[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1054, H.R. 2213, H.R. 3433, AND H.R. 3537
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS,
OCEANS AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-366PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS, OCEANS AND WILDLIFE
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Jeff Flake, Arizona
Samoa Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey John Fleming, Louisiana
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Islands Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Diana DeGette, Colorado officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 22, 2009...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Broun, Hon. Paul C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia, Prepared statement of.................... 44
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina, Prepared statement of......... 5
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, Prepared statement on H.R. 1054.............. 85
Prepared statement on H.R. 2213.......................... 85
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, Prepared statement of............... 76
Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State
of Alaska.................................................. 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Crystal, Howard M., Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal.. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 20
Cutchin, Lisa D., Teacher, St. John Regional Catholic School. 72
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Daulton, Michael, Legislative Director, National Audubon
Society.................................................... 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Gould, Rowan, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 10
Markarian, Michael, Chief Operating Officer, The Humane
Society of the United States............................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 28
Moritz, William E., Ph.D., Director of Conservation, Safari
Club International Foundation, and Acting Director of
Governmental Affairs, Safari Club International............ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Oerter, Roger E., Major, USAF, Retired....................... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Letter to Hon. Don Young submitted for the record on H.R.
1054................................................... 32
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 33
Schmidt, Paul R., Assistant Director for Migratory Birds,
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 53
Schroeder, Darin, Vice President of Conservation Advocacy,
American Bird Conservancy.................................. 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Sutherland, Scott A., Director of Governmental Affairs, Ducks
Unlimited.................................................. 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Additional materials supplied:
Berlew, Jeff, Angola, Indiana, Letter submitted for the
record on H.R. 1054........................................ 79
Box, James M., Bloomfield, Iowa, Letter submitted for the
record on H.R. 1054........................................ 80
Decker, Tim and Jan, Apple Valley, California, Letter
submitted for the record on H.R. 1054...................... 81
Flocken, Jeff, Washington, D.C., Office Director, on behalf
of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Statement
submitted for the record on H.R. 1054...................... 82
Humane Society of the United States, Outreach by Hunting
Group on Polar Bears submitted for the record.............. 84
Kooistra, Tom, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1054.. 86
Kreider, Ron, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Letter submitted for
the record on H.R. 1054.................................... 86
Leedy, Ethel Doris, Delta Junction, Alaska, Letter submitted
for the record on H.R. 1054................................ 87
Martell, James R., Glenns Ferry, Idaho, Letter submitted for
the record on H.R. 1054.................................... 88
Mazur, James, Sheridan, Wyoming, Letter submitted for the
record on H.R. 1054........................................ 89
Sevor, Jeffrey J., DMD, Letter submitted for the record on
H.R. 1054.................................................. 90
Stallings, Ted, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1054. 90
Steiner, Larry R., Adirondack-Catskill Chapter, Safari Club
International, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1054 92
Vander Esch, Darwin J., Email submitted for the record on
H.R. 1054.................................................. 93
Walters, Tim, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1054... 94
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1054, TO AMEND THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION
ACT OF 1972 TO ALLOW IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEAR TROPHIES TAKEN IN SPORT
HUNTS IN CANADA BEFORE THE DATE THE POLAR BEAR WAS DETERMINED TO BE A
THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973; H.R. 2213,
TO REAUTHORIZE THE NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
3433, TO AMEND THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT TO
ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PAYMENT OF THE NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF
THE COSTS OF WETLANDS CONSERVATION PROJECTS IN CANADA; AND H.R. 3537,
THE JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND DESIGN PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2009.
----------
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Christensen, Kratovil,
Young, Wittman and Chaffetz.
Also Present: Representative Broun of Georgia.
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning, everyone. The legislative
hearing by the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and
Wildlife will now come to order.
The House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and
Wildlife meets today to hear testimony on four bills. Our first
panel will focus on H.R. 1054
H.R. 1054 is legislation to amend the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972 to allow individuals who hunted polar
bears in Canada prior to the listing of those bears under the
Endangered Species Act to import their trophies to the United
States.
In response to a Court ordered deadline on May 15, 2008,
the U.S. Department of the Interior listed polar bears as
threatened under the ESA, triggering an automatic designation
as a depleted species under the MMPA and preventing any further
importation of polar bear products into the United States.
After the polar bear was first proposed for listing under
the ESA in January of 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service began
an outreach and education campaign to alert hunters that a
prohibition would be placed on trophy imports should a listing
occur. Still, approximately 40 hunters were apparently unable
to import their bears prior to the May 15 deadline. At issue is
whether that importation should now be allowed.
Our second panel will testify on three bird conservation
bills, H.R. 2213, to reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act; H.R. 3433, to amend the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act; and H.R. 3537, the Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation and Design Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.
Although the health status of several important migratory
bird populations continues to decline, some bird populations,
especially waterfowl and other wetland-dependent bird species,
appear to be stable, if not growing. While not all credit for
this achievement can be directed to these bird habitat
conservation programs alone, it is safe to say that, in their
absence, our ongoing efforts to recover and conserve migratory
bird populations in North America would be much more
challenging.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses concerning
these bills. Moreover, I would like to hear what we in the
Congress should do to ensure that these three programs remain
vital elements in our strategy to conserve the diversity and
abundance of our migratory bird resources.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Young, who is Ranking
Member from Alaska, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
The House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
meets today to hear testimony on four bills.
Our first panel will focus on H.R. 1054, legislation that amends
the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow individuals who hunted polar
bears in Canada prior to the listing of those bears under the
Endangered Species Act, to import their trophies to the United States.
In response to a court-ordered deadline, on May 15, 2008, the U.S.
Department of Interior listed polar bears as threatened under the ESA,
triggering an automatic designation as a depleted species under the
MMPA and preventing any further importation of polar bear products into
the United States.
After the polar bear was first proposed for listing under the ESA
in January 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service began an outreach and
education campaign to alert hunters that a prohibition would be placed
on trophy imports should a listing occur. Still, approximately 40
hunters were apparently unable to import their bears prior to the May
15th deadline. At issue, is whether that importation should now be
allowed.
Our second panel will testify on three bird conservation bills:
H.R. 2213, to reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act; H.R. 3433, to amend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act,
and H.R. 3537, the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009.
Although the health status of several important migratory bird
populations continues to decline, some bird populations, especially
waterfowl and other wetland-dependent bird species, appear to be
stable, if not growing. While not all credit for this achievement can
be directed to these bird habitat conservation programs alone, it is
safe to say that in their absence our ongoing efforts to recover and
conserve migratory bird populations in North American would be much
more challenging.
I will look forward to hearing from our witnesses concerning these
bills. Moreover, I would like to hear what we in the Congress should do
to ensure that these three programs remain vital elements in our
strategy to conserve the diversity and abundance of our migratory bird
resource.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for scheduling this
hearing today on H.R. 1054, which would allow 41 hunters with
legally taken polar bear trophies in Canada to import their
trophies into the U.S. after paying the required permit fee,
which is approximately $1,000 per bear. The intent of this bill
is very specific; to allow only those 41 hunters with legally
taken polar bear trophies taken prior to the May 15, 2008,
listing to bring those trophies into the United States.
Congress amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1994
to allow U.S. hunters to import polar bear trophies from
Canada. We did that. This Committee did it. The Act requires
the Fish and Wildlife Service to review the status of polar
bear populations in Canada and, after conducting their review,
to create a list of approved, stable and healthy polar bear
populations. Following this process, U.S. hunters would only be
allowed to import trophies from those approved populations.
Thirteen of the 19 polar bear populations are under the
jurisdiction of Canada. Canada has one of the best management
programs, using state-of-the-art scientific practices to manage
its populations. Out of those 13 populations, only six are
considered to be approved populations by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The worldwide population of polar bears, Madam Chairwoman,
is currently estimated at 23,000 bears. I have a press release
from the 1970s where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
heralding the stability of the polar bear population with an
estimate of 20,000 bears. That was 1970. Now we have 23,000.
Here we are 32 years later, and the population is still
above 20,000 polar bears. Given the dire prediction for polar
bears over the next 100 years, one might be surprised that the
polar bear has weathered ever-warming trends, including the
most recent one in the last 50 years. Instead of seeing a huge
decline in population as is predicted for the population over
the next 100 years, the polar bear population has stayed stable
since 1970.
I do not want to digress into reasons why the Endangered
Species Act listing of the polar bear was wrong. That is not
the focus of this hearing. However, I do want to stress that
the prohibition of bringing these trophies in the U.S. is not
providing any conservation value to the Canadian polar bear
population. In fact, if we allow these trophies to be imported,
we can raise much needed funds for conservation activities for
the shared U.S.-Russian polar bear population.
There will be detractors today, as there were in 1994, who
are opposed to amending the MMPA to allow the importation of
polar bear trophies from Canada, referring to the language as a
loophole. I have seen the ads. I think they are terribly
misleading and, frankly, dishonest.
In 1970, many marine mammal populations faced numerous
threats. The MMPA was very effective in restoring those many
marine mammal populations to healthy or historic levels.
Unfortunately, the Act does not discriminate between healthy
marine mammal populations and those still in need of
rebuilding. Robust populations of marine mammals are treated
like they are on the verge of extinction.
While the 1994 amendments did not address this issue, the
Democrats controlled Congress, specifically those enlightened
Members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, had the
foresight to understand a sustainable use of resources and
conservation activities were not mutually exclusive. The
Committee developed strict requirements to ensure the
protection of the polar bear populations in Canada, while
allowing for the importation of sport-hunted polar bear
trophies.
The idea of incentives to give value to a natural resource
was very new at the time. A similar program was developed for
African communities to protect big game resources in Africa
using the same incentive structure. These programs have proven
their worth and have been very successful.
There will always be a sector of our population that
believes we should not kill animals. However, we need to keep
in mind that there are still areas in the world that rely on
natural resources around them and still subsist on these
resources. Some may like to believe that if U.S. hunters are
prohibited from importing their trophies, U.S. polar bear
hunting will end. That is far from the truth.
In addition, it is important to remember that these polar
bear sport hunts in Canada support small, remote native
villages in Canada. Hunters pay up to $50,000 for a hunt itself
and will leave with only the hide of the bear. The native
village benefits again from the hunt by retaining all the meat
and the monetary value that is taken. Most of the Canadian
polar bear populations are healthy and well managed. Sport
hunting activities provide important incentives to support
remote native villages and important conservation programs in
Canada, the U.S. and Russia.
Finally, let me again be clear. There is no conservation
value in a dead bear that is held in cold storage in Canada for
over a year. Those who legally hunted and harvested these polar
bears fully complied with U.S. and Canadian laws in place at
the time. In most instances, these hunts were years in
planning, and savings were set aside to book this once-in-a-
lifetime experience.
You will hear today from one of our witnesses, Major Roger
Oerter of Vail, Arizona. Major Oerter is a veteran; not one,
but 10 military deployments during his Air Force career. During
his distinguished service, the Major time and again risked his
life for the security of this nation. He is now asking this
Subcommittee for the right to import his legally obtained polar
bear trophy into the U.S. It seems to me that this is the least
we can do for this hero warrior who has sacrificed for his
country. He ought to be allowed to bring his trophy in.
Madam Chairwoman, I have a number of letters from those
hunters affected by the May 15 listings who have their polar
bear trophies in Canada, and I am requesting action on H.R.
1054 to allow them to import their property. I ask unanimous
consent to submit these letters at the hearing and any
additional letters I receive prior to the hearing record close.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for having this hearing.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered.
[The information submitted for the record can be found at
the end of this hearing.]
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Alaska for his
opening remarks, and I would now like to recognize our first
panel of witnesses to testify.
But before I do that, those standing in the back, we have
chairs all around on the lower level here if you would like to
be seated. It may be a long hearing.
Mr. Young. Madam Chairwoman, if I may at this time? Could I
submit Mr. Brown's statement for the record at this time too?
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr.,
Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Natural Resources
Madam Chairwoman, today, our Subcommittee will conduct a hearing on
several legislative measures affecting Canadian polar bears,
neotropical migrants and migratory waterfowl.
The first bill was introduced by the distinguished former Chairman
of the House Resources Committee, The Honorable Don Young of Alaska. It
is my understanding that this bill, H.R. 1054, would allow 44 Americans
to import their polar bear trophies into the United States which were
legally harvested prior to the listing of this species as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act.
The second bill, H.R. 2213, would extend and more than triple the
authorization for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
During the past nine years, this Act has been remarkably successful. In
fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service has approved nearly 1,200 grant
proposals to assist some of the 341 neotropical bird species. The
Congress has already appropriated over $30 million for neotropical
grants which compares quite favorably with the $64 million that has
been provided to the other five Multinational Species Conservation
Funds over the past twenty years. Nevertheless, this Act has earned an
extension beyond September 30, 2012.
The third bill, H.R. 3433, has been introduced by our distinguished
colleague Congressman Rob Wittman of Virginia. It will amend the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act to require that at least 50 percent
of the non-federal share of projects in Canada be paid for by Canadian
non-governmental entities. I believe this is an appropriate change in
our federal law.
Finally, we will hear testimony on H.R. 3537, a bill to extend the
extremely popular Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program
Act. I was pleased to join with Congressman Solomon Ortiz in
introducing this measure.
The Junior Duck Stamp Program was developed twenty years ago, it
was first authorized sixteen years ago and thousands of students have
benefitted from the conservation curriculum and the opportunity to
participate in the nationwide art contest. I am pleased to report that
Mr. Weston DeWolff a 15-year old student at the Charleston County
School of the Arts was this year's ``Best of Show'' winner for the
State of South Carolina.
I congratulate him for his artistic efforts in drawing such a
beautiful picture of a male and female mallard duck and strongly
support extending this program so that thousands of additional students
can participate in this contest in the future.
Madam Chairwoman, I want to join with you in welcoming our
distinguished witnesses and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
______
Before we introduce the witnesses, I would like to thank my
colleagues, Donna Christensen from the Virgin Islands seated
down there. She has another appointment, so she has joined us
for a few minutes. From the Virgin Islands.
We also have Congressman Chaffetz from Utah and Mr. Wittman
from Virginia. Thank you, gentlemen.
Our first group of witnesses, Dr. Rowan Gould, Deputy
Director for Operations, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service; Mr. Howard M. Crystal, Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal;
Mr. Michael Markarian, Chief Operating Officer, Humane Society
of the United States; Mr. Roger Oerter; and Dr. William Moritz,
Director, Department of Science-Based Conservation Programs and
Research, Safari Club International.
I want to thank you all for coming this morning, and as we
begin, gentlemen, we are on a time constraint here with the
Committee, and I would note for the witnesses that the red
timing light on the table will indicate when five minutes have
passed and your time has concluded. We would appreciate your
cooperation in complying with these limits, but be assured that
your full written statement will be included for the record.
So we will begin with Dr. Gould. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROWAN GOULD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS,
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Dr. Gould. Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Rowan Gould, Deputy Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before the Subcommittee to testify on H.R. 1054.
My testimony will focus on the legal framework that has
guided the Service regarding the importation of the polar bear
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and effects of the
Endangered Species Act listing. In addition, I will highlight
outreach the Service conducted to inform hunters of the
potential impact of the ESA listing on their ability to import
sport-hunted polar bear trophies.
The polar bear was listed as threatened under the ESA on
May 15, 2008, primarily due to loss of sea ice habitat caused
by climate change. If the polar bear was protected only under
the ESA, the Service would have continued to allow the import
of sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada. However, the
polar bear is also protected under the MMPA, which has its own
legal requirements for the importation of marine mammals.
Until the polar bear was listed under the ESA, the MMPA
provided for the import of certain polar bear trophies from
approved populations in Canada. However, any marine mammal
listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA is considered
depleted under the MMPA, and consequently the MMPA prevents the
import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies.
The Service conducted outreach efforts on the potential
impact of an ESA listing on the import of sport-hunted polar
bear trophies. We attempted to inform all potential applicants
that a decision on the listing was imminent and that if the
species was listed further imports would be prohibited. Given
that the permitting process can take between 50 and 90 days,
the Service attempted to provide as much information as
possible to potential hunters as quickly as possible.
The Service also worked closely with the Canadian
Management Authority for importation of the Convention on
International Trade of Endangered Species, CITES, to ensure
permittees had accurate information about obtaining the
required Canadian CITES export permit.
On the day the polar bear was listed under the ESA, the
Service had 43 permit applications for trophies from approved
populations for which a final decision had not been made on
whether or not to issue a permit. Many of these applications
had already been published in the Federal Register, but the
required 30-day comment period was still open or just recently
closed.
Other applications had only recently been received and the
notice had either not been published or had been only recently
published in the Federal Register. In addition to these
individuals, it is possible that other U.S. hunters had taken
bears from approved populations prior to the listing date, but
had not yet applied to the Service for the required import
permits.
Prior to the listing of the polar bear under the ESA, the
Service applied the provisions of the MMPA to allow the import
of sport-hunted polar bear trophies legally harvested from
approved populations in Canada. Following the ESA listing of
the species, the Service has likewise adhered to the MMPA
provisions, thereby prohibiting additional imports of sport-
hunted polar bear trophies from Canada.
We recognize that there were a number of hunters who both
applied for permits and successfully completed their polar bear
hunts prior to the May 15, 2008, listing. We also recognize
that by Court order the Service's final decision to list the
polar bear under the ESA went into effect immediately whereas
such decisions normally take effect 30 days after the
publication date of the final listing decisions. The ESA
listing triggered an immediate change in the status of the
polar bear under the MMPA such that polar bear trophies could
no longer be imported into the United States.
The Administration does not oppose legislation allowing
those hunters who both applied for a permit and completed their
legal hunt within an approved polar bear population prior to
the ESA listing to import their polar bear trophies, provided
that the hunter is required to submit proof that the bear was
legally harvested in Canada from an approved population.
The Department does not support any broader change to the
MMPA that would allow additional sport-hunted polar bear
trophies to be supported beyond those where hunters submitted
their import permit applications and completed their hunt prior
to the ESA listing. Therefore, the Department does not support
H.R. 1054 as currently written because it would allow the
import of polar bear trophies regardless of whether the hunter
had applied for the permit prior to the ESA listing.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1054. We look forward to
continuing to work with the Subcommittee on this issue, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gould follows:]
Statement of Rowan Gould, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1054
Introduction
Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rowan
Gould, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
within the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department). I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to testify on
H.R. 1054, which would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of
1972 to allow importation into the United States of polar bear trophies
taken in sport hunts in Canada before May 15, 2008, the effective date
of listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973.
Today my testimony will focus on the legal framework that has
guided the Department and the Service regarding the importation of the
polar bear under the MMPA and effects of the ESA listing. In addition,
I will highlight the outreach that the Service conducted to inform
hunters of the potential impact of an ESA listing on their ability to
import sport hunted polar bear trophies.
The Department recognizes that there were a number of hunters who
both applied for permits and successfully completed their polar bear
hunts prior to the May 15, 2008 listing. We also recognize that, by
court order, the Service's final decision to list the polar bear under
the ESA went into effect immediately, whereas such decisions normally
take effect 30 days after the publication date of the final listing
decision. The ESA listing triggered an immediate change in the status
of the polar bear under the MMPA such that polar bear trophies could no
longer be imported into the United States. If the ESA listing had taken
effect 30 days after the publication date, as is normally the case,
some of these hunters may have had the opportunity to import their
trophies before the listing took effect.
The Administration does not oppose legislation allowing those
hunters who both applied for a permit and completed their legal hunt of
a polar bear from an approved population prior to the ESA listing to
import their polar bear trophies, provided that the hunter is required
to submit proof that the bear was legally harvested in Canada from an
approved population prior to the effective date of the ESA listing. The
Department does not support any broader changes to the MMPA that would
allow additional sport-hunted polar bear trophies to be imported beyond
those where hunters submitted their import permit application and
completed their hunt prior to the ESA listing. Therefore, the
Department does not support H.R. 1054 as currently written because it
would allow the import of polar bear trophies regardless of whether the
hunter had applied for the permit prior to the ESA listing.
Legal Framework for Importing Sport-hunted Polar Bear Trophies
The polar bear was listed as threatened under the ESA on May 15,
2008, primarily due to ongoing and predicted loss of sea-ice habitat
caused by climate change. If the polar bear was protected only under
the ESA, the Service could have continued to allow the import of sport-
hunted polar bear trophies from Canada. This could have been
accomplished either by including a provision in the special rule issued
for this species under section 4(d) of the ESA authorizing such imports
or by applying the provisions of section 9(c)(2) of the ESA, which
would have allowed sport-hunted polar bear trophies to be imported for
personal use by the hunter without additional ESA authorization (as
long as the trophy was imported with a Canadian export permit issued
under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and all other requirements of law were
met).
However, the polar bear is also protected under the MMPA, which has
its own legal requirements, separate and distinct from those of the
ESA, relative to the importation of marine mammals. The MMPA
establishes a federal responsibility, shared by the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce, for the management and conservation of marine
mammals. The Secretary of the Interior, through the Service, protects
and manages polar bears, sea and marine otters, walruses, three species
of manatees, and dugongs.
Until the polar bear was listed under the ESA, section 104(c)(5) of
the MMPA had provided for the import of certain polar bear trophies
from approved populations in Canada. However, any marine mammal listed
as threatened or endangered under the ESA is considered ``depleted''
under section 3(1)(C) of the MMPA, and consequently, sections
101(a)(3)(B) and 102(b)(3) of the MMPA prevent the import of sport-
hunted polar bear trophies.
The Service has interpreted the existing grandfather clause
(section 104(c)(5)(D) of the MMPA), as continuing to authorize the
issuance and use of permits that allow the import of polar bears
legally harvested in Canada prior to February 18, 1997. As of May 15,
2008, when the ESA listing took effect, except for those trophies that
qualify under this grandfather clause, any permit previously issued
under section 104(c)(5) could no longer be used to import a sport-
hunted polar bear trophy, and no new permits could be issued or
additional imports allowed under that section.
Outreach to Polar Bear Hunters on the Potential Impact of an ESA
Listing
Once the proposed rule to list the polar bear as threatened was
published in January 2007, the Service conducted extensive outreach
efforts on the potential impact of an ESA listing on the import of
sport-hunted trophies. Hunters were advised that, although the Service
was able to authorize the importation of polar bear trophies taken in
Canada under the provisions of section 104(c)(5) of the MMPA while the
species was proposed for listing, the Service would not be able to
continue to authorize imports under this section of the MMPA if and
when the listing became final. The Service wanted hunters to be fully
aware of the fact that if the polar bear were listed, then hunters
would no longer be able to import their sport-hunted trophies.
Beginning in January 2008, the Service addressed a large number of
telephone and e-mail communications on this issue, including inquiries
from hunters, Canadian outfitters and taxidermists, and the media. The
Service attempted to inform all potential applicants that a decision on
the listing was imminent and that, if the species was listed, further
imports would be prohibited. During the 2008 Convention of Safari Club
International, the Service also provided information at the Convention
regarding the impacts of a potential listing on the importation of
sport-hunted polar bear trophies.
Under the MMPA, the process for reviewing applications for the
issuance of import permits requires publication of a notice of receipt
of an application in the Federal Register and allowance of a 30-day
public comment period. In addition, once a U.S. import permit is
issued, the Canadian Management Authority must issue a CITES export
permit. Given that the permitting process can take between 50 and 90
days, the Service attempted to provide as much information as possible
to potential hunters, as quickly as possible. The Service also worked
closely with the Canadian CITES Management Authority to ensure
permittees had accurate information about obtaining the required
Canadian CITES export permit.
On May 5, 2008, the Service attempted to contact those individuals
who had already been issued a permit to import a trophy, but had not
already done so, to inform them of a court decision and the potential
that an ESA listing might go into effect on or before May 15.
Permittees were informed that trophies must be imported before the
listing's effective date.
Status of Pending Polar Bear Trophy Import Permit Applications
On the day the polar bear was listed under the ESA, the Service had
44 permit applications pending for which a final decision had not been
made on whether or not to issue a permit. Notice of many of these
applications had already been published in the Federal Register, but
the required 30-day comment period was still open or just recently
closed. Other applications had only recently been received and the
notice had not yet been published in the Federal Register. In addition
to these individuals, it is possible that other U.S. hunters had taken
bears from an approved population prior to the listing date, but had
not yet applied to the Service for the required import permits; in the
absence of applications for them, the Service cannot state how many
additional bears were taken by U.S. hunters prior to the effective date
of the ESA listing.
With the exception of one permit application that qualified for
import under the grandfather clause, all applications that were
received prior to the listing of the polar bear under the ESA were for
bears taken from populations that had previously been approved for
importation.
Conclusion
In summary, prior to the listing of the polar bear under the ESA,
the Service applied the provisions of the MMPA to allow the import of
sport-hunted polar bear trophies legally harvested from approved
populations in Canada. Following the ESA listing of the species, the
Service has likewise adhered to the MMPA provisions thereby prohibiting
additional imports of sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada.
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1054. We look forward to continuing
to work with the Subcommittee on this issue. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Rowan Gould
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
1. One of the findings that must be made under section 104(c)(5)(A) of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) before the import of
polar bears from Canada can be authorized is that ``Canada has
a sport hunting program based on scientifically sound quotas
ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a
sustainable level.''
If polar bear stocks in Canada are declining for reasons
independent of sport hunting, which appears to be the case for at least
some of the approved populations, and these declines are expected to
continue and worsen in the foreseeable future, how can the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) support a determination that any
additional removals from these populations are sustainable?
With the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), the status of the species changed to ``depleted'' under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). As a depleted species, the
provisions of section 104(c)(5)(A) can no longer be used to import
sport hunted trophies. The Service, therefore, is no longer required to
make the finding under section 104(c)(5)(A) of whether Canada has a
sport hunting program that is based on scientifically sound quotas. If,
in the future, there is a change in the MMPA that would allow trophies
from a depleted population to be imported under section 104(c)(5)(A),
the Service would need to re-evaluate its previous findings to
determine how the ongoing and anticipated declines in polar bear
populations are being addressed by the Canadian authorities in the
development of hunting quotas.
2. Section 104(c)(5)(C) of the MMPA directed the Service to conduct a
``scientific review'' of the impact of allowing polar bear
imports from Canada within two years of enactment of the 1994
Amendments and to cease issuing such permits if the Service
determined that such a permit ``is having a significant adverse
impact on polar bear stocks. When it published regulations
implementing section 104(c)(5) in 1997, the Service indicated
that it would conduct this review once the regulations had been
in place for two years.
Has the Service ever conducted such a review? If so, we would
appreciate receiving a copy of the report. If not, does the agency ever
intend to conduct the required review? Given that these polar bear
populations are facing significant threats from climate change,
wouldn't such a review would be particularly timely?
The report, required under the MMPA, was intended to evaluate the
impact of sport hunting on polar bear populations and, if the Service
determines that there is an adverse impact, to suspend importations of
hunting trophies. Prior to the ESA listing, the Service began the
process of drafting a report. While an initial draft of the report was
completed, the Service did not finalize it due to ongoing work on the
review of populations from which polar bear trophies could be imported
under 104(c)(5)(A). With the listing of the polar bear under the ESA
and the subsequent change of the species status to ``depleted'' under
the MMPA, the Service can no longer allow the import of trophies under
section 104(c)(5)(A). Therefore, the value of completing the report is
significantly reduced and for this reason, is a low priority for the
FWS at this time. In addition, the evaluation that was conducted when
considering whether the species should be listed has generated a
significant volume of information that would need to be evaluated in
light of the report's requirements. If, in the future, there is a
change in the MMPA that would allow trophies from a depleted population
to be imported under section 104(c)(5)(A), finalizing the report could
become a higher priority. At that time, the Service would need to
reconsider the draft report as written and incorporate the new
information obtained during the listing process and most current
information available, before the report could be finalized.
3. If H.R. 1054 is enacted, this would be the second time that the
statute has been amended to allow the importation of polar bear
trophies from Canada that otherwise did not meet the requirements of
section 104(c)(5) of the MMPA. Each time, the proponents of the
legislation have argued that it does not make any difference from a
conservation perspective because the bears are already dead. While this
might be true at any given instant, doesn't passing these bills
repeatedly give U.S. hunters an incentive to take additional bears
despite import prohibitions with the expectation that they will be
allowed to import their trophies at a later date, because it does not
make any difference--the bears are already dead?
What assurance do we have that if we allow the imports that would be
approved by this bill, that other hunters will not be encouraged to
engage in sport hunting in Canada despite the current import ban with
the expectation that they will receive similar treatment in the future?
Has the Service taken any actions to make it clear that additional
imports would not be allowed or supported by the agency?
The Service has repeatedly stated that with the listing of the
polar bear under the ESA and the change in the status of the species
under the MMPA, permits would not be issued for the importation of
trophies that were taken on or after May 15, 2008. In addition, as
indicated at the September 22 hearing, the Service does not support
amending the MMPA to allow imports of polar bears from Canada other
than those that were legally taken and for which a permit application
had been submitted prior to May 15, 2008. The Service will continue to
inform the public, in writing or in public forums like the Safari Club
International annual convention, that permits cannot be issued for the
import of trophies.
4. The statutory deadline for publishing the final Endangered Species
Act (ESA) rule was January 9, 2008. Assuming that the Service
had made a final decision in accordance with the law and had
published the final rule on January 9, 2008, wouldn't the
typical thirty-day notice period have expired on February 10,
2008? Would all hunters have been required to import their
trophies by that date?
Yes. If the Service had published a final rule listing the polar
bear under the ESA on January 9, 2008, with an effective date of
February 10, 2008, trophies would have had to be imported by February
10, 2008 to be in compliance with the MMPA.
5. On January 7, 2008 the Service announced that final rule would be
published no later than February 7, 2008. After failing to
comply with the statutory deadline, the Service then failed to
comply with the February deadline the agency itself had set.
How many of the 40+ permit applications that were pending on
the day the listing was finalized--May 15th--were submitted
after the February deadline for a listing decision that had
been set by the Service?
All of the permit applications that were pending on the day the
listing was finalized were received by the Service after February 7,
2008.
6. When Judge Wilken ordered the Department of Interior to publish the
final listing rule by May 15, 2008, she waived the thirty-day
notice or ``grace period'' under the Administrative Procedure
Act because, in her opinion, ``affected parties will have had
adequate notice that publication was forthcoming,''
particularly given the Service's announcement on January 7,
2008 that a listing would be coming within 30 days. Do you
agree with the judge that affected parties had adequate notice?
If not, what more should the Service have done?
The Service did not file any objection or appeal the judge's
decision and, of course, complied with her decision. The Service made
significant efforts to inform interested parties of the consequences of
a listing decision, if the Service made such a determination, well in
advance of the listing.
7. According to your testimony, if the ESA listing had taken effect 30
days after the May 15, 2008 publication date, some of the 40+
permit applications that were pending may have been approved
and the hunters may have had the opportunity to import their
trophies before the listing took effect. You also testified
that the permitting process can take between 50 and 90 days.
Given that time line, how many of the pending applications
could actually have been approved with an extra 30 days? Please
explain based on the dates that permits were submitted.
For instance, would any permit applications submitted after April
28th--the date that the Court required you to make a final
decision by May 15th--have had enough time to be approved?
If the ESA listing had taken effect 30 days after the May 15, 2008,
publication date, the Service would have been able to issue 20 of the
pending permits. Of these 20 permits, seven hunters would have had
approximately three weeks to import their trophies; five hunters would
have had about two weeks; and eight hunters would only have had two
days to import their trophies. However, the issuance of a U.S. permit
would not have guaranteed that the trophies could have been imported in
time. In addition to the U.S. import permit, the hunters would also
have had to have a valid Canadian Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) export permit, which has taken up to six
weeks to process. None of the permit applications submitted after April
28, 2008, would have had time to be approved, and the trophies
imported, with an extra 30 days.
8. The Service administers several statutes that have bans on imports
under certain circumstances, such as the Lacey Act. Under those
statutes, doesn't the ban on imports generally apply regardless
of when the animal was killed?
Yes, if there were a prohibition to import under a statute, the
prohibition would not be affected based upon when the specimen was
removed from the wild.
9. Did the Service conduct outreach to individual hunters and the
hunting community to inform them about the possible ESA
listing? Please describe these efforts.
Once the proposed rule to list the polar bear as threatened was
published in January 2007, the Service conducted extensive outreach
efforts on the potential impact of an ESA listing on the import of
sport-hunted trophies. At the 2007 Convention of Safari Club
International, hunters were advised that, although the Service was able
to authorize the importation of polar bear trophies taken in Canada
under the provisions of section 104(c)(5) of the MMPA while the species
was proposed for listing, we would not be able to continue to authorize
imports under this section of the MMPA if and when the listing became
final. The Service wanted hunters to be aware of the risk that they
would not be able to import their trophies if the polar bear was listed
under the ESA.
Beginning in January 2008, the Service received and responded to a
large number of telephone and e-mail communications on this issue,
including inquiries we received from hunters, Canadian outfitters and
taxidermists, and the media. We informed potential applicants that a
decision on the listing was probably imminent and that, if the species
was listed, further imports could not be authorized under the MMPA. The
Service also provided this outreach during the 2008 Convention of
Safari Club International. Interested individuals, such as potential
hunters and the media, were informed that under the MMPA, the process
for reviewing applications for the issuance of import permits requires
publication of a notice of receipt of an application in the Federal
Register and allowing a 30-day public comment period. In addition, once
a U.S. import permit is issued, the Canadian Management Authority must
issue a CITES export permit. The permitting process can take between 50
and 90 days, depending on whether any complications arise. Given these
requirements, the Service provided as much information to potential
hunters as possible, so that they would be aware of the possibility of
being unable to import their trophies if and when the species became
listed under the ESA. We also worked closely with the Canadian CITES
Management Authority to ensure permittees had accurate information
about obtaining the required Canadian CITES export permit.
10. Was the process for this ESA listing longer than required by law,
even given the fact that there was no thirty-day notice period?
How much longer was the process to list the polar bear?
The proposed rule to list the polar bear as a threatened species
under the ESA was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2007
(72 FR 1064). The final rule to list the polar bear was published in
the Federal Register on May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28212). The time to
complete the final rule was a little over 16 months. The statutory time
frame for completing a final rule under the ESA is 12 months. The polar
bear final listing rule was delayed due to the complexity of the data
and the analyses required to ensure that the ultimate decision was
based on the best available scientific and commercial data. The time
that it took to complete the final rule to list the polar bear was not
influenced by the ultimate effective date of the rulemaking. The
completion of the final rule and the resulting effective date were
directed by a court order.
11. If there are species listed under the ESA in other parts of the
world which sustain sport hunts, and for which trophies can be
imported into the U.S., are any of them also species protected
by the MMPA?
Other trophy species listed under the ESA are not protected under
the MMPA.
12. During the September 22nd hearing, Representative Don Young stated
that ``Fifteen years ago there were 20,000 polar bears and now
there are 23,000.'' Is this correct? What is the official
estimate of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG)?
The IUCN's Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) reported a worldwide
population of polar bears to be between 21,470 and 28,370 in 1993
(Proceedings of the Eleventh Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear
Specialist Group, 1995), the current worldwide estimate reported by the
PBSG is thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 animals (http://
pbsg.npolar.no/en/status).
13. Section 104(c)(5)(A)(i) of the MMPA requires the Service to find
that Canada's sport hunting program is consistent with the
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. Under Article III
of the Agreement, polar bears may be taken for various
purposes, including'' (d) by local people using traditional
methods in the exercise of their traditional rights and in
accordance with the laws of that Party,'' and ``(e) whenever
polar bears have or might have been subject to taking by
traditional means by its nationals.'' Upon signing the
Agreement, Canada issued a declaration stating that it
interpreted those provisions'' as permitting a token sports
hunt based on scientifically sound settlement quotas as an
exercise of the traditional rights of the local people.''
In the final rule published in 1997, the Service declined to
specify what portion of the overall hunt of polar bears in Canada it
would consider to be a ``token'' sport hunt. The Subcommittee would
appreciate having the following information so that we can make our own
assessment of whether Canada is living up to its declaration that only
a token sport hunt would be authorized.
For each of the management units from which trophy imports have
been approved by the Service under section 104(c)(5) of the MMPA,
please provide the total number of polar bears taken by native or sport
hunters during each calendar year since 1994, and the proportion that
was taken by sport hunters.
Currently, the Service does not have this information available in
its files. The Canadian government, either at the Federal or Provincial
level, would most likely collect this information as part of its
management program. We have sent an inquiry to the Canadian authorities
requesting this information, but have not received a response from them
at this time.
Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)
1. Does the Service believe the Canadian government conducts a
scientifically sound polar bear management program?
Under 104(c)(5)(A),the Service must determine that Canada has a
sport hunting program that is based on scientifically sound quotas that
ensures the maintenance of sustainable populations. With the listing,
the Service is no longer issuing permits under this section and
therefore does not need to make a determination on whether Canada has a
scientifically sound polar bear management program. In the final ESA
listing rule, the Service expressed some concerns about the current
harvest levels for some polar bear populations, but found that the
impacts from sport hunting or harvest were not threats to the species
throughout its range. We concluded that, in general, national and local
management regimes established for the sustainable harvest of polar
bears are adequate. However, one concern with Canada's management
program is the interval between surveys of each management unit, which
is on the order of 15-20 years. The scientific soundness of the program
could be undermined when it is based on dated information, particularly
given the ongoing and predicted habitat changes, within the polar
bear's range. We recognize that the management of polar bears in Canada
is evolving and applaud them in their efforts in working with other
range countries to address quota levels of shared stock.
2. While the Marine Mammal Protection Act does not allow the Service
to use the import authority any more due to the ESA listing,
has that changed the status of any of the approved polar bear
populations in Canada? Are the 6 populations that were approved
populations prior to the May 15thlisting still considered to be
approved populations by the USFWS?
The populations listed under the Service's regulations at 50 CFR
18.30 are still approved populations under that section of our
regulations. However, these regulations are not operative because
section 104(c)(5)(A)of the MMPA is no longer available to allow for the
import of sport hunted trophies from Canada.
3. Did the Service at any time tell hunters that they should not go on
a hunt due to an imminent ESA listing?
The Service did not explicitly tell U.S. hunters that they should
not hunt bears in Canada. However, it did advise hunters of the risk
that they might not be able to import those trophies into the United
States. At the 2007 Convention of Safari Club International, hunters
were advised that, although the Service was able to authorize the
importation of polar bear trophies taken in Canada under the provisions
of section 104(c)(5) of the MMPA while the species was proposed for
listing, we would not be able to continue to authorize imports under
this section of the MMPA if and when the listing became final. The
Service wanted hunters to be aware of the risk that they would not be
able to import their trophies if the polar bear was listed under the
ESA.
Beginning in January 2008, the Service informed potential
applicants that a decision on the listing was imminent and that, if the
species was listed, further imports could not be authorized under the
MMPA. The Service also provided this outreach during the 2008
Convention of Safari Club International. Interested individuals, such
as potential hunters and the media, were informed that under the MMPA,
the process for reviewing applications for the issuance of import
permits requires publication of a notice of receipt of an application
in the Federal Register and allowing a 30-day public comment period. In
addition, once a U.S. import permit is issued, the Canadian Management
Authority must issue a CITES export permit. The permitting process can
take between 50 and 90 days, depending on whether any complications
arise. Given these requirements, the Service provided as much
information to potential hunters as possible, so that they would be
aware of the possibility of being unable to import their trophies if
and when the species became listed under the ESA. It was up to
individual hunters to decide whether they would be able to complete the
importation process before a listing went into effect.
4. Does the Service agree with the other witness' testimony that the
hunters who took legal bears between January and May 15, 2008
were hunting in ``bad faith''?
The Service does not take into consideration the motivations under
which individuals choose to carry out personal hunts when considering
import applications, including those motivations that led individuals
to hunt in Canada between January and May 2008.
5. What is the normal protocol for implementing an ESA listing? Is
there usually a 30 day, or longer, implementation delay prior
to the effective date of listings?
The effective date of a final agency rulemaking is governed by the
Congressional Review Act. Under this Act, a final rule becomes
effective 30 days following delivery to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), unless otherwise noticed and explained in
the final rule. As a practice, the Service indicates in its final rules
that the effective date is 30 days following publication in the Federal
Register, unless otherwise noticed and explained in the final rule. To
ensure that we allow for the appropriate review time by Congress and
GAO, we deliver the final rule to them in the time between delivery to
the Federal Register for publication and publication itself. However,
in the case of the polar bear final listing rule, the Service was
directed by a court to publish the final rule by May 15,2008, and make
the rule effective immediately, thereby eliminating the delay in making
the final rule effective.
6. If it were not for the court order, which required an immediate
effective date of the listing, how long would the Fish and
Wildlife Service have given the hunters, who legally hunted a
polar bear prior to May 15th and applied for a permit, to bring
in their trophies?
All trophies would have to be imported before the effective date of
the ESA listing, whether the listing went into effect immediately upon
publication or not. Even if the hunters had the required U.S. import
permit and Canadian CITES export permit in hand, if the trophy was not
imported before the effective date of the listing, the import would not
have been allowed.
7. Are there species, listed as threatened under the ESA, in other
parts of the world which sustain sport hunts, where the
trophies can be imported into the U.S.?
Under Section 9(c) of the ESA, any species that is listed as
threatened under the ESA and Appendix II of CITES may be imported
without an import permit being issued by the Service. While several
species could fall under this section, the most common trophy species
imported into the United States are red lechwe (Kobus leche),
Hartmann's mountain zebra (Equus zebra hartmannae), and African
elephants (Loxodonta Africana) from Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and
South Africa (the Appendix-II populations). In addition, regulations
promulgated under section 4 of the ESA (e.g., 'special rules'') allow
for the importation of three other threatened species: argali (Ovis
ammon) from Tajikistan, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan; African elephant
(Loxodonta africana) [Appendix I populations], and African leopard
(Pantherapardus) from southern Africa.
8. While the polar bear is listed as depleted due to its threatened
status, is the world-wide polar bear population considered to
be below its optimum sustainable population level as defined in
the Marine Mammal Protection Act?
The Service has not evaluated whether the world-wide polar bear
population is considered to be below the ``optimum sustainable
population'' (OSP) level as defined in the MMPA. The depleted status of
a species under the MMPA can be established either by the species being
listed under the ESA or if the species or population stock is
determined to be below its OSP. Since the polar bear was listed under
the ESA, the Service is not relying on an OSP determination to consider
the species depleted under the MMPA.
Additionally, Section 117 of the MMPA requires the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to prepare a Stock Assessment Report
for each marine mammal stock that occurs in waters under U.S.
jurisdiction. We recently made available draft reports for the southern
Beaufort Sea polar bear stock and the Chukchi/Bering seas polar bear
stock. The 90-day public comment period closed on September 16, 2009,
and the Service is currently evaluating the comments that were
received. Once the Service completes this evaluation we will make the
final reports available.
9. Do you believe Traditional Native Knowledge is an integral part in
the management of polar bears?
Yes. The Service recognizes the important role that Alaska Natives
play in the conservation and management of polar bears and has worked
consistently with this important stakeholder group to better understand
the status of the species.
10. Does the Fish and Wildlife Service have any polar bear trophies on
display in any of its buildings?
The Service has seized unlawfully imported polar bear trophies,
which were then forfeited to the U.S. government. Property of this type
is typically retained by the Service for use in educating the public
about wildlife conservation and illegal trade. As part of these
educational efforts, polar bear trophies have been displayed in Service
facilities. Based on the information provided by the Service's regions
and programs, below is a list of the polar bear trophies on display in
Service buildings. In addition, the Service has developed educational
programs, such as Suitcase for Survival, that make polar bear parts and
other wildlife products available to teachers, outreach specialists and
similar professionals for use in teaching students and others about
wildlife conservation.
Full body upright polar bear mount on display at National
Wildlife Visitor Center at Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland.
Polar bear rug on display 1-3 times a year at John Heinz
National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum in Pennsylvania.
Polar bear mount on display at the Amherst, New York
Office of Law Enforcement.
Polar bear mount and polar bear rug on display in the
Education Room at the National Wildlife Property Repository in Commerce
City, Colorado.
11. Please explain your specific concerns with H.R. 1054 and any
potential amendments that would make this bill acceptable to
the USFWS.
As written, H.R. 1054 would allow any polar bear trophy legally
hunted prior to the ESA listing from an approved population in Canada
to be imported into the United States. As indicated in the Department's
testimony, the Administration does not oppose legislation allowing
those hunters who both applied for a permit and completed their legal
hunt within an approved polar bear population prior to the ESA listing
to import their polar bear trophies, provided that the hunter is
required to submit proof that the bear was legally harvested in Canada
from an approved population. The Department does not support any
broader changes to the MMPA that would allow additional sport-hunted
polar bear trophies to be imported beyond those where hunters submitted
their import permit application and completed their hunt prior to the
ESA listing. Therefore, the Department does not support H.R. 1054 as
currently written because it would allow the import of polar bear
trophies regardless of whether the hunter had applied for the permit
prior to the ESA listing. The service looks forward to working with the
Subcommittee on this issue.
12. With your suggested amendments to H.R. 1054, is the Administration
willing to provide a SAP supporting the bill?
As the Department stated in our testimony, the Administration does
not oppose legislation allowing those hunters who both applied for a
permit and completed their legal hunt of a polar bear from an approved
population prior to the ESA listing to import their polar bear
trophies, provided that the hunter is required to submit proof that the
bear was legally harvested in Canada from an approved population prior
to the effective date of the ESA listing. The Department does not
support any broader changes to the MMPA that would allow additional
sport-hunted polar bear trophies to be imported beyond those where
hunters submitted their import permit application and completed their
hunt prior to the ESA listing.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Gould, for your
testimony.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. Crystal. It is a
pleasure to welcome you before the Subcommittee, and you are
now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD M. CRYSTAL, PARTNER,
MEYER GLITZENSTEIN AND CRYSTAL
Mr. Crystal. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to come this
morning and testify on H.R. 1054.
I am a partner at Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal. My firm
represents environmental and animal protection groups, and I am
here this morning on behalf of the Humane Society of the United
States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and Defenders
of Wildlife. These are groups that I represent in the pending
litigation concerning the polar bear in Federal District Court.
These groups represent millions of Americans who care about
polar bears and other marine species, as well as the integrity
of our nation's most vital animal and species protection
statutes. The MMPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
ESA, the Endangered Species Act, are two such statutes. They
were enacted decades ago to preserve and prevent the depletion
and extinction of species like the polar bear. We oppose H.R.
1054 because it sets a terrible precedent for these statutes,
and it serves the interests of polar bear hunters at the
expense of polar bear conservation.
The principal argument you have heard today and will hear
this morning is that those polar bears at issue are already
dead and thus allowing their import will not harm any animals,
let alone the species. This argument is flawed because the same
is true of polar bears that were hunted after the species was
listed under the ESA. The mere fact that the bears are already
dead surely cannot justify this amendment.
Limiting the scope of the amendment to polar bears killed
before the species was listed or to hunters who had submitted
their applications before the species was listed does not
address this concern. In our view, the cutoff date for import
permits should be the date of the listing when the expert
agency designated the species as threatened under the ESA and
it became a depleted species under the MMPA. Only that kind of
bright line rule makes sense.
The ban on imports is a principal conservation tool that
the agencies use and that this country has to impact the
treatment of species in other countries. We cannot prohibit the
take of polar bears in other countries. We can, however,
prohibit the import of species. The species was listed under
the ESA as a threatened species. It is only appropriate now
that we bring into effect the existing regulatory scheme which
bans their imports.
In addition, if we pick a different line and, as proposed
by this amendment, allow imports, even though the species has
already been listed, there is no reason that it will end here.
As I mentioned, I represent groups in the pending litigation
over the listing of the polar bear that is pending in Federal
Court right now. Those groups are arguing that the species
should not have been listed as a threatened species.
If they lose those cases, then we may be here in the future
over the question of whether or not, as a result of the species
finally being settled as listed, people who killed polar bears
in 2009 should be allowed to import their polar bears at that
time. Again, the bright line rule should be when the species
was listed, not some future date as is proposed here.
In sum, we believe the only appropriate line to draw is the
date of the listing and since the existing statutory scheme
bans imports as of that date they should be prohibited
regardless of when the polar bear was killed.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am
certainly going to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crystal follows:]
Statement of Howard M. Crystal, Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1053, which
proposes an amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of
1972. I am a partner with the public-interest law firm Meyer
Glitzenstein and Crystal, which has litigated cases on behalf of a wide
range of national and grassroots conservation and animal protection
organizations, including Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife
(Defenders), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), International
Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Ocean Conservancy, Center for
Biological Diversity, and Save The Manatee Club. With regard to the
conservation of the polar bear, we are representing IFAW, Defenders and
HSUS in the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) currently pending before
the federal district court for the District of Columbia. In that
litigation the Safari Club International, Conservation Force, and
others are asking the court to find that the Department of the
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) may grant polar bear imports
permits under the MMPA despite the agency's 2008 finding that the polar
bear is a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Before providing some comments on the Amendment proposed by
Congressman Young, it is important to put the amendment into some
historical context. In enacting the MMPA in 1972, the House of
Representatives explained:
Recent history indicates that man's impact upon marine mammals
has ranged from what might be termed malign neglect to virtual
genocide. These animals, including whales, porpoises, seals,
sea otters, polar bears, manatees and others, have only rarely
benefitted from our interest; they have been shot, blown up,
clubbed to death, run down by boats, poisoned, and exposed to a
multitude of other indignities, all in the interests of profit
or recreation, with little or no consideration of the potential
impact of these activities on the animal populations involved.
H.R. Rep. No. 92-707 (1971). Based on these findings, and declaring
that ``certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or
may be, in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of man's
activities,'' Congress passed the MMPA to ensure that these species
``not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they cease to
be a significant functioning element in the ecosystem of which they are
a part.'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1361(1) and (2).
To accomplish this objective, the MMPA imposes a moratorium on the
taking and importation of marine mammals, id. Sec. 1371; see also id.
Sec. 1372(b), and establishes a scheme under which these activities may
be permitted by the agency. For the import of species such as the polar
bear, the principal authority for the agency to issue such permits is a
provision allowing imports ``for purposes of scientific research,
public display, or enhancing the survival or recovery of'' the species.
Id. Sec. 1371(c).
In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA to permit the import of polar
bear body parts taken in sport hunts in Canada where certain conditions
are met, including the approval of hunting for certain polar bear
populations. Pub. L. No. 103-238, Sec. 5 (1994).
The MMPA also has always provided special protection for a species
designated as ``depleted'' under the statute. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1362(1).
Of particular relevance here, MMPA Section 102(b) provides that,
irrespective of the polar bear import provision or any other permit
authority, once a species is designated as ``depleted'' import permits
may only be issued ``for scientific research, or for enhancing the
survival or recovery of a species or stock....'' Id. Sec. 1372(b)(3).
The 1972 statute defined a ``depleted'' species, inter alia, as one
that ``has declined to a significant degree over a period of years,''
or ``has otherwise declined and that if such decline continues...such
species would be subject to the provisions of the'' ESA. See Pub. L.
No. 92-522, Sec. 3(1). In 1981, that definition was expanded to include
``any case in which...a species or population stock is listed as an
endangered species or a threatened species under'' the ESA. Pub. L. No.
97-58, Sec. 1 (1981) (emphasis added). As the House Report on this
amendment explained, this change ``recognized that species that are
listed under the Endangered Species Act are, a fortiori, not at their
Optimum Sustainable Population and, therefore, should be considered
depleted.'' H.R. Rep. No. 97-228, at 16 (1981).
THE 2009 AMENDMENT
In May 2008 the FWS listed the polar bear as a threatened species
under the ESA throughout its range. 73 Fed. Reg. 28,212 (May 15, 2008).
In listing the species the Service explained that, prior to 1973, the
polar bear was declining due to ``severe overharvest'' that occurred in
light of ``the economic or trophy value of their pelts.'' Id. at
28,238. While the subsequent cessation in large-scale hunting provided
some protection to the species, the Service found that other threats
have continued to cause population declines, including climate change-
induced reductions in sea ice; reduced prey availability; and continued
overharvest in certain areas. Id. at 28,255-28,292. In light of these
threats, the Service concluded that the polar bear is likely to become
an endangered species ``within the foreseeable future,'' and
consequently listed the species as threatened under the ESA. Id. at
28,238. Moreover, while the agency has the authority under certain
circumstances to limit a species' protection to certain discrete
portions of its range, the FWS determined that the species was
threatened throughout its range, including the polar bear populations
in Canada.
Pursuant to MMPA Section 3(1), by virtue of the ESA listing the
polar bear became a ``depleted'' species under the MMPA. 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 1362(1). This, in turn, triggered MMPA Section 102(b)'s
proscription on polar bear import permits, limiting them to those
issued for scientific research or enhancement of survival purposes. Id.
Sec. 1372(b). Accordingly, because the species is threatened with
extinction, the FWS may no longer allow trophy hunters to kill polar
bears in Canada and import their body parts into the United States.
The proposed amendment would circumvent this existing regulatory
scheme, authorizing the FWS to issue import permits for polar bears
killed from previously approved populations in Canada up until the date
the species was listed under the ESA. The amendment should be rejected
for both legal and policy reasons.
The amendment fundamentally undermines the critical relationship
between the protections that species presently receive under the ESA
and the MMPA. Under the MMPA, Congress recognized that a species may be
``depleted''--thereby warranting a ban on imports--even before it
becomes so imperiled that it requires listing under the ESA. Indeed, a
species can be designated as depleted simply because it is below its
``optimum sustainable population,'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1362(1)(A)--which is
the ``number of animals that will result in the maximum productivity of
the population or the species.'' Id. Sec. 1362(9) (emphasis added).
Under this amendment, however, although the polar bear is now
listed under the ESA, it will not be uniformly treated as depleted
under the MMPA. Instead, the FWS will continue to allow certain
recreational hunters to import their polar bear trophies into this
country.
The fact that the amendment is limited to those polar bears killed
before the species was listed does not change this fact. The ban on
imports of imperiled species is a critical tool by which the United
States can impact the treatment of those species in other countries.
Certainly, hunters who wish to bring their trophies into this country
will have significantly less incentive to participate in a sport hunt
if that import is prohibited. The import ban also sends an important
signal to our conservation partners in other countries, helping to
generate efforts that might improve the species' status so that imports
may once again be permitted.
Allowing continued imports of polar bears, by contrast, sends
exactly the wrong signal. The polar bear has become a poster child for
species' conservation in a world rapidly changing due to human impacts.
To allow sport-hunters to bring polar bear body parts into this country
after the expert agency has decided that the species is threatened with
extinction broadcasts that the protection of the species is not that
important, and that the interests of sport-hunting take precedence over
the interests of the long-term protection of the polar bear.
In this regard, it is also critical to recognize that nothing
dramatic happened to the polar bear's on-the-ground condition in May
2008. The species was not imperiled the day after the listing, but in
fine health the day before. Instead, as the Service recognized in
listing the species, the polar bear faces ongoing and long-term threats
to its existence. Therefore, from a conservation perspective there is
no principled basis to distinguish between polar bears killed before
the listing and those killed afterwards. In short, now that the species
is listed imports of trophies should be prohibited, regardless of when
the species was killed.
The fact that the listing became effective on the date it was
published in the Federal Register, and not after a thirty day ``grace
period'' as is often the case, also does not support allowing imports
of sport-hunting trophies after the species was listed. As a federal
district court judge explained when she rejected the sport-hunter's
argument that a special exception should be made for hunters who had
submitted import applications for bears killed prior to the listing,
sport-hunters ``assumed the risk that they would be unable to import
their trophies'' when they chose to engage in sport-hunting despite the
fact that the species was under consideration for listing under the
ESA. Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, No. 08-1339 (N.D.
Cal. July 11, 2008). Moreover, most, if not all, of the hunters who
submitted import applications before the listing could not have
obtained an import permit within the grace period in any event, given
the notice and comment process involved in obtaining such a permit.
It is also crucial to appreciate that this amendment is a stark
departure from earlier amendments allowing these imports. While
Congress has twice amended the statute to allow imports of polar bears
killed years earlier, at neither time was the species listed under the
ESA and depleted under the MMPA. Moreover, while hunters certainly knew
the species was likely to be listed--therefore banning imports--this
amendment would allow hunters who killed a polar bear just weeks, or
even days, before the listing to bring their trophies into this
country. Congress should not support the perverse incentives created by
such an approach. Indeed, particularly if Congress passes this
amendment, hunters will assume that if they continue to hunt polar
bears in Canada despite the ESA listing, provisions will be made to
allow their importation in the future.
This brings me to the pending litigation. The ESA listing is
presently being challenged in multiple lawsuits pending in federal
court for the District of Columbia, including by sport-hunting groups.
This litigation is yet another reason that the proposed amendment is
both ill-conceived and ill-timed.
If Congress passes this amendment, and then the plaintiffs lose the
pending litigation and the court upholds the listing, we could well be
here again in a few years. At that time, sport-hunters might seek an
amendment allowing the import of trophies for polar bears killed before
the judicial opinion was issued. Their argument then, much like their
argument now, would be that when they went on their hunts in 2009, the
species' status was ``uncertain'' because of the litigation. Because
they believed the listing should and would be set aside, they would
argue, they should not be penalized by not allowing their trophies to
be imported. Moreover, they would also argue, since the polar bears
killed in 2009 are already dead, allowing their import would not impact
the conservation of the species. The fact that passing the amendment
today allows that argument in the future simply highlights why the
amendment makes no sense now, just as it will make no sense then. In
short, the only reasonable line to draw for imports is the one already
drawn by the existing regulatory scheme: banning sport-hunted imports
at the time the species is listed.
Finally, if the sport-hunting groups prevail in the current
litigation, the amendment under consideration today would not be
necessary. If the species were no longer listed as threatened, it would
no longer be designated as depleted, and the original polar bear import
provision would go back into effect, barring some other legislative
development.
Alternatively, the sport-hunting groups are also arguing to the
court that the polar bear import provision remains in effect despite
the listing. If they prevail on this alternative argument, imports
would once again be permitted on that basis. In light of these
possibilities, it is at the very least premature for Congress to
consider this amendment at this time.
CONCLUSION
Through the interplay between the ESA and the MMPA, Congress has
already struck a balance between the conservation needs of marine
species such as the polar bear and the other interests, including those
of sport-hunters. We urge Congress not to upset that balance by
permitting sport-hunters who have gone to Canada to kill polar bears to
continue to import their body parts into this country, despite the fact
that the FWS has determined that the species is threatened with
extinction throughout its range, including Canada. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit these comments.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Howard M. Crystal,
Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
1. If we were to enact H.R. 1054, how would that affect the
relationship between the ESA and the MMPA?
Enacting H.R. 1054 would undermine the relationship between the two
statutes, because it would allow the import of species that have been
listed under the ESA. At present, once a species is listed under the
ESA it is designated as ``depleted'' under the MMPA, which brings the
import ban into effect. Enacting H.R. 1054 will create a loophole
whereby ESA listed species can be imported under the MMPA, even though,
by virtue of the ESA listing they have become designated as
``depleted'' under the MMPA.
2. In your testimony you state that the ban on imports of imperiled
species is a critical tool by which the United States can
impact the treatment of those species in other countries. Would
you please expand upon that comment?
Contrary to the premise of several of the questions I was asked at
the hearing, U.S. law does not govern the activities of individuals in
other countries, including Canada. If a U.S. citizen travels to Canada
and kills a polar bear, he is breaking no U.S. law, regardless of the
species' status under the MMPA and the ESA. That is why the question
whether the hunters who will benefit from H.R. 1054 violated any laws
in killing polar bears is a non-sequitur: it violated no U.S. law to
kill those bears when they died before the species was listed, and it
violates no U.S. law to kill a polar bear in Canada today.
It is precisely for this reason that the power of the U.S. to
prohibit the import of species into this country is so important. As a
threshold matter, U.S. hunters are much less likely to participate in a
polar bear hunt in Canada if importing their trophy is prohibited. But
even beyond that, an import ban also sends an important signal to our
conservation partners in other countries concerning the plight of a
species and our Nation's commitment to assist the species' survival and
recovery--which in turn can generate concrete efforts to improve the
species' status so that imports may once again be permitted.
Allowing trophy imports of an ESA-listed species, by contrast,
sends exactly the wrong signal, broadcasting to our conservation
partners that, despite the ESA listing, the protection of the polar
bear is not that important to the U.S., and that the interests of
sport-hunting take precedence over the interests of the long-term
protection of the polar bear.
3. Dr. Moritz testified that the 40+ permit holders in question ``lost
the ability to import their personal property due to the
arbitrary decision of the federal government, and this bill
will do one thing...provide relief from this taking.'' Do you
agree with this statement?
No I do not, because it is based on several false premises. First,
while the polar bears killed in Canada may be the personal property of
the hunters, there is no principle in domestic or international law
suggesting that being denied the right to import something constitutes
an unlawful taking of property. The U.S. bans all sorts of products and
items from import, and certainly those bans are not unlawful or
inappropriate simply because the importer owns the property. Indeed,
states ban imports of certain materials--such as non-native fruits--and
certainly may do so without any takings issue.
Second, there is nothing arbitrary about either the decision to
protect the polar bear under the ESA, or the import ban that is in
effect under the MMPA as a result of the listing. In any event, the
legality of the listing and import ban are presently pending before a
federal court, and thus, at minimum, if the alleged ``arbitrary''
listing is the basis for H.R. 1054, at the very least Congress should
await resolution of the litigation before deciding whether to enact a
large loophole in the existing regulatory scheme for the polar bear.
4. Is a federal administrative action considered a taking if the
affected party had full knowledge of the pending regulatory change?
As explained in my answer to question 3, such action is not a
``taking'' regardless of the affected parties' knowledge, so long as
there is a reasonable basis for the underlying regulatory change, as
there certainly is here. However, I do agree that the fact that all of
the hunters were well aware of the possibility that the polar bear
would be listed--and thus that imports would be banned--further
demonstrates that they have no basis to complain about being treated
unfairly. They hunted a polar bear at the risk that the import would be
prohibited, and nothing about their conduct justifies the special
treatment they seek with H.R. 1054.
5. Some argue that since these 40+ bears are already dead, we should
just let them be imported. What did you mean when you testified
that from a conservation perspective, there is no principled
basis to distinguish between polar bears killed before the
listing and those killed afterwards?
As I mentioned above, under U.S. law the legality of killing polar
bears in Canada did not change with the ESA listing. Only the legality
of importing trophies changed. Therefore the proponents' claim that
H.R. 1054 is appropriately limited to polar bears killed before the ESA
listing is another red herring, for, from a conservation perspective,
those bears are just as valuable as the many bears that were killed
after the species was listed. In other words, if the fact that the 40+
bears at issue are already dead justifies their import, then no import
permit should ever be denied, because in all cases the polar bear for
which the import is sought will already be dead.
6. You testified that allowing these imports will set bad precedents
and provide incentives for more bears to be killed despite the
ESA listing and the MMPA designation as depleted. Can you
elaborate on this, particularly in light of the many pending
lawsuits?
If this bill passes, U.S. hunters will know that they can travel to
Canada and kill polar bears, after which Congress will provide a
special exemption allowing them to import their trophies. Indeed, the
primary argument the hunters are making here is that they should not be
punished for the uncertainty that surrounded the species' conservation
status prior to the listing. But the listing remains somewhat uncertain
due to the pending litigation. Therefore, if Congress passes H.R. 1054
we may be considering another loophole next year when the litigation is
resolved. Such a bill would consider whether hunters who killed polar
bears in early 2010 may import their trophies, since, they will claim,
they had assumed the Court would set aside the listing, and it is only
once the litigation was resolved that the import ban became ``final,''
in their view. The very fact that those hunters can make exactly the
same arguments then as these hunters can make now highlights the bad
precedent that would be set by passing this bill.
7. Following up on that point, do you think H.R. 1054 could have
implications for other laws enforced by the Service?
I do think that H.R. 1054 will undermine the Service's ability to
enforce laws designed to protect international wildlife. Again,
protection of species in other countries depends critically on those
countries' commitment and participation in conservation efforts. If the
U.S. is in the business of creating special exemptions for sport-
hunters, I think that will seriously undermine our credibility with
other nations, and therefore our ability to protect species in those
countries.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Crystal, for your
analysis of this bill's legal impact.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. Markarian. Would you
please begin your testimony?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MARKARIAN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, HUMANE
SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Markarian. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Madam Chairwoman, I would specifically like to thank you for
your tremendous leadership on wildlife issues and all the good
work done by your Subcommittee this year.
The Humane Society of the United States, on behalf of its
11 million supporters across the country, strongly opposes H.R.
1054. We believe this legislation is misguided and would roll
back polar bear conservation efforts and set a dangerous
precedent for gutting the protections provided under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
We have submitted written testimony, but I want to limit my
verbal remarks to a couple narrow issues, and one which we
believe is an important factor in this debate is that the
hunters who are seeking to import their trophies, the 40 or 41
individuals, had adequate notice for about 16 months that this
listing was pending and the hunters were well aware of the
risks of spending their own dollars to engage in these hunts,
and they were well aware that there was a chance they would not
be able to import their trophies. They took that risk. It was
their own choice.
As we heard, the Service proposed to list the polar bear in
January 2007. The listing became final in May of 2008, so that
is a 16 month period where trophy hunters who were interested
in seeking a polar bear knew that this was a potential. They
knew what risk they were taking when they decided to travel
north and spend their own money to hunt polar bears.
It wasn't just the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that was
advising hunters of this proposed listing; it was the hunting
groups themselves. The largest hunting organizations for months
were warning their members that this was coming down the pike.
The Conservation Force organization in its December 2007
newsletter stated:
``American hunters are asking us whether they should even
look at polar bear hunts in light of the current effort by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the species as
threatened. The listing, you will recall, will trigger
provisions in the Marine Mammal Protection Act banning all
polar bear trophy imports to the U.S. The bottom line is no
American hunter should be putting hard, nonreturnable money
down on a polar bear hunt at this point.''
The following month they repeated the warning to their
members. ``We feel compelled to tell you that American trophy
hunters are likely to be barred from importing bears they take
this season.'' And then in March of 2008 they repeated the
stern warnings once again. ``Make no mistake, there is still a
real possibility the polar bear is going to be listed.'' And
then a month later in April they repeated the warning. ``No
already permitted bears would be allowed into the U.S. after
May 15.'' End of story.
It went on and on and on. The Safari Club International
warned its members as well. ``If some or all of the polar bear
populations are listed, the FWS has indicated that imports of
trophies from any listed populations would be barred as of that
date regardless of where in the process the application is.''
Hunters heard from Conservation Force, they heard from
Safari Club International, they heard from the U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance that this was likely to occur, so they should not have
been surprised. Madam Chairwoman, we are going to submit these
newsletters for the record so that the Subcommittee has them.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was warning hunters.
They attended the Safari Club International convention in 2007
and then again in 2008 to talk to hunters about the proposed
listing and to let them know what was happening in the process,
so no one can claim that they were not warned, that they were
surprised by this listing in May of 2008, because they had been
hearing about it for 16 months.
Madam Chairwoman, I think the best indicator was the surge
in polar bear trophy imports that occurred in 2007 because most
hunters knew what was coming, and in 2007 we saw 112 polar bear
trophies imported, more than a doubling of the previous year's
number, which was 52, and the year before that, which was 60,
so most hunters knew what was at stake. They knew what they had
to do.
Now, we may say it is problematic when a species is merely
proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act that all
of a sudden there is a surge in killing that species, but that
is what the hunters were expected to do. They knew what they
had to do in order to get in early, get in their polar bear
hunt, get under the wire and make sure that their trophy was
imported.
For the 41 individuals who are now claiming that they are
seeking relief from Congress, it is really just the result of
poor planning on their part, and we should not allow the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
protections to be weakened just because a few dozen individuals
did not plan properly.
So we oppose this legislation. We strongly urge the
Subcommittee to reject it, and we thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markarian follows:]
Statement of Michael Markarian, Chief Operating Officer,
The Humane Society of the United States, on H.R. 1054
I am Michael Markarian, chief operating officer of The Humane
Society of the United States, and I want to thank you, Chairwoman
Bordallo, and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify in opposition to H.R. 1054, a bill to amend the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972 to allow importation of certain polar bear
trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada. On behalf of The HSUS, the
nation's largest animal protection organization, and our more than 11
million supporters, we strongly oppose this legislation, which would
roll back polar bear conservation efforts and set a dangerous precedent
for gutting the protections provided under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Overview of the Threats to Polar Bears
The polar bear has been protected in the U.S. since 1972, when the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was passed, which prohibited the
killing of and trade in all marine mammals, including the hunting or
importation of sport-hunted polar bears. Unfortunately, in 1994 the
trophy hunting lobby tore a loophole in the MMPA, allowing more than
900 sport-hunted polar bear trophies to be imported into the U.S. from
Canada since 1997.
In May 2008, the polar bear was listed as ``threatened'' under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and from that point on the MMPA prohibited
all importation of sport-hunted polar bears into the U.S., as polar
bears are now considered ``depleted'' under that statute. These bears
are under serious threat from global climate change and should not be
forced to contend with systematic pressure from trophy hunters to roll
back long-sought protections.
Melting Sea Ice
A decline in polar bear numbers in recent years has been linked to
the retreat of sea ice--a critical hunting ground for polar bears--and
its formation later in the year. Warming temperatures also break up sea
ice earlier, and this trend is expected to continue. The Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment reported in 2004 that the covering of summer ice in
the Arctic has shrunk by 15 to 20 percent in the past 30 years and that
decline is expected to accelerate. Further predicted reductions of 10
to 15 percent of annual sea ice and 50 to 100 percent of summer sea ice
in the next 50 to 100 years present a considerable threat to the
species.
Melting ice has forced bears to swim longer distances to obtain
food, which may exhaust them, leading to drowning, and it has resulted
in a decreased prey base. Polar bears have been forced ashore before
they have had time to build up sufficient fat stores, resulting in
thinner, stressed bears, decreased reproductive rates, and lower
juvenile survival rates.
Some scientists believe that in five years the Arctic may be ice
free during the summer.
Pollutants
The Arctic is also considered a ``sink'' for environmental
contaminants, including heavy metals and organochlorines, which are
carried northward in rivers, oceans and air currents. These toxins are
accumulated at higher levels along the food chain and researchers have
found high levels of pollutants in polar bears, which can severely
compromise the animals' health and reproductive capacity. The lead
author of a study recently published in the Journal of Zoology, which
details the problem of polar bears becoming smaller due to these
environmental threats, stated that polar bear is ``one of the most
contaminated individuals in the world.''
Starvation and Cannibalism
There are increasing reports of starving polar bears in the Arctic
attacking and feeding on one another. In 2006, a new study by American
and Canadian scientists reviewed three examples of polar bears preying
on each other. One incident was documented in 2004 in Alaska, in which
a male polar bear broke into the den of a female polar bear and killed
her shortly after she gave birth. During 24 years of research in
northern Alaska's southern Beaufort Sea region and 34 years in
northwest Canada, the researchers had never before seen incidents of
polar bears stalking, killing and eating other polar bears. One of the
researchers stated, ``It's very important new information. It shows in
a really graphic way how severe the problem of global warming is for
polar bears.''
Population Declines
The over-hunting of adult polar bears can cause a catastrophic
crash in their population. Well over half of the polar bear populations
are either of unknown, severely reduced, or declining status. The
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of
Threatened Species cites ``a potential risk of over-harvest due to
increased quotas, excessive quotas or no quotas in Canada and Greenland
and poaching in Russia.'' According to the results of a 2009 meeting of
the Polar Bear Specialist Group, part of the IUCN, of the 19 discrete
polar bear populations worldwide, only one, in the Canadian high
Arctic, is increasing, while eight are declining. Three populations
appeared to be stable, while seven are too poorly monitored to know
their status. The previous meeting in 2005 concluded that only five
populations were in decline at that time.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the world's population of
20,000 to 25,000 polar bears will decline sharply as their habitat
continues to shrink. As their habitat melts, polar bears will struggle,
lead shorter lives, produce fewer or no offspring, and the survival
rate of their offspring will be reduced. Steven Amstrup of the USGS
stated, ``Our results have demonstrated that as the sea ice goes, so
goes the polar bear.'' He stated that polar bears in their southern
range will die off first as sea ice melts, as they are forced to come
ashore earlier in the year, facing food shortages before they have
stored enough fat to last through the season.
Hunters Were Well Aware of the Risks to Trophy Imports
The trophy hunters who claim they were harmed by the threatened
listing had sufficient warning that the polar bear might be listed and
that their trophy import applications might be denied. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed to list the polar bear in January
2007, triggering an ESA requirement that the USFWS finalize the listing
by January 2008--and the entire process was highly publicized. The
actual listing did not occur until months later, in May 2008.
In fact, most if not all of the 41 polar bear trophies that would
be affected by H.R. 1054 were shot in bad faith, since the dates of the
sport hunts occurred in late 2007 or early 2008--after the agency and
hunting groups provided ample warning that trophy imports might soon be
barred.
Case Pending in Federal Court
This very issue of whether to allow sport-hunted polar bear trophy
imports has been raised and is now being considered by a federal court.
In 2008, as part of the litigation over USFWS's listing decision,
several hunting groups asked a federal court to order the USFWS to
allow the importation of trophies of bears killed prior to the ESA
listing. Judge Wilken of the Northern District of California denied the
request on procedural grounds. Judge Wilken specifically noted that
hunters had fair warning of the impending ESA listing and ``assumed the
risk...they would be unable to import their trophies'' by continuing
with their hunts. The same issue is now before the D.C. District Court.
The USFWS, under the Bush Administration, argued strongly in court
against requiring the agency to allow polar bear imports. The
government responded to the hunters' request by noting that allowing
importation would severely undermine current MMPA provisions. The MMPA
specifically prohibits the importation of any ``depleted'' animal,
regardless of when the animal was taken.
The government's brief in the case noted, ``As a result of the
polar bear's depleted status under the MMPA, no importation of polar
bear trophies from Canada is permitted...The Court should decline to
order Defendants to grant special permission for the import of polar
bear trophies...''
The agency added, ``Therefore, when [the USFWS] issued the final
rule listing the polar bear as threatened under the ESA with an
immediate effective date, the polar bear automatically gained depleted
status under the MMPA as of May 15, 2008. Because the polar bear now
has depleted status under the MMPA, the statute specifically precludes
importation of polar bears or polar bear parts except for scientific
research purposes, photography for educational or commercial purposes,
or enhancing the survival or recovery of the species. See id.
Sec. 1371(a)(3)(B). Importation of sport-hunted trophies under Section
1374(c)(5) is not included in the list of allowable exceptions.''
The USFWS also noted that allowing the importation of sport-hunted
polar bear trophies from Canada ``would be inappropriate'' because the
agency would have to go back and process applications for some pre-
listing trophies, which ``would be burdensome for [the agency], and
confusing for the regulated community.'' Further, the USFWS explained
that, in order to allow importation, the agency would have to withdraw
and amend the listing rule, which ``would be inequitable'' given the
substantial time and resources the agency spent finalizing the rule. If
H.R. 1054 is enacted, the USFWS may indeed need to amend the listing
rule to clarify the status of polar bear trophies killed prior to
listing, requiring yet more agency resources.
Repeated Warnings by Hunting Groups
Even the largest hunting organizations warned their members
repeatedly, ensuring that trophy hunters who shot polar bears prior to
their listing under the ESA were given more than sufficient notice
about the impending listing. Conservation Force, a group leading the
campaign to allow the importation of additional sport-hunted polar bear
trophies into the U.S., repeatedly issued stern, unambiguous warnings
to its members. In the group's December 2007 newsletter, which was e-
mailed to members in November, nearly six months before the species was
listed, it stated:
``American hunters are asking us whether they should even look at
polar bear hunts in light of the current effort by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service to list this species as threatened. The listing,
you'll recall, will trigger provisions in the Marine Mammal Protection
Act banning all polar bear trophy imports to the US,'' and that even
though it was unclear what the final outcome would be, ``[t]he bottom
line is, no American hunter should be putting hard, non-returnable
money down on a polar bear hunt at this point. Also, Americans with
polar bear trophies still in Canada need to get them home soon or risk
losing them...the threat to polar bear hunting is real and imminent.''
1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Newsletter. December
2007. Volume 27, Number 12. Page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Conservation Force's newsletter the following month, members
were adamantly warned: ``It may be the end of the world as we know it''
and ``the end of the modern world in which we live.'' 2
Members were also warned that ``we feel compelled to tell you that
American trophy hunters are likely to be barred from importing bears
they take this season. Moreover, there is a chance that bears taken
previous to this season may be barred as well. American clients with
polar bear trophies still in Canada or Nunavut need to get those bears
home.'' 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Bulletin. January
2008. Volume 28, Number 1. Page 2.
\3\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Extra Bulletin.
January 9, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March, Conservation Force warned its members: ``Make no
mistake...there is still a real possibility the polar bear is going to
be listed.'' 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Extra Bulletin.
March 6, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April, Conservation Force told its members, ``Many hunters have
forgone their hunts rather than risk that the bear may be listed and
trophy imports will probably be prohibited to all hunters who don't
have a permit in hand before the effective date of the final listing
rule.'' 5 In a bulletin titled ``Grim News For Polar Bear
Hunters,'' Conservation Force stated that ``[t]he bottom line here is,
the service is widely expected to list some or all of the polar bear
populations as threatened next month, and that will stop all imports of
those listed immediately.'' After Conservation Force personally called
the USFWS, it was confirmed that ``No already-permitted bears would be
allowed into the U.S. after May 15. End of story. As for unpermitted
bears, the news was even more bleak. At this point, there was no time
to even get a permit.'' 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Bulletin. April
2008. Volume 28, Number 4. Page 1.
\6\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Extra Bulletin.
April 29, 2008.y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safari Club International members were informed about the potential
listing in no less than eight different newsletters sent from the
organization,
7,8,9,
10,11,12,
13 including one that stated, ``If some or all of the polar
bear populations are listed, the FWS has indicated that imports of
trophies from any listed populations would be barred as of that date,
regardless of where in the process the application is.'' 14
The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance also informed its members in at least one
of its newsletters. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Safari Club International. ``SCI Action Alert'' E-mail.
September 21, 2007.
\8\ Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin. October 4, 2007.
\9\ Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin. October 19, 2007.
\10\ Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin. October 23, 2007.
\11\ Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin. January 7, 2008.
\12\ Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin. February 22, 2008.
\13\ Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin. April 17, 2008.
\14\ Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin. April 29, 2008.
\15\ U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. ``On Target'' e-mail newsletter.
October 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After being given more than a year of notice from the USFWS and
warnings from various hunting organizations, some chose to either book
a hunt in the few months prior to the listing, or chose to wait to
submit an application to import their trophies even after the species
was listed. These individuals did so at their own risk.
In fact, the number of polar bear trophies imported into the U.S.
rose dramatically in advance of the listing--to 112 trophies in 2007,
more than doubling the previous year's number of 52 imports. The
hunting groups were urging people to get their polar bears before the
listing took effect, and that's clearly what most hunters did. These
last few bears killed simply represent poor planning on the part of a
few hunters who didn't listen, when most of their counterparts knew
what was coming and rushed in to get their bears. It's a self-inflicted
problem, and now they're crying over spilt milk.
H.R. 1054 Would Harm Polar Bear Conservation Efforts
H.R. 1054 is essentially an attempt by trophy hunters to repeat
history and amend the MMPA to allow the importation of sport-hunted
polar bear trophies, as they did 15 years ago. The original Act of 1972
barred the importation of all marine mammal parts, including polar
bears--the same law that prohibits American citizens from bringing
whale meat back from Japan or seal fur back from Canada. But the trophy
hunters and their congressional allies successfully punched a gaping
loophole through the law in 1994, and opened the door to polar bear
heads and hides.
And they made the same arguments back then that they're making now.
Law-abiding hunters shot their polar bears legally in Canada, they
said, and the trophies were just sitting in storage, so it wouldn't
hurt just to let them transport those already-dead bears across the
border. The problem was that this policy change opened the floodgates
to more and more American trophy hunters trekking north to get the
prized bear--many of them competing for the Safari Club's ``Bears of
the World'' award--and in that decade and a half, more than 900 polar
bear trophies were imported from Canada.
Now that the polar bear has been listed as a threatened species,
the ban on imports has been restored. But trophy hunters are making the
same tired argument that they made in 1994. H.R. 1054 is being cast as
a private relief measure to help 41 hunters bring in their personal
trophies, but in reality the legislation would roll back a federal
policy and provide even more incentive for American trophy hunters to
accelerate the killing of species with pending ESA listing decisions
and, when import of the trophies are barred, make the same personal
appeal to Congress over and over again.
Importing Trophies is Inconsistent with Conservation
Further, although the MMPA generally prohibits the importation of
depleted species, the law provides specific procedures for importing
these animals. A depleted species may be imported if the importation is
likely to ``enhance'' the species' survival by ``contribut[ing]
significantly to...increasing distribution'' of animals. Congress
crafted this narrow exception to ensure that only importations that
actually benefit species are permitted. If trophy hunters are allowed
to circumvent this process, Congress's carefully limited exceptions are
rendered meaningless.
The U.S. does not allow sport hunting of polar bears in Alaska, and
only Alaskan natives are allowed to hunt these bears for subsistence.
American trophy hunters cannot legally shoot polar bears at home, and
should not be encouraged to add to the mortality of polar bears in
other countries. Only a few dozen Americans participate in the trophy
hunting of Canadian polar bears. The millions of sportsmen and gun
owners in the U.S. are not impacted by this issue.
The MMPA had barred the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies
between 1972 and 1994, and that ban has now been restored. The MMPA
does not allow trophy imports of walruses, whales, or other marine
mammals. It would be inconsistent with American conservation law to
allow the importation of polar bear trophies.
Additionally, trophy hunting is harmful to the survival of polar
bears. Polar bears rely on high adult survivorship to maintain
populations. Sport hunters target the largest and most fit animals and
are not always able to distinguish females from males in the field.
These animals may be critical to ensuring the survival of polar bear
populations under stress from climate change and habitat degradation.
Before the passage of the MMPA, sport hunting was identified as the
primary or sole cause of polar bear population declines in places such
as Alaska. Once sport hunting was prohibited in the U.S., some
populations began to recover.
Commercial hunting is an incentive for higher polar bear mortality.
An American trophy hunter pays about $35,000 for a polar bear hunt in
Nunavut. Because the sport hunts are highly lucrative, Canadian
wildlife managers may feel pressure to increase quotas beyond
sustainable levels. In 2005, Nunavut increased hunting quotas by 29%,
despite concerns expressed by polar bear researchers that the increase
in take could be harmful to the populations.
Finally, there is no evidence that money charged for polar bear
hunting permits is essential to local communities or wildlife
conservation. An August 2005 article in the Nunatsiaq News, a Nunavut
newspaper, concluded that ``most of the [financial benefits from sport
hunts] never reach Inuit hands, and when they do, those earnings vary
substantially from community to community.'' Even if a portion of the
money went to polar bear conservation, it is still unsustainable for
sport hunters to kill a species that is threatened by climate change
and vanishing habitat. Saving these bears will not come from money
derived from killing them, but from eliminating the financial
incentives to increase the quotas and from protecting their habitat.
And even if the 41 sport-hunted polar bear trophies affected by
H.R. 1054 somehow aided polar bear conservation efforts, which is
unlikely, there would be no additional conservation value by allowing
their importation. Denying these imports would not lead to a refund for
hunters, who knew the financial risks they were taking when they paid
to shoot the bears.
CITES Protection
The USFWS is considering submitting a proposal to protect polar
bears from international trade at next year's meeting of the Parties to
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). The proposal would transfer the polar bear
from CITES Appendix II, which allows regulated international commercial
trade, to Appendix I, which prohibits all international commercial
trade in the listed species. The purpose of CITES is to prevent over-
exploitation of species through international trade.
The Appendix I designation would mean that countries agree to
prohibit international trade for primarily commercial purposes and thus
ensure that international trade will not contribute to the ongoing
decrease in polar bear numbers. The announcement that the USFWS is
seriously considering submitting this proposal illustrates the fact
that the polar bear is seriously threatened with extinction and
affected by international trade, and that recent protections granted
under the ESA should not be stripped away.
The USFWS should be praised for listing this important and
imperiled species under the ESA. Now that the agency is considering a
proposal to move polar bears from Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES,
it's time to give polar bears greater protection, not less.
Conclusion
In summary, the passage of H.R. 1054 would reward a few dozen
individuals who gambled at their own risk, and attempted to game the
system knowing that the door would soon be closed to polar bear trophy
imports, as it was previously for more than two decades. The ESA and
MMPA protections should not be subverted simply to pacify a handful of
trophy hunters who, with full knowledge that the species would likely
be listed because of serious threats to its survival, chose to ignore
all warnings from the U.S. government, animal protection organizations
and hunting groups, and pursue a bearskin rug for their trophy room.
It's a self-inflicted problem, yet they are asking Congress for a
government bail-out.
We shouldn't allow the importation of threatened or endangered
species trophies just because they're stockpiled in a warehouse and the
animals have already been killed. Whether its elephant ivory or polar
bear pelts, each time we allow trade in these protected species, we
resuscitate the market for these items, increase the incentive for
poaching and sport hunting, and make it harder for law enforcement to
crack down on trafficking in wildlife contraband. Thus, even if these
41 trophies in question don't harm polar bear populations since the
animals are already dead, the cumulative impacts of shooting more and
more bears, putting the trophies in storage, and continuing to ask
Congress to allow imports over and over again, are severe and set a
dangerous precedent.
Congress should resist the temptation to interfere with the ongoing
legal cases the trophy hunters themselves chose to initiate, and should
reject this same pattern of behavior that was used to amend the MMPA in
1994 and allow the commercial killing of hundreds of polar bears for
trophies. Allowing imports, driven by personal stories, has always been
the tack of the trophy hunting groups and it's precisely what has
allowed all of this killing by Americans to occur. Congress should send
a strong message that this behavior will not be tolerated and that
imperiled species deserve protection. In order for the MMPA protections
and ESA listings to have meaning, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to
reject H.R. 1054.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Michael Markarian,
Chief Operating Officer, Humane Society of the United States
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
1. Isn't sport hunting good for conservation? Won't people protect a
species to ensure it's always available for sport hunting and
to protect the income they derive from it?
This has not been true historically for polar bears. In the 1950s
and 1960s, as Dr. Moritz of the Safari Club testified, polar bears
numbered perhaps as low as 5,000 animals. This was because of sport
hunting--due to their ecology and high juvenile mortality, polar bears
as a species require high adult survivorship to maintain their numbers
and the sport hunter's preference for targeting large, full-grown
robust bears (most likely the very bears the population needs to
survive environmental perturbations such as pollution and climate
change) caused a catastrophic crash in population. The 1973
International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears was largely
a result of this situation. After sport hunting ended in most countries
(and declined in Canada), the polar bear population began to recover.
More recently, at least one population, M'Clintock Channel, was being
over-hunted by sport hunters (not by subsistence hunters) until the
population reached such a low level that managers finally responded by
lowering the quota.
Regardless of whether or not sport hunting is ``good'' for
conservation for other species, which is highly debatable, not all
species are alike. For polar bears, sport hunting has been a
significant contributor to declines in the past. Today, polar bear
sport hunting is so lucrative for commercial outfitters that there is a
huge incentive to apply strong pressure on managers to maintain
unsustainably high quotas (as occurred in M'Clintock Channel), which is
not good for polar bear conservation.
Moreover, we have seen no evidence that money charged for polar
bear hunting permits is essential to local communities or wildlife
conservation. An August 2005 article in the Nunatsiaq News (http://
www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/50826/news/nunavut/50826_12.html), a Nunavut
newspaper, concluded that ``most of the spoils never reach Inuit hands,
and when they do, those earnings vary substantially from community to
community.'' The funds are pocketed by commercial outfitters, and spent
on transportation, hunting gear, and other incidentals--not spent on
conservation.
Simply put, sport hunting of polar bears and the commercial trade
in polar bear parts must cease altogether if the polar bear is to
survive the multitude of threats it faces, including the loss of
essential sea ice habitat.
2. Hunting groups say that polar bear numbers are increasing. How can
both sides of this debate make such diametrically opposed
statements about the polar bear population?
According to the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (and also Dr.
Moritz's testimony), the official estimate of the world's population of
polar bears is 20,000-25,000 (see http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/). At
its most recent meeting in July 2009, the PBSG concluded that eight of
the twelve polar bear populations with data sufficient to estimate
trends were declining, three were stable, and only one was believed to
be increasing. The remaining seven populations (there are a total of
nineteen recognized in five countries) are of unknown status--they are
data deficient. (See http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/
15-Copenhagen.html.) The claim that polar bear numbers are increasing
is made ONLY by the trophy hunting community, and not by reputable
scientists. Resource managers, the scientific community, the
conservation community, and even many Native representatives do not
make this claim and the numbers used by trophy hunting groups have no
basis in the scientific literature. In other words, the rhetoric from
Safari Club and other groups isn't sound science, it just sounds like
science.
If we took the trophy hunters' claims on face value, since Canada
is the only country that allows sport hunting of polar bears, the other
four countries that have polar bear populations must be doing very
poorly since they do not allow sport hunting. This logic, of course, is
absurd. However, the PBSG continues to express serious concern for the
polar bear's future, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the
science to add up to a ``threatened'' status and a proposal for
increased protection through CITES, and even Natives (including those
who have said recently that they believe there are more bears out
there) are beginning to worry about the bear's future (and their own,
for that matter). The only debate about the status of polar bears is
inside the halls of the Safari Club--no one else is debating this
question.
Regardless of the cause of the polar bear's low population numbers
in the 1950s and 1960s, to compare today's population to the one from
50 years ago leaves out the middle of the story. Polar bear recovery
from the sport hunting collapse probably peaked in the 1980s-1990s.
Since then, there has been a second decline, believed by scientists to
be due to the effects of global warming (e.g., sea ice retreat),
pollution (which hits polar bears hard, as they are top predators and
toxins magnify up the food chain), and other habitat degradation. So
there are more bears today than there were in the 1950s, but FEWER
bears today than there were in the 1980s-1990s. Scientists do not know
how great the decline has been yet, because counting polar bears (see
above) is not simple or precise.
3. In his testimony, Dr. Moritz stated that this bill is not about the
future of polar bears, but only about these 40+ permits for
imports that were pending when the listing occurred. Do you
agree that there is no relationship between this bill and the
future conservation of polar bear populations?
H.R. 1054 is essentially an attempt by trophy hunters to repeat
history and amend the MMPA to allow the importation of sport-hunted
polar bear trophies, as they did 15 years ago. The original Act of 1972
barred the importation of all marine mammal parts, including polar
bears--the same law that prohibits American citizens from bringing
whale meat back from Japan or seal fur back from Canada. But the trophy
hunters and their congressional allies successfully punched a gaping
loophole through the law in 1994, and opened the door to polar bear
heads and hides.
And they made the same arguments back then that they're making now.
Law-abiding hunters shot their polar bears legally in Canada, they
said, and the trophies were just sitting in storage, so it wouldn't
hurt just to let them transport those already-dead bears across the
border. The problem was that this policy change opened the floodgates
to more and more American trophy hunters trekking north to get the
prized bear--many of them competing for the Safari Club's ``Bears of
the World'' award--and in that decade and a half, more than 900 polar
bear trophies were imported from Canada.
Now that the polar bear has been listed as a threatened species,
the ban on imports has been restored. But trophy hunters are making the
same tired argument that they made in 1994. H.R. 1054 is being cast as
a private relief measure to help 41 hunters bring in their personal
trophies, but in reality the legislation would roll back a federal
policy and provide even more incentive for American trophy hunters to
accelerate the killing of species with pending ESA listing decisions
and, when import of the trophies are barred, make the same personal
appeal to Congress over and over again.
The problem, of course, is the cumulative impact of these repeated
requests. Whether it's elephant ivory or polar bear pelts, each time we
allow trade in a protected species, we resuscitate the market for these
items, increase the incentive for poaching and sport hunting, and make
it harder for law enforcement to crack down on trafficking in wildlife
contraband. Trophy hunters are encouraged to kill more threatened and
endangered species and just keep them in storage until their
congressional allies can provide a government bail-out.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much, Mr. Markarian, for
your testimony.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. Oerter. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR ROGER OERTER,
U.S. AIR FORCE, RETIRED
Major Oerter. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, I
am here today as a voter and a citizen who suffered a taking of
my property because of Federal regulatory action. I appreciate
the opportunity today to tell my story.
I was a Major on active duty with the U.S. Air Force in
2007 when I decided to pursue the hunt of a lifetime, a polar
bear. I took out a home equity line of credit on my home and
booked the hunt for late April of 2008. This hunt, which
remains entirely legal under Canadian law, was to be a
retirement present to myself.
Though I could ill afford a trip of such expense, I
rationalized it as a once-in-a-lifetime luxury following a 29
year military career. The hunt costs have totaled over $41,000
thus far, nearly half of my 2008 annual military salary, but a
figure for which I was willing to go into debt as I have always
wanted to experience and enjoy one of the world's few remaining
adventures, a dogsled hunt north of the Arctic Circle.
Besides the adventure, I knew that my participation in this
hunt would help conserve the bear population and provide sorely
needed funds to the Inuit people. I was elated to have success
on this arduous and challenging hunt on the 1st of May, having
seen 39 bears in 10 days. I hope you understand I wanted to
bring home my bear to create a taxidermy mount as a memento of
this amazing experience, so I arranged for its transport back
to the United States before leaving Canada.
I had submitted my paperwork to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for the mandatory 30-day review when the Interior
Department listed the polar bear as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act. As a result of their decision, I am now
banned from importing this legally harvested polar bear into
the U.S. under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. With that, I
basically lost my investment in this trip.
While I will never lose the experience, the polar bear
mount, which would have been my lasting trophy, cannot happen
under current laws, and this regulation effectively confiscated
my polar bear. Right now the bear hide and skull are in cold
storage in Edmonton. I can't throw good money after bad by
having the taxidermy work done in Canada, and yet the longer
the hide sits unmounted in storage the greater risk that the
hide will be ruined.
I find it distressing that the government required me to
abide by a 30-day review period before importation, but itself
instantaneously changed its import policy. As a veteran of 10
contingency deployments during my Air Force career, including
Operation Southern Watch four times, Joint Forge/Joint Guardian
once, Enduring Freedom Philippines twice and Iraqi Freedom
three times, I am asking you to support enactment of H.R. 1054.
This simple bill will do only one thing. It will allow me
and the other similarly affected polar bear hunters in this
country to import the bears we legally hunted. It will not
change the ESA listing, and it will not allow future bear
imports. It will simply restore my property to my possession.
I ask you to support efforts to lift the restriction on
polar bear importation at the very least. It makes no sense in
regards to conservation or science. In the long run, the bears
will suffer as the Canadian Government will still issue
permits, but with no monetary value attached to them the Inuits
will have no incentive to take only mature males as is
currently done. The hunting will be solely for subsistence, and
females will be taken more often.
This issue is not about hunting. It is a simple matter of
returning property that was effectively taken by regulatory
action. I made an enormous investment in my polar bear
expedition, and the government has effectively stripped me of
my property. This is a deeply personal issue that has had an
enormous impact on me. I sincerely hope you will consider, co-
sponsor, and support enactment of H.R. 1054.
Finally, I would like to thank the Dallas Safari Club in
assisting me in my effort to testify today and appreciate the
position the club has taken to help move this legislation
forward.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you once again for the opportunity
to tell my story to the Committee. I appreciate your careful
consideration of this legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Major Oerter follows:]
Statement of Roger E. Oerter, Major, USAF, Retired
Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, I am here today as a
voter and a citizen who has suffered a taking of my property because of
federal regulatory action. I appreciate the opportunity today to tell
my story.
I was a Major on active duty with the U.S. Air Force in 2007 when I
decided to pursue the hunt of a life time--the polar bear. I took out a
home equity line of credit on my home and booked a hunt for late April,
2008. This hunt, which remains entirely legal under Canadian law, was
to be a retirement present to myself. Though I could ill afford a trip
of such expense, I rationalized it as a once-in-a-lifetime luxury
following a 29-year military career.
The hunt costs have totaled over $41,000 (thus far), nearly half of
my 2008 annual military salary, but a figure for which I was willing to
go into debt; as I've always wanted to experience and enjoy one of the
world's few remaining adventures--a dog-sled hunt north of the Arctic
Circle. Besides the adventure, I knew that my participation in this
hunt would help conserve the bear population and provide sorely needed
funds to the Inuit people.
I was elated to have success on this arduous and challenging hunt
on the 1st of May, having seen 39 bears in ten days. I hope you
understand, I wanted to bring home my bear to create a taxidermy mount
as a memento of this amazing experience. So I arranged for its
transport back to the United States before leaving Canada. I had
submitted my paperwork to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a
mandatory 30-day review period when the Interior Department listed the
polar bear as ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As
a result of their decision, U.S. hunters are now banned from importing
these legally-harvested polar bears into the U.S. under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. With that, I basically lost my investment in
this trip. While I'll never lose the experience, the polar bear mount
which would have been my lasting trophy cannot happen under current
laws, and this regulation effectively confiscated my polar bear. Right
now, the bear hide and skull are in cold storage in Edmonton. I can't
throw good money after bad by having the taxidermy work done in Canada,
and yet the longer the hide sits unmounted in storage, the greater the
risk that the hide will be ruined. I find it distressing that the
government required me to abide by a 30-day review period before
importation, but itself instantaneously changed its import policy.
As a veteran of ten contingency deployments during my Air Force
career, including Operations SOUTHERN WATCH (4 times), JOINT FORGE/
JOINT GUARDIAN (1), ENDURING FREEDOM-PHILIPPINES (2) and IRAQI FREEDOM
(3); I am asking you support enactment of H.R. 1054. This simple bill
will do only one thing--it will allow me and the other 42 similarly
affected bear hunters in this country to import the bears we legally
hunted. It will not change the ESA listing. It will not allow future
bear imports. It will simply restore my property to my possession.
I ask you to support efforts to lift the restriction on polar bear
importation at very least. It makes no sense in regards to conservation
or science. In the long run the bears will suffer, as the Canadian
government will still issue permits, but with no monetary value
attached to them, the natives will have no incentive to take only
mature males, as is currently done. The hunting will be solely for
subsistence, and females will be taken more often.
This issue is not about hunting. It's a simple matter of returning
property that was effectively taken by regulatory action. I made an
enormous investment in my polar bear expedition and the government has
effectively stripped me of my property. This is a deeply personal issue
that has had an enormous impact on me. I sincerely hope you will
consider, co-sponsor, and support enactment of H.R. 1054.
I would like to thank the Dallas Safari Club in assisting me in my
effort to testify today and appreciate the position the Club has taken
to help move this legislation forward.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you once again for the opportunity to tell
my story to the Committee. I appreciate your careful consideration of
this legislation.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Roger E. Oerter, Major, USAF,
Retired, follows:]
September 2009
The Honorable Don Young
US House of Representatives
2111 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Young:
I would like to again thank you personally for introducing H.R.
1054, amending the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow for
the importation of legally-harvested polar bears taken before 15 May,
2008. To assist in this effort, I would like to retell my story.
I was a Major on active duty with the U.S. Air Force in 2007 when I
heard that polar bear hunting could soon close due to political
posturing by opponents of sport hunting. Because I anticipated that
once closed, polar bear importation would not reopen in my lifetime; I
took out a home equity line of credit on my home and booked a hunt for
late April, 2008. This hunt was to be a retirement present to myself,
as I could ill afford a trip of such expense; but I rationalized it as
a once-in-a-lifetime luxury following a 29-year military career.
The hunt costs have totaled over $41,000 (thus far), nearly half of
my 2008 annual salary, but a figure for which I was willing to go into
debt; as I'd never get another chance to enjoy one of the world's few
remaining adventures--a dog-sled hunt for bear north of the Arctic
Circle. Besides the adventure, I knew that my participation in this
hunt helped conserve the bear population and provided sorely needed
funds to the Inuit people. Yet to protect myself against loss should
importation policy change, I talked to the outfitter often leading up
to my departure date. He said he would allow me to cancel up until the
day I left if laws or policies were enacted preventing my bringing the
bear back to the US. Nobody I talked to envisioned that legally-taken
bears wouldn't be grandfathered after any change.
I took my bear from the Lancaster Bay population on the 1st of May,
having seen 39 bears in ten days. I had started the paperwork with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for the 30-day review period when they made
their decision to suspend importation of already-taken bears. With that
decision, I basically lost my investment in this trip. While I'll never
lose the experience, the polar bear mount which would have been my
lasting trophy cannot happen under current laws. Right now, the bear
hide and skull are in cold storage in Edmonton. I can't throw good
money after bad by having the taxidermy work done in Canada, and yet
the longer the hide sits unmounted in storage, the greater the risk
that the hide will be ruined. I feel betrayed by a government that
requires a 30-day review, but can itself act instantly.
As a veteran of ten contingency deployments during my Air Force
career, including Operations SOUTHERN WATCH (4 times), JOINT FORGE/
JOINT GUARDIAN (1), ENDURING FREEDOM-PHILIPPINES (2) and IRAQI FREEDOM
(3), I implore you to continue your efforts to lift the restriction on
polar bear importation at very least. It makes no sense in regards to
conservation or science. The Inuit village of Grise Fiord will suffer.
In the long run, so will the bears, as the Canadian government will
still issue permits, but with no monetary value attached to them, the
natives will have no incentive to take only mature males, as is
currently done. If it helps, feel free to cite me as an example as you
try to secure co-sponsors and support in the U.S. Congress to right
this wrong.
Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Roger E. Oerter, Major, USAF, retired
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Roger Oerter on H.R.
1054
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
1. On September 21, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by
the International Fund for Animal Welfare. In it the Service reports
receiving a call from you on April 17, 2008 informing them that you
would depart for your polar bear sport hunt on April 22, 2008 and that
your hunt was scheduled for April 24th through May 8th. The Service
states that it informed you that a final decision on whether to list
the polar bear under the ESA was imminent and that they could not
guarantee that they could process your permit request in time to import
the trophy if a final decision were announced to list the polar bear.
Records show that the Service also told you that if the polar bear were
listed, all trophies would have to be imported by the effective date of
the listing regardless of whether you had received a permit to import
the trophy. Did the Service inform you that if the listing went into
effect no future trophy imports would be allowed?
Madam Chairwoman, the short answer is, ``No.'' The U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service Division of Management Authority sent me a letter
outlining what I needed to do to import my bear before I went on the
hunt. In this letter, they informed me of the proposal to list the
polar bear as ``threatened.'' The very next sentence read, ``IF polar
bears are listed, this may impact your ability to import your trophy.''
(The capitalized emphasis is in the original correspondence from the
Division of Management Authority, while the italicized emphasis is
mine.) So, this is hardly the absolute, carved-in-stone context that I
infer from your question. In fact, I was advised that the decision on
listing was imminent, but the USFWS would not advise me to cancel my
hunt (which I had the option from the outfitter to do, at no penalty to
me). What I was told was that, ``We can't guarantee that we can process
your permit request in time to import the trophy IF a final decision is
announced to list the polar bear.'' (Again, ``IF'' is capitalized for
emphasis in their letter.) The correspondence went on to say, ``If
listed, all trophies will have to be imported by the effective date of
the listing (typically 30-days (sic) from publication of the final
decision) regardless of whether you have received a permit to import
the bear.'' (Italicized emphasis added.) So, I was not only given no
absolutes, but I was led to believe that it would take some time to go
from announcement to publication of the listing decision, and that even
after it was published, I would have 30 days or perhaps more to get the
bear imported. They even told me to fill out the import permit
application ahead of time, leaving blank the date the bear was
harvested, so that the 30-day review period would start, which I did. I
was told to get the harvest date in to USFWS as soon as possible, which
I also did--the day I returned to the US. Then, the application could
be fast-tracked through as soon as the review period was complete.
2. The FOIA response also says that the Service received a voice mail
message from you on May 7, 2008, indicating that your hunt was
successful and that you had taken a bear on May 1st. According
to the Service, you also left a voice mail message on the 8th,
seeking guidance about: 1) what to submit in order for permit
application to be considered complete; and 2) information about
how the court decision would affect the import of your trophy.
Service staff returned your call on May 9, 2008 and informed
you of the April 28, 2008 U.S. District Court order requiring
the Service to publish the final decision on listing the polar
bear under the ESA on or before May 15th, Service records show,
and that the decision would become immediately effective on the
publication date. Service staff say they told you that although
the Service didn't yet know what that final decision would be,
if the decision were to list polar bears, all polar bear
trophies would have to be imported by the effective date
because under the MMPA, polar bears would be considered
``depleted'' if listed under the ESA, and the MMPA provision
that allows for the import of polar bear trophies would no
longer apply.
Did the Service tell you that since you hunted your polar bear on
May 1, 2008, and that the court-ordered deadline was May 15,
they would not be able to process your permit request in time
to import the trophy if a final decision were announced to list
the polar bear?
No. And at that time, it would have mattered little, as the bear
was already dead. The lead-in paragraph to this question shows that I
was exercising due diligence in this matter. The voice mail on the 8th
was intended to confirm that I had done everything in my power to
ensure the requirements for importation were met, to prevent from
happening exactly what has happened: my bear sitting in cold storage in
Canada, where it will deteriorate over time. And again, I was under the
impression that an announcement date on May 15th didn't necessarily
equate to a publication date.
3. Your import permit application was complete on May 12, 2008, three
days before the court-order deadline for the listing decision.
Given the fact that the application still would have to go
through the clearance process, would need to be sent to the
Federal Register for a 30-day comment period, did the Service
explain to you that it would not be possible to approve the
import of your trophy by May 15, 2008?
No. I was still under the impression that since I had filled out
the import permit ahead of time, at the recommendation of USFWS
Division of Management Authority, my 30-day comment period was
underway. And actually, I assumed my permit application was completed
on May 7th, the day I informed USFWS of the date of actual harvest of
the bear (the only piece of information missing in the application.)
This is the first time I've heard that it was not complete until the
12th.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you, Mr. Oerter, and especially for
your military service to our country.
Next we have Dr. Moritz, who is recognized to testify for
five minutes. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MORITZ, PH.D, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
SCIENCE-BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH, SAFARI CLUB
INTERNATIONAL
Dr. Moritz. Good morning. My name is Dr. William Moritz,
Director of Conservation for Safari Club International
Foundation and the Acting Director of Government Affairs for
Safari Club International.
I have a Bachelor's degree in Fisheries and Wildlife
Biology, a Master's degree in Fish and Wildlife Management and
a Doctorate in Zoology. I have worked in the field of wildlife
research and management for over 20 years prior to accepting my
current professional position.
Safari Club International protects the freedom to hunt and
promotes wildlife conservation worldwide. SCIF promotes, funds
and manages worldwide programs dedicated to wildlife
conservation, outdoor education and humanitarian services.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today on their behalf.
Madam Chair, the most important point that we would like to
make to this Subcommittee is that the question before the
Subcommittee is not the future of polar bears. It is only about
whether approximately 42 bears that were legally harvested by
U.S. citizens under the legal framework established by local
communities, the Government of Canada, and the polar bear range
states should be allowed into the United States and thereby
provide over $40,000 for polar bear research and management.
Canada, the United States and other range state governments
will continue extensive efforts to conserve and manage the
polar bear, including, but not limited to, the development of
and compliance with international agreement and domestic laws.
Multinational agencies and committed governments are already
dedicating significant resources to manage the polar bear and
to ensure its long-term sustainability. These efforts have
resulted in positive impacts to the polar bear, including
rebounding from possible population lows, as low as 5,000 bears
40 years ago, to today's population estimate of 20,000 to
25,000.
We should not lose focus on the purpose of H.R. 1054. The
issue today is whether a small number of harvested bears hunted
legally before the polar bear was listed as threatened should
be allowed to be imported. The obvious fact underlying the bill
to allow the import of already harvested polar bears is that
the bears are dead. No legislation will make them live again.
The harvest of these animals provided important income to
local native communities, which encouraged the communities to
value the polar bear even more and to better accept science-
based quotas on the appropriate levels of sustainable take. In
addition to much needed income, the animals provided meat and
employment to local communities to ensure native people will be
able to continue their way of life. Under U.S. law, allowing
the importation through permits will generate over $40,000 in
fees for much needed research on polar bears. This money will
be in addition to the more than $900,000 in import fees
generated since 1997.
This bill is not about climate change, even though some may
try to tell you that it is only about climate change. This bill
is not about the future hunting of polar bears. That question
will be left for another day. This bill will not affect the
population of polar bears at all.
This amendment is simple, straightforward and totally
unrelated to climate change and the future of polar bear
hunting. H.R. 1054 will allow approximately 42 citizens to
bring their legally harvested polar bears into the United
States and to contribute much needed revenue to polar bear
conservation. These citizens lost the ability to import their
personal property due to the arbitrary decision of the Federal
government.
This bill will do one thing and one thing only. It will
provide relief from this taking. We strongly urge the
Subcommittee to support H.R. 1054. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Moritz follows:]
Statement of Dr. William E. Moritz, Director of Conservation, Safari
Club International Foundation, Acting Director of Governmental Affairs,
Safari Club International, on H.R. 1054
Good morning. My name is Dr. William Moritz, Director of
Conservation for Safari Club International Foundation (SCIF) and acting
Director of Governmental Affairs for Safari Club International (SCI). I
have a Bachelors' degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, a Masters
degree in Fish and Wildlife Management, and a Doctorate in Zoology. I
worked in the field of wildlife research and management for over 20
years. SCI protects the freedom to hunt and promotes wildlife
conservation worldwide. SCIF funds and manages worldwide programs
dedicated to wildlife conservation, outdoor education and humanitarian
services. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, for allowing me to testify
today on their behalf.
Madam Chair, the most important point that we would like to make to
the Committee is that the question before the subcommittee is not the
future of polar bears, it is only about whether approximately 42 polar
bears that were legally harvested by U.S. citizens under the legal
framework established by local communities, the government of Canada,
and the polar bear range states in the 1973 international agreement on
conservation of polar bears, should be allowed into the United States
and thereby provide over $40,000 for polar bear research. Canada, the
United States, and other range state governments will continue
extensive efforts to conserve and manage the polar bear, including but
not limited to the development of and compliance with international
agreements and domestic laws. Multinational agencies and committed
governments are already dedicating significant resources to manage the
polar bear and to ensure its long-term sustainability. These efforts
have resulted in positive impacts to the polar bear, including
rebounding from possible population numbers as low as 5,000 bears 30-40
years ago to today's population of 20,000-25,000. Freeman, et al. 2006,
at page 21.
The issue today is only whether a small number of harvested bears
hunted legally before the polar bear was listed as threatened should be
allowed to be imported. The obvious fact underlying the bill to allow
the import of already harvested polar bears is that the bears are dead,
no legislation will make them live again. The harvest of these animals
provided important income to local native communities, which encouraged
the communities to value the polar bear even more and to better accept
science-based quotas on the appropriate levels of sustainable take. In
addition to much needed income, the animals provided meat and
employment to local communities to ensure native people will be able to
continue their way of life. Under U.S. law, allowing the importation
through permits will generate over $40,000 in fees for much needed
research on polar bears. This money will be in addition to the more
than $900,000 in import fees generated since 1997.
This bill is not about climate change even though some may try to
tell you that it is only about climate change. This bill is not about
future hunting of polar bears, that question will be left for another
day. This bill will not affect the population of polar bears at all.
This amendment is simple, straightforward and totally unrelated to
climate change and future of the polar bear.
It will allow approximately 42 citizens to bring their legally
harvested polar bears into the United States and to contribute much
needed revenue to polar bear conservation. These citizens lost the
ability to import their personal property due the arbitrary decision of
the federal government, and this bill will do one thing and one thing
only--it will provide relief from this taking. We strongly urge the
Subcommittee to support H.R. 1054.
Key points:
1. Polar bears harvested in Canada are taken under a legal
framework established by the government of Canada and approved under an
international agreement governing polar bear conservation worldwide.
Based on scientific knowledge, including local ecological knowledge,
Canada routinely sets quotas for polar bear harvests to be sustainable.
2. Prior to May 15, 2008, the date the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service listed the polar bear as threatened worldwide and imposed an
import ban, U.S. hunters could import polar bear trophies from six
populations in Canada approved by the FWS as having a sustainable and
well-managed conservation and hunting program.
3. Foreign sport hunters, including U.S. hunters, do not increase
polar bear mortality from hunting. These hunters use ``tags'' assigned
to local native communities based on these scientifically-determined
quotas. If the tags were not used for sport hunting, they would be used
for subsistence.
4. By bringing much needed cash to these remote native communities
(U.S. hunters generally spent between $30,000-50,000 per hunt), U.S.
hunters in particular helped encourage the local communities to support
science-based polar bear management efforts in Canada.
5. Under U.S. law, import permits provide important conservation
program funding of $1000 per permit. In the last 13 years, almost $1
million dollars has been contributed to research. The permits sought
for bears taken before the import ban went in effect would add over
$40,000 to current efforts in polar bear research.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much, Dr. Moritz.
We will now recognize Members for any questions that they
may wish to ask, alternating between the Majority and the
Minority and allowing five minutes for each Member.
At this time I ask unanimous consent to allow Congressman
Paul Broun, the gentleman from Georgia, to sit and participate
in this hearing. Hearing no opposition, so ordered.
I have some questions for Dr. Gould. There are many pending
lawsuits related to the listing decision and the import
prohibition. In one filing, the plaintiffs claim that the
Department misled the hunting community by leading them to
believe that the listing would not stop the import of trophies.
I just want a yes or a no. Is this accurate?
Dr. Gould. No.
Ms. Bordallo. OK. Along these lines, I would like to get
the fuller extent of the Fish and Wildlife Service's outreach
efforts following the publication of the proposed listing on
January 9, 2007. Could you please provide brief answers to the
following questions:
One, following the January 9, 2007, listing proposal did
the Service send staff to the Safari Club International's
annual conventions in both January 2007 and 2008, and what did
the staff tell people regarding the proposed listing?
Dr. Gould. We did provide people for both of those
conventions, 2007 and 2008. We indicated to folks that a
decision was imminent on listing the polar bear. There was no
indication whether the decision would be either positive or
negative.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Another question I have. In your
testimony you said that in January 2008 the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Division of Management Authority fielded a large
number of telephone and email communications on this issue,
including inquiries from hunters, Canadian outfitters and the
media. What did you tell them regarding the proposed listing?
Dr. Gould. That a decision was imminent on whether we were
going to list the polar bear or not. Again, there was no
indication of whether there was going to be a positive or
negative finding. It would have been inappropriate for us to
opine at that time.
Ms. Bordallo. And you also said that on May 5, 2008,
Service staff attempted to call those individuals who had
already been authorized to import a trophy, but may not have
done so, to inform them that an ESA listing might go into
effect on or before May 5, 2008. Did all of these permit
holders succeed in importing their bears?
Dr. Gould. No, they did not. There were 43 I believe
permits outstanding. Forty-one are where there was legally
taken bears in approved areas that had applied for permits that
had completed their hunts before May 15, but we don't know if
anybody----
If I am answering your question, we don't know if other
people we called had--there were five pending at the time, but
beyond that we do not know if there were other people that had
legally taken bears, but had not submitted permits by that
period of time.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. And then one other question for
the record. What other outreach efforts did the Service conduct
between January 2007 and the May 15, 2008, listing decision?
Dr. Gould. Listing the decision?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Listing decision.
Dr. Gould. Oh.
Ms. Bordallo. I am sorry.
Dr. Gould. There was an extensive comment period that was
the result of the listing process for polar bear, so there was
extensive public comment and there was extensive notification
to both the environmental community, the other NGO's, other
stakeholders that the listing process was moving forward.
But again I have to always qualify that by saying Fish and
Wildlife Service at no time before the decision was made
indicated whether the decision was either pro listing or
positive listing or a negative listing action.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you. I have one minute left
here, and I would like to ask a question to Mr. Crystal.
Your testimony states that most, if not all, of the 40 or
so hunters who had submitted permit applications before the
listing on May 15, 2008, could not have obtained import permits
even if the Judge ordered the customary 30-day delay in the
effectiveness of the rule, given the notice and comment process
involved in approving a permit application.
As you heard earlier, the Service believes many could have
been approved. Can you elaborate on why you do not agree with
the Service on this point?
Mr. Crystal. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. I will start by saying
that the reason why, and I think this is critical to this
issue, that the listing went into effect immediately, that was
as part of this litigation that was going on about the listing
of the polar bear and a decision was made to have the listing
go into effect immediately.
There still is pending litigation over that issue about
whether the listing should have been effective immediately or
whether the 30-day grace period should be in effect, and that
is an issue, among many others, that still could be resolved in
the litigation.
Now, to answer your specific question, the regulatory
scheme provides for a notice and comment period, some of which
had started to take place, and there were Federal Register
notices. It also provides for a hearing opportunity, so I think
it overstates the case to suggest that it definitely would have
been the case that these permits would have been granted. I
think the best that can be said, given the existing regulatory
scheme, is that it is unclear what would have happened as a
result of a delay.
And the existence of the immediate listing was a
consequence of the litigation. The Judge made a ruling that it
was appropriate for the species to be listed at that time.
These same kind of arguments were made to the Court and the
Court rejected them. It is an issue that is still pending and
could be resolved there.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. I now recognize the
Ranking Member for any questions he may have.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Dr. Gould, in your testimony you state the Administration
does not oppose this legislation to allow those hunters that
applied for a permit to import their trophies, but you go on to
say the Administration does not support H.R. 1054 as currently
written. What changes need to be made to the bill for the
Administration to support the passage?
Dr. Gould. We would like to work with the Subcommittee to
specifically get language that does not lead to a person that
took a bear that had not applied for a permit to be included in
those list of folks that would receive their trophies. That is
the only issue.
Mr. Young. Dr. Gould, I thought my bill did that. If it did
not, though, you can provide the language correctly that would
only allow the 41 that had applied for a permit and yet were
disallowed to import them. That is what you are saying?
Dr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Well, I am sure the Chairwoman would work with
you also. That is what my interest is in.
Dr. Gould, again if it were not for the Court order which
required an immediate effective date, to go back to the
lawyers--I don't like lawyers; I want you to know that--how
long would the Fish and Wildlife Service have given the hunters
who legally hunted a polar bear prior to May 15 and applied for
a permit to bring in the trophies?
Dr. Gould. Normally we allow 30 to 60 days' grace period
before an effective action under the ESA goes into effect when
we make a listing decision, the final decision is made. In this
case, as has been indicated, the Court ordered the immediate
effect of the action on May 15, so therefore there was no grace
period.
Mr. Young. I appreciate that. Mr. Markarian, does your
organization support hunting prior to the May 15 ESA listing?
Mr. Markarian. Excuse me, sir?
Mr. Young. Did you support hunting prior to the May 15 ESA
listing?
Mr. Markarian. Congressman, I think you know our position.
Mr. Young. You don't support hunting.
Mr. Markarian. We do not support the hunting of polar bears
in the Arctic.
Mr. Young. Do you support any hunting?
Mr. Markarian. We are not against all hunting. We are
against----
Mr. Young. Which hunting do you support?
Mr. Markarian. We are not against----
Mr. Young. Which hunting do you support?
Mr. Markarian. Subsistence hunting in your State of Alaska
we have no problem with. We don't focus on hunting issues
generally. We focus on inhumane and unsporting practices, and
every bill we have ever supported dealt with practices that we
believe----
Mr. Young. The answer is you don't support hunting.
Mr. Markarian. We are the Humane Society. We don't
encourage people to hunt for fun, but we don't work on those
practices.
Mr. Young. Mr. Oerter, you had 10 tours of duty. How did
you find time to participate in this bear hunt? Were you
retired?
Major Oerter. No, Congressman. I was a member of the Air
Force's Combat Search and Rescue community. CSAR, as it is
called, is a low density, high demand career in the Air Force.
There are very few of us; but anywhere there are American
troops in harm's way, we were required to be there.
Because we are spread so thin, our tours of duty are
generally a lot shorter than most. Where the Army goes for 18
months or 15 months, we go for normally four to five months.
Mr. Young. OK. How long did it take you to acquire your
polar bear tag for the native village?
Major Oerter. I started the process in January of 2007, and
I went on the hunt the following year right before----
Mr. Young. It took you about a year?
Major Oerter. Yes.
Mr. Young. OK. Good. Doctor, one of the things I am
interested in is I mentioned in my opening statement 20,000
bears in the year 1970 and now 23,000. What do you attribute to
the growth in the polar bear population?
Dr. Moritz. The careful management that range states have
undertaken over the last 20, 30, 40 years has resulted in the
increase in numbers.
It is that sort of careful management and establishment of
quotas, recognizing the sustainable use both by the local
communities and by the hunters, to ensure that these
populations are as well managed as they possibly can.
Mr. Young. Now, if I may. I don't have much time left, but
I am actually one of the few people in this room that ever
killed a polar bear, in 1964; but what we have found is that if
we have a value on the polar bear boar, the polar bear sow and
cubs are not taken for subsistence because there is a value on
the boar.
That serves two purposes. It not only protects the sow and
the cubs from human consumption; it also protects them from the
boar itself because the boar will try to kill the cubs so that
the sow goes into heat and they can have another cub, so
actually the population has increased about 3,000 bears in
Canada over where it was prior to the instigation of this
management principle. That is just a little bit of information.
I am sure you are aware of it.
Dr. Moritz. Sure.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My time is up.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman for his questions. Mr.
Kratovil----
Mr. Kratovil. No.
Ms. Bordallo.--from Maryland has no questions. Then I would
like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am going to go
to Dr. Gould and just ask did the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service at any time tell hunters prior to the imminent ESA
listing that they shouldn't go on these polar bear hunts?
I know you spoke a little bit about going to the Safari
Club International convention and letting folks know about the
imminence of the ESA listing, but was there any communication
with folks pursuing hunts about saying that they shouldn't go
on a hunt due to the imminence of a determination of the ESA
listing?
Dr. Gould. As I understand it from the folks I have talked
to--of course, I am not privy to all conversations, but the
folks that I have talked to that participated in the outreach--
they never at any point said you should not go on a hunt. They
said that there was a listing action coming up. Should that
action be positive for the bear then the imports of trophies
would be affected.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Dr. Gould.
Major Oerter, thank you again for your service to our
nation. We deeply, deeply appreciate that. Let me ask you. Did
you have any type of communication from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service up until or after your hunt?
Major Oerter. Yes. Yes, sir. Actually I had been in almost
constant contact with the Division of Management Authority's
policy specialist, and she had been telling me to get my permit
application started even before I went on the hunt and then
when I came back it would already be in the review process and
all I would need to do is fill in the actual date that the bear
was taken and I would get a jump start.
From that point she said with a 30-day review period that
will be plenty of time for these bears to get fast tracked
through the system and get imported.
Mr. Wittman. Were you ever notified then of the imminent
ESA listing or ever told that you shouldn't go on the hunt or
that there might be some issues there if you went on the hunt?
Major Oerter. I was notified that the ESA listing might be
forthcoming, but again if I get my process started now I will
have time enough to import the bear, and it was only after the
bear was down and I was back on duty that I was notified the
date of the listing and that it was an immediate listing.
Mr. Wittman. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back
my time.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Now we
would like to recognize Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
appreciate it.
Ms. Bordallo. Go ahead.
Mr. Chaffetz. And thank you all for being here. I
appreciate your time and consideration.
Mr. Markarian? Sorry. I am terrible with names, but
Chaffetz. I am used to it getting slaughtered as well.
Mr. Young. Better than being chaffed.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, better than being chaffed. Yes. Exactly.
Ms. Bordallo. So am I with my name.
Mr. Chaffetz. Is there any doubt in your mind about the 40?
We keep talking about the 41 trophies that were taken in my
opinion legally. Would you dispute? Are they taken legally or
illegally in your mind?
Mr. Markarian. Well, I think the issue for us, Congressman,
is whether----
Mr. Chaffetz. It is just a yes/no question.
Mr. Markarian. If they were taken legally in Canada, that
doesn't mean they can be legally imported into the U.S.
Mr. Chaffetz. OK. The question was whether they were taken
legally under U.S. law, yes or no? My understanding is the
answer is yes. Is there anything to refute that?
Mr. Markarian. Under Canadian law. these were legally
hunted bears in Canada.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Crystal? Same question.
Mr. Crystal. Yes. The answer to your question is yes, and
that is true today as well. A polar bear is killed today in
Canada. The killing of the polar bear does not violate U.S.
law.
The import is the only restriction that we have that
enables us to impact the treatment of polar bears in Canada.
That is as true today as it was before the listing.
Mr. Chaffetz. We are talking about polar bears that were
taken before the enactment on May 15, 2008, because I think the
legislation is very clear on page 2, line 17, with legally
harvested by the person before May 15, 2008, and it goes on
from there.
What in your mind do you suggest we do with polar bears
that were taken before that date while it was still legal based
on U.S. law? What would you suggest we do with the trophies
that are currently out there?
Mr. Markarian. Congressman, I think the issue is that----
Mr. Chaffetz. No, no. I am asking you the question and the
issue. Don't change my question. I want you to answer my
question.
Mr. Markarian. What should we do with the trophies? The
hunters who took those bears did so at their on risk. Those
trophies are in storage.
Mr. Chaffetz. Wait a minute. I am asking you about the
existing trophies that are here in the United States. My
understanding is that the Fish and Wildlife Service has polar
bear trophies on display in their offices and whatnot. Do you
think that is inappropriate?
Mr. Crystal. The import of course of the polar bear, which
is the question we are asking----
Mr. Chaffetz. No. The question I am asking is the existing
trophies. Do you think it is inappropriate for them to be on
display?
Mr. Crystal. I have no view one way or the other about
whether it is inappropriate for them to be on display. I am
sure that there is some permit associated with it. There are
permits that one can obtain for both display and for import.
But with regard to your question, though, to answer your
question about the legal killing of the bears before the
listing, again the key fact is the listing of the polar bear
did not make killing bears in Canada illegal.
Mr. Chaffetz. I understand that. I am trying to deal with--
--
Mr. Crystal. It made the import illegal, which is the
question here today.
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, the question here today is what do we
do with the gentleman as nice as Mr. Oerter here in being able
to bring that trophy home; personal property of his and being
able to bring that back to the United States.
Mr. Crystal. I understand.
Mr. Chaffetz. He paid for it. It was legal. It was lawful.
I see no reason to stop doing that other than what you believe
is a higher moral ground that you think you are on in trying to
say no, no, no. We should cut that off immediately. I find that
to be terribly unfair and selfish on your part.
Mr. Crystal. Well, I think it is no different again from a
hunter who goes today. Right now, there is a hunter in Canada--
there may be--who is killing a polar bear.
Mr. Chaffetz. No. They are separate. They are different.
No. I am talking about before May 15. You are changing dates on
me.
Mr. Crystal. Because the question from a fairness
perspective as you are suggesting is because it is legal the
import should be allowed, but what became illegal was the
import of polar bears, and the question of whether the polar
bear is threatened----
Mr. Chaffetz. But the core question----
Mr. Crystal.--or whether imports should be allowed is still
pending in litigation.
Mr. Chaffetz. The core question is what happened to those
who legally brought permits under the law dealing with a date
before May 15, 2008?
Mr. Crystal. I understand. The answer to your question
again, our view is that there should be a bright line rule. The
date of the listing is the date it became defeated under the
MMPA. Imports should be prohibited whether the bear was killed
before or after. That should be the rule.
Mr. Chaffetz. And I guess we simply disagree. I think
trying to do so with some sort of moral authority is very
selfish on your part. You have somebody who has legally,
lawfully obtained something. It is their personal property.
We have polar bears that are on display. I asked you
earlier. Do you think that there is something wrong with polar
bears that were killed at whatever point? Do you think it is
wrong to have those on display? You are indifferent to that.
Mr. Markarian. Congressman, if I may address your question
of fairness briefly? You know, what about the fairness to the
112 hunters who imported their trophies in 2007 because they
did it right? They knew this was a potential listing coming
down the pike. They sped up the process. They did what they
were expected to do. They got in early.
Why should we now change the rules and weaken the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act for a few
people who didn't plan in advance?
Mr. Chaffetz. Again, Madam Chair, just let me conclude on
this thought. I know my time is up. Those permits are spread
out over a course of time. They are not all just done in one
big block.
At the end of the day, thank you for your service, Mr.
Oerter. I do hope that this legislation can right a wrong and
allow the importation of these trophies that were taken in a
very legal way with good intentioned Americans who were doing
all the right things.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Utah, and now I
would like to recognize Mr. Broun, the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Broun. Madam Chairwoman, I thank you and I thank the
Committee for allowing me to come here to this hearing. I have
a particular interest in this, Madam Chairwoman and Members of
the Committee, because I was the Government Affairs Vice
President of Safari Club International for a number of years,
and if I could I would like unanimous consent that my opening
statement be placed in the record.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul C. Broun, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia
Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking Member Brown for holding
this important hearing today and allowing me to appear before this
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to hear testimony and ask
questions from the witnesses today.
I first became active in politics when I served as a volunteer
advocate for Safari Club International, the world's largest pro-hunting
and conservation organization. (Personalize welcome to Dr. Moritz from
SCI). I also served for several years as the President of the Georgia
Sport Shooting Association (the NRA state affiliate).
I am an avid hunter. Safari Club International, The National Rifle
Association, and Gun Owners of America are just some of the numerous
sporting associations that I am a Life Member of. A full-body-mounted
African lion and Kodiak grizzly bear are just a few of my prized
trophies that visitors see when they come to my DC office.
On May 15, 2008 Secretary Dirk Kempthorne declared polar bears
threatened, or likely to become endangered in the future. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service withdrew authorization to import hides from Polar
bears killed in approved populations in Canada. Unfortunately, this
included those already killed and awaiting a taxidermist mount.
There are currently 41 trophies that were taken legally, prior to
the May 2008 ESA listing. As a hunter, I know these hunts can cost
close to $50,000. But this issue has nothing to do with hunting. It's a
simple matter of returning property that was taken by wrongheaded
regulatory action.
The 41 polar bears that have been killed and are sitting in storage
in Canada are not going to come back to life if the current ban stays
in place. H.R. 1054 provides a reasonable grace period for hunters to
arrange the importation of their trophies. Allowing these polar bear
trophies to be imported will also bring in $40,000 of conservation
money for the U.S.-Russia polar bear population.
I am a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 1054 and thank Mr. Young for
introducing this legislation. I'm just upset that I didn't think to
introduce it first.
Chairwoman Bordallo, thank you for calling this hearing. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I worked on
this issue for a number of years as the Government Affairs Vice
President of Safari Club International before it finally got
the change in the law in the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
so this is something I worked on for a number of years, and I
thank Dr. Moritz for his continued work in that regard and Dr.
J.Y. Jones who furthered my work and finally got this listing
changed in the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
I have a number of questions that I would like to submit
for the record if I could and ask for a written response from
all the people.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered.
Mr. Broun. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to make
a couple of statements.
Number one is, Mr. Crystal and Mr. however you pronounce
it. Sir, how do you pronounce your name?
Mr. Markarian. Markarian.
Mr. Broun. Markarian. I think it is quite evident to me and
to all the Members here and anybody that is hearing this
testimony that you are adamantly trying to stop hunting period,
and that has been the Humane Society of the U.S.'s objective is
to stop hunting and fishing. You all are trying very hard to
promote that philosophy.
The Major obtained a bear permit in a legal manner. He
hunted in a legal manner in Canada. He had permission from our
government to import that bear. Even though hunters--not only
the Major, but other hunters--were informed there may be a
change in the listing, you want to just be able to say there is
a possible change and you want to stop hunting through that.
By just filing a suit in Court, you want to stop hunting
for all species by anybody except for subsistence hunters in
Alaska and Canada, and that is totally wrong and is deplorable
as far as I am concerned. You are utilizing the Courts to
promote your agenda, which is to stop hunting and fishing. I
think it is deplorable. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves
for that, but I have a question to ask you.
Mr. Markarian. Would you like a response?
Mr. Broun. I want to go back to what Congressman Chaffetz
was saying because neither one of you all have answered the
question that he asked you, and I am going to ask you the same
question.
Before I ask the question, I want to say this. The Major
and the other 40 people who obtained permits had a legal right
up until May 15 to import those bears. Yes or no? Is that
correct?
Mr. Markarian. Congressman, can I----
Mr. Broun. Yes or no?
Mr. Markarian. Can I address your question about hunting?
Mr. Broun. No, sir. Yes or no?
Mr. Markarian. Because your----
Mr. Broun. I have very limited time.
Mr. Markarian. Congressman?
Mr. Broun. Yes or no. Did they have a legal right up until
May 15 to import those bears?
Mr. Markarian. They had a legal right to take their own
risk, to spend their own money.
Mr. Broun. No, sir. Yes or no?
Mr. Markarian. No.
Mr. Broun. Did they have a legal right to import that bear
prior to May 15?
Mr. Markarian. They knew what was coming.
Mr. Broun. No, sir. You are not answering my question. You
did not answer Mr. Chaffetz's question. Yes or no? Did they
have a legal right under U.S. law to import that bear up until
May 15?
Mr. Markarian. If they would have done it before May 15,
which is what most hunters did. These guys did not plan
properly.
Mr. Broun. Well, the answer is yes. Is that correct?
Dr. Crystal. If they had obtained a permit.
Mr. Broun. They had the permit.
Dr. Crystal. If they had obtained a permit.
Mr. Broun. They had a permit to hunt the bear.
Dr. Crystal. They didn't need a permit from the U.S. to
hunt the bear. They needed a permit to import the bear.
Mr. Broun. I know that.
Dr. Crystal. They didn't have the permit before the
listing.
Mr. Broun. But they went through the Office of Scientific
Authority to get the permit to import it.
Dr. Crystal. That is correct.
Mr. Broun. And it was legal up until May 15, and so the
lawsuit that has been filed and the immediate closure of
importation is a taking of their lawful, rightful property. Is
that not correct?
Mr. Crystal. That is not correct.
Mr. Broun. It is correct.
Mr. Crystal. Because the Humane Society is not a plaintiff
in any lawsuit about the polar bear. The Humane Society is an
intervenor defending lawsuits that have been brought by sport
hunting groups who are raising the very issue that is before
this Committee today. They are asking the Court to make a
judicial determination to allow them to import polar bears. So
you say it is shameful that we are bringing lawsuits to try and
stop hunting, but we are not plaintiffs in lawsuits.
Mr. Broun. No, sir. What I think is shameful is that you
are using the Courts to further your philosophy of anti-hunting
and anti-fishing, and that is what is shameful.
Mr. Crystal. In the Courts we are defending the Fish and
Wildlife Service's determination under the Bush Administration.
Mr. Broun. Sir, it is my time. Please. The other thing is I
want to go back to what Congressman Young said. I have been
involved in wildlife management practices all over the world,
and I just want to say for the record if we give a value to
wildlife what happens is it stops the poaching, it stops the
indiscriminate use of those species.
I have worked on that for sheep in China, wild sheep, for
wild sheep in Pakistan. It has worked in Africa, particularly
in Namibia for elephant. By giving a value to the locals where
they receive monetary value, some economic benefit from
protecting those species, then the species are protected. They
flourish and do much better. Stopping hunting is actually
adverse to the species and causes the species to be
indiscriminately killed by the locals.
So U.S. Fish and Wildlife policy that stopped our practices
in Pakistan and China that we were establishing has been
adverse to the species and has harmed the species, and it is
something that we have to change. We have to change that
philosophy, Dr. Gould. Dr. Gould. I apologize, Doctor. I am a
physician. I am called Mr., and so I apologize.
But the thing is we have to look at proper management
practices to help the species, and you guys with the Humane
Society U.S., you all are doing everything to stop hunting and
fishing, which is adverse and it is going to harm the species
long term. I think that is deplorable. You are not looking at
things in a wildlife management perspective and what is good
for the species.
With that, Madam Chair, my time is up and I appreciate your
forbearance. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
I have a couple of quick questions here for this first
panel. To you, Dr. Gould, you also testified that the
permitting process can take between 50 and 90 days. Given that
timeline, how many of the pending applications could have been
approved with an extra 30 days?
Dr. Gould. We don't know for sure obviously because you
have to get corroborative documentation from Canada, but if
everything is smoothly obtained and provided we could have
provided all of those permit applications probably within that
timeframe as long as they were able to provide the information
that was required.
Ms. Bordallo. All right, Doctor. I have a follow up
question. For instance, would permit applications submitted
after April 28, the date that the Court required you to make a
final decision by May 15, have had enough time to be approved?
Yes or no?
Dr. Gould. The answer is likely no.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. All right. Both you and Mr.
Markarian stated that allowing these imports will set bad
precedents and provide incentives for more bears to be killed
despite the ESA listing and the MMPA designation as depleted.
Can you elaborate on this particularly in light of the many
pending lawsuits? Mr. Crystal?
Mr. Crystal. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Again, the
lawsuits challenge whether the species should have been listed
as a threatened species, and I think that part has been
overlooked a little bit here today because the Fish and
Wildlife Service again in the prior Administration made a
determination that the polar bear's conservation status is such
that it should be designated as a threatened species in Canada
and throughout the rest of this range.
So, the concern is that if despite the listing, and as a
result of which there is an import ban, the United States is,
nonetheless, continuing to allow the import of polar bear
trophies whenever the polar bear was killed, that sends a
terrible signal to our conservation partners about our views
about how polar bears should be treated, and it sets a terrible
precedent because it opens the door to the same argument.
Again, the principal argument we have heard today is the
polar bears are already dead. It makes no difference whether we
allow them in. But that is just as true for polar bears that
were killed before the listing as it is for polar bears that
were killed yesterday, so it does set a terrible precedent in
that regard.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much for your answer to that
question, and now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member,
Mr. Wittman, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am going to
yield my time to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Broun. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want
to make a comment, and then I will yield the time back to Mr.
Wittman.
If we look at Kenya, they stopped all hunting for big game
in Kenya. We have had more poaching, we have had more
decimation of the animals in that country with no hunting than
we did when there was value placed on all these animals. So the
philosophy that Humane Society U.S. has of stopping hunting is
not a conservation issue. It is a protectionist issue because
of your perverse idea that hunting is bad for animals. It is
not. Actually hunting helps animals.
The conservation community, which I have spent literally
thousands of my personal dollars in contributing and belonging
to various organizations like Safari Club International and
many others. The hunter is the only individual who puts their
money where their mouth is and actually helps promote the
species, promote good, healthy species and does what is
necessary in true conservation.
Protectionist organizations like HSUS and others actually
harm species, and your philosophy of anti-hunting is totally
going to long-term be disastrous to species all over this
world. I feel very firmly about that. There is scientific
evidence that my statement is factual.
With that, Mr. Wittman, I thank you.
Mr. Markarian. Congressman, I would like to respond to
those points about the Humane Society.
Mr. Wittman. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Madam
Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you very much. Before
dismissing any of the members of the first panel, I just want
to let you know that the Members will likely have a few more
questions for the record. If you want to answer the gentleman,
you can also place that on the record, in a timely manner. I
would request that you answer any of their questions.
All right. I want to thank you all very much for appearing
before the Committee this morning. Thank you for your time and
I thank the gentleman for serving in the Air Force for so many
years. Thank you for your service to our country.
And now I would like to recognize the second panel. Our
witnesses on the second panel include Mr. Paul Schmidt,
Assistant Director, Migratory Birds, United States Fish and
Wildlife Service; Mr. Scott A. Sutherland, Director of the
Governmental Affairs Office----
Could I have order, please, in the room? Would you kindly
take your conversations out in the hall, please? We have not
concluded this hearing.
All right. Our witnesses on the second panel, Mr. Paul
Schmidt, Assistant Director, Migratory Birds, United States
Fish and Wildlife Service; Mr. Scott A. Sutherland, Director of
the Governmental Affairs Office, Ducks Unlimited; Mr. Michael
Daulton, Legislative Director, National Audubon Society; Mr.
Darin Schroeder, Vice President of Conservation Advocacy,
American Bird Conservancy; and Ms. Lisa Cutchin, a teacher from
the St. John Regional Catholic School in Maryland.
I would like to thank the witnesses on the second panel. I
thank you for your time and for coming here to testify before
the Subcommittee.
I would like to welcome Mr. Schmidt and thank him for
appearing before the Subcommittee. As I mentioned for the
previous panel, the red timing light on the table will indicate
when your time has concluded.
Be assured that your full written statement will be
included into the record, so if you can consolidate your
statement into five minutes or less we would appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Dr. Schmidt, you can proceed.
STATEMENT OF PAUL SCHMIDT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MIGRATORY BIRDS,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chairwoman
and Mr. Wittman. Thanks for the opportunity----
Ms. Bordallo. Kindly close the door, please. Thank you.
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to
present the Service's views on these three important pieces of
legislation. They are important to bird conservation and our
efforts to inspire environmental stewards in our youth, and to
build partnerships that are necessary for successful protection
and conservation of migratory bird populations and their
habitats.
The Service supports H.R. 3537 reauthorizing the Junior
Duck Stamp Program through 2015. This program is one of this
nation's most successful government-sponsored environmental
education and conservation programs. First authorized in 1994,
the program continues to build strong partnerships with schools
and young educational programs using proceeds from the stamp
sales to provide materials and other support for environmental
education.
In addition to the annual contest held to select art
featured on the stamp, the program features a science and art-
based curriculum designed to help teach wildlife and wetland
conservation principles in grade schools across this country.
In 2009, nearly 30,000 students throughout the country,
including Washington, D.C. and our U.S. territories, submitted
artwork to the contest and participated in the curriculum.
The Service particularly supports this proposed
streamlining in the legislation in requiring the reporting back
to the Congress and the provision of the Secretary to have
discretion to disburse funds where they are needed most. We
want to thank Representative Ortiz for his leadership
throughout this program's history and the support he has given
to the Junior Duck Stamp Program.
H.R. 2213 reauthorizes the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund, also supported by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. It would increase and extend authorizing
appropriations through Fiscal Year 2015. In authorizing the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act in 2000, Congress
provided a mechanism for coordinating and funding conservation
of neotropical migratory birds and their habitats throughout
Latin America, the Caribbean and North America.
Modeled after other international programs, including the
Multi-National Species Conservation Funds and the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the Act has recognized the
need for international cooperation in these conservation
efforts and established an effective and targeted matching
grant program.
Since receiving appropriations in Fiscal Year 2002, the
program has made significant conservation progress. We have
funded 296 projects throughout the United States, Latin America
and the Caribbean with more than $30 million. In Fiscal Year
2009, 124 grant proposals were received. We were able to fund
36 of those proposals.
While the statute currently requires a three to one match
for all grant requests, meaning that partners must come up with
$3 for every Federal dollar, they have contributed $135 million
in matching funds, representing more than a three to one--in
fact, a four to one--match.
H.R. 2213 would allow the continuation of the very positive
work already accomplished by this program, encourage more
partners across the Western Hemisphere, leverage more dollars
for conservation, complete more projects to benefit migratory
birds that nest, winter and migrate through the United States.
And finally H.R. 3413, which would amend the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act to allow funds from Canada to count
as nonFederal match for Canadian projects. Currently only U.S.
funds can be considered as this nonFederal match for Canadian
habitat projects under the Wetlands Act, limiting the number
and scope of habitat projects in one of the most crucial
habitats, the Prairie Pothole Region, which supports the vast
majority of our nesting waterfowl that migrate to the United
States.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants have
been internationally recognized as a success story and support
our partnership throughout this continent. Since 1990,
thousands of partners have been involved in the Wetlands Act.
In fact, almost 2,000 grant projects have been conducted and
accomplished. More than a billion dollars in U.S. funds have
been used in this program to leverage more than $2 billion
private or state dollars for this program, delivering 25.5
million acres of wetlands conservation throughout the country
and beyond.
The Service's Migratory Bird Program has two primary goals:
1) To conserve and sustain healthy migratory bird populations
and their habitats; and 2) To ensure the citizens of the United
States continue to have opportunities to enjoy migratory birds.
These three bills build upon, refine and enhance our
current authorities to achieve our goals. We truly appreciate
the leadership in this Committee relative to these three bills
and the work you have done to date and look forward to
answering any questions you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt follows:]
Statement of Paul R. Schmidt, Assistant Director for Migratory Birds,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
H.R. 3537, Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009; H.R. 2213, a Bill to Reauthorize the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act; and H.R. 3433, a Bill to
Amend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Paul Schmidt, Assistant Director for Migratory Birds
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to testify on
behalf of the Department of the Interior on three important pieces of
legislation related to migratory birds: H.R. 3537, Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation and Design Program Reauthorization Act of 2009; H.R. 2213,
a bill to reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act;
and H.R. 3433, a bill to amend the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act. The Department supports all three of these bills and greatly
appreciates the Subcommittee's continued leadership and support for the
conservation of the nation's migratory birds.
Introduction
Migratory birds are among nature's most magnificent natural
resources, and they play a significant ecological, economic and
cultural role in the United States and around the globe. Like canaries
in coal mines, birds are indicators of the health and quality of our
environment. The Service's Migratory Bird Program has two primary
goals: (1) to conserve migratory bird populations and their habitats in
sufficient quantities to prevent them from being considered as
threatened or endangered and (2) to ensure the citizens of the United
States continue to have opportunities to enjoy migratory birds and
their habitats. The Service pursues these goals in concert with a host
of participating partners, both domestic and foreign. The Service also
serves as the lead Federal agency responsible for protecting, managing
and conserving the species of birds covered by four major treaties with
Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Japan through their implementing
legislation, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.
Birds are tremendous engines for local economies; each year
millions of Americans watch birds in their backyards and on National
Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, National Forests and other federal
lands, as well as at state and local birding hot spots. In fact, the
2006 Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,
conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with the
Federal census, showed that 48 million Americans watched birds, and
wildlife watchers generated $122.6 billion in total industrial outputs.
On March 19, 2009, Secretary Salazar announced the release of the
State of the Birds 2009 Report, which shows that while a number of
species are healthy or recovering, many are in decline. This report, a
partnership product led by the Service and coordinated with the U.S.
Geological Survey, the American Bird Conservancy, The Nature
Conservancy, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, the National Audubon Society,
and many other organizations, is the first of an annual and collective
effort to monitor the health of our nation's birds, and will help us
monitor the condition of their environments and the success of our
conservation efforts. The State of the Birds 2009 Report is a part of
what the Service envisions as a broader and more collaborative approach
to conserving birds in order to enhance the protection of their
habitats while helping these landscapes to be more resilient to climate
change.
H.R. 3537, Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009
The Federal Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program
(Program) was authorized through the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and
Design Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-340), which was enacted on October
6, 1994. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to carry out
the Junior Duck Stamp Program, including conducting an annual art
competition to create a stamp and licensing and marketing the stamp.
The proceeds from these efforts are used to support conservation
education programs, awards and scholarships for Junior Duck Stamp
Program participants.
In addition to the annual art contest for the design of the Stamp,
the program features a science and art-based curriculum designed to
help teach wetland and wildlife conservation principles, engaging
children from kindergarten through high school by pairing science and
the arts. The program's goal is to empower and encourage students to
become conservation stewards who will work to conserve sustainable
populations of migratory birds and many other wetland-dependent plants
and animals.
In 2009, nearly 28,000 students across the United States, including
the District of Columbia and the territories, entered the contest, and
thousands more participated in the curriculum. The 2009 national
winning design of a wood duck entered by a 16-year-old student from
Toledo, Ohio, now graces the eighteenth Junior Duck Stamp. In 2008,
Junior Duck Stamp sales raised more than $172,000 for awards,
environmental education activities throughout the U.S. and its
territories, and Junior Duck Stamp marketing materials.
H.R. 3537, reauthorizes the program, increases authorization for
appropriations to $500,000 per year, removes limitations on the use of
funds for administrative expenses and amends the Program's reporting
requirements. The Department supports H.R. 3537 as it would enable the
Service to more effectively implement the Junior Duck Stamp Program.
H.R. 2213, The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
Through bilateral treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia,
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Service has responsibility for
maintaining healthy populations of hundreds of native migratory birds,
including 341 species that migrate from or through the United States to
Latin America and the Caribbean and are covered by the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
Migratory birds help control agricultural pests, pollinate many
commercially valuable plants and provide bird-related recreational
opportunities for millions of people. Unfortunately, many migratory
bird species are declining as a result of habitat loss and degradation,
particularly in the Caribbean and Latin America. The fact that many, if
not most, neotropical migratory bird species have ``two homes''--the
United States and a Caribbean or Latin American country--increases the
challenges associated with conserving them.
In authorizing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act in
2000, Congress provided a mechanism for coordinating and funding the
conservation of neotropical migratory birds and their habitats
throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and North America. Modeled
after other international conservation programs including the
Multinational Species Conservation Funds and the North American Wetland
Conservation Act grants program, the Act recognized the need for
international cooperation in these conservation efforts and established
an effective and targeted matching grant program. The Service strives
to implement the Act as a complement to other programs that seek to
protect and restore neotropical migratory bird habitat in the United
States.
Administered by the Service's Migratory Bird Program, grants are
awarded for projects that promote the long-term conservation of
migratory birds through partnership. These projects protect and manage
bird habitat, conduct research and monitoring, support law enforcement,
and provide education and outreach.
Since receiving appropriations in FY 2002, the Service has funded
296 projects, throughout the United States, Latin America and Caribbean
with more than $30 million. In FY 2009, 124 grant proposals were
received and 36 were funded. While the statute currently requires a 3:1
match for all grant requests, partners have contributed nearly $135
million in matching funds, representing a match ratio of more than 4:1.
As a result, the program has achieved significant on-the-ground
results, including restoring island bird species in the Caribbean,
protecting and reforesting 8,000 acres of wintering habitat for
Neotropical migrants in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, and studying the
effects of bison on bird habitat diversity. The Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Act is helping the United States and our
international partners address the threats to neotropical migratory
birds and reduce the likelihood that they will need the protection of
the Endangered Species Act.
The Department supports H.R. 2213 to reauthorize the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
H.R. 3433, A Bill To Amend the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is an
internationally recognized conservation program that supports
partnerships to conserve waterfowl and other wetland-associated
migratory birds. Since 1990, more than 11,500 partners have been
involved in 1,946 NAWCA grant projects. More than $1billion in grants
has leveraged more than $2 billion in matching funds to affect
approximately 25.5 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands
across the continent.
H.R. 3433 would amend NAWCA to allow up to 50 percent of the
required ``non-federal'' match for projects in Canada to be composed of
Canadian funds. Under current law, all such funds must be from U.S.
sources, and Canadian funds contributed to NAWCA projects cannot be
counted as part of the ``non-federal'' match. If this measure were
enacted, Canadian projects would be able to reach their non-federal
funding requirements.
The Department supports H.R. 3433 and its proposed change to NAWCA
as long as at least 50 percent of the ``non-federal match'' would still
come from United States sources. The change in this historic
conservation statute would better acknowledge the importance of the
U.S. partnership with Canada and would be more consistent with the non-
U.S. funding match that is already allowed for Mexican NAWCA projects.
NAWCA grants act as catalysts in bringing together partnerships to
support wetland projects and leverage non-federal funding. Grants have
brought together partners as diverse as conservation organizations;
federal, state and local government agencies; and private industry, and
thousands of private landowners. Partners have carried out projects in
all 50 U.S. states, 12 Canadian provinces and territories, and 23
Mexican states.
Conclusion
Protecting and conserving migratory birds is one of the primary
public trusts held by the Service. The three programs being considered
today have all greatly improved the Service's ability to meet our
mission. The Junior Duck Stamp Program has enabled the Service to
educate and encourage young Americans to step up to the plate as
conservation stewards. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act have greatly enhanced
our ability to protect birds and their habitat for future generations.
We greatly appreciate your leadership, Chairwoman Bordallo and
Ranking Member Brown, in enhancing and refining our statutory
authorities to conduct this important work. We look forward to
continuing to work with you to ensure that the diversity and health of
the nation's native bird species are sustained.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Paul Schmidt,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Questions from The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)
H.R. 2213:
1. What are the major threats facing neotropical migratory birds? How
many neotropical migrants are currently listed on our
Endangered Species Act?
The predominant threat to neotropical migratory birds is habitat
loss and fragmentation in both migration stopover and wintering areas
south of the U.S. border, and in breeding areas within the U.S. and
Canada. Other major threats to these birds include predation from
introduced animals; exposure to heavy metals and toxic chemicals; and
collisions with communication towers, power lines and buildings.
The populations of over a hundred migratory birds are declining
within our hemisphere, some severely. Nine species are listed as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act. An additional seven bird
species are targeted by the Service as focal species and 121 are on the
Service list of birds of conservation concern. Eleven of the 20 birds
on Audubon's ``List of the Top 20 Birds in Decline'' are long-distance
migrants that benefit from grants provided through the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
2. The Fish and Wildlife Service has approved 296 of the 1,157
projects submitted to conserve neotropical migratory birds.
This represents about 25 percent of the overall total. What
distinguishes the approved projects from those that did not
obtain funding? Was it lack of sufficient federal resources or
what about other factors?
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) project
proposals are evaluated, ranked and recommended by a review panel of
Federal and State natural resource professionals with experience in
bird conservation in the U.S., the Caribbean, and Latin America. Funded
projects are those that make the best case for conservation activities
during any grant cycle. Applicants' proposals usually involve working
with priority species or habitats, studying important natural resource
management-related issue, or providing a particularly high conservation
value relative to the estimated cost. Other factors considered during
the project selection process include habitat and population
sustainability, threats to natural resources within the project area,
and coordination among public and private organizations.
The Service funds those projects submitted each year that have the
best ability to meet the goals of the NMBCA within available funding.
3. For the past five years, Congress has appropriated about $10
million dollars total for African and Asian elephants, rhinos,
tigers, Great Apes and marine sea turtles. In recent years,
neotropical birds has received about $5 million per year or 50
percent of the total amount appropriated. Since it is unlikely
that this overall figure will be dramatically increased in the
short-term, what is the justification for increasing the
authorization level for neotropical birds from $6 million in
FY'09 to $20 million in FY'15?
Under the current authorization the Service funds as many of the
highest priority neotropical migratory bird conservation projects as
possible. In FY 2009, 124 grant proposals were received and 36 were
funded. We recognize that it is likely we will not request the
authorization ceiling amount proposed. Increasing the authorization
ceiling does not require us to request that amount. Rather, it allows
us the flexibility to request amounts higher than the current ceiling
within our overall allocation as we examine Service priorities.
Neotropical migratory birds encompass 345 species that either breed
or migrate through the U.S. on their way north and then winter in Latin
America or the Caribbean. Neotropical migratory birds are especially
important because they reflect environmental conditions not just in the
U.S. but across their migratory range. The same factors that make these
birds important indicators of environmental health also make them more
difficult to manage. Adequate breeding, wintering, stopover habitat,
and environmental conditions must be available and this involves the
active involvement of local resource managers and land owners as well
as coordination and cooperation with governments and conservationists
across the Western Hemisphere. Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act funds can support local efforts in other countries while ensuring
that the welfare of our birds is taken into account by local resource
managers. Such funds also increase collaboration among scientists and
managers searching for the best ways to manage these border-crossing
species in an increasingly complex world.
In FY 2010 Congress appropriated $5 million for the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation fund and $11.5 million for the
Multinational Species account. Over the past 5 years (FY2006 - FY2010)
the Multinational species account which covers those species listed
above has grown from $6.4 million to $11.5 million, an increase of
eighty percent (80%). Over the same period the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation fund has grown from $3.9 million to $5 million, a
twenty-seven percent (27%) increase.
4. One of the most endangered of all neotropical migratory birds is
the sandhill crane. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed
and funded any grant proposals to assist sandhill cranes, and
if so, what was the outcome of that conservation effort?
At least seven funded projects totaling $1,176,301 of Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act funds identified sandhill cranes as
occurring within the project area and/or included them as a species
that would benefit from the proposed project activities. These projects
support a variety of landscape conservation measures, as well as
promote neotropical bird conservation education, research and
monitoring. A few examples of conservation outcomes benefitting
sandhill cranes and other migratory birds includes:
acquisition of approximately 750 acres of bird habitat in
the Central Wisconsin Grasslands Conservation Area;
restoration of approximately 249 acres of public
grassland in Illinois, enhancement and management of critical pine/oak
barrens grasslands in northwest Wisconsin;
35-year protection of more than 70,000 acres of bird
habitat in the Mapimi Biosphere Reserve in Coahuila, Mexico,
Mexico, restoration of 20,000 acres of grassland in Nuevo
Leon;
establishment of two Grassland Bird Conservation Areas in
the Chicago region; and
acquisition of approximately 800 acres of high priority
grassland and riparian habitat on Montana's Rocky Mountain Front.
5. How much money does the Fish and Wildlife Service spend each year
to administer the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Account? Is this a sufficient amount to meet the administrative
expenses?
By statute the amount of administrative funds available to the
Service for this program is equal to 3% of the total NMBCA
appropriation or $150,000, whichever is greater. The Service uses all
of these funds each year.
Administrative expenses for the program include the salary costs
for Service personnel necessary for project administration, records
management, database costs, travel associated with project monitoring
and outreach, and the support needed for the NMBCA Advisory Group. In
general, the administrative funds available each year are supplemented
by other discretionary funding in the Service's migratory bird program.
H.R. 3537:
1. Since the creation of the Junior Duck Stamp Program, how many
stamps have been purchased?
The program was started in 1994; however, we only have complete
records beginning in 1996 to April 2010. During that time, the Service
has sold 237,285 Junior Duck Stamps.
2. How much money has Congress appropriated for the Junior Duck Stamp
Program prior to this fiscal year? How much money did the
Administration request in FY'10? How will these appropriated
funds be used?
Prior to FY 2010, the Junior Duck Stamp Program had never received
a specific appropriation from Congress, although it is authorized to
receive $350,000 per year. In FY 2010, the Administration requested and
Congress provided $250,000 specifically for the Junior Duck Stamp
Program.
In FY 2010, we are using part of the $250,000 appropriation to
update the Junior Duck Stamp environmental education curriculum, which
will incorporate the latest scientific and wildlife management
principles, as well as address issues such as multi-cultural
differences, special requirements of home-schooling and possible use by
after-school and community-based programs. We are also incorporating a
new wildlife careers component into the program, designed to cultivate
the next generation of wildlife professionals and stewards.
In addition, appropriated funds will allow the program to support
the National Junior Duck Stamp Coordinator and better assist our
regional partners as they work to ensure the Junior Duck Stamp Program
is available to all American schoolchildren. With this improved support
and coordination, we will produce and make more widely available
outreach tools such as fact sheets, brochures, rack cards, and
postcards, which will help us to improve participation and address
other challenges. The FY 2010 appropriation also helps support Junior
Duck Stamp regional and state coordinators, providing them with the
resources to visit schools in order to assist and encourage teachers to
get more involved with the program.
3. Since the number of students participating in the art contest seems
to have remained static for the past five or six years, what
additional steps should the agency be taking to encourage
greater participation?
One of Secretary Salazar's top priorities is involving more young
people in our natural resources programs. To improve the program's
visibility and get more teachers and children involved, the Service is
taking the following steps:
Holding the annual National Junior Duck Stamp Contest at
different locations around the country to allow more educators and
students to experience first-hand the result of the program, which is
the selection of the winning art to grace that year's Junior Duck
Stamp. The contest has been held at the National Zoological Park in
Washington, D.C., the San Diego Zoo, and the Smithsonian's National
Postal Museum. In 2010, the contest will be at the Science Museum of
Minnesota in St. Paul. Several hundred school children have
participated in these events.
Increasing the number and types of venues (such as
wildlife museums, National Wildlife Refuges, wildlife and outdoor
recreation festivals) where the Junior Duck Stamp Best of Show art
entries are exhibited.
Improving our website and outreach materials to offer
enhanced support to our regional and state colleagues for their
outreach efforts. We are also now using social networking to improve
our outreach and encourage greater participation.
Initiating a special recognition program as an incentive
for our volunteers and colleagues and a ``green-ribbon'' awards program
for educators and their schools.
The Service is beginning to see the results of our improved efforts
to increase the visibility of the Junior Duck Stamp Program. We are
pleased to report the following successes:
Our Colorado State Coordinator reports increased
participation from 376 students in FY 2009 to 813 in FY 2010.
Our Kentucky State Coordinator reports increased
participation from 198 students in FY 2009 to 1,113 in FY 2010.
Our Nebraska State Coordinator reports increased
participation from 653 students in FY 2009 to 901 in FY 2010.
4. How many schools receive copies of the Curriculum Guide and what
outreach efforts has the Fish and Wildlife Service used to
inform public and private schools that this program exists?
Although the Service is unable to estimate how many schools receive
or are using the current Curriculum Guide, we do know it is used not
only by public and private school educators but also by home-school
parents throughout the country. Our national, regional and state
coordinators are constantly working within their communities to inform
educators about the program.
The current Curriculum Guide and all of our other outreach
materials are now available on our Junior Duck Stamp website, and they
are continually updated. As we reach out to students and teachers
through social networking tools and email, new and existing users of
the Guide will have access to the most updated materials on-line.
5. What is the current number of Junior Duck Stamp Program
Coordinators? Do you have a coordinator for each of the five
territories? If not, why not?
Currently, there are 52 coordinators across the country and
territories. American Samoa and Puerto Rico do not have coordinators at
this time, but the Service is in the process of designating individuals
for these positions. While we do experience some turnover annually as
people change jobs or relocate, we encourage our regions to identify
new coordinators and get them integrated into the program as quickly as
possible.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman for his statements on
the three bills. I think you will all be testifying on the
three bills with the exception of our teacher from Maryland,
who is going to just be testifying on the one bill.
I would like at this time to recognize Mr. Scott A.
Sutherland, Director of the Governmental Affairs Office, Ducks
Unlimited.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT A. SUTHERLAND, DIRECTOR OF THE GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS OFFICE, DUCKS UNLIMITED
Mr. Sutherland. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Your staff and
you have both remarked as the hearing was getting going that
time is short, so I am going to respect that as best I can, and
I am going to try to very briefly summarize my written
testimony.
Regarding H.R. 3433, the amendment to the NAWCA bill, we
are grateful to Congressman Wittman for introducing this
legislation. We strongly support it. NAWCA is based on a simple
idea which is implementing the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. The biggest and most important thing to know
about the plan is it recognizes that the waterfowl resource is
a continental resource. Without Canada, Mexico and the United
States working together, we cannot sustain and improve
waterfowl populations in North America. That is the central
idea.
NAWCA simply implements that plan from the Federal
government's perspective. The Federal government puts up the
seed money. You folks authorized that program. It has worked
very, very well. Paul Schmidt just talked about some of the
very impressive numbers NAWCA has delivered in the 20 years it
has been existent.
Third point. NAWCA requires match. The law says that it has
to be a one to one match. As Paul Schmidt mentioned, the match
has been two to one in terms of what we call matchable dollars
and in fact three to one when you count in other dollars that
have come in to programs that are not considered as match.
No. 4. Mexico can use domestically raised funds as match.
Canada cannot.
Point 5. This bill would allow Canadians to contribute to
the match and have their contributions counted as match.
That is the whole thing in a nutshell, Madam Chairwoman,
and we strongly support this bill. It is needed to keep this
program going, and we hope that you will enact it in a speedy
way.
The second piece of legislation is the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The program has been existent
for nine years. It has proved very successful. There is huge
demand, again as Paul outlined in his testimony. The original
authorization was relatively small, but Congress wanted to make
sure that the demand was going to be there, that the partner
match was going to be there and that it would work. It has.
We support the reauthorization, and we support raising the
authorized ceiling to some number significantly above what it
is right now. The bill as written is very good, and we support
it.
Finally, the Junior Duck Stamp Program. Who couldn't like
this program? The biggest problem with this program is there
aren't more like it, frankly. We need programs that foster
interest from young people in getting outdoors, and combining
art with wildlife is a brilliant idea. It captures an audience
that may not normally be gravitating toward those kind of
things, people who are very culturally talented.
I have to say that I have actually been a judge for this
contest. I saw how it works up close about a decade ago when I
served as a judge. It is a wonderful program. We hope you will
reauthorize it and support it.
Thank you, ma'am.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sutherland follows:]
Statement of Scott Sutherland, Director of the Governmental Affairs
Office, Ducks Unlimited, on H.R. 3433, to Amend the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act; H.R. 2213, to Reauthorize the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act; and H.R. 3537, to Reauthorize the
Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 2009
Ducks Unlimited (DU) is pleased to testify before the Natural
Resources Committee, Subcommittee On Insular Affairs, Oceans And
Wildlife, regarding three conservation bills: H.R. 3433, to amend the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act to establish requirements
regarding payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of wetlands
conservation projects in Canada; H.R. 2213, to reauthorize the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act; and H.R.3537, to
reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act
of 2009.
I am the Director of the Governmental Affairs Office of Ducks
Unlimited, a non-profit wetlands conservation organization. In my role
at DU, I lead a small group of professionals who educate and advocate
on behalf of federal conservation policy initiatives to benefit the
waterfowl resource.
H.R. 3433: Amending the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
I have led DU's efforts to increase funding for federal programs
that support the North American Waterfowl Management Plan since joining
DU 19 years ago. I have also worked with the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA) program since it was started, and assisted the
work of Congress on four reauthorizations of the Act.
Background:
One of the key purposes of NAWCA is to support the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), which was signed in 1986. The Plan
is an international agreement between the governments of the U.S.,
Canada and Mexico. It recognizes the continuing loss of habitat and
resulting declines in waterfowl populations and creates a unified
continental effort required to restore this valuable resource to long
term average population levels. NAWMP is a broad framework based on
biological science that describes the problems facing North America's
waterfowl. Far more importantly it outlines the scope and goals needed
to recover and sustain waterfowl populations at a long term average
level and suggests general strategies and tactics for addressing the
problems. NAWCA recognizes that waterfowl are a continental resource
and they depend on a wide geographic range of habitats throughout their
life cycle. This was an extension of the idea that led to the first
migratory bird treaty between the U.S. and Canada in 1916.
Since its enactment in 1989, NAWCA has played an invaluable role in
wetlands conservation in North America by helping to stimulate local
partnerships aimed exclusively at habitat conservation for wetland-
dependent species. NAWCA continues to be an extraordinarily popular
program. We commend Congress for their foresight in creating NAWCA and
repeatedly taking action to ensure the long-term success of this
effective program.
NAWCA has accomplished remarkable success, with projects in all 50
states, Canada and Mexico. The creation of the program 20 years ago was
a bipartisan effort and NAWCA has consistently attracted strong
bipartisan support in Congress. The House members serving on the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission are routinely joined by between
100 and 200 members of the House supporting annual funding for NAWCA.
Those supporters include many members of this Committee and
Subcommittee. The level of interest and enthusiasm in Congress for the
program is a testament to NAWCA's success in fostering public-private
partnerships in a cost-effective and results-oriented manner.
NAWCA has also enjoyed consistent support from the Executive
Branch. President Obama's FY2010 budget proposal envisions full funding
of the program at $75 million by 2012. NAWCA has been identified as an
Administration priority to protect America's wetlands. Previous
Presidents have also strongly supported the program. During his tenure,
President Bush announced a goal to go beyond the no-net loss of
wetlands to achieve an overall increase in wetlands each year in the
United States. NAWCA was identified as a key program to accomplish the
Bush Administration's goal to restore, improve or protect 3 million
acres of wetlands over a five-year period. President Obama has now
called for full funding at the authorized level for the program by FY
2012. This consistent support by the current and past administrations
demonstrates how important NAWCA is to the priorities of our nation and
our neighbors to the north and south.
Historically, the lower 48 states of the United States have lost
approximately 53% of their original wetlands. The state of California
has lost a staggering 91% of its original wetlands and Maryland wetland
loss is 73%. While NAWCA is helping to slow this trend of wetland loss,
the United States continues to lose more than 80,000 acres of the
wetlands most important to fish and wildlife each year and faces
increased threats from changing land use patterns and the recent
withdrawal of Clean Water Act protections. These losses have dramatic
negative impacts on waterfowl and other fish and wildlife.
How NAWCA Works:
NAWCA facilitates efforts by resource managers and a wide variety
of partners using strategies to restore and enhance degraded habitat
along with protecting the quality habitat that remains. The habitat
work that is completed on both public and private lands improves
recreational opportunities while providing additional economic benefits
for landowners and their communities. Wildlife-related recreation
generates over $100 billion of economic output each year. In many
cases, this economic activity is vital to the incomes of rural
Americans and it serves as the base for major industries that produce
outdoor equipment and a wide range of other products.
The law requires each federal dollar put into the program to be
matched by at least $1 in non-federal funds. The partner investment in
NAWCA so far has been three non-federal dollars for every federal
dollar invested and the combined total is more than $3 billion so far.
The original law, written in 1989, required that all non-federal match
money be raised from United States sources, no matter where the money
was to be spent. Because of challenges to raise sufficient match
dollars for projects in Mexico, a 1994 amendment changed the match
requirements for projects located in Mexico, allowing non-United States
sources to be used to pay costs of the projects. However, no such
change was made for projects completed in Canada. The amendment
proposed in H.R. 3433 will allow funds raised in Canada to be applied
as a portion of the required match for habitat projects that will
benefit waterfowl and other wetland dependent species across the
continent.
Canadian Projects:
Canadian NAWCA projects have made strides in raising money from
local sources to supplement the federal and non-federal matching funds.
The law as currently written does not recognize this money raised from
Canadian non-profits and provincial agencies as matching funds, and
they therefore do not count towards the match requirement. NAWCA has
served to encourage entities in Canada to increase fundraising for
local wetland conservation projects, and the Committee should foster
further Canadian investment in local conservation efforts benefiting
the continent.
Unfortunately, sometimes Canadian projects can face difficulty
raising enough money from United States sources to meet non-federal
match requirements. Typically, the average partner match in the U.S.,
Mexico, and Canada combined has been $3 for every $1 in federal money.
For Canadian projects, however, the typical partner match has been 1:1.
American non-profits and state agency partners contribute funds to send
to Canada, and that money is becoming more and more difficult to find.
With a difficult economic situation American partners are under
pressure, and find it challenging to raise sufficient money to match
the cost of Canadian projects. In order to increase the return on a
relatively modest federal investment and fund these vital habitat
projects, it is important that Congress pass H.R. 3433 to allow funds
from Canadian sources to comprise a portion of the non-Federal share of
the costs of each project.
After 20 years of being one of the federal government's most
effective conservation programs, it is appropriate to ask why the match
requirements should be changed. Starting in September 2001, fundraising
for many of the nation's charities has become more difficult, and has
hampered the abilities to produce match money. Fundraising challenges
have continued into this current tough economic climate, resulting in
even fewer matching funds from state governments and NGOs. The proposed
amendment would open more non-federal revenue streams, and allow for
more NAWCA projects to benefit habitat on the Canadian breeding grounds
and the waterfowl and other migratory birds that are produced there.
Projects in Canada are critically important to the sustainability
of the North American waterfowl population. When NAWCA was passed in
1989, Congress stated that one of the purposes of the Act was ``to
protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate distribution and
diversity of wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds
and other fish and wildlife in North America.'' Because migratory birds
routinely cross national borders, wetland protection and restoration
must occur across North America. Federal NAWCA funds were and are used
in all three countries, Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and H.R.
3433 will provide new incentives for U.S.-Canadian partnerships to
raise funds so that federal dollars can be leveraged for the most
impact.
Success of the Program:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that through September
2009 more than 4,000 partners have been involved in over 1,850 NAWCA
projects. The federal funding portion through NAWCA has leveraged
partner contributions of over $3 billion in matching and non-matching
funds. This funding has stimulated the conservation of almost 25
million acres of wetlands and associated uplands across North America.
The success of NAWCA is exemplified by the growing list of project
partners, which is now above 4,000. The list of partners includes all
50 state fish and wildlife agencies, hundreds of private landowners, a
diversity of private conservation efforts, corporations and other
business, tribes, and local governments.
NAWCA is successfully implementing the habitat objectives of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and other national and
international conservation plans for wetland-associated migratory
birds. Regional Joint Ventures, established to support the NAWMP, play
a substantial role by fostering partnership to successfully implement
NAWCA projects. DU is an active member of most of the Joint Ventures.
It would be impossible to fulfill our collective habitat goals without
the critical support provided by NAWCA.
The benefits of NAWCA extend well beyond waterfowl. Wetlands
provide a home for more than 900 wildlife species at some time during
the year. As intended by Congress, the criteria for NAWCA projects
include waterfowl as well as other wetland-associated migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species, and other wetland-dependent wildlife
and plants. Under this guidance, NAWCA projects are proven to benefit a
diverse array of species, including fish.
NAWCA serves as a vital tool for cooperative efforts to address
landscape-level habitat challenges in vital areas for waterfowl,
including the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains, the Lower
Mississippi River Valley, Chesapeake Bay, Gulf Coast and the Great
Lakes, to name a few. NAWCA has made a significant impact in coastal
communities, but the value and importance of NAWCA to inland areas is
also remarkable. Projects in Canada have focused mainly on the Canadian
portion of the Prairie Pothole Region and the Western Boreal Forest.
Conclusion:
What began as a small funding mechanism to accelerate
implementation of NAWMP in the early 1990's has grown into a highly
successful program with widespread success and support. NAWCA has
stimulated hundreds of conservation partnerships that would likely not
exist otherwise. The result is millions of acres of habitat conserved
that provide a myriad of benefits for wetlands, wildlife, and the
public. We support the legislation and urge the Committee to approve
this bill to allow a portion of the non-federal share of the costs of
Canadian projects to include contributions from Canadian sources.
H.R. 2213: Reauthorization of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act
Since its inception 72 years ago, Ducks Unlimited has recognized
that maintaining North America's waterfowl populations requires
conservation well beyond the borders of the U.S. Responsible
stewardship of these migratory species often requires conservation of
habitats from the boreal forests of Canada to the mangrove wetlands of
South America and numerous points between and beyond. The same is also
true for a variety of other bird species including neotropical
migrants--those that breed in the U.S. and Canada and spend the winters
in Mexico, Central and South America. Therefore, since its inception,
DU has been an active supporter of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act.
Modeled after NAWCA, the Act has been successful in fostering
public-private partnerships and international cooperation to conserve
habitats for migratory birds and there is a significant potential to
expand these on-the-ground efforts in the future. In total, nearly half
of all North America's bird species are dependant upon the natural
resources of the Canadian boreal forest, and 94% of the birds that use
the boreal forest migrate south into the U.S. and Mexico. Approximately
50% of neotropical migrants breed in the boreal forest north of the
lower 48 states. To deliver a full spectrum of habitat conservation for
migratory birds, particularly neotropical species, it is important to
reauthorize this Act to offer assistance for conservation projects in
the most important areas in the range of their migration.
Besides the ducks, geese, and swans, 225 other migratory bird
species can be found in the prairie pothole region (PPR) of the U.S.
and Canada during portions of the year. The PPR forms the core of what
was formerly the largest expanse of grassland in the world: the Great
Plains of the United States. Pothole complexes have supported
populations of breeding waterfowl unmatched anywhere in the world.
These same complexes make the region vitally important to other
migratory species as well.
At least 16 waterfowl species that breed in North America,
including blue-winged teal, pintail and lesser scaup, spend the winter
in Latin America and the Caribbean. These areas have experienced many
threats to wetlands including wide-scale deforestation and erosion in
the surrounding watersheds, inappropriate agricultural practices,
improper use of agrochemicals, and destruction of wild lands for banana
and sugarcane plantations. Despite their importance for biodiversity
and mankind, the majority of wetlands have been modified due to human
activities, such as agriculture, intensive use of chemicals, urban
development, and improper use of water. Habitat deterioration continues
at a high rate, further impacting the security of waterfowl and other
wetland species.
DU is strongly in favor of reauthorizing and expanding the Act.
Protection of grassland, wetland, and other waterfowl habitats through
private, state, and federal partnerships that effectively deliver
habitat conservation projects has been proven as a model for successful
conservation. Reauthorization of this Act will continue to benefit
numerous migratory bird species that are important to the U.S. and
North America from a recreational, aesthetic, and economic standpoint.
H.R.3537: The Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of
2009
For 20 years, this program has provided strong partnerships with
public and private schools, after-school programs, and many other
youth-based education programs all over the country. It is one of this
country's oldest and most successful government-sponsored, youth-
focused conservation education programs, and involves students in all
fifty states and the District of Columbia.
The Junior Duck Stamp program teaches students the importance of
conserving our wetlands and migratory birds and pairs science and the
arts to teach greater awareness of America's natural resources. This
program has provided a valuable role in fostering not only an
appreciation of art in the natural world, but a better understanding of
the habitat needs of migratory bird species. This program is
complementary to DU's efforts on behalf of habitat conservation and
education. DU believes this program has been and will continue to be a
strong teaching tool to encourage our youth to become stewards of
America's irreplaceable wild places and treasured outdoor heritage, and
we strongly support its reauthorization.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much for your testimony, Mr.
Sutherland.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. Daulton, the
Legislative Director of the National Audubon Society.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DAULTON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. Daulton. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo. My name is
Mike Daulton. I am Legislative Director for National Audubon
Society. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
regarding three very important bills for bird conservation.
Audubon's 25 state offices and 500 local chapters
throughout the United States serve more than one million
members and supporters. Our mission is to conserve and restore
natural ecosystems focusing on birds, other wildlife and their
habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological
diversity.
Audubon strongly supports the bipartisan H.R. 2213.
Sponsored by Congressman Ron Kind and Congressman Jim Gerlach,
it is recognized as an outstanding opportunity to expand the
highly successful and cost effective Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act and represents a significant step forward for
bird conservation in the Western Hemisphere.
We thank Congressman Kind for his longstanding leadership
on this issue, and we are gratified that this bill continues a
long tradition of bipartisan support for the conservation of
neotropical migratory birds that stems back to the 106th
Congress when Congressman Don Young and Congressman George
Miller introduced H.R. 39, which became the law that we so
value today.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act is critical
to bird conservation in the United States. There are 340
species of neotropical migrants which represents more than half
of all the breeding birds in the country. Unfortunately, many
of these birds are in decline. Recent data shows 127 of these
species are in decline and 60 of them are in severe decline.
It is clear from the list of species of conservation
concern across the country, including the species of greatest
conservation need and the state wildlife action plans and the
national list of birds of conservation concern, that these are
species that are in dire need of conservation effort.
Fortunately, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act has a proven track record of success, and since it was
enacted the program has supported 296 projects, as Paul
mentioned, and that has conserved more than three million acres
of vital bird habitat, an area about twice the size of the
State of Delaware.
This program's focus on building partnerships and
leveraging partner contributions is key to its success. The $30
million that has been invested in this program beginning in
Fiscal Year 2002 has leveraged partner funding at a ratio of
more than four to one, so for every dollar that has been spent
by the Federal government, $5 has been spent on conservation.
That has been great news for migratory birds and a good value
for taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the program hasn't been able to make use of
all the matching funds that have been available. $258 million
in matching funds have been left on the table because the
Federal side of the match hasn't been available to take
advantage of that. Since the first grants were awarded in 2002,
three out of every four projects that have come into the
program that were otherwise qualified have had to go unfunded
and unfulfilled.
So this bipartisan bill, H.R. 2213, is going to remedy that
need by gradually increasing the grants authorization from the
current cap of $6.5 million to $20 million in 2015. We believe
that expanding the program is going to be critical to achieving
the conservation goals for these species so they can continue
to play their vital biological, recreational and economic
roles.
So while the program has been enormously successful, we
think that the significant increase will really help us move
the dial and help to reverse the population declines of so many
of these neotropical birds that are in dire need of
conservation.
Audubon is also pleased to support H.R. 3433 and H.R. 3537,
which represent improvements to successful bird conservation
programs. We thank you for your leadership, Congressman
Wittman. These are programs that the Audubon Society has long
supported, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the
Junior Duck Stamp Program, and I couldn't agree with Mr.
Sutherland more about the value of both programs.
We greatly appreciate your leadership, Chairwoman Bordallo,
in refining and enhancing these successful bird conservation
programs. We look forward to working with all Members of the
Subcommittee to protect America's birds and their habitat for
future generations.
Thank you very much for the opportunity today, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daulton follows:]
Statement of Michael Daulton, Legislative Director, National Audubon
Society, in Support of H.R. 2213, Reauthorizing the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act
Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am Mike Daulton, Legislative Director for the National Audubon
Society. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
2213, a bill to reauthorize the successful Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act.
National Audubon Society's 25 state offices and more than 500 local
chapters throughout the United States serve more than one million
members and supporters. Audubon's mission is to conserve and restore
natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their
habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological
diversity. Our national network of community-based nature centers and
chapters, scientific and educational programs, and advocacy on behalf
of areas sustaining important bird populations, engage millions of
people of all ages and backgrounds in positive conservation
experiences. Audubon also is the North American partner of Birdlife
International, a global alliance of conservation organizations working
together for the world's birds and people.
The National Audubon Society is pleased to commend Congressman Ron
Kind (D-WI) for his longstanding leadership as a strong voice for
conservation of America's migratory birds. Audubon strongly supports
the bipartisan H.R. 2213, sponsored by Congressman Kind and cosponsored
by Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-PA), which recognizes an outstanding
opportunity to expand the highly successful and cost effective
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act and represents a
significant step forward for bird conservation in the Western
Hemisphere.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) has done a
great service for the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds since
it was enacted in 2000, awarding 296 grants for conservation projects
benefiting America's migratory birds. These grants have been
distributed across more than 40 U.S. states and territories, and more
than 30 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. They include
efforts to protect and manage bird populations and habitats, to
increase research and monitoring, to improve law enforcement, and to
promote community outreach and education programs. Projects involving
land conservation have affected more than three million acres of vital
bird habitat.
Unfortunately, despite these numerous conservation efforts, many
Neotropical migratory bird species are experiencing severe population
declines. For example, the Red Knot, a small Neotropical migratory
shorebird that visits Delaware Bay during its migration, has
experienced a decline of more than 80% in the past 25 years, from a
population of 85,000 birds to a population of only 15,000 today.
Similarly, the Wood Thrush, a forest-dwelling Neotropical species that
breeds in eastern North America and winters in the lowlands of Central
America, has experienced a 50% decline in the past 40 years. Other
Neotropical species experiencing significant population declines
include the Black Swift, Cerulean Warbler, Grasshopper Sparrow, Olive-
sided Flycatcher, Golden-winged Warbler, Mountain Plover, and Bobolink.
The high level of conservation concern for Neotropical migrants
also is demonstrated by the 2008 national list of Birds of Conservation
Concern of the United States. Of the 145 species on the 2008 national
list, 65 are Neotropical migrants, including the Red Knot and the Wood
Thrush, and dozens of other birds such as Swainson's Hawk, Short-eared
Owl, and Peregrine Falcon.
Many of the Neotropical species experiencing significant population
declines are common birds that are found in backyards and at the bird
feeders of millions of Americans. The Rufous Hummingbird, a common
western species that might be spotted on the feeder by any American's
backyard window, has lost 61% of its population in the past 40 years.
The Chimney Swift, whose high-pitched twittering is a familiar sound
during summertime in cities across the eastern United States, has lost
53% of its population over the same time period. The loss of birds once
common in our backyards serves as a troubling wake-up call for all of
us. The findings signal serious problems with habitats in the United
States and outside our borders, as well as national environmental
trends.
To reverse these trends, Audubon urges the committee to approve
H.R. 2213, H.R. 3433, and H.R. 3537. This Committee and the Congress
are to be commended for authorizing successful conservation programs,
such as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), and the Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation Design and Program Act, which have made substantial
contributions to bird conservation. I am very pleased to be here today
to support H.R. 2213, H.R. 3433, and H.R. 3537, which would build on
this success by reauthorizing and improving these outstanding
conservation programs.
The Conservation Challenge: Neotropical Migratory Birds in Decline
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act is critical to bird
conservation in the United States. There are 340 species of Neotropical
migratory birds, which represents more than half of all the breeding
birds in the country. These birds are in dire need of conservation
effort. Neotropical migrants are facing an increasingly complex range
of threats, from development pressures, invasive species, avian
diseases, and a changing climate. The best science on bird population
trends, from the Breeding Bird Survey and Partners in Flight, indicates
that as many as 127 species of Neotropical migratory birds are in
decline. Every major list of species of conservation concern, from the
lists of Species of Greatest Conservation Need in State Wildlife Action
Plans to the national list of Birds of Conservation Concern, show that
Neotropical migrants are a conservation priority, not just for the Fish
and Wildlife Service, but for nearly every state fish and wildlife
agency, and a wide range of non-governmental conservation
organizations.
Best Available Science on Bird Population Trends Indicates
Significant Declines of Neotropical Migrants
Breeding Bird Survey: An analysis by National Audubon
Society in 2007 of data from the Breeding Bird Survey showed that 127
of the 340 Neotropical migratory bird species are known to be in
decline. Of these, 60 species are in severe decline, defined as a
population decrease of 45% or more in the past 40 years.
Partners in Flight: A recent analysis of Partners in
Flight data suggests 118 Neotropical bird species are in decline,
representing nearly half of the Neotropical species for which adequate
data has been collected.
Major Lists of Species of Conservation Concern Highlight
Significant Threats to Neotropical Migrants
State Wildlife Action Plans: Audubon reviewed all of the
lists of Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the State Wildlife
Action Plans. In the 40 states we reviewed with well defined and
accessible lists, 463 bird species are listed in State Wildlife Action
Plans as Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Of these, 276, or 60%,
are Neotropical migrants. In fact, Neotropical migratory bird species
are listed more than 2,000 times as Species of Greatest Conservation
Need in the 40 State Wildlife Action Plans we reviewed.
WatchList: Of the 178 continental bird species on
WatchList 2007, a list of birds of highest conservation concern
compiled by Audubon and American Bird Conservancy, over one-third, 71
species, are Neotropical migrants.
Birds of Conservation Concern: Of the 145 species listed
on the 2008 national list of Birds of Conservation Concern of the
United States, 116 breed in the continental U.S., and 65 are
Neotropical migrants.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a Proven Track
Record of Success
Grants provided through the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act have funded critically important conservation projects that have
helped to protect Neotropical migrants of conservation concern. NMBCA
conservation projects have successfully:
Removed invasive species populations from wetlands and
coastal habitats in the Bahamas;
Secured voluntary conservation easements establishing six
new nature reserves within a 597,000 acre biological corridor in Costa
Rica;
Restored bird habitat in degraded forested areas of a
national park in Jamaica; and
Worked with local community groups to restore riparian
habitat and conduct ecotourism planning in Mexico
These are just four examples of the 296 projects funded through the
NMBCA. All told, the program has protected more than 3 million acres of
vital bird habitat.
In addition to the NMBCA's proven track record of protecting bird
habitat, the program has filled gaps in understanding of the population
status and conservation needs of Neotropical migrants through support
of research, monitoring, and conservation planning. For example,
funding through the NMBCA has allowed conservationists to identify 20
Important Bird Areas in the Southern Cone Grasslands in Argentina,
Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. These grasslands provide critically
important habitat for Swainson's Hawk, American Golden-Plover, Buff-
breasted Sandpiper, Upland Sandpiper, and Bobolink, as well as the
Peregrine Falcon and Red Knot. For example, the region of San Javier in
Argentina includes a mosaic of wetlands, grasslands and woodlands along
the Parana River that attracts the most important concentration of
Bobolinks in the Southern Cone, where at least one million individuals
have been estimated recently. Laguna de Rocha, a brackish lagoon in
Uruguay, is one of the most important sites for Buff-breasted Sandpiper
at a global scale. The grasslands in the interior of the Pampas region
in Argentina are critical for overwintering Swainson's Hawks.
Such projects that identify high-value conservation opportunities
have laid the groundwork for significant conservation work in the
future. New investments, including NMBCA grants, are now being
considered in these critical IBAs that will bring about impressive
conservation results.
The NMBCA also has taken a cost-effective approach that contributes
to its success. By focusing on protecting birds of conservation
concern, the program allows species to be conserved before they are so
critically imperiled that they are on life support and require high-
cost protection and recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act.
The focus on conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean also
captures efficiencies. The birds are concentrated in a smaller land
area than they are in the United States. Most of our Neotropical
migrants funnel into just a handful of countries: Mexico, Cuba, Belize,
the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and the Bahamas. Federal dollars also
can be stretched further where land values reduce the price of
conservation.
Most importantly, this track record of success is made possible by
a focus on building partnerships and leveraging partner contributions
that dramatically multiply the program's conservation impact. From the
program's first year of funding in FY 2002 through FY 2009, $30.4
million was available through Congressional appropriations for grants
under the NMBCA. This modest investment resulted in more than $134
million in matching funds and in-kind contributions. Overall, the
program matched partner contributions to federal funds at a rate of
4:1. For every $1 invested, $5 was spent on conservation. This
impressive leveraging of partner contributions is a major reason for
the program's success, a good value for the taxpayer, and good news for
migratory birds.
The NMBCA Recognizes the Need for Protection of Key Habitats Used
Throughout Migration
By their very nature, migratory birds are a symbol of the need for
international efforts in nature conservation. To safeguard the future
for Neotropical migratory birds, protections must be in place at every
stop along their migratory routes.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year managing the
National Wildlife Refuge System, restoring ecosystems like the
Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River, and the Chesapeake Bay, and
funding cooperative bird conservation efforts through initiatives like
the North American Bird Conservation Initiative and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Joint Ventures. However, once these birds leave the
United States, to go to Latin America or the Caribbean to spend their
winters, they can be exposed to a range of other threats that hold the
potential to significantly undermine conservation efforts in the United
States.
A recent front-page story in the Washington Post (Day of the Gaucho
Waning in Argentina, September 10, 2009) noted that the traditional
Argentine Cowboy, the iconic gaucho, could soon be extinct in
Argentina. Ranchland there is rapidly being converted to fields of
soybeans, corn, and wheat as commodity prices rise. Because the vast
grasslands of Argentina increasingly are being used for agriculture,
cows are increasingly being raised in commercial feedlots. These same
pressures are threatening Argentina's grassland birds. Conservation
efforts to protect the Swainson's Hawk in the United States, for
example, may be undermined without attention to conservation of key
strongholds for the species in Argentina.
The NMBCA recognizes that the future survival of many of the 340
species of U.S. breeding Neotropical migrants depends on a range-wide,
hemispheric approach to species conservation that protects key habitats
used by these birds outside of the United States.
The NMBCA Protects Birds that Attract Spending by Birders and Help Our
Economy
Neotropical migratory birds are among the most attractive and
interesting birds to America's 48 million bird watchers, and drive many
of the economic benefits that bird watchers provide to local
communities.
Each year, thousands of birders flock to see Neotropical migratory
bird species all across the United States during their migration
seasons. During the spring migration in April and May, bird watchers
visit the Gulf Coast, including the coast of Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, to try to catch a glimpse of the
migratory songbirds that stop by there, like the Scarlet Tanager and
the Baltimore Oriole.
During the fall migration in September, birders visit the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts to try to spot Neotropical migratory songbirds and
shorebirds. Away from the coasts, bird watchers visit sites like Hawk
Mountain in Pennsylvania, Hawk Ridge in Minnesota, and Corpus Christi
in Texas to see migrating raptors like the Broad-winged and Swainson's
Hawks.
These birders, out to spot Neotropical migrants, provide a
significant boost for local economies during the migration periods. In
fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 2006, 48
million birders and other wildlife-watchers spent $46 billion pursuing
their interest in bird and wildlife watching. More than 53 million
people fed wild birds around their homes, and 20 million people took
trips specifically for bird watching. Birders spend money on equipment,
birding trips and vacations, bird food, park fees, hotels, airfare, and
more. Total wildlife-related expenditures on bird watching, hunting,
and fishing amounted to $122 billion, or about one percent of the Gross
Domestic Product.
H.R. 2213 Will Expand the Highly Successful and Cost Effective NMBCA
Audubon is pleased to offer strong support for the bipartisan H.R.
2213, which recognizes a tremendous opportunity to expand a highly
successful conservation program and transform it into one of the most
significant forces in bird conservation in the Western Hemisphere.
While the program has been enormously successful, a significant
increase in authorized funding would provide the opportunity to ``move
the needle'' and reverse the population declines of Neotropical
migrants.
When the Congress has made significant investments in bird habitat
conservation, those investments have worked. The federal ``Duck Stamp''
program and the North American Waterfowl Conservation Act have
protected nearly 30 million acres of wetland habitat. Enacted in 1989,
NAWCA has raised $3 billion for wetlands conservation. The 2009 State
of the Birds Report indicates that these investments have contributed
to thriving populations of herons, egrets, hunted waterfowl, and other
birds.
The National Audubon Society strongly supports language in H.R.
2213 that would follow the successful example of NAWCA and the Duck
Stamp program and raise the authorized level of funding for
conservation projects under the NMBCA from its current cap of $6.5
million annually to $20 million by 2015. With the program's 3:1
matching requirement, a $20 million funding level would guarantee at
least $80 million of spending on conservation for Neotropical migratory
birds each year.
Currently, the NMBCA has been unable to make use of millions in
matching funds that have been left on the table due to inadequate
funding levels. Since the first NMBCA grants were awarded in 2002, the
program has only been able to award 296 grants out of the 1158
proposals received, meaning three out of every four otherwise qualified
projects go unfunded.
Out of the $105.5 million in grants requested since the program
began, the NMBCA could only afford to award $30.4 million of those
requests, or 29% of the requested conservation funds.
Since the NMBCA program began, more than $258 million in matching
funds and in-kind contributions have been left on the table because
federal funds were not available to provide the federal match. This
suggests an enormous opportunity for successful expansion of the
program. The increased authorization level included in H.R. 2213
recognizes this opportunity and takes an important step toward
leveraging these private investments and thereby significantly
expanding the program's conservation impact.
The Congress Has Demonstrated Longstanding Bipartisan Support for NMBCA
H.R. 2213 continues the long history of bipartisan support for the
conservation of Neotropical migratory birds, and for significant
increases in authorized funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat Enhancement
Act (H.R. 4517) was introduced in August of 1998 in the 105th Congress
by Congressman Don Young (R-AK), authorizing $5 million for each Fiscal
Year 1999-2002. Companion legislation introduced in the Senate later
that year (S. 1970) by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) and a bipartisan
group of seven cosponsors called for an authorization of $8 million for
each Fiscal Year 1999-2002.
In the 106th Congress, Congressman Young, along with Rep. George
Miller (D-CA) and Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), introduced H.R. 39, calling
for an authorization of $8 million for each of Fiscal Years 2000-2004.
Companion legislation introduced in the Senate by Senator Abraham and a
bipartisan group of 14 other senators (S. 148) called for an
authorization of $8 million for each Fiscal Year 2000-2003. An
amendment was accepted that reduced the authorization to $5 million for
each Fiscal Year 2001-2005, and on July 20, 2000, the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act was signed into law.
In 2005, in the 109th Congress, Congressman Ron Kind and
Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) introduced H.R. 518, which ramped up
authorization levels from $5 million in FY 2006 to $15 million in FY
2009. Companion legislation introduced in the Senate by Senator Lincoln
Chafee and a bipartisan group of 5 other senators (S.1410) ramped up
the authorized funding level from $5 million in FY 2006 to $10 million
in FY 2010. A compromise was accepted that reduced the authorized
funding levels to $5.5 million for FY08, $6 million for FY 09, and $6.5
million for FY10. This compromised version of H.R. 518 was included in
the Tylersville Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act, H.R. 4957, and signed
into law on October 17, 2006.
Earlier this year, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Senator Mike Crapo
(R-ID) introduced S. 690, which calls for ramped up authorization
levels from $8 million in FY 2010 to $20 million in FY 2015. This bill
was reported favorably without amendment by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works in June. H.R. 2213, introduced by
Congressman Ron Kind and Congressman Jim Gerlach in April, contains
funding levels identical to those included in S. 690.
From the early bills sponsored by Congressmen Don Young and George
Miller, to the most recent bill sponsored by Congressmen Ron Kind and
Jim Gerlach, the NMBCA has maintained bipartisan support for more than
a decade. Bipartisan bills to significantly increase authorized funding
levels were introduced in both the House of Representatives and the
Senate in the 106th, 109th, and 110th Congresses, and now the 111th
Congress as well.
H.R. 3433: Amending the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) was enacted in
1989 for the purpose of supporting the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Loss of habitat in the United States, Mexico, and
Canada was causing a significant decline in waterfowl populations, and
all three countries agreed that a continental effort would be required
in order to restore previously damaged wetlands and uplands and
population levels.
For 20 years, NAWCA has made remarkable strides in protection of
habitat used by migratory birds across the continent. The program has
put projects on the ground in all 50 states. It is helping slow the
trend of wetland loss and preventing serious negative impacts on
migratory birds and other wildlife. We appreciate that it not only
provides habitat for waterfowl, but also nongame wetlands birds, a wide
variety of grassland-nesting birds, and other wildlife.
NAWCA requires each federal grant dollar to be matched by at least
one dollar in non-federal funds. Most of the match is raised by
participating NGOs and state governments. Across the program in all
three countries, the ratio has consistently been closer to 3:1 in non-
federal/federal funds, demonstrating strong community based support for
the projects. Originally, all non-federal funds were required to be
raised in the U.S. and sent to Mexico or Canada for individual
projects. Congress changed this requirement in 1994 for Mexican
projects, allowing match funds to originate in Mexico. Canadian
projects, however, must still raise 100% of their match funds in the
U.S. As support has developed in Canada, Canadian organizations and
local governments have become proficient at raising some funding for
projects, none of which currently counts towards the match requirement
under current law.
The National Audubon Society supports the amendment to the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act, included in H.R. 3433, which would
allow money raised in Canada to be counted towards a portion of their
match requirement. The benefits of NAWCA to migratory birds is
substantial and Congress should encourage Canadians to raise a portion
of the matching funds required, thus increasing both local engagement
and the number of acres conserved.
H.R. 3537: Reauthorizing the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design
Program Act
National Audubon Society supports H.R. 3537, which would
reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Program. The Junior Duck Stamp
Program is one of the premier environmental education programs in the
United States today. Over the past 10 years, more than 175,000 students
have participated in the Art Contest associated with the program
including more than 26,000 students in 2004, and many thousands more
have participated in the related environmental education program. A
tremendous amount has been accomplished for a relatively small outlay
of funds. National Audubon Society is pleased to commend Congressman
Solomon Ortiz and Congressman Henry Brown for sponsoring H.R. 3537 to
reauthorize this outstanding program for our young students and our
shared environment.
Conclusion
National Audubon Society is very pleased to offer our strong
support for H.R. 2213, which represents a significant step forward for
bird conservation in the Western Hemisphere. The Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Act has been an unqualified success, leveraging
modest federal investments into a heavily multiplied and impressive
conservation impact. We are pleased to commend Congressman Ron Kind and
Congressman Jim Gerlach for their leadership in introducing this
important legislation. We are also pleased to support H.R. 3433 and
H.R. 3537, which represent improvements to successful bird conservation
programs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Daulton. I represent
the territory of Guam in the Pacific. We have very few birds.
We have a problem with the brown tree snakes.
Mr. Daulton. Absolutely.
Ms. Bordallo. So if we could just send a few of those birds
over to our island, I would be very, very pleased.
Mr. Daulton. We will see what we can do.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. Schroeder. Mr.
Schroeder, you can begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DARIN SCHROEDER, VICE PRESIDENT OF CONSERVATION
ADVOCACY, AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY
Mr. Schroeder. Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Wittman,
I want to thank you for holding this important hearing today. I
am here as Vice President of Conservation Advocacy for the
American Bird Conservancy, a national nonprofit organization
whose mission is to conserve our native wild birds and their
habitats throughout the Americas.
As such, we believe that all three bills--H.R. 2213, H.R.
3433 and H.R. 3537--advance Americas's historic and ongoing
commitment to the conservation of one of its most cherished
natural resources, migratory birds, and therefore we urge the
expedited markup and passage by Congress.
With ABC's unqualified support for the reauthorization of
the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program
and the amendment the NAWCA to allow Canadian organizations and
local governments to contribute up to 50 percent of the
requiring matching funds, I would like to spend just a bit more
time on H.R. 2213, Congressman Kind and Gerlach's
reauthorization of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act.
In last year's Subcommittee hearing entitled Going, Going
Gone: An Assessment of the Global Decline in Bird Populations,
my colleague, Dr. George Wallace, testified that of the 341
neotropical migratory bird species found in the U.S., 127 are
known to be in decline, 60 severely, suffering a population
loss of more than 45 percent in just the last 40 years.
This analysis was confirmed earlier this year in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's U.S. State of the Birds Report, the
most comprehensive assessment to date on the status of bird
populations.
Scientists and conservationists agree that the major source
of bird mortality comes from habitat loss through conversion
for human uses and habitat degradation from ecologically
unsustainable land uses. Put together, there are simply fewer
and fewer places for our native birds to breed and live,
especially the large tracts of unbroken natural habitat.
So while the situation is clearly dire for many of our
native migratory species, there is a Federal program in place
that has an established and proven track record of helping
reverse this trend, the NMBCA. In a report produced last year
that was submitted for the record by American Bird Conservancy
entitled Saving Migratory Birds for Future Generations: The
Success of the NMBCA, we found that the program has worked well
in helping reverse habitat loss and advance conservation
strategies.
The grant's requirement for public/private partnerships,
along with the international collaboration they foster, are
integral to conserving vulnerable bird populations. I will
quickly relate to you just one example of the work accomplished
through the NMBCA.
Last year, American Bird Conservancy and its partners in
Colombia, Ecuador and Peru collectively received a $204,000
NMBCA grant and then matched it with $613,000 in privately
donated funds in order to reduce the habitat loss in the
Northern Andes, an extremely important winter home for many
migratory bird species.
This coalition of NGO's worked together to acquire and
preserve the few remaining obtainable patches of high elevation
natural forest. We then partnered with local communities to
reforest nearly 2,500 acres with over 660,000 native tree
species. And finally we persuaded coffee growers to use bird
friendly cultivation practices such as the production of shade
grown coffee which maintains a canopy of natural trees over
coffee shrubs.
This was a win/win solution for both birds and coffee
farmers. Since coffee is the second most valuable exported
commodity on earth after oil, producing shade grown coffee
ended up adding value to their product, resulting in the
farmers receiving higher prices than typically commanded on the
world market.
Since 2002, there has been a growing demand for NMBCA
grants to help fund migratory bird conservation efforts.
Unfortunately, as Assistant Director Schmidt has testified, on
average about 125 qualifying proposals are submitted every
year, but grants can only be awarded to about 40 due to the
program's current limited funding.
In 2008, 37 grants totaling $4,431,000 were awarded, but 63
otherwise qualified projects worth nearly $10 million in
private contributions were not funded. From these numbers it is
clear that there is a demand for funding that is currently not
being met.
ABC strongly believes that increasing the resources for
this program is essential to achieving conservation goals
critical to our environment and our economy. Just as
importantly, this Federal program is a good value, as Mr.
Daulton has said, for the American taxpayer, often leveraging
$4 in partner contributions for each $1 the government spends.
Therefore, ABC fully supports Congressman Kind's bill, H.R.
2213, which will meet the growing conservation needs of
America's migratory birds by ensuring the authorization level
of the NMBCA meets the level of demand.
In closing, Madam Chair, ABC endorses all three bills and
strongly believes that through the continued support and
leadership by the Federal government and bird conservation
through the NMBCA, combined with the active help of its
citizens, we can restore America's birds and the habitats on
which they depend.
I will be pleased to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schroeder follows:]
Statement of Darin Schroeder, Vice President of Conservation Advocacy,
American Bird Conservancy
Chairwoman Bordallo, members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank
you on behalf of my organization, American Bird Conservancy, for
holding this hearing today on three important bills: the first,
bipartisan legislation (H.R. 2213) seeking the reauthorization of the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Grants Act; second, a bill
(H.R. 3433) to amend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act; and
third, legislation (H.R. 3537) to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp
Conservation and Design Program Act.
I am here today as Vice President for Conservation Advocacy for
American Bird Conservancy, a national, not-for profit organization
whose mission is to conserve our native wild birds and their habitats
throughout the Americas.
To begin, I would simply say that American Bird Conservancy
supports all three bills that are before the Subcommittee for
consideration today and urges their expedited markup and passage by
Congress.
The Federal Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program has
successfully provided students in kindergarten through high school with
an important opportunity to learn about migratory birds, their
migration patterns, and their habitat requirements by focusing on birds
often found in the students' own backyards. Since the Junior Duck Stamp
legislation was enacted in 1994, there have been hundreds of thousands
of students who have been educated on the importance of bird
conservation, and permitted students to demonstrate what they have
learned through their creation of truly stunning works of art. This
program successfully serves to inspire the next generation of bird
conservation leaders and merits Congress' continued support.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act has helped to conserve
wetlands in North America for more than twenty years by providing grant
money for projects that would provide habitat conservation for
wetlands-dependant species. The law requires each federal dollar put
into this grant program to be matched by at least $1 in non-federal
funds, and projects may be completed in the U.S., Canada, or Mexico. As
currently written, Canadian projects must be matched solely by American
match money, and any funds raised by Canadian organizations and local
governments are not counted towards the required match. H.R. 3433 would
allow Canadian organizations and local governments to contribute up to
50% of the required matching funds. And because these organizations are
already raising non-matching funds, these monies could be counted
towards the match if H.R.3433 is passed.
As an organization that works with migratory birds, which by
definition cross international borders during their migration patterns,
we know that protection and restoration of wetland and upland habitat
must occur across the continent if the goal is to protect the species.
By previous amendment, Mexican projects are able to raise their
matching funds from Mexican sources. But because Canadian projects are
required by law to raise matching funds solely from the United States,
these projects are suffering from a lack of funding. H.R.3433 would
rectify this discrepancy, and allow Canadian sources to contribute
monies to projects in their own communities. This amendment can only
serve to raise more money for this important program, and enable these
partnerships to conserve the habitat that is so important to migratory
bird species.
With our unqualified support of the first two bills I would like to
spend just a bit more time on the third, Congressmen Kind and Gerlach's
reauthorization of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. For
those on the subcommittee who aren't familiar with my organization,
American Bird Conservancy acts to address the full spectrum of threats
to birds, safeguarding the rarest bird species, restoring habitats, and
finding policy solutions that reduce threats to America's native birds.
In so doing, American Bird Conservancy has a great deal of experience
working with our partners in accomplishing the goal of the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act--the long-term conservation of these
birds and their habitats for future generations.
In last year's prescient Subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Going,
Going, Gone? An Assessment of the Global Decline in Bird Populations,''
my colleague, Dr. George Wallace, testified that of the 341 neotropical
migratory species found in the U.S., 127 are known to be in decline--60
severely, suffering a population loss of more than 45% in just the past
40 years. This analysis was confirmed earlier this year in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's U.S. State of the Birds report, the most
comprehensive assessment to date on the status of bird populations.
The reasons for this startling decline of migratory bird species in
the U.S. are many and varied. Threats such as inappropriately lit
communications towers, poorly placed wind turbines, unnecessary night
lighting of tall buildings, or even glass windows in our homes that
reflect the surrounding environment and consequently cause the
sickening ``thump'' we have all heard from a bird strike--all play a
contributing role to the decline of many bird population levels.
While science continues to document the growing impact on bird
species from these threats, it is also advancing practical solutions to
them. Yet scientists and conservationists agree that the major source
of mortality comes from habitat loss through conversion for human uses,
and habitat degradation from ecologically unsustainable land uses.
Resource extraction and a growing human population have resulted in
more development and land conversion for suburban sprawl. There are
simply fewer and fewer places for our native birds to breed and live,
especially large blocks of unbroken natural habitat. Meanwhile
deforestation, especially in Latin America, is accelerating at an
alarming rate, driven by the needs of a rapidly expanding human
population that has tripled in the last fifty years. Estimates of the
percentage of remaining forests that are lost each year in the
Neotropics are between 1-2%.
While the situation is clearly dire for many species of our native,
migratory species, such as Golden-winged and Cerulean warblers, Buff-
breasted Sandpiper, Long-billed Curlew, Reddish Egret, and Wood and
Bicknell's Thrushes, there is a federal program in place that has an
established and proven track-record of helping to reverse this trend:
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Grants Act (NMBCA).
The NMBCA supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the
United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where
approximately five billion birds of more than 500 species, including
some of the most endangered birds in North America, spend their
winters. Highly leveraged projects include activities that benefit bird
populations such as habitat restoration, research and monitoring, law
enforcement, and outreach and education.
In a report produced last year by American Bird Conservancy
entitled, Saving Migratory Birds for Future Generations: The Success of
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, we found the grant
program has worked well in helping reverse habitat loss and advancing
conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that
populate America and the Western Hemisphere. These public-private
partnerships along with the international collaboration they foster are
integral to conserving vulnerable bird populations.
Here is just one example of the work accomplished through the
NMBCA: Last year, ABC and its partners Fundacion ProAves (Columbia),
Fundacion Jocotoco (Ecuador) and Asociacion Ecosistemas Andinos (Peru)
received a $204,500 NMBCA grant, and then matched it with $613,500 in
privately-donated funds to reduce habitat loss in the northern Andes,
an important winter home for many migratory birds. This coalition
worked together to acquire and preserve the few remaining obtainable
patches of high elevation natural forest; we then partnered with local
communities to reforest nearly 2,500 acres with 660,000 native tree
species; and, finally, we persuaded local ranchers and coffee growers
to use bird friendly cultivation practices such as the production of
shade grown coffee which maintains a canopy of natural trees over
coffee shrubs. This was a win-win solution for both birds and coffee
farmers since coffee is the second most valuable exported legal
commodity on earth (after oil) and their efforts to produce shade grown
coffee adds value to their product, resulting in the farmers receiving
higher prices than typically commanded on the world market.
Since 2002, there has been growing demand for grants to fund
migratory bird conservation efforts. From 2002-2007, grant money has
gone out to 44 U.S. states and 34 countries, funding 225 projects,
impacting almost three million acres of critical bird habitat. On
average, about 120 qualifying proposals are submitted every year, but
grants are awarded to about 40 due to the program's current limited
funding. In 2008, 37 grants totaling $4,431,295 were awarded, but 63
projects, worth nearly $10,000,000, were not funded. From these
numbers, it is clear that there is a constant demand for funding that
currently is not being met.
ABC strongly believes increasing the resources for this program is
essential to achieving conservation goals critical to our environment
and economy. Just as importantly, this federal program is a good value
for taxpayers, leveraging over four dollars in partner contributions
for each one that the government spends.
And, while it is not the explicit goal of the grant program, it is
my strong belief that this grant is a good example of serving another
important role--that of an effective tool of U.S. foreign policy. In a
recent speech at the Council of Foreign Relations, U.S. Secretary of
State, Hillary Clinton said:
``President Obama has led us to think outside the usual
boundaries. He has launched a new era of engagement based on
common interests, shared values, and mutual respect. Going
forward, capitalizing on America's unique strengths, we must
advance those interests through partnership, and promote
universal values through the power of our example and the
empowerment of people. In this way, we can forge the global
consensus required to defeat the threats, manage the dangers,
and seize the opportunities of the 21st century. America will
always be a world leader as long as we remain true to our
ideals and embrace strategies that match the times. So we will
exercise American leadership to build partnerships and solve
problems that no nation can solve on its own, and we will
pursue policies to mobilize more partners and deliver
results.''
Those words apply precisely to the NMBCA. It is, ``engagement based
on common interests, shared values, and common respect'' and the grant
program works because it builds ``partnerships'' and ``promotes
universal values''. Frankly, there is no surer way to win the ``hearts
and minds'' and build collaborative relationships among people than by
assisting with the conservation of species that, literally, inhabit our
respective backyards at different times of the year. Migratory birds
are part of our shared history, culture, and legacy to our children--
and conserving them for these future generations is a ``problem no
nation can solve on its own,'' hence the need and effectiveness of this
grant program.
Therefore, ABC fully supports Congressmen Kind and Gerlach's bill,
H.R. 2213, which will meet the growing conservation needs of America's
migratory birds by ensuring the authorization levels of the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act meet the level of need.
In closing, Madame Chair, as you and the other members of this
Subcommittee well know, birds are not only beautiful and interesting
creatures eagerly welcomed by millions of Americans into their backyard
every year; bird watching is also big business. According to a new
report released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, birdwatchers
contributed $36 billion to the U.S. economy in 2006, the most recent
year for which economic data are available. The report, ``Birding in
the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis,'' shows that
total participation in bird watching is strong at 48 million and has
remained steady since 1996. Birds also naturally provide billions of
dollars worth of pest control each year, benefitting farmers and
consumers alike.
American Bird Conservancy believes that through the continued
support and leadership by federal government in bird conservation
through the NMBCA, combined with the active help of its citizens, we
can restore America's birds and the habitats on which they depend.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Schroeder, for your
testimony before the Subcommittee.
And now I would like to invite Ms. Cutchin to present her
statement. She is from the St. John Regional Catholic School in
Maryland, and you are going to testify I think on one of the
more popular bills before the U.S. Congress, so if you would
proceed with your statement?
STATEMENT OF LISA CUTCHIN, TEACHER,
ST. JOHN REGIONAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL
Ms. Cutchin. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am thrilled to be here this morning, and I
videotaped myself and left a message for my students because I
am not there today to let them know that I was coming to
Capitol Hill to be part of the process, so I am thrilled to be
here.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to tell you about
something that four years ago I knew nothing about. I did not
know what a duck stamp was. I attended a teacher workshop at
Patuxent Research Refuge through the Fish and Wildlife Service.
And I learned about this wonderful program that would allow
me to teach art--I teach art to kindergarten through eighth
grade, about 550 students--and it would allow me to work across
a variety of curriculums with science connections, with
literature and research connections, reading and writing, and
it also and most importantly would allow my students to
influence and be part of something at a very young age that
they could see a long lasting impact for.
And so I went to this program, learned about the Junior
Duck Stamp, and I brought it back to my classroom, and for the
past three years I have used this as one of my lessons. We
don't participate because we expect to win. The artwork for the
stamps is certainly much greater than what a student who comes
to art once a week for 42 minutes can achieve.
But I want to share with you the looks on their faces, and
you can see that in some of these pictures; the looks on their
faces when they are working so hard to create this picture
after their research and learning about conservation and
migrating birds and then the look and the smiles on their faces
when they have finished and the pride that they take.
It is just a phenomenal program, and at a time when no
child can or ever should be left behind I just think this is
such a powerful teaching tool for our students, and I urge you
please continue this.
Mr. Sutherland said who cannot like the duck stamp. I love
the Duck Stamp Program as a teacher. Its only fault is that
there are more teachers who don't know about this program. I
have students--I now have eighth graders--who participated in
this program. I have done it with sixth graders and with third
graders. They still talk to me about seeing the geese fly over
when they are out in the playground because we are in a rural
area.
So it has impacted the lives of my students, and I would
just like to close with the fact that we were invited to be
part of the national judging since it was at the Postal Museum
last year. I took 70 of my students. This is one of the thank
you notes that they wrote:
``Thank you for the Duck Stamp Program. I love,'' and it is
underlined, love, ``learning about ducks because where I live
there are non-stop ducks flying over our roof. I love seeing
ducklings. They are so cute. I love the program because I like
to see other people's work. Thank you for setting up this
wonderful program.'' This is Jessica Lowe, one of my students.
So for my students and for fellow teachers who could not be
here, please support and continue this wonderful program. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cutchin follows:]
Statement of Lisa D. Cutchin, Teacher,
St. John Regional Catholic School
The Jr. Duck Stamp Program, Conservation on Canvas, is an excellent
tool for teaching students at all grade levels about science, language
arts, mathematics, and the Visual Arts, and for providing a real world
scenario which students can positively impact. Just starting out as a
new teacher, several years ago I attended a workshop offered by the
Patuxent Research Refuge, located just outside Washington, DC. I was
looking for lesson plans and materials with curriculum connections
across multiple disciplines that would be interesting for my students.
I spent a Saturday in January learning about the Jr. Duck Stamp Program
and participating in hand's on activities that had been designed by the
staff at Patuxent Research Refuge. I had no prior knowledge of the Duck
Stamp Program and probably would still not know about program if not
for attending the workshop. My hope was that I could incorporate the
materials in a lesson for the following school year. I was so impressed
with the materials and excited about the learning opportunity for my
students, I incorporated the lesson in just a few short weeks after
attending the program. My third graders created pictures that were
submitted to the Maryland Coordinator for the Jr. Duck Stamp
competition in mid-March. I have used the Jr. Duck Stamp lesson with my
students each year since and continue to share it with other teachers.
I have been teaching at St. John Regional Catholic School (named a
National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education,
September 15, 2009) for the past 5 years and my students have
participated in the Jr. Duck Stamp Competition for 3 of those years. In
the spring of 2009, 70 SJRCS third graders participated in the National
Judging for the Federal Jr. Duck Stamp Program that was held in
Washington, DC. It created a memory for those students, which will be
with them for years to come. When those students walked into art class
as 4th graders recently, the first thing they asked me was, ``When are
we doing the Jr. Duck Stamp?'' Our school is in rural Frederick,
Maryland and very close to the city limits. There are farm lands nearby
and a pond that attracts migrating water fowl, especially Canada Geese.
The geese fly over our playground and our students are very aware of
the sights and sounds of these beautiful creatures. I believe our
classroom studies, connected to the Jr. Duck Stamp, have significantly
raised awareness of these birds, flyways, and migration and the need
for land conservation.
My students learn about the Jr. Duck Stamp through materials
provided to me by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency. Students begin
their study by reading books, watching movies and creating a ``Jr. Duck
Stamp'' journal that includes facts they discover during the research
phase of the unit. After conducting some preliminary research, students
are asked to select a waterfowl they would like to learn more about. We
discuss plagiarism and why it is not ok to copy or take another
person's work. Students use and hone their powers of observation as
they work to determine proportion and create an accurate image of their
selected waterfowl. At a time when no child will be left behind, this
powerful teaching unit connects the various curriculums and provides
asks students to planning, make decisions, and use higher order
thinking skills.
Armed with information about a waterfowl they have selected, my
students begin work on their entry for the State of Maryland Jr. Duck
Stamp competition. Every student who submits an entry is given a
certificate of participation by the Maryland Jr. Duck Stamp
Coordinator. Several students/parents have lent me their Jr. Duck Stamp
pictures to bring with me when I speak with you in person. This is a
project that families keep and some are even framed to be enjoyed at
home. I have also included photographs I have taken of some of my
students' Jr. Duck Stamp pictures and included those also.
My students participate in art class once a week for 42 minutes. My
hope is during that time, I can expose them to the visual arts, help
them make connections between the arts and the real world; and give
them an opportunity to experiment with a variety of media and
techniques. We are not an art school. My goal is help grow and develop
responsible citizens of the United States and the world. The Jr. Duck
Stamp Conservation on Canvas program plays an important role in helping
me achieve this goal.
As a teacher, I believe the Jr. Duck Stamp Program is an excellent
learning opportunity for students at all grade levels. It provides a
real world problem (land conservation) that students can actively take
a part in improving. Participation in the Jr. Duck Stamp Program at an
early age makes connections for the citizens our students will grow to
become. (That I have never chosen to smoke, although both my parents
did, I attribute this fact to the educational programs I participated
in as a 5th/6th grader in elementary school in the 1960's. I believe
the Jr. Duck Stamp Program will make connections to the environment and
land conservation in a similar way for my students.)
What is difficult for me to put into words is the looks on the
curious faces of my students as they research and learn about various
water fowl and their habitat; the looks of determination as they work
hard to capture the likeness of the birds; and the smiles when their
entries are finally completed. The Jr. Duck Stamp Lesson Plan is my
favorite lesson to teach and based on the feedback from my students,
one of their favorites as well. At the start of the current school
year, a parent told me that her son was practicing drawing ducks over
the summer because he knew (from his sister who had created a Jr. Duck
Stamp picture two years ago) that this was the year he would be
learning about the Jr. Duck Stamp program and creating a picture for
the contest! When I talk with my current 8th graders, they have a sense
of pride in their participation in the Jr. Duck Stamp Competition.
This past summer I was selected to participate in the National
Gallery of Art's Teacher Institute for 17th and 18th Century American
Art. I was one of 50 fortunate teachers across our great nation to have
this honor. I talked to my fellow educators and was surprised to learn
that they did not know about the Conservation on Canvas program. As
teachers, we are asked to have our students participate in many
contests throughout the school year. It has been my experience that
most contests are to benefit the sponsor of the contest. The Jr. Duck
Stamp Conservation on Canvas Program the related competition is a
significant benefit to the students who participate. I ask you to
provide support and continue this worthwhile program.
Thank you.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Cutchin. I don't
think there would be any opposition to such a wonderful
program, and for your very impassioned testimony here today we
certainly agree with it.
I know I support it. What about you, Mr. Wittman?
Mr. Wittman. Yes. Absolutely.
Ms. Bordallo. Absolutely. You have two votes already. All
right. Thank you so much.
And now I have just a couple of questions, and I know Mr.
Wittman will have a few questions too. To Mr. Schmidt, you and
other panelists each testified in support of Mr. Wittman's
legislation to amend the NAWCA to allow the use of non U.S.
funds to satisfy up to 50 percent of nonFederal matching
contribution requirements.
For the record, can you confirm that there is nothing in
H.R. 3433 that would reduce or waive any portion of the
nonFederal match requirements for projects in Canada and H.R.
3433 will only increase flexibility to allow the use of
Canadian sources of funds to satisfy existing matching
requirements? Is that correct?
Mr. Schmidt. That is correct. I can confirm what you have
said.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Let me ask some of the other
witnesses.
Mr. Sutherland. Yes. We had meetings with Mr. Wittman and
other Members of Congress to talk about the issue and the
opportunities, and that was the intent from the get go, Madam
Chairwoman.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Next?
Mr. Daulton. Yes. Absolutely. That is my understanding of
the legislation, and I certainly support the goal to provide
additional flexibility for additional match in Canada.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. And next?
Mr. Schroeder. I agree. American Bird Conservancy's careful
reading and review of that legislation would definitely lend to
that conclusion.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you. Now we have, Mr.
Sutherland, were the Congress not to pass H.R. 3433 what might
the consequences be for NAWCA projects in Canada and how----
Mr. Sutherland. Thank you for the question. As I said in my
very brief statement and more extensively in my written
testimony, the purpose of NAWCA is to implement the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, which recognizes the
continental scope and nature of waterfowl and other migratory
birds.
Wisely, I believe, when Congress wrote NAWCA back in 1989
they required that funds that were going to be expended in the
program must be expended in all three of the countries, and the
way that the law is written it requires that money be spent in
all three countries.
Therefore, if it is not able to be spent in any one country
or let us say outside the United States, where in Canada most
of the birds are actually produced, the program can't spend all
of the money then in the United States, so it triggers a
situation.
If we can't use the money in Canada, it triggers a
situation where you won't be able to spend all the money in the
United States either, and the repercussions will be again
continental in scope much like the benefits are continental in
scope.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. OK. I have another question now
for Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Daulton.
There appears to be a broad support for the increased
authorized funding levels contained in Mr. Kind's legislation,
H.R. 2213, in part because the program has been so successful
in generating funds to meet the nonFederal matching
contribution requirements under the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act.
Are you not concerned, however, that the current global
economic slowdown will have a similar drag effect on the
ability of grant applications to meet nonFederal matching
contribution requirements, not unlike what has happened for
NAWCA projects in Canada?
Mr. Daulton. I will give a try to that first.
Ms. Bordallo. First? All right.
Mr. Daulton. I think if you look at the history of the
program, the matching requirement has been exceeded in the
past. The legislation requires a three to one match and,
generally speaking, the match has been closer to four to one in
practice. So that would be the first thing that I would say is
that so far we are exceeding the legislatively recommended
matching requirement for this program.
Second, the history of NAWCA I think shows that at
increased levels of authorization a higher level of match can
be sustained; that the neotropical program has been matching
funds with a Federal authorization around $5 million or now the
current cap of $6.5 million. The NAWCA funding has been much
higher, and yet they have been able to sustain a close to three
to one match.
So I think the history with NAWCA actually shows us that as
you gradually ramp up the authorization we should be able to
maintain a higher level of match.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Schroeder, do you want to add to that?
Mr. Schroeder. I would agree with Mr. Daulton, and I think
the history of the NMBCA program has shown that the quality of
the proposed projects--when I mentioned in my testimony that
there were a number, a far greater number of qualified projects
that exceeded the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to
provide that seed money that is the NMBCA, I think that shows
that mainly Latin America countries are able to provide the
match if there is an opportunity by the United States to have a
grant that they can match.
So I don't anticipate that with a higher authorization
there would be a flood of projects, proposals that wouldn't be
qualified. I think that simply we could do more, much more
conservation work with just a little bit greater investment
from the United States portion.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. My time is up here, but
I want to ask one quick question to Ms. Cutchin.
If I heard you correctly, you became aware of the Junior
Duck Stamp Program more through your own interest and
initiative than through any marketing or promotion effort by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Is that accurate?
Ms. Cutchin. I actually received an email through Fish and
Wildlife Service as a teacher and their offering of classes for
teachers, and that was how I learned of the program.
Ms. Bordallo. Do you think the Federal government should do
more?
Ms. Cutchin. Yes, I do.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you. Mr. Wittman, do you
have any questions?
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you so
much for your leadership on these issues. I would like to thank
each and every member of the panel for joining us today and
thank you for your continued efforts to protect and enhance our
bird populations. That is extraordinarily important.
Madam Chairwoman, in the interest of time, I would ask
unanimous consent to have my remarks today entered into the
record.
Ms. Bordallo. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert J. Wittman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia
My legislation, H.R. 3433 provides for a simple, timely and
essential change to the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
Under current law, Congress appropriates money each year to be
spent on projects to acquire, enhance, protect and restore wetlands in
Canada, Mexico and the United States.
In fact, this remarkable program, which is now celebrating its 20th
anniversary, has funded over 1,600 projects to conserve more than 20
million acres of wetlands and associated uplands across North America.
This conservation has helped ensure improved waterfowl hunting across
North America.
Since 1989, this landmark law has required that each Federal dollar
spent on a conservation project be matched by non-federal money.
However, due to the irreplaceable nature of the breeding waterfowl
habitat in Canada, a decision was made not to require matching funds
from Canadian sources. Therefore, projects in Canada have been matched
by conservation dollars from the United States.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the North American
Wetlands Council has approved conservation projects in Canada worth
nearly $70 million during its current five-year funding cycle which
began in 2007. Under law, this means that $70 million in private
matching funds must be provided.
Under my legislation, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
would be amended to allow up to 50 percent of the non-federal share of
projects in Canada to be paid for by Canadian conservation supporters.
My legislation will allow and encourage our Canadian conservation
partners to fund a greater number of important wetland preservation
projects north of the border.
The authorization of appropriations for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act does not expire until September 30, 2012. We simply
cannot wait to make this change because the non-matching share
imbalance will continue to grow and must be paid before the
authorization expires.
The language of this legislation has been fully vetted and it is my
understanding has been endorsed by all interested parties including the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the member of the North American Wetlands
Conservation Council which includes, Ducks Unlimited, as well as the
National Audubon Society and the American Bird Conservancy.
______
Mr. Wittman. I will begin with Mr. Sutherland. Would you
tell us a little bit about why you think changes to NAWCA, as
proposed in H.R. 3433, are needed?
Mr. Sutherland. Thank you. Yes. The primary need is really
an opportunity. The Canadians, starting 20 years ago, really
weren't raising a lot of money to go toward NAWCA programs.
Over the 20 years that the program has existed the Canadians,
with encouragement from the U.S. Government and from NGO's like
Ducks Unlimited, have started raising increasing amounts of
money that can be used as match to these programs, to these
projects.
As I said earlier, projects in Canada are extremely
biologically important to the North American waterfowl resource
and important to the resource of a lot of other birds as well.
Therefore, we want to maximize as much habitat out on the
landscape, the Canadian prairie and other Canadian landscapes,
as we can.
Letting the Canadian dollar, the Canadian raised dollar,
help match the NAWCA projects in similar ways to the way the
Mexican dollar can match NAWCA projects in their country would
just expand the situation, expand the number of projects, and
that would be very useful and very helpful to the birds.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Mr. Schmidt, can you tell us a
little bit, maybe building on Mr. Sutherland's response? Tell
us a little bit about the significance of Canadian waterfowl
habitat and why that is important to the U.S. to be looking at
enhancing that habitat.
Mr. Schmidt. Yes, indeed, Mr. Wittman. That is second to
none in terms of its importance to this continent's waterfowl
population.
In the absence of the legislation that you have supported
and sponsored here, I feel like we would see a consequence that
would result in not the investment that we need in those high
priority areas, so they are critical.
Mr. Wittman. Another question. This is on H.R. 2213. Tell
us a little bit about the major threats that you think our
neotropical migratory birds are facing. How many of those
species are currently on the endangered species list or under
consideration for threatened status?
Mr. Schmidt. I would say first and foremost is habitat loss
throughout the breeding/wintering areas of these species.
As you no doubt recognize, it requires suitable habitat
throughout their life cycle. That means cooperation among
countries, frankly, and among peoples and so in the absence of
that cooperation and recognition I think habitat loss would be
the key, one key element of declines for these populations,
although there are many other reasons for concern.
And then your second question I will have to get back to
you on the specifics. I can tell you that 341 neotropical
migrant birds are covered through this Act, and I think we have
something like 50 or 60 that are on our birds of conservation
concern, which are sort of the precursor to, say, the listing
under ESA. I believe it is a handful, but less than 10, are on
the endangered species list itself.
I can get back to you with the specifics associated with
that, but I think the numbers reflect our general concern for
the suite of species and the need for this kind of legislation.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Can you tell us how much money the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spends each year to administer
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation account, and do you
think there is a sufficient amount to meet administrative
expenses?
Mr. Schmidt. The law limits the amount we can actually
spend to administer it to three percent or $100,000, whichever
is larger. Three percent of the actual appropriations. I think
last year I think our administrative costs were about $142,000,
what we could expend to that, which is the three percent limit.
Of course, in this program I think you can recognize the
range of projects in the geographic scope requires a pretty
significant oversight to ensure that the American taxpayers'
money is being used wisely and so that certainly is a concern
for us in terms of the overall administrative constraints to
make sure that we are expending these the way you and the rest
of the Congress and ourselves want to make sure that they are
spent.
Mr. Wittman. Madam Chairwoman, just as a follow up to that,
so what you would say is that because of the scope and the
complexity of that the administrative dollars available may
fall a little bit short of how to really do as much as we can
with those resources. Am I correct in that understanding of
your response?
Mr. Schmidt. We could do a better job of overseeing the
program with additional resources. We will use what is
available to us under the law.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
yield back.
Ms. Bordallo. You got that on record, right? One final
question before we wrap up this morning.
Mr. Schmidt, what steps has the Service taken to increase
the visibility of the Junior Duck Stamp Program and the
availability of its curriculum materials? Will the increase to
$500,000 for program administration allow additional resources
for promotion of the program?
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you for the question. We have tried as
best we can within the financial constraints that we have.
Until this year the Fish and Wildlife Service has not requested
and received funding for this program, so it has been
constrained.
Specifically, we have moved the Junior Duck Stamp contest
around the country in the last several years to try to raise
the profile and the visibility of this program. We have done
some of the outreach that Ms. Cutchin has mentioned. We have
had a touring exhibit. We have improved our website and we are
in the process of improving the curriculum as well, so I think
all of those things have contributed to a greater outreach.
We can do more, and with the request for funding and the
support from the Congress this year that appears to be imminent
in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget I feel certain that we can
expand that.
In fact, we have developed a strategic plan that if this
money is appropriated we will implement to reach out further
than we ever have before in terms of gaining support from other
teachers who can fit that into their work and their
expectations from their school boards. We want them to take
advantage of this program.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. Those were very positive remarks, and
they are all on the record.
I thank all of the witnesses for their participation in the
hearing today. Members of the Subcommittee may have some
additional questions for you, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. In addition, the hearing record will be open
for 10 days for anyone that would like to submit additional
information for the record.
I want to thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Wittman, for
sitting with me during the duration. If there is no further
business before the Subcommittee, the Chairman again thanks the
Members of the Subcommittee and our witnesses for their
participation here this morning, and this Subcommittee now
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter submitted for the record by Jeff Berlew, Angola,
Indiana, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
September 15, 2009
Attn: Don Young
RE: H.R. 1054
I had thought of going polar bear hunting for years, but I finally
got serious in 2006 and looked for a hunt. I found out that the
earliest dates were spring of 2008. I sent a check for %5,000.00 to the
outfitter to save my spot with the understanding that it would be fully
refundable if the Fish & Wildlife service outlawed imports.
The fall of 2007 all of the dates needed to be locked down. I was
able to delay final payment until February 2008 because the final
decision was to be made by then. Well the day came and went and the
decision was delayed until after the bear season.
I could have canceled my hunt and rebook for 2010 (next opening) or
proceed with my hunt. Well I proceeded with my hunt and was successful
in getting a really nice bear.
I did all of the paper work and sent it all in to the Fish &
Wildlife with my check. Everything was approved; I was just waiting the
30 day period to get my import permit. In the meantime my legally,
hunted polar bear skin was tanned and boxed for shipment to my
taxidermist. Then the ruling and they sent my check back to me 10 days
before the 30 day waiting period was up.
I went on this hunt to experience the north environment and to hunt
a polar bear. I never thought that a decision against the inspection of
these bears would ever apply to bears that were already dead and
legally harvested. I was sure my government would protect its citizen's
rights, as long as everything was done legally and according to the
rules as they were posted. Well, boy was I disappointed in what my
rights really mean. (Nothing)
I guess it doesn't pay to follow the rules does it.
Very Disappointed American Taxpayer,
Jeff Berlew
185 Lane 220 Lake Gage
Angola, IN 46703
Phone: (260) 829-6493
______
[A letter submitted for the record by James M. Box,
Bloomfield, Iowa, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
The Honorable Don Young
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
In Re: H.R. 1054
Dear Congressman Don Young:
I am writing to recount my personal story of why I would very much
like H.R. 1054 to be passed by Congress and signed into law by the
President.
For me personally it was the trip of a lifetime, I saved the money
as I could and kept applying for a permit from a native village for
several years before being notified that I could indeed make plans to
go. Yes I took the trophy I waited so long for, that which I read about
in stories since my youth, but it was so much more. Meeting and dealing
with the people, them explaining that this was their source of income
for the family for the year and how the monies were put to use in the
``community''. They shared with me all facets of life including the
celebrational dinner after we got the bear. Who knew that bear paw soup
was an absolute delicacy. No part went to waste. I treasure the time
and memories I have from that legal hunt. I was shocked to learn so
quickly afterward that my beautiful trophy would languish in a freezer
in Edmonton. What good does that do anyone? How could a legally hunted
trophy, one that was legal when I went on my long awaited trip be so
swiftly judged unfit to be imported to the US?
Congressman Young, I hope you can successfully pass and sign into
law H.R. 1054 and that the bear that fits with my memory will be
imported into this country soon.
Thank you for being a voice of reason.
Sincerely,
James M. Box
1984 Little Soap Rd.
Bloomfield, Iowa 52537
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Tim Decker, Apple
Valley, California, follows:]
Tim and Jan Decker
14989 Riverside Drive
Apple Valley, California 92307
(760)-242-4464
tjdecker@verizon.net
September 15, 2009
Committee On Natural Resources
Congress of the United States
Subject: H.R. 1054, Proposed Amendment to the Marine Mammals
Protection Act (MMPA)
I am writing in support of House Resolution 1054, introduced on
February 12, 2009 by Representative Don Young of the State of Alaska. I
am one of the approximately forty-five American hunters whose legally-
taken polar bear trophies are in Canada and cannot be imported because
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ruling on May 14, 2008.
My polar bear hunt took place in late March and early April of
2008, and was the culmination of a life-long dream that started when I
saw a polar bear hunt on ABC's American Sportsman when I was about ten
years old. For more than forty years I dreamed of going to the top of
the world to hunt one of these magnificent bears, and in 2008, I
realized part of that dream. I say ``part of that dream'' because I
cannot import my trophy, despite the fact that it was completely legal
to import sport-hunted polar bears on March 23, 2008, the day I took my
bear.
I started actively following the importability of polar bear
trophies in 1972 when the President signed the MMPA into law. From the
early 1970's to the mid-1990's, I was convinced that my dream of being
able to hunt a polar bear and bring the trophy home would remain just
that--a dream. When the USFWS began allowing importation of sport-
hunted bears from Canada in the mid-1990's, I began actively planning
my hunt. I put a deposit down in January of 2002, but had to wait until
the spring of 2008 to get one of the highly-sought-after permits.
When I departed for Resolute Bay in Nunavut Territory, polar bears
from the Lancaster Sound population were completely importable, and
that was the status on March 23, 2008 when I completed my quest to take
one of the most magnificent trophies in the world in totally fair
chase. I immediately began the application process to get my trophy
into the United States when I returned to California, sending the
application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 11, 2008.
When the USFWS notified me in July of 2008 that it was
administratively stopping the processing of my application, I was
crushed. I am not a wealthy man. To date, I have spent more than
$48,000.00 to make this dream a reality, and, to put that figure in
perspective, it represents 30% of my family's income for all of 2008.
Years of planning, months of preparation, days and nights spent in
temperatures reaching as low as -45 degrees Fahrenheit, and frostbite
on two of my fingers and my nose all appeared to be for naught. Like
hunters from time immemorial, I want to have the physical trophy as a
constant reminder of my time in the High Arctic. Not allowing me or the
other affected hunters to import our trophies will not bring those
bears back to life.
Sincerely,
Timothy R. Decker
Copy Furnished: The Honorable Jerry Lewis
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Jeff Flocken,
Washington, D.C., Office Director, on behalf of the
International Fund for Animal Welfare, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Jeff Flocken, Washington, DC
Office Director on behalf of The International Fund for Animal Welfare
(IFAW), on H.R. 1054, A Bill to Amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972 to Allow Importation of Polar Bear Trophies Taken in Sports
Hunts in Canada
Polar bears, the largest predators on land, have become the
worldwide poster child for the impact that global warming is having on
our planet. These majestic animals are completely dependent on their
Arctic sea-ice habitat, a habitat that is rapidly shrinking as global
warming melts the sea ice that polar bears need to breed, den, and
hunt. The result is drowning bears, starvation, litters of fewer
offspring, and lower cub survival rates.
There are estimated to be between 20,000 and 25,000 remaining polar
bears in the world and that number is decreasing. And while melting sea
ice, habitat degradation, and pollution have placed polar bears in the
fragile state they are in, commercial trade and trophy hunting continue
to result in hundreds of polar bear deaths annually--thereby acting as
a catalyst to the species' extinction.
While polar bears are of great socio-cultural importance for the
Inuit, polar bears did not factor into the diet of pre-modern Inuit in
any significant fashion, and the take was significantly lower. In
recent years, however, sport hunting in Canada and Greenland has
dramatically increased the number of polar bears taken from the wild.
Since the 1973 ``Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears'' was
enacted, Norway, the United States and Russia have banned the non-
subsistence killing of polar bears. Further, as of April 2008,
Greenland has instituted a temporary ban on the export of polar bear
trophies. Today Canada is the only country actively involved in the
polar bear trophy-hunt.
Congress, at the behest of special interest groups, created a
loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1994 to allow Americans
to hunt polar bears in Canada and bring home their trophies despite the
effective ban then in place. Since 1997, over 960 permits were issued
to American hunters by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the
importation of trophy-hunted polar bear heads and hides.
In September, 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a
series of reports commissioned by the Department of the Interior
concluding that by 2050, less than 45 years from now, we will have lost
fully two-thirds of the world's polar bear populations. The USGS
predicted that the remaining polar bears would disappear gradually
after that, with only a small population hanging on to see the next
century. Soon after, the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) Polar Bear Specialist Group reached similar conclusions--
specifically, that the polar bear population could drop 30 percent in
the coming 35-50 years and that polar bears may disappear from most of
their range within 100 years.
Following these dire scientific predictions, the FWS listed polar
bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on
May 15, 2008. The listing triggered a provision of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) automatically designating polar bears as
``depleted'' which resulted in a ban on all imports of sport hunted
polar bear trophies into the United States.
Between February 15, 2005, when a coalition of wildlife
conservation groups filed a petition for the FWS to consider listing of
the polar bears as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA,
and May, 2008, when the FWS listed polar bears as threatened, the FWS
put prospective polar bear hunters on notice of the petition for
listing and the prohibitive consequences that listing would have on
their ability to import trophies. FWS accomplished this through direct
response to inquiries and targeted outreach at events where hunters
were present--such as the Safari Club International annual hunters'
conventions in 2007 and 2008, where FWS had an outreach booth to inform
Safari Club International's members about the proposed listing and its
implications.
Despite this public notice, and considerable media attention on the
plight of the polar bears between the time the petition was filed and
the listing, numerous hunters chose to proceed with their hunts of this
imperiled animal. In some cases these hunters may have been encouraged
by industry salespersons and operators to take bears before the
listing. As movement towards listing was made, publications written and
read by trophy hunt retailers, guide companies and potential hunters
wrote extensively about the risk that the opportunity to hunt polar
bears might soon be a thing of the past. A desire to beat the deadline
undoubtedly played a part in the number of polar bears killed by trophy
hunters in Canada in the 2006-07 hunt year reaching 150. This stands in
marked contrast to the average number of polar bears, 102, killed by
trophy hunters each year in the five previous hunt years.
H.R. 1054 seeks to allow importation of sport hunted polar bear
trophies from approximately 43 hunters who submitted permits between
November 2007 and May 2008. These hunters submitted their requests
after wide-spread media attention to the imperilment of the polar bear
and targeted information campaigns about the pending listing had
already taken place. It is likely that most of, if not all of these
hunters filed these requests knowing that their permits could be
denied.
IFAW is also actively involved in litigation defending the polar
bear listing in the federal courts for the District of Columbia. While
litigation is pending, pursuing this legislation is inappropriate. If
the sport-hunting groups prevail in the current ESA listing litigation,
this bill would be entirely superfluous. If the species were no longer
listed as threatened under the ESA, the species would no longer be
depleted under the MMPA and FWS would reinstate the polar bear trophy
import permit program.
Passing H.R. 1054 would set a dangerous example to the world by
rewarding opportunistic, last-minute killing of a species known to be
threatened with extinction. Moreover, if Congress passes this bill,
hunters will have every right to assume that they can continue to hunt
bears in Canada with the expectation that the U.S. government will
later allow the import of these animals.
There are still real opportunities for the U.S. government to build
on their commitment to saving polar bears that we should be focusing on
instead. Despite their low numbers, polar bears are only listed on
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) as an Appendix II species. The FWS should submit a
proposal to the CITES Conference of the Parties (COP) calling for polar
bears to be moved from Appendix II to Appendix I, which would prohibit
international commercial trade of the species.
Export and import data from reporting countries shows that between
300 and 400 polar bears are commercially traded each year. Data from
the UNEP-WCMC CITES trade database indicates that in 2007, more than
1552 polar bear specimens of 23 types were exported for ``commercial''
purposes, and 162 of 14 types for ``hunting trophy'' purposes.
Commercial exports in 2007 included 851 skin pieces, 554 skins (one of
the largest number exported in any year on record), 137 claws and eight
bodies; in other years commercial exports included trophies, teeth,
skulls, bones, carvings, gall bladders and live animals. Hunting trophy
exports in 2007 included 128 trophies (the largest number exported in
any year on record), 7 skins, four bones, and 23 skulls. With
extinction looming, a precautionary approach to the conservation of
this species calls for an immediate end to this trade.
On July 15, 2009, FWS indicated in the Federal Register that they
are considering proposing polar bears for an uplisting at the March
2010 CITES COP to be held in Doha, Qatar. The FWS has until October
14th to notify the CITES Secretariat of their commitment to submit a
proposal for consideration at the COP to transfer the polar bear from
Appendix II to Appendix I. Such an uplisting will ensure that
international trade will not continue to exacerbate the negative impact
habitat loss has on the species.
Congress has already legislated an appropriate interplay between
the ESA and MMPA. Permitting U.S. sport hunters to continue to import
polar bear trophies after the listing of a species is contrary to the
principles of conservation inherent in both the ESA and MMPA. The best
scientific information regarding current and future threats to the
polar bear clearly indicates that the species is threatened throughout
its range. The International Fund for Animal Welfare respectfully
requests on behalf of its 1.2 million supporters that the members of
the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Insular
Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife, oppose H.R. 1054--a bill that would
reward the needless killing of an imperiled species. Instead, we hope
that the Subcommittee will encourage the Administration to find ways to
further protect and conserve endangered polar bear populations, such as
proposing an uplisting of polar bears from Appendix II to Appendix I at
the CITES COP15.
______
[A document submitted for the record by The Humane Society
of the United States, Outreach by Hunting Group on Polar Bears,
follows:]
Humane Society of the United States
Submission for the Record
Outreach by Hunting Group on Polar Bears
January 2006 to April 29, 2008
(Documents Attached)
January 2006--The Hunting Report--``The real flashpoint is that
petition to uplist the polar bear to threatened...''
January 9, 2007--Conservation Force website: The Truth About That Polar
Bear Petition--``A 169-page petition to list all polar bear under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act was filed on February 16, 2005 by the
Center for Biological Diversity...''
January 2007--Conservation Force ``Dear Supporter'' letter ``RE: Polar
Bear Emergency...The USF&WS is taking the Endangered Species Act where
it has never been. It is proposing that all the polar bear in the world
be listed...''
September 21, 2007--Safari Club International. ``SCI Action Alert'' E-
mail--``SCI needs your help to prevent an unnecessary and potentially
harmful listing of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act.''
October 4, 2007--Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-
mail bulletin--``the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it will
give the public additional time to review and comment on nine new
research papers analyzing polar bear population status and threats by
extending its currently open public comment period until October 22,
2007.''
October 19, 2007--Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-
mail bulletin--``On October 22, 2007, SCI and SCIF will submit
additional comments opposing the proposed listing of the polar bears as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act...''
October 23, 2007--Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-
mail bulletin--``Yesterday SCI submitted another set of comments
opposing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed listing of the
polar bear under the Endangered Species Act...''
October 31, 2007--U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. ``On Target'' e-mail
newsletter--``The USSA continues its objections to a proposal to use
the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the hunting of healthy bear
populations.''
December 2007 Conservation Force--``The Hunting Report'' Newsletter,
Volume 27, Number 12. Page 9--``American hunters are asking us whether
they should even look at polar bears in light of the current effort by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list this species as threatened...''
January 2008--Conservation Force--``The Hunting Report'' Extra
Bulletin.--``The most demanding development was the proposal to list
the polar bear that was published in the last few days of 2006...''
January 7, 2008--Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-
mail bulletin--``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Postpones Decision on
Polar Bear Listing.''
February 2008--The Hunting Report--``US Fish and Wildlife Service
Postpones Polar Bear Decision: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service...should have announced its decision whether to list polar bear
as a threatened species...but instead announced a delay until the end
of January...''
February 22, 2008--Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-
mail bulletin--``Polar Bear Update.''
April 17, 2008--Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin--``SCI Among Coalition Defending Polar Bear Hunting in Senate
Hearing.''
April 29, 2009--Safari Club International ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin--``On April 28, 2008, a U.S. District Court in California
ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish a final decision
on the proposed listing of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act
by May 15, 2008 and makes that listing decision effective
immediately...''
______
[Statements submitted for the record by The Honorable Ron
Kind, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin,
on H.R. 1054 and H.R. 2213 follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin, on H.R. 1054
Madame Chairwoman I commend the Committee for reviewing this
legislation. In May 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed
polar bears under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Prior to this
listing, a number of American citizens participated in authorized hunts
from approved polar bear populations. With the ESA listing, the polar
bear is now labeled a ``depleted species'' under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), and thus banned from importation.
As policymakers, we should not deny American hunters who engaged in
a lawful, regulated activity the ability to import their legally taken
polar bear trophies. This bill would simply amend the MPPA to authorize
the Secretary to issue import permits to the approximately 41 hunters
impacted by the Endangered Species Act listing.
Conservation is important and by allowing these bears into the
U.S., up to $41,000 would be raised to support conservation and
research activities for the U.S.-Russia polar bear population. Sport
hunting and importation brings millions of dollars to local communities
and international polar bear conservation efforts. These already
harvested bears provide no conservation value sitting in cold-storage
warehouses in Canada. The 41 hunters impacted by this regulatory
change, conducted their hunt in accordance with science-based
management practices; we should allow them to obtain their legal
property.
______
Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin, on H.R. 2213
Madame Chairwoman, I applaud the Subcommittee on holding this
important hearing today and would like to express my ardent support of
H.R. 2213, to authorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation.
This important legislation would reauthorize this valuable program and
maximize the impact of its conservation goals.
This Act was first passed by congress in 2000 and has a proven
track record of reversing habitat loss and degradation. It has also
advanced innovative management and habitat restoration strategies for
the broad range of Neotropical birds. This non-controversial, widely
supported legislation would provide the United State Fish and Wildlife
Service with the necessary funding to effectively fund conservation
projects benefitting America's migratory birds.
Nearly five billion Neotropical migratory birds migrate between
their breeding grounds and their overwintering habitats. The long-term
survival of these birds is dependent on the continued preservation of
essential habitat. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
facilitates the funding for on-the-ground conservation projects, public
awareness and enhanced coordination among states. This program was last
reauthorized in 2006 and the demand for this program far exceeds
available funding. We must continue to support successful programs such
as this. Providing increased authorized funding is needed to ensure the
341 species of migratory birds continue to be protected.
Migratory birds contribute to our environmental and economic well-
being. Many of these species protect crops and forests by feeding on
insect pests. In addition, birds support a significant component of the
economy. I know throughout my congressional district, which borders
more shoreline along the Mississippi River than any other district,
bird watching has become a large part of our recreational economy. In
fact, the upper Mississippi river basin is North America's largest
waterfowl migrating route; each year 40% of all waterfowl species pass
through the basin during migration. Additionally, Americans spend more
than $36 billion each year participating in bird-related recreation--
birding is the fastest growing outdoor recreational activity in many
parts of the country.
Finally, this legislation would provide very modest, staggered
increases in funding over five years. While I feel more funding is
needed for this important program, reauthorization of the program is of
the utmost importance. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support
this bill.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Tom Kooistra on H.R.
1054 follows:]
Mr. Don Young
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Young
My hunt for polar bear was truly a hunt of a life time. I am not a
rich person and I needed to save for several years to afford the hunt.
I could only go once. For the area that I hunted, you are put on a
waiting list, and my name came up for 2008. We knew that the polar bear
was being considered for threatened status, but the deadlines for the
decision kept being postponed. I finally made the decision to go as the
season had started and everyone felt that the USF&W would now wait till
after the season was over to list the bear. After I got my bear in Late
April, I applied for an import permit and was on the 30 day waiting
period in the Federal Register when the polar bear was listed. If we
had been given the usual 30 day period before the listing went into
effect, I probably would have been able to import my bear.
The question is why I went polar bear hunting. The reasons are
several. The polar bear is considered to be one of the great trophies
in the world and I had the chance to try for one. There was the
opportunity to experience the high arctic with the midnight sun and
hunt on the ice with sled dogs and the Inuit people. To dress in
caribou hides. This was something few people get to do. This is a hunt
I will always remember. This is why I would like to import my bear, to
have it mounted and show respect for the animal and the hunt, not just
kill it and waste the hide.
Sincerely,
Tom Kooistra
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Ron Kreider,
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
September 14, 2009
Dear Congressman Young,
I am one of the U.S. citizens that legally hunted polar bear in
Canada in March, 2008 and have subsequently been denied to import the
trophy into the U.S..
I booked my hunt with the Inuits in Ulukhaktok, NWT, Canada
approximately 3 years prior to having the privilege of securing the
Canadian permit to hunt and harvest a polar bear. It was a lifelong
dream to be able to hunt one of these animals and I was fortunate to be
able to experience life in the arctic as well as to harvest a bear in
the process. What I never imagined when I booked the hunt and sent the
large downpayment for the $32,000 hunt was that the U.S. government
would eventually deny me the right to bring my perfectly legal game
animal back into the U.S. If I would have know that this would happen,
I would have never sent the money to Canada in the first place.
I shot the polar bear on April 1, 2008 and subsequently filed for a
CITES import permit to U.S.F & W as soon as I returned home. They
received my application fee and stamped my application on April 16th.
It typically takes about 60 days to get the permit however on May 15
(30 days later) is when they listed the polar bear as threatened which
immediately stopped the process. In fact, U.S.F.&W. mailed my check
back to me. I just needed 4 more weeks to allow the process to work and
I would have had my permit!
I have already spent $ 5,000.00 with my personal attorney just to
try to preserve my right to appeal and to eventually get my legally
hunted bear back to my house.
Last year when I was hunting Big Horn Sheep, I stopped in Edmonton,
Alberta to locate my polar bear hide at the taxidermist, and then took
pictures of it. We are now trying to figure out and to understand the
cost and processes we must go through to preserve the hide for the next
couple of years until justice is served.
This is a very sad story about American politics. Thank you for
your efforts.
Ron Kreider
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Ethel Doris Leedy,
Delta Junction, Alaska, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A letter submitted for the record by James Richard
Martell, Glenns Ferry, Idaho, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
September 17, 2009
Congressman Don Young
2111 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Young,
I am writing to thank you for your efforts to have the Marine
Protection Act amended to allow the import of my polar bear.
I was fortunate to be able to go on the hunt of a lifetime for the
magnificent polar bear in February/March of 2008. It actually would
take three separate hunts to harvest my bear. This was one of the
hardest hunts I had ever taken. Temperatures were down to 40 degrees
below zero and I ended up with frostbite, ending my first trip.
Returning to the Northwest Territories a few weeks later found
undesirable weather conditions, which ended hunt number two. After a
call from my Canadian guide telling me he was seeing polar bear I
returned for the third time. I was finally successful in harvesting a
beautiful bear and it had been a wonderful experience but also totally
harsh and exhausting.
Returning home I applied for an import permit from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service on March 25th, 2009. Nearly a month later the
permit was published in the Federal Register. Three weeks later the
polar bear was added to the Endangered Species Act but I believe that I
should be able to bring home my trophy because I did harvest it legally
and before this act was imposed. My trophy is now in storage in Canada
and will become useless to me and anyone else. The harvesting of my
polar bear did not increase overall polar bear mortality as foreign
hunters and the native community have access to the same number of
permits.
Thank you again for your efforts to help us get our polar bear
trophies home.
Sincerely,
James Richard Martell
725 S. Martell Lane
Glenns Ferry, Idaho 83623
______
[A letter submitted for the record by James Mazur,
Sheridan, Wyoming, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
September 27, 2009
Congressman Don Young
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Sir:
I am one of the hunters who legally harvested a Polar Bear in
Canada in April of 2008. I understood the issue of legally importing
the trophy into the United States. I had submitted my request to import
to the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service and was advertized in the Federal
Register and was awaiting the 30 day waiting period when the USFWS
changed the status of the Polar Bear and refunded my application fee
and refused my application to import. Since then the hide has been
tanned and is in storage in Calgary, Alberta Canada(at Boland
Taxidermy). I thought at the time that the action was unfair since I
had harvested the bear in the first place when it was legal in both
Canada and the United States. In fact, I was stunned to learn of any
action to ban the import of the bear until the end of my hunt when I
was talking to a fellow U.S. hunter who was just starting his hunt. He
said there was some legal action in process to change the status of the
Polar Bear and that I had better hurry to get my paperwork done.
Unfortunately I was too late.
But as you have already surmised I have paid storage fees
continuously for a year because I thought that eventually somebody in
the government would do the right thing.
It is not my style to complain about the fairness of the decision.
Both the Canadian government and the Inuit community steadfastly claim
that under the current rules, the Polar Bear is neither threatened nor
under stress. Whether that will occur in the future is still to be
determined. However, if it does occur and it is due to the retreating
Ice Cap, limiting the polar hunting at this time will only add to the
stress put on the Polar Bear herd due to the increased population and
decreasing food supply. Common sense ecology has never been a strong
point of certain untrained individuals.
The Polar Bear is one of the toughest trophies out there. I
personally drove a snowmobile over 200 miles to get to the spot on the
ice where we transferred to dogsled for the actual hunt. It was a 12
hour ride in -40F weather. Both the dogsled and the snowmobile rides
are tremendously bumpy and are a severe test of endurance. There were
just 2 camps in a 40 mile radius out on the ice. Not much room for
error if there was an injury or simple rip of clothing. I paid
approximately $30,00.00 to participate in the hunt. Approximately
$5000.00 went to the Inuit governors who received the tag from the
Canadian government. The rest went to three Inuit hunters who organized
and conducted the hunt (James Pokiak, Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest
Territories). I consider the very high cost of the hunt was well
distributed among the Inuits as neither James nor any of his assistants
were in even close to being rich. They lived more like middle class, as
I learned when I stayed at their house for a period of 4 days.
I am not rich. Although I am also not poor, a $30,000.00 hunt does
represent a massive expenditure of funds. I had saved for quite a while
to afford this trip. The appeal, to me, was the experience of the
Arctic as well as the rarity of the trophy. There are many other
hunters who would have flown out to the remote camp (at $5000.00) each
way and spend the least amount of time out in the weather. I could
neither afford to do it ands even if I could, I would not have done it.
It was the total experience that I wanted. I also did not consider that
I might have been one of the last hunters out there. The ample
population of bears and the fact that there are always tags available
someplace in Canada led me to believe that the opportunity to harvest a
Polar Bear would be available in the future. The reason that I went
when I did was that I was 64 years old and I had finally saved
sufficient funds to afford the trip. As tough as it was, I wonder
whether I would ever do it later.
In summary, my Polar Bear hunt was a hunt of a lifetime. It
required a significant expenditure of funds, and it was done when all
aspects of the hunt (the tag and the import of the trophy) was merely a
matter of paperwork. I was crushed by the sudden change of status which
I considered patently unfair. I heartily applaud your efforts to right
what I believe to be a wrong and allow the import of my trophy which
was legally taken. I had assumed it would be legally allowed to be
imported at the time of my hunt booking as well as the entire time I
participated in the hunt.
As for the core issue of the Polar Bear status, I hope you would
take some action to provide some sound ecological facts about the
actual effects of the shift in the ice floe on the Polar Bear
population. If it would save the population to forbid hunting until and
if the Ice Cap stabilizes, you have my full support. As a hunter I am
interested in real animal conservation.
Sincerely:
James Mazur
5 Sherri View Dr.
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801
utahmazurs@msn.com
______
[A Letter submitted for the record by Jeffrey J. Sevor,
DMD, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
September 15, 2009
Don Young
Congressman For All Alaska
2111 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Young,
Thank you for taking up the cause of not being able to bring my
legally harvested Polar Bear trophy into the United States. Many of us
are in the same boat and it is refreshing to see someone take an
interest in this problem. As a traveling hunter, I know full well the
conservation and economic positive effects that sport hunting can
provide to species preservation and indigenous communities.
My personal decision to hunt Polar Bear was based on my ability to
experience the Arctic climate as well as the ability to interact with
the Inuit community. My hunt was scheduled in April 2008. At that time
the rules under the Marine Mammal Protection Act permitted the
importation of my Polar Bear trophy. All local and U.S. federal laws
were followed in my successful Arctic experience. A few weeks after my
return to my home in Florida, I was shocked to see Secretary of the
Interior Dirk Kempthorne decided to list the Polar bear as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act. This was done in spite of
Polar Bear numbers being at record high levels. This is an
unprecedented move in species management.
As to my personal situation, federal law was violated when a 30 day
notice period was not observed and the law in fact became retroactive
by not allowing me the importation of my legally permitted and
harvested bear. The species management issue aside for now; this is
completely unfair. What benefit is it to the harvested bear or the
United States of America to block a legally taken animal from coming
into the country? Too often the USFWS is at odds with and entertains an
adversarial relationship with the law abiding U.S. citizen hunter. On
the other hand this same USFWS still allows the importation of live
Burmese Pythons into the country. These live specimens are currently
devastating the ecosystem of my South Florida.
I ask only for fairness and common sense in these decisions. Thanks
again to Congressman Young for taking up this issue.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Sevor DMD
______
]A letter submitted for the record by Ted Stallings on H.R.
1054 follows:]
September 21, 2009
Congressman Don Young
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
2111 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Young:
In response to your letter concerning H.R. 1054, I would like to
make you aware of the circumstances leading to my desire to hunt a
polar bear.
I was born in New Mexico in 1958, grew up on a farm and ranch
learning to respect the outdoors. I began hunting, fishing and enjoying
the wildlife as a child with my father. My father also brought me into
his crop dusting business and taught me to fly at an early age. From my
youth to present day, our business expanded from farm and ranch
spraying to the businesses that I currently own and operate, Aero Tech,
Inc., Aero Tech, LLC and Aero Tech Transport. Our focus is fighting
fires, fire rehabilitation and controlling noxious weeds and invasive
insects for state and federal government agencies throughout the USA
and other countries.
As I grew older and became more successful in the aviation
industry, I was able to expand my experiences in the world of hunting.
At the age of 30, my goal was to take all 31 North American species of
animals. As you know, the ``North American 31'' requires the harvest of
a mature representation of all 31 North American game species.
In 1990, while spraying gypsy moths for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, I experienced an unfortunate aircraft accident, which
almost cost me my life. I was severely burned over 84% of my body and
given less than a 1% chance to live for the first five weeks. After
many surgeries and answered prayers, they decided I was going to live,
but I was told I would never walk due to spinal injuries suffered
during the accident. After eight months of hospitalization, multiple
surgeries and extensive rehabilitation, I was released. I was told that
I would never be able to ride a horse again or endure temperatures
below 60+ or above 80+.
During rehab, I began to get my life back on track and set my
goals. Thru the Grace of God, I slowly learned to walk again, started
flying and riding horses again. Four years after my accident, I won New
Mexico State Championship Team Penning Championship on horseback. In
1997, while snow skiing with my son I began to realize that my body
could indeed handle some colder temperatures. That is when I began
dreaming of fulfilling my polar bear tag. Having already taken my
grizzly bear, black bear and brown bear, the only one remaining was the
polar bear to fulfill my lifelong dream. I began planning my hunt.
Polar bear hunting generally ends the last of May due to the beginning
of summer. I visited with several outfitters and explained my
situation, still not knowing if I could withstand the cold. We decided
to plan my hunt as close to the end of the season as possible so the
temperatures would be more bearable.
In 2006, I booked my first polar bear hunt, with an importable
license, to Tuktoyaktuk Northwest Territories Canada. I planned the
hunt for late May because this is the warmest period of the polar bear
hunting season where temperatures averaged 15+ below zero. However, at
that time of year, the ice begins to break up and traveling by dog sled
was slow. We experienced rough ice and could not travel the 60 miles to
open water where the bears were know to be. After trying several
avenues and enduring the elements for days, we simply had to give up
and turn around.
I learned a lot about myself and about polar bear hunting. I
realized, with specially made clothing, used by Mount Everest climbers,
I could tolerate the cold and that if I really wanted a bear, I needed
to go further north and go earlier in the season when the bears would
still be moving on the ice. The bears consider 15+ below as warm and do
not move as much as they do when it is really cold!
After extensive research, I was fortunate enough to schedule
another polar bear hunt, with an importable license for 2008, to
Norwegian Bay, Nunavut, Canada. This hunting area encompasses from the
North Pole to approximately 800 miles south to the lower tip of
Norwegian Bay toward Grise Fiord. Grise is the coldest and northern
most inhabited settlement on earth and is known for its high
concentration of polar bears. If I survived this, my goal would be
fulfilled. The temperatures would average 45+ below zero in April. The
polar bear is common there. In fact, they are so numerous, they are a
major problem for the locals in the village of Grise.
In early April I departed on my hunt. After two days of airlines, I
arrived in Resolute, Nunavut, Canada where I stayed for four days
attempting to climate myself to the temperatures. I then flew another 7
hours on Boric Air, a charted twin Otter airplane on skis, to where I
met my Inuit guides who had been traveling for 3 days by dog sled from
Grise Fiord just to get to the beginning of the hunting area. The
airplane never shut down, it dropped me off and departed. I have always
found the Inuit people to be very sensitive and innovative people. The
hunt was scheduled for 12 days. We traveled constantly and moved on the
ice in temperatures averaging 45+ below zero. Just being in 45+ below
temperatures, 24 hours a day, with nowhere to be but outside was a true
experience. We spotted numerous bears every day, but I was determined
not to take a bear unless it was a mature, trophy boar. On the sixth
day and after over $100,000 invested, I took my trophy polar bear. My
guides were ecstatic about the size as it squared 11 feet, bigger than
any bear which they had seen or harvested in years. Upon further
examination of the bear, they noticed a tattoo inside the lip from
where the bear was captured and tattooed as a cub. The tattoo number
was called into the game department where the data was kept and the
bear was recorded to be 22 years old; one of the oldest bears ever
harvested. It was a dream of a lifetime and completed my slam of bears.
When I first planned my hunt, I had heard of the possibility of the
polar bears being listed as endangered as early as June 28th of 2008. I
made sure my first polar bear hunt was from an area which was
importable and that I had an importable tag. When my first hunt was
unsuccessful, I made sure my second polar bear hunt was importable as
well. It was my understanding that once the bear was harvested, it
could take a maximum of 60 days to get the permit processed with the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife. With my hunt being in April, I was still within
the maximum 60 day time period allowed to process my permit, even
though the April cold would cause me to life threatening temperatures.
I harvested my bear on April 16th and had my permit into the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife by April 21st. I believed that was plenty of time for the
maximum 60 day process allotment. Then, to everyone's surprise, the
California judge ruled early, on May 13th to stop the importation of
polar bears into the USA.
Today, I have a bear sitting in a freezer in Canada where it is 45+
degrees warmer than where I harvested the bear at 45+ below zero. It
does not make since that I am allowed to send the bear to any country
in the world except the USA. It is truly an injustice to the bear, as
well as to me, to not be able to show it to the people of America and
share my experiences with the ``creatures and people of the North''.
The bear was a legally taken trophy bear from an importable area and it
is already dead. It cannot be any deader than it is today. Please allow
me mount it life size, display it in a showcase and bring it home to be
seen and appreciated in my home country.
Ted Stallings
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Larry R. Steiner,
Safari Club International, on H.R. 1054 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[An email submitted for the record by Darwin J. Vander Esch
on H.R. 1054 follows:]
September 10, 2009
Mr. Don Young,
Thank you for your email and introducing legislation, H.R. 1054.
Yes, I am one of the many hunters that went to Canada in the spring
of 2008 to Polar Bear Hunt. I have been hunting and enjoying the
outdoors since I was 5 years of age. My wife and I own Heavens Gate
Outfitters, in Riggins, Idaho. We provide a packing and hunting service
here in Idaho and Alaska. Our trips very from camping, fishing, sight
seeing,and hunting of elk, deer, blk. bear, mnt. lion, mnt. goat,
sheep, bobcat, coyote, Alaskan brown bear, to various upland game
birds. Hunting of wild game is a vary good tool for managing our
wildlife.
As everyone should know there must be a checks and balance in
everything we do and this also applies to managing our wildlife. I love
to see and enjoy nature at it's best, and that is why I limit the hunts
that we do, what good does it do for me to go out and kill everything
there is, I would put myself out of business. We have great Wildlife
and Fish and Game Departments thru out the U.S. and Canada that
regulate the taken of our wildlife populations and watch the checks and
balances, and they should be the ones to decided what needs to be done
and not some activest group.
When the Judge in California made the ruling that the bears needed
to be relisted, there was no allowance or consideration ever given for
those Polar Bears that were already harvested. Isn't it ironic that a
group of people that do not like anything wasted would not consider the
waste of these Polar Bear hides and the disgrace to them, by leaving
them to go to waste in Canada and not allowing them to be imported so
they can be mounted and shown for there great beauty of the species, or
used as a schooling tool.
There is no hunter out there, that wants to see populations of
animals wiped out. Hunters spend millions of dollars a year to provide
habitat and research to better our wildlife populations, to ensure
there continued life for all to enjoy.
I have dreamed of hunting thru out the world since I was a little
boy reading Fur, Fish and Game magazines. The Polar Bear has always
been a dream hunt of mine. I saved 25,000.00 dollars for this hunt and
borrowed 20,000.00 to pay for the trip. This hunt provided much needed
funds for the communitee of Griese Ford, Northwest Territories, Canada
and the Inuit People that live there. This trip was by no means easy,
as you had to servive night and day on the ice at 45 to 55 below zero
F. I hunted from the 21rst of March to the 24th 2008. I had applied for
my import permit and was 8 days from getting it back from public
notification when the bears were listed. This can't be a one way
street, how dishonoring is it to have these Polar bear hides left in
canada going to waste, and with no consideration for our hard earned
money that we are allowed to spend on what is legal to do, and have
paid taxes on, to have a someone in Washington turn a blind eye on us
and not say (if we list the bears what will be done with the legally
harvested hides that American Citizens have already taken) It was my
understanding that these bears harvested would be allowed to be
imported. It is important that all the Polar Bears Harvested before the
relisting be given reconsideration and allowed to be imported as not to
dishonor those great bears in any way by wasting there hides, and there
can't be anyone out there in thier right mind that doesn't agree with
that statement.
All good hunters want to honor the game that they challanged wits
with, then harvested, and see those animals preserved for generations
to see and used to educate.
I do not impose my idioligizes on anyone else, and only ask that I
be allowed to enjoy the outdoors in a way that is not detrimental to
nature and allows everyone to enjoy it whether they hunt or not.
I thank you for your time and help, if you need anything else from
me please call 208-628-3062 or email anytime hgo@frontiernet.net,
Thanks
Darwin J. Vander Esch
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Tim Walters on H.R.
1054 follows:]
September 9, 2009
Dear Congressman Young,
I polar bear hunted in the spring of 2008 out of Resolute, Nunavut.
My hunt was scheduled to start on May 8 and scheduled to leave home on
May 6. On or about April 28, I learned that a judge had ordered USFWS
to make a determination on the polar bear listing by May 15, 2008. I
quickly did some research and felt that the bear would not be listed so
I preceded with my hunt plans. The entire cost of the hunt and
everything related was approximately $50,000.00. I would have been able
to recover all but about $5,000.00 if I had not gone on the hunt. My
understanding was that bear were still importable to the US. USFWS was
helping by allowing hunters to pre-apply for the application for the
import permit because of the length of time associated with obtaining
the permit (3-4 months). The reason that I wanted to go on the hunt was
to experience hunting in the Arctic, and possibly bring home a
beautiful trophy. My hunt started at 5:00P.M. May 8 and I took a polar
bear at 1:30 A.M. on May 9. Two guides and I had seen five bear prior
to the one I took. They ranged from a sow with a cub to a lone juvenile
bear and two adult bear together. This appears to be quite a broad
range in age. This is only eight and half hours on the ice and 41 miles
from Resolute. I asked my guides what they thought of the bear
population, and they both said there is more bear each year. The hunt
was all I expected and was more special being able to take a bear with
archery equipment. The disappointing part was learning that six days
later the bear was listed as endangered and was non-importable to the
US. Had the judge who ordered USFWS to make a determination by May 15
allowed the season to end and then list the bear, I doubt that many
more bear would have been killed and we may have avoided this problem.
I feel that this judge is punishing hunters who are caught up in this.
I have legally obtained personal property (my bear) in Canada that
cannot be imported into this country. I feel this is wrong and my
rights as a U.S. citizen have been violated. I have had my bear hide
tanned in Canada to preserve it. This cost $1,000.00 and could have
been spent in the U.S. instead. For those who object to the importation
of bears, the import fee is $1,000.00 that I understand goes to polar
bear research. I don't understand the objection, other than the
punishment of legal hunters. These bear are dead, there is no way to
put them back on the ice and makes no sense that they stay in Canada.
I will be on vacation and will be back on September 21, please
contact me on that day if I can be of any assistance. My hopes are that
you are successful on your attempt.
Thank you again
Tim Walters