unwise precedent.
        This legislation is being advocated by organizations opposed to all
    methods of hunting, not just the use of bait in bear hunting. Nothing
    could better achieve their goal of ending hunting in the United States
    than a bill that Federalizes wildlife management. Rather than having to
    promote their views in each of the fifty states, the anti-hunting
    community is seeking to have Congress preempt the field.
        Those states that allow the use of bait in hunting do so because
    they have concluded that it is a humane method of hunting, that it
    meets the ethical standard of ``fair chase,'' and that it is a
    necessary tool for management of their bear populations. H.R. 1472
    places Congress in the position of being a wildlife biologist, making
    decisions for states on how certain wildlife populations must be
    managed. If Congress were to adopt this legislation, it would be
    placing itself in the position of having to address every issue
    pertaining to wildlife management, not just one method of bear hunting.
        Mr. Chairman, the NRA strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 1472
    because of its attempt to preempt the authority of the states to manage
    resident wildlife. Thank you for your consideration of our views on
    this important issue.

                                   Sincerely,

                                Christopher Cox

                               Executive Director

                      NRA Institute for Legislative Action

    cc: Members of the House Resources Committee
                                     ______

        [A letter submitted for the record by the Wisconsin
    Department of Natural Resources on H.R. 1472 follows:]

               State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                             101 s. webster street
                                    box 7921
                         madison, wisconsin 53707-7921
                           telephone: (608) 266-2621
                              fax: (608) 267-3579

                               February 13, 2003

    The Honorable David Obey
    2314 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Subject: Bear Baiting on Federal Lands

    Dear Representative Obey:

        During the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations process, Congressman
    James Moran unsuccessfully attempted to attach a rider to the
    Department of Interior Appropriations bill prohibiting the use of bait
    for bear hunting on Federal lands. It is our understanding that he may
    make a similar attempt in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget. We request your
    assistance to discourage this action.
        At the national level, we recognize that hunting bears over bait is
    controversial. However, as a policy issue it should be addressed
    separate from the budget process, as a stand alone bill.
        States authority to control placement of bait on Federal lands has
    been decided in U.S. District Court and upheld in U.S. Court of
    Appeals. In 1995 and 1997 court cases regarding Wyoming and eight other
    states decided that the states have the responsibility of regulating
    bear baiting as a hunting practice, including on Federal lands.
    Congress and case law has long upheld that managing resident species of
    wildlife is a state's right.
        Hunting bears with bait is a legal and important method of
    harvesting bears in one-third of the states which have bear hunting (9
    of 27 states). These states are generally in the north, including the
    Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan as well as
    Alaska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Wyoming and Utah. Eight of 11
    Canadian provinces allow hunting bears with use of bait. This
    geographic distribution follows bear biology. Bear are hunted in the
    early fall, because as early as October bears are starting to become
    lethargic and moving towards hibernation. Mountain states, or states
    with more moderate temperatures have other options. In mountain states
    using binoculars to scan mountainsides can be an effective means of
    locating bears. This is not an option in the Great Lake states
    especially before leaf fall, when bears are active.
        Bears in West Coast states or more southerly states remain active
    later into the fall, into and through the other big game seasons for
    elk and deer. Many bears are taken incidental to other hunting. In
    Wisconsin or other Great Lakes States this again is not an option.
    Bears are mainly denned up by gun deer season. (Wisconsin once had a
    bear season which overlapped gun deer season, however, it was ceased
    due to the perception that many bears were being taken when either very
    lethargic, or actually in the den.)
        Another method used by one state, Pennsylvania, is a short 3-day
    season, with many hunters. Pennsylvania is a populous state, and is
    able to put 100,000 hunters in the woods for those 3 days, and take
    about as many bears as Wisconsin does. Wisconsin has less than half as
    many bear hunters, and needs to maintain a good harvest to manage the
    bear population at goal.
        Baiting for bears in Wisconsin is also highly regulated, both on
    Federal lands and elsewhere. All bait must be biodegradable, and no
    honey bones, fish, meat, solid animal fat or parts of animal carcasses
    are allowed. The volume is limited to 10 gallons. No paper, packaging
    or other litter is allowed. Baiting must cease at the end of season in
    early October. Baits may not be placed near trails, roads, or campsites
    used by the public. It has been common practice for bear hunters to
    cover the bait so that smaller animals cannot access it. This practice
    has recently been made law in Wisconsin, with the discovery of bovine
    tuberculosis in deer in Michigan and chronic wasting disease in
    Wisconsin deer, the Department intends to prevent deer from close
    contact over bait. Disease spread within in a bear population has not
    been documented to be associated with bait.
        If you have questions or would like addition information, please
    contact Tom Hauge, Director, DNR Bureau of Wildlife Management at 608-
    266-2193 or tom.hauge@dnr.state.wi.us.

                                   Sincerely,

                                 Scott Hassett

                                   Secretary

    cc: Wisconsin Congressional Delegation
        Steve Oestricher, Wisconsin Conservation Congress
        Rich Posig, Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association
                                     ______

        [A letter submitted for the record by the United
    Sportsmen's Alliance. follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.007

        [A letter submitted for the record by the Michigan House of
    Representatives follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.009

        [A letter submitted for the record by Thomas L. Albert,
    Vice President, Government Relations, Feld Entertainment,
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7680.013

                                       -