[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE SCIENCE OF HOW HUNTING
ASSISTS SPECIES CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND
OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-90
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-727 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 SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
SANDY ADAMS, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
SANDY ADAMS, Florida BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JERRY McNERNEY, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Paul D. Tonko, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
The Hon. Daniel Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Dr. Al Maki, Chairman, Conservation Committee, Safari Club
International
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Dr. Stuart Pimm, Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment,
Duke University
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Mr. Nick Wiley, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Discussion 43
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Hon. Daniel Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service... 55
Dr. Al Maki, Chairman, Conservation Committee, Safari Club
International.................................................. 59
Mr. Nick Wiley, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission........................................ 62
THE SCIENCE OF HOW HUNTING
ASSISTS SPECIES CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:23 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Broun
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.008
Chairman Broun. The Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight will come to order. Good afternoon. I welcome
everyone to today's hearing entitled, ''The Science of How
Hunting Assists Species Conservation and Management.'' You will
find in front of you packages containing our witness panel's
written testimony, their biographies, and truth in testimony
disclosures.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
As a hunter who was first introduced to the sport by my dad
when I was six years old, I am personally aware of the positive
impacts of managed hunting in America as well as overseas. I
have been involved in hunting for about 60 years, and I am a
life member #17 in the Safari Club International, the world's
largest pro hunting conservation organization.
However, there may be some who are not aware of the
positive impacts and how science of hunting assists species
conservation and management. Today's hearing is part of my
effort to ensure that legal hunting is properly recognized for
its positive impacts on domestic as well as international
animal populations, as well as conservation in general.
We have several witnesses that are testifying today who can
speak firsthand of the positive impact of hunting and the
science behind it. Represented today by its Director, Dan Ashe,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly highlighted
the positive impacts of hunting.
Also testifying today is the Executive Director of the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Nick Wiley.
One of his responsibilities is management of legal harvest of
American alligators, a species that was listed as endangered
from 1967 to 1987. It only took 20 years for an incredibly
successful managed harvesting program to end the endangered
status of the American alligator. Similar efforts overseas are
ongoing for other species as a representative from Safari Club
International will testify today.
Legal hunts use scientific studies to determine the proper
amount and type of hunting to be permitted for each species. In
some cases, hunting may be used to address an overpopulation of
one species that is harming other species or the environment as
a whole due to overcrowding.
In an urban environment, like Washington, DC, the
overpopulation of deer in places like Rock Creek Park is
apparent to anyone who drives on the Rock Creek Parkway. The
only real threat to these deer are automobiles. Less visible
reminders are the lack of young shrub and tree growth due to
the deer being desperate for food.
Hunting generates significant revenues through taxes on
hunting equipment, duck stamps, and other hunting permits. The
Duck Stamp Program alone is approaching $1 billion in total
funds for conservation management, land acquisitions, and for
research. This research includes extensive studies of animal
populations, threats to their survival, and species survival
rates. All of this research helps to ensure that society has a
solid understanding of how best to manage its species to its
highest sustainable level. Hunters also spend money throughout
the economy, through airfare, lodging, and food. This means
jobs for Americans.
However, I am disappointed that some in our society are
opposed to any legal hunting, even in the face of its apparent
widespread benefits. A recent 60 Minutes story highlighted the
positive benefits of American game ranches that have invested
significant amount of resources of their own, not taxpayer
dollars but of their own, to boost populations of the scimitar-
horned Oryx, the addax, and the dama gazelle, all endangered
species or extinct in their native habitats. These game
ranchers rely on the hunting of a limited number of the older
animals to fund their operations and investments in the growth
of their stocks. Several of these ranches have even been able
to export a portion of their stock to reintroduce them into the
wild, using policies that rely upon these captive animals.
Yet as a result of litigation, hunters must now go through
a needless paperwork process and jungle in order to spend their
own money on a legal hunt.
Ultimately, chasing paperwork doesn't benefit anyone or any
animal. In fact, paperwork delays and diverts needed funds away
from the very species that need them. One person interviewed in
the 60 Minutes piece stated that she would rather see a species
become extinct than see it hunted. This, unfortunately, in some
groups is a too-pervasive policy or idea. If this doesn't
highlight the irrationality of some of these people, I don't
know what else does.
Our witnesses today understand the importance of hunting,
and I look forward to hearing their testimony. I do have some
concerns about how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service handles
the permit applications for the importation of legal hunts and
trophies. For example, paperwork delays related to the
importation threaten the viability of a hunting plan for black
rhinoceros that is backed by the Conservation on International
Trade and Endangered Species, CITES, as well as groups such as
the World Wildlife Fund.
I am also interested in learning what Director Ashe thinks
of the requirement for individual taking permits for legal
hunts of endangered species on American game ranches. Would it
be better from a regulatory or wildlife conservation
perspective if individual permits were replaced by an
alternative system?
Finally, what can we do as a society to continue to build
upon the tradition of hunters being the greatest advocate for
species conservation and management? Their critical role in
conserving and managing species cannot be ignored. Hunters,
fishermen, farmers, and foresters are the Nation's true
conservationists, and we need to support hunting for a
reasonable and rationale conservation program.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Broun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Paul C. Broun
As a hunter who was first introduced to the sport by my father when
I was six years old, I am personally aware of the positive impacts of
managed hunts in America and overseas. I have been involved in hunting
for almost 60 years and I am Life Member #17 in the Safari Club.
However, there may be some who are not aware of these positive impacts
and how the science of hunting assists species conservation and
management. Today's hearing is part of my effort to ensure that legal
hunting is properly recognized for its positive impacts upon domestic
and international animal populations, as well as conservation in
general.
We have several witnesses testifying today who can speak first hand
of the positive impact of hunting and the science behind it.
Represented today by its Director, Dan Ashe, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has repeatedly highlighted the positive impacts of hunting.
Also testifying today is the Executive Director of the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, Nick Wiley. One of his
responsibilities is management of legal harvest of American alligators,
a species that was listed as endangered from 1967 to 1987. It only took
20 years for an incredibly successful mananged harvesting program to
end the endangered status of the American alligator. Similar efforts
overseas are ongoing for other species, as a representative from the
Safari Club will testify.
Legal hunts use scientific studies to determine the proper amount
and type of hunting to be permitted for each species. In some cases,
hunting may be used to address an overpopulation of one species that is
harming other species or the environment as a whole due to
overcrowding. In an urban environment like Washington, DC, the
overpopulation of deer in places like Rock Creek Park is apparent to
anyone who drives on Rock Creek Parkway. The only real threat to these
deer is automobiles. Less visible reminders are the lack of young shrub
and tree growth due to deer desperate for food.
Hunting generates significant revenues through taxes on hunting
equipment, duck stamps, and other hunting permits. The duck stamp
program alone is approaching $1 billion in total funds for conservation
management, land acquisitions, and research. This research includes
extensive studies of animal populations, threats to their suvival, and
species survival rates. All of this research helps ensure that society
has a solid understanding of how best to manage a species to its
highest sustainable level. Hunters also spend money throughout the
economy through airfare, lodging, and food. This means jobs for
Americans.
However, I am disappointed that some in our society are opposed to
any legal hunting, even in the face of its apparent widespread
benefits. A recent 60 Minutes story highlighted the positive benefits
of American game ranches that have invested significant resources of
their own to boost populations of the scimitar-horned Oryx, the addax,
and the dama gazelle--all endangered species or extinct in their native
habitats. These game ranches rely on the hunting of a limited number of
the older animals to fund their operations and investments in the
growth of their stocks. Several of these ranches have even been able to
export a portion of their stock to reintroduce them into the wild using
policies that rely upon these captive animals. Yet as a result of
litigation, hunters must now go through a needless paperwork process in
order to spend their own money on a legal hunt.
Ultimately, chasing paperwork doesn't benefit anyone or any animal.
In fact, paperwork delays divert needed funds away from the very
species that need them. One person interviewed in the 60 Minutes piece
stated that she would rather see a species become extinct than see it
hunted. If this doesn't highlight the irrationality of some, I don't
know what does.
Our witnesses today understand the importance of hunting, and I
look forward to hearing their testimony. I do have some concerns about
how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service handles permit applications for
the importation of legal hunts. For example, paperwork delays related
to importations threaten the viability of a hunting plan for rhinoceros
that is backed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species as well as groups such as the World Wildlife Fund. I am also
interested in learning what Director Ashe thinks of the requirement for
individual taking permits for legal hunts of endangered species on
Americn game ranches. Would it be better from a regulatory and wildlife
conservation perspective if individual permits were replaced by an
alternative system? Finally, what can we do as a society to continue to
build upon the tradition of hunters being the greatest advocates for
species conservation and management? Their critical role in conserving
and managing species cannot be ignored.
Chairman Broun. Now I yield to my good friend from New
York, the Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, for his opening statement.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are here this afternoon
to discuss an important and challenging goal; wildlife
management. Our history, our rich history, is entwined with the
image of the frontier. Early settlers were amazed at the wealth
of resources they encountered here, first on the East Coast and
then as they moved west. Resources appeared to be endless.
Fish-filled rivers and lakes and bays, acres of forests filled
with timber and an abundant wildlife of all sorts. Hunting,
trapping, and fishing for sustenance, trade, and sport defined
the lifestyle of many early Americans.
The wildlife management policies we have in place today
were adopted as a result of some tragic losses of a number of
species due to excesses in these practices. It turned out that
our hunting, fishing, and trapping, coupled with habitat
destruction exceeded animals' ability to reproduce. Populations
collapsed, and a number of species were driven to extinction.
This was not only tragic for the lost species, but the loss
of these populations deprived people of food sources and
livelihoods. Today, we indeed know better. Science and
experience have taught us that we need to balance our desire to
hunt and fish and our need for land, water, timber, and mineral
resources with the needs of the animals and plants that share
this planet with us.
The Endangered Species Act, the Lacey Act, the Migratory
Bird Treaty, our system of wildlife refuges and national parks,
all of these play an essential role in maintaining that
balance. There is no question that hunting, when matched with
effective management and informed by solid biological advice,
can play a role in sustaining some species. In the United
States, we have competent agencies at both the federal and
State levels and some of the best scientists in the world.
As a result, the United States has been a leader in
demonstrating to the world how the hunting community can work
with and be supported by public servants to successfully
protect species in the wild.
Sadly, these conditions do not exist in large areas of the
world. Many of the world's most desirable trophy species reside
in lands that lack effective governance and a wealthy domestic
hunting population. These countries do not have a sufficiently
robust domestic biological science infrastructure to guide what
would be sound management.
In addition, cultural traditions that establish the use of
body parts for their perceived medicinal effects or place high
value on artifacts crafted from animals fuel strong concentives
to overexploit populations. In these places the role of
hunting, which may take the form of poaching, may be
destructive rather than constructive. It takes solid science
and a partnership between effective government and the hunting,
fishing, and outdoor recreation communities to maintain the
wild areas of this country and the wild animals that inhabit
them.
The Endangered Species Act is an important statutory
structure to guide management decisions for those species that
are attractive to hunters. There is no evidence that the ESA is
failing in its purposes. Even when faced with something as
unusual as hunting ranches that exist off an African hunting
experience in the wilds of New Mexico or Texas, the law is
flexible enough to work. I know there have been some complaints
that the FWS in the face of a court decision should not require
licenses of facilities that offer hunts of the scimitar-horned
Oryx, the addax, or the dama gazelle.
However, the cost of getting the captive-bred wildlife
permit and the annual taking license work out to just $140 a
year over a five-year period. If a ranch is charging thousands
of dollars to hunt just one of these animals, and they are, a
fee of less than $150 a year to be in that business does not
seem overly burdensome. It seems to me that the Fish and
Wildlife Service has been doing a good job. State agencies, so
far as I am aware, have also been doing a good job in species
management. The scientific community has rallied to support
management efforts and guide species recovery plans, and the
members of the hunting community on balance have been
responsible stewards of America's wildlife.
Let me close by offering my personal view that the duck
stamp fee should be increased. I know that Director Ashe will
speak to this, but the fee has not gone up in over 20 years.
This stamp is widely supported in the hunting and recreation
community and provides dedicated funds to support these
activities. The terminology, dedicated fund, is something that
we need to pay strict attention to, and to raise it to $25
after being at $15 for a generation seems like a reasonable
step, if, in fact, the dedication of those fees is truly that,
to provide FWS with the resources dedicated to protect the
wetlands that our wild fowl need for forage and breeding.
We were granted an amazing biological inheritance with the
foresight of dedication of leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, John
F. Lacey, and Aldo Leopold. They realized that to maintain some
of our pioneer spirit, our sense of wild, open spaces, and
connection to this land we needed to protect and revere the
living resources we share it with. The Wildlife and Land
Management laws that guide Federal and State Government policy
ensure that we act as good stewards of this inheritance so that
it will be passed along to generations to come.
I thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee
this afternoon. I thank you, Mr. Chair, and would highlight
that I am including a letter from the Humane Society with my
given statement as part of this proceeding.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul D. Tonko
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are here this afternoon to discuss an important and challenging
goal--wildlife management. Our history is entwined with the image of
the frontier. Early settlers were amazed at the wealth of resources
they encountered here. First on the East Coast and then as they moved
west, resources appeared to be endless--fish-filled rivers, lakes and
bays; acres of forests filled with timber; abundant wildlife of all
sorts. Hunting, trapping, and fishing for susistence, trade, and sport
defined the lifestyle of many early Americans.
The wildlife management policies we have in place today were
adopted as a result of some tragic losses of a number of species due to
excesses in these practices. It turned out that our rate of hunting,
fishing, and trapping, coupled with habitat destruction, exceeded
animals' ability to reproduce. Populations collapsed and a number of
species were driven to extinction. This was not only tragic for the
lost species. The loss of these populations deprived people of food
sources and livelihoods. Today, we know better.
Science and experience have taught us that we need to balance our
desire to hunt and fish and our need for land, water, timber, and
mineral resources with the needs of the animals and plants that share
this planet with us. The Endangered Species Act, the Lacey Act, the
Migratory Bird Treaty, our system of wildlife refuges and national
parks--all of these--play an essential role in maintaining that
balance.
There is no question that hunting, when matched with effective
management and informed by solid biological advice, can play a role in
sustaining some species. In the United States, we have competent
agencies at the federal and State levels, and some of the best
scientists in the world. As a result, the United States has been a
leader in demonstrating to the world how the hunting community can work
with, and be supported by, public servants to successfully protect
species in the wild.
Sadly, these conditions do not exist in large areas of the world.
Many of the world's most desirable trophy species reside in lands that
lack effective governance and a wealthy domestic hunting population.
These countries do not have a sufficiently robust domestic biological
science infrastructure to guide sound management. In addition, cultural
traditions that established the use of body parts for their perceived
medicinal effects or placed high value on artifacts crafted from
animals fuel strong incentives to overexploit populations. In these
places, the role of hunting--which may take the form of poaching--may
be destructive rather than constructive.
It takes solid science and a partnership between effective
government and the hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation communities
to maintain the wild areas of this country and the wild animals that
inhabit them. The Endangered Species Act is an important statutory
structure to guide management decisions for those species that are
attractive to hunters. There is no evidence that the ESA is failing in
its purposes. Even when faced with something as unusual as hunting
ranches that exist to offer an African hunting experience in the wilds
of New Mexico or Texas, the law is flexible enough to work.
I know there have been some complaints that the FWS, in the face of
a court decision, should not require licenses of facilities that offer
hunts of the Scimitar-horned Oryx, the adax, or the dama gazelle.
However, the costs of getting the Captive-bred Wildlife permit and the
annual taking license work out to just $140 a year over a five-year
period. If a ranch is charging thousands of dollars to hunt just one of
these animals--and they are--a fee of less than $150 a year to be in
that business does not seem overly burdensome.
It seems to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been doing a
good job. State agencies, so far as I am aware, have also been doing a
good job in species management. The scientific community has rallied to
support management efforts and guide species recovery plans. And the
members of the hunting community, on balance, have been responsible
stewards of America's wildlife.
Let me close by offering my personal view that the Duck Stamp fee
should be increased. I know that Director Ashe will speak to this, but
the fee has not gone up in over 20 years. The stamp is widely supported
in the hunting and recreation community and provides dedicated funds to
support these activities. And to raise it to $25 after being at $15 for
a generation seems like a reasonable step to provide FWS with resources
dedicated to protect the wetlands that our wildfowl need for forage and
breeding.
We were granted an amazing biological inheritance through the
foresight and dedication of leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, John F.
Lacey, and Aldo Leopold. They realized that to maintain some of our
pioneer spirit, our sense of wild open spaces and connection to this
land, we needed to protect and revere the living resources we share it
with. The wildlife and land management laws that guide Federal and
State Government policy ensure that we act as good stewards of this
inheritance so that it will be passed along tho the next generation.
I thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee this
afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. If there are Members
who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
I would like to make one statement. I don't think there is
a hunter in this Nation that believes that poaching is hunting.
It is lawlessness, and it should be prosecuted to the greatest
degree, whether it is in this country or other way. So please
don't confuse hunting and poaching because you are talking
about two different things. I don't think you are a hunter, are
you, Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. I am not.
Chairman Broun. Okay. Well, we in the hunting community do
not equate hunting and poaching because they are two totally
different things.
Mr. Tonko. And I am not a poacher, though.
Chairman Broun. Okay. Well, that is right.
Mr. Tonko. So here we are.
Chairman Broun. I think poachers ought to be put in jail.
Okay. At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses.
The first is the Honorable Daniel Ashe, the Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dr. Al Maki, the Chairman of
the Conservation Committee of Safari Club International, Dr.
Stuart Pimm, a Professor in the Nicholas School of Environment
at Duke University, and Mr. Nick Wiley, the Executive Director
of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. I
welcome all of you all here today.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each, after which Members of the Committee will
have five minutes each to ask their questions. Your written
testimony will be included in the record of this hearing.
It is the practice of the Subcommittee on Investigations
and Oversight to receive testimony under oath. Do any of you
have an objection to taking an oath? Please shake your head one
side or another, say no, or something. Let me know what you
are--okay.
Let the record reflect that all the witnesses shook their
head from side to side indicating that they have no objection
to taking an oath, and so let the record reflect that fact.
Now, you also may be represented by counsel. Do any of you
have counsel here today? Again, please give me an indication so
I can----
Okay. Dr. Maki has counsel from Safari Club. Anybody else?
Okay. Nobody? Please, Dr. Pimm, I don't see your head moving
one way or the other. Okay. The other three--let the record
reflect--sir? Okay. Very good. Okay. I just missed that.
We will let the record reflect that Dr. Maki has counsel
and the other three do not.
And if all of you would stand, raise your right hand. Do
you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that
all of our witnesses have taken the oath.
Now I would like to recognize our first witness, Director
Ashe. You have five minutes, sir. If you could, please, keep it
to five minutes, though the Ranking Member and I took a little
bit of time over, we always give each other a little bit of
leeway with that. We would like for you all to please try to
stay within your five minutes if you can. Director Ashe.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL ASHE, DIRECTOR,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Chairman Broun and Ranking Member
Tonko and other Members of the Subcommittee. It is a great
opportunity to testify today on the role of hunting in
conservation and management of wildlife resources. I, too, have
to admit a bias on this subject. I am a lifelong hunter, a
shooter, and an angler. I grew up in Georgia, hunting
squirrels, quail, dove, rabbits, although I have dabbled a
little bit with big game and turkey. My real passion has been
bird hunting, particularly waterfowl. Some of my most treasured
memories involve early mornings afield, and we talk much these
days about the importance of connections to the outdoors, and
successful hunting demands a connection to the outdoors.
Certainly understanding the quarry is a basic prerequisite,
but one has to also understand the consequence of weather and
adeptly adjust to the curveballs and changeups that Mother
Nature throws at you. There are certainly other recreational
pursuits that instill similarly deep connections to the
outdoors, but few, if any, produce the legacy of commitment and
the sense of stewardship that hunting does.
Can hunting serve a positive role in wildlife management?
Absolutely it does, and the examples abound, particularly, Mr.
Chairman, as you mentioned in the control and management of
overabundant populations like we have with deer in Rock Creek
Park.
But the overwhelming contribution of hunting to
conservation is really the sense of personal responsibility
that it engenders. Hunters become conservationists. They become
members, volunteers, and leaders in great organizations like
Ducks Unlimited, Wild Turkey Federation, Boone and Crockett
Club, Safari Club International, and many, many others. And
they ensure that their donated time and resources go to on-the-
ground conservation. Hunters were among the original
conservationists, and today the Nation's sportsmen and women
through their passion for the outdoors and their commitment to
ensuring a future for fish and wildlife populations are the
foundation of our current commitments to protecting and
sustainably managing these resources for all Americans to
enjoy.
For more than a century, hunters and anglers have worked
tirelessly to ensure an abundance of game and the enforcement
of wildlife laws to protect wildlife populations. They
consistently supported funding these efforts through license
fees and excise taxes on the equipment that they take and use
in the field. The sporting community continues to dedicate
their time, wisdom, and energy to conservation working side by
side with a diversity of stakeholders.
My written statement discusses the historic role of hunters
and anglers and wildlife conservation and management and the
great accomplishments we have made together over the past
century. I am proud of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
legacy in this regard and our contributions to providing
hunting and angling opportunities to Americans.
The Federal Duck Stamp, and the National Wildlife Refuge
System, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, and other service-
led programs are key contributors to providing Americans with
quality hunting opportunities based on healthy wildlife
populations. Our relationship with our State counterparts is a
model of American federalism, and I am proud to be here today
with a good friend and colleague, Nick Wiley, from Florida.
If we are going to conserve this great legacy we need an
engaged and active Congress, and I appreciate your leadership
in holding this hearing today. We need a reauthorized Farm Bill
with the strongest possible conservation title. We need a price
increase for the Federal Duck Stamp, which every major
waterfowl conservation organization is supporting. We need
reauthorization of key statutes like the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act and funding levels that will support
robust habitat conservation. We need stronger science capacity
within resource agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and as your hearing title correctly indicates, a core
strength of wildlife management and hunting as a component of
wildlife management is its basis in science. Investing in this
capacity is an investment in the future of hunting, and beyond
game in the bag and rich memories of days afield, these
investments pay large dividends for the American economy.
Our 2006 National Survey of hunting and fishing identified
that hunters and anglers spent $120 billion pursuing their
passion, an amount equal to what Americans spend on all
spectator sports, casinos, motion pictures, golf courses,
country clubs, amusement parks, and arcades combined. The
tradition of hunting is interwoven in the fabric of
conservation in America. If we have a strong hunting tradition,
we will have strong support for conservation.
Mr. Chairman, my deepest gratitude to you for holding this
hearing. I look forward to and anticipate your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.016
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Director. I appreciate your
testimony.
Now I recognize our second witness today, Dr. Maki. You
have five minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. AL MAKI, CHAIRMAN,
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE,
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
Dr. Maki. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank
you for the invitation to testify here today. My name is Dr. Al
Maki, and I appear before you as a member of the Executive
Committee of Safari Club International and Chairman of the SCI
Conservation Committee, and lastly as a representative of
America's 15 million hunters.
SCI is a non-profit organization with approximately 52,000
members worldwide. SCI's missions are the conservation of
wildlife, protection of the hunter, and education of the public
concerning hunting and its use as a conservation tool. I am a
wildlife biologist by trade and a hunter and conservationist by
trade. I applaud this Committee's decision to hold a hearing on
a much maligned and often misunderstood topic, the essential
role that hunting plays in the conservation of wildlife, both
domestically and internationally.
As key examples, my Safari Club International Conservation
Committee currently stewards over 60 individual conservation
projects all over the world. In the last five months we have
contributed over $240,000 to conservation research alone. Also,
since 1937, the Pittman-Robertson Act has resulted in over $2
billion of funds going directly into budgets for research and
conservation-related programs, which has allowed several game
species such as white-tailed deer, elk, antelope, bison,
turkeys, and many others to expand beyond ranges beyond where
they are found prior to the implementation of this act, which
is fully funded by American sportsmen.
This North American model of hunter-based conservation is
indisputably the most successful model, promoting wildlife
conservation worldwide bar none. The roots of this model
involve such names as Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, George
Grinnell, who collectively established the framework we have
seen work so successfully time and again. Over 100 years ago,
Roosevelt wrote, and I quote, ``In a civilized and cultivated
country wild animals only continue to exist at all when
preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people to protest against
all hunting and consider sportsmen as enemies of wildlife are
ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is
by all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger and
more valuable wild creatures from total extermination.''
Since then, the hunting community has taken those words to
heart and followed through with action. Unfortunately, our own
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service understands the role of hunters
in conservation but often refuses to embrace it. Again and
again, the Fish and Wildlife Service has ignored the role of
the American hunter and instead has chosen to employ the
Endangered Species Act to prevent or inhibit the use of hunting
as a conservation tool rather than to encourage it. The saga of
the three antelope species as related by our Chairman earlier
this afternoon is a key example. Despite the successes by the
private ranching of these animals, the anti-hunting community
refused to acknowledge the role that hunting was playing in
these species' recovery and threatened to sue the Fish and
Wildlife Service if it didn't list the three species as
endangered based on their plight in Africa.
Despite the arguments offered by SCI and other groups
against the inclusion of the captive populations, the Fish and
Wildlife listed both native and U.S. populations as endangered.
As a consequence, the value and numbers of these animals has
dropped substantially due to uncertain and owners' paperwork,
ranchers can no longer be certain that the ownership of these
animals will pay for itself. The simple truth is that by
listing these species as endangered, Fish and Wildlife Service
has undermined rather than benefited the conservation of these
animals.
In addition to domestic conservation measures, hunting also
plays a vital role in international conservation. When a U.S.
hunter travels to another country to hunt, he or she brings
money into the local economy. The hunting activity generates
multiple jobs for the local people, as does the handling and
shipping of the processed hunting trophy. Hunting gives
wildlife value that is not realized in the absence of hunting,
and it also creates incentives to discourage, if not outlaw,
poaching of that animal. Key species that would be substantial
beneficiaries of cooperative conservation-based ESA
interpretation include the black rhino, Suleiman markhor
leopard.
As of today the Fish and Wildlife Service still has not
decided whether to approve vital conservation programs for
these species despite the fact that they have had all the
independent scientific data necessary to make these decisions
for several years.
When it comes to endangered species, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. Despite
acknowledging the benefits that hunting and importation can
bring to endangered species, the Service has relied on the ESA
to resolutely refuse to allow hunters to play a role in the
conservation of foreign species. This arbitrary misuse of ESA
authority must end.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify on
this important issue and ask the Committee to use its authority
to recognize the role that hunting plays in species
conservation to make certain that ESA is administered in a way
that acknowledges and facilitates the role of hunting as a
conservation tool.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Maki follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.021
Chairman Broun. Dr. Maki, thank you for your testimony, and
I applaud the work that you and the Safari Club are doing
towards true conservation efforts.
Dr. Pimm, you are recognized for five minutes, and take
off.
STATEMENT OF DR. STUART PIMM, PROFESSOR,
NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
DUKE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Pimm. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you
for this opportunity to talk about this extraordinarily
important subject. I am Stuart Pimm. I hold the Doris Duke
Chair of Conservation at Duke University. Until recently, I was
Extraordinary Professor at the Conservation Ecology Research
Unit in South Africa.
I do not need to repeat what my colleagues here have said
and what you as Chair so well summarized. We Americans benefit
enormously from hunting, from the large areas, protected, duck
hunters protect wetlands, recreational fishermen are passionate
advocates for our rivers. At the quite personal level, all
three organizations on either side of me, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Safari Club International, and the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, have aided my research group
and my students.
The issue at hand is to do with the Endangered Species Act
and the conservation of endangered species. I think it is
appropriate to ask whether the act has been successful. It has
been extraordinarily successful. Our Nation's bird, the bald
eagle, is now in every State. The Hawaiian State bird, the
Nene, whooping cranes, black-footed ferrets, gray whales, many
other species are back from the very edge of extinction because
of environmental protections.
Recovery is the ultimate goal of the act, and analyses show
that the great majority of the species once listed are moving
back towards recovery at the rate at which we scientists
expect, if not overnight as some critics might hope.
The issue of endangered species and hunting, however, is
complex. Nothing illustrates this better than two East African
neighbors, Kenya and Tanzania. Kenya bans all hunting. Tanzania
devotes more of its country to hunting than it does national
parks. That hunting includes lions, and lions are IUCN Red List
species. Whether they are managed well is a matter of
considerable debate. It is not always easy to find out.
Well, does hunting harm endangered species? The answer has
to be yes. I do know the difference between poaching and
hunting. Poaching clearly does, but alas, many species that are
poached are also hunted legally.
Now, as a Congressional Research Service report that I
quote in my written testimony makes clear, the fact that ivory
and lion bone and lion blood get into the marketplace legally
or illegally creates a whole manner of ills, not least of which
is terrorism. There is a very severe problem in Africa and
elsewhere because of this intermingling of illegal wildlife
trade. It is very hard for nations of the world to do something
to protect elephants when there are occasional legal sales of
ivory.
These are difficult and very complex issues. The situation
for tigers illustrates this. There are more tigers in
captivity, including in breeding facilities, than in the wild,
but the market for tiger parts creates a massive problem for
countries like India that try to manage their tigers.
So, yes, the trade, legal and otherwise, of animal parts,
particularly of endangered species, can create a substantial
amount of difficulties. I think the issue becomes can the
Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Service handle
these complexities. My feeling is that there is a simple
checklist of actions that we want to ensure those who have
endangered species on their property can check off. Will those
captive animals be returned to the wild eventually? Is there a
recovery plan that can use and integrate the captive animals?
Has sufficient attention been given to their breeding and to
their genetics? Are the hunting ranches members of
internationally recognized organizations and maintain the
databases? Does the enthusiasm for hunting for species in
captivity extend to supporting efforts to protect them in the
wild?
My experience of the Endangered Species Act is that it
handles these complexities well. I entirely agree that we in
the conservation community and hunters share a common sense of
purpose in our stewardship for the natural environment. I think
these hearings, which I thank you for holding, give us an
opportunity to initiate a very important dialogue.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pimm follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.024
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Doctor. Appreciate your
testimony.
Now, Mr. Wiley, tell us about alligators. You are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. NICK WILEY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA FISH
AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Mr. Wiley. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman Broun,
Ranking Member Tonko, and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify. My remarks today will
be from the viewpoint of State fish and wildlife agencies.
State fish and wildlife agencies have primary
responsibility for managing the wildlife that reside within the
States. We have shared responsibilities with federal agencies
for migratory wildlife that cross State and international
boundaries or reside on federal lands. State fish and wildlife
agencies enjoy a longstanding and highly successful partnership
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in providing
scientifically managed, sustainable hunting for our citizens
across the Nation.
Hunting is clearly an enduring feature of American history,
culture, and heritage. Any person who cares about wildlife,
whether they hunt or not, should be thankful to America's
hunters for the generous and steadfast support they have
provided for wildlife conservation since the early 1900s. The
record is abundantly clear that hunters have been the first and
foremost paying advocates for wildlife conservation and
science-based management. They contribute hundreds of millions
of dollars each year through excise taxes on firearms,
ammunition and archery equipment, license and permit fees, and
donations to conservation organizations. This ``hunter
conservationist'' system is fundamental to the North American
Model of Wildlife Conservation and a major reason game species
are thriving in every State today.
Since the early 1900s, State agencies have utilized funding
from hunters to invest heavily in the scientific management of
wildlife, employing highly trained, professional wildlife
biologists. Also, universities and federal agencies and
conservation organizations contribute greatly to the wildlife
science utilized by State agencies. All of this technical
expertise provides a powerful scientific foundation for
wildlife management. As a result, population dynamics and
habitat requirements of hunted wildlife species are generally
well studied. This information, in concert with science-based
data collection, analyses and monitoring, sustains our very
successful hunting and conservation programs.
Game management has been defined as the art and science of
applying the principles of wildlife management to achieve a
balance between the needs of people and the needs of wildlife.
The fact that populations of game species annually produce a
harvestable surplus is the basis for the biological theory
underpinning the capacity for hunting. This harvestable surplus
depends on how well a species of game survives and reproduces,
in addition to the availability and condition of its habitat.
Professional biologists apply various tools to collect the
scientific data that defines this harvestable surplus and also
ensures that game populations continue to thrive. These tools
include surveys that assess animal populations and annual
harvest rates, studies where animals are marked with radio
collars or leg bands, and direct surveys of hunters. In the
hands of professional wildlife biologists, these tools can
measure size and trends in populations, reproductive success,
mortality factors, harvest levels, and hunting pressure. In a
key piece, hunters frequently play a role in supplying this
information and generally are enthusiastic about helping
provide the data needed to ensure species conservation and the
sustainability of hunting. This is another important way that
hunters support wildlife conservation and contribute to its
success.
After analyzing the biological and social information,
agency biologists develop recommendations for the structure of
hunting opportunities such as season dates, bag limits, or
quotas. In most States, recommendations are presented to a
governing body, often a commission or a legislature. These
decision-making bodies absolutely rely on the fact that
recommendations from agencies are based on sound science as
they also thoughtfully consider input from the public in
establishing hunting regulations.
I would like to wrap up by echoing remarks from Chairman
Broun. We have a great success story in Florida that
illustrates the inextricable links between hunting, science,
and wildlife conservation. In 1967, the American alligator was
listed as an endangered species because of unregulated market
hunting. Today alligators are abundant throughout Florida,
providing plentiful hunting opportunities. This remarkable
recovery is largely due to the effective and exemplary science-
based regulation and management. Public hunting of alligators
has been allowed in Florida since 1988, and total harvests
average now more than 20,000 per year. License and permit fees
paid by alligator hunters provide the funding base for the
science and management that insures alligator harvests are
sustainable.
Moreover, Florida's economy benefits by more than $14
million annually as a result of alligator hunting and
associated industry.
This example illustrates how management decisions about
hunting are driven by reliable science and as a result, are
effective and well supported by the public. Looking forward, I
am confident that hunters will continue to be the strongest
advocates for science-based wildlife management, habitat
conservation, and sound public policy. And in doing so, they
will continue to ensure our wildlife resources are robust,
public access to wildlife is guaranteed, and future generations
of Americans will enjoy a rich legacy of hunting across all 50
States.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.026
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Mr. Wiley. I appreciate your
testimony and the great job you all are doing in Florida. Not
only managing alligators but all your wildlife species down
there since, particularly since we are in a neighboring State
and a great friend of mine, Dr. Tom Rainey, was chairman of the
Fresh Water Fish and Game Commission down there, so I am very
familiar with the great job you all are doing down there, and I
appreciate it. Ms. Adams, who is on this Committee, wanted to
come and greet you and introduce you, and unfortunately, she
was detained in another hearing that she had to go to, so I
express my greeting from Ms. Adams to you. I thank you for
being here.
I want to thank you all for your testimony. Remind Members
that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The
Chair at this point will open the first round of questions.
I now recognize myself for five minutes.
Director Ashe, a portion of the Fish and Wildlife Service
budget is devoted to science. What portion of that is related
to the science of how hunting impacts species management and
conservation? Does any of this funding come from licensing,
stamps, permits, excise taxes, the Pittman Ramage Funds, Wallet
Bro Funds, et cetera?
And if so, how much? Are these funds used to support
federal scientists, federal grants, state scientists, or State
efforts, and how does the funding break down by category?
Do you need me to repeat the questions so you can write
them down?
Mr. Ashe. First of all, none of our science funding comes
from excise taxes, license fees, duck stamps. All of the
funding, all of the license or all of the excise taxes that we
collect go back to the States absent, I think, 1.8 percent in
administrative costs that the legislation allows us to take,
and all of the proceeds from the duck stamp go to conservation
minus two percent for administration.
How much we spend on science in the Fish and Wildlife
Service, we don't manage that as a separate category in the
budget. We do have a growing scientific program within the Fish
and Wildlife Service, which is about $30 million. That doesn't
represent what we do in the context of science. We do much
broader work than that, but that is the specific budget that we
manage for science, and it is our highest priority to grow our
capacity in science, and we are involved in an active endeavor
to do that jointly with our State and other partners by
designing a national and international network of landscape
conservation cooperatives.
And so that is our highest priority in the context of a
very challenging fiscal climate. Again, I don't track how much
of that is directed precisely to management of hunting and
fishing, but most of that would reside within our national
wildlife refuge system, where 327 of our refuges are open to
hunting, 271 are open to fishing, and most of the direct
scientific investigation that we would be doing pertaining to
hunting or fishing would be in relation to those activities.
Chairman Broun. Then a lot of it goes to the States, and
they do scientific studies, too.
Mr. Ashe. Nearly, well, about $700 million this year we
provide to the States through the Wildlife and Support Fish
Restoration Program. Those are the excise taxes on hunting and
fishing and motor boat fuel sales tax, and that money goes to
the States, and they support significant amounts of research,
but those priorities are set at the State level.
Chairman Broun. If you can get us any data about how much
the States spend out of those funds, it could be very helpful.
Mr. Ashe. Yes.
Chairman Broun. And I appreciate you supplying that to the
Committee.
Mr. Ashe. Absolutely.
Chairman Broun. Then, Director Ashe, do the permitting
delays of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service harm species
conservation and management?
Mr. Ashe. I don't believe, I mean, I don't believe that
the--I don't believe that they do. I mean, permitting delays is
an unspecific--I will refer maybe to Dr. Maki's----
Chairman Broun. I am fixing to ask him next.
Mr. Ashe [continuing]. Statement. I mean----
Chairman Broun. I just would like a quick answer----
Mr. Ashe. Yeah.
Chairman Broun [continuing]. Because my time is about out.
Mr. Ashe. All right. No, I don't.
Chairman Broun. Okay. Dr. Maki, can you answer that
question?
Dr. Maki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have examples. I
tried to mention a couple. Certainly the species conservation
would be benefited if we had facilitated a permitting process.
The ESA provides for some very onerous steps that must be
jumped through and in order to achieve those, they represent a
significant impediment at times for some of the species that we
deal with.
For example, the Suleiman markhor is one of the better
examples we have in the country of Pakistan. The Tourgar
Conservancy is the range of these animals occur. We have survey
data consistently developed for that species indicating a
robust population that would easily sustain an off-take
annually.
However, we have been unable to convince Fish and Wildlife
Service to issue those permits, and, as a result, the Suleiman
markhor is missing out on potential conservation funds that
would be benefited from the hunting of these species.
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Dr. Maki. I have personally
experienced this. In fact, I was working in Pakistan on some
wildlife management issues with Suleiman markhor as well as the
urials in Pakistan early on when the hunting was just beginning
to be put in place. And it was Fish and Wildlife Service, and
permitting problems actually stopped those hunting programs and
actually the species was greatly harmed by the permitting
process.
My time is up. I now recognize Mr. Tonko for five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps to begin, Director Ashe, do you have anything you
want to respond to in terms of Dr. Maki's comment?
Mr. Ashe. I would say that when we made the determinations
for import or export under the Endangered Species Act, the
basic decision standard that we have to meet is does the--will
the activity support enhancement of the survival of the species
in the wild. And so if we deny a permit, it is because we don't
see benefit for the species in the wild, and I realize that
people will differ in their judgment about what benefits the
species.
You know, Dr. Maki referred before to onerous permit
requirements for the three antelope species. I have the permit
here with me. It is six pages. Two of the six pages are the
instructions for the application, and he referred to it as an
uncertain process. Well, our regulation went into effect on May
18. We have received 97 permits for captive-breed wildlife
facilities. We have issued 77 permits in that period of time.
And so I would say it is neither onerous nor uncertain. If
the--and we have denied no permits during that period of time.
So I would actually say that the permit process is quite
friendly and quite predicable for the applicants if they apply.
It is our hope that we can get them a permit. That is our
objective.
Mr. Tonko. All right. Thank you very much.
The takings of in the Commerce and Endangered Species can
only be justified under the law if it can be demonstrated that
such activities are supporting survival of the species in the
wild.
What programs would you share with us that the FWS runs are
there to ensure that the canned hunting on ranches in the
southwest actually fulfill the purposes of this act?
Mr. Ashe. The ranches in the southwest are providing a
benefit to the survival of the species by maintaining a
genetically diverse breeding population. Several of these are
species that have been extirpated from the wild, so they do not
exist in the wild, and so we are dependent upon captive
propagations.
So they are providing a benefit. Are they essential to the
conservation of the species? I think we believe not essential
because we also have a very robust population that exists
within the zoological community, but they are providing a
benefit, and so we believe that the activities are
appropriately regulated under the Endangered Species Act. We
did try to exempt them from the permitting requirements. We
were challenged legally. We lost, so what we are trying to do
is provide the minimal opportunity necessary for them to comply
with the law and conduct the commercial operation which they
are conducting.
Mr. Tonko. And Dr. Pimm, if I might ask you, should the
steps in this process, any of them be strengthened, or should
there be clearer standards for these specific branches?
Dr. Pimm. I think Mr. Ashe has explained the situation
really rather well. The ventures do benefit; they benefit by
maintaining the genetic diversity, and there is a process that
seems to me to be scientifically credible that leads to the
right kind of decisions being made. It is, you know, you want
to have animals, you want to have animals that are genetically
diverse, you want to make sure that there will be introduction
programs, and all of that requires a lot of very careful
science. And my experience has been that the Service has the
people to make a very reasonable assessment of those rather
complicated issues.
Yes, I am a scientist. I love the idea of being given the
opportunity to tell you we need more science.
Mr. Tonko. And also, well, I see I only have seconds left.
I will yield back and catch you on the next round.
Chairman Broun. I will be glad to give you a little leeway
if you want a few more seconds.
Mr. Tonko. Are we going to do another round?
Chairman Broun. Well, I don't know. We will see. Go ahead,
and I will give you another little bit if you----
Mr. Tonko. Okay.
Chairman Broun [continuing]. Want to ask one more question.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. Dr. Pimm, what happens to endangered
species when there is insufficient funding for programs or low
pay for government officials and an uncertain legal
environment?
Dr. Pimm. I mean, the sad thing is that endangered species
go extinct, and I think we lose at a variety of levels. We lose
at an economic level because many endangered species generate
huge amounts of economic activity. Currently the whaling
industry now is worth a lot more than the whaling industry was,
you know, when we hunted them. The whaling industry now is
people going out and photographing them.
I also think, at a personal level as a Christian, that I
have the role as a steward. I think stewardship is an ethical
issue, and therefore, when species become extinct, I think that
is a challenge to us and our society.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Broun. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am from--I grew up in Illinois. I did a lot of hunting
also and primarily squirrel, pheasant, rabbit, and this is a
little bit off topic but since I have you here, I am interested
in the deer population in Illinois and in Indiana because I now
represent Indiana, and as you probably know, there--it is a
general impression that there are a lot more auto accidents
related to the deer population in certain areas of our country,
and I would interested to see how, Mr. Ashe, you work with
State, the State officials to see what we can do about that,
because my impression is is that--and I have been told there
are more deer in Illinois now than there was in the 1800s.
Obviously more food and things like that.
Can you touch on that maybe about what we can do about
that? Because there is a significant economic impact of having
an overpopulation of white-tail deer in Illinois and Indiana.
Mr. Ashe. We do work with our State counterparts, and I
would maybe suggest you ask Nick Wiley to respond as well, but
I think that responsible wildlife management is the key to
dealing with that, and here--I am a resident in Maryland here,
and we have a similar problem with overabundant deer
populations, and especially in suburban, urban areas that is a
very challenging issue to deal with. But it can be dealt with
effectively where our State partners are expert in designing
suburban and urban-based hunting opportunities but also other
management techniques to reduce deer populations.
Mr. Bucshon. Mr. Wiley.
Mr. Wiley. Yes, sir. That is an issue that is challenging
many States, and we are having to get more creative, but it
really--the solutions that are working in most States are--
start with working with the local community and kind of
developing a plan that they can accept and implement, and many
times they quickly realize hunting is the best tool to apply,
but you have to do it carefully using methods such as archery
and things like that are more compatible with an urban
environment.
So and also you look at the land surrounding the community.
If you can increase your quotas and increase your harvest
pressure in those areas, sometimes that can help as well. So
definitely by working with those communities to get their buy-
in and support is a key.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. Dr. Maki, as it relates to that, as
you probably know, I mean, even since I was a kid in the '70s,
we have a declining number of young people interested in
hunting, and that I think is probably contributing somewhat to
the problem I just addressed. Is there anything we can do out
there to help with that?
Dr. Maki. Thank you. Well, certainly hunter retention,
hunter recruitment is one of the bigger issues the Safari Club
is working with. The education of the young, bringing them onto
safe gun handling, exposing them to the outdoors is one of the
initiatives that we have launched through many of our education
programs and outreach efforts in our, through our chapter
network throughout each of the individual States.
Mr. Bucshon. And also, Dr. Maki, Dr. Pimm's testimony
advocates for several conditions to hunting captive endangered
species, specifically the reintroduction of some captive
animals into the wild, the development of a recovery plan for
reintroduction, termination of the need to hunt captive species
versus sanctuaries and zoos, attention to genetics and breeding
concerns, and finally, efforts to protect species in the wild.
Do you have any comments as it relates to those criteria?
Dr. Maki. Yeah. All good points and ones that haven't gone
by us at all. Certainly the examples with the three antelope
that are consistent to this hearing is a good example. Those
captive populations in Texas served as reintroduction stock
back into their natural ranges in several North African
countries. So it does, indeed, serve the purpose of
reintroduction. We have recognized for some time now that the
breeding and genetics issue not only in captive wildlife but in
true wild populations is a big issue, and we have instituted
now an international genetic sampling program where we
encourage our hunters to take both blood and tissue samples of
the animals, and it is our hope eventually we will develop a
genetic bank where we can keep track of the stocks around the
world. This program is administered currently through Texas
A&M, and we have literally thousands of samples being cataloged
in that program.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon.
Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for five minutes. I don't
know if you are a hunter or not.
Mr. McNerney. You are going to find out.
Chairman Broun. Okay. Well, good. You are recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I appreciate you calling this hearing.
Dr. Pimm, it seems that a productive partnership can
develop between scientists, government officials, and hunters.
Could you speak a little bit about the science involved? What
does the science do? What role does it play in that sort of a
partnership?
Dr. Pimm. I think within the 25 years, 30 years that the
Society for Conservation Biology, which is my professional
organization, has existed, that we have come to develop a whole
variety of very sophisticated skills. They involve analysis of
satellite imagery to work out where the habitats are,
understanding population dynamics, what kind of harvests we can
have, a very full understanding of the quite tricky genetic
issues that we, Dr. Maki and I have both mentioned.
And there is, I think, a very strong interconnection
between all of the organizations represented on the table here
of this sort of feedback between the science and the
management, as I alluded to earlier. All three of these
organizations are funding, indirectly or directly, the work
that my research group does. I have former students who work
for the Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service. I think it is
a good interchange of ideas.
Mr. McNerney. Well, good. That sort of gives me a scope of
what is involved. It is a pretty big effort.
Dr. Pimm. It's broad. I think it's broad, and it is, as we
have seen from the really extraordinary successes of the
Endangered Species Act, what--how very effective it can be.
Mr. McNerney. At least for the large animals.
Dr. Pimm. At least the large animals. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Wiley, I have a question I have had in my
mind for years. Natural predation in the wild selects the
weaker members of a species. Does hunting play that same role,
or does it sort of randomly select members of a species? If you
could answer, if you address that.
Mr. Wiley. Yes, sir. It is a common assumption. It is not
always the case that even natural predation selects the weaker
ones, but just--hunting is less about that. Hunters are more
selective, and some hunters are out there for the experience
and just want to take game home. Some hunters are more after a
trophy of the species. So I would say the hunting approach is
much less about selecting of a weaker species.
Mr. McNerney. Dr. Pimm, you have talked a little bit about
this. What does it take to introduce or reintroduce a species
into the wild? I mean, that is--for one thing, the species
disappeared because of a lot of different reasons, some of them
having to do with habitat. So a lot has to be done I would
think to introduce it, reintroduce a species successfully. Is
that correct?
Dr. Pimm. That is indeed correct, and many species have
disappeared from the wild because they have been overhunted,
poached. Let us be clear. Usually. So there has to be the right
amount of habitat, there has to be some means of controlling
the hunting, whether it was legal or illegal, the animals need
to be as genetically diverse as we can because most introduced
populations are small. So we want to make sure that there is as
full a representative, representation of the genetic
variability.
All of those are issues that we did not well understand 25,
30 years ago, and I think we understand very, very much better
now. In my role as a professor in South Africa, we looked at
several hundred introductions of antelope that took place over
the last 60 years. Most of them have been successful by paying
attention to these kinds of issues.
So a proper effective collaboration between hunters and
those who hunt in game parks and the scientific community and
the game management authorities of different countries can,
indeed, be extremely successful.
Mr. McNerney. Good. Thank you. Mr. Ashe, how can a U.S.
agency further species protection goals in the countries where
poaching may be legal and be consistent with our other foreign
policy objectives in a country?
Mr. Ashe. Many of those countries present great challenges
for us where we have difficulty placing people because of
security concerns. Congo is a recent example where we have been
working for years on great ape conservation and now is a
country that is very difficult to travel in, maintain a
presence in, and many of those places were dependent upon our
NGO partners who have, you know, a greater capability to travel
in and work in those areas. So partnership becomes much more
important. Law enforcement becomes a key ingredient in those
cases, effectively equipping and training local law
enforcement.
And most recently what we have been focusing on is finding
ways to provide security for the families of law enforcement
personnel who are killed in the line of duty, because many of
them are because they are dealing with heavily armed opponents
in the battle. And so one of the emerging ingredients is our
ability to provide security to their families in the event that
they are killed in that line of duty.
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. We will get a
second round of questions, and I now recognize myself for five
minutes.
Dr. Pimm, I want to be blatantly clear. I don't have a
question. I have got a comment. Poaching and hunting are two
totally separate, different things, and please do not confuse
the two in----
Mr. Pimm. Mr. Chairman, I did make that clear.
Chairman Broun. Well, I know, but I just want to make that
clear to anybody who looks at this record and the testimony
that hunting and poaching are two totally separate issues, and
poaching needs to be dealt from a law enforcement perspective.
Director Ashe, why is the Fish and Wildlife Service not
acted on the black rhino permit discussed in Dr. Maki's
testimony, despite having all the necessary documents to make a
decision for four years now?
Mr. Ashe. Mr. Chairman, I believe we do not believe we have
the necessary information. Black rhinos are among the most
endangered animals in the world, and so the standard of
evidence is high in that case. I am not intimately familiar
with those two incidents. We do have two trophies, I believe,
for which applications have been pending, I think for two years
within the Fish and Wildlife Service, but I would be happy to
get you more information.
Chairman Broun. Please do, if you would, get us the
information and get the individuals involved in the information
so that they can do this, because I believe it is absolutely
vital that you make a decision and do it quickly so that those
funds can be made available for the conservation of this very
precarious situation with the black rhino. I have seen some
black rhino in Africa, and they need to be supported, and
hunters are going to support them and keep them viable and
issuing that permit is absolutely critical.
What is the Administration's position on importation of
trophies legally collected overseas? And what about those
trophies that were legally collected prior to the species being
declared endangered?
Mr. Ashe. Across the board, I mean, there are, well, there
are pre-act trophies, which, of course, can be moved without
restriction. Animals that were taken prior to their--trophies
that were taken prior to a listing generally are not exempted,
so they have to, they still have to follow the importation
requirements. I think--but our record is very good on trophy
importation. On the average we clear 99 percent of all trophies
that are requested for clearance are 99 percent are cleared.
So in my experience 99 percent is an A plus, and so that
doesn't mean that in certain cases we have problems. It doesn't
mean that we can't do better. We strive to do better all the
time, but I think our record is very, very good at providing
support that is necessary for a vibrant trophy importation and
exportation industry.
Chairman Broun. I am not sure I would agree with your data
nor would I agree with your grade point there, Director. My own
experiences from being with Safari Club International for many
years and being their advocate up here in Washington, the data
that I have is not according to yours.
Dr. Maki, would you like to comment about that?
Dr. Maki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, of course, there
are a number of species, examples that don't quite fit the
example of expeditious permitting that we heard. One of the
more egregious examples is the polar bear situation, where the
listing of polar bears did occur in the middle of the year, the
middle of the calendar year; however, over 40 hunters had been
in the field during that winter, and due to the permitting
process you have to take your polar bear, then return and apply
to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the import permit.
Well, during that wait period while they were waiting for
their permits to be processed, the Act was enabled that put the
polar bear on the ESA listing, prohibiting from importing at
all, and those bears that were legally taken when the season
was open, before the regulations, are now snagged in the
bureaucratic tape here because a permit for their import will
not be issued.
Chairman Broun. In my few seconds left, I thank you, Dr.
Maki. I think it is blatantly unfair to a hunter who goes and
collects the trophy, spends his money, his time, and his energy
and efforts, and those funds can be utilized in a management
program, to be denied an import permit when those trophies were
taken in a very legal way with due conscience and try to do so
and to come back retroactively and deny them a permit. I think
it is blatantly unfair.
My time has expired.
Mr. Tonko, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The question, Dr. Pimm, that was earlier posed by our
colleague from California concerning the reintroduction of a
species into the wild, would hunting ranches play a meaningful
role in that process?
Dr. Pimm. That is a question that has a set of conditions.
I mean, theoretically the answer can be yes. It can even be an
emphatic yes, but it is not just a matter of numbers. The fact
that you may have a thousand or 10,000 animals in captivity
doesn't immediately mean that you are better off. Those
animals--the purpose of the Act is recovery, recovery in the
wild.
So what is going to happen to those animals? Are they going
to be put back into the wild, and if they are going to be put
back into the wild, amongst other things, there has to be a
plan for that, there has to be a place for that, and we need to
have some understanding of what the genetics of those captive
animals are.
So at one end you have got really wonderful programs where
people have been keeping an eye on the genetics of the species,
we have what is called a stud book so we know who, you know,
who your parents are, your grandparents, but unfortunately, at
the other end there are some nightmare situations, and I am not
in any sense trying to say that I don't know the difference
between poachers and hunters, but there is a continuum where
you have some captive populations, tigers are a fairly obvious
example, where those animals are never going to contribute
anything to the wild. On the other well-run programs and Dr.
Maki has talked about the criteria for those as well, where
those programs could, indeed, be very beneficial.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Director Ashe, you made a strong case
for raising the price of the duck stamps. This program is a
model of how hunter support can be turned to the broad
advantage of the public, which obviously benefits directly and
indirectly for the wetlands protections the program has
created. And it has been wildly successful, and I would like
you to explain, if you would, please, to emphasize this point
how long it has been since the stamps have increased and the
consequences for the success of the program are being stuck at
that funding level.
So if you could develop your thoughts, please.
Mr. Ashe. 1991, is the last time that the duck stamp price
was increased. It was raised from $7.50, kind of stepwise, up
to $15, and the--right now the purchase price of the duck
stamp, which was begun in 1934, is the lowest it has been; the
purchase value of the duck stamp is the lowest it has been in
the history of the stamp.
And so--and now we are faced with this economic situation
where agricultural land values are skyrocketing, and of course,
the key breeding area for waterfowl is in the American
prairies, in the Dakotas and western Minnesota. And so we are
competing with a booming of farm economy for that same real
estate.
So we are proposing to increase the duck stamp. Senator
Murkowski and Senator Begich have cosponsored legislation in
the Senate that would provide the Secretary of the Interior
with authority working through the Migratory Bird Commission to
set the price of the duck stamp, and we support that
legislation, as do all the major conservation and waterfowl
organizations.
So it is time. We have a sense of urgency and crisis now
with our migratory waterfowl resource, and we strongly support
efforts by Congress to increase the price.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Any comments concerning the duck
stamp from any of our other witnesses?
Mr. Wiley. Yes, sir, if I may. I think this is a great
example of how hunters have always led and always been willing
to step up to the plate and pay for conservation, and Director
Ashe just mentioned the support for this, and I think that is a
great indication and illustrates that hunters have always been
there when they were needed.
Mr. Tonko. In terms of the projected or recommended
increase, are you comfortable with that, Mr. Wiley, or should
it be something other than what is being presented?
Mr. Wiley. We are comfortable with that because they have
done the analysis and looked at the economic variables, and so
we are comfortable with following that lead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Broun. Mrs. Adams just arrived, and so, Mrs.
Adams, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your
patience. We were in judiciary markup, so it took a little
while.
Mr. Wiley, I just have a question for you. I want to ask
you about the black panther. I understand the Florida has
successfully kept the population and its food supply up, but
some are still pushing to make it endangered. What are your
thoughts on this, and how would this affect Florida?
Mr. Wiley. We actually have the Florida panther in
southwest Florida, and it actually is endangered now, and it is
a management challenge we share with the Fish and Wildlife
Service. We have been working for quite a while now to work for
recovery of that population, and actually it is, I call it a
success story. We have come from about 30 animals up to as many
as 160 now that are adults.
But it does bring with it plenty of challenges, and we are
working with the communities down there that are concerned
about panthers in their backyard, we are working with the
hunting community to make sure--we have a long tradition of
showing that hunting is compatible with panther recovery, but
we are continuing to work on that, and that is something that
is a big issue for the State of Florida.
Thank you for asking.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you. I rushed in, and it is the Florida
panther. Sorry. It has been a busy day between floors and
buildings.
Dr. Maki, how can the value of hunting be better
communicated to society as a whole?
Dr. Maki. Thank you for the question. It is an interesting
topic and one that I wrestle with almost on a daily basis. It
is an issue that we need to make more connection with the
public to make that understanding better or simply grasp across
the general population. Hunters, indeed, the data are
indisputable. The model has been in place now, the North
America Conservation Model of hunter-based conservation. It is
very effective. It is a matter of getting over the credibility
gap on one side; how can you call yourself a hunter for
shooting animals and yet be a conservationist?
And the reality is once you enter into that debate, you
realize that the hunters are, indeed, providing the largest
source of conservation funding. Getting an education program
under way, focusing on that point, protection of hunter rights,
and education of the public is one of the big priorities that
Fish--that we have here in our SCI programs and our American
Wilderness Leadership School that we conduct annually.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you, and Mr. Wiley, I want to ask you
another question, and I want to tell you that I have been home
and seen some of the footage of a panther in I guess a tree not
far from some homes, so I know there are some wandering around
down in Florida. I have seen them out in the wild, so to speak.
The American alligator is a success story of a formerly
endangered species now off the endangered species list. Please
comment upon the conditions suggested by Dr. Pimm in his
testimony for hunts of endangered species. Would these
conditions have prevented or slowed the restoration of the
American alligator?
Mr. Wiley. That is a great question. We probably didn't
have a scenario that would really test that very well in
Florida because it was, you know, the alligator population
recovered so fast we were having them in everyone's backyard
swimming pools, we were having to move them. So we were in a
stage.
When we got into a hunting scenario, we were behind the
curve already, and we are still working to keep up with
population.
So I would say that if we would have gone into this highly
regulatory, highly restrictive, it would have slowed things
down, and looking back, we probably didn't move fast enough
with opening up harvest programs.
So it is a great case study to look at and learn from.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you. As someone who used to be a law
enforcement officer and was called to catch an alligator one
time, I can relate to that.
With that I yield back.
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Mrs. Adams.
It has been a very interesting panel discussion, and thank
you all for your testimony, your witness today, and answering
Members' questions.
Members may have other questions for all of you all. By the
way, you all is plural for all you all in southern if you don't
know. [I am sure Dr. Pimm from South Africa may not know that,
but you all--there may be some more questions.] We would
appreciate you all answering those questions in writing and
getting those back as expeditiously as possible. I know I have
got a whole bunch more questions for you all, all you all, and
the record will remain open for two additional weeks for
comments from Members.
I thank you all for being here. The witnesses are excused,
and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses from Hon, Daniel Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74727.035