[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R._, ``CABIN FEE ACT OF 2011''; H.R. 2834, ``RECREATIONAL FISHING
AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES ACT''; & H.R. 1444, TO REQUIRE
HUNTING ACTIVITIES BE A LAND USE IN ALL MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR FEDERAL
LAND UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE
FEDERAL LAND IS MANAGED
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Friday, September 9, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-266 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, September 9, 2011........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Broun, Hon. Paul C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, Oral statement of........................... 24
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bailey, Pete, Former Director, National Forest Homeowners and
the C2 Coalition........................................... 13
Prepared statement on Draft Bill......................... 15
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 1444.......................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 2834.......................... 9
Prepared statement on Draft Bill......................... 11
Horn, William P., Director of Federal Affairs, U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance....................................... 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 2834.......................... 32
Ratcliffe, Bob, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 2834 and H.R. 1444............ 27
Recce, Susan, Director, Conservation, Wildlife, and Natural
Resources, National Rifle Association...................... 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 2834.......................... 40
Simpson, Melissa, Director of Government Affairs, Safari Club
International.............................................. 35
Prepared statement on Draft Bill and H.R. 1444........... 36
``List of Anti-hunting Regulatory and Administrative
Actions over the last 12 months''...................... 37
Additional materials supplied:
Wilderness Society, Letter submitted for the record on H.R.
2834....................................................... 52
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON DRAFT BILL H.R. _, TO MODIFY THE FOREST
SERVICE RECREATION RESIDENCE PROGRAM BY IMPLEMENTING A
SIMPLE, EQUITABLE, AND PREDICTABLE PROCEDURE FOR
DETERMINING CABIN USER FEES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``CABIN FEE ACT OF 2011''; H.R. 2834, TO RECOGNIZE THE
HERITAGE OF RECREATIONAL FISHING, HUNTING, AND SHOOTING
ON FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS AND ENSURE CONTINUED
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE ACTIVITIES. ``RECREATIONAL
FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES ACT''; &
H.R. 1444, TO REQUIRE THAT HUNTING ACTIVITIES BE A LAND
USE IN ALL MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR FEDERAL LAND UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH USE IS
NOT CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH
THE FEDERAL LAND IS MANAGED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Friday, September 9, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Paul
C. Broun [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Broun, Hastings, McClintock,
Benishek, Grijalva and Costa.
Mr. Broun. The hearing will come to order. The Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is meeting today to
hear testimony on three bills that fall within our
jurisdiction. Under the rules opening statements are limited to
the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous
consent to include any other Members' opening statements in the
hearing record if submitted to the Clerk by close of business
today. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL C. BROUN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Broun. I want to thank our colleagues and the other
witnesses who have agreed to testify today. On the agenda are
three bills designed to promote and protect wholesome outdoor
family recreation on public lands.
Our first bill is the Cabin Fee Act of 2011. This is an
urgently needed bill to save the popular, nearly century-old
program under which 14,000 American families have been able to
build cabins for non-commercial family use in our national
forests. Our second and third bills, H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834,
are needed to provide clear and specific statutory language
that will protect sportsmen, fish and wildlife agencies,
Federal land managing agencies, and the taxpayers from lawsuits
and administrative gridlock.
Congress has spoken many times on the issue of hunting on
our multiple-use public lands, and has come down on the side of
allowing sporting activities to take place under state laws.
Despite what I think is clear Congressional intent, some
zealous, but I believe very misguided, groups have continued to
mount challenges to hunting by seeking to exploit any ambiguity
in the laws to tie up the agencies in administrative delays or
to try to find an anti-hunting judge.
It is past time for Congress to settle the issue once and
for all, and I am proud to be the author of one of the bills
that we will take up today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul C. Broun, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia, on H.R. 1444
I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop for
allowing this hearing today on H.R. 1444, a bill I introduced that
would require that hunting activities be considered as a land use in
all management plans for federal land, to the extent that it is not
clearly incompatible with the purposes for which the federal land is
managed.
I am an avid hunter and outdoorsman. In fact, I am life member #17
of Safari Club International and began coming to D.C. as a volunteer
advocate for them. I am also proud to call myself a life member of The
National Rifle Association. These are just a few of the numerous
sporting associations of which I am a Life Member. In fact, a full-
body-mounted African lion and Kodiak bear are just a few of my prized
trophies that visitors see when they come to my Washington office.
Hunting is already permitted on most Bureau of Land Management and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands. It has provided a positive force
in habitat conservation, support for wildlife restoration, and
contributed billions of dollars in benefits to state and regional
economies throughout the nation.
I look forward to finding ways to expand hunting on our vast
federal lands, and I believe that H.R. 1444 can play an important role
in achieving that goal.
______
Mr. Broun. I will now turn to the Ranking Member for his
opening remarks.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with your
indulgence, the Full Committee Chairman has a comment and I
would defer my time at this point, then pick it up after. Sir.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. I now recognize the
Full Committee Chairman, Doc Hastings.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
Ranking Member, I hope that is the pattern.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hastings. Thank you again for holding this hearing on
today's bills, including the Cabin Fee Act legislation. The
goal of this bill is to create a simple, straightforward, and
predictable fee schedule for the cabin owners nationwide as
well as taxpayers and the Forest Service. It will replace the
current complex and unfair payment system by assigning the
cabins to tiers based on appraised value. The fees would rise
with inflation but would otherwise remain fixed so families
would no longer face sudden unexpected jumps to unaffordable
levels.
Last year a similar measure I introduced passed the House
Natural Resources Committee, but due to the expiration of time
in the last Congress was not considered on the House Floor.
This year's legislation improved upon last year's bills in two
significant ways.
First, it modifies the fee schedule to include additional
tiers that will keep the fees reasonable while also ensuring
sufficient revenue to implement the program. Our Congressional
Budget Office has yet to provide its score for the bill, and
turmoil in the real estate market has created uncertainties in
the data used to score it. I remain optimistic that the bill
will be revenue neutral with the new fee schedule.
Second, this bill expands the coverage to include private
cabins located in all national forests, not just those derived
from public lands. Many private cabins on Forest Service lands
are simple, rustic structures hand-built by the grandparents or
relatives of the current owners early in the last century, and
passed down from generation to generation. The overwhelming
majority of these cabins are modest family retreats. During
these tight economic times, the intent of this bill is to keep
the fees affordable for people such as teachers, factory
workers, and retirees and not just millionaires, which is what
will happen if we don't address the problem now.
The current system has resulted in unrealistic arbitrary
fee hikes that are completely unaffordable for average
families. For example, last year the Seattle Times reported
that Lake Wenatchee cabin owners--Lake Wenatchee is in my
district--received notice that their fees would increase by
more than 1,000 percent, from $1,400 to $17,000 a year.
Skyrocketing fees almost make these part-time homes
unmarketable, leaving families who are unable to pay the high
fees also unable to sell their cabins.
Having family-owned cabins encourages wholesome outdoor
recreation which is an important use of our vast public land
system, and I think that is particularly so when so many of us
today are increasingly distracted by all the electronic
products that are on the markets. By encouraging a broad and
diverse range of activities in our national forests, we foster
the kind of sound stewardship that allows us to more fully
obtain the many benefits that these lands can contribute.
So, thank you again Mr. Chairman for the courtesy of
allowing me to be here, and thank you for scheduling this
hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this
bill today. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural
Resources, on H.R. __, The Cabin Fee Act of 2011
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on today's bills,
including the Cabin Fee Act legislation.
The goal of this bill is to create a simple, straightforward and
predictable fee schedule that benefits cabin owners nationwide, as well
as taxpayers and the Forest Service. It would replace the current
complex and unfair payment system by assigning cabins to tiers based on
appraised value.
The fees would rise with inflation, but would otherwise remain
fixed so families would no longer face sudden, unexpected jumps to
unaffordable levels.
Last year, a similar measure I introduced passed the House Natural
Resources Committee, but due to expiration of time of the last
Congress, was not considered on the House floor.
This year's legislation improves upon last year's bill in two
significant ways.
First, it modifies the fee schedule to include additional tiers
that will keep the fees reasonable while also ensuring sufficient
revenue to implement the program.
While the Congressional Budget Office has not yet provided its
score for the bill, and turmoil in the real estate market has created
uncertainties in the data used to score it, I remain optimistic the
bill will be ``revenue neutral'' with the new fee schedule.
Second, this bill text expands coverage to include private cabins
located in all National Forests, not just those derived from public
lands.
Many private cabins on Forest Service land are simple, rustic
structures hand-built by the grandparents or relatives of the current
owners early in the last century and passed down from generation to
generation. The overwhelming majority of these cabins are modest family
retreats.
During these tight economic times, the intent of this bill is to
keep the fees affordable for people such as teachers, factory workers
and retirees, not just millionaires--which is what will happen if we
don't address the problem now.
The current system has resulted in unrealistic, arbitrary fee hikes
that are completely unaffordable for average families. For example,
last year, the Seattle Times reported that Lake Wenatchee cabin owners
received notice that their fees would increase more than one thousand
percent, from $1,400 to more than $17,000 this year.
Skyrocketing fees also make these part-time homes unmarketable,
leaving families who are unable to pay the high fees, also unable to
sell their cabins.
Having family-owned cabins encourages wholesome outdoor recreation
which is an important use of our vast system of public lands--
particularly today when many youth are increasingly distracted by
Ipods, video games and computer screens.
By encouraging a broad and diverse range of activities in our
National Forests, we foster the kind of sound stewardship that allows
us more fully to obtain the many benefits these lands can contribute.
Thank you, again, for scheduling this hearing and I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
statement. It is a good bill, and I hope we can see Congress
pass it because we need to protect the ability to do that.
I now recognize Mr. Grijalva for his statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAUL M. GRIJALVA,
A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as Chairman of
this Subcommittee in the last Congress, I was pleased to hold
hearing on the Chairman's Cabin Fee legislation, and to work
with him to get the bill favorably reported from this
Committee. I share the Chairman's concern regarding the
proposed fee increases and look forward to continuing to work
cooperatively on a solution that might mitigate those increases
without negatively impacting the Federal budget.
Regarding the other two measures on today's agenda,
hunting, fishing, trapping and other recreational activities
that depend on robust wildlife populations that have flourished
on Federal lands mostly because Congress has stayed out of the
way. Most Federal land is open to hunting and fishing and
Federal regulation is minimal with states managing most of the
aspects of these activities. As a result, hunting and fishing
are enormously popular on Federal land and support a multi-
million dollar industry, employing tens of thousands of people
in outfitting, guiding, and equipment manufacturing.
An example, roughly eight percent of the visitors to
national forests between 2005 and 2009 listed hunting as their
primary activity. That is more than 13 million people in each
of those years.
If the threat to these exist, it is not from biased Federal
land managers or animal rights activists, the real threat to
hunting and fishing and other wildlife-dependent activities
comes from Congress in the form of misguided budget priorities
and shortsighted land management policies that could destroy
habitat and reduce wildlife populations.
On the funding front, proposals to slash budgets for
Federal land management agencies threaten efforts to address
backlogs of maintenance on roads, trails, campgrounds, and
other facilities used by hunters, anglers, and other visitors.
Proposals to virtually eliminate funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund would destroy plans to acquire and preserve
valuable habitat.
As urban development swallows more and more open space,
defunding the land and water conservation fund, as Republicans
in Congress have proposed to do, would deprive the Federal
Government of the one tool we could use to preserve
opportunities for hunting and fishing.
On the policy front, attacks on the National Environmental
Policy Act, along with attempts to weaken management of
wilderness, threaten to further limit opportunities to hunt.
NEPA provides a tool for assessing the potential impacts of
Federal land management decisions, including potential impacts
on hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities.
Truncating or abandoning the NEPA process to allow unrestricted
energy development, for example, makes it more likely that
harmful impacts, including those to hunting and fishing, will
not be considered or even evaluated.
Finally, attacks on wilderness are attacks on hunting. If
all areas of Federal land are open to roads, off-road vehicles,
oil and gas production, and timber cutting, there will be
nowhere left for wildlife populations to flourish, as a result
nowhere left to hunt.
Despite the critical role wilderness plays in supporting
wildlife populations, less than three percent of the
continental United States is designated wilderness and
opportunities to preserve new wilderness grow more scarce by
the day. Congress is already failing to adequately manage and
invest in wildlife populations on Federal land. The two bills
before us today claim to be pro-hunting and fishing, but
contain provisions that would only make a bad situation worse.
Further attacks on NEPA, on wilderness, and on funding for land
acquisitions are not the answer.
We appreciate the witnesses being here today and we look
forward to their thoughts on these proposals and the
legislation before us. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Mr. Chairman, in 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools Act
to provide rural counties with a stable source of funding for schools
and roads. This stable funding provided the certainty these communities
needed to make important investments in transportation and education.
Unfortunately, the 109th Congress, under Republican leadership,
allowed the program to expire.
It took a new Democratic majority to reauthorize the Secure Rural
Schools program in the 110th Congress by pursuing legislation that was
measured and bipartisan.
I am concerned that history is about to repeat itself. The
Discussion Draft that is the subject of today's hearing is not
measured, it is not bipartisan and it represents a significant step
back toward the old days when funding for local school kids was
directly tied to cutting down our forests.
This approach will not work, but more important, it will not gain
enough support to pass and thus it will not lead to the continuation of
the program. We stand ready to work with the Majority on a more
effective proposal.
The second bill, H.R. 2852, would require the American people to
give away 24 million acres of the public land that they own to State
governments. The bill is apparently based on the allegation that
federal land ownership harms states and localities.
This claim overlooks the wide variety of federal programs which
provide direct revenue to states--including Payment In Lieu of Taxes,
IMPACT Aid, Secure Rural Schools and many others.
Further, this claim ignores the significant indirect benefits to
states from federal lands, such as travel and tourism dollars and the
role these lands play in improving the quality of life and standard of
living in communities across the West.
Our public lands are the backbone of the outdoor recreation
economy, which generates over $730 billion in economic activity, 6.5
million jobs, and $88 billion in annual state and federal tax revenue.
Funding for public schools is a complicated and difficult problem
facing communities across the country. H.R. 2852 is not an appropriate
or workable solution to these challenges.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today and look forward to
their thoughts on these proposals.
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you. Our witnesses today on the Cabin Fee
Act are Joel Holtrop, Chief Deputy of the Forest Service and
Peter Bailey of the National Forest Homeowners Association.
Gentlemen, please take your seats and do it quickly. We are
really tight on time. We are going to have votes scheduled at
10:35 to 10:50 a.m., somewhere in that neighborhood, so if you
would please observe our five-minute rule. I appreciate you all
being here, and Mr. Holtrop, we will begin with you. You are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you. And just for clarification, would
you like my oral statement on all three bills at this time?
Mr. Broun. Yes, that would be fine. Great, go ahead,
please, sir.
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide the Department of Agriculture's views on three bills. I
would like to start my testimony with the Cabin Fee Act of
2011.
As we have previously testified, the Department appreciates
the over 14,000 cabin owners across the country and the
recreational experiences they enjoy on National Forest System
lands. While the Department does not support the legislation as
currently written, we would like to work with the Committee to
address areas of concern identified in the written testimony in
order to capture the advantages that are incorporated in this
legislation.
The Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, or CUFFA, was the
latest attempt passed by Congress to achieve an equitable fee
for the use of National Forest System land. As cabin owners
received notice of the new fees, some experienced dramatic
increases because the old fees were based on appraisals
completed 10 to 30 years in the past. Many of the proposed fees
in this new legislation would be less than those under the
current law, which results in fees being below market value for
many of the lots.
This bill would create nine payment tiers or categories and
provides for an additional payment on the sale or transfer of
the cabin. We do not agree with the concept of the transfer fee
as it would inappropriately involve the Department in the
disposition of the structures themselves. We do agree with the
concept of the payment tiers. However, we recommend that the
fees be based on market value.
Fees below market value can lead to windfall profits as
recognized by the market when cabins are sold as the sale
prices will reflect the value of the locations as much or more
than the value of the cabins, especially at the higher end
values.
The Department understands the financial burdens that some
cabin owners may face as a result of CUFFA, and we welcome the
opportunity to work with Congress to create a bill that takes
into account the needs of cabin owners, other National Forest
System users, the American taxpayers, and that can be
administered efficiently.
Regarding H.R. 1444 and 2834, I would like to emphasize
that the Forest Service has been a very strong supporter of
hunting and fishing on the national forests and grasslands
since the agency was created in 1905. It has been, and
continues to be, a large part of our heritage. The Forest
Service supports these activities by providing opportunities to
enjoy hunting and fishing on the National Forest System lands
throughout the country. Furthermore, the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative supports these same activities by
reconnecting Americans to our nation's land, water, and
wildlife.
However, the Department does not support these bills. The
intent is already achieved through existing laws and agency
policy. An enactment would neither enhance nor improve existing
hunting or fishing opportunities on our national forests and
grasslands.
Particularly regarding H.R. 2834, we are additionally
concerned that certain provisions in the legislation would be
in conflict with existing statutes and agency policy, establish
unnecessary analysis and reporting requirements, require
consultation with executive order advisory councils that
already occurs, and establish administratively costly annual
Congressional notification processes. And finally, this bill
contains provisions that would seriously undermine the
Wilderness Act of 1964.
This concludes my statement and I will answer any questions
that you have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1444, a bill
``To require that hunting activities be a land use in all management
plans for Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to the extent that such use is
not clearly incompatible with the purposes for which the Federal land
is managed, and for other purposes''.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Joel Holtrop,
Deputy Chief for the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you to provide the views of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service on H.R. 1444.
First, I would like to emphasize that the Forest Service has been a
very strong supporter of hunting and fishing on the nation's National
Forests and Grasslands since the agency was created in 1905. The Forest
Service supports these activities by providing opportunities to enjoy
hunting and fishing over much of the National Forest System (NFS) land
throughout the country. Furthermore, The America's Great Outdoors
Initiative (AGO), established by President Obama in 2010, supports
these same activities by reconnecting Americans to our nation's land,
water and wildlife. We very much appreciate the outstanding
contributions we receive from our partners, including States and
hunting and fishing organizations that support the conservation of fish
and wildlife and their habitats on our federal public lands. Their
steadfast support through partnership projects and volunteer work on
federal public lands, as well as, their willingness to support state
management of fish and wildlife though fishing and hunting fees are
widely recognized as a significant factor in the success of fish and
wildlife management in North America.
H.R. 1444 is intended to ensure continued hunting and fishing
opportunities on federal public lands, including the 193 million acres
of NFS lands on 155 National Forests and 20 Grasslands administered by
the U.S. Forest Service. Specifically, as it pertains to the Forest
Service, H.R. 1444 would require the agency, when developing or
approving a management plan or an amendment to a management plan, to
ensure that hunting activities are allowed as a use of NFS lands to the
extent that such use is not clearly incompatible with the purposes for
which the Federal land is managed. In addition, the legislation would
provide that fees charged related to hunting activities on NFS land are
to be retained to offset costs directly related to management of
hunting on NFS land and that the fees are to be limited to what the
Secretary reasonably estimates to be necessary to offset costs directly
related to management of hunting on the NFS land upon which hunting
activities related to the fee are conducted.
The Department does not support this legislation which is
unnecessary and would not enhance or improve existing hunting and
fishing on National Forests and Grasslands.
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act is an important statute that
guides management of our NFS lands. Hunting and fishing activities are
very important components of the Forest Service multiple-use mission.
Although many other recreational activities are also popular on our
National Forests and Grasslands, hunting and fishing remain very
important to thousands of the Nation's sportsman and sportswomen. The
latest National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data collected over the
past 10 years shows that on an annual basis more than 13,022,068
visitors to NFS land participated in hunting as their main activity,
and another 14,050.126 visitors fished as their main activity. This use
represents 7.6% and 8.2% (respectively) of all annual recreation
visitations to all NFS land.
Much of the NFS land has been, and continues to be, open to hunting
and fishing. However, Forest Service officials may authorize very
localized closures on NFS lands under special circumstances, usually to
protect public health and safety, such as areas in the vicinity of
buildings and campgrounds. For example, shooting is prohibited in areas
near residences, buildings and campgrounds.
As part of the land management planning process, the Forest Service
analyzes opportunities for hunting and fishing as recreational
activities. Within the planning process, the decision to allow or limit
various recreation activities is complex. Conflicts between user groups
can be a legitimate reason to limit or allow various recreation
activities. In the rare instances where hunting or fishing is
restricted, the rationale for such a decision is clearly described.
Section 1(c)(2)(B) of H.R. 1444 provides that '' a fee charged by
any entity related to hunting activities on Federal land that is in
excess of that needed to recoup costs of management of the Federal land
shall be deemed to be a restriction on hunting.'' Additionally, section
1(d) of the bill would authorize the Forest Service to retain fees for
hunting activities on NFS lands to offset the costs of managing hunting
on NFS lands and would limit the amount of fees that may be collected
by the Forest Service. The Forest Service does not charge fees to hunt
or fish on NFS lands. Fees are charged by States and by outfitter and
guides, neither of which is collected by the Forest Service.
In summary, the Forest Service has a long history and active policy
and practice of strongly supporting hunting and fishing opportunities
on the public's National Forests and Grasslands. Much of the NFS lands
are available for these recreational activities. The intent of this
bill is already achieved through existing laws and agency policy, and
enactment would neither enhance nor improve existing hunting or fishing
opportunities on our National Forests and Grasslands.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee this concludes my
testimony. I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
______
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2834, to
recognize the heritage of recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting
on federal public lands and ensure continued opportunities for these
activities.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Joel Holtrop,
Deputy Chief for the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you to provide the views of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service on H.R. 2834.
First, I would like to emphasize that the Forest Service has been a
very strong supporter of fishing, hunting and shooting activities on
National Forests and Grasslands since the agency was created in 1905.
Not only does the Forest Service support these activities, the Forest
Service provides opportunities to enjoy hunting and fishing and
recreational shooting over much of the NFS land throughout the country.
H.R. 2834 is intended to ensure continued recreational fishing,
hunting and shooting opportunities on federal public lands, including
the 193 million acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands on the 155
National Forests and 20 Grasslands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service. The Department opposes H.R. 2834 which is unnecessary and
would not enhance or improve existing fishing, hunting and shooting
opportunities on National Forests and Grasslands. Additionally, we are
concerned that certain provisions in the legislation would be in
conflict with existing statutes and agency policy, establish
unnecessary analysis and reporting requirements, require consultation
with Executive Order advisory councils that already occur, and
establish annual Congressional notification and approval processes for
closures of National Forests and Grasslands determined by local land
managers to be necessary to protect public health and safety. And
finally, this act contains provisions that would undermine the
Wilderness Act of 1964. H.R. 2834 was only formally introduced three
days before this hearing, the Department has not had sufficient time to
conduct an in-depth analysis of the legislation as introduced. Our
testimony today is based upon a discussion draft of the bill. We would
like to reserve the right to submit additional comments about the
introduced bill.
The Forest Service coordinates with other federal agencies, states,
non-profit organizations and community groups in efforts to provide
fishing, hunting and shooting opportunities as well as a wide-spectrum
of other recreational opportunities. The agency has relationships with
the recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting communities such as the
Shooting Sports Roundtable, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
and the Wildlife Hunting Heritage Conservation Council and we keep them
informed about pending federal actions through planning and
environmental process requirements. We very much appreciate the
outstanding contributions from States and hunting and fishing
organizations that support the conservation of fish and wildlife and
their habitats on our public lands. Their steadfast support through
partnership projects and volunteer work on public lands, as well as
their willingness to support state management of fish and wildlife
though fishing and hunting fees, are widely recognized as a significant
factor in the success of fish and wildlife management in North America.
Although many other recreational activities are also popular on our
National Forests and Grasslands, fishing, hunting and shooting sports
remain very important to thousands of hunters and fishermen. The latest
National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data shows that the U.S. Forest
Service National Forests had 13,022,068 visitors that participated in
hunting as their main activity, and 14,050,126 visitors that fished as
their main activity. This represents 7.6% and 8.2% (respectively) of
all annual recreation visitations to all National Forests.
Definitions--Section 3
Hunting, recreational fishing, and recreational shooting are
defined very broadly to include these activities when authorized under
special use permit, i.e. when hunting and fishing are authorized as
outfitting and guiding, or when a shooting range is authorized as a
facility.
Planning--Section 4(c)
The Forest Service analyzes opportunities for hunting, fishing and
shooting as recreational activities in the Land Management Planning
process. Section 4 (c)(1)(A) would add analysis requirements to various
public land planning documents that would potentially add costs and
time to federal decision making. Also, in regards to forest planning,
the decision to allow or limit various recreation activities is
complex. For example, it should be recognized that conflicts between
uses can be a legitimate reason to limit or allow various recreation
activities. These choices are best made in local planning efforts.
The Forest Service opposes the statement in section 4(c)(1)(B) of
H.R. 2834that any decisions made and actions taken on these or any
other activities described in this H.R. 2834shall not be deemed major
Federal actions. Exempting these activities from current National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and the attendant
environmental review processes would impair the Forest Service's
ability to accurately assess the likely impacts of our decisions to
manage NFS lands. Properly developed NEPA reviews are a critical tool
for public involvement and they improve decision-making by allowing the
responsible official to evaluate ways to resolve resource use conflicts
and address issues that the public raises. The Forest Service defers to
the DOI regarding the implications of this section on the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
Further, Section 4(c) (1) (B), of H.R. 2834 specifically prohibits
the analysis of hunting, fishing, or shooting opportunities that occurs
on adjacent public or private lands. Contrary to H.R. 2834, the Forest
Service believes it is both prudent and important to consider
cumulative effects for proposed actions on NFS lands during the
decision making process, including consideration of activities that
occur or can be expected to occur on private lands or other public
lands adjacent to NFS lands. Additionally, cumulative effects analyses
help avoid duplication of activities (such as shooting ranges that are
on other lands nearby) and the resulting increased impacts. Conversely,
Section 4 (c) (1) (A) would require more specific evaluations of the
effects of other plans for the use of NFS lands (such as travel
management, conservation, land resource management) on opportunities to
engage in recreational fishing, hunting or shooting. Hunting and
fishing activities currently are and should continue to be considered
when developing these plans and accompanying NEPA analyses, rather than
establishing a new process. The additional evaluation process required
by this bill is unnecessary.
Public Notification--Section 4(d)(1).
Almost all of the National Forest System (NFS) land managed by the
Forest Service has been, and continues to be, open to fishing, hunting
and shooting. These are all valued recreational opportunities that the
agency provides under our broad multiple-use mandate. However, Forest
Service officials may authorize very localized closures on NFS lands
under special circumstances, usually to protect public health and
safety, such as areas in the vicinity of buildings and campgrounds. Due
to the bills requirement for issuance of a public notice prior to
implementation of closures or restrictions, emergency closures for
public safety would not be allowed. This is not in the best interest of
all forest users and adjacent communities. In addition to severely
curtailing our ability to provide for public safety, advanced public
notice on closures or restrictions on NFS lands such as individual
closures or as a compilation of closures on an annual basis, would
affect our ability to appropriately manage non-emergency situations
that warrant closures, including habitat management and conservation
for threatened and endangered species and areas recently burned by
wildfire.
Leasing -Section 4(d) (2)
The bill would allow for leasing of NFS lands for shooting ranges
(Section 4 (d) (2)). Currently, the Forest Service allows for shooting
ranges through special use permits issued pursuant to the Term Permit
Act. Utilizing special use permits adequately allows for shooting
ranges, leasing is not a needed tool. The Forest Service allows for
dispersed shooting opportunities (equivalent to ``informal'' shooting
opportunities) on NFS lands without a special use permit or a lease.
Wilderness--Section 4(e)
The language in this bill regarding wilderness (Section 4 (e))
would supersede the Wilderness Act of 1964. Wilderness should be
managed to provide opportunities for recreational use and enjoyment and
understanding of the area as wilderness, consistent with the primary
responsibility of preserving the wilderness character of the area.
Hunting and fishing related opportunities are currently managed by the
Forest Service to be consistent with preserving wilderness character.
Reporting--Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) would add annual reporting requirements adding
unnecessary costs to gather, maintain, and report data on the agencies
business costs, including those associated with the Paperwork Reduction
Act. The Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding (signed
by 40 federal, state and non-government partners) includes reporting on
a number of hunting/shooting items of interest. Reporting on NFS
closures can be accommodated through this very productive and effective
partnership.
Preference--Section 4(h)
Section 4(h) states that no preference is given to shooting,
hunting and fishing over other activities. However, other provisions in
H.R. 2834 are clearly designed to limit the agency's discretionary
authority related to those activities. For example, section 4 (a)
states that the Agency must facilitate use of, and access to, federal
lands for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting. Section 4
(b) (1) states that lands must be managed in a manner that supports and
facilitates recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities.
Section 4 (c) (1) requires that federal land planning documents
evaluate effects on opportunities to engage in recreational fishing,
hunting, or shooting. All of these requirements appear to favor these
three activities at the expense of other activities on NFS lands. As an
agency with multiple-use management responsibilities, the Forest
Service is committed to providing fishing and hunting related
activities as well as a spectrum of other uses where they can be
conducted safely while minimizing conflicts among user groups and
without environmental damage.
Consultation--Section 4(i)
Section 4(i) directs the agencies to consult with respective
advisory councils as established in Executive Order 12962 (Recreational
Fisheries, June 1995) and Executive Order (EO) 13443 (Facilitation of
Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, August 2007) as amended.
This direction is unnecessary, as the Forest Service is actively
involved in carrying out EO 12962, actively participates in the
National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council, is actively
involved in carrying out EO 13443, and is an ``ex officio'' member of
the Wildlife Hunting Heritage Conservation Council, the Federal
Advisory Committee established pursuant to EO 13443.
In summary, the Forest Service has a long history and active policy
and practice of strongly supporting hunting, fishing and shooting
recreational opportunities on the public's National Forests and
Grasslands. Almost all of the NFS lands are available for these
recreational activities. The intent of this bill is already achieved
through existing Statute and agency policy. We do not believe this
legislation is necessary. This legislation does not enhance or improve
existing fishing, hunting and shooting opportunities on our National
Forests and Grasslands. We are concerned that some language would be in
conflict with existing legislation and agency policy, establish
unnecessary analysis and reporting requirements, require consultation
with Executive Order advisory councils that already occurs, and
establish annual Congressional notification and approval for necessary
closures exceeding a total of 640 acres across the entire National
Forest System.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee this concludes my
testimony. I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
______
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. _, The Cabin
Fee Act of 2011
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of
Agriculture's views on H.R. ____, the Cabin Fee Act of 2011. Our
testimony today is based upon a discussion draft of this bill, as the
bill has not yet been introduced. As we previously testified on April
22, 2010, the Department appreciates the over 14,000 cabin owners
across the country and the recreational experiences they enjoy on
National Forest System (NFS) lands.
While the Department does not support the legislation as currently
written, we would like to work with the Committee to address areas of
concern identified in this testimony in order to capture some of the
advantages that are incorporated in this draft legislation.
Before describing the challenges of this bill, it is important to
consider the history of this program. In the early part of the
twentieth century, the Forest Service began introducing Americans to
the beauty and grandeur of their National Forests. One way to
accomplish this objective was to permit individuals to build cabins for
summertime occupancy within the National Forests. Cabin owners were
permitted to occupy NFS land during the summer months in exchange for a
fee. In 1915, the agency began to issue permits for up to twenty years
for occupancy of NFS land. At that time, there was relatively little
recreational use of the National Forests.
Today, the National Forests host over 171 million visitors per
year. When this recreational cabin program began, there was limited
interest in building and owning a remote cabin on NFS land. Today,
similar land at ski resorts, near lakes, and remote mountain settings
are highly prized, selling for prices beyond the means of many
Americans. In the early years, permit fees were nominal, but since the
1950s, the Forest Service has been mandated to obtain fees
approximating market value for the use of NFS land. Increasing fees
have led to controversy and have resulted in enactment of multiple fee
moratoriums and caps over the years.
Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (CUFFA) was the latest attempt
to achieve an equitable fee for the use of National Forest System land.
CUFFA prescribes the parameters the agency must follow in conducting
appraisals and establishing fees, which are based on five percent of
the appraised market value of the lot under permit. The agency began
the appraisal process pursuant to CUFFA in 2007, and will be continuing
that effort through 2012. As cabin owners received notice of the new
fees, some have experienced dramatic increases because the old fees
were based on appraisals completed ten to thirty years in the past. In
response, Congress included appropriations language for FY2010 which
limited fee increases to no more than 25% of the fee paid in calendar
year 2009.
There are a number of examples of families who have had cabins for
generations, but are having difficulty paying the new fees. However,
there are also examples where low annual fees in the past have led to
significant financial gains when cabin owners have sold their cabins
for considerably more than the value of the structure, essentially
benefiting from a lower than market value for their use of public land.
When this occurs, cabin owners are, in effect, selling the location of
their cabin, which is owned by the American people. Some cabins have
sold at a premium price, only to be torn down by the new owner and
replaced with a new structure.
This bill would replace the current fee structure under CUFFA on
recreation residence cabins on National Forest System lands reserved
from the public domain. This bill under section 3(b)(2), will create
nine payment tiers or categories and provide for an additional payment
under section 4 on the sale or transfer of the cabin as referenced in
the transfer fees. We agree with the concept of the payment tiers;
however, we recommend that the fees be based on market value. If the
payment tiers are based on market value, the transfer fee section could
be eliminated. This bill does not return a fee based upon market value,
especially those in the ninth tier.
H.R. ___ would revise the procedures for determining the amount an
owner of a cabin on the National Forests must pay to lease the
underlying public property. Our projections indicate that enactment of
H.R. ___ in its current form would result in fee revenues significantly
below the fee revenues expected to be generated under current law, with
some cabin owners potentially being subject to fees below the market
value of their property.
The Department understands the financial burdens that some current
cabin owners may face as a result of CUFFA. The Department welcomes the
opportunity to work with Congress to create a bill that takes into
account the needs of cabin owners, other users of the National Forests,
and the taxpayer, and that can be administered without undue burden on
the agency or cabin owners.
Here are our concerns with the bill as written:
Section 3, Fee Amount: Our analyses indicate that many of the
proposed fees would be less than those under current law which results
in fees being below market value for many of the lots. As previously
noted, fees below market value can lead to windfall profits as
recognized by the market when cabins are sold, as the sale prices will
reflect the value of the locations as much or more than the value of
the cabins, especially at the higher end values. When the buyer of a
cabin knows he or she will be paying market value for the location,
prices tend to reflect only the value of the structure being conveyed.
To reduce the likelihood of windfall profits, the proposed fee schedule
should be based on market value or a percentage thereof. In addition,
to reduce the administrative burden of billing or reimbursing fees due
to changes in the fee estimate, the appraisals should be updated as
scheduled and in place prior to implementation of any new fee
legislation. The basis for establishing the fee amounts for the
individual Tier levels should be based on first and second level
appraisals and other indicators of market value. The assignment by the
Agency of individual Tier levels for the cabin holders should be
administrative in nature.
Section 3 (d) (1) Effect of Destruction, Substantial Damage, or
Loss of Access: This section deals primarily with the management of the
cabins and prescribes a course of action due to destruction,
substantial damage, or loss of access. With the exception of the loss
of access, this section of the bill will cause additional
administration burden, costs, and is unnecessary as it pertains to the
structures (cabin, outbuilding, etc. . .) occupying the lot.
Section 4, Cabin Transfer Fees: H.R. ___ would require the
Department to verify the price at which these private cabins are sold
and subsequently obtain a payment from the seller based on a percentage
of the sale. The Department recommends that Section 4 of this bill as
it is currently drafted be deleted. The fundamental purpose of the
Recreation Residence program is to provide the land for the cabins and
USDA should not be involved in the disposition or assessment of the
structures that occupy the land.
Need to study cabin lots that may have lost their National Forest
character: Over time, occupancy of some ``summer'' cabins has evolved
into four-season use, particularly those located on the periphery of
the National Forests. While year-round use remains contrary to agency
policy, administration of these cabins can become more complex as
owners desire typical public services found in residential
subdivisions; such as electric, phone, cable, and sewer. In addition,
their proximity and similarity to neighboring private subdivisions,
suggests that some of these lots may have lost their National Forest
character. The Department would like the opportunity to study this
issue more carefully and to consider options to more effectively manage
these areas.
Technical Changes: Additionally, there are a number of additional
technical suggestions which we would like to work with the Committee to
address.
We acknowledge that there are advantages to this bill from an
administrative perspective. For example, it would reduce the agency's
appraisal costs. For cabin owners, enactment of H.R. ___ would provide
certainty in terms of future fees. Again, we welcome the opportunity to
work with the Committee to develop legislation that is also fair to
taxpayers and other users of the National Forests and Grasslands, and
can be administered without undue burden on the agency or cabin owners.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have. We would like to reserve the right to submit
additional comments about the bill once it is introduced.
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Bailey, you are
recognized for five minutes. If you would like to comment on
all three, that is fine, too.
STATEMENT OF PETE BAILEY, FORMER DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL FOREST HOMEOWNERS
Mr. Bailey. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, and I want to thank you, Mr. Hastings, for your
strong support of this bill.
As you know, it is a very similar bill to the Cabin Fee Act
of 2010 that you introduced in the 111th Congress along with 27
bipartisan cosponsors. H.R. 4888 was favorably reported by the
Natural Resources Committee last September. At last year's
hearing before this Committee, long-time cabin owners of modest
means with families who have loved and maintained their cabins
for generations expressed their deep concern that the cabin
stewardship is being jeopardized by high fees.
The current use of fee simple land appraisals to set fees
as mandated by the Cabin Users Fee Fairness Act, or CUFFA,
fails to determine actual market value because of the highly
restricted nature of our use is not valued in the CUFFA
appraisal process. Interdependent equity interests where the
permittee owns the cabin and the government owns the land are
difficult and subjected to separate. The Cabin Fee Act
acknowledges these interdependent interests and offers needed
reform.
The Act recognizes that cabin owners contribute value to
the land and location at their expense. Cabin owners maintain
their lots, remove dangerous trees and non-native vegetation
while many often organize fire safety efforts and often provide
utility infrastructure, including power, water systems, sewer,
and septic systems.
We believe nearly 35 percent of cabin owners will reach
their affordability break point under CUFFA. When these folks
try to sell and can't because of above market value fees, we
estimate roughly 15 percent of the cabins will have to be torn
down or removed at the owner's expense, causing a 30 percent
drop in U.S. Treasury fee revenue with corresponding loss of
local tax revenue and other forest stewardship benefits.
This Act provides for a reasonable user fee index annually
that helps maintain cabin value and does not destroy the
ability to sell the cabin. Instead of fees ranging from $125 to
an astonishing $76,000 annually, under CUFFA user fees will
range from $500 to $4,500 per year where the highest fee is
nine times the lowest, not 100 times the lowest.
Permitted lots will be assigned to one of nine fee tiers
based on the rank order of current appraised values when CUFFA
is completed. The lower eight percent of appraised values are
assigned to the $500 tier, the highest four percent are
assigned to the $4,500 tier. The total revenue projected is $30
million.
A transfer fee intended to capture the location value of a
cabin site is paid when the value is actually realized at the
time of sale of the cabin, thus reducing questioned windfall
profits.
This new fee structure compares favorably to the broader
market of similar private and public cabin lease programs. A
comprehensive survey examined the market for cabins and
programs similar to the Recreation Residents Program and
further validates the use of public forest lands for recreation
purposes. The 11,000 cabins reviewed had use fees that varied
with permit and lease terms, of course, and location
differences, but the average user fee was less than $1,000,
which is less than half of the average fee under the Cabin Fee
Act, showing that the proposed fee structure provides a fair
return to the U.S. Government and is based on sound market
principles.
The 2011 Cabin Fee Act improves last year's bill in three
ways. Chairman Hastings has outlined a few of those. The latest
Forest Service cabin appraisal data shows that less revenue
will be generated under CUFFA than had previously been
projected, so it is possible to adjust the fee tier percentages
and still generate the same amount of revenue projected under
CUFFA.
Second, during the three-year transition period from CUFFA
to Cabin Fee Act fees some cabin owners might have paid higher
or lower fees under CUFFA than under the Cabin Fee Act. These
differences would have received credits or debits for future
Cabin Fee Act fees. The 2011 Cabin Fee Act drops that complex
procedure and simply provides that such transition fee
increases cannot exceed 25 percent per year.
And third, last year's bill applied only to cabins on
national forests derived from the public domain. The 2011 Cabin
Fee Act dropped that limitation and the legislation now applies
to all cabins on all national forests.
Mr. Chairman, the Cabin Fee Act of 2011 will preserve a
cherished program that has been a major source of outdoor
recreation for thousands of American families for nearly a
century while continuing to provide a fair return to the
Treasury. It is a market-based approach that correctly balances
the interests and needs of cabin owners with the public
interest by obtaining a fair market return on these public
lands. We urge that it be enacted into law, and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bailey follows:]
Statement of Pete Bailey, National Forest Homeowners and the
C2 Coalition, Regarding the Cabin Fee Act of 2011
Introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
I am Pete Bailey from Tacoma, Washington, and I am pleased to
present this statement of the National Forest Homeowners and the C2
Coalition of Cabin Owner Organizations in support of the Cabin Fee Act
of 2011. There are more than 14,000 cabin owners who have permits for
recreation residences on the national forests and who have a vital
interest in the legislation now being considered. I have had my cabin
since October, 2000, on Lake Quinault in the Olympic National Forest.
We are especially appreciative to you, Mr. Chairman, for your
support of this bill. As you know, it is very similar to the Cabin Fee
Act of 2010 (H.R. 4888) that you introduced in the 111th Congress more
than a year ago, along with 27 bi-partisan cosponsors. That bill was
favorably reported by the Natural Resources Committee on September 16,
2010, but did not receive a floor vote. Senator Tester introduced S.
3929 as a companion bill in the Senate.
At the House hearing last year, testimony and written statements
were submitted that included strong and touching statements from long-
time cabin owners of modest means whose families for generations have
tenaciously maintained their cabins through hardships and challenges
but who are now concerned that their cabin stewardship is being
jeopardized by sharply rising fees.
The 2011 Cabin Fee Act is very similar to the bill approved by this
committee last year and this statement will later briefly compare the
two bills. Suffice it to say for now that this year's Cabin Fee Act
does not differ in any significant respect from last year's bill and is
even more strongly supported by cabin owners.
Problems with CUFFA
Since the passage of the Organic Act in 1915, the Recreation
Residence Program has been a valid use of National Forest lands, but it
is now being threatened by the fee setting process mandated by the
Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, commonly referred to as CUFFA.
(Note: We will adopt the more commonly used terms ``cabin program'' and
``cabin owners'' instead of the more technically correct ``recreation
residence program'' and ``recreation residences.'') Use of fee simple
land appraisals to set value has not worked for more than 40 years due
to interdependent equity interests whereby the permittee owns the cabin
while the government owns the land. Both location and the cabin
structure influence market rents and sale prices. Separating these two
influences is difficult and subjective. The Cabin Fee Act, which is
supported by most cabin owners, acknowledges the real nature of a
Program with interdependent interests and offers a new and badly needed
system. The Act will simplify and improve the fee-setting process. It
will encourage better relationships between the Forest Service and
permittees and will reduce agency administrative workload and expenses.
The Act institutes a fair and reasonable annual User Fee that
recognizes the influence of cabin location by establishing a Transfer
Fee upon sale. The Act provides fair compensation to the U.S taxpayer,
while recognizing that cabin owners convey value to the land and
location at their expense. Cabin owners must maintain the site and
often remove dangerous trees and non-native vegetation, organize
FireSafe efforts and often provide and pay for utility infrastructure
including power, water systems, septic and sewer systems that become
attached to the land and benefit all users of the forests.
Survey data compiled by the National Forest Homeowners indicate
that almost 35% of cabin owners will reach their affordability
breakpoint in the current CUFFA appraisal cycle. Excessively high fees
will be disincentives to potential buyers and, as a result, we estimate
roughly 15% of cabins (2,100) will have to be torn down or removed at
the expense of the owners. This will cause U.S. Treasury revenue to
decline approximately 30% from the total potential fee revenue under
CUFFA, while local governments and communities will also suffer tax
revenue losses. The loss of cabins will also reduce volunteer labor,
forest stewardship and infrastructure support contributed by cabin
owners.
The Cabin Fee Act of 2011
The Act establishes an affordable User Fee, indexed annually, that
will help to maintain cabin value and not destroy the ability to sell
the cabin if the current owner cannot or decides not to pay the fee.
Instead of fees ranging from $125 to an astonishing $76,000 annually
under CUFFA, annual User Fees will range from $500 to $4500 per year.
Nine fee tiers will replace the current CUFFA fee structure. The User
Fee tiers were determined by balancing the rights and privileges that
all permit holders share, regardless of location, while acknowledging
that location does influence the value of the permitted use. This
balance of common rights with differences for location yields a fee
structure where the highest fee is nine times the lowest fee. This
contrasts with fees under CUFFA where the highest fees are more than
100 times greater than the lowest fees.
The Cabin Fee Act requires the assignment of each permitted lot to
one of nine fee tiers, based on the rank order of current appraised
values. The lowest 8% of appraised lot values are assigned to the $500
tier. The highest 4% are assigned to the $4,500 tier. Following this
process, User Fee revenue is projected to be about $30M when fully
implemented. User Fees are adjusted annually by a rolling average of
the IPD-GDP index. This broadly-used Department of Commerce index
provides for a reasonable, straightforward method for increasing fees
annually, while ensuring that user fees keep pace with the market.
The Transfer Fee is intended to capture the value influence of the
National Forest location of these cabins and is paid when that value
influence is actually realized at the time of sale. The Transfer Fee
addresses the possibility of questionable ``windfall'' profits alleged
by some. The Transfer Fee has two components. First, a flat fee of
$1,000 is collected for all cabin sales and transfers. Second, if the
sale price exceeds $250,000, an additional 5% is collected on the sale
price exceeding $250,000 up to $500,000 and an additional 10% on sale
amounts exceeding $500,000.
Cabin marketability is not encumbered, because cabin owners will
have full knowledge of the indexed annual User Fee and both a seller
and buyer can factor the Transfer Fee into their negotiations at the
time of sale. Moreover, the Act provides long-term annual revenues to
the U.S. Treasury comparable to CUFFA, particularly after consideration
of cost savings by the elimination of expensive appraisals and revenue
lost from abandoned cabins that will occur if CUFFA stands unchanged.
With the elimination of the appraisal process under CUFFA, the
Forest Service will save approximately $1 million annually. The
complexity and expense of the appraisal process will be replaced with a
cost effective fee system and greatly simplified program
administration.
We can compare this fee structure to the broader market of public
and private cabin lease programs. A comprehensive market survey by the
National Forest Homeowners reviewed over 11,000 cabins in programs
similar in character to the Forest Service Recreation Residence
Program. This survey examined the market for similar cabin programs and
further validated the use of public forest lands for recreation
residence purposes. While user fees ranged widely due to variations in
permit and lease terms and location considerations, the average user
fee was less than $1,000. This is less than half the average fee of
$2,075 under the Cabin Fee Act. We offer this as clear evidence that
the proposed fee structure provides a fair return to the U.S.
Government and is based on sound market principles.
With predictable and affordable fees under the Cabin Fee Act, we
expect all 14,150 current permits to remain active the Forest Service
Program will stay within reach of the typical American family. By
contrast, while CUFFA is expected to provide similar total revenue over
time, we project that unaffordable high fees and uncertainty will
result in a decline in the number of permit holders under CUFFA to less
than 12,000 over the next decade, thus reducing family participation in
the Program. This same pattern of permit loss is likely to be repeated
in future appraisal cycles under CUFFA, further eroding the Recreation
Residence Program.
A great strength of the Cabin Fee Act is its simplicity. The simple
and straightforward fee structure provides long-term predictability and
affordability for the cabin program plus significant administrative
time and cost savings to the Forest Service. These cost savings allow
for the redeployment of Forest Service resources away from managing
appraisals, re-appraisals and permit fee appeals to a more productive
delivery of programs and public services. The Cabin Fee Act provides a
true win-win-win outcome for the cabin owner, for the U.S. Forest
Service and for U.S. taxpayers.
In summary, the Cabin Fee Act of 2011 ensures the long-term
viability of the Recreation Residence Program and produces cabin permit
fees that will:
1. be affordable and determined by the true ``cabin market;''.
2. be simple, understandable and predictable;
3. be revenue neutral by maintaining current revenues and fair
return to U.S. taxpayers;
4. be implemented more efficiently, saving time and money for
the Forest Service;
5. recognize the complexities of interdependent cabin
ownership interests;
6. recognize the locational value of the cabin as sold, fixing
fees according to actual benefits received;
7. protect the future ability to sell cabins.
Comparison of 2010 and 2011 Cabin Fee Acts
There are three differences between the 2010 Cabin Fee Act and this
year's bill.
(1) Reduced Tier Fee Structure. The latest cabin appraisals
completed by the Forest Service and reported in May, 2011, show
that less revenue will be generated under CUFFA than had
previously been projected. As a result, it is possible to
reduce the tiered fees that would have been set under the 2010
Cabin Fee Act and still generate the same amount of revenue
that can be projected under CUFFA.
(2) Cap on Fee Increases. Under the 2010 Cabin Fee Act it was
possible that during the two or three year transition period
from CUFFA to the Cabin Fee Act some cabin owners would have
had to pay higher fees than CUFFA alone would have required.
These increased fees would have been offset by later credits
(or debits) against Cabin Fee Act fees once that legislation
was finally and fully implemented. The 2011 Cabin Fee Act drops
that complex offset procedure and simply provides that such
transition fee increases cannot exceed 25% per annum.
(3) Including All Cabins on All Forests. The 2010 Cabin Fee
Act would have applied only to cabins on those national forests
that were taken from the public domain. The 2011 Cabin Fee Act
drops that limitation and the legislation now applies to all
cabins on all national forests.
These are positive improvements in the bill that make it more
equitable for more cabin owners and more acceptable to all cabin
owners.
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf
of the National Forest Homeowners, the C2 Cabin Coalition and nearly
14,000 cabin owners throughout the nation. We believe the cabin program
is not only an invaluable source of multi-generational family outdoor
recreation but that it makes a significant contribution to the health
of the national forests and the economic vitality of local gateway
communities. Unfortunately, as a result of the appraisal based fee
system imposed by CUFFA, many cabin owners are facing a dramatic
escalation in their fees, threatening this historic program and
jeopardizing its many contributions.
The Cabin Fee Act of 2011 will preserve the program as we have
known it for nearly a century while continuing to provide a fair return
to the Treasury. It is an equitable approach that properly balances the
interests and needs of cabin owners with the public interest in
obtaining a fair return on these public lands.
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. We will now go to
questions. I have just been informed that we are going to have
votes probably in about five minutes. We will try to get
through a few questions here before we will adjourn temporarily
to go vote and then we will come back and re-adjourn and finish
this hearing. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Mr. Holtrop, particularly given our current deficit
situation, does the Administration support the provisions of
this bill that provide benefits and savings and administrative
costs for the Recreation Residents Program? It seems from your
testimony that opposition to the bill is based solely on the
possibility of cabin owners reaping windfall profits from cabin
sales instead of simply wanting to be able to continue enjoying
their cabins.
Mr. Holtrop. We do support the efficiencies and I think my
testimony also points out that one of the advantages of this
piece of legislation is less of a reliance on a continuing
recurring appraisal process, and that has efficiencies and
cost-effective benefits for us, and my testimony does recognize
that and we appreciate that about this piece of legislation.
I think the opposition is more over some of the more
technical aspects such as the transfer fee which, from our
perspective, inappropriately involves us in valuation--in
dealing with the value of the cabin itself. If there is a
profit that the owner of the cabin gets from that possibility,
we don't believe we should be a part of that at all. We are
solely interested in management of, and correct valuation of,
the land.
Mr. Broun. Very good. Mr. Bailey, are objections to the
current cabin free structure from National Forest Homeowners
based more on the fact that it will force them to relinquish
cabins many have enjoyed for generations, or on the fact that
it might prevent them from turning a profit on their cabin?
Mr. Bailey. The real issue is that the CUFFA appraisal
process is based upon land values, when what we are facing is
the use of the land because we do not own the land. By applying
the appraisal process, approximately 15 percent of the cabin
owners this year are going to be above--their fees are going to
be above market value. Now while a few very wealthy people
exist in the program, the vast majority of cabin owners are of
modest means and cannot afford a fee that might exceed $10,000,
$15,000, or $20,000. Those folks, when they can't afford the
fee and try to sell, will find that the market also rejects
those fees as unreasonable, and they will then be forced to
remove their cabins from the national forest land. So, that is
the real driving force behind the motivation of the Cabin Fee
Act.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Just for expediency, we
will go next to Mr. Grijalva for questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and one quick
question if I may, Mr. Bailey.
It is true, as has been stated, that the families that own
these cabins run the gambit from what we can describe as
wealthy to many others that are not. I am assuming that is
correct.
Mr. Bailey. Yes, that is very true. I think that
characterization----
Mr. Grijalva. OK, and given that range of income levels are
you concerned at all that rearranging the tiers for cabin fees
to avoid large increases for some of the most valuable cabins
could result in the less wealthy cabin owners having to pay
more? So, how do we assure, because you are going to want to
score the same, that the fees generated now, or identify an
offset, if that is not going to happen? So, how can we assure
that an equitable distribution is occurring if we are capping
the top rate?
Mr. Bailey. Good question. Fair question. Right now some of
the lowest fees are well under $500. In fact, the lowest fee
nationally occurs somewhere in Washington and Oregon where it
is $125 a year, and the Forest Service has indicated to us that
to administer the program costs at least $500, perhaps $700 per
year per cabin, and the National Forest Homeowners and the
Coalition of Cabin Organizations believes that a minimum fee
needs to at least cover the cost of administration of the
program, and that is a fair consideration overall. So, at the
very low end we realize that some of those fees must go up, and
we believe that is a reasonable consideration.
Mr. Grijalva. But we understand, I think, as we work
through this that we can go no less than what is being
collected now or we need to have an offset or something else
has to be restructured. You are aware of that part of it.
Mr. Bailey. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Broun. I have a unanimous consent request that Mr.
Benishek and Mr. Costa participate in the hearing since they
are not members of the Subcommittee. Hearing none, so ordered.
Now the Chair recognizes Doc Hastings for questions for
five minutes.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you. I just have one question and it
has been addressed by your question, Mr. Chairman, to Chief
Holtrop.
I recall your testimony or the testimony of the Service
last year was on the revenue neutrality that Mr. Bailey said
ought to be part of the mix, and I totally agree with that, and
the trick is how you figure the tiers to get that revenue
neutrality. Yet your testimony today, and maybe I am missing
something here because your testimony seemed to be a bit in
conflict with what the Chairman asked you about the windfall
profit and somebody making a profit.
So, just tell me what your main concern is, I guess, on
your testimony today compared to the testimony from last year
about the revenue neutrality.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you for the question. I think if I could
I will say maybe two main concerns. One is there are a variety
of technical aspects of the bill that----
Mr. Hastings. I understand, set those aside.
Mr. Holtrop. So setting those aside----
Mr. Hastings. Set those aside because those are normal
things that happen and I understand that.
Mr. Holtrop. So, let us talk about the windfall profit
aspect of my testimony. If there is a windfall profit that
occurs because the land has been undervalued, I don't believe I
am doing my job or we are doing the job that we are held
responsible for of making sure that we are managing the land
for the entirety of the American taxpayer and all the people
who own that land.
If the windfall profit occurs because there has been an
increase in value of the cabin itself, that should be the owner
of the cabin's value, not the American people's because the
cabin is owned by the cabin owner, the land is owned by the
American people.
So, my testimony, and I believe it is consistent with what
my testimony last year was as well, is largely generated by our
interest in making sure that we fairly value the land, and that
we not be a part of the valuation and those aspects of actually
managing the value of the cabins themselves.
Mr. Hastings. OK. We need to work our way through this, but
it is interesting to hear the government talk about the value
of the land when we hear so many times the public owns the
land. I mean, clearly the difference in the value is going to
be if a cabin is sold for a higher level which would move that
into a different category. So, it just struck me, I guess, when
I heard your testimony this time and last time that there was a
difference.
I think the key thing we need to work out is the revenue
neutrality. I totally agree with that. Mr. Bailey said that in
his testimony, because going back to what the Chairman said in
his opening remarks on all three bills, these are public lands
that were designed for multiple use, and cabins on public land
have been around for nearly 100 years for goodness sakes, and
generations of family like that experience that they have every
summer and so forth. We need to respect all of that because
this is multiple-use land.
So, I want a clarification. I thank you for your answer. I
am not sure I fully understand it but nevertheless I understand
that you did raise the issue.
Mr. Holtrop. And if I may, I also want to express
appreciation of the program itself, an appreciation of the
improvements of this legislation compared to last year, and our
commitment to continue to work with you to reach the solution
we both want to have happen.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. Mr. McClintock will be
recognized next. We have probably got about five more minutes
in the clock on votes. Do you have questions and want to make
them quick, or do you want to come back? All right, we will
recess and resume the hearing. I apologize to the witnesses for
having to do this, but I am sure you all recognize that is the
way these votes go, but we will reconvene just five minutes
after the last vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Broun. Reconvene the Committee. Appreciate you all's
patience and standing by. I apologize that we had to interrupt
things, but we will try to get through this as quickly as
possible.
Now Mr. McClintock from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Holtrop, I wanted to begin with a comment that you made
assuring us that the U.S. Forest Service was strongly
supportive of hunting and fishing on our national forests. I
can assure you, sir, from a flood of complaints that have
reached my office that that is not the practice of the Forest
Service. In fact, I met with a group of hunters not more than
four weeks ago who complained about a whole host of actions by
the Forest Service, all evincing a design to expel them from
the national forests. Road closures, requirements that forbid
them from parking more than one car length from a road edge,
which makes it impossible for them to retrieve game. One group
had camped in the same spot two weeks running and were told
that they were now forever banned from that particular forest.
What you just said is so completely contrary to the reports I
am hearing from my constituents. I have to conclude, with all
due respect, that you are either being deliberately
disingenuous in that statement or you are badly disconnected
from reality.
Mr. Holtrop. Well, I don't believe either of those are the
case, but I would be happy to work with you to look into some
of the concerns you have expressed.
Mr. McClintock. I wonder, how many hunting groups from my
region have you met with?
Mr. Holtrop. I am not sure how to answer that. I have met
with many hunting groups that have national constituencies. I
have met with state fish and game----
Mr. McClintock. Well, I will tell you the folks in my
district in the northeastern corner of California are mad. They
feel that they have been badly abused by the Forest Service and
they feel that they have been made completely unwelcome in
their own national forest.
Mr. Holtrop. Well, I am sorry they are feeling that way,
and again I would be happy to----
Mr. McClintock. Well, again, I think they have strong
reason to feel that way, and when you come here before this
Committee and blithely assure us that you want to do everything
you can to open the forests to these activities I have to tell
you your practice is entirely contrary, and that does not give
you a great deal of credibility in my eyes when you come before
this Committee.
Mr. Holtrop. Again, my statement was based on the fact that
the National Forest System is open to hunting and fishing.
Mr. McClintock. Let me move----
Mr. Holtrop. And I am aware there is access.
Mr. McClintock. And I am telling you the folks that you are
referring to are telling me that the national forests are being
closed to their use. That is what is actually happening.
Getting to the cabin rates, I would like to know, how many
cabin sites have been re-leased at the higher rates that are
being imposed by the Forest Service?
Mr. Holtrop. If you are referring to the appraisals that we
are doing under the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, the
majority--well, I am not sure I have the answer. I will be able
to get you the answer to that. I am aware that there are a lot
of appraisals yet to be done in the State of California, but
most of the appraisals----
Mr. McClintock. What I am trying to get at is how many of
these cabins, once the rate is increased that are then
abandoned by the cabin owner because the rate is too high for
them to pay, are you finding other people to lease those
cabins? How many are going unleased because I am hearing quite
a few?
Mr. Holtrop. I don't have a figure along that line.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Bailey, do you have any insight on
this?
Mr. Bailey. The permit process and the determination of
fees functions separately, sir, and the permit was issued for
all cabins across the country about three-four years ago, and
it was a long process.
Mr. McClintock. What I am trying to find is, are these
appraisals in an actual market rate or are these appraisals
deliberately well above a market rate with the intention of
simply forcing the public off the public lands?
Mr. Bailey. Well, I certainly don't understand the
intention, but there are many, many examples across the country
where the rates that the cabin owners are facing are well above
the market to the point where they not only can't afford it,
but when the fee is fully instituted and we are in the middle
of that process----
Mr. McClintock. Those cabins will not be re-leased out.
Mr. Bailey. That is correct.
Mr. McClintock. So not only are we not getting the higher
rate we are getting no rate, we are losing the rate that had
been paid because we deliberately put it above the market rate.
There is only one purpose for that, and it is not to raise
revenues. It is to force people off the public lands.
Mr. Bailey. That is inherent in this appraisal process that
there are fees that are going to do that.
Mr. McClintock. I will tell you, in 16 months or so I
believe there is going to be a new administration, and there is
going to have to be a top-to-bottom housecleaning at the Forest
Service and a top to bottom re-alignment of the attitudes in
that agency which has turned so completely radically away from
Gifford Pinchot's vision of a Forest Service that welcomed the
public to the public's lands.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. Dr. Benishek, you are
recognized for five minutes for questions.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing and for your leadership on this Committee. I appreciate
the opportunity to be here today.
I am speaking more about the Recreational Fishing and
Hunting Heritage Opportunity Act that I introduced. It is very
personal and important to me. In northern Michigan, hunting and
fishing is more than just a sport or a hobby, it is a way of
life. It is something I share with my children and I hope to
share with my grandchildren. I introduced this bill so that
they and future sportsmen and women are guaranteed access to
Federal lands, and I appreciate you all participating today.
I tend to agree actually with Mr. McClintock about the
effect. You know, you say that you welcome hunting and fishing
on the Federal forests. I live in the Ottawa National Forest. I
have a hunting camp there, and the actual practices of the
Forest Service don't seem to jive with what you are saying, and
I am hoping that this piece of legislation will at least
perhaps change the on-the-ground attitude of the forest
management because I know the access to many of the roads are
blocked off by berms, and you can't drive four-wheelers on
certain roads anymore, and it just seems that there is an
attitude of not being able to use the Federal forests at all,
and we have hunting, fishing.
We would like to be able to cut the Federal forests. I
mean, that is another issue facing us that is really
problematic; getting efficient use of the resources in our
Federal forests have been increasingly difficult and bad for
employment in my district because, frankly, it takes eight to
ten years to get a cut done apparently. Every time the Forest
Service sells land they lose money, or sells timber they lose
money. That doesn't make any sense to me because of the
prolonged process.
Are there any things on your end that you can do to help me
believe that you have hunting, fishing, and multi-use of our
forests on your agenda?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, I think there are a lot of reasons for
you to be able to believe that. First of all, if the concern
isn't a land allocation issue, do we allow hunting on the
National Forest System? The answer is yes, we allow hunting on
the National Forest System. The exceptions are minimal such as
in recreational areas like campgrounds or----
Mr. Benishek. Of course, but I mean allowing access to the
forest is becoming more and more of a problem.
Mr. Holtrop. So, it is a concern is if it is an access
issue or how to provide access, there are a great number of
issues that need to continue to be resolved on that.
Mr. Benishek. But it is my opinion that the hunting and
fishing activities take a lesser precedent, I mean a lesser
standing in the multiple-use mission of the forest.
Mr. Holtrop. I don't feel that way, but I do understand
that there are members of the hunting and fishing community who
have expressed concerns about that, but I believe what we are
continuing to strive for is a correct balance of the management
of road and trail systems in a multitude of uses on the
National Forest System lands, but hunting and fishing is a
proud part of the heritage of the Forest Service and continues
to be, and we will continue to encourage that activity, those
activities on the National Forest System lands.
Mr. Benishek. Well, I am just hoping that this piece of
legislation will help codify then into law because to me it
doesn't seem like it is adequately protected under the
legislation that exists at this time. You know, I understand
the difficulty working in a bureaucracy like the Federal
Government agencies, but I am very frustrated by my interaction
with the Forest Service on a personal level, and I just want
you to understand my position here.
Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Doctor. I know Mr. Costa had some
questions but seeing that he is not here yet what we will do is
we will just move on. I thank this panel. We will move to the
next one.
Mr. Bailey, I see that Mr. Jeff Anderson, the President of
the National Forest Homeowners Association is here today. Thank
you, Mr. Anderson, for all your hard work on this issue, and
your hard work on behalf of cabin owners, so thank you very
much, appreciate your being here.
Mr. Holtrop, if you would continue to stay, and Mr. Bailey,
you can be excused, and we will ask the next panel to take
their seats, please.
As the next panel is taking their seats, Dr. Benishek is
the sponsor of Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and
Opportunities Act, and I understand he has a statement to make
on that, and I have a statement also on my bill. I think my
bill is the most important bill that Congress is going to face
this year because it is my bill, but anyway.
Mr. Benishek. Were you recognizing me now, Mr. Broun? Is
that what you said?
Mr. Broun. Well, let us get them seated. Dr. Benishek, I
will recognize you now. You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Benishek. I just wanted to say I would rather have you
speak because I don't have much more to add than my previous
statement here with the question, and you know, if you would
rather just go on with your statement or the witnesses, that
would be fine with me.
Mr. Broun. All right, I will recognize myself for five
minutes then.
Mr. Broun. I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and
Chairman Bishop for allowing this hearing today on H.R. 1444, a
bill that I introduced that would require that hunting
activities be considered as a land use in all management plans
for Federal land, to the extent that it is not clearly
incompatible with the purposes for which the Federal land is
managed.
I am an avid hunter and an outdoorsman. In fact, I started
my political activism as the government affairs vice president
for Safari Club International, and I am a life member number 17
for SCI. I began coming to Washington as a volunteer advocate
for Safari Club. I am also a member, life member of the
National Rifle Association, Gunners of America, National Wild
Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wild Sheep
Foundation, et cetera, et cetera, so I am a life member of
multiple conservation and hunting organizations. In fact, if
someone comes to my office they will see a full-bodied mounted
African lion as well as a Kodiak brown bear. They are just a
few of my trophies that are in my office and that I invite
visitors to come and see when they come to Washington and come
to my office.
Hunting is already permitted on most of BLM and Fish and
Wildlife Service lands. It has provided a positive force in
habitat conservation, support for wildlife restoration and
contributed billions of dollars and benefits to state and
regional economies throughout the nation. I look forward to
finding ways to expand hunting on our vast Federal lands and I
believe that H.R. 1444 can play an important role in achieving
that goal.
Now I would like to hear from the panel. I think Mr.
Holtrop already commented, and let me see, Mr. Costa has just
joined us. Welcome back. If you would like to ask a question on
the cabin bill, we would be glad to go to that or you can ask
as we come to questions on this panel. It is your preference.
Mr. Costa. With the pleasure of the Chairman, I would just
like to make a brief statement as related to the cabin issue.
These other two issues are not issues that I am directly
involved with.
Mr. Broun. Without objection.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member.
I have been involved with Congressman Hastings on the cabin
fees issue now for almost four years, and I, like a number of
my other Californians, represent a number of the 14,000-plus
cabin owners that are primarily in the West that are impacted
by these fees. I appreciate Congressman Hastings' efforts to
reach an agreement and a resolution to this issue. There are
some questions, I think, that were raised earlier in the
hearing and I thank the Chair for giving the opportunity to
shed some additional light on that as we try to work through
this. Obviously this has been a long festering issue.
I was somewhat perplexed by the gentleman from the Forest
Service who talked about the value of the land when the land is
owned by the United States, the Forest Service, because I have
recreational areas that I have spent many years with in which
you can have a very basic cabin and you can have a very nice
cabin, but the value of the cabin doesn't, I think, impact the
land per se because it is a lease and that lease, it is no
longer the 99-year lease that used to exist in the past.
So, I will work with you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman
Hastings, as we work to a resolution because the 14,000-plus
cabin owners throughout the West that have been good stewards,
good stewards of these areas in which, as you know, in many
cases they have been passed from generation to generation, are
what is wonderful about having the opportunity to protect and
be good stewards of our forests and to allow families to enjoy
those parts of the lands that are all part of our heritage.
So, I thank you for your efforts. I thank you for allowing
me to make a comment. The cabin owners that are represented
here today have been working on this issue long and hard for
awhile and hopefully this year we will bring a resolution to
this matter. Thank you.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Costa. In fact, I agree with you.
Hopefully we will bring a very positive resolution to this
issue.
Joining us on the panel is Mr. Bob Ratcliffe, the Deputy
Assistant Director of BLM; Former Assistant Secretary William
Horn representing the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; Melissa
Simpson of Safari Club International; and Susan Recce with the
National Rifle Association. Like all our witnesses your written
testimony will appear in full in the hearing record so I ask
that you keep your oral testimony to five minutes. When you
begin to speak a green light will show up there in front of
you. After four minutes the yellow light will come on, and you
should begin to conclude your statement. At five minutes the
red light appears, and if you would please very quickly
conclude your statement.
Mr. Holtrop, you have already made your statement
previously. Do want to make any additional comments at this
time? Very good. Mr. Ratcliffe, your statement, please. You are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BOB RATCLIFFE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
2834, and H.R. 1444. I am Bob Ratcliffe, Bureau of Land
Management's Deputy Assistant Director for Renewable Resources
and Planning.
It is a particular pleasure to be here today to discuss
public land outdoor recreational issues. As a former outfitter,
guide and public land recreation manager in some of the West's
most spectacular landscapes, outdoor recreation has been a
lifetime passion of mine not only in my career but also in my
personal and family life. In addition, I have had the
opportunity to work extensively with the Shooting Sports
Roundtable over the last decade on proactive efforts to promote
and facilitate hunting and shooting on Federal lands.
I am here to provide the departmental views on these bills
and to answer questions related to the BLM. With me are Bert
Frost, Associate Director of Natural Resource Stewardship and
Science at the National Park Service, and Jeff Rupert, Acting
Deputy Assistant Director for the National Wildlife Refuge
System at the Fish and Wildlife Service who will answer
questions specific to national parks or Fish and Wildlife
Service lands.
For generations, American hunters and anglers have been at
the forefront of conservation of our nation's wildlife
resources. Hunting, fishing, shooting are often life-long
recreational activities. They build an appreciation and
understanding of our lands, water, and wildlife. The Department
strongly supports promoting these opportunities. Activities of
several Department agencies strongly promote recreational
fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities on Federal lands.
The Fish and Wildlife Service actively supports hunting and
fishing program on the majority of its 553 units. Hunting and
fishing are given priority as two of the big six wildlife-
dependent activities. When appropriate and compatible, hunting
and fishing are given priority as recreational uses on refuges.
The National Park Service allows hunting in all of its
regions except for the National Capital Region. Roughly 70
percent of Service lands are available for hunting. Fishing is
allowed in nearly all Park Service units either by Federal
statute or by special regulation. Outstanding opportunities for
recreational hunting and fishing are also found on the 245
million acres of public lands managed by the BLM, including
gold metal trout fisheries in Colorado, and trophy prong horn
mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk in Wyoming to name just a few.
Across the West the BLM's remote lands are highly regarded
for the quality of hunting experiences they offer and we
estimate that over 95 percent of BLM lands are open to hunting.
The vast majority of BLM lands are also open to recreational
shooting. In Arizona, for example, less than two percent of
BLM-managed lands are closed to recreational shooting. In
Nevada, it is less than one-half of one percent. Sometimes it
is necessary to close an area to target shooting. For example,
in Southern California with an urban population of more than 25
million people the BLM has prohibited recreational shooting in
a handful of heavily used off-highway vehicle areas. It is just
not good sense to try to manage thousands of vehicles racing
over dunes and target shooting in the same place at the same
time.
The Department is concerned that provisions of these bills
seem to duplicate or overlap with existing management
authorities and policies. Much of the Department's public lands
are already open to fishing and hunting and shooting unless
there is a conflict with public safety or otherwise prohibited
by local jurisdictions or other state or Federal laws and
regulations. Fishing and hunting and shooting are already
addressed in the agency management plans and our priorities
where the public has made them a priority through the National
Environmental Policy Act's public involvement process.
H.R. 1444 would apply a one-size-fits-all standard
requiring hunting to be uniquely considered in all land
management planning regardless of local priorities. The
Department strongly opposes the provisions of H.R. 2834 which
undermine the Wilderness Act. For example, the bill could be
interpreted to allow motorized activities or developments in
wilderness, which is clearly contrary to Congressional intent,
judicial precedent, and agency management of wilderness for
over 40 years.
The Department also strongly opposes provisions in H.R.
2834 which exclude management decisions from public review and
comment opportunities of NEPA and the Federal Land Management
Policy Act. This bill would disconnect the public from their
right to be involved in these Federal agency decisions.
While the Department has concerns with these bills, we look
forward to continuing our work with Congress and stakeholders
in promoting and facilitating recreational fishing, hunting,
and shooting opportunities on the Federal lands. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify and I will be available for any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ratcliffe follows:]
Statement of Bob Ratcliffe, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior, on H.R. 2834 and H.R. 1444
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of the
Interior's (Department) views on two bills pertaining to recreational
fishing, hunting and shooting on federal public lands: H.R. 2834, the
Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act, and
H.R. 1444, which concerns hunting and land management planning.
As H.R. 2834 was only formally introduced on September 2, 2011, and
the text of the introduced bill only became available yesterday,
September 8th, 2011, one day before this hearing, the Department has
not had sufficient time to conduct an in-depth analysis of the
legislation as introduced. Our testimony today is based upon a
discussion draft of the bill. We would like to reserve the right to
submit additional comments about the introduced bill.
The Department strongly supports the goal of promoting recreational
fishing, hunting and shooting opportunities. These important
recreational opportunities abound on public lands and are valued by
millions of Americans who hunt and fish on DOI-administered parks,
refuges and public lands. The Department also recognizes the economic
and community benefits associated with hunting and fishing and fully
considers these opportunities when developing our land planning and
management.
However, the Department strongly opposes provisions of the bills
which exclude management decisions from the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)--the cornerstone law guiding environmental protection
and public involvement in federal actions--and provisions which
undermine the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Department also has concerns
with the provisions in the bills which seem to duplicate, overlap, or
potentially interfere with existing management authorities and
policies.
The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with the
Committee to promote highly important and traditional outdoor
recreation activities--including hunting, fishing and recreational
shooting where authorized- on lands administered by Department
agencies.
Background
American hunters and anglers, concerned about the future of
wildlife and the outdoor tradition, have made invaluable contributions
to the conservation of the nation's wildlife resources since the late
19th century. This tradition continues today, with hunters and anglers
remaining at the forefront of American conservation. Hunting and
fishing, and shooting are often life-long recreational activities and
they build appreciation and promote understanding of the lands, water
and its wildlife.
The America's Great Outdoors Initiative (AGO), established by
President Obama in 2010, supports these same goals by reconnecting
Americans to our nation's land, water and wildlife. During the recent
summer listening sessions on AGO, support for hunting and fishing
access and opportunities on public lands and waters was a common theme.
The goals of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council
(WHHCC), an official advisory group established under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are complementary: promote and preserve
America's hunting heritage for future generations by advising the
Federal government on policies that benefit hunting, wildlife and
encourage partnerships. Activities of Department land management
agencies reflect these goals.
Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administers the National
Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), which is comprised of 553
refuges and 38 Wetland Management Districts (WMDs) and more than 150
million acres of land and water across the country. Hunting programs
are actively supported in the majority of these refuges, and the
Service also strongly supports hunting and fishing activities through
many of its other programs and expenditures. In accordance with the
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as amended by the National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, hunting and fishing are given
priority as two of the ``big six'' wildlife-dependent recreational
activities in the statute. Each individual National Wildlife Refuge is
established with a primary purpose or purposes related to conservation,
management, and in some cases restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats. The management of each refuge gives
priority consideration to appropriate recreational uses of the refuge
that are deemed compatible with the primary conservation purposes of
the refuge, and the overall purpose of the Refuge System. Given hunters
and anglers special relationship with our National Wildlife Refuges,
hunting and fishing are already given priority among uses. When
appropriate and compatible, hunting and fishing opportunities are
allowed and often facilitated on refuge lands. Currently, approximately
375 of the 591 refuges and WMDs of the Refuge System have hunting
programs and approximately 355 have fishing programs. Recreational
shooting is not deemed a wildlife-dependent use of a refuge, and is
therefore not a priority use within the Refuge System.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) administers the National Park
System, which is comprised of 395 units on more than 84 million acres
across the country. The NPS Organic Act of 1916 established the mission
of the National Park Service to conserve the scenery and the natural
and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Of the 84
million acres of NPS lands, 29 million are in the lower 48 states and
55 million are in Alaska. Hunting is allowed in all regions of the
National Park Service except the National Capital Region. Roughly 70
percent of NPS lands are already available for hunting (8.3 million in
the lower 48 states, which is 29% of NPS lands in the lower 48 states
and 50.3 million in Alaska, which is 91% of NPS lands in Alaska).
NPS allows recreational fishing when it is authorized or not
specifically prohibited by federal law, provided that it has been
determined to be an appropriate use per the 2006 National Park Service
Management Policies. Hunting, trapping or any other method of
harvesting wildlife by the public is allowed where it is specifically
mandated by federal law or where it has been authorized on a
discretionary basis under federal law and special regulations. Hunting
is authorized in 62 of the 395 national park units, while fishing is
allowed in nearly all applicable NPS units, in accordance with non-
conflicting state regulations and federal restrictions. Trapping is
allowed in 16 units. Units of the National Park System where there is
no hunting or trapping are some of the only federally managed areas in
the U.S. that may provide a system relatively unaltered by humans that,
because of the lack of alteration, are useful as control areas for
scientific studies. These areas also provide opportunities for non-
consumptive recreation by members of the public and significant
opportunities to see wildlife in their native habitats.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the
protection of resources and multiple-use management of our Nation's 245
million acres of public land. The BLM manages the public land for a
variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing,
recreation and timber harvesting, while protecting an array of natural,
cultural, and historical resources.
The BLM's recreation program is one of the key elements of our
multiple-use mission. In the west, these lands constitute America's
backyard, providing close-to-home outdoor recreation venues. In
addition, they afford extensive backcountry recreation opportunities.
The expansive landscapes and world-class recreation opportunities
offered by the BLM's public lands are among America's greatest
treasures. BLM has strived to maintain high quality dispersed
recreation opportunities where visitors and recreationists are free to
explore and discover undeveloped places in the outdoors. There are
countless outstanding examples of fishing and hunting opportunities on
the public lands. For example, the Gunnison River Gorge National
Conservation Area is designated by the State of Colorado as a Gold
Medal Trout Fishery and supports excellent rainbow, brown, and
cutthroat trout populations; Wyoming BLM lands provide habitat for
abundant herds of trophy pronghorn and Rocky Mountain elk; and the BLM-
managed Steens Mountain area in Oregon supports fantastic big game
hunting opportunities for trophy mule deer. In many places across the
west, the BLM's remote lands are highly regarded for the quality of the
hunting experiences they offer.
Hunting activities and regulations on public lands are generally
managed by State fish and wildlife agencies. The BLM estimates that
over 95 percent of BLM-managed public lands are open to hunting. The
BLM restricts hunting and shooting in administrative sites, campgrounds
and other developed facilities and in a few other areas with intensive
energy, industrial or mineral operations or nearby residential or
community development. When lands are closed to hunting and shooting,
those restrictions are typically implemented to comply with state and
local public safety laws and ordinances or private property
considerations. For example, in Arizona where the BLM manages more than
12 million acres of public lands, less than 1.3% of BLM public lands
have recreational target shooting restrictions and only a few
administrative sites and developed areas are closed to hunting.
Any consideration of closures or restrictions is completed through
the management planning process that includes extensive public input.
This is an open process through which BLM's proposals for managing
particular resources are made known to the public before action is
taken. The BLM responds to substantive comments received from the
public and stakeholders, on the proposal, during the NEPA public review
process.
H.R. 2834
H.R. 2834 would require federal land managers to facilitate access
to public lands and waters for fishing, hunting and shooting except for
reasons of national security, public safety or resource conservation.
Under the bill, the effects of a Federal action on opportunities to
engage in recreational fishing, hunting and shooting must be analyzed
in all planning documents. The bill also prevents any action taken
under this legislation to be considered a ``major Federal action''
which would preclude any analysis and the public review process under
NEPA. Provisions of the bill also substantially affect the Wilderness
Act of 1964. The bill allows lands managed by the BLM and the Forest
Service to be leased for shooting ranges and limits liability. Finally,
the bill would require public notice, coordination and a report to
Congress for all closures or fishing, hunting and shooting restrictions
on tracts of land greater than 640 contiguous acres.
The Department has serious concerns with several of the provisions
of H.R. 2834.
The bill's provisions (Sections 4a and 4b) which aim to provide
greater access to Federal public lands for recreational hunting,
fishing and shooting appear to be duplicative of existing authorities
and policies, and are therefore unnecessary. For example, the BLM
regards public lands as open to fishing, hunting and shooting because
these activities are currently allowed without restriction unless it is
demonstrated that the activity could result in unacceptable resource
damage or create a public health and safety hazard or is incompatible
with the purposes for which certain special areas have been designated.
Any determination to close public lands to certain activities is made
following extensive public involvement and notification through
management planning NEPA processes and public notices. Further, through
BLM, land use planners are not only required to notify the general
public but are specifically required to contact over 40 hunting and
fishing interest non-government organizations, as specified in the
Federal Land Hunting, Fishing and Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU), expressly to help ensure that these activities
and issues are fully considered in resource management plan
development.
The bill contains provisions (Section (4) (c)) which restrict
consideration of effects of certain management actions and activities
on adjacent or nearby non-Federal lands. This is inconsistent with both
the BLM's planning policy, which is based on the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA), and NEPA; and with cumulative impacts
analyses the NPS uses in its planning efforts. Furthermore, section
4(c)(1)(B) exempts all actions taken under the legislation, as well as
all National Wildlife Refuge System activities from the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and the attendant
environmental review processes. Such an exemption would impair the
ability to accurately assess the likely impacts of decisions to manage
federal lands under the Department's jurisdiction. Properly developed
NEPA reviews are a critical tool for public involvement and they
improve decision-making by allowing the officials to evaluate ways to
resolve resource use conflicts and address issues that the public
raises. These restrictions will limit the agencies' ability to make
well-informed land management decisions. The Department strongly
opposes these provisions.
Section 4(c)(1)(C) states that recreational fishing, hunting, or
shooting that occurs on adjacent or nearby public or private lands
shall not be considered in determining which Federal public lands shall
be open for these activities. However, it is prudent and important to
consider the cumulative effects of proposed actions on public lands
during the decision making process. In the NEPA planning process, there
could be impact topics that require consideration of nearby or adjacent
lands in the analysis.
Section 4(d) of the bill authorizes the BLM to lease its lands for
shooting ranges and to designate specific lands for recreational
shooting activities. This section of the bill is unnecessary because
the BLM has in the past and currently can transfer title of lands to
other public entities including state and counties, for their
management as public shooting ranges under the Recreation and Public
Purposes Lease Act. The BLM can also implement non-reversionary leases
with other entities for public use as shooting ranges. The bill also
provides limitations on liability related to activities at the shooting
ranges. The Department of the Interior defers to the Department of
Justice on the bill's limitation on liability related to activities
occurring at shooting ranges.
The Department strongly opposes and recommends deletion of Section
4 (e) of the bill, which appears to have the unintended consequences of
undermining the principles of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Specifically,
the bill could be interpreted to allow motorized and commercial
activities in wilderness, which are clearly contrary to Congressional
intent, 45 years of wilderness management, and judicial precedent.
H.R. 1444
H.R. 1444 requires that hunting activities (defined as hunting,
trapping, netting and fishing) be a land use in all management plans
for lands administered by Department agencies. The bill provides that
hunting shall be allowed as a land use unless clearly not compatible
with the purposes for which lands are managed, with any closures or
restrictions clearly spelled out in management plans. It is unclear to
which management plans the bill is referring, or if it requires
agencies to develop specific hunting management plans.
Applying a one-size-fits-all approach for the automatic allowance
of hunting on public lands precludes full public engagement and
involvement in the land use planning process, which is critical when
determining which significant issues will be addressed in the land
management plan.
The bill's provisions duplicate, and in some cases contradict,
existing authorities. The BLM, for example, already allows unrestricted
hunting on BLM-managed lands unless it has been determined to be
specifically incompatible with the purposes for which the lands are
managed. Hunting and fishing programs are commonplace in the Refuge
System administered by the FWS, and occur in most, if not all, refuges
where such programs are found to be compatible with the conservation
purpose of each refuge and the overall Refuge System. Similarly,
hunting and fishing are currently permitted in many NPS units with an
appropriate land base. However, the National Park System includes units
created for a variety of purposes in a variety of settings. Hunting may
not only contradict existing NPS enabling legislation and other
authorities, it also may be incompatible with state or local
ordinances.
For the FWS and NPS, this bill reverses the long held standard that
an activity needs to be found compatible before it can be allowed. It
places the burden on land managing agencies to show why hunting and
fishing activities should not take place unless it is clearly
incompatible with the purposes for which the federal land is managed or
for which it was established. Agencies would need to develop this
analysis for all public lands.
The bill also considers fees collected by any entity, over and
above the costs associated with managing lands administered by
Department agencies for hunting, a restriction on hunting. These fee
provisions are unclear and require clarification. For example, while
the BLM charges fees to commercial recreation providers, including
hunting outfitters and guides, the agency does not charge fees to
individuals wishing to fish, hunt or shoot on BLM-managed public lands.
Although fees collected at many FWS-administered refuges help to defray
costs or improve public facilities for hunting, they do not fully cover
the costs. Fees are kept low to ensure more hunters have access. The
fee provisions of the bill are unclear and have the potential to
introduce confusion into fee programs related to hunting and fishing in
the Refuge System, including the Federal Duck Stamp program.
Conclusion
The Department looks forward to continuing its work with the
Congress and stakeholders in promoting and facilitating recreational
fishing, hunting and shooting opportunities on lands administered by
Department agencies. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony
on these two bills. I would be glad to answer any questions you may
have.
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Horn, you have
long experience both as a public land manager and as a citizen
conservationist. I look forward to hearing what you have to say
today, sir.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
Mr. Broun. You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HORN, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS, U.S.
SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, my name is Bill Horn, representing the U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance, and thanks to the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to appear today in support of H.R. 2834. We would
like to start by commending Representative Benishek and the
bipartisan cosponsors of the bill which establishes clearly
that fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting are important
activities that have a key place on national forest and BLM
public lands. Expressed legislative recognition that these
activities are legitimate and valuable would help fend off the
growing attacks from animal rights radicals and others who
appear committed to running anglers and hunters off our public
lands.
Now, unfortunately, existing law lacks this needed
expressed recognition. Neither the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained
Yield Act, which governs forests, nor the 1976 Federal Land
Policy Management Act governing BLM lands makes specific
references to angling and hunting or continuation of those
activities.
We are convinced that continued failure to recognize the
importance of these activities on forest and BLM lands in law
and provide for the continuation of such uses sets the stage
for activist judges to rule in favor of some animal rights
plaintiff somewhere and ban or restrict angling and hunting on
these lands. I think that would be an untenable situation.
What we are struck by is that this situation we face today
is very similar to that that this Committee dealt with in 1996
and 1997 when it produced the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act that
passed the house by a 403 to one vote before signed into law by
President Clinton. Earlier, Wildlife Refuge Administration
statutes had not expressly provided for hunting or fishing as
the notion that these activities could be barred on the refuge
system was simply incomprehensible. No one thought that they
needed to make those types of references when those initial
statutes were passed in the fifties and sixties. By the mid-
1990s, however, there had been a string of animal rights
lawsuits to bar hunting on refuge lands, and Congress saw the
need to codify that hunting and fishing were legitimate
activities on refuges and that hunting and fishing merited
statutory designation as priority public uses on public lands.
That bill was passed to almost overwhelming acclaim, signed by
the President in the fall of 1997, and shortly thereafter
virtually all of the anti-hunting refuge lawsuits stopped dead
in their tracks.
We think comparable treatment is necessary for BLM and
Forest Service lands. There has been nothing but good come out
of the 1997 Refuge Act and we think something similar needs to
be done for 440 million acres of other public lands.
Now, USSA has been urging Congress to pass this
legislation, comparable legislation since 1998. Part of it is
that we have seen these problems grow and intervening years
have taught us that there are problems, that we have seen
decisions like the Sixth Circuit's Meister case involving the
Huron-Manistee Forest exposed how quickly hunting can be
restricted or barred on forest units. Hostile animal rights
groups continues to grow and uses its ever-swelling war chest
to harass hunters and anglers, and an increasingly urban nation
disconnected from America's outdoor heritage either doesn't
care or joins in that hostility. Continued silence in the law
regarding the legitimacy and contributory roles of fishing and
hunting on our public lands will ultimately cause us to lose
those rights and activities on these lands.
Now, other specific provisions protect recent fishing and
hunting by reversing recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
rulings that upset 40 years of legal status quo involving
statutes like the Wilderness Act. For many years the agencies
interpreted the provisions of that Act to allow a variety of
activities when deemed to be necessary. The activists disagree
with some of those necessity determinations involving wildlife
conservation and recreational access projects, and the Ninth
Circuit agreed and has made satisfying the necessity test much,
much more difficult for recreation fish and wildlife
management.
We think that it is only a matter of time before again some
plaintiffs run off to court, take that new elevated necessity
standard and use that to erect new barriers and new obstacles
to hunting and fishing on wilderness. So in that sense we would
urge Congress to pass 2834, which includes corrective
provisions that restores the legal status quo regarding the
Wilderness Act that existed from 1964 through 2004.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear on behalf of
the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities
Act. We look forward to working with this Committee to assure
prompt favorable action on this very important and necessary
bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Statement of William P. Horn, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, on H.R. 2834--
Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act
Mr. Chairman: My name is William P. Horn representing the U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA). Thank you for the opportunity to appear
today and support enactment of H.R. 2834. USSA was organized in 1977
for the purposes of protecting the American heritage to hunt, fish, and
trap and supporting wildlife conservation and professional wildlife
management. It pursues these objectives at the federal, state, and
local level on behalf of its over 1.5 million members and affiliates.
We commend the bipartisan sponsors of the Recreational Fishing and
Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act and strongly recommend its
prompt enactment by the Congress. The bill clearly establishes that
fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting are important traditional
activities that have a key place on our National Forests, administered
by the U.S. Forest Service, and public lands administered by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM). Express legislative recognition that these
activities are legitimate and valuable will help fend off the growing
attacks from animal rights radicals and others committed to running
anglers and hunters off our public lands. Clear statutory support will
also signal, and direct, the land management agencies to exercise their
discretion in a manner that facilitates these traditional activities.
Existing law lacks this recognition and clarity. For example, only
part of the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, which governs
Forests, references ``outdoor recreation'' and ``wildlife and fish
purposes.'' That general language has been insufficient to protect
hunting and fishing: it has not stopped the Forest Service from
proposing planning regulations that give fishing and hunting (and
conservation) short shrift nor has it prevented federal courts from
ordering the same agency to consider banning hunting because the sound
of gunfire might upset the tender sensibilities of a bird watcher.
Similarly, the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
(which is the ``organic act'' for BLM public lands) makes no specific
references to fishing or hunting. We are persuaded that continued
failure to expressly recognize the importance of these activities on
Forest and BLM lands, and provide for continuation of such uses, sets
the stage for an activist judge in San Francisco, New York City, or
D.C. to rule in favor of some animal rights plaintiff and ban angling
or hunting on these public lands.
This situation is similar to the circumstances that produced the
1997 Refuge Improvement Act (which passed the House with only one
dissenting vote and was signed into law by President Clinton). Earlier
refuge administration statutes passed in the 1950's and 60's had not
specifically provided for hunting or fishing; the authors of those
bills--hunters all--saw no need as there was no animal rights movement
and no clamor then to close hunting on Teddy Roosevelt's wildlife
system. The notion that hunting could be barred on the Refuge system
was simply incomprehensible. By the mid-90's, however, there had been a
string of anti-hunting lawsuits to bar hunting on refuge lands. Even
though President Clinton issued an executive order recognizing the
value of continued hunting on the Refuge system, Congress saw the need
to codify such recognition in statute stating clearly that hunting and
fishing were legitimate activities on refuge lands, the managing agency
had a duty to facilitate these activities, and fishing and hunting
merited designation as priority public uses in the law. After the bill
was signed by President Clinton, virtually all of the anti-hunting
lawsuits stopped.
President Bush in 2008 issued a similar hunting executive order
(EO) for public lands. Just as the Clinton EO was insufficient to guard
hunting on refuges, the Bush EO is not enough to protect hunting and
fishing on Forest and BLM lands. Accordingly, we urge this Committee,
and Congress, to provide needed statutory protection for Forest and BLM
lands by enacting H.R. 2834.
USSA has been urging Congress to pass comparable legislation since
1998. Initially we were told there was no need and previous versions of
this bill were dismissed as ``solutions in search of a problem.'' The
intervening years have taught of the sporting community that there is a
problem. Decisions like the 6th Circuit's Meister case exposed how
quickly hunting can be lost. Activists have mounted efforts to preempt
state management and bar bear hunting on public lands. Clever lawsuits
seek to misuse federal environmental laws to restrict or ban fishing
and hunting on federally administered lands. The hostile animal rights
movement has grown and uses its ever swelling war chest to harass
hunters and anglers. And an increasingly urban nation--wholly
disconnected from America's outdoor heritage--either doesn't care or
joins in the hostility. Continued silence in the law regarding the
legitimacy and contributory roles of fishing and hunting on Forest and
BLM lands will ultimately cause the loss of these activities on over
400 million acres of our public lands.
This silence must be corrected and H.R. 2834 does precisely that.
It plainly recognizes fishing, hunting and shooting as legitimate and
important activities on Forest and BLM lands. It directs the agencies
to exercise their discretion, consistent with the other applicable law,
to facilitate fishing, hunting (and trapping as a hunting activity) and
shooting. This duty extends to the preparation of land planning
documents required by the National Forest Management Act and FLPMA. No
one will be able to argue to an agency or a court, with a straight
face, that fishing and hunting have no place on these public lands
following enactment of this bill.
One of the clever ploys to indirectly attack these activities has
been to treat continuation of fishing and hunting as a ``new'' decision
or action requiring completion of a full blown environmental impact
statement (EIS). Antis then file suit contending the EIS was inadequate
and that the decision to ``open'' an area to fishing or hunting must be
suspended until the EIS is made adequate. H.R. 2834 provides a simple
solution: Forest and BLM lands are considered ``open'' to fishing and
hunting so no new EIS or other document needs to precede continuation
of these traditional activities. The Forest Service and BLM remain free
to impose those restrictions and closures that they determine are
necessary (if supported by facts and evidence) but an ``open until
closed'' regime will be far more efficient, save millions of dollars of
administrative expense, and insulate fishing and hunting from
unwarranted indirect attacks.
USSA strongly applauds other features of the bill that facilitate
wildlife conservation, ensure fishing and hunting opportunities, and
help the agencies direct finite personnel and dollar resources to on-
the-ground conservation rather than more planning documents. In 2003,
antis sued to stop hunting on 60 wildlife refuge units arguing that
even though the Fish and Wildlife Service had done EIS's or
environmental assessments (EA's) authorizing hunting on each unit, FWS
had not (the antis claimed) done a sufficient ``cumulative effects
analysis'' on the overall effects of hunting on the entire Refuge
system. We intervened in the case with Ducks Unlimited, NRA, and SCI
and argued--along with FWS--that deer hunting on the Bond Swamp unit in
GA, woodcock hunting in the Canaan Valley, WV refuge, and duck hunting
on ND units for example had such limited and unconnected effects that a
``cumulative effects'' review made no sense. Moreover, Congress in the
1997 Refuge Improvement Act made it clear that unit-by-unit
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP's), dovetailed with EIS or EA
documents, would be sufficient to approve the priority public uses of
fishing and hunting. A D.C. judge disagreed, ordered FWS to prepare the
cumulative effects analysis, and FWS spent years and countless hours of
personnel time and money engaging in this superfluous paper exercise--
using precious dollars that would have been better spent on actual
wildlife conservation and refuge management. And last week FWS had to
pay anti-hunting plaintiffs over $100,000 in attorney's fees for this
case--more money diverted from conservation. Section 4(c)(1)(B) of H.R.
2834 reiterates the intent of the 1997 Act that FWS need not prepare
unnecessary, costly cumulative effects analyses to continue to open
refuge units to fishing and hunting and ensures that anti-hunting
plaintiffs cannot capitalize on the D.C. court ruling to collect even
more fees for their lawyers.
Section 4(e) of the bill also restores the status quo regarding the
1964 Wilderness Act that existed between 1964 and 2005. For example,
some refuge units are overlaid with Wilderness designations. The 1964
Act--section 4(a) to be precise--specifies that Wilderness purposes
``are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to'' the purposes
of the underlying land unit. In the case of refuges, that plainly means
a unit is Wildlife Refuge first and a Wilderness second. In case of a
conflict, the wildlife conservation purpose and mission of the Refuge
system would be primary and Wilderness purposes secondary. That was the
state of the law until recent 9th Circuit rulings in the Kofa Refuge
case. Kofa was established by President Franklin Roosevelt with the
primary purpose of conserving desert bighorn sheep. Over the years,
FWS, the Arizona Department of Game and Fish and conservationists
learned that water supplies are the primary factor limiting sheep
populations. To enhance the bighorn population and provide greater
genetic diversity to assure long term survival, the parties constructed
during the 1980's small water catchment basins in Kofa to retain
precious rain water and keep it from simply sinking into the sand.
These small unobtrusive basins became important oases for the sheep
(and other wildlife) and the population prospered.
Wilderness activists were upset that some of these small basins
were situated in parts of Kofa designated as Wilderness by Congress in
1990 (after the basins had been built). Last year two 9th Circuit
judges disregarded the Wilderness Act ``supplemental purposes''
language, held that Kofa is Wilderness first and Refuge second, and
ordered FWS that the water basins had to go unless the agency could
demonstrate that the basins were ``necessary'' to fulfill Wilderness
purposes. These legal conclusions are simply wrong, must be corrected
by Congress and section 4(e) does just that.
The 1964 Act also allows a variety of activities in Wilderness
areas when ``necessary'' to assist wilderness purposes. For decades,
agencies like BLM and the Forest Service interpreted this to allow a
variety of outdoor recreational activities including horseback trips.
But activists disagreed and sued arguing that horseback trips were not
``necessary.'' The 9th Circuit agreed and has made the ``necessary''
finding much more difficult for both recreation and conservation
actions (e.g., Kofa, Tustemena Lake case). USSA believes it is only a
matter of time before antis go to court to argue that neither fishing
nor hunting is ``necessary'' in Wilderness areas. We have every reason
to believe that hostile Forest Service or BLM political personnel, or
the 9th Circuit, will buy this bogus argument and impose new
restrictions on anglers and hunters in Wilderness areas. Rather than
wait--and worry--we urge Congress to stop this nonsense and enact
corrective legislation like H.R. 2834.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the
Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. USSA
is committed to working with the Committee to assure prompt favorable
action on this important legislation.
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Secretary Horn. I want to add a
little thing. We have seen the warning that you bring to us as
playing out a different issue, but Lake Lanier that supplies
water for Atlanta, Georgia in Gwinnett County, Georgia, doesn't
have statutorily in its water use that humans can utilize that
water for consumption, and we have seen a Federal judge come
and rule that Atlanta and Gwinnett County cannot take water out
of the lake where it has been going on since that lake was
first impounded, so I think it is extremely necessary to have
this statutorily placed so that Federal judges and other can't
do that, so I thank you for your testimony.
Now Ms. Simpson, I think the Safari Club is the voice of
wisdom on conservation and hunting issues, particularly since I
was so strongly involved with the Safari Club as you very well
know. You are recognized for five minutes, looking forward to
what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF MELISSA SIMPSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to share the views of 100,000 Safari Club International
members and its affiliates, all of whom support H.R. 1444 and
H.R. 2834.
My name is Melissa Simpson. I am Director of Government
Affairs for Safari Club International here in Washington, D.C.
SCI's missions are the conservation of wildlife, protecting
of hunting, and education of the public concerning hunting and
its use as a conservation tool. SCI believes that Federal lands
should be managed under the principles of multiple use to
maximize habitat for wildlife and protect our outdoor heritage.
We believe the opportunity to hunt and fish on Federal lands
should be a priority for every land and resource and management
plan.
H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834 would require Federal agencies to
ensure that abundant hunting and fishing opportunities are
provided for. Some organizations have stated that this
legislation is unnecessary. Meanwhile. litigious anti-hunting
groups have misused well-meaning environmental laws to stop
hunting and fishing anywhere possible.
In addition, the continual stream of regulations from the
Administration that discourage participation in outdoor
recreation appears to be a coordinated front to our hunting
heritage.
In the last two years the Forest Service, the Bureau of
Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service have
introduced anti-hunting policies. Secretary Vilsack's
memorandum on roadless areas, the Forest Service planning rule,
Secretary Salazar's wild lands order, the BLM's shooting range
policy, and the Fish and Wildlife Service vision document are
all examples of where multiple-use management is being
curtailed to the detriment of wildlife and access for sportsmen
is being denied.
Since the beginning of the last century, sportsmen have
voluntarily contributed to conservation through license fees
and excise taxes to ensure that wildlife would be around for
future generations. Now we need your help. If Congress does not
expressly designate hunting and fishing as priority uses of our
Federal lands it is only a matter of time before we lose these
opportunities that have been central to the North American
model of wildlife conservation.
We need Congress to pass H.R. 1444, H.R. 2834, and the
handful of other pro-sportsmen bills that have been introduced
in the 112th Congress to help protect our outdoor heritage.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to highlight the Jobs
Frontier Report released by the Western Caucus this week. SCI
calls upon Congress and the Administration to please give full
consideration to the report's conservation and wildlife
provisions. They include the legislation being considered by
the Subcommittee today in addition to H.R. 1581, the Wilderness
and Roadless Area Release Act.
Thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simpson follows:]
Statement of Melissa Simpson, Director of Government Affairs, Safari
Club International, on H.R. 1444, ``Recreational Fishing and Hunting
Heritage Opportunities Act'' and the ``Cabin Fee Act of 2011''
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to share my views, the views of
Safari Club International, and the sportsmen's community, all of whom
support H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834.
My name is Melissa Simpson. I serve as the Director of Government
Affairs for Safari Club International (SCI). SCI's missions are the
conservation of wildlife, protection of hunting, and education of the
public concerning hunting and its use as a conservation tool. SCI works
both nationally and globally to protect hunting opportunities and
strengthen the link between hunting and wildlife conservation.
Safari Club International believes that U.S. Federal lands should
be managed under the principles of multiple-use. Outdoor recreation,
including hunting and fishing, have been and should continue to be a
primary use of U.S. Federal lands. The opportunity to hunt and fish on
Federal lands should be a priority for every land and resource
management plan. H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834 would require Federal agencies
to ensure abundant hunting and fishing opportunities are provided for
unless hunting and fishing are determined to be incompatible with a
specific unit of land.
Mr. Chairman, in the past some organizations have stated that this
legislation is unnecessary. This could not be further from the truth,
hunting is under attack. Litigious anti-hunting organizations have
misused well-meaning environmental laws to stop hunting and fishing
anywhere possible. These organizations are aggressively seeking to
undermine hunting opportunities on America's Federal lands. An attempt
to end hunting in the National Wildlife Refuge System was recently
defeated, but even now anti-hunting organizations are at work to
eliminate hunting on our National Forests and BLM lands. If Congress
does not expressly designate hunting and fishing as priority uses of
our federal lands it is only a matter of time before we lose these
opportunities that have been central to the North American Model of
Conservation.
In August of 2000, America's leading wildlife conservation
organizations met to identify how best to work collaboratively to help
chart the course for the future of wildlife conservation in the United
States. These organizations formed the American Wildlife Conservation
Partners (AWCP), a consortium of over 40 organizations representing
over 4 million hunters at the time. The impetus for this historic
meeting was the urgent recognition that habitats on federal forests and
rangelands were deteriorating; declines in hunter participation was
putting America's hunting heritage at risk, and along with it, the
tradition of America's game management; public conflict and
polarization over wildlife issues were increasing; and finally, the
stewardship of federal lands was hampered by conflicting laws and
regulations guiding the management of these lands. AWCP subsequently
presented ``Wildlife for the 21st Century'' policy recommendations to
President George W. Bush in both his terms and to President Barack
Obama in 2009.
In the decade that AWCP has engaged the Administration, sportsmen
have tirelessly worked to resolve the same ongoing issues with the
federal land management agencies. During the Bush Administration, I
served as a liaison to the sportsmen's community through high level
positions at the Department of the Interior and US Department of
Agriculture, focusing on facilitating relationships between the Bureau
of Land Management and the US Forest Service with the sportsmen's
community to better integrate sportsmen's issues into agency decision
making, specifically focusing on access to public lands.
In 2005, I organized a conference between Interior and AWCP to
advance their policy recommendations. Policy sessions with high-level
Administration officials, the Interior Secretary, Interior Counsel and
AWCP executives led to the recognition that the hunting community
needed a more direct conduit to engage the Administration.
Consequently, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
established the Sporting Conservation Council (SCC); a federal advisory
committee specifically for members of the hunting community to advise
on access, conservation funding, habitat management, and hunter
recruitment and retention. The SCC recommendations resulted in
President Bush's Executive Order #13443: Facilitation of Hunting
Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, which called for a White House
Conference on North American Wildlife Policy and a ten year
Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Plan. The ten year plan
was referenced by the Obama Administration in the charter for the
current sportsmen's federal advisory committee, the Wildlife Hunting
Heritage Conservation Council.
In 2006, 40 hunting, fishing and wildlife organizations and three
federal agencies signed the Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing, and
Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding with the purpose
of ``implementing mutually beneficial projects and activities.'' The
chief of the US Forest Service has repeatedly reminded field staff of
the importance of hunting and sport shooting on national forest lands
through directives. Lastly, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership
Council was established to benefit recreational fishing. Despite all
these efforts and the supposed commitment of the present Administration
to hunting and fishing opportunities, the reality is that the policies
and regulation currently being proposed actually undermine the efforts
of the past ten years.
While sportsmen and women began with high hopes for the
Administration, it has become increasingly clear that these hopes were
based on paper promises. The continual stream of regulations that
discourage participation in outdoor recreation has come from many
different agencies and appears to be a coordinated affront to our
hunting heritage. In the last two years, anti-hunting regulations have
come from most of the public land agencies including the Forest
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Nor has the current Administration made progress in
implementing the ten year Recreational Hunting and Wildlife
Conservation Plan.
Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the last century sportsmen saw
the problems that over-utilization can do to wildlife. Hunters and
anglers asked to contribute to conservation through license fees and
excise taxes to ensure that wildlife would be around for future
generations. Over the last century sportsmen and women have upheld our
end of the bargain and provided billions of dollars to conserve
wildlife including over 75% of all funding for state conservation
agencies. Now we need your help. We need Congress to pass H.R. 1444,
H.R 2834 and the handful of other pro-sportsmen bills that members have
been introduced in the 112th Congress and help protect our outdoor
heritage.
Thank you for the opportunity and I would be happy to answer any
questions that the Committee might have.
List of Anti-hunting Regulatory and
Administrative Actions over the last 12 months
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vision Document
A second draft of the refuge vision document was recently published
by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The document is to provide
direction for National Wildlife Refuges for the next generation. The
newest version of the vision document again neglects hunting and
recreation while greatly expanding the FWS's mission to include
controversial climate change adaptation. The Hunting Advisory Council
created by the Administration (Wildlife and Hunting Heritage
Conservation Council) has recommended changes to the vision document
after the first draft was released, and even their recommendations are
ignored in the second draft.
Forest Service Planning Rule
The Forest Service released the Draft Planning Rule on February 10,
2011 (76 FR 8480). When it is finalized (Fall 2011) this Rule will
affect every land management plan on the 193 million acres of the
National Forest. SCI and many other hunting and conservation groups
filed comments expressing fundamental concerns with the rule.
The Draft Planning Rule makes negligible mention of
hunting and offers little in the way of express protections for
hunting, potentially inviting the courts to resolve questions
over the role that hunting will play on National Forests in the
future.
The definition of the phrase ``sustainable
recreation'' makes no specific mention of hunting. In addition,
the definition is troublesome because it restricts
``sustainable recreation'' to opportunities, uses and access
that are ecologically, economically and socially sustainable,
without providing a definition of what qualifies as ``socially
sustainable.''
Secretary Vilsack's Memorandum
Secretary Vilsack has issued memorandum for the last three years
that reserve all decisions over road construction, or timber removal to
the Secretary's office. (Secretarial Orders 10420-154,10420-155,10420-
156) These orders take the power of land management away from local
decision makers and concentrate that power in Washington, D.C. By
removing these powers from local land managers, the Secretary's office
is greatly limiting the ability of local land manager to thin forests
to reduce the chances of catastrophic wildfire, mitigate insect
infestation, and manage forest habitat for the benefit of wildlife.
BLM Shooting Range Policy
Earlier this year the BLM issued a draft shooting range policy.
This policy fails to acknowledge the traditional and historic use of
public lands for recreational shooting. Even worse the policy maintains
the BLM's current policy of not operating shooting ranges or issuing
new leases for shooting ranges because of the ``potential liability
related to lead contamination of the environment.'' This is a false
concern because, as the BLM is fully aware, the EPA has developed
guidance for management of spent lead ammunition at shooting ranges.
SCI believe that this policy sends a negative message to land managers
about the role that recreational shooting should have on BLM land.
Wild Lands Order
In December 2010 Secretary Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3310,
containing the controversial Wild Lands policy, without any public
input. This policy would have allowed the BLM to circumvent
Congressional authority over designating wilderness by allowing the BLM
to use the public resource management planning process to designate
certain lands with wilderness characteristics as ``Wild Lands.''
Sportsmen and the Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(representing the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies) opposed this
order because it would undermine states' authority by creating
unnecessary barriers to fish and wildlife management and related
recreation on public lands. The Secretary reversed this Order only
after Congress acted to remove funding for this policy.
FWS Importation Problems
Importation of hunting trophies into the United States has become
more difficult over the past few years. SCI members have been subject
to an increasing frequency of seizures of hunting trophies that are
being imported into the United States by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
These seizures seem to be the result of minor paperwork problems and
seizure or forfeiture of expensive wildlife trophies is an outsized
penalty for minor paperwork errors, especially when many of these
errors are caused by wildlife officials in developing countries.
Additionally, the administration was unwilling to support a
beneficial definition of ``hunting trophies'' at the last Conference of
the Parties of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered
Species (CITES) in 2010 that would have helped reduce the seizure
problem.
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Ms. Simpson, appreciate your hard
work for SCI and for hunters around the country. God bless you.
I really appreciate your work.
Ms. Recce, thank you again for being here. I know you have
been very hard at work for many years on these issues. You are
now recognized for five minutes. Look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN RECCE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Ms. Recce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
invitation to testify.
The National Rifle Association strongly supports H.R. 2834
and commends the sponsors for its introduction. The bill
contains a number of important objectives. It recognizes the
rightful place of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting
on Federal lands, and ensures that these historic and
traditional public uses are embedded in land management plans.
It supports Executive Order 13-443 that directs Federal
agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of
hunting. It removes barriers to providing safe and responsible
use of Federal lands and restores Congressional intent in laws
that court rulings have misconstrued and which will certainly
bring harm to hunting, fishing, and other recreation.
The Forest Service and the BLM manage their lands as open
unless closed, but that policy holds hidden pitfalls. It
doesn't encourage proactive management of recreation. It
doesn't prevent sudden and arbitrary closures, and it doesn't
require reasonable access to these open lands.
H.R. 2834 provides the security we need for the future of
our historic and traditional uses. The bill takes guidance from
the 1997 Refuge System Improvement Act which protects hunting
and fishing on refuge lands and requires land managers to
proactively provide for these public uses. The passage of the
Act was in part a response by litigation from animal rights
activists who were attacking hunters and anglers, the very
people who help create the refuge system and fund it for the
last seven decades. Passage of H.R. 2834 will ensure the
protection of these public lands public usage is accorded to
national forests and BLM lands.
The bill also reverses a recent court ruling in a case
brought by the same activists whose sole mission was to grind
to a halt the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to open
refuges to hunting and fishing. The bill affirms the test of
compatibility enshrined in the Improvement Act and provides
sufficient assurance that these programs will not have adverse
environmental impacts.
Because land management plans set the stage for and drive
decisions made about and use, it is paramount that hunting,
fishing, and shooting are addressed in these plans. If they
aren't, they can cease to exist.
The bill also prevents land closures without public notice,
comment and supported by sound science. This takes bias and
personal agenda out of the equation. The bill also requires
that all land management plans include evaluation of the
effects that management alternatives have on our traditional
uses. All too often it is impossible to determine how these
decisions will affect us.
Americans need places to target practice and sight in their
hunting rifles. In much of the West the only places for
informal shooting are found on Federal lands managed by the
Forest Service and the BLM. Planners need to be able to
identify and designate areas that are suitable for safe
shooting, but the agency's claim they can't do it because it
imposes an undue liability against the government. This is
prejudicial and discriminatory treatment of a recreational
activity that has a record of one of the safest activities on
Federal lands. The bill permits the agencies to designate safe
shooting areas without incurring liability.
The bill also safeguards the interest of the states by
protecting them from being burdened with the responsibility of
providing public use when recreationalists are displaced from
Federal lands by irresponsible management decisions, and it
reverses a Sixth Circuit Court ruling that has enormous
implications for hunting, fishing, and for that matter all
recreation on forest lands across the country.
Another provision of the bill addresses BLM's recent
decision to no longer lease land to build a shooting range. The
BLM changed its policy because of concern that leased land
returned to the agency would require environmental clean up,
but EPA's guidance from management of spent lead ammunition has
been in place since 2003, and it is designed to obviate the
need for environmental clean up if a shooting range closes. The
concern from BLM is simply a smoke screen.
And last, the BLM supports language ensuring that the
designation of Forest Service and BLM wilderness, wilderness
study areas, primitive and semi-primitive areas cannot be used
to preclude hunting, fishing, and shooting, and I add that it
does not open up wilderness areas to mechanized or motorized
uses. And the bill restores its status quo regarding
recreational and sound wildlife management practices in
wilderness areas by overturning a Ninth Circuit Court ruling.
The court's imposition of an necessity test gives Federal land
managers and future animal rights litigators the tool to
distort the Wilderness Act for the purpose of closing these
lands to hunters and anglers and wildlife management.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Recce follows:]
Statement of Susan Recce, Director, Conservation, Wildlife and Natural
Resources, National Rifle Association, on H.R. 2834 ``Recreational
Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act''
Mr. Chairman, the National Rifle Association (NRA) appreciates the
invitation to testify today on legislation that is critical to securing
the future of our hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting heritage
on Federal public lands. We commend the sponsors of H.R. 2834, the
``Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act,''
for its introduction and pledge our support for and assistance in its
passage through Congress.
H.R. 2834 accomplishes six important objectives and they are the
following:
First, it recognizes the rightful place of hunting,
fishing and recreational shooting on Federal public lands.
Second, it ensures that these historic and
traditional public uses are responsibly provided for in land
management plans as are other popular recreational activities
like hiking and camping.
Third, it applies this policy across the board in our
Federal land systems.
Fourth, it supports Executive Order 13443 titled
``Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation''
that directs the relevant Federal agencies to ``facilitate the
expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the
management of game species and their habitat.''
Fifth, it removes barriers to providing safe and
responsible public use of Federal lands.
Sixth, it restores Congressional intent in laws that
court rulings have misconstrued and which will cause
deleterious effects on hunting and other recreational pursuits,
as well as on sound wildlife management practices.
The NRA has long been involved in issues related to sportsmen's
access to our Federal public lands. We have participated in numerous
symposia, research studies, and surveys focused on barriers to access
and opportunities to hunt and target shoot. Beginning in 1996, the NRA
has chaired a Roundtable with representatives of Federal land
management agencies and national hunting, wildlife conservation, and
shooting sports organizations. The Roundtable was created by a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that seeks to resolve issues and
enhance opportunities related to hunting and recreational shooting. The
current MOU titled ``The Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing and Shooting
Sports Roundtable'' is signed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and 40 national
hunting, fishing and shooting sports organizations. Fifteen years of
experience has clearly defined what is achievable by working with our
Federal agency partners and what can only be achieved through
legislation, specifically through passage of H.R. 2834.
The Forest Service and the BLM will state, in truth, that lands
they manage are ``open unless closed'' to recreational activities
meaning that millions of acres are opened to nearly unfettered
recreational pursuit. But that policy holds hidden pitfalls. It does
not encourage proactive management of recreation, it does not prevent
sudden and arbitrary closures of public land to recreation, and it does
not require that reasonable access to these open lands be provided. The
land is simply open until at such time by administrative fiat it is
closed. This policy provides no security for the future of our historic
and traditional uses of Federal public lands.
Years of working with the Federal agencies have demonstrated that
even with directives sent from an agency head to the field recognizing
the legitimate and historic use of Federal public lands for sportsmen's
activities, the agencies are so decentralized that field managers are
left to their own discretion as to whether headquarter memoranda are
adhered to, or for that matter, whether they are read or remembered.
H.R. 2834 provides the security we need. It directs that Federal land
managers will support and facilitate the use of and access to Federal
lands and waters for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.
This provision of H.R. 2834 is not only in the best interests of
sportsmen and women, but it is in the best interests of America's
economy. The most recent economic report on hunting on Federal lands is
the 2007 report conducted by Southwick and Associates and the American
Sportfishing Association. The report found that hunting on just
national forest lands alone annually generated $894 million in
expenditures from 2000 to 2003. The report's executive summary noted
that as these expenditures are spent and re-spent by businesses,
additional economic effects are created for state and national
economies. The money hunters spent supported over 21,000 full and part-
time jobs across the country, and increased Federal income tax receipts
by $111 million.
One objective of the above mentioned MOU is to work in partnership
with the Federal agencies to resolve issues in a manner that prevents
closures. There are some land managers who have worked with sportsmen's
organizations in the spirit of the MOU partnership. However, when faced
with a management challenge, the land manager's response is more often
to close the area. Under H.R. 2834, Federal land that is being utilized
for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting cannot be closed
without public notice and comment and supported by sound science. This
removes biases and personal agendas from the Federal management of
legitimate and traditional public uses.
H.R. 2834 takes guidance from Congress' passage of the 1997
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act which elevated hunting,
fishing and other wildlife dependent recreation above all other public
uses and made them priority public uses of the Refuge System. The
language of the Act was a direct result of litigation by animal rights
activists who endlessly attempted to shut down the Refuge System to
hunters and anglers, the very segment of our society who created the
Refuge System and who has helped fund it for the past seven decades.
Although H.R. 2834 does not elevate hunting, fishing, or recreational
shooting above other uses of non-refuge lands, it will ensure that
these activities are anchored in law for national forests and
grasslands and for public lands managed by the BLM. Where H.R. 2834 and
the Refuge Improvement Act converge is in requiring land managers to be
proactive in providing for these public uses.
Because land management plans set the stage for and drive decisions
made about land use, it is paramount that hunting, fishing and
recreational shooting are addressed in these plans. If they are not
provided for in land management plans, they can easily cease to exist.
As a case in point, there was a shooting range that the BLM considered
unsafe so the agency requested the expertise of the NRA. NRA provided
the expert who concluded that the range was located in a bad site and
improvements were not possible to enhance safety. But the expert
identified several suitable sites for relocation of the range. The
BLM's response was that it could not entertain a new site because the
recently adopted management plan for the area did not address
recreational shooting--so such a relocation decision could not be made.
With the closure of the range, the entire area was closed to
recreational shooting. This is not atypical of the apathy and disregard
for the needs and interests of local sportsmen and a breach of the
goodwill as embodied in the MOU that occurs at the field level. The MOU
is designed to forge partnerships, not adversarial relationships.
All too often management plans are silent about the impacts of
proposed management options on these public uses, making it impossible
to assess how they will be treated. For example, both the Forest
Service and the BLM have been developing Travel Management Plans that
designate routes and trails for motorized vehicle use. Some plans make
an exception for the use of a vehicle to retrieve legally downed big
game some distance off a designated route. Other plans make no
exception. It is completely arbitrary at the local level as to how
hunting access will be treated, particularly for older and disabled
hunters. H.R. 2834 requires that all land management planning documents
include evaluations of the effects that management alternatives have on
opportunities to engage in hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.
H.R. 2834 directs Federal land managers to support and facilitate
the use and access to public lands and waters for hunting, fishing and
recreational shooting through the land management planning process.
Land managers will not address public uses unless the subject is
brought up by the public during the initial stages of planning.
However, even if it is, there is no guarantee how these public uses
will be addressed in a plan. As an example, an area of BLM land
undergoing a new land use plan had some 20 areas where informal
recreational shooting took place. Concern for the future of that
traditional use of the area was expressed by sportsmen in the initial
planning stage. When the draft plan was released, the agency's selected
management option was to close the entire area to recreational
shooting. So even if hunting, fishing and recreational shooting have
traditionally been conducted on a unit of Federal land and it is raised
as a subject to address in a management plan, there is no guarantee
that it will be fairly and responsibly treated. H.R. 2834 is the only
way that sportsmen can be guaranteed their rightful place on their
Federal public lands for now and into the future.
Americans need places to target practice. In much of the West, the
only places for informal shooting are found on Federal lands managed by
the Forest Service and the BLM. Such places are important to introduce
family members and friends to the safe and responsible use of firearms
and to the enjoyment and challenge of sport shooting. But these places
are also important to hunting because it is here where hunters can
sight in their hunting rifles and where youth can get basic training
before taking a hunter education course. Gone are the days when much of
this land would be termed remote. All too often informal shooting sites
are being threatened by encroaching development and conflict with other
recreationists, exacerbated by anti-gun bias within the agencies. This
is why it is critical that recreational shooting be addressed in land
management plans.
Planners need to be able to identify and designate areas that are
suitable for safe shooting and to ensure that such suitable sites are
not made unsuitable because a trail or campground was built in or
through the area. But both the Forest Service and the BLM claim that
they are unable to designate such areas because it imposes an undue
liability against the United States. This response has no anchor in
written policy that I can find. Nor does it explain why recreational
shooting is being singled out as a liability. The agencies will tell
you that recreational shooting has a record of being one of the safest
activities on Federal public lands. Accidental injuries and death
involving shooters or other recreationists pale in comparison to
activities like off highway vehicle use, white water rafting, and
horseback riding. But because the agencies have refused to address this
prejudicial and discriminatory treatment of recreational shooting, H.R.
2834 removes this roadblock to safe shooting by permitting the agencies
to designate areas for recreational shooting without incurring
liability for so doing.
H.R. 2834 puts into law the ``open unless closed'' policy of the
Forest Service and the BLM and establishes a transparent public process
when the agency head intends to close an area or restrict its use by
hunters, anglers and recreational shooters. Before the action can be
taken, the public must be notified, the agency must show that it is
necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence, or
mandated by other law. The NRA is also very supportive of the bill's
parallel requirement that when an agency's action will have the effect
of closing or significantly restricting hunting, fishing or
recreational shooting on 640 or more contiguous acres (or an aggregate
of acres affected), Congress and the public must first be notified and
coordination must take place with the state fish and wildlife agency.
There is an important reason to have state involvement because Federal
land closures and restrictions transfer the management responsibility
to the state to provide for the needs of the displaced recreating
public.
H.R. 2834 safeguards the interests of the states in providing
access and opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting by protecting states from being burdened with the Federal
agencies' responsibilities for providing for these public uses as well.
This is necessary step that Congress needs to take as a result of a 6th
Circuit Court ruling in a lawsuit brought against the management plan
for the Huron-Manistee National Forest (MI). The court said that the
Forest Service's Planning Rule required it to take into account
recreational activities, hunting in this case, that are ``duplicated''
on adjacent state or other Federal lands in determining whether the
Huron-Manistee should remain open to hunting. This ruling poses threats
to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting and, for that matter,
all recreational activities on forest lands across the country. It
suggests that the states and Federal sister agencies are to find ways
of accommodating recreationists that are forced off of forest lands
because of this ruling. The new draft Forest Planning Rule does not
correct this problem.
The draft Forest Service Planning Rule is another excellent example
of why administrative policies and rules cannot provide a secure future
for our historic and traditional public uses and why H.R. 2834 is
needed. The first public look at the Rule was an outline that barely
mentioned recreation as an element, let alone an important element, of
national forest management. The recreation community was assured that
this would be rectified in the draft Rule itself. The draft Rule, which
was released for review and public comment earlier this year, addresses
recreation in the context of whether it is economically, socially and
environmentally sustainable. Recreation is not defined and there is no
explanation of what parameters the sustainability of any recreational
activity will be measured against. These are real threats that need
real solutions and the only real solution is passage of H.R. 2834. Just
as the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act dispensed with
threats against hunting and fishing, so too has the time come to build
into law security for these pursuits on Federal lands managed by the
Forest Service and the BLM.
Another provision of H.R. 2834 allows Federal agencies to lease
land for shooting ranges. By way of background, the BLM also has a
long-standing policy of not building or managing shooting ranges. This
means that some 170 million acres of BLM land just in the lower 48
states are closed to any infrastructure for recreational shooting,
including basic improvements like berms, target holders and shooting
benches, even if the improvements would enhance shooting safety. It is
impossible to understand how trails can be built or campsites can be
provided for, but yet simple, cost-effective improvements for shooting
are not allowed by policy. I would like to see language inserted in the
bill directing the BLM to provide for such improvements when those
improvements would enhance the safety of a shooting area and reduce
potential conflicts with other public land users.
The bill's language, however, responds to a recent policy adopted
by the BLM instructing field managers not to lease lands for shooting
ranges. The BLM stated that this change in policy was due to concern
over environmental liability, specifically concern that leased land
returned to BLM management will contain spent lead ammunition requiring
the agency to engage in an environmental cleanup. The BLM knows very
well that in 2003 the EPA issued guidance for the management of spent
lead ammunition at shooting ranges. The guidance is titled ``Best
Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges.'' The
guidance is designed to obviate the need for environmental cleanup if
and when a shooting range closes. This concern over environmental
liability is simply a smoke screen which the BLM is happy to hide
behind.
BLM's response is that land leasing is unnecessary because it has
the authority to patent land under the Recreation and Public Purposes
Act to a state or local entity for the purpose of building a shooting
range for the community. However, BLM does not reveal the exceedingly
long and costly process involved. Land has to be identified for
disposal in a land management plan, the agencyhas to have the interest
and funding to pursue a patent request, and there are numerous and
costly environmental studies that must be conducted. One such example
is the transfer of BLM land to the Arizona Game and Fish Department
which took on the responsibility of building and managing a shooting
range to replace one on BLM land that had been closed. It has taken 14
years to complete the process of just transferring the land. No spade
of dirt has yet been turned and local sportsmen continue to wait for a
place to go shooting. This policy needs to be reversed. Both of BLM's
policies, on allowing infrastructure to be built and on leasing lands,
are clear examples of discriminatory and prejudicial treatment of a
legitimate and traditional activity that ultimately shifts the
management responsibility to the Forest Service and the states.
Turning to other sections of the bill, the NRA supports language
ensuring that the designation of Federal land as wilderness, wilderness
study areas, primitive and semi-primitive areas under the management of
the Forest Service and the BLM cannot be used to preclude hunting,
fishing and recreational shooting. And H.R. 2834 restores the status
quo regarding recreation and sound wildlife management practices in
wilderness areas by overturning a 9th Circuit Court ruling that
disallowed the restoration of water catchments for the survival and
enhancement of desert bighorn sheep in the wilderness portion of the
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge established to protect and
enhance this species. The Court ruled that the Refuge had not exhausted
all other means to protect the sheep and so could not show that these
water catchments were necessary. The Court's imposition of a
``necessity'' test gives Federal land managers and future anti-hunting
litigators the tool to distort the Wilderness Act for the purpose of
closing these lands to hunters and anglers and wildlife management.
H.R. 2834 also makes an important statement that the primary purpose
for which a unit of Federal land was established guides its management
and that a wilderness overlay cannot materially interfere or hinder
that guidance.
And lastly, the NRA supports language in H.R. 2834 that reinforces
Congressional intent in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act
which requires hunting and fishing programs to be compatible with the
purposes for which the specific refuge was established and with the
mission and purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Litigation
by anti-hunting organizations and a subsequent court ruling resulted in
an additional layer of analysis being imposed upon the agency. This
additional layer of review is unnecessary and costly to the FWS which
is already struggling with huge backlogs in operation and maintenance
needs within the Refuge System.
The compatibility test provides sufficient assurance that hunting
and fishing programs will not have adverse environmental impacts. That
was proven a number of years ago in a different lawsuit filed against
the Service over refuge hunting and fishing programs. A thorough and
exhaustive review was conducted of the hundreds of programs with the
result that an adjustment was made to one hunting program and one
fishing program had to be closed. There was no evidence then and none
now that suggests taxpayers' dollars are well served by pointless
layers of analyses behind the test of compatibility. The only desire of
the plaintiffs was to find some other means of grinding to a halt the
FWS' ability to open refuges to hunting and fishing and enhancing
existing programs.
In conclusion, the NRA wholeheartedly supports H.R. 2834 because it
legislatively recognizes the legitimate and traditional activities of
hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on Federal public lands. It
safeguards these activities from prejudicial and discriminatory
treatment. It requires the Federal land manager to be proactive in
managing these activities through the land management planning process.
It makes administrative decisions that close or significantly restrict
these activities to be anchored in a transparent public process and
removes administrative and judicial roadblocks that obstruct sound and
responsible management of recreation and wildlife resources.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2834
______
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Ms. Recce. Appreciate you all's
testimony. Now we will turn to questioning. I will recognize
myself for five minutes.
Mr. Horn, you heard the representatives from the
Administration's testimony. You also heard Mr. McClintock's
questioning, I am sure, previously, and I would like to give
you an opportunity to make a comment. Do you have any comments
about the testimony from the Forest Service or the BLM?
Mr. Horn. Well, I think it is safe to say we are
disappointed by the overt opposition. As I said, I talked about
the 1997 Refuge Act, and I can recall when we had hearings on
that proposed bill in 1996 the then administration was
adamantly opposed to the then Refuge Administration Act.
Secretary Babbitt sat right here and threatened veto of the
bill that was signed into law by President Clinton a year and a
half later.
I think that the statutory recognition of fishing and
hunting in the Refuge Act has proven to be a great success from
an agency perspective and from the perspective of the angling
and hunting and conservation community, and what we are trying
to do here is to essentially enshrine in law these expressed
references to the legitimate role that these activities have on
the two major public land systems so that they can point to
provisions in the law to defend continuation of these
activities. It worked in the refuge system. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Ratcliffe talked about the 1997 Act in his statement.
It worked there. We see no reason why comparable legislation
like 2834 cannot work in regard to the Forest Service and BLM
lands.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Horn.
Mr. Ratcliffe, has hunting harmed, damaged, destroyed any
of the refuges that you know of?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I would defer that question to----
Mr. Broun. Turn on your microphone, please.
Mr. Ratcliffe.--Jeff Rupert from the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Mr. Rupert. Yes, sir. My name is Jeff Rupert, and I work
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge
System.
Your question, has hunting activities harmed refuges in an
way, shape or for, from a Fish and Wildlife perspective, you
know, the Refuge Administration Act, which governs the refuge
system and provides the mandate for us that effectively
promotes hunting on refuges, we administer hunt activities
based on a compatibility standard that looks at potential
impacts or effects prior to creating or administering the hunt.
And no, we haven't seen--we haven't seen negative impacts that
I am aware of.
Mr. Broun. Well, thank you. I appreciate that testimony.
And the contributions of the hunter conservation and fishermen
conservation is basically the true conservationists in this
country in my opinion are the hunters, the fishermen, the
farmers and the foresters because they really take care of the
land, they put money where their mouth is, and that is the
reason that these activities are absolutely critical in the
management of the Federal lands.
Secretary Horn, what effect would it have on NEPA, these
bills?
Mr. Horn. The only provision in H.R. 2834 that has any
impact on NEPA is to, again, restore the legal status quo that
existed up until just a couple of years ago involving
determinations that the refuge system makes regarding hunting
and fishing. The 1997 Refuge Act provides that each unit in the
refuge system has to have a comprehensive conservation plan, a
CCP, which is the counterpart to plans that both the Forest
Service and the BLM have for their respective units.
In those CCPs Fish and Wildlife conducts NEPA compliance in
the form of an environmental assessment or an environmental
impact statement to make the compatibility statements that Mr.
Rupert referenced.
A few years ago, again one of the animal rights groups,
brought a lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service
challenging a decision to allow hunting on 60 refuge units,
arguing that even though the Service had done the CCPs and had
done all the NEPA documents they hadn't done a sufficient
cumulative effects analysis of the impact on the hunting on the
entire refuge system. And the Service told the court, District
judge here in D.C., how do we equate the impact of hunting deer
on the Bon Swamp Refuge in Macon, Georgia, with shooting
woodcock in Canaan Valley in West Virginia, or hunting moose on
the Kenai Refuge in Alaska, those are such disconnected
activities that trying to put together a cumulative effects
analysis is probably a superfluous exercise and intellectually
challenging to boot.
Nonetheless, the D.C. Court said, no, you guy have to do
this cumulative effects analysis, and Fish and Wildlife Service
spent four years, thousands and thousands of dollars, thousands
of personnel hours to put together this cumulative effects
analysis that was ultimately upheld by the Judge.
One of the provisions in 2834 says, no, the CCP process
spelled out in the 1997 Act and the completion of EISs and EAs
in conjunction with the CCPs fully satisfy NEPA, and there is
no need to spend useless dollars doing this useless cumulative
effects analysis on a system-wide basis. Our attitude is this
provision [a] restores the status quo that Congress thought it
was putting into place in 1997; and [b] we wish all those
dollars that had been spent on that useless exercise, as well
as a payment of $116,000 of legal fees to the lawyers for the
animal rights group, should have been spent on refuge
conservation where we had a hearing in another committee here
in May about the budget shortfalls afflicting refuge
management.
So, that is the only provision in this bill that impacts
NEPA.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Horn. My time is way past due. I
now recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes plus if you
would like it, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Holtrop and Mr. Ratcliffe, you
know, quickly if you could answer some of these. Just repeat
the number of acres or percentage of Federal land under your
respective agency's management that are open to hunting and
fishing.
Mr. Ratcliffe. For the BLM we estimate 95 percent of our
lands are open.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Holtrop. I don't know if I have that precise a figure.
I would have said something more than that on the National
Forest System. The only exceptions might be recreation sites. I
would guess something in that five or four percent of the area
not open to hunting.
Mr. Grijalva. And Mr. Rupert, would you chime in on what
percentage?
Mr. Rupert. I don't know the exact percentage figure;
somewhere around 375 refuges are open to hunting.
Mr. Grijalva. With those figures in mind, I keep searching
to what the problem that Congress is being asked to solve here
is. Are we turning away hunters and anglers from our public
lands or are we not? Given the percentages, I guess we are not.
Mr. Rupert, H.R. 1444 appears to prohibit the charging of
any fees for anything other than cost recovery for hunting.
What impact might this provision have on the Duck Stamp Program
which under current law allows revenue to be used for land
acquisition?
Mr. Rupert. Yes, sir, thank you.
Unclear. As you state, the duck stamp is required for
hunters who are hunting migratory waterfowl. The proceeds from
duck stamp sales are in turn used to acquire additional land
with waterfowl habitat to be included in the National Wildlife
Refuge System, and it is unclear what impact the fee provision
may have on that. We would be very interested in having further
discussions with the Committee----
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Rupert.--to ensure that there are not any unintended
consequences.
Mr. Grijalva. Again, Mr. Rupert, 2834 contains a broad, I
believe from my reading, a broad NEPA waiver for activities
under the Refuge System Act. Could you discuss the impact of
those waivers on the operations to the refuge?
Mr. Rupert. Again, from Fish and Wildlife Service
perspective, you know, we feel that--you know, again, the
Refuge Administration Act, which governs these activities and
the planning and the administration of these activities in the
refuge system, you know, it does effectively promote hunting
and fishing on refuges.
Where it is compatible and where it is one of those primary
wildlife-dependent recreational uses, we find it compatible. We
believe that it is appropriate that the Refuge Administration
Act gives that first priority to wildlife management and
conservation----
Mr. Grijalva. As Mr. Horn indicated that the NEPA waiver is
narrow, is it as narrow has he says, is it broad? It covers all
of Section 4 of the Refuge System Act and that appears to be
broad to me.
Mr. Rupert. The current approach for us to conduct NEPA
say, for example, new or expanded hunts, includes cumulative
impact analysis. Under our current approach we conduct that
cumulative impact analysis, and at this point we believe we
have a process in place that allows us to effectively meet that
mandate.
Mr. Grijalva. I believe that narrow/broadness issue
particularly includes Section 4. I think as the legislation
moves forward I think that really does need to be clearly
defined. I don't believe it is narrow because it includes the
whole section. It broadens it in a huge way, and that is
problematic.
Mr. Ratcliffe, Section 4 of H.R. 2834 appears to redefine
the terms of Wilderness Act in such a way that would require
the establishment of roads and the use of motorized vehicles in
designated wilderness to facilitate hunting. Can you describe
what impact that might have on wilderness areas, and would that
change that fundamentally?
Mr. Ratcliffe. The Department is very concerned about the
wording in that provision of the act, the bill, because we feel
that it opens the door to the potential for increased motorized
activities and other human developments inside wilderness
which, of course, is a slippery slope, I think, when it comes
to the management and the integrity of the Wilderness Act.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rest
of the questions for--you know, we are talking a lot about
exempting oil and gas in this Committee, or timber production
from NEPA. We don't know what impact that would have on habitat
or hunting. And if hunting is also exempt from NEPA, does that
really help the situation? I think we need to answer these
questions as this legislation moves forward. I appreciate your
indulgence, and I yield back, sir.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Now the Chair will
recognize Mr. McClintock for five minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
hear from Ms. Simpson and Ms. Recce. Do your members believe
that the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service are encouraging and
welcoming hunting and fishing on the 95 percent of the public
lands we have just been told are open for that purpose?
Ms. Recce. I would definitely say that our members who
target shoot, and he used public lands particularly in the
West, which is the only place to shoot, find that they are
being dislocated; that there are shooting areas closed.
Shooting ranges that have been built have been closed, and
there has not been really a proactive effort on the part of
the--in this case the Forest Service--to rectify those
situations.
Mr. McClintock. What is your beef? We have just been told
that 95 percent of these lands are open for that purpose?
Ms. Recce. Well, they can be open. It is getting to them.
So how far do you go back in to engage in the recreational
activity?
Mr. McClintock. Well, can't you drive in? Aren't there
roads?
Ms. Recce. Well, many of these places there are not roads
and----
Mr. McClintock. There were roads once though, weren't
there, but they are closing them?
Ms. Recce. Well, they are doing that, and I think that
access is one issue. I think the opportunities that had existed
are closing, and a lot of it is because I don't think there is
proactive planning for these activities to protect them into
the future.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Simpson, are your members being
welcomed and encouraged to participate in hunting and fishing
activities on the public lands by these agencies?
Ms. Simpson. I think that the SCI members would maintain
that the issue for our organization is more to the habitat
management, an active management that is not occurring on the
public lands, and active management, as the scientists have
told us, has a direct relationship on healthy animals.
Mr. McClintock. Well, what is the impact of hunting and
fishing activities by the road closures under the travel
management plans?
Ms. Simpson. Well, obviously----
Mr. McClintock. They are radical in my area, I mean. They
are closing down most of the roads, most of the access to the
public lands in my region.
Ms. Simpson. Access is number one priority.
Mr. McClintock. I am wondering if you are deer hunting and
you kill a deer, how are you supposed to get it out if you
can't get your vehicle there?
Ms. Recce. I am very familiar with the travel management
plans and share the pain of your constituents. It is catch as
catch can at the local level as to whether travel management
plans they allow big game retrieval off of designated routes,
and it really is whatever the local land manager decides to do.
Mr. McClintock. Our hunters have been told they can't take
their vehicles even one car's length off the few roads that are
remaining.
Ms. Recce. This is probably true, and that is why we
support this bill because right now there is no consistency
across the board in how decisions are done that would affect
hunters and anglers, and there really is no consideration given
to what effect these decisions have, and that is why we support
another provision of the bill that addresses that.
Mr. McClintock. What about the increasingly Draconian
restrictions on camping? Are you hearing from your members on
that because I got an ear full about a month ago?
Ms. Recce. I cannot answer that because the constituency
hasn't spoken to that. I don't know.
Ms. Simpson. We haven't heard necessarily about camping,
but I think the bigger point by both of our organizations that
are here supporting this legislation is that there is such an
inconsistency at the local level, and despite White House
conferences and executive orders and internal memoranda and
Federal advisory committees, et cetera, that has been
established to have communication it just isn't happening.
Mr. McClintock. So you are welcome to hunt on the public
lands, but you are not allowed to get there and you are not
allowed to stay there if you do get there.
Ms. Simpson. That is what we are hearing.
Mr. McClintock. That is what I am hearing, too. There is a
radical leftist ideology that the public should be forced out
of all rural areas and be restricted instead to dense urban
cores. The rest of these vast tracks of land are to be restored
to their pristine prehistoric condition. The only problem I
have discovered with that is that most people don't like to
live in dense urban corridors, and in order to restore the
planet to its pristine prehistoric condition we have to restore
the human population to its pristine prehistoric condition
which is not going to end well.
Are you seeing that ideology leak into the policies of this
Administration?
Ms. Recce. I think that I will say that in the documents we
have seen, the Forest Service planning rule, the Fish and
Wildlife Service vision document, that a lot of the attention
is paid on wildlife management and natural resource management,
which is a good thing, but it is coming at the expense of, you
know, the traditional public land users, the hunters, the
anglers, the shooters. That is what I have seen is an
imbalance.
Mr. McClintock. I think Gifford Pinchot summed that up very
nicely when he said that the vision for the U.S. Forest Service
was to manage the forests to achieve the greatest benefit for
the greatest number in the long run, and this group has gotten
so radically away from that initial vision. It is a difference
between night and day. Thank you.
Mr. Broun. Thank you. Now the Chair will recognize Doc
Benishek for five minutes.
Mr. Benishek. I would like to thank the additional members
for being here today. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Horn, we have had some testimony on the effects that
the bill has on the Wilderness Act and how it is going to allow
access by motor vehicles and all that, and in my reading of the
bill I don't see that. What is your interpretation of that?
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I think that that
is a red herring. I don't think that is the intent. Without
delving too deeply and taking up the Committee's time on the
lawsuits, the Wilderness Act provisions in our understanding
have been drafted to essentially restore agency discretion, and
the state of the law that existed regarding 1964 Wilderness Act
for the first 40 years of its existence. That statute has
provisions that talk about wilderness purposes being
supplemental to the purposes of the underlying refuge or forest
status. There are provisions in the law that allowed the
agencies to make certain necessity determinations to allow a
variety of recreation and fish and wildlife conservation
activities. Those things were fairly well implemented for a
long period of time until the Ninth Circuit kicked things off
the track by changing the law by judicial fiat and it started
with a case in Alaska involving the refuge system where a long-
established fishery's enhancement program on Tustumena Lake was
declared to be in violation of the Wilderness Act and
terminated overturning the professional judgment of the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Then there was the High Sierra case in which the Forest
Service permitted horseback trips, we are not talking
motorized, horseback trips into part of the Sierra wilderness,
and the Ninth Circuit said, no, it did not have to defer to
professional judgment of the Forest Service, and it said that
the Forest Service hadn't demonstrated that these horseback
trips were really necessary for wilderness management.
Then just recently the Ninth Circuit did it again
overturning another decision of the Fish and Wildlife Service
involving desert big horn sheep conservation in the Kofa Refuge
saying, no, this is a wilderness area first, and a refuge
second. It doesn't matter that the plan approved by the Service
helped the wildlife wilderness trumped it.
The provision in my book reverses that decision, restores
the discretion that these two agencies had for the first 40
years of the Wilderness Act; tells the Ninth Circuit, no,
judges do not substitute their judgment for that of the
professional land managers, and puts the law back to the way it
was. It does not deal with motorized vehicle access. That is a
red herring. And if it is not a red herring, our organization
is more than willing to tweak the language to make that red
herring go away.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you. Last night we heard a lot about
jobs and jobs plans. One thing we don't talk about too often is
that hunting and fishing, particularly on Federal lands, are
job creators. Ms. Simpson, can you comment on the jobs created
by making Federal lands guaranteed to be open to hunting and
fishing?
Ms. Simpson. First of all, the active management that is
required to have healthy habitats is something that is a job
creator right there. Whether or not it is coming from the
timber industry or oil and gas isn't the point. The point is we
need healthy habitats, OK?
So, as I referred to earlier, H.R. 1581 is a wonderful
example of a way to get active management back into our Federal
lands. The hunting and fishing aspect on Federal lands access
there is of vital importance. The gateway communities that
benefit from the hotels, the motels, the restaurants, all of
the equipment that is purchased on the way into town and out of
town is all beneficial to job creation.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Ratcliffe a
question. Do you explicitly include hunting and fishing in your
management plans?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Management plans are developed based on the
issues of a particular area in which the plan oversees. And so
if the issue comes up, whether it is any recreational activity,
then we are obliged to address it in the plans, and therefore
where it is an issue where the public identifies it and wishes
it to be addressed we treat it equally among all recreation
activities.
Our multiple-use management mandate requires us to treat
all uses equally, and if you start setting one as a priority
over another----
Mr. Benishek. I understand that, but I just wanted to know
if explicitly in the plan there was something about hunting and
fishing.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, we have many plans that address hunting
and fishing.
Mr. Benishek. All right. Well, I see my time is up. Thank
you.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Doctor.
Just want to say in closing that not only do I appreciate
you all being here, but I think both of these bills are
extremely important. My bill requires hunting to be a part of a
management plan statutorily so that it is not an elective
process, and it has to be considered, and then your bill, which
is extremely necessary also, actually puts into place
statutorily that hunting and fishing is a land use, and so I
think both bills are so extremely important. I look forward as
these two bills go forward, hopefully we can get them passed
into law in this Congress.
I appreciate your introducing the bill and I look forward
to seeing how this Committee as well as the Full Committee
takes all three of these bills into consideration. I thank you
all for participating in this hearing today. But I really
appreciate you all being here. I apologize for the interruption
and it is well into lunchtime.
Before we adjourn the hearing I ask unanimous consent that
the statement by William Meadows of the Wilderness Society be
included in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of William Meadows follows:]
Mr. Broun. Thank you all so much. If there is no
further business, without objection the Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]