[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 295, H.R. 670, H.R. 991, H.R. 1160, AND H.R. 1670
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 12, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-361 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
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
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Robert J. Wittman, VA Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Jeff Duncan, SC Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Steve Southerland, II, FL Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Bill Flores, TX Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Andy Harris, MD Vacancy
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Jon Runyan, NJ
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
--------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 12, 2011........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 6
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands............... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State
of Alaska.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Flocken, Jeffrey, D.C. Office Director, International Fund
for Animal Welfare......................................... 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 991........................... 28
Gould, Hon. Rowan, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 670, H.R. 991, H.R. 1160...... 14
Kissell, Hon. Lawrence Webb, ``Larry,'' a Representative in
Congress from the State of North Carolina.................. 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 1160.......................... 8
Lowell, Capt. John E., Jr., Director, Office of Coast Survey,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 295........................... 20
Myers, Gordon, Executive Director, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission....................................... 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 1160.......................... 24
Smith, Steve, Member, Dallas Safari Club..................... 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 991........................... 33
Additional materials supplied:
Hallford, Butch, TerraSound Limited, Letter submitted for the
record on H.R. 295......................................... 10
Humane Society of the United States, Statement submitted for
the record on H.R. 991..................................... 35
Palatiello, John M., MAPPS Executive Director, Management
Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, Letter
submitted for the record on H.R. 295....................... 11
Wardwell, Nathan, and John Oswald, PLS, JOA Surveys, LLC,
Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 295................ 12
LELGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 295, TO AMEND THE HYDROGRAPHIC
SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1998 TO AUTHORIZE FUNDS TO ACQUIRE
HYDROGRAPHIC DATA AND PROVIDE HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES SPECIFIC TO
THE ARCTIC FOR SAFE NAVIGATION, DELINEATING THE UNITED STATES
EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF, AND THE MONITORING AND DESCRIPTION
OF COASTAL CHANGES; H.R. 670, TO CONVEY CERTAIN SUBMERGED LANDS
TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS IN ORDER TO
GIVE THAT TERRITORY THE SAME BENEFITS IN ITS SUBMERGED LANDS AS
GUAM, THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND AMERICAN SAMOA HAVE IN THEIR
SUBMERGED LANDS; H.R. 991, 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. 1160, DIRECTS THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY THE McKINNEY LAKE NATIONAL
FISH HATCHERY IN RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, TO THE STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA TO BE USED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION AS A COMPONENT OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OF THE STATE. ``McKINNEY LAKE NATIONAL FISH
HATCHERY CONVEYANCE ACT''; AND H.R. 1670, TO AMEND THE SIKES
ACT TO IMPROVE THE APPLICATION OF THAT ACT TO STATE-OWNED
FACILITIES USED FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE. ``SIKES ACT
AMENDMENTS ACT''.
----------
Thursday, May 12, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Young, Flores, Landry, Sablan, and
Bordallo.
Also present: Representative Garamendi.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, THE REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FOR
ALL ALASKA
Mr. Young. The Subcommittee will come to order. Today, we
will have a hearing on five bills. There is a quorum present,
and these are five pretty noncontroversial issues, especially
mine are not controversial. The other ones really could be, but
they are not.
The first one is H.R. 295, the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act. The second one will be on H.R. 991, and this
is for the importation of polar bear hides that were shot
legally on time, paid for, and now they are in a freezer, and
our government says they cannot be imported back in.
There will be those who say they should not be, but I
cannot understand for the life of me why they figure that by
leaving bear hides in a freezer that it is conservation. So we
will be hearing about that one.
And, of course, we have another bill, H.R. 670, by my good
friend, Ranking Member Sablan, concerning the Northern Mariana
Islands, and I believe that this is a noncontroversial bill.
And we will have another bill by my good friend from Guam,
Ms. Bordallo, and I believe that is about it. I may have missed
one. But anyway--just hang on. We will get this one going.
Oh, H.R. 1160, and that will be one that we will address,
and again I believe that this is one bill that we have worked
on before, a typed bill, and we will do it again. With that, we
will now hear from Mr. Sablan.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Acting Chairman, Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, on H.R. 295, H.R. 670,
H.R. 991, H.R. 1160 and H.R. 1670
The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chairman notes the
presence of a quorum.
Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on five
legislative proposals. The first two bills are measures that I have
introduced, let me briefly explain them.
H.R. 295 would amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act to
authorize hydrographic surveys and Continental Shelf mapping of the
Arctic region. The Arctic region lacks up-to-date survey data, with the
last major hydrographic survey activity having occurred more than 60
years ago, after World War II. H.R. 295 is an effort to move this
process forward, I understand the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration will testify that they have this authority; however, I
believe this bill is necessary to emphasize the need for the agency to
collect hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services in the
Arctic region.
We are also hearing testimony today on H.R. 991. This legislation
would allow 41 hunters to import their polar bear trophies into the
U.S. after paying the required permit fee.
Prior to the listing of the polar bear on the Endangered Species
Act, hunters could a hunt a polar bear from an approved Canadian polar
bear population and import their trophy into the U.S. From 1997 through
2008, 969 hunters hunted in Canada bringing in $969,000 in permit fees
which funds conservation activities for the shared U.S.--Russia polar
bear population. Once the bear was listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act and depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, hunters were prohibited from importing legally harvested polar
bear trophies.
I want to stress that the prohibition on bringing these trophies
into the U.S. is not providing any conservation value to the Canadian
polar bear populations. The intent of H.R. 991 is to allow only those
legally taken trophies to be imported into the U.S. and the permit fee
to fund conservation activities for the shared U.S.-Russia polar bear
population, which, I might add, does not get funding from any other
sources.
There are detractors today, as there were in 1994, who are opposed
to amending the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow for the
importation of polar bear trophies from Canada and refer to the
language as a ``loophole''.
There will always be a sector of the population that believes we
should not kill animals; however, we need to keep in mind that there
are still areas of the world that rely on the 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 into
the U.S., polar bear hunting will end. That is far from the truth.
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 the hunt itself and will leave with only the hide of the
bear. The Native village benefits again from the hunt by retaining all
of the meat from the taken bear.
Most of the Canadian polar bear populations are healthy and well
managed. While the world-wide polar bear population is listed as
threatened, its population numbers are currently healthy with an
estimated population of 23,000 bears. Sport hunting activities provide
important incentives and 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. Those who legally
hunted and harvested polar bears fully complied with all U.S. and
Canadian laws in place at the time. In most instances, these hunts were
years in the planning and savings were set-aside to book this ``once in
a lifetime experience''.
I will now move on to the next bill, our distinguished Ranking
Member, Mr. Sablan, sponsored H.R. 670, a bill which will give the
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands jurisdiction over submerged
lands out to 3 nautical miles. After reading the history on this issue,
the legislation seems long overdue, the territories of Guam, America
Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands have had jurisdiction over their
submerged lands out to 3 nautical miles since 1974. It is time for the
Mariana Islands to have this same authority.
The Subcommittee will also hear testimony on H.R. 1160, the
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act. This proposal
introduced by our colleague from North Carolina, Congressman Larry
Kissell, would transfer title to 422 acres of land, including 23
production ponds, from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
The Commission has been effectively managing this property since
1998 under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Service and they have
been providing anglers with 150,000 channel catfish each year. In fact,
this Subcommittee has previously conveyed ten National Fish hatcheries
to States and municipalities and there are currently 11 additional
hatcheries which are owned by the federal government but managed by
various states.
Finally, last but certainly not least, we will hear testimony on
H.R. 1670, the Sikes Act Amendments Act. This bill introduced by the
distinguished former Chairwoman of this Subcommittee, my good friend,
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, which was referred to both this
Committee and House Armed Services. Under this measure, 47 State-owned
Army National Guard installations would be required to implement an
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan as articulated in the
Sikes Act of 1960 in coordination with the Department of Defense and
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
I understanding that many of these State-owned facilities,
including the Stewart River Training Site in my Congressional District,
have already implemented comprehensive natural resource plans.
Nevertheless, this requirement will provide for a uniform system and
will give certain assurances to State installation commanders as to how
they can utilize their training lands in the future.
I look forward to hearing the testimony on these proposals. I am
now pleased to recognize our Ranking Democratic Member from the
Commonwealth of Northern Marianas, Congressman Sablan, for any
statement he would like to make.
______
STATEMENT OF GREGORIO SABLAN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Chairman Young. I look forward to
hearing about the various bills before us today. I also want to
welcome my colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman
from North Carolina's Eighth Congressional District,
Congressman Kissell, to testify on his bill, H.R. 1160, the
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act.
Today, we will also hear testimony on two bills being
introduced by Chairman Young, H.R. 295, to amend the
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, to include
funding for data collection and analysis in the Arctic Ocean.
And, of course, H.R. 991, the noncontroversial one, as he
says, amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow
individuals who have hunted polar bears in Canada prior to the
listing of those bears under the Endangered Species Act, to
import these trophies into the United States.
My understanding is that Fish and Wildlife Service began an
outreach campaign to alert hunters that a prohibition would be
placed on polar bear trophy imports if a listing occurred.
However, approximately 40 hunters were not able to import their
trophies, and the issue today is whether the importation should
now be allowed.
I also look forward to hearing about H.R. 1670, which was
introduced by the distinguished former Chairman of this
Subcommittee, Congresswoman Bordallo. This bill amends the
Sikes Act to include State-owned National Guard installations
under the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
requirements to conserve and rehabilitate natural resources on
these installations.
Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee, who shares
jurisdiction over the Sikes Act, reported this bill favorably
as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, and I
appreciate Congresswoman Bordallo's thoughtfulness and efforts
for her amendment to ensure that the Department of Defense will
still be required to prepare an Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan for any installation in the Northern Mariana
Islands and American Samoa.
Thank you, and I also appreciate Chairman Fleming's
decision to include H.R. 670 on today's agenda. H.R. 670
provides exactly the same rights to the three miles of
submerged islands surrounding the Northern Mariana Islands as
are provided by Federal law to American Samoa, as well as Guam
and the United States Virgin Islands.
The same bill passed the House of Representative's in the
One Hundred and Eleventh Congress unanimously, but the other
body failed to take final action. So we have to restart the
legislative process with today's hearing, and I hope for speedy
action by this Committee and by the House and passage by the
Senate.
H.R. 670 is crucial to the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands and has received wide local support, including from the
Governor and the Northern Marianas Legislature.
The Northern Mariana Islands is the only United States
jurisdiction that does not have ownership of the submerged
lands three miles off its shores. In approving the covenant in
1976, which brought our people into union with the United
States, it was widely assumed that there was no relinquishment
of ownership of these lands.
Thirty years later, however, in 2005, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals came to the conclusion that these submerged
lands in the Northern Mariana Islands were the property of the
United States.
The Court did recognize the integral connection between
these Mariana resources and the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and suggested that Congress could return this land to
us. H.R. 670 does exactly that.
I would also note that when President George W. Bush
created the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument, in
consultation with Northern Marianas officials, his Proclamation
foresaw the conveyance of three miles of submerged lands
specifically, and in the Island Units of the Monument, a
coordination of management by the Northern Marianas and the
Federal Government.
I personally support this co-management concept and will
continue to encourage the Federal Government in this direction.
I believe that this will help ensure that sufficient Federal
resources are available for management, and that the promises
made to the Marianas by the White House in establishing the
Monument are not forgotten.
But let me make this very clear. After this bill is enacted
into law, the people and the government of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands will have the option of exercising
full control over the submerged lands surrounding these three
islands, or deciding to include these submerged lands within
the Monument under co-management with responsible Federal
agencies.
I will strongly suggest and encourage the Northern Mariana
Islands government to continue to work toward a co-management
arrangement. I want to thank all the Members who are cosponsors
of H.R. 670, and I urge that my colleagues support it. Thank
you very much, Chairman Young.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Sablan, a Delegate in Congress from
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, on H.R. 670
Thank you, Chairman Young. I look forward to hearing about the
various bills before us today.
I want to also welcome my colleague and friend, the distinguished
gentleman representing North Carolina's 8th Congressional District,
Congressman Kissell, to testify on his bill, H.R. 1160, the McKinney
Lake National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act.
Today, we will also hear testimony on two bills introduced by
Chairman Young. H.R. 295 amends the Hydrographic Services Improvement
Act of 1998 to include funding for data collection and analysis in the
Arctic Ocean. H.R. 991 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 these trophies
to the United States. My understanding is that the Fish and Wildlife
Service began an outreach campaign to alert hunters that a prohibition
would be placed on polar bear trophy imports if a listing occurred.
Approximately 40 hunters, however, were unable to import their
trophies. At issue today, is whether that importation should now be
allowed.
I also look forward to hearing about H.R. 1670, which was
introduced by the distinguished former Chairman of this Subcommittee,
Congresswoman Bordallo. This bill amends the Sikes Act to include
State-owned National Guard installations under the Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan requirements to conserve and rehabilitate
natural resources on these installations. Yesterday, the Armed Services
Committee, who shares jurisdiction of the Sikes Act, reported this bill
favorably, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. I
appreciate Congresswoman Bordallo's thoughtfulness and efforts for her
amendment that ensures that the Department of Defense will still be
required to prepare Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans for
any military installation in the Northern Mariana Islands and American
Samoa.
I very much appreciate Chairman Fleming's decision to include H.R.
670 on today's agenda.
H.R. 670 provides exactly the same rights to the three miles of
submerged lands surrounding the Northern Mariana Islands as are
provided by federal law to American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
The same bill passed the House of Representatives in the 111th
Congress--unanimously. But the other body failed to take final action.
So, we have to restart the legislative process with today's hearing
and, I hope, speedy action on the House floor and passage by the
Senate.
H.R. 670 is crucial to the people of the Northern Mariana Islands
and has received wide local support, including from the Governor and
the Northern Marianas Legislature.
The Northern Mariana Islands is the only U.S. jurisdiction that
does not have ownership of the submerged lands three miles off its
shores. In approving the Covenant in 1976, which brought our people
into union with the United States, it was widely assumed that there was
no relinquishment of ownership of these lands.
Thirty years later, however, in 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals came to the conclusion that the submerged lands were the
property of the United States.
The Court did recognize the integral connection between these
marine resources and the people of the Northern Mariana Islands and
suggested that Congress could return these lands to us.
H.R. 670 does exactly that.
I would also note that when President George W. Bush created the
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument--in consultation with Northern
Marianas officials--his Proclamation foresaw this conveyance of three
miles of submerged lands, specifically, and in the Islands Unit of the
Monument a coordination of management by the Northern Marianas and the
federal governments. I personally support this co-management concept
and will continue to encourage the Commonwealth government in this
direction. I believe this will help ensure that sufficient federal
resources are available for management and that the promises made to
the Marianas by the White House in establishing the Monument are not
forgotten.
But let me make this very clear. After this bill is enacted into
law, the people and the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands will have the option of exercising full control over
the submerged lands surrounding these three islands, or deciding to
include those submerged lands within the Monument under co-management
with responsible Federal agencies.
I want to thank all those Members who are cosponsors of this bill
and ask all of my colleagues to support H.R. 670.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and learning
more about these issues.
______
Mr. Young. I thank you. And, Ms. Bordallo, do you have a
comment on your legislation, outstanding as it is?
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Chairman Young, and
Ranking Member Sablan and, of course, fellow members of this
Committee. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak
before you in support of H.R. 1670, the Sikes Act Amendments
Act of 2011.
Now, this legislation would amend the Sikes Act to improve
natural resources management planning for State-owned
installations used for the national defense, primarily our
National Guard installations.
I introduced this bill when I was Chair of this
Subcommittee, and now I have reintroduced it with minor
technical changes at the request of the Department of Defense.
The amendments proposed by the Department of Defense will
improve coordination between DoD, the Department of the
Interior, and State, Territorial, and local partners, for the
protection of fish and wildlife resources on DoD lands, and
State-owned installations used for the national defense.
In the One Hundredth and Eleventh Congress, this
Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on this legislation,
during which the DoD and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service provided testimony highlighting the significance of
codifying this language as an important step forward with an
agenda of promoting responsible environmental stewardship.
The DoD oversees nearly 25 million acres of valuable fish
and wildlife habitat, at approximately 400 military
installations nationwide. These lands contain a wealth of plant
and animal life, vital wetlands for migratory birds, and
provide habitat for nearly 300 Federally listed threatened and
endangered species.
For 50 years the Sikes Act has helped the commanders of
these installations balance their use of air, land, and water
resources for military training and testing, with the need to
conserve and rehabilitate these important ecosystems.
In past National Defense Authorization Acts, Congress has
made improvements to the Sikes Act, and my bill, the Sikes Act
Amendments Act of 2011, continues this progress by proposing
two more significant improvements to the law.
H.R. 1670 will clarify the scope of the Sikes Act by
extending its provisions to State-owned National Guard
installations, including the requirement to develop and
implement Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans that
are already required for Federally owned military
installations.
Another provision in this bill would make several technical
and clarifying changes to the U.S. Code to make it consistent
with other subheadings and other titles. As this legislation
advances through the legislative process, I will continue to
work with DoD and my colleagues in Congress to modify this
language to make permanent the successful Invasive Species
Management Pilot Program on Guam, authorized into law in 2004,
and appropriately expand its scope to all military
installations.
The Department of Defense has supported this initiative,
and it is an important part of the ecosystem approach of the
Sikes Act, and again, I want to thank you, Chairman Young, and
Ranking Member Sablan, for holding this hearing, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues in this committee, and
the Armed Services Committee, to ensure that H.R. 1670 does
become law. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Ma'am. I appreciate that very much,
and for your information, and the information of Mr. Sablan. I
support both of your bills, and so we will get along real well
today. Of course, I expect a little tit-for-tat, you know, on
that.
Ms. Bordallo. Understood.
Mr. Young. All right. We will hear from the first panel,
which is comprised of our distinguished colleague, The
Honorable Larry Kissell, from North Carolina. Like all
witnesses, Larry, your testimony will appear in the full
hearing record, and so I ask for you to keep your oral
statement to five minutes. If you go over that, I will allow
you to do so, but try to keep it within five minutes. So, you
are on.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Chairman, could I just interrupt for one
minute.
Mr. Young. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. I just wanted to point out that Congressman
Kissell and I were up until 3:00 a.m. last evening. Armed
Services had a budget hearing, and it is amazing to see him
here to testify, and I just wanted to make that point.
Mr. Young. Very good.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE WEBB ``LARRY'' KISSELL, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON
H.R. 1160
Mr. Kissell. I would just like to add to my colleague's
statement when she said we were up until 3:00 a.m. together. I
quickly would add it was with the Armed Services, and although
the opportunity otherwise might have been appreciated, too. But
it wasn't the case last night. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Ranking Member, and most honorable colleagues of this
Subcommittee for the opportunity to come to you today to talk
to you about H.R. 1160, the McKinney Lake National Fish
Hatchery Conveyance Act.
This is a bipartisan, noncontroversial bill. We have nine
original cosponsors of the North Carolina delegation. A bill
with the same language has been introduced in the Senate, S.
651, supported by both the North Carolina Senators.
The McKinney Lake area is 18 acres, consisting of 23 ponds,
a warmwater hatchery, in my district of Hoffman in South
Central North Carolina. The facility is currently being used to
raise channel catfish, from fingerling-sized, to harvestable
size catfish, and these fish are then transferred to the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Community Fishing Program.
A great program throughout the State of North Carolina,
where all North Carolinians can participate and have an
opportunity to learn about fishing, or to fish, whether it is
from childhood up to seniors. It is a great program, and a very
successful program.
This conveyance is to take place from the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service to the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission. This program actually began, and the talk
of conveyance began in 1995, but because of a problem with the
dam on the main lake there at McKinney Lake Fish Hatchery, this
has not been able to take place.
There have been five memorandums of agreement between the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission to understand that North Carolina
is running the hatchery while still belonging to the United
States Fish and Wildlife Resources, and Federal facility.
And this Act would change that, and I think that it would
be a smart move to take these 18 acres to North Carolina, and
let them run it. There are great incentives for keeping it up,
and up to the best use, and it is being used wisely now.
And there is also an agreement within H.R. 1160 that if the
occasion ever arise, that if we needed to, that North Carolina
would work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to go back
to raising fish there, and that agreement is completely taken
care of.
It is noncontroversial, and it is agreed to by all sides,
and I think that it is a good use of the land to be used in
this way, and I thank you for the opportunity to be talking
about it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kissell follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Lawrence Webb ``Larry'' Kissell,
Member of Congress, North Carolina's Eighth District, on H.R. 1160
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony today in reference to
H.R. 1160 the ``McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act.''
Located in Hoffman, North Carolina the McKinney Lake Fish Hatchery
is a warmwater hatchery, and contains 23 ponds covering more than 18
acres of water. This primary use of the hatchery is growing fingerling-
sized (3-4 inches) channel catfish to harvestable size (8-12 inches)
for the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission's Community Fishing Program.
The Commission's Community Fishing Program provides angling
opportunities to thousands of citizens, including children and disabled
individuals, throughout the year. These Community Fishing Program sites
are intensively managed bodies of water that receive monthly stockings
of catchable-sized channel catfish from April-September. The McKinney
Lake hatchery in conjunction with the Watha State Fish Hatchery near
Wilmington provides the channel catfish for these monthly stockings.
Many of these Community Fishing Program sites feature handicap-
accessible fishing piers and solar-powered fish feeders helping to
provide an enjoyable angling experience for citizens of all ages.
The ``McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act,'' while
first introduced in the 111th Congress as H.R. 6115 and this congress
as H.R. 1160 actually has its beginnings in1995. At that time the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service offered to transfer ownership and operation
of this hatchery to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission to help meet
the state's fisheries management objectives. However, due to the
structural deficiencies of the lake's dam, the transfer was never
completed. Since then, the dam issues have been corrected, and the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission has had full management of the hatchery
under a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). The State of North Carolina and the USFWS have entered
into 5 subsequent MOA's since 1995, with the most current being signed
on November 10, 2009 and continuing until September 30, 2012.
H.R. 1160 was drafted by my staff with the cooperation, and
consultation, of both the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and the USFWS. The product of this cooperation is a bill that has
garnered the support of 9 bi-partisan original co-sponsors from the
North Carolina House delegation, as well as companion legislation (S.
651) in the Senate. The Senate version is the exact same legislative
language and is co-sponsored by both North Carolina Senators.
In the letter of invitation to testify before you today, Chairman
Fleming asked for me to explain the rationale for Section 2 (e). This
language in H.R. 1160 allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to
potentially utilize these conveyed facilities for the propagation of
certain aquatic resources in the future. Section 2 (e) is the product
of a request from the USFWS, who requested to have the opportunity in
the future to enter into an agreement with the State to raise fish for
them if needed. During the drafting of H.R. 1160 the USFWS wanted to
ensure that in case of future need they would have the ability to
contract with the state for use of the facility. My office and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission were more than happy to
grant this request to the USFWS and include Section 2 (e) in H.R. 1160.
In conclusion, H.R. 1160 would complete a land conveyance that by
all accounts should have occurred in the late 1990's. In addition the
state of North Carolina would be able to continue producing catfish for
the popular and important Community Fishing Program, on land and
facilities that they would have ownership of. The State ownership of
this land would incentivize them to make long term improvements and
investments in the property, keeping it a viable fish hatchery. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and look forward
to H.R. 1160 moving through the legislative process. Thank you.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you, Larry. Any questions for the panel
member? Larry, one question, does anybody oppose this?
Mr. Kissell. No one that I know of. It has been just full
between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and North
Carolina Wildlife and Resources. It has just been, hey, this is
the best thing we can do, and it is really working well now.
So if there is any opposition, once again, the two North
Carolina Senators have already dropped the bill, S. 651, and we
had nine original cosponsors from the North Carolina
delegation. So I have not found anybody in opposition to this.
Mr. Young. This is great. I think it is a good idea, and I
just appreciate you introducing the bill, and we will move this
bill out of this committee, and see if we can't get it moving.
Mr. Kissell. OK. Thank you all so much.
Mr. Young. You betcha. We are ready for our second panel,
and this panel includes Dr. Rowan Gould, Acting Director,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Captain John Lowell,
Director of the Office of Coast Survey, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Gordon Myers, Executive
Director, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Mr.
Jeffrey Flocken, Director, International Fund for Animal
Welfare, and Mr. Steven Smith of Montgomery, Texas.
And at this time, I ask for unanimous consent to submit
three letters for the record in support of H.R. 295, one each
from MAPPS, TerraSound, and JOA Surveys, LLC. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The letters follow:]
May 11, 2011
The Honorable Don Young
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C.
Re: Support for H.R. 295]
Dear Congressman Young:
We wish to offer our support for H.R. 295 to amend the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act.
During these times of economic challenges, we recognize there are
many competing needs for funding. Despite the overall need for fiscal
restraint on the federal level, we support this legislation based on
the importance of the Arctic and the need for current, reliable
information regarding the waters of the arctic.
NOAA is presently over 50 years behind in updating surveys that it
has already identified as 'critical' and 'emerging critical'. As vital
as the need for addressing this survey backlog is, the need for
immediate survey of our Arctic waters, is far greater, even urgent.
Incorporating it into NOAA's ``Address Survey Backlog'' line item is
the logical place for it to reside, however it should be provided with
separate, stand alone funding to ensure its completion without becoming
a drag on the existing survey backlog.
Sincerely,
Butch Hallford
TerraSond Limited
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Young. Thank you, gentlemen. Like all witnesses,
your written testimony will appear in the full hearing record.
So I would ask you to keep your oral statement to five minutes
as outlined in our invitation letter to you, and under
Committee Rule 4(a).
Your microphones are not automatic. So please press the
button when you are ready to begin. I guess you know how the
timing lights work. When you begin to speak, our Clerk will
start the timer, and a green light will appear.
After four minutes a yellow light will appear, and at that
time you should begin to conclude your statement. After five
minutes, a red light will come on, and you may complete your
sentence, but at that time I must ask you to please stop. That
is easy. Mr. Gould, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROWAN GOULD, ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Dr. Gould. Good morning, Congressman Young.
Mr. Young. Good morning.
Dr. Gould. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
am Rowan Gould, Acting Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify
today on H.R. 991, which would amend the Marine Mammal
Protection Act related to the importation of polar bear
trophies; H.R. 1160, the McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act; and H.R. 1670, the Sikes Act Amendments Act of
2011.
I would also like to submit a statement for the record on
behalf of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 670,
legislation that would convey certain submerged lands to the
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. The Administration
would strongly support this bill if amended to address the
issues outlined in that statement.
Mr. Young. Without objection.
Dr. Gould. First, I will discuss H.R. 991. Before the polar
bear was listed under the Endangered Species Act, the Service
applied the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to
allow the importation of the sport-hunt polar bear trophies
that were legally harvested from approved populations in
Canada.
After the ESA listing, such imports were prohibited by the
MMPA. The Service's written testimony explains the legal
framework on trophy imports under the MMPA and the effect of
the ESA listing.
The testimony also describes the Service's significant
outreach efforts to inform hunters of the impact of the ESA
listing on trophy imports. We recognize that a number of
hunters are not able to import their trophies due to the
listing, even though they applied for permits and successfully
completed their legal polar bear hunts before the listing went
into effect.
The Service does not oppose legislation to allow the import
of polar bear trophies taken by those hunters, who both applied
for the permit, and completed their legal hunt prior to the ESA
listing.
However, the Service does not support any broader changes
to the MMPA that would allow additional sport-hunted polar bear
trophies to be imported. We would like to continue to work with
Congressman Young to find any solutions to any problems that
may come up supporting this legislation moving forward.
H.R. 1160, the legislation would convey the McKinney Lake
National Fish Hatchery to the State of North Carolina to be
used as a component of the Fish and Wildlife Management Program
of the State.
The legislation also requires the State to allow the
Service to use the hatchery to propagate any critically
important aquatic resources held in public trust. Since 1996
the State has operated the hatchery under a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Service, primarily for the purpose of
raising catchable-sized channel catfish for the community
fishing program.
Under this agreement the State assumes full responsibility
for all expenses related to the hatchery operation. The Service
fully supports H.R. 1160 as it would allow for the continued
operation of the hatchery, while maintaining the hatchery's
role in the State's urban fishing program in restoring and
recovery of aquatic resources held in public trust.
Finally, I will discuss H.R. 1670. This legislation would
add State-owned land supporting Army National Guard facilities
to the requirements of Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plans under the Sikes Act.
The Service believes that it is a valuable amendment that
increases the benefits of the Sikes Act. The Service, the
States, and the Department of Defense, have long recognized the
value of working together to conserve fish and wildlife
resources on military lands.
Military lands provide important habitat for fish and
wildlife. These lands also provide significant opportunities
for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-associated recreation.
The Sikes Act has fostered strong partnership amongst the
Service, DoD, and the States. Through these partnerships, we
have enhanced the conservation of fish and wildlife resources
on military installations, while also supporting the DoD
missions on those lands.
Accordingly, the Service supports H.R. 1670 and its
extension of the Sikes Act's coverage on State-owned facilities
used for our national defense. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify this morning. I am happy to answer any questions the
Subcommittee may have, and look forward to working with the
Subcommittee Members as you consider these bills.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gould follows:]
Statement of Rowan Gould, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 670, H.R. 991, H.R.
1160, and H.R. 1670
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rowan Gould,
Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), within
the Department of the Interior (Department). I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to testify on: H.R.
670, to convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the same
benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and
American Samoa have in their submerged lands; H.R. 991, 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. 1160, the McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act; and H.R. 1670, the Sikes Act Amendments Act of 2011.
H.R. 991
H.R. 991 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 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 (ESA) of 1973.
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.
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. 991 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.
H.R. 1160
H.R. 1160 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey the
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery to the state of North Carolina to
be used by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission as a
component of the fish and wildlife management program of the state. The
legislation also requires the state to allow the Service to use such
property for the propagation of any critically important aquatic
resource held in public trust to address the specific restoration or
recovery needs of such resource.
The National Fish Hatchery System
The Service's Fisheries Program has played a vital role in
conserving America's fishery resources for 140 years, and today is a
key partner and an essential component with States, Tribes, Federal
agencies, other Service programs, and private interests in a larger
effort to conserve fish and aquatic resources and their habitats. The
National Fish Hatchery System consists of 71 National Fish Hatcheries,
9 Fish Health Centers, 7 Fish Technology Centers, one Historic National
Fish Hatchery, and the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership
Program. It is comprised of nearly 16,000 acres of lands and waters, of
which 4,000 are administered through agreements, easements and/or
leases. The National Fish Hatchery System has land holdings in 34
states that are widely dispersed geographically.
As the Nation's only Fish Hatchery System, these facilities and
their highly-trained personnel provide a network unique in national
conservation efforts because of the suite of capabilities available.
These include propagation of healthy and genetically-appropriate
aquatic animals and plants to help recover and re-establish wild
populations; and scientific leadership in development of aquaculture,
conservation genetics, fish nutrition, and disease diagnostic
technologies. Working closely with State, Tribal, and nongovernmental
organizations, the Program provides substantive educational and
recreational opportunities to citizens of all ages, as well as
substantial economic benefits for local communities.
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery
The McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery was established on
December 27, 1937, and is located in Hoffman, North Carolina, between
Southern Pines and Rockingham. This 422-acre site includes an estimated
100 acres for the warmwater fish hatchery facility. The remaining
acreage consists primarily of forested watershed including the 70-acre
McKinney Lake, which serves as the water supply reservoir for the
hatchery. The property also includes six buildings, three residences,
and 23 earthen ponds.
The original purpose of the hatchery was to produce largemouth
bass, channel catfish, and sunfish, to support the Service's farm pond
distribution program. This program was aimed at providing native
fingerling fish species to people who requested assistance with private
ponds. The Service eventually transferred the farm pond distribution
program to state agencies and, as a result, the McKinney Lake hatchery
began to raise other species, including striped bass, to restore
populations along the Atlantic Coast. Within a relatively short period
of time, these efforts were quite successful.
In 1996, the Service offered the McKinney Lake facility to North
Carolina. Since that time, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission has operated the hatchery under a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Service, primarily for the purpose of raising
catchable size channel catfish for the Commission's Community Fishing
Program. Under this agreement, the Commission assumes full
responsibility for all costs and expenses related to operation of
hatchery facilities.
The hatchery is an important part of the local community and
through its work connects people to the outdoors in important ways.
Each spring, the hatchery grows fingerling-sized channel catfish three
to four inches in length to a harvestable size of 8 to 12 inches for
the Commission's Community Fishing Program. In April, the fish are
collected and stocked into more than 40 community water bodies across
the state, including Richmond County. The Community Fishing Program
promotes family-oriented recreational activities in urban areas. Many
sites feature a handicap-accessible fishing pier and solar-powered fish
feeders to make fishing more enjoyable for all anglers. This program
provides an opportunity for people of all ages to get outdoors and gain
a greater connection with nature.
The Department supports H.R. 1160 and the conveyance of the
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery and its operations to the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (which already manages this
property under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department) for
the purposes of fish and wildlife management. This would allow for the
continued operation of the hatchery and the important role it plays in
the State's urban fishing program and in addressing the specific
restoration or recovery needs of aquatic resources held in public
trust. It is our understanding that the State of North Carolina
supports the proposed conveyance. Accordingly, we recommend that the
bill be revised to make clear that the conveyance is subject to the
State agreeing to receive the property (this revision would also avoid
potential constitutional concerns). This could be accomplished by
adding ``and subject to the State's agreement'' after ``without
reimbursement'' in section 2(b) of the bill.
H.R. 1670
H.R. 1670 would add state-owned lands supporting Army National
Guard facilities to the requirements of Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plans (INRMPs) under the Sikes Act. The Service appreciates
Congresswoman Bordallo's efforts to amend the Sikes Act in this way,
and the Subcommittee's hearing on H.R. 1670.
The Service, the states, and Department of Defense (DOD) have long
recognized the importance and value of working cooperatively to
conserve fish and wildlife resources on military lands. Military lands
provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, as well as significant
opportunities for hunting, fishing and other wildlife-associated
recreation. The Sikes Act, and its amendments, have fostered an
effective framework for our partnership with DOD and the states.
Through this partnership, we have been able to increase our abilities
to conserve fish and wildlife resources found on military
installations, while also supporting the national defense and other
missions of lands managed by the DOD.
The Department of Defense manages approximately 30 million acres of
land on about 400 military installations in the United States. Military
lands contain rare and unique plant and animal species and native
habitats such as old-growth forests, tall-grass prairies, and vernal
pool wetlands. Over 400 threatened and endangered species live on DOD-
managed lands. Public access to many of these sites is limited due to
security and safety concerns; thus they are sheltered from disturbance
and development. These lands and the species they support are an
essential component of our Nation's biodiversity, and the development,
implementation, and improvement of INRMPs supports the long-term health
of the habitats supported on military installations. The Service is
proud of its on-going partnership with DOD and the states to conserve
fish and wildlife resources on military installations. The Service
looks forward to continued participation and cooperation with the DOD
and state fish and wildlife agencies through the Sikes Act.
On May 25, 2010, during the 111th Congress, the Department
testified on H.R. 5284, a bill similar to H.R. 1670. We refer the
Subcommittee to that testimony for a description of the history of the
Sikes Act and the Service's roles and responsibilities under the law.
In that testimony we supported the provision in H.R. 5284 to add state-
owned lands supporting Army National Guard facilities to the
requirements of INRMPs under the Sikes Act. H.R. 1670 is comprised
solely of that provision, which the Service believes is a valuable
amendment for improved Sikes Act coverage of State-owned facilities
used in national defense. Accordingly, the Department supports H.R.
1670.
H.R. 670
H.R. 670 would convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the
same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and
American Samoa have in their submerged lands. The Department of the
Interior has submitted a Statement for the Record on this legislation.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I am happy
to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have and look forward to
working with the Subcommittee members as you consider these bills.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you, Doctor. The next witness is Captain
John Lowell.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOHN LOWELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COAST
SURVEY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Captain Lowell. Good morning, Congressman Young, Ranking
Member Sablan, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Captain John Lowell, and I am the Director of NOAA's Office of
Coast Survey.
Thank you for asking me to testify on H.R. 295, a bill to
amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, to
authorize funds for enhancing NOAA's hydrographic services
delivery in the Arctic.
NOAA has specific authorities under the Coast and Geodetic
Survey Act of 1947, and the Hydrographic Services Improvement
Act of 1998, as amended. Although our existing mandates cover
all United States waters, including the United States Arctic,
and allow activities outside United States waters, we support
the legislation's intent to recognize the Arctic's growing need
of NOAA's geospatial services for safe navigation, sustainable
economic development, delineating the United States extended
continental shelf, and monitoring and describing coastal
change.
NOAA's Arctic Vision and Strategy released on March 16,
2011, identifies these same objectives as priorities,
supporting navigation safety, maritime security, and
environmental protection.
NOAA's geospatial services are also fundamental to other
Arctic activities, including climate change adaption, community
resilience, energy development, and coastal resource
management.
NOAA's hydrographic services cover the 3.4 million square
nautical miles of the United States exclusive economic zone,
including the nearly one million square nautical miles of
United States Arctic waters.
With our current authority, and with Congressional support,
NOAA is providing a high level of hydrographic services to the
Arctic. H.R. 295 puts a well deserved spotlight on emerging
Arctic issues.
As you know, there is now widespread evidence of climate
change in the Arctic region, most dramatically observed in loss
of sea ice. As access to the region increases with sea ice
retreat, commercial shipping interests anticipate open Arctic
trade routes within the decade.
These companies, as well as passenger cruises, fishing and
other economic sector interests, will exert pressure on the
marine transportation system infrastructure. As the United
States begins to confront these Arctic challenges, it is
evident that despite some exploration and research, basic data
are lacking.
The science to inform many decision making processes and
support services is inadequate because the reason has been
relatively inaccessible until recently. The Arctic is deficient
in many of these hydrographic services that NOAA provides to
the rest of the Nation.
For example, most Arctic waters that are charted were
surveyed with obsolete technology dating back to the 1800s,
before the region was part of the United States. Most of the
shoreline along Alaska's northern and western coasts have not
been mapped since the 1960s, if ever, and confidence in the
region's nautical charts is low.
While much of NOAA's Arctic effort are focused on assessing
and prioritizing the region's needs, our navigation based
programs are taking steps to provide essential geospatial
foundation.
In 2010, NOAA conducted surveys in the key areas of
interest to the United States Navy, completed tide gauge
demonstration projects to test Arctic conditions in Barrow,
Alaska, and acquired gravity data over large swaths of interior
and Southcentral Alaska to support NOAA's Gravity for the
Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum, or GRAV-D,
Project.
NOAA and the United States Geological Survey collaborated
with Canada on the third of a series of joint sea floor mapping
missions to help define the limits of the extended continental
shelf in the Arctic.
The partnership with Canada continues this summer with a
seven week expedition to map the sea floor, image the
underlying sediment layers, and acquire other data. Also, on
the international front, NOAA worked with other Arctic
countries to establish an Arctic Regional Hydrographic
Commission.
This commission will foster international collaboration on
hydrographic surveying, nautical charting, and other mapping
activities. NOAA continues to work with partners like the U.S.
Coast Guard and local vessel pilots to assess nautical charting
requirements and prioritize surveys of likely shipping lanes in
the North Bering and Chukchi Seas.
In 2011, NOAA will conduct hydrographic surveys in the
Kotzebue area, which will include the installation of tide
gauges and other gauges to enable datum transformation in the
area.
NOAA will also contract for surveys in Kuskokwim, in the
Northeast Bering Sea, and in Krenitzin, on the eastern side of
the Aleutians. In addition, NOAA is acquiring more gravity data
in Northern Alaska so that most of Alaska will be covered by
the end of 2012.
Putting good information into the hands of mariners is
essential for safe navigation and environmental protection.
Beyond that, NOAA's hydrographic services are an essential
component of an open Arctic where conservation, management, and
use are based on sound science tosupport U.S. economic growth
and resilient and viable ecosystems and communities.
H.R. 295 authorizes funds for NOAA to focus its
hydrographic surveying in the Arctic. It shows support for
continued contract and essential Federal work while NOAA
continues to balance the requirements of the Arctic with other
national priorities.
Thank you again, Congressman Young, and Members of the
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to talk about NOAA's
hydrographic role in the Arctic. We appreciate your attention
to this important issue, and look forward to working with you
on this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Captain Lowell follows:]
Statement of Capt. John E. Lowell, Jr., NOAA, Director, Office of Coast
Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, on H.R. 295
Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Captain John Lowell, and I am the
Director of the Office of Coast Survey at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Thank you for inviting me to testify
before you today on H.R. 295, a bill to amend the Hydrographic Services
Improvement Act of 1998 to authorize funds for enhancing NOAA's
hydrographic services delivery in the Arctic.
Although our existing mandates already cover all U.S. waters,
including the U.S. Arctic, and even allow activities outside U.S.
waters, we certainly support the legislation's intent to recognize the
Arctic as a region in particular need of NOAA geospatial services for
safe navigation, sustainable economic development, delineating the
United States' extended continental shelf, and monitoring and
describing coastal changes. NOAA's Arctic Vision and Strategy, released
on March 16, 2011, identifies these same objectives as priorities,
supporting navigation safety, maritime security, and environmental
protection. NOAA's geospatial services are also fundamental to many
other activities in the Arctic, including effective climate change
adaptation, community resilience, energy development, and coastal
resource management.
NOAA's surveying and charting responsibilities have existed since
1807, and we have specific authorities under the Coast and Geodetic
Survey Act of 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a et seq.) and the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act (33 U.S.C. 892 et seq.), which include:
The acquisition and dissemination of hydrographic,
tide and current, and shoreline information for safe navigation
of commerce, and
Management of the National Spatial Reference System,
which provides the fundamental geospatial control for
transportation, mapping and charting, and any other activities
requiring accurate latitude, longitude, and elevation data.
NOAA's hydrographic services cover the 3.4 million square nautical
miles of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including the nearly
one million square nautical miles of U.S. Arctic \1\ waters. Because of
the authorities referenced above, explicit direction and funding
authorization to work in the Arctic is not necessary for NOAA to
deliver its hydrographic services to this important region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 defines `Arctic' as
``all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle
and all United States territory north and west of the boundary formed
by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers; all contiguous seas,
including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering and Chukchi Seas;
and the Aleutian chain.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, H.R. 295 puts a well-deserved spotlight on emerging
Arctic issues. The Administration is looking closely at Arctic policy
and management, as evidenced by the work underway to implement the
January 2009 Directive (National Security Presidential Directive 66/
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25) on an Arctic Region
Policy, the July 2010 National Ocean Policy's recognition of the Arctic
as an area of special emphasis, and the July 2010 Presidential
Memorandum on arctic research policy, which reinvigorates interagency
research coordination in the Arctic.
As you know, there is now widespread evidence of climate change in
the Arctic region, most dramatically observed in loss of sea ice. In
four of the last five years, we have witnessed the lowest sea ice
extents on record, as well as a 35 percent decrease in thicker multi-
year sea ice. As access to the region increases with sea ice retreat,
we are seeing a corresponding potential for growth in international and
domestic Arctic interests. Oil and gas companies are investing more in
energy exploration, as evidenced most recently by Shell Oil's 2012
proposal for 10 exploratory wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
Commercial shipping interests are anticipating open Arctic trade routes
within the decade. As the Arctic eventually becomes more accessible,
these companies, as well as cruise, fishing, and other economic sector
interests, will exert pressure on a Marine Transportation System
infrastructure. In addition, there are unique national security
interests in the region that will benefit from enhanced geospatial and
related information and services. As Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA
Administrator and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, has said,
``The debate over climate change in the Arctic is over. Climate
change is happening. The Arctic Ocean is warming. Permafrost is
thawing. Sea ice is melting at an alarming rate, and shorelines
are eroding. People's lives and livelihoods are being impacted.
. .But while the loss of sea ice creates opportunities for
commercial enterprises, these same economic growth
opportunities have the potential to threaten Arctic ecosystems,
communities, and cultures already impacted by the rapidly
changing climate...'' (Aspen Institute, March 2011).''
As the United States begins to confront these Arctic challenges, it
is evident that despite some exploration and research to date, even the
most basic data are lacking and the science to inform many decision-
making processes and support services is inadequate. Because the region
has been relatively inaccessible, without widespread need for such
information, the Arctic is deficient in many of the hydrographic
services capabilities that NOAA provides to the rest of the Nation. The
region currently has:
virtually no geospatial infrastructure for accurate
positioning and elevations;
sparse tide, current and water level prediction
coverage;
obsolete shoreline and hydrographic data in most
areas;
poor nautical charts; and
poor weather and ice forecast data.
For example, most Arctic waters that are charted were surveyed with
obsolete technology, some dating back to the 1800s, before the region
was part of the United States. Most of the shoreline along Alaska's
northern and western coasts has not been mapped since 1960, if ever,
and confidence in the region's nautical charts is low. Governance and
management of the marine ecosystems within the Arctic is also a
critical issue, due not only to the growing pressure of activities like
shipping, drilling and fisheries but also to the fact that the region
both strongly impacts and is impacted by global systems. NOAA's
navigation services provide baseline scientific data, such as
hydrography, shoreline mapping, oceanography, tides, currents,
positioning and geodesy, that benefits not only navigation, but also
supports more informed decisions for other economic development,
resource management, and coastal planning decision making processes.
By strengthening its Arctic science and stewardship, NOAA aims to
better inform policy options and management responses to the unique
challenges in this fragile region. NOAA's Arctic Vision and Strategy
aligns our capabilities in support of the efforts of our international,
Federal, State and local partners, and within the broader context of
our Nation's Arctic policies and research goals. The Strategy
recognizes that NOAA can make the highest positive impact to Arctic
communities and sustainable economic growth by providing products and
services for safe navigation and security, oil spill response
readiness, and climate change adaptation strategies. Much of this can
be accomplished through improvements in the hydrographic services
available to the Arctic region, including:
Overhauling the Arctic geospatial framework of
geodetic control and water levels, which will correct meters-
scale positioning errors and enable centimeter-scale
measurements to support such critical needs as marine
transportation, sea-level change analysis, erosion and
permafrost thaw impacts to infrastructure, oil and gas resource
exploration, and storm surge modeling; and,
Surveying and mapping Arctic waters and shoreline for
accurate coastal maps and nautical charts, which will benefit
navigation and national security, sea level change impact
assessments, habitat characterizations, and extended
continental shelf delimitation.
While much of NOAA's Arctic efforts are focused on assessing and
prioritizing the region's needs, our navigation-based programs are
taking initial steps to provide the essential geospatial foundation
described above. In FY 2010, NOAA conducted surveys in key areas of
interest to the U.S. Navy, completed a tide gauge demonstration project
to test Arctic conditions in Barrow, and acquired gravity data over
large swaths of interior and south-central Alaska to support NOAA's
Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum (GRAV-D)
work in the Arctic region. NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey also
collaborated with Canada on the third of a series of joint seafloor
mapping missions to help define the limits of the extended continental
shelf in the Arctic according to the criteria set forth in UNCLOS
Article 76. This work will help the U.S. delimit the outer limits of
its shelf. On the international front, in our role as U.S.
representative to the International Hydrographic Organization, NOAA
worked with other Arctic member states to establish an Arctic Regional
Hydrographic Commission to foster collaboration on hydrographic
surveying, nautical charting, and other mapping activities.
In FY 2011, NOAA continues to work with partners like the U.S.
Coast Guard and local vessel pilots to assess nautical charting
requirements and prioritize surveys of likely shipping lanes in the
North Bering and Chukchi Seas. Our objective is to help address the
Bering Strait chokepoint in particular and more broadly to reduce the
risk of accident and environmental impact in Arctic waters.
Specifically, in FY 2011 NOAA will conduct hydrographic surveys in the
Kotzebue area, which will include installation of a tide gauge and
another gauge to enable datum transformation. NOAA will also contract
for surveys in Kuskokwim (Northeast Bering Sea) and in Krenitzin (North
side of Aleutians). In addition, NOAA is building on existing
partnerships to acquire more gravity data in Northern Alaska so that by
the end of FY 2012 most of Alaska will be covered. This GRAV-D work
will vastly improve the positioning accuracies of elevation
measurements, which will help coastal communities to develop climate
change adaptation strategies and make decisions on infrastructure
hardening, erosion and flood controls. Finally, the partnership with
Canada on extended continental shelf mapping continues with a 7-week
long expedition later this summer utilizing two icebreakers--the U.S.
Coast Guard Cutter Healy and the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-
Laurent--to map the seafloor using multibeam sonar, image the
underlying sediment layers, collect dredge samples and gravity data,
and conduct under-ice AUV operations.
NOAA also serves as a tri-lead, along with the Maritime
Administration and U.S. Coast Guard, on the U.S. Arctic Marine
Transportation Interagency Action Team (IAT), a subcommittee of the
U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS). Section
307(c) of the 2010 U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act--Arctic Marine
Shipping Assessment Implementation--directs the CMTS to coordinate the
establishment of domestic transportation policy to ensure safe and
secure maritime shipping in the Arctic. NOAA is working diligently with
over twelve agency partners on the CMTS Arctic IAT to complete this
task and ensure consistency with the policies of the National Security
Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25.
The Arctic region poses unique operational challenges for hydrographic
surveying, such as in predicting future ice conditions, planning
surveys in advance, and conducting those surveys under harsh
environmental circumstances. NOAA and its contractors have some
capability for working in Arctic conditions, but we are currently
evaluating the best and safest approach to data collection. As
indicated above, NOAA is also evaluating the technology and strategies
needed for long-term monitoring of tides, water levels, and currents
under harsh Arctic conditions.
Putting good information into the hands of mariners is essential
for safe navigation and environmental protection, and coastal
communities and scientists must have the same foundational support for
good operational and research decisions. NOAA's hydrographic services
are an essential component of an open Arctic where conservation,
management, and use are based on sound science to support U.S. economic
growth and resilient and viable ecosystems and communities.
Thank you again, Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee,
for the opportunity to talk about NOAA's role in the Arctic with
respect to hydrographic services. We appreciate the time and attention
the subcommittee is devoting to this important issue, and look forward
to working with you further on this legislation.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you, Captain. At this time, we have Mr.
Myers, and you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GORDON MYERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA
WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
Mr. Myers. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Young, and
Ranking Member Sablan, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Gordon Myers, Executive Director of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
We are a State agency whose mission it is to conserve North
Carolina's wildlife resources and to provide programs that
facilitate wildlife-associated recreation in our state. I am
grateful for the opportunity to come before you this morning
and provide testimony in support of H.R. 1160.
The State of North Carolina acquired land to develop
McKinney Lake in 1933, and the McKinney Lake National Fish
Hatchery was established several years later. From its
inception in the late 1930s until 1996, the hatchery was
operated by the Federal Government.
In June of 1995, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service notified the Wildlife Commission of its decision to
close this important hatchery. We determined that the hatchery
and surrounding property would enhance our ability to meet both
terrestrial and aquatic resource objectives with our agencies.
Therefore, we worked with the Service to explore the
possibility of transferring the property to the State. As a
part of our due diligence, however, we conducted an assessment
of the dam, which revealed significant deficiencies in the
emergency spillway.
Because the conveyance prior to addressing these
deficiencies would encumber the State with a noncompliant dam,
an alternative course of action was first developed. In
November of 1996, we entered into an agreement with the Fish
and Wildlife Service to transfer operations to the State
without immediate transfer of the liability or the financial
encumbrances of the dam.
Under this agreement the Service granted full use of the
hatchery to the State, and we became fully responsible for all
operational costs, as well as improvements to the property,
except for those attributed to the dam and spillway.
We have operated the hatchery under multiple agreements
without interruption since 1996, and during this period, we
have completed projects to remediate the dam to remove lead
paint from hatchery residences, as well as other projects.
Funding for the first two projects was provided to the
commission through agreement with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and we have also completed more than $1 million worth
of repair and renovations to this facility.
We are currently planning additional improvements at an
estimated cost of about $1.7 million, and also allocated
operating funds in the amount of $366 thousand. This hatchery
is an important part of our statewide hatchery infrastructure,
and although it is used adaptively to meet our fish production
needs statewide, its primary focus is the production of channel
catfish for our community fishing program.
This program is an active partnership between the
Commission and local government to provide public fishing in
urban areas of our state. This popular program integrates
fishery management with the infrastructure found in local parks
to create an enhanced family friendly fishing experience in
urban areas within the safe confines of a park.
Our current wildlife management activities on the site
include management of Long Leaf Pine Forest for providing
optimal conditions for Federally endangered red cockaded
woodpeckers.
House Resolution 1160 stipulates that the property shall
revert to the United States should the property cease to be
used for fish and wildlife management purposes. This bill also
includes conditions that would require the State to allow the
Service to use the property for propagation of important
aquatic resources.
It is our opinion that the terms of this agreement include
acceptable measures to ensure continued use of the property for
fish and wildlife conservation, and we are also fully satisfied
that the bill includes adequate compensation requirements
should the Service need to utilize the facility.
In conclusion, since its inception 75 years ago, McKinney
Lake National Hatchery has helped further fish and wildlife
conservation within and beyond North Carolina. It is an
important and necessary element of North Carolina's fish
hatchery infrastructure.
Currently, this hatchery enables the Commission to provide
and sustain opportunities for North Carolinians in all parts of
our state, but most notably in urban areas. As an element of
our fish hatchery system, it will provide critical capacity to
adapt to evolving fish production needs in the future, and
conveyance of this hatchery to the State would ensure the
continuation of a 75 year fish and wildlife conservation
purpose.
We are fully prepared to remove this encumbrance from the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and place it upon the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, and I believe our consistent
performance of operational and financial obligations since 1996
demonstrates our commitment and capacity to uphold this
responsibility. On behalf of the Wildlife Resources Commission,
thank you for the opportunity to express our support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
Statement of Gordon Myers, Executive Director,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, on H.R. 1160 and H.R.
1670
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Fleming, ranking member Sablan, and members of the
subcommittee, I am Gordon Myers, executive director of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission), a state agency
whose mission is to conserve North Carolina's wildlife resources and
their habitats and provide programs and opportunities that allow
hunters, anglers, boaters and other outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy
wildlife-associated recreation. I am grateful for the opportunity to
come before you to provide testimony in support of H.R. 1160, The
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act.
BACKGROUND
The State of North Carolina acquired land to develop McKinney Lake
under Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933.
The lake was constructed in 1934 through the Resettlement
Administration of the WPA. Subsequently, McKinney Lake National Fish
Hatchery was established in accordance with provisions of NIRA. The
422-acre parcel includes 24 rearing ponds, a 70-acre water supply lake
and associated dam, hatchery building, several residences and a small
lodge. The property also includes approximately 300-acres of forested
watershed comprised largely of longleaf pine eco-type. From its
inception until 1996, the federal government operated McKinney Lake
National Fish Hatchery to support federal and state fishery-management
objectives through production of warmwater sport fish species.
In June 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) notified
the Commission that revised fishery-management responsibilities
precipitated a decision to discontinue operations at McKinney Lake
National Fish Hatchery (NFH). Following consultation with the Service,
we determined that the hatchery and surrounding property would enhance
our ability to meet state terrestrial and aquatic resource objectives.
Accordingly, we worked with the Service to explore the potential to
transfer the property to the State of North Carolina for incorporation
into the state's fish hatchery and game lands programs. Conveyance to
state ownership would, however, render McKinney Lake Dam subject to the
North Carolina Dam Safety Act. Due diligence revealed significant
deficiencies in the emergency spillway capacity and because property
conveyance prior to addressing dam deficiencies would encumber the
state with a noncompliant dam, an alternate course of action was
developed.
In November 1996, the Service and the Commission entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement that provided for the transition of operations
to the state without immediate transfer of the liability and financial
encumbrances associated with the dam. Under the terms of the agreement,
the Service granted to the state a right of use and occupancy of the
lands and improvements comprising McKinney Lake NFH. The State agreed
to be fully responsible for all costs and expenses associated with
operation and maintenance of all facilities and improvements within the
property limits except for those costs attributed to the dam and
spillway.
The Commission and the Service have operated the hatchery under the
terms of these conditions, without interruption, since November 1996.
During this period, the Commission administered projects to remediate
McKinney Lake Dam and abate lead paint from hatchery residences. The
funding for these projects was provided to the Commission from the
Service through reimbursable agreements. In addition, the Commission
has completed the following capital projects with Commission receipts:
Replacement of four harvest kettles replacement and
six water supply inlet structures at a total cost of $874,855
Renovations to the existing lodge to bring the
structure into compliance with fire codes at a total cost of
$100,918
Other miscellaneous projects that include a variety
of small renovations to hatchery residences and construction of
a public fishing pier and boat launch to enhance public use of
McKinney Lake
We are currently replacing a metal storage building
at a estimated cost of $65,000
The Commission is currently planning for the replacement of the
remaining harvest kettles and water inlet structures at an estimated
cost of $1.7 million.
In addition to capital investment, the Commission has committed
annual recurring funding for operations in the amount of $360,000.
Current Use
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery is an important element of the
Commission's statewide hatchery system. It is one of two warmwater fish
hatcheries operated by the Commission. Although the hatchery is used
adaptively to meet fish production needs, its current primary focus is
to produce channel catfish for the Commission's Community Fishing
Program (CFP). The CFP is an active partnership between the Commission
and local government, usually municipal or county parks, to provide
public fishing opportunities in urban areas of North Carolina. This
popular program integrates intensive fishery management with the
infrastructure of parks to create enhanced fishing opportunities for
families seeking enjoyable and economical trips within the safe
confines of a park. The associated facilities often include disabled
user accessible fishing piers, fish feeders, fish attractors, rod and
reel loaners and other park amenities provided by the local partners.
In addition to providing infrastructure necessary to meet fish
production objectives, the Commission also provides free public fishing
access to McKinney Lake. Associated infrastructure includes a fishing
pier and boat ramp for public use.
Because the property is also surrounded by state-owned game lands,
the approximate 300-acres of forested land surrounding the hatchery
seamlessly integrates with the Commission's wildlife management and
forest stewardship activities. The forested portion of the property is
primarily comprised of longleaf pine forest, a priority habitat
identified in North Carolina's State Wildlife Action Plan. Wildlife
management activities on the property are largely focused managing this
important habitat for federally endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers
(RCW). Specific activities include monitoring, prescribed burning and
selective timber management to manage for optimal RCW habitat.
Upon conveyance of the property to the state, we plan to examine
opportunities to provide hunting access on the forested property
located at the upper end of the lake.
Terms of Transfer
H.R. 1160 stipulates that the property shall revert to the United
States should the property not be used for any purposes relating to
fishery and wildlife resources management. Further, the bill also
includes conveyance conditions that would require the State, upon
request of the Secretary of the Interior, to allow the Service to use
the property in cooperation with the Commission for propagation of
critically important aquatic resources.
The terms of this agreement include acceptable measures to assure
the perpetuation of fish and wildlife conservation uses for the
property. The bill also includes adequate compensation requirements
should the Service need to utilize the facility. Our longstanding
cooperative partnership with the Service bolsters our confidence that
any future needs subject to the provisions of Section 2(e) would be
addressed cooperatively and to the satisfaction of each agency.
CONCLUSION
In closing, since its inception 75 years ago, McKinney Lake
National Hatchery has helped further fish and wildlife conservation
goals within and beyond North Carolina. It is an important and
necessary element of North Carolina's statewide fish hatchery
infrastructure. Currently, this hatchery enables the Commission to
provide and sustain opportunities for North Carolinians in all parts of
our state, most notably in urban areas, to participate in family
friendly fishing activities. As an element of our statewide fish
hatchery system, it will also provide critical capacity to adapt to
evolving fish production needs in the future. Conveyance of McKinney
Lake National Fish Hatchery to the State of North Carolina would ensure
the continuation of the 75-year fish and wildlife conservation purpose
of this facility.
We are fully prepared to remove this encumbrance from the Service
and place it upon the Commission. I believe that subsequent to assuming
operational and financial obligations in 1996, the Commission has
demonstrated its full commitment and capacity to uphold this
responsibility. On behalf of the Commission, thank you for the
opportunity to express our utmost support H.R. 1160.
Additional Testimony for H.R. 1670, Sikes Act Amendments Act of 2011
I would like to briefly share with you the support of the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, of which all 50 states are
members, for H.R. 1670, a bill bringing clarity to the Sikes Act
application on certain Army National Guard bases.
The Association applauds the significant progress for fish and
wildlife conservation that has been made through the cooperation of the
Department of Defense (DoD) installations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and State fish and wildlife agencies since the passage
of the Sikes Act Improvement Act in 1997. We can all be proud of the
conservation benefits achieved from this often unknown and unheralded
success story of public lands management on approximately 30 Million
acres. Our successes have certainly substantiated that not only is
achievement of the military preparedness mission and sound stewardship
of the land and its fish and wildlife resources not mutually exclusive,
they are indeed mutually necessary and beneficial.
The Association supports H.R. 1670 because it clarifies what we
believe was originally intended, and that is the need for and
application of Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans on, and
funding eligibility for, Army National Guard bases where significant
natural resources exist, and which installations are held under state
title. Army National Guard bases are dedicated to fulfilling the
military preparedness mission, and like other military installations,
have historically worked closely with the state fish and wildlife
agencies to enhance installation natural resource conservation. Most
ANG bases under state title, in fact, have developed and are
implementing INRMPs. Therefore, the Association supports the clarity
brought to these bases by H.R. 1670.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you, sir. Mr. Flocken, you are next.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY FLOCKEN, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE
Mr. Flocken. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today. My name is Jeffrey Flocken, and I am the Washington,
D.C. Office Director for IFAW, the International Fund for
Animal Welfare.
I am here this morning on behalf of both IFAW and Defenders
of Wildlife. Our groups represent millions of Americans who
care about polar bears and the integrity of America's laws that
protect imperiled species, including the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
IFAW and Defenders oppose H.R. 991, as it would set a
terrible precedent for those landmark statutes, and would serve
the narrow special interests of a small number of trophy
hunters to the detriment of polar bear and endangered species
conservation.
The supporters of this bill are basically making four
arguments, all of which are flawed. First, they are saying that
since the bears were legally killed, they should be allowed to
import them.
Second, they say that it serves no conservation purpose to
deny these imports as the bears are already dead. Third, they
claim to have experienced a taking of their personal property;
and fourth, they claim to have been treated unfairly.
But these arguments are not valid, nor do they outweigh the
harm that would be done by passing H.R. 991. First, the fact
that these 41 polar bears were legally killed does not justify
this amendment. The actual killing of the bears was and remains
legal in Canada.
An American hunter could legally hunt polar bear in Canada
before the May 15, 2008 listing, and still can today. What
became illegal at the time of the listing was the import of the
trophies, and the cutoff date for imports is and should be the
date when the expert agency listed the polar bear as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act, and when it became officially
recognized as a depleted species under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
The second claim that they are making for support of H.R.
991 is that no conservation purpose is served by denying the
permits because the bears are already dead. This argument
carries no weight. Anyone who kills an endangered or threatened
foreign species can say that the species is already dead.
That argument cannot legally justify the later import of a
trophy, and this bill is not about the killing of the bears in
Canada, but about the import into the United States. Denying
the import of species found to be in danger of extinction, such
as those 41 polar bears, is one of our best ways to support
global conservation.
Third, supporters of the bill claim that the fact that they
are not able to import their polar bear trophy is the taking of
their personal property. This is not the case. While the polar
bear is hunted in Canada, and 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 items
constitutes an unlawful taking of property.
The United States bans numerous products and items from
import, and those bans are not unlawful simply because the
importer owns the property. Finally, there is no valid fairness
argument for these 41 hunters to undercut established
conservation laws.
These hunters had fair and substantial notice that the
species listing was imminent, and that imports could be
prohibited as a result. The February 2005 petition to list
polar bears received considerable national and international
media coverage, and especially impressed targeting the United
States hunting communities and outdoor enthusiasts.
Additionally, 16 months prior to the listing of the polar
bear the United States Fish and Wildlife Service launched a
targeted outreach campaign aimed at the hunting community to
inform them that a listing decision was coming, and that such a
decision could result in the prohibition of import of hunting
trophies.
Again, in January of 2008, the Service informed potential
applicants that a decision on the listing was imminent, and
that if the species were listed further imports would not be
authorized.
Yet, despite these warnings that a listing decision was
imminent, the 41 hunters decided to take the risk, and go to
Canada, and hunt these polar bears. They not only chose to hunt
a species that scientists were saying may be on the brink of
extinction, but they did so knowing that they would not be able
to import their trophies if the listing happened, which it did.
If Congress were to undermine our laws created to dissuade
Americans from killing endangered species, a clear signal would
be send that hunters from America can continue to kill globally
imperiled species with the expectation that Congress will
create a legal loophole so that they can bring back their
trophies at a later day.
Allowing these 41 hunters to bypass these protections
establishes a precedent that would erode the foundation of how
the United States has chosen to protect imperiled foreign
species. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flocken follows:]
Statement of Jeffrey Flocken, DC Office Director,
International Fund for Animal Welfare, on H.R. 991
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 991, which proposes
an amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. I am
Jeffrey Flocken, Washington D.C. Office Director for the International
Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). On behalf of IFAW, Defenders of
Wildlife, and our millions of supporters worldwide, we oppose this
legislation which would set back polar bear conservation efforts and
create a dangerous precedent for undermining the protections afforded
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
An Overview of Threats to Polar Bears
Polar bears have been protected in the U.S. since 1972, when the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was passed, prohibiting the killing
of and trade in all marine mammals, including the hunting or
importation of sport-hunted polar bears. Unfortunately, Congress, at
the behest of trophy hunting special interest groups, created a
loophole in 1994 that allowed Americans to hunt polar bears in Canada
and bring home trophies. Between 1997 and May 15, 2008, over 960
permits were issued to American hunters by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the importation of trophy-hunted polar bear heads and
hides.
In May 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a series of
reports commissioned by the Department of the Interior concluding that
by 2050, 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--that the polar bear population could drop by 30
percent in 35-50 years and that polar bears may disappear from most of
their current range within 100 years.
Polar bears are expected to suffer such dramatic declines as a
result of climate change and the resultant reduction of sea-ice which
serves as critical polar bear habitat. 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 presents a critical threat to the species.
The result of this decline is drowning bears, starvation, litters of
fewer offspring, and lower cub survival rates.
THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT AND IT'S 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). In fact, the country's largest hunting
organizations repeatedly warned their members that a listing would
result in imports of polar bear trophies being prohibited. Despite
being given more than a year's notice by the FWS and being warned by
hunting organizations, individuals chose to participate in hunts.
Equity does not demand that Congress now act to allow the import of
trophies taken by hunters who assumed the risk that future import would
be prohibited.
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. In written
testimony provided by Dr. Rowan Gould to this Subcommittee's September
22, 2009 hearing on H.R. 1054, the FWS stated that they would have been
able to issue only twenty of the pending permits prior to the 30-day
grace period's expiration. Eight of the twenty hunters would then only
have had two days to import their trophies.
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. Further, the overbroad text of this bill would allow the
import of even those polar bears trophies killed in Canada for which no
import permit was submitted to FWS prior to the listing of the species
on May 15, 2008. 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 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.
______
Mr. Young. Mr. Smith, I admire what I call a stoic approach
to someone sitting next to you that definitely said what is not
true. So I appreciate your patience. So, Mr. Smith, you are up
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SMITH, MEMBER,
DALLAS SAFARI CLUB
Mr. Smith. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am here today speaking as a citizen who has
suffered the taking of my property because of Federal
regulatory action.
I appreciate the opportunity today to tell my story. I was
told by a booking agent in January of 2008 that the waiting
list for polar bear hunts was about five years. So you can
imagine my excitement when that agent called me the following
March to tell me of a hunt which had just become available in
early May.
Besides the adventure, I knew that my participation in this
hunt would help conserve the bear population and provide an
income source to the Inuit people. I arrived in Resolute,
Nunavut, Canada, to meet my guides. We were going to hunt from
dog sleds just as their ancestors had been doing for
generations.
The subject of a possible rulemaking by the United States
which would affect polar bear hunting did come up, but the
people of Resolute were not too concerned. They lived with
these bears and felt that they were in no way endangered.
After many days of subzero temperatures and challenging
frozen terrain, I was elated to have success on this difficult,
yet exhilarating hunt. After passing on several bears, I took a
male polar bear, which was later determined to be 23 years old.
This was on the 11th of May of 2008, three years ago yesterday.
Of course, I wanted to bring my bear home to create a
taxidermy mount. I had contacted the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service prior to departing for the hunt to ensure that
my paperwork was prepared and submitted properly.
After the hunt, and while still in Canada, I faxed them
additional required information and began making arrangements
to have my bear expedited to Texas. This is when I learned that
the United States Interior Department had made its decision on
the status of the polar bear, listing it as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act.
The ruling was then made effective immediately, May 15th,
four days after I took my bear. This is something which I don't
fully understand, and from which I have never been given a
reason.
So not only was I shocked to hear the ruling, but even more
astounded to learn that importation of my legally hunted polar
bear, which was taken prior to the Interior Department's
decision, was banned under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
I had properly submitted my paperwork to the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service for their mandatory 30 day review
period. I find it distressing that the government required me
to abide by a 30 day review period for importation, but with
this ruling, it instantaneously changed its import policy.
While I will never lose the experience, a taxidermy mount
would have been my lasting memento and cannot happen since this
regulation effectively confiscated my poplar bear.
The bear hide is now in cold storage in Canada. The longer
it remains in storage, the greater the risk it could be ruined.
I am asking you to support enactment of H.R. 991. This simple
bill will do only one thing. It will allow me and the other 40
similarly affected 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 only simply restore my property to
my possession. 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 hunt, and
the government has stripped me of my property. With the
addition of storage fees, and other expenses, I have now spent
in excess of $50,000.
In the three years since my hurt, I have shared my story
with many people, both hunters and non-hunters, and I have yet
to find anyone who believes that denying the import of my
legally taken bear is justifiable.
I am not questioning others rights to champion bears if
they feel that their cause is just, but I am questioning why
there is such a determined effort to blocking the importation
of these particular bears since, to put it bluntly, these 41
bears are beyond saving. Should not their focus be elsewhere?
I sincerely hope that you will consider and cosponsor the
enactment of H.R. 991. I would like to thank the Dallas Safari
Club for assisting me in my effort to testify today, and
appreciate the position the club has taken to help move this
legislation forward.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to
tell my story to the Committee. I appreciate your careful
consideration of this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Statement of Steve Smith, Member, Dallas Safari Club, on H.R. 991
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am here today speaking as
a citizen who has suffered the taking of my property because of federal
regulatory action. I appreciate the opportunity today to tell my story.
I was raised in a small east Texas community and learned the values
of hunting and wildlife conservation from my father who introduced me
to hunting at the age of nine. I took my first deer at about age eleven
with my mother sitting with me in the deer stand. She too developed a
love for hunting and the outdoors. My father, knowing my enthusiasm for
the sport of hunting and the outdoors, encouraged me to pursue a career
with a firearms or ammunition company as a tester, so I could travel
the world as a hunter. We were both particularly fascinated with
hunting in Africa which seemed so exotic to us. However, after seeing a
television show on hunting the polar bear in the Arctic, my dad thought
that would be the ultimate hunt. He passed away when I was in high
school and never got to experience more than the duck and deer hunting
we shared together. But I never forgot our conversations about that
ultimate hunting trip.
After attending college and working for several years I was
fortunate enough to be able to afford to resume the hunting that I
loved so much as a young man. I hunted several North American species
in the U.S. before turning my focus to hunting in other parts of the
world.
In January of 2008 I decided to inquire about the possibility of
hunting polar bear in the Arctic and after getting referrals from
others in the hunting community I contacted a booking agent who
informed me that the waiting list to hunt polar bear was about five
years. I was disappointed but decided to focus on other upcoming hunts
and travels. As an after thought I told the agent that if there
happened to be a cancellation to please contact me. He laughed and said
that in his twenty years of booking hunts no one had ever cancelled a
polar bear hunt.
So you can imagine my shock when in March that same booking agent
called to inform me that another hunter needed to cancel his hunt. The
hunt date was early May of 2008. I didn't have much time to prepare but
jumped at the opportunity. I began purchasing the necessary cold
weather gear, booking flights and lodging and working with a firearms
expert on how my rifle would respond in the Arctic conditions.
Besides the adventure, I knew that my participation in this hunt
would help conserve the bear population and provide an income source to
the Inuit people. When I arrived in Resolute, Nunavut, Canada the day
before my guided hunt was to begin, I met many of the locals whose
livelihood depended on hunting. My guides and I were going to hunt from
dogsleds just as their ancestors had been doing for several
generations. They were a wealth of information on the polar bear
habitat and population. The subject of a possible ruling by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife which could prohibit future importation of polar bear
trophies to the United States did come up, but the people of Resolute
could not really understand the concern since they had lived with and
hunted these bears for generations and felt that they were in no way
endangered. They already understood and practiced careful conservation
of these bears which they considered a very precious natural resource.
After many days of inclement weather, challenging frozen terrain on
a bumpy dogsled, and hunting and sleeping in subzero temperatures, I
was elated to have success on this difficult yet exhilarating hunt.
After encountering and passing on several bears which were either
females or young males I took a male polar bear which was later
determined to be twenty-three years old. His facial hair was worn off
from years of diving through the ice and his teeth were old and broken.
I took this bear on the 11th of May 2008, which was three years ago
yesterday.
Of course I wanted to bring my bear home to create a taxidermy
mount as a symbol of this amazing experience. I had contacted U.S. Fish
and Wildlife prior to departing for the hunt to ensure that my
paperwork was prepared and submitted properly. After returning from the
ice I faxed the remaining required information to them while still in
Canada. I made arrangements for my bear to be expedited to my
taxidermist in Texas. This is also when I was informed by the people of
Resolute that the U.S. Interior Department had made it's ruling on the
status of the polar bear. The ruling took effect on May 15--four days
after I took my bear. The local people were understandably disappointed
and many voiced their opinion that this ruling was interfering with the
way in which they had conserved and harvested polar bears.
I had properly submitted my paperwork to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for their mandatory 30-day review period. I hope you can
understand my surprise and dismay when the Interior Department listed
the polar bear as ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The ruling was then made effective immediately--something which
I don't fully understand and for which I have never been given a
reason. Not only was I shocked to hear this ruling, but even more
astounded to learn that the importation of my legally hunted polar
bear, which was indeed taken prior to the Interior Department ruling,
was not going to be allowed. As a result of this ruling, U.S. hunters
are now banned from importing these legally-harvested polar bears into
the United States 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 taxidermy
mount, which would have been my lasting trophy, cannot happen under
current laws, and this regulation effectively confiscated my legally
taken polar bear. Right now, the bear hide and skull are in cold
storage in Baltimore, Ontario, Canada. I hesitate to spend the money to
have the taxidermy work done in Canada without knowing when, or if, I
will ever be able to import it to my home, and yet the longer the hide
sits unmounted in storage, the greater the risk that it will be ruined.
I find it distressing that the government required me to abide by a 30-
day review period before importation, but with this ruling it
instantaneously changed its import policy.
I am asking you to support enactment of H.R. 991. This simple bill
will do only one thing--it will allow me and the other 40 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.
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. With the addition of storage
fees and other expenses I have now spent in excess of $50,000.
This is a deeply personal issue that has had an enormous impact on
me. In the three years since my hunt I have shared my story with many
people, both hunters and non-hunters, and I have yet to find anyone who
agrees that this denial of import of my legally taken trophy is fair or
appropriate. I do not understand why there is any opposition to the
importation of these legally and ethically hunted polar bears. I am not
questioning others rights to champion bears if they feel their cause is
just, but I am questioning why there is such a determined effort to
blocking the importation of these particular bears since, to put it
bluntly, these forty-one bears are beyond saving. Shouldn't their focus
be elsewhere?
I sincerely hope you will consider, co-sponsor, and support
enactment of H.R. 991.
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.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to tell my
story to the Committee. I appreciate your careful consideration of this
legislation.
______
Mr. Young. Thank you, and I want to compliment the panel
for being on time. It is really very well done. Usually they
have to go over and I have to go tappy-tap-tap. But thank you.
It shows a little bit of professionalism. Ranking Member.
Mr. Sablan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record
a statement in opposition to H.R. 991 submitted by the Humane
Society of the United States.
Mr. Young. I may not agree to that. You know that.
[The prepared statement by the Humane Society follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Humane Society of the United
States on H.R. 991, 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
The Humane Society of the United States is grateful to the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony in
opposition to H.R. 991, 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. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 103 Pub. L. No. 238, Sec. 4, 108 Stat. 532 (1994)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 73 Fed. Reg. 28,212 (May 15, 2008); 16 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1362(1)(C), 1371 (a)(3)(B),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Monitoring has
noted a significant decline in minimum sea ice extent over the past few
decades, equating to a 23,328 sq mi loss of ice per year, and this loss
appears to be accelerating. \3\ The Arctic is predicted to be
seasonally ice-free by the end of the 21st century, \4\ which poses a
considerable threat to the species. Some scientists believe that the
Arctic may be ice free during the summer in as little as 30 years. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 73 Fed. Reg. 28,212 (May 15, 2008), p. 28,220.
\4\ 73 Fed. Reg. 28,212 (May 15, 2008), p. 28,230.
\5\ Wang, M. and J. E. Overland. 2009. A sea ice free summer Arctic
within 30 years? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36: L07502, doi:10.1029/
2009GL037820.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melting ice has resulted in a decreased prey base, forcing bears to
swim longer distances to obtain food, exhausting them, which can lead
to drowning. \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 73 Fed. Reg. 28,212 (May 15, 2008), p. 28,262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the polar bear is ``one of the most
contaminated individuals in the world.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Pertoldi, C., C. Sonne, R. Dietz, N. M. Schmidt, and V.
Loeschcke. 2009. Craniometric characteristics of polar bear skulls from
two periods with contrasting levels of industrial pollution and sea ice
extent. Journal of Zoology 279: 321-328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. \8\ 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.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Amstrup, Steven C., et al. Recent observations of intraspecific
predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern Beaufort
Sea. Polar Biol (2006). http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/
default/files/scientists/den_predation_2006.pdf
\9\ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/
12/AR2006061201266.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 reasons that ``a potential risk of over-harvest due
to increased quotas, excessive quotas or no quotas in Canada and
Greenland and poaching in Russia'' are contributing to this decline.
\10\ According to the results of a 2009 meeting of the IUCN's Polar
Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 discrete polar bear populations
worldwide, only one, in the Canadian high Arctic, is increasing. Three
populations appeared to be stable, while seven are too poorly monitored
to know their status. The remaining eight populations are declining.
The previous meeting in 2005 concluded that only five populations were
in decline at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/22823/0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070910-polar-
bears.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 would likely be
listed and that their trophy import applications would likely be
denied. Moreover, as described below, these trophy hunters have already
had their pleas for special treatment rejected by a federal court, and
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Congress should not bail
them out now.
The USFWS proposed to list the polar bear in January 2007,
triggering an ESA requirement that the USFWS finalize the listing by
January 2008. The actual listing did not occur until months later, in
May 2008. The USFWS's listing decision was unlawfully delayed such that
imports were allowed for several months beyond the point at which they
should have been halted, and yet hunters have still argued for
importation of more trophies.
In fact, most if not all of the 41 polar bear trophies that would
be affected by H.R. 991 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.
Several other imports are now disallowed under the MMPA by virtue
of the ``depleted'' status of the species, such as imports for public
display purposes. \12\ Allowing polar bear trophies to be imported
despite their depleted status would create substantial inequity among
other potential import applicants, and U.S. trophy hunters should not
be given preferential treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1371(a)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 that is
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.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.'' \14\ 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.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Bulletin. January
2008. Volume 28, Number 1. Page 2.
\15\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Extra Bulletin.
January 9, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2008, 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.'' \16\ 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 bleaker. At this point, there was no time to even get a
permit.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Bulletin. April
2008. Volume 28, Number 4. Page1.
\17\ Conservation Force. ``The Hunting Report'' Extra Bulletin.
April 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safari Club International members were informed about the potential
listing in no less than eight different newsletters sent from the
organization. \18\ One of these even stated that, ``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.''
\19\ The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance also informed its members in at
least one of its newsletters. \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Safari Club International. ``SCI Action Alert'' E-mail.
September 21, 2007; Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-
mail bulletin. October 4, 2007; Safari Club International. ``In the
Crosshairs'' E-mail bulletin. October 19, 2007; Safari Club
International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail bulletin. October 23, 2007;
Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail bulletin.
January 7, 2008; Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-
mail bulletin. February 22, 2008; Safari Club International. ``In the
Crosshairs'' E-mail bulletin. April 17, 2008.
\19\ Safari Club International. ``In the Crosshairs'' E-mail
bulletin. April 29, 2008.
\20\ 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. 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.
Cases in the Federal Courts
This very issue of whether to allow sport-hunted polar bear trophy
imports has already been considered by a federal court. In 2008, as
part of the litigation over USFWS's listing decision, several hunting
groups asked the federal court for the Northern District of California
to order the USFWS to allow the importation of trophies of bears killed
prior to the ESA listing. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ CBD, et al. v. Kempthorne, Civ. No. 08-1339 CW (N.D.
California).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USFWS, under the Bush Administration, argued strongly in court
against requiring the agency to allow imports of polar bears killed
prior to the listing. 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. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1371(a)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. . .'' \23\ 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.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Defendants' Supplemental Brief on Import of Polar Bear
Trophies, Civ. No. 08-1339, Dkt. No. 81, at 2 (May 27, 2008).
\24\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' \25\ 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. \26\ If H.R. 991 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 additional agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id. at 7.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the arguments of the parties, Judge Wilken of the
Northern District of California denied the request. 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. \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Order Concerning the Importation of Polar Bear Trophies, CBD,
et al. v. Kempthorne, N.D. California, Civ. No. 08-1339 (J. Wilken,
July 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trophy import issue is now before the federal District Court
for the District of Columbia. \28\ The trophy hunters have filed
several consolidated lawsuits on this issue of import of polar bear
trophies, and these lawsuits are currently being litigated. \29\
Further, the trophy hunters have also challenged the ESA listing
itself, in the same federal court. \30\ If the polar bear hunters are
successful in these lawsuits, the import of polar bear trophies
(including those currently being stored in Canada and at issue here)
will be allowed again. Briefing in both the trophy import and the
listing lawsuits has been completed, and the court has already heard
oral argument on motions for summary judgment. Thus, the cases are ripe
for final ruling by the court, and such ruling could be issued at any
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Litigation, D. D.C.,
Misc. Action No. 08-0764.
\29\ Safari Club Int'l, et al. v. Salazar, et al., No. 08-881;
Hershey v. Salazar, et al., No. 09-324; Kreider v. Salazar, et al., No.
09-325 (all consolidated within Misc. Action No. 08-0764)
\30\ In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Litigation, D. D.C.,
Misc. Action No. 08-0764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trophy hunters availed themselves of a judicial forum for their
complaints, and have already been turned away once. New litigation on
the issue has been brought by the trophy hunters and is near
completion. Valuable court resources and time have been expended on the
litigation, and now the hunters are coming to Congress before the
judicial process is complete. It is a waste of congressional time and
resources to weigh in on an issue that the federal courts may soon
decide.
USFWS Denial of Special Exemption Permits
After the ESA listing was published, and the federal court in the
Northern District of California rejected the trophy hunters' request
for an order allowing imports, several hunters applied for import
permits under the ``enhancement of survival'' provisions of the MMPA.
Although the MMPA generally prohibits the importation of ``depleted''
species, it provides a specific and narrow exemption to this
prohibition whereby a depleted species may be imported if the
importation is likely to ``enhance[e] the survival'' of the species by
``contribut[ing] significantly to...increasing distribution'' of the
species. \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1371(a)(3)(B), 1374(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USFWS and the Marine Mammal Commission (``MMC'') determined
that the hunters were not entitled to these permits. \32\ The FWS
recognized that Congress maintained this narrow exception to ensure
that only importations that actually benefit species are permitted. If
hunters were allowed to circumvent this process, Congress's carefully
limited exceptions would be rendered meaningless. Nevertheless, the
trophy hunters are now asking Congress to give them the preferential
treatment that they did not receive from the USFWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See MMC Comments available at http://www.mmc.gov/letters/pdf/
2008/polarbear_121608.pdf (recommending that FWS adopt the position
``that Congress never intended sport hunting to be considered an
enhancement activity'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 991 Would Harm Polar Bear Conservation Efforts
H.R. 991 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 17 years ago. The original Act of 1972
barred the importation of all marine mammals and their parts, including
polar bears--the same law that prohibits American citizens from
bringing whale meat back from Japan or seal fur back from Canada.
However, in 1994, trophy hunters and their congressional allies
successfully punched a gaping loophole through the law, which allowed
hunters to import polar bear trophies if the bears were taken in Canada
from certain ``approved'' populations under a ``scientifically sound
quota'' system. \33\ Still unsatisfied with this newly created
opportunity to import polar bear trophies, in 1997 hunters convinced
Congress to allow import of trophies taken before the 1994 loophole was
enacted, as long as the trophy was hunted legally in Canada--even if
the hunting did not meet the 1994 loophole's conservation requirements.
\34\ Finally, in 2003, trophy hunters sought and received yet another
``grandfather-in'' exemption. Even though hunters and hunting guides
were well-aware of Congress' 1994 restrictions on imports, USFWS did
not issue regulations implementing the import loophole until 1997.
Hunters argued that this created ``confusion,'' and again convinced
Congress to permit the otherwise unlawful import of any bear hunted in
Canada before the regulation's published date of February 11, 1997,
even if the 1994 loophole's conservation measures were not met. \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 103 Pub. L. No. 238, Sec. 4, 108 Stat. 532 (1994).
\34\ 105 Pub. L. 18, 111 Stat. 158 (1997).
\35\ 108 Pub. L. 108; 117 Stat. 1241 (2003); see Testimony of
Marshall Jones of FWS on H.R. 4781 (July 13, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 991 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
Furthermore, 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. \36\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1374(c)(4)(a)(i)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 therefore 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 can pay between $40,000 and $60,000 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.'' \37\ 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. Protecting their habitat and eliminating
the financial incentives to increase the quotas can save these bears--
not money derived from killing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Thompson, John, Boost price for polar bear hunt, researcher
urges, (Aug. 26, 2005). http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/archives/50826/
news/nunavut/50826_12.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And even if the 41 sport-hunted polar bear trophies affected by
H.R. 991 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.
Conclusion
In summary, the passage of H.R. 991 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. 991.
______
Mr. Sablan. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have five
minutes and I have several questions. Director Gould, good
morning. We have to stop meeting like this, but first, I want
to thank you and Secretary Salazar for your very strong support
of H.R. 670.
And like I said in my opening statement, and in my
statement during the passage of H.R. 670 in the last Congress,
submerged land is very important and crucial to the people of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and it actually enjoys wide
support.
But just so we are all clear, and if you could give me a
yes or no answer, is it the mission of the Obama Administration
that you support the transfer of all the submerged lands in the
Northern Mariana Islands to the people of that Commonwealth?
Dr. Gould. Yes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Dr. Gould. Very good. On
H.R. 991, Dr. Gould, in your testimony, you said that in
January of 2008 that the Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, fielded a number of telephonic and e-mail
communications about the proposed polar bear listing, including
listings, including listings from hunters, Canadian
taxidermists, and the media, what did you tell them regarding
the proposed listing?
Dr. Gould. At that time, we tried to tell everybody out
there who might have an interest in this particular listing
that the listing was imminent. So we got the word out, and we
felt that we did a pretty good job talking to both the hunting
community and the environmental community, and just let them
know that something was going to happen.
We could not give them specific dates, and we couldn't give
them a specific answer. Either they would be listed or not
listed. That is not what we do. We just wanted to let people
know of the imminence of the issue.
Mr. Sablan. OK. And when Judge Wilken ordered the
Department of the Interior to publish the final listing rule by
May 15, she waived the 30 day notice or grace period under the
APA, because in her opinion, and I quote, ``affected parties
will have had adequate notice that publication was
forthcoming.''
Particularly given your announcement on January 7th, 2008,
that the listing would be coming within 30 days do you agree
with the Judge that affected parties had adequate notice? If
not, what more could the Service had done?
Dr. Gould. We believe that people had adequate notice of
the imminence of the imminent decision coming, and not what the
decision was, but a decision was coming.
Mr. Sablan. So, in your testimony, Director, you also said
that on May 5th, 2008, that the Service contacted those
individuals who had been issued an import permit, but had not
already done so, had not already done the importing.
And to inform them the ESA listing would go into effect on
or before May 15th. At that time, were the permitters informed
that the trophies must be imported before the listing date?
Dr. Gould. Yes, they were.
Mr. Sablan. And would the completed permit applications
submitted after May 5th have had enough time to be approved by
May 15th, yes or no?
Dr. Gould. No.
Mr. Sablan. All right. Thank you very much, Director. Mr.
Flocken, yes, sir, good morning. Your testimony mentioned that
H.R. 991 sets a bad precedent. That is a very tough statement,
and so can you elaborate on that point? We are running out of
time, and so----
Mr. Flocken. If the H.R. 991 were to pass, it would show
the world that the United States, while trying to protect
endangered species, is willing to let Americans hunt them and
import them by carving out exceptions, which could open up a
flood gate.
There would be no reason for other hunters not to kill
endangered species, and expect that an exception would be made
down the road for them to bring these back into the United
States.
Mr. Sablan. And since the Federal Court has already ruled
to not allow the import these polar bear trophies, and hunters
have filed several consolidated lawsuits that are pending in
Federal Court right now. If they are successful, then the
import of these trophies will be allowed.
And should we be spending time and resources on an issue
that may soon be decided by the court like we are doing now?
Dr. Gould. The timing of this could be questioned, most
definitely. However, since the bill is before us, we stand
against H.R. 991 and hope that it will not pass.
Mr. Sablan. That is my time for now, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Young. Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flocken, what is
the--let us say that 991 is not approved. How does that help
these 41 dead polar bears?
Mr. Flocken. It upholds our laws involving endangered
species.
Mr. Flores. How does it help these 41 dead polar bears?
Mr. Flocken. The 41 dead polar bears, whether or not they
are dead, it is not the issue at hand. They can legally be
killed in Canada. It is the only country in the world that
still allows them to be killed, but the United States does not
allow the import of an endangered species.
Mr. Flores. I understand that.
Mr. Flocken. But that is the way to conserve species.
Mr. Flores. What empirical evidence do you have that the
enactment of 991 is going to hurt other endangered populations?
Mr. Flocken. Well, it set the precedent that the----
Mr. Flores. Letting 41 people bring their polar bears,
their trophies, back to this country, how is that going to
hurt? What tangible empirical proven evidence do you have that
this is going to help other endangered populations? Not
conjecture, but real evidence?
Mr. Flocken. I can't predict the future, but it would
undercut existing conservation laws.
Mr. Flores. That is what I thought. OK. I would put it this
way to you. Taking positions like this undermines the
credibility of conservationists all over the world. This is a
very impractical position to take.
I support 991, and I think it is the right thing to do. I
think that these hunters got caught in an unfair position, and
I have people coming to see me every day. They come in and say
that because the regulatory regime that we have today is
hurting their businesses, and their employees, their
households, their earnings, their jobs.
And this is one of the worst that I have seen of all of the
regulations that have passed. Anyway, I would say that if I
were in your shoes, I would drop the opposition to this.
Mr. Smith, I am just dismayed that the Federal Government
has put you in this position, and I yield back.
Mr. Young. The good lady, Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Gould,
first, I want to thank you for your positive remarks on Bill
H.R. 1670. As you are aware, currently the Sikes Act includes a
pilot program, or invasive species management for military
installations on Guam.
Now, in the 111th Congress, I introduced a similar version
of H.R. 1670, which is called the Sikes Act Amendment that
would expand this pilot program to be Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plans at all the military installations.
Last year, this Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on
that legislation, in which representatives of DoD, and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, favorably testify.
Both departments recognize the importance of identifying
and managing invasive species before they become significant
management and budgetary challenges, and they expressed a
willingness to work with this committee to expand this invasive
species management pilot program.
Now, Director Gould, is the Fish and Wildlife Service still
willing to work with the Committee to expand that pilot
program?
Dr. Gould. The importance of invasive species, of course,
all over this country is well noted, and we appreciate the fact
that you have concerns about this national problem.
And the Service recommends that any broadly applied action
related to invasive species focus primarily on prevention and
rapid response to invasive species, and we would be willing to
work with the Committee, and work with all of the partners that
are interested in this issue to come up with processes that
will help us, and that won't be burdensome from a financial
perspective.
I know that there are concerns about that, and processes
that will ultimately result in some successes to deal with some
of these very touchy issues, such as----
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. So, Director Gould, for the Committee,
and to be recorded, the answer is in the affirmative?
Dr. Gould. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam. Mr. Landry. Hello, you are up,
Mr. Landry.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Gould, is there an
agency in this Administration that does not move the goal posts
every time an industry or an individual tries to do something?
I have never seen something like this in my life.
You know, you all continue, and it is amazing how you all
will where a rule will be written, and you all will turn around
and move that goal post. Do you all have like a bet going on up
there amongst the hierarchy that says let's see who can move
the goal post any further? I mean, this is ridiculous. It is my
understanding, and Mr. Flocken, it is my understanding that if
we import those bears, $41,000 will go to the polar bear
conservation fund. Is that not correct?
Mr. Flocken. Correct.
Mr. Landry. Are you willing to pony up $41,000 for that
polar bear conservation fund personally?
Mr. Flocken. The world's top specialist on polar bear
conservation have identified over-exploitation of polar bears
as one of its threats.
Mr. Landry. But that does not answer the question. This
gentleman right here is willing to give a thousand dollars. How
much are you personally willing to give? Do you know who are
the biggest conservationists in this world? It is a hunter. It
is hunters.
Hunters do more for the conservation of animals than anyone
else. Anyone else. It is absurd that this gentleman sitting
next to you played by the rules. In fact, according to the
amended version of Section 104, he provided documents showing
that the bear was legally taken from Canada. Canada monitored
and enforced the hunting program.
Their sports program is based on scientifically sound
quotas. Well, let me ask you this question. Do you think that
Canada's science is flawed?
Mr. Flocken. Canada is the only country in the world that
still allows the sport hunting of polar bears. The world's
leading polar bear experts----
Mr. Landry. I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Don't. He is wrong. That is typical. Greenland
and Russia also allow the hunting of polar bears.
Mr. Flocken. Sport trophy hunting.
Mr. Young. Sport trophy hunting. Russia just opened it up.
Read your books.
Mr. Flocken. That is the way----
Mr. Young. I am a hunter and you are not. Read your books.
Mr. Flocken. I read the quota two weeks ago, and----
Mr. Young. I did not ask you a question, and don't comment
until I ask you. Go ahead.
Mr. Landry. Mr. Flocken, what I don't understand is that
Canada--I mean, I would think that Canada--which I have a lot
of confidence in, but I would think that Canada's conservation
programs are pretty sound.
I have hunted up there. I don't understand why we can't
have a discussion with Canada, and understand why they may be
allowing it, and we are not allowing this gentleman to import
his polar bear that he already killed.
They are not asking, or the hunting groups are not asking
us to import additional trophies. We have 41 bears in Canada
that are doing no one any good. In fact, it is detrimental to
the polar bear research foundation, because he did not get to
donate his thousand dollars to it if they would let his bear
in. Can you help me?
What is the big deal on letting those 41 bears come in to
this country?
Mr. Flocken. In the opinion of IFAW, the best thing that
the United States can do to continue to address the saving of
endangered species is by using our current laws, such as the
Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
and banning the import would stop and address that threat.
Mr. Landry. Dr. Gould, Is Canada science flawed?
Dr. Gould. There is scientific disagreement regarding the
status of populations in Canada. There are opinions on the
positive side, and there are scientific opinions on the
negative side.
Mr. Landry. But is it flawed?
Dr. Gould. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Landry. So if it is not flawed, if their science is not
flawed, and we believe that they have--does Canada have the
ability to manage its wildlife property, or does the United
States need to go into Canada and manage theirs?
Dr. Gould. Canada is one of the best conservation partners,
management partners, that we have.
Mr. Landry. Based on that answer don't you agree that we
should let those polar bears in?
Mr. Flocken. No, I do not. I believe that the import of
endangered species and banning it is the best way that we have
to conserve endangered species in the United States.
Mr. Landry. I am out of time.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Landry. Does anyone else have any
questions? I have some questions. Mr. Gould, one of the things
that bothered me is that you mentioned the fact of the
Endangered Species Act, but do we import other Endangered
Species Act that have been harvested?
Dr. Gould. Yes, we do.
Mr. Young. We do? And why can't we import the polar bears,
because it is?
Dr. Gould. it is a marine mammal.
Mr. Young. A marine mammal. So all we are doing--but the
Endangered Species Act is where we do actually and can import
other species that are endangered?
Dr. Gould. Under the Sikes program, yes.
Mr. Young. The present population of polar bears in your
estimate is what?
Dr. Gould. I don't have that information right with me,
sir, but we can get it for you.
Mr. Young. Well, for your information, the present evidence
that we have is 23 thousand, and up to 25 thousand polar bears,
and I have said this before in the last time that we had this
hearing, I killed one of the last polar bears in Alaska in
1964, and we had approximately five thousand polar bears.
And these polar bears were put on the endangered or
threatened list--I guess they are threatened or endangered--
which one--threatened--because of so-called melting of their
ice, which is nonsense.
The reality is that 11 thousand years ago, we had no ice in
the North Pole, and I think the Captain can verify that, and
the polar bears survived. And yet we put them on a supposedly
habitat loss, not from a hunting loss. So I am just curious. Do
you believe that there is any conservation by any of these
bears in Canada now?
Dr. Gould. The actual polar bear hides? Is that what you
are talking about?
Mr. Young. Yes. Is there any conservation effort for them?
Dr. Gould. No.
Mr. Young. OK. Good. We have already covered what Mr.
Landry did, and we have already covered this $41,000 that would
occur, and if it were not for a 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 bear prior to May 15th, and applied for a permit, how
long would you give them to bring in their trophies?
Dr. Gould. We would have actually published the permit in
the Federal Register, the notice of the availability of the
permit, and given them a 30 day public comment period, and then
we would have made our decision based on that, the Federal
Register process.
Mr. Young. Does the Service agree that anyone that hunts
after the proposed rule issued in 2007 was hunting in bad
faith?
Dr. Gould. I don't know exactly what you mean, but I don't
think that people were hunting in bad faith in 2007.
Mr. Young. OK. They were hunting legally then?
Dr. Gould. Yes, sir, they were.
Mr. Young. Did the Service at any time tell the hunters
that a hunt should not occur due to the immediate threat
listing on the polar bear?
Dr. Gould. No, we didn't. All we could do is notify them
that an action was being considered at that time.
Mr. Young. So if I was a hunter, and I am doing this
kindly, but if I as a hunter, and I had a booked hunt, and the
Canadian government agreed with my hunt, and issued the
license, and the tag, and yet I did not know--you said there
could be a listing, but there was no definite listing of
threatened. That had not been decided by that time?
Dr. Gould. No.
Mr. Young. OK. Good. Mr. Smith, what type of communications
have you had with the Fish and Wildlife Service up until after
your hunt? Until and after.
Mr. Smith. I had contacted the United States Fish and
Wildlife about the permitting process. I was told that I could
pre-apply, which I did. I was also informed that whenever I
took the bear, if I would go ahead and fax the information to
them, they would get the permitting process started before I
left Canada.
What was amazing to me was that I got no indication that it
was going to take effect immediately. Even if there was a
ruling, there was to be a period of time, which I understood to
be 30 days or so, before the ruling would take effect.
And in that time period, we would be able to complete the
United States Fish and Wildlife permitting process as the
gentleman just said. One of the other things that was brought
up, and which I heard the gentleman to your left there say, is
that there was communication on May 5th, and that is the first
time that I have heard anything about that, and it would have
been extremely difficult for me to get that considering that I
was on the ice on May 5th.
So there would have been no way for me to get any
communication if it had been sent out, but that is the first
that I had heard of it, even after coming back. The only
communication that I have had with the United States Fish and
Wildlife since then was to report that they were going to hold
our application until there was a determination at a later date
whether they should send the checks back, and the application
back, which they did.
There was a certain amount of time and they finally sent it
back and said that we would have to reapply as soon as this
worked its way through the process.
Mr. Young. Did the Service at any point indicate with
certainty that the polar bear would be listed as threatened and
you should not attempt to hunt?
Mr. Smith. No, sir.
Mr. Young. OK. How did you react to statements made that
you had exercised poor planning with regard to your polar bear
sport hunt?
Mr. Smith. I don't agree with it being poor planning,
because that is kind of like driving down the road at 70 miles
an hour and you are thinking, you know, one of these days they
may change the speed limit here.
It is not against the law to drive 70 miles an hour at that
point. If they change it, then it could become against the law.
I understand that part. But what has happened to the time frame
that was supposed to be implemented before this was changed.
That is one of my big questions, and why is there so much
opposition to these dead bears.
Mr. Young. Thank you for your patience again. I am amazed.
I think that there is nothing more frustrating for interest
groups to try to, I think, misinterpret the law. We did this on
the Graham-Grumman tax bill. We made it retroactive, and it
broke and hurt a lot of people in this country because we
changed the law.
And as far as the precedent goes, and as far as this
legislation, this is not a precedent. We did this in 1994 for
the same reason, and I think that we have to recognize that if
you operate under a law in another country, especially when we
are importing a species of animals that are endangered, that
argument does not hold up. Does anyone have any other
questions? Mr. Garamendi, you are allowed to sit, and Mr.
Garamendi, you can ask questions.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much. I appreciate the courtesy extended to me to allow me to
participate in this hearing, even though I am not a member of
the Subcommittee. I do appreciate that.
You and I have had the experience over the years to deal
with these kinds of issues when I was at the Department of the
Interior, and now more recently in this job. The Marine Mammal
Protection Act is designed to protect those species that are
threatened, and it is done in a variety of ways.
One way is to stop the importation, and any exception to
that opens the door to further taking of those species. Your
line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, seems to take us to the
point of trying to understand the timing of the listing, and
the sports hunter, and how you fit into that timing.
My question therefore goes to the representative of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Could you give us the timing, the
sequencing of the timing, on when was the--we understand that
the listing was made on a date specific, and the normal 30 day
period of time was not provided.
But wasn't there a period of time prior to that in which
this issue was being discussed, debated, noticed? Could you
give us some sense of the timing here?
Dr. Gould. Around January of 2008, we were aware that the
issue was imminent, and that there were some decisions that
needed to be made, and so that is at the point that we started
informing folks that there was a decision coming forth soon.
And then, of course, when we knew of the decision, and that
it was going to be May 15, we notified people then when we knew
about the decision, and that it had to be immediate because it
was a court ordered decision.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Let me go back over that, and if you
would, please, use the microphone, and pull it a little closer
to you when you respond. So this issue emanated from a court
case; is that correct?
Dr. Gould. That is correct.
Mr. Garamendi. And that court case was under way for some
time, as is most court cases?
Dr. Gould. Yes. I don't know exactly when it was filed, or
how ago it was filed.
Mr. Garamendi. So, in January, there was--you began your
process of listing----
Dr. Gould. Of notifying people, yes.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. And then when did you actually list?
Dr. Gould. May 15th.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. So, basically what, four-and-a-half
months. And was that widely noticed, or was it secret, or----
Dr. Gould. The notification that a decision was going to be
made was not a secret, but what we couldn't actually notify
people of was the decision, whether it was listed or not
listed.
Mr. Garamendi. But the Court case was known, and presumably
the hunting community knew that this was an issue, and that
should it be listed that there would be--that importation would
not be allowed.
Dr. Gould. We had broad notification of the hunting
community, yes.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. I think that there is--sir, I don't know
what your situation is, and you may have been caught up one way
or another in this--from your point of view--unfortunate
situation.
But this was not a secret. This was well known, even those
of us who don't hunt polar bears or trophy hunt, knew that this
was under way, and that this would likely happen. And it is
very, very important for us to maintain the importation
restrictions, because that is the only way that we can enforce
this.
Even though the hunting may be legal in Canada, the
importation must remain illegal if we are to protect the
species as best we can, and we can't tell Canada what to do,
but we can certainly tell the people that they can't import.
Also, the question has been raised about whether a taking
is a taking of private property. Nobody has an unlimited right
to import anything into the United States. That is simply not
the case.
You may own a kilo of cocaine, but you cannot import it
into the United States, at least legally. Yes, it may be your
personal property, but that argument just doesn't fly. So I
would just say that in this particular case that we ought not
be passing this exemption to this very, very important law that
does and has over the years protected numerous species. Mr.
Chairman, I thank you for the courtesy.
Mr. Young. Thank you. If I had known that you were going to
take that tact, I probably would not have recognized you and
let you sit. I will tell you that right up front.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, you are too kind to do that.
Mr. Young. Yes. Number one, the date, I believe you said,
was May 15th, Dr. Gould?
Dr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. And these bears were shot in April or March,
March or April? The last one was shot, I believe, on April 8,
and yours was shot May 11. So when the issuance came out was on
May 15th, and the law was the law. You talk about the law, and
no government has a right to take away the individual's right
by changing the law if something was done lawfully before.
That is the thing that I don't understand, and now Dr.
Gould is caught in this box, and I am not blaming you. I am
blaming the interest groups, and the stupidity of the
Secretary, which was my Secretary, of putting it on the
threatened species anyway, because the instance of those that
are trying to stop our whole country from running. Mr. Landry.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flocken, let's try
this again. Do you believe in conservation?
Mr. Flocken. Yes.
Mr. Landry. And don't you believe that we should always use
all of the tools necessary to support conservation?
Mr. Flocken. I believe you should approach conservation the
most likely way to help the species.
Mr. Landry. OK. But you certainly would want to maximize
the tools available to manage and conserve those species; is
that not correct? I mean, why would you not use a tool I guess
would be the question.
Mr. Flocken. I think the largest priority in this situation
is addressing the threats to endangered species.
Mr. Landry. So you wouldn't choose to use all the tools.
You would leave some on the side, even if you had the ability
to conserve the species, and you just would not----
Mr. Flocken. You mean contrary to protecting the species?
Mr. Landry. No, no, I am saying that if there is a tool
used to conserve a species would you not utilize that tool? Yes
or no; it is real easy.
Mr. Flocken. Not if it is contrary to the conservation of
the species.
Mr. Landry. No, no, no, this would not be contrary. This
would be founded in science. Would you use that tool?
Mr. Flocken. Well, in this situation----
Mr. Landry. Yes or no?
Mr. Flocken. Not in this situation if in fact----
Mr. Landry. We are not even talking about that. I am just
asking a question. It could be lions. It could be elephants. If
there is a tool necessary and that can be used to conserve a
species, would you not want to use that tool?
Mr. Flocken. If it is not contrary to the conservation of
the species, correct.
Mr. Landry. Well, let me just tell you this. There is a
tool. If there are certain sections in Canada that are over-
populated with polar bears, it is to the benefit of those
populations to take some of those species. That is what the
hunter does.
And that is why the hunter is such a great conservationist.
He does more for conservation than you do. I hate to tell you
that. So what we are doing now is we are basically telling
Canada that we are going to make it difficult on you to manage
your polar bear populations, because we have looked at the
polar bear population on a global scale.
Is that not correct, Dr. Gould? I mean, doesn't Canada
use--and don't we in the United States--the ability to take
species in certain areas where the population could be
detrimental to the species?
Dr. Gould. Hunting is an accepted conservation management
tool.
Mr. Landry. Exactly, and so wouldn't you say that not
allowing our hunters to go there like they did, and which they
took. He took that polar bear legally; is that correct?
Dr. Gould. Yes, sir, he did.
Mr. Landry. OK. And so now we are not allowing him to just
bring his trophy in when the United States says yes, you went
in there and you took it legally, and Canada is one of the
leading countries in the world in conservation, and in wildlife
management, and the United States is basically saying, no,
Canada, you don't know what you are doing.
We are counting all the polar bears around the world. We
don't care if your polar bear population is over-populated.
Those polar bears could starve to death on the ice. We just
don't have enough anywhere else.
And to me this is what this is all about, and it is just
ridiculous. So I just wanted you to know that there is a tool
out there to save the polar bear, all right? And the gentleman
sitting next o you does more for conserving the polar bear than
those commercials that you all run. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and I yield back.
Mr. Young. Thank you, sir. Captain, you have been sitting
there patiently. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Sablan, you have a
question?
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Gould, the Service
administers several statutes that bans imports under certain
circumstances, such as the Lacey Act as I understand.
Under those statutes doesn't the ban on imports generally
apply regardless of when the animal was killed?
Dr. Gould. Generally, yes, sir.
Mr. Sablan. All right. And I need a yes or no answer. Does
the Service oppose H.R. 991 as currently written; yes or no?
Dr. Gould. Yes.
Mr. Sablan. All right. Thank you. Captain Lowell, what
additional capacity is needed by NOAA to perform the needed
Arctic hydrographic surveys, and do you know the associated
costs to that capacity?
Captain Lowell. Well, every year, we develop a hydrographic
survey priority list that goes out for five years. Arctic
surveying is entered into that, and I should point out that the
Arctic area is vast in size.
It will take many, many years to completely map or provide
those geospatial services, but we have a plan in place. So we
have assets up there every year working on this problem.
Mr. Sablan. And so you wouldn't know the costs associated
with this survey?
Captain Lowell. Well, I know that we are currently spending
on it, and so basically it is a capacity issue. If you are
going to put more up there, it is going to cost more money, and
if you want to do less work, it costs less money.
Mr. Sablan. All right. Thank you. And, Mr. Myers, I don't
want you to feel left out, and so I hope that you are enjoying
yourself. Will the conveyance of the 422 acres of land and
structures to North Carolina in any way change the functions
and uses of the hatchery?
Mr. Myers. No, sir. We have operated the hatchery for the
past 15 years, and we will continue to operate it in the same
manner.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Sablan. Dr. Gould, did I hear you
correctly, that you do support the 991? Mr. Gould? You do
support 991, but you made a caveat in there. Did you bring that
language with you?
Dr. Gould. We will support 991 if it clarified that it only
applied to hunters who submit their permit application and
completed their hunt prior to the listing.
Mr. Young. OK. Now, the reason that I asked that question,
I heard that same comment, and you didn't bring any language
with you today did you?
Dr. Gould. No, sir, but we are willing to work with it.
Mr. Young. Well, willing to work. I mean, our counsel--and
I have gone to the legislative counsel, and I have gone to
every counsel, and they say that the way it is written, it
covers it. So you had better bring me that language within the
next week.
Dr. Gould. Will do, sir.
Mr. Young. OK. So it is clear. OK. Thank you, sir. Captain
Lowell, did NOAA request any additional funding for the Fiscal
Year 2012 for the work in the Arctic?
Captain Lowell. There were no additional requests for funds
in the Arctic in the President's request for 2012.
Mr. Young. Well, how can we do the job if you don't request
it?
Captain Lowell. Well, we have our existing funds, and so--
--
Mr. Young. Well, how much work are you doing up there?
Captain Lowell. Well, we are doing a considerable amount of
work up there. We have both NOAA assets in place, and we have
multiple contracts.
Mr. Young. Well, what contracts are you working with? Do
you go out and solicit contracts to do that type work?
Captain Lowell. We have standing contracts in place, and
every year, we issue task orders against those contracts to do
work in the Arctic.
Mr. Young. And you mentioned the Kuskokwim area. Now, I
hope that you are not talking about really Kuskokwim, because
that is really an inlet isn't it, and there is not much use to
study that area, and it has to be outside the peninsula there
so you get good depth.
You know, Captain, one of my big interests is that I do
believe that we are going to have a great challenge in the
Arctic, because it will again, as it has done in the past and
thousands of years ago, and not during my lifetime probably,
but the ice flow will probably be diminished.
And consequently we need to be able to have the proper
navigation and the proper ports, which there are only about two
to my knowledge that are deep enough, because nothing on the
far North, Barrow or anything in that area, has deep water.
And there is a great interest by other countries that we
should get ahead of the curve as I am saying, and where the
navigation, and for the study of the fish, and the whole gamut
that is going to challenge this in the future.
And we are an Arctic nation because of Alaska, and that is
one of the joys of being a State that does make this nation an
Arctic nation. It is a great challenge for you and for the
Coast Guard, and the maritime community as a whole.
And I hope that you are going to be up to it, and so I am
suggesting to you that next year, if we can't get this job
done, that you make sure that you request the money so that I
don't go out and say--because they will say it is an earmark if
it comes from me.
And if it comes from you, it is part of the President's
budget, and so I would suggest that maybe someone who is higher
up than you maybe request that money for that Arctic surveying
work.
Captain Lowell. I would be happy to carry that message
forward.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, I am going to shock you.
Mr. Young. Really?
Mr. Garamendi. You are on the right track. You are on the
right track here. We really do need to have this detailed
information of the ocean, the nature of the ocean itself, as
well as the ocean floor. My question to the Captain is what
technologies are you using?
I am somewhat familiar with this off the coast of
California when I was the Chairman of the State Lands
Commission. We did some very advanced mapping of the ocean
floors.
The first piece that was done was why are the waves so big
at Maverick just south of San Francisco, and I guess that was
of great use to the surfers with the Maverick competition that
takes place there.
But we were using radar technology and the like, and would
you just describe the technology that you are using?
Captain Lowell. What you are referring to, of course, is
general oceanographic observations when you are talking about
trying to measure the waves, and forecast----
Mr. Garamendi. We were actually looking at the ocean floor.
We were mapping the ocean floor.
Captain Lowell. Well, the technologies that we typically
use is we use multi-beam sonar, which is an acoustical sensor
on both small vessels and ships. We also use a tool called
LIDAR, which is a laser-based system that we use out of
aircraft.
There are limitations to that because it does not go very
deep, but it fills in gaps where the ships are simply
inefficient to collect information. Other hydrographic services
may be needed to tighten up the geospatial framework up there.
We are doing more hypoprecision. Coors are continuing operating
reference states, and we are installing those up in Alaska, or
working with our partners up in Alaska to install those
systems.
Tides and water levels, we need good vertical control on
all the work that we do up there. We are installing, I believe,
four more gauges this year to try to get a better handle on the
water level around the northern end of the Bering Straits area.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. That was very similar technology
that we were using in California to map the California Coast,
off the coast. It is really important. Mr. Chairman, I think
you are correct about the budget.
You and I may disagree about why the ice is melting, but
the fact that it is likely to provide a northwest passage and
other things going on that heretofore didn't happen, it is
really important that we do this. So you will have my support,
and maybe you will give up on the polar bears, and we can do
this.
Mr. Young. Let me say that there will be a cold day--never
mind. Mr. Smith, do you have any comments before I start to
close this meeting?
Mr. Smith. No comments, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. All right. Mr. Flocken, is your group or
organization support any hunting at all?
Mr. Flocken. We have no policy for or against hunting
generally.
Mr. Young. No policy?
Mr. Flocken. For or against hunting in general, no.
Mr. Young. You have not taken a stand against any hunting
bills?
Mr. Flocken. We are against unethical hunting in the
hunting of endangered species.
Mr. Young. Pardon?
Mr. Flocken. We are against unethical hunting in the
hunting of endangered species.
Mr. Young. Unethical hunting? There was nothing unethical
about hunting these polar bears. It was done legally. There is
nothing unethical about it.
Mr. Flocken. We are against the hunting of these polar
bears.
Mr. Young. Yes. Do you support the hunting of polar bears?
Mr. Flocken. No, we do not.
Mr. Young. You do not. So that sort of settles the
question. You do not support the hunting of polar bears, but
this year the hunts are going forth. It is the only thing
Americans can't hunt. The Germans are hunting them, and there
is, I believe--let's see how we have this:
In the Baffin Bay area, 176; Davis Straits, 66; East
Greenland, 54; Foxe Basin, 108; the Gulf of Boothia, 74; the
Kane Basin, 15; Lancaster Sound, I believe that is where polar
bears are taken, 85; M'Clintock Channel, 3; Northern Beaufort
Sea, 65; Southern Beaufort Sea, 44; Southern Hudson Bay, 61;
Viscount Melville Sound, 7; and the Western Hudson Bay, 16.
So other than the Americans now, it appears that the
Europeans and other people are doing the hunting. So I can see
that you are doing a great deal to conserve the polar bears.
With that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]