    [Senate Hearing 114-329]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-329

                 S. 556, THE BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2015

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 12, 2015

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                   ___________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    94-049 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2016

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
                         Karen Billups, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Christopher Kearney, Budget Analyst and Senior Professional Staff
                                     Member
                Angela Becker-Dippman, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel
            Bryan Petit, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator of Alaska.....     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from
      Washington.....................................................     2

                                    WITNESS

    Ellis, Steve, Deputy Director, Operations, Bureau of Land
      Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....................     4
    Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
      Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........................    16
    Crane, Jeff, President, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.....    24
    Fosburgh, Whit, President and Chief Executive Officer, Theodore
      Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.............................    37

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    America's Hunting, Angling, Shooting, and Conservation Community
        Letter for the Record........................................    26
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Crane, Jeff
        Opening Statement............................................    24
        Written Testimony............................................    29
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   168
    Daines, Hon. Steve
        Statement for the Record.....................................   277
    Ellis, Steve
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   140
    Fosburgh, Whit
        Opening Statement............................................    37
        Report by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
          entitled ``The Land and Water Conservation Fund and
          America's sportsmen and women''............................    39
        Written Testimony............................................    56
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   273
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    The National Wild Turkey Federation
        Letter for the Record........................................   278
    S. 556, the Bipartisan Sportsman's Act of 2015
        Statement for the Record.....................................   103
    Trout Unlimited
        Statement for the Record.....................................   280
    Weldon, Leslie
        Opening Statement............................................    16
        Written Testimony............................................    18
        For the Record Response to Senator Barrasso..................    68
        For the Record Response to Senator Gardner...................    80
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   149
    Wilderness Watch
        Letter for the Record........................................   281

                 S. 556, THE BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2015

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2015

           U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
                                              Resources
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                 ALASKA

        Chairman. The Committee will come to order this morning.
        Welcome to those who have joined us on the panel. We are
    here to consider legislation that addresses the needs and the
    priorities of millions of American sportsmen and sportswomen.
    After falling just short in 2012 and 2014 with similar
    legislation, I am optimistic the third time is going to be the
    charm and that we will finally enact legislation on the subject
    in this Congress.
        So let's get started.
        I recently introduced S. 405, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's
    Act, along with my friend and colleague here on the Committee,
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you for your leadership on this.
        I also thank the bipartisan leadership of the Sportsmen's
    Caucus by Senators Risch, Manchin, Fischer and Heitkamp and
    there are 12 additional members who have added their support to
    the bill.
        We introduced a broad bill to show the Senate what we
    really seek to accomplish here. Now we are focused on moving it
    through the legislative process. For the first time we are
    going to be doing so under regular order which, I think, will
    also bode well for its success.
        We are considering this morning S. 556 which includes the
    provisions of our broader bill that fall under the Energy
    Committee's jurisdiction plus one that falls under the
    jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The Environment and
    Public Works Committee will soon hold a hearing on the
    provisions within its jurisdiction. Assuming that all goes
    well, we will move to mark ups in the near future, and then we
    plan to reassemble one bill for consideration by the full
    Senate. So that is the process which I think is only fair to
    outline to colleagues.
        I also want to speak to the substance of the legislation
    and explain why it is so important to so many of us.
        Sportsmen and sportswomen come from all around the country
    from big cities, from small towns in the north, from the south,
    from here in the east and of course, most certainly in our
    western states. For many of us outdoor activities are just a
    part of our life. I grew up in a family where we went out
    hunting in the fall and we fished as long as there were
    opportunities for fishing which was hopefully most of the year.
    These were family traditions passed on from family to family.
        I think, certainly coming from the State of Alaska where we
    see so many who move to our state to enjoy these outdoor
    opportunities whether it is for recreation or whether it is for
    ensuring that there's food on the table, this has been part of
    who we are, a definition, truly, of ourselves. Anyone who has
    been to Cabela's or a Bass Pro Shop or Mountain View Sports in
    Anchorage or any other outdoor store in Alaska knows that
    sportsmen and women play a vital role in our economy. That is
    true in terms of retail sales, salaries, wages, government
    revenues and it is true in all of our 50 states.
        That is where our Bipartisan Sportsmen Act comes in. It
    builds on our previous efforts and adds several new provisions
    to increase access and provide new opportunities for Americans
    to enjoy our Federal lands.
        Our bill includes a provision that I have supported for
    years to ensure that Bureau of Land Management and our National
    Forest lands remain open to hunting, fishing and other
    activities as a matter of law unless closed so that our
    sportsmen and women know they are welcome there. It also
    includes Senator Heinrich's Hunt Act which I suspect he will be
    eager to discuss in further detail.
        Another important provision relates to filming on public
    lands. You have heard me mention at a couple hearings now the
    obstacles that we place on individuals who want to do nothing
    more than to film, to take pictures. Working to minimize the
    costs and the bureaucratic process that individuals and small
    groups must face is important.
        I think we have got a good bill. We have built a strong
    bipartisan coalition around it, and I am hopeful that after a
    productive hearing we will be able to add some new co-sponsors.
    I know we would sure love to have as many members of this
    Committee sign on.
        I will now turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell,
    for her comments this morning.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski. I
    appreciate you calling this important hearing and your
    leadership. I too look forward to hearing from our witnesses
    today.
        As you mentioned, although similar sportsmen-related
    legislation has been considered on the floor in the past two
    Congresses, this is the first time we have discussed this
    package in Committee. I hope we can use this opportunity to
    further examine and improve on some specific provisions in the
    legislation.
        I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the larger
    issue of stewardship, what that does for us, and how we can
    expand recreational opportunities for sportsmen on public
    lands.
        In the State of Washington, we are fortunate to live among
    many of America's most iconic national parks, forests and
    wilderness areas. These lands are public treasures that improve
    our quality of life dramatically, give us important
    recreational opportunities--including hunting and fishing--and
    strengthen our economy. Last year visitors spent a combined 33
    million days on Federal lands in Washington State and in doing
    so spent over $1.3 billion.
        According to a recent report prepared by the Jackson
    Foundation, in Washington, in the State of Washington alone,
    outdoor recreation provides an estimated 227,000 direct jobs.
    That is an amazing number, and it generates over $7 billion in
    wages and salaries. This is a very important part of our
    economy, and we should make sure that we continue to focus on
    it.
        The best thing we can do to continue to protect open spaces
    and wildlife habitat for hunting, fishing, and other
    recreational opportunities is to ensure that the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund is permanently authorized and fully funded.
    To achieve this goal, I support language in the bill to set
    aside a portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund each
    year to secure public access to Federal lands for hunting,
    fishing, and recreational uses. So if we allow the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund to expire, which we don't want it to
    do, there will not be any money for the sportsmen that we want
    to help through this particular legislation. The Land and Water
    Conservation Fund is the country's most successful law
    benefiting sportsmen, and it needs to be reauthorized.
        In my home state, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
    helped to protect and improve over 133,000 acres of State land
    and local park, and recreational areas, as well as help protect
    public lands, national parks, and forests. Earlier this year a
    strong bipartisan group of senators supported reauthorization
    and permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    in a vote on the Senate floor. I look forward to working with
    you on this issue as these pieces of legislation move through
    Congress.
        This bill includes a separate land acquisition provision,
    the reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction
    Facilitation Act. While I support the reauthorization, I am
    concerned the language in the bill may fundamentally alter the
    purpose of the act.
        This law authorizes the Bureau of Land Management to sell
    Federal lands identified as appropriate for sale through a
    robust planning process. It then uses the proceeds from these
    sales to acquire--from willing sellers --privately owned lands
    within the Federal conservation areas. The BLM's authority to
    sell land under this law expired in 2011, and I have supported
    past efforts in the Committee to reauthorize it.
        I am concerned, however, that instead of using the proceeds
    from these sales to acquire and protect public lands, this bill
    siphons some of those proceeds off to the Treasury for deficit
    reductions.
        This is a policy shift from the version of the bill this
    Committee has previously supported, where the Federal land sale
    proceeds were used to acquire other important lands for future
    generations. As such, I hope we will amend this bill to reflect
    language we have previously supported in this Committee.
        Once again, I want to thank you personally for your
    leadership on making sure that bow hunters are covered in this
    legislation. Thank you for giving them parity with other
    hunters. I very much appreciate that.
        I believe a clean reauthorization of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund is a subject that is going to be very
    important for sportsmen in general.
        Along those lines, I also want to note that protecting
    hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands is an
    important priority. But we also have to make sure that we are
    encouraging and protecting other recreational uses on public
    lands. According to the Bureau of Land Management, 99.98
    percent of BLM lands are open to hunting today, and almost 99
    percent are open to shooting.
        While the Forest Service does not have detailed land use
    statistics available, the vast majority of national forest
    lands are open to hunting, fishing, and shooting. Federal land
    use policies should be designated to encourage getting as many
    people as possible out into their national parks, forests, and
    public lands.
        It is my understanding that both the Forest Service and BLM
    open lands they manage for hunting and fishing and shooting and
    other recreational uses unless an area is specifically closed.
    With that in mind it is simply worth noting that land use
    statistics do not indicate a policy of excess closure of
    Federal lands. So if we are going to legislate new management
    policies we must ensure that we are protecting all recreational
    lands.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses this morning.
    Again, Madam Chair, thank you for convening us for this
    important topic.
        Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        I note that we have a good showing of members here this
    morning. If folks have opening statements they would like to
    include as part of the record, we would certainly encourage
    that.
        I would like to go to our witnesses this morning, hear from
    them and then we will enter into a round of questions.
        We will begin at this end. I will introduce all of our
    witnesses to the Committee, and then we will proceed.
        Mr. Steve Ellis is the Deputy Director for Operations for
    the Bureau of Land Management. Welcome, Mr. Ellis.
        Ms. Leslie Weldon is the Deputy Chief of the National
    Forest Service. We appreciate you being here this morning and
    the testimony you will provide.
        Mr. Jeffrey Crane is the President of the Congressional
    Sportsmen's Foundation. Many of us see you around here in
    Washington, DC, as you speak on so many of the issues that are
    contained within the proposal in front of us.
        At the end of the table we have Mr. Whit Fosburgh. Welcome
    to the Committee. He is the President and CEO of the Theodore
    Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. So we are pleased to have
    you join us as well.
        With that, Mr. Ellis, if we can start with you, please.

     STATEMENT OF STEVE ELLIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS, BUREAU
    OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ACCOMPANIED
    BY RUSSELL WILSON, CHIEF OF REGULATIONS AND SPECIAL PARK USES,
                         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        Mr. Ellis. Alright. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski,
    Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee.
        I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss S.
    556, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act. I am Steve Ellis, Deputy
    Director for Operations for the Bureau of Land Management.
        I'm accompanied this morning by Russell Wilson. Russell is
    back here. He's the Chief of Regulations and Special Park Uses
    for the National Park Service, and he will be available to
    answer questions that are specific to the Park Service here
    this morning.
        I want to thank you for holding this hearing. You know,
    recreational use and access on the public lands are among our
    highest priorities. Recreational opportunities on public lands
    provides significant economic benefits. They promote health and
    fitness, engage our youth and connect Americans with their
    public lands.
        We strongly support the goal of enhancing opportunities for
    recreation including hunting, fishing and target shooting on
    the nation's public lands.
        I've submitted my written statement for the record, and
    I'll briefly discuss each of the bills' major sections.
        Section 101, the BLM manages land, public land, according
    its multiple use and sustained yield mission. Recreation is a
    key element of that mission, and there are countless examples
    of excellent fishing and hunting opportunities on the public
    lands. Section 101 of the bill contains several provisions to
    facilitate these activities on public lands, a goal the
    Department strongly supports. We would like to work with the
    sponsor on some of the provisions that seem to duplicate some
    of our existing authorities, so that may cause confusion with
    existing laws or result in unintended legal consequences.
        Section 102 would establish fees to authorize access to
    Federal land for small commercial film crews. We welcome
    individuals, groups and companies who wish to film the beauty
    and the bounty of the nation's public lands. The Department is
    concerned that this section does not provide the discretion
    needed to manage film crew permits most efficiently and
    effectively. While we cannot support this section as it's
    currently drafted, we would like to work with the sponsors to
    manage commercial filming activities in a way that avoids
    disruption to visitor activities and damage to resources.
        Section 103 amends the Equal Access to Justice Act, to
    establish reporting requirements for Federal agencies. We
    support efforts to increase the transparency of the EAJA
    process but we generally defer to others in this area.
        Section 104 would prohibit the National Park Service from
    promulgating and enforcing any regulation that prohibits
    transporting inoperable bows and crossbows across any unit of
    the National Park System. Current Park Service regulations
    prohibit possessing a loaded weapon in a National Park System
    unit, but do not apply to the transport of any unloaded weapon.
    The Department objects to this section because it is
    unnecessary; however, if the committee decides to include this
    provision, we would recommend that it be amended to define the
    term ``vehicle'' and to require that bows and crossbows, as
    well as arrows, be stored in a manner that prevents their ready
    use.
        Sections 201 and 203 concern the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund and FLTFA which are among our most effective
    tools for expanding recreational access and acquiring lands to
    improve management. The bill amends the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund to create, set aside, for public access. We
    strongly support the acquisition of easements, of rights-of-
    ways and lands to enhance recreational access, and the
    Administration supports full and mandatory funding of the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund.
        The bill would also permanently reauthorize FLTFA, an
    expired authority under which BLM sold public lands identified
    for disposal and agencies used the proceeds to acquire certain
    higher priority lands from willing sellers. We strongly support
    this section and would also recommend it be modified so that
    all funds obtained can be directed toward acquisitions under
    the Act.
        Section 202 would direct agencies to develop a list of
    priority parcels for recreational access. We'd like to thank
    Senator Heinrich for his work to make this section's reporting
    requirements feasible for the agencies. The Department supports
    the objectives of the section but would like to work with the
    sponsor on technical changes to ensure these requirements can
    be met with existing funding.
        Finally, my testimony also mentions our legislative
    proposal for a BLM Foundation which would help provide
    additional opportunities to work with our partners and the
    public on recreation projects, among other things.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and we look
    forward to continuing to work with you on these important
    issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
        Ms. Weldon, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
         SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Ms. Weldon. Thank you.
        Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views
    of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Senate Bill 556, the
    Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015.
        I've provided my written testimony for the record.
        We deeply appreciate the interest of the bill's sponsors
    and of the Committee in promoting the traditions of
    recreational hunting, fishing and shooting on the national
    forests and grasslands and working with us to improve on past
    versions of the bill.
        The Forest Service is proud to be stewards of 193 million
    acres of open space where Americans can go play outdoors, and
    we estimate supporting approximately 190,000 jobs and
    contributing around $13 billion to the National Gross Domestic
    Product related to outdoor recreation on the national forests
    and grasslands.
        The national forests are now and have always been open to
    hunting, fishing and shooting unless specifically closed for
    local driven reasons. Without the vast public land system we
    have in this country the tradition and opportunities that
    regular people enjoy today to hunt, fish and shoot would be
    greatly lessened and the future of these sports put in
    jeopardy.
        I want to reiterate our commitment to the letter and the
    spirit of the memorandum of understanding we hold with the
    Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing and Shooting Sports Roundtable
    which mirror many of the components of this legislation.
        I must also acknowledge the strong partnership we have with
    state wildlife and fish agencies which regulate the fish and
    game populations that we pursue.
        While we wholeheartedly embrace the activities of hunting,
    fishing and shooting, the USDA has concerns with the
    consequences of the specific language in some of the provisions
    of the bill and we would like to work with the Committee to
    address them.
        For example, with our vast mission to protect the health
    and diversity of America's forests and grasslands for current
    and future generations, we're cautious about any requirements
    that increase administrative workloads as some components of
    the bill would do. We continue to manage these lands for
    sporting and other types of recreation and consider the effects
    of activities on recreational use and our planning processes as
    we currently do which we believe is within line with the intent
    of this legislation.
        We will also continue to pursue opportunities to improve
    public access where it is lacking or inadequate through active
    involvement of local line officers, working with local
    communities and land owners. With limited staff and expertise
    we're concerned that additional reporting requirements would
    divert staff away from pursuing better access on the ground.
        While we continue to manage units of the National
    Wilderness Preservation System for hunting, fishing and
    shooting, we need to guarantee that those who wish to engage in
    these sports can do so in a wilderness setting without
    encountering activities that compromise wilderness character.
    As such we hope to work with the Committee to ensure that
    language in the bill does not unintentionally alter management
    of these special places.
        We're attuned to the concerns over commercial filming and
    have worked hard through public outreach and meetings with
    industry groups to clarify our purpose and intent for revising
    our directives so that they provide for this important use and
    balance with protection of natural resources.
        Chief Tidwell recently, issued direction to the field
    ensuring that line and staff officers have common understanding
    of the agency's position regarding when permits are required
    and when they are not. We believe that the eventual final rule
    will adequately provide for a fair treatment of commercial film
    companies, large and small, as well as other permit holders
    such as outfitters and guides. We believe the final rule will
    be the best means for avoiding undesirable impacts on natural
    resources or wilderness character. At no time will a permit be
    required or a fee charged for families or individuals
    photographing the beauty of this country for their own use and
    enjoyment or for journalists engaging in news gathering.
        We support the intent of the provisions in this legislation
    regarding the Land and Water Conservation Fund as well as the
    Federal Land Transfer Facilitation Act and encourage further
    permanent set aside establishing full and mandatory funding for
    LWCF. These are proven tools to improve public access and
    conservation management.
        In our 2015 budget request we've sought $5 million from
    LWCF to specifically improve access to the national forests.
        Finally, the challenges we face continuing our legacy of
    conservation have never been greater as things become more
    complex. Facing these challenges under our current funding
    process for wildfire has made this more difficult. Since 1998
    fire staffing has increased to 118 percent while over the same
    period staffing for other important programs with the national
    forest have decreased by 39 percent, and we really support a
    bipartisan solution.
        With that, I am happy to answer any questions. And thanks
    again for allowing us to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Weldon.
        Mr. Crane, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF JEFF CRANE, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S
                               FOUNDATION

        Mr. Crane. Good morning, Madam Chair, Senator Cantwell and
    members of the Committee, thank you for having me.
        As the Chair introduced me, I am the President of the
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. I've had that privilege
    to serve in that capacity for 10 years. So, indeed, I have
    spent a lot of time up here on Capitol Hill working on issues
    important to the sportsmen and women in the country.
        Established in 1989, the Congressional Sportsmen's
    Foundation works with the largest, most active, bipartisan
    caucus on Capitol Hill, the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus,
    nearly 300 members from the House and the Senate. I want to
    especially recognize our two current co-chairs in the Senate,
    Senator Jim Risch from Idaho and Senator Joe Manchin from West
    Virginia. Thank you, gentlemen, for leading this large caucus
    in the U.S. Senate.
        Madam Chair and Senator Heinrich, I'd like to recognize and
    thank you for your leadership in introducing S. 405 and making
    sure that that has bipartisanship all the way along the way.
        As you pointed out, there are 18 co-sponsors of this bill,
    equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. I think in
    this town we'd love to see more of that, and that's a great
    start. We're committed to working with you to try to encourage
    more of your colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join.
        In the last Congress, as you again pointed out, we came
    very close in terms of getting this bill done, 46 bipartisan
    co-sponsors were on a very similar version to S. 405. And
    stealing a philosophy that I use as an outdoorsman, ``Patience
    and persistence usually leads to success in the field.'' So I
    hope this is going to be our year.
        I'm a lifelong conservationist like you, Madam Chair. This
    was taught to me by my father and my grandfather. I'm
    endeavoring to pass it along to my daughters. We have a lot of
    deer meat and ducks and geese and fish in our freezer, and
    that's just a great opportunity for us to share in the bounty
    of the harvest.
        So this legislation is important to me, personally. But I
    think more importantly on behalf of the 40 million sportsmen
    and women who spend $90 million, billion, annually on our
    outdoor pursuits, this is good for conservation and indeed good
    for America.
        Conservation is critically important to hunters, anglers,
    boaters and shooters. The term conservation, as understood by
    us in this community, can be traced back to Gifford Pinchot,
    who was the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Pinchot
    defined conservation as the ``wise use of the Earth and its
    resources for the lasting good of men.'' I think that's a
    really appropriate definition.
        Along with that comes the responsibility to be good
    stewards, as you pointed out, and be careful with the
    management of these resources. We are the original
    conservationists as sportsmen and women, and we remain
    dedicated to the stewardship of our conservation of natural
    resources.
        I would like to just add for the record part of my
    statement, a February 26th letter, with virtually every natural
    fishing and hunting organization endorsing this legislation. I
    think it came to every member of the U.S. Senate.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Quite simply, the overarching purpose of this bill is to
    ensure access and opportunity for hunters, shooters and
    anglers. According to polls, multiple polls, the main reason we
    lose hunters and anglers is there's not enough access to
    quality places to hunt and fish. With an ever increasing
    population in urban, suburban sprawl, it's imperative that
    access and opportunity are protected and even enhanced for
    future generations. In an effort to get our younger generations
    off the couch, off of behind the computer and outside, we need
    to make sure that there will be quality places for them to go
    and enjoy these traditions.
        Where there is access, let's embrace it. Let's put this
    certainty in there that it's going to remain for generations to
    come.
        Where there isn't, we should ask why and we should be
    working together to look for solutions. And I think this bill
    is directed, exactly, at that. After all, these are public
    resources, and these assets, these treasures of our American
    public lands, are there to be enjoyed, especially for low
    impact resource uses like hunting and fishing.
        I thank you again, Madam Chair and members of this
    Committee, for your leadership on this. I would be happy to
    answer any questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Crane. I appreciate it.
        Let's go to Mr. Fosburgh. Welcome to the Committee.

       STATEMENT OF WHIT FOSBURGH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
          OFFICER, THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

        Mr. Fosburgh. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
    invitation to be here today. My name is Whit Fosburgh. I am the
    President and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
    Partnership which is a coalition of more than 40 national
    hunting and fishing conservation organizations dedicated to
    guaranteeing that all Americans have quality places to hunt and
    fish.
        First I want to thank the Chairwoman and Senator Heinrich
    for introducing the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act and for bringing
    about this hearing today. Combined with the companion bill
    that's making its way through the Environment Committee, the
    Sportsmen's Act will make a direct and lasting contribution to
    hunting, fishing and conservation in America.
        Approximately 40 million Americans hunt and fish every
    year. Together hunters and anglers spend more than $90 billion
    to pursue their passions. They're a key part of the $646
    billion annual outdoor recreation economy and through excise
    taxes, license fees, permits and stamps, involuntary
    contributions and money and time, sportsmen have paid their way
    for more than 75 years. And as a result the American fish and
    wildlife management is really the envy of the world.
        But Federal policy and funding are key to maintaining the
    North American model of fish and wildlife conservation and
    helping people of all walks of life get a field. Hunters and
    anglers need two things to practice their sports, access and
    opportunity. They need places to go to hunt and fish and when
    they get there they need healthy populations of fish and game.
    S. 556 is important in both regards.
        Section 101 reiterates that our public lands are open for
    hunting, fishing and recreational shooting unless they're
    specifically closed and establishes a public process should it
    make sense to close certain areas. This is consistent with the
    way our public lands have been managed since the days of
    Theodore Roosevelt, but it provides our land managers with
    added clarity in this time of competing demands on our public
    lands.
        Sections 201 and 202 directly address the issue of
    decreasing access to our public lands. According to various
    studies lack of access is one of the most often cited reasons
    why people stop hunting and fishing. Part of this is due to the
    nonstop urban/suburban sprawl where farms and forests are
    turned into condos and malls.
        Another part of this is that fewer private landowners allow
    public access across their lands. The 2014 Farm Bill, and I'd
    give a little shout out to Senator Stabenow here, with its open
    fields provision was an important step providing incentives for
    private landowners to allow hunting and fishing and/or access
    on their lands.
        In the West more than 70 percent of hunters hunt on public
    lands. Nationally about half of all hunters hunt some of their
    times on public lands, but even those lands are getting harder
    and harder to access.
        In the old days you could go to ask most landowners to
    cross their fields to access the adjoining public lands, but as
    ownership patterns change such access becomes more difficult.
    Today it is estimated that more than 30 million acres of public
    lands are largely inaccessible to the public. Senator
    Heinrich's Hunt Act, Section 202, seeks to identify those land
    locked public lands and plan ways in which access to those
    lands might be improved.
        Complementary to the Hunt Act is Section 201, making public
    lands public which directed a small percentage of Land and
    Water Conservation Fund be dedicated to projects that target
    public access, expanding public access, to our public lands.
    For more than 50 years the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
    been an incredibly important program for conserving habitat and
    providing sportsmen's access, and Section 201 would help ensure
    this legacy of access will continue.
        I want to specifically note the work that Jeff Crane has
    done over the years in pushing public land, making public lands
    public and thank him for his persistence on this project.
        I also ask the Committee that I be able to submit a copy of
    this report entitled, ``The Land and Water Conservation Fund
    and America's sportsmen and women, a 50-year legacy of
    increased access and improved habitat.''
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        I should also note, and Senator Cantwell mentioned this,
    that the Land and Water Conservation Fund expires this year. At
    one point five percent of nothing is nothing, so we look
    forward to working with the Chairwoman and the Committee to
    make sure that LWCF is permanently reauthorized and fully
    funded.
        The final provision I wanted to discuss is Section 203, the
    Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. Before it expired in
    2011 FLTFA has strategically leveraged Federal land sales to
    fund about 39 Federal conservation projects across the West
    including various projects key to hunting and fishing. We think
    this needs to be reauthorized permanently and that those gains
    continue.
        The companion bill to S. 556 in the Environment Committee
    has other very important provisions for fish and wildlife and
    we look forward to working with that Committee as well to make
    sure that those get passed including such things as National
    Fish and Wildlife Foundation reauthorization, the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act, and we hope the National
    Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Act.
        In closing I want to thank the Committee for considering
    the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015. I also want to make a
    plea that we continue to put politics aside for the American
    sportsmen outdoor enthusiasts. Conservation has, for more than
    a century, been bipartisan and non-partisan. As we've seen in
    the last two Congresses, the similarly meritorious sportsmen's
    act died in a desire to score political points overrode the
    needs of American sportsmen.
        I think I speak for all 40 plus of our partner
    organizations when I say that we stand ready to work with you
    and your colleagues to make sure this doesn't happen again and
    to pass this critical legislation to help ensure that all
    Americans have quality places to hunt and fish now and for
    generations to come.
        With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fosburgh follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Fosburgh.
        I certainly share your request at the end that this good
    legislation, again bipartisan legislation, that has been worked
    on for really many years now, not only make it through the
    Senate process but through the full legislative process and go
    to the President for signature. We have been waiting for far
    too long, and I know America's sportsmen and women would agree
    with us. I think this is why you have an early focus on this
    initiative, early in this congressional session and again,
    great bipartisan support with this.
        I want to start with my questions kind of focused on the
    open unless closed provision that we have within the
    sportsmen's package.
        Mr. Ellis and Ms. Weldon, you both reiterated that it is
    the policy that these Federal lands, our public lands, are open
    unless closed. Yet you have just heard from both Mr. Crane and
    Mr. Fosburgh that the primary reason we seem to be seeing a
    drop off in the hunting and fishing and the recreational
    shooting is because of lack of access. So it begs the question
    what is happening here?
        I would like to know from both of you what procedures you
    actually have in place for notifying individuals or groups that
    use, whether it is our BLM lands or our Forest Service lands
    for the recreation shooting, hunting and fishing, that there
    are restrictions or closures that are put in place. I am trying
    to understand from the perspective of BLM lands, Forest Service
    lands, other public lands, how we engage with the public in
    letting them know it is open or there are restrictions on it?
    How does it work currently? Mr. Ellis, you can go first and
    then Ms. Weldon.
        Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I appreciate the
    question. I think Senator Cantwell picked up on a number that I
    had in my notes about 99 percent of the public lands being open
    to hunting and shooting. And so, you know, I've heard a
    question well, what about this one percent? You know, one
    percent being closed or what about this urban growth?
        And so, if I look back on my career, the majority of which
    was spent in the field as a line officer in the field for both
    the BLM and the Forest Service. And, you know, people,
    including myself, I'm a hunter, I'm a fisherman, and I very
    much value these public lands for hunting and fishing.
        If I look at the areas where we put closures on and I look
    at the themes of that, the number one issue, generally, was
    public safety. It was a situation where we have public lands--
    --
        Chairman. How do you notify the public of these closures?
    My question is what level of engagement goes on with the public
    to let them know that this area that you and your family have
    traditionally used, you can no longer use? What is the process?
        We have very limited time, and I want to hear from Mr.
    Crane in terms of what he hears from the public about the way
    that you think you notify folks.
        Mr. Ellis. Alright. Okay, well typically what a line
    officer in the field would do if they felt that there was a
    need to look at an area that would be a safety or natural
    resource issue, they engage the local sportsmen's groups. They
    would engage the Federal lands hunting, fishing, shooting
    sports roundtable group. There's about 42 organizations
    represented on that. They would get a hold of the local
    sporting groups in the area. Talk to them. They would involve,
    really, the community. And so this is not something generally
    that's done, you know, very quickly unless it's say, a closure
    for fire. I've closed areas under fire orders for the extreme
    fire danger, for say, exploding targets. That sometimes we have
    to do fairly quickly.
        Chairman. Let me----
        Mr. Ellis. Otherwise we go through a public participation
    process and a Federal Register notice. Federal Register notice
    is also part of that. So we try, Madam Chairman, to be as
    transparent as we can in these issues.
        Chairman. Okay. I want to get to Ms. Weldon and I also want
    to hear quickly from Mr. Crane. So, please if you can answer
    quickly.
        Ms. Weldon. Just quickly. Similarly the need for making a
    change in most instances is driven by a conflict or public
    safety issue, with the amount of development that's occurring
    and changing around national forest boundaries and those sorts
    of things.
        As Steve said, we usually do that by outreach to the
    entities, both the community members and the groups concerned.
    And I think we can do a stronger job as we get those decisions
    in place to make sure that we get the word out on those.
        Chairman. Mr. Crane, does this work?
        Mr. Crane. Not in all of our experiences, and I can focus
    on two quick examples.
        The Sonoran National Monument, south of Phoenix, Arizona.
    Their original BLM proposal was to close the entire monument
    which is north of half a million acres to recreational
    shooting. We found out about it after the proposed decision was
    already put forward. Fortunately the final decision hasn't been
    made, and we're continuing to work with the BLM and the local
    shooting groups down there. But the notification process, it
    was already a de facto recommendation by the BLM.
        The second one, also in Arizona, in the Coronado National
    Forest, recently two canyons were also closed for recreational
    shooting. Again, the notification came after the recommendation
    was made.
        So I'm not sure that I entirely agree that this
    consultation process is working as intended.
        Chairman. My time is expired. I'll turn to Senator
    Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have a couple of questions hopefully I can get in.
        Mr. Fosburgh, thank you so much for your testimony and
    thank you for the Foundation overall and the conservation
    efforts. It is hard to not mention the Roosevelt Elk and what
    an icon it is to the Pacific Northwest. And to think about how
    Olympic National Park was created in part because of the
    Roosevelt Elk and then what an economic driver it's been for
    the whole Northwest. So, just your foundation alone is a good
    remembrance of how all this stewardship yields good benefits
    for all of us.
        You mentioned that Section 201 in the bill is something
    that you support, but you were making the point that we have to
    get the Land and Water Conservation Fund so that we can
    actually support the funding in that proposal. Do you have any
    suggestions about how we get that done? How we unite everyone
    to make that happen this year since it is expiring?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Yes, I think the vote during the Keystone
    process was promising, and it showed broad bipartisan support
    for LWCF and a permanent reauthorization.
        It's, I think, a little trickier when you get to the House
    side, but I think there was such a broad community united
    behind LWCF from, you know, we have the hunting and fishing
    folks right here, but then the outdoor recreation community,
    this is very important for them as well. It's not just western.
    It's national in how these funds get used. So I think that if
    we just maintain that sort of bipartisan approach.
        Let's also remember that this is money that was dedicated
    50 years ago from offshore oil and gas receipts to this
    dedicated fund. For whatever reason it was not dedicated
    automatically to get out of the door at the same time, so it's
    never been fully funded, except for just a couple of years in
    its whole history. I think we're only beginning to tap the
    potential that that program can do.
        As we see these conflicts, the sprawl encroaches, LWCF
    becomes more and more important. And preserving here, really,
    our outdoor traditions not just hunting and fishing but
    everything we do.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Ms. Weldon and Mr. Ellis, could you talk about this issue
    of how you decide whether to allow commercial filming in a
    wilderness area and do you evaluate it under the commercial
    services provision of the Wilderness Act or can you explain how
    the language in this bill would restrict that?
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator
    Cantwell.
        Under the commercial provision within the Wilderness Act we
    have interpreted that to apply to filming if the filming that
    does occur requires or is promoting or supporting wilderness as
    a feature in what they're doing compared with wilderness as a
    backdrop for something else. So with our interpretation we've
    been able to promote that some commercial filming could occur,
    has to be fully evaluated. If it fits in that context of
    promoting or showing the value and the importance of the
    wilderness concept.
        Senator Cantwell. Mr. Ellis?
        Mr. Ellis. Yes, in my experience I've had in this,
    primarily in Oregon and Idaho, first of all, we love people to
    go out in our wilderness areas and photograph the public lands.
    I mean, they're public lands. They're beautiful public lands. I
    take pictures out there myself when I go out on my horses.
        When we get an application for say, commercial filming in a
    wilderness area such as I've had when I worked in Northeast
    Oregon, we really look in terms of the potential impact that
    may have on the wilderness values and that depends, sometimes,
    on the equipment that they'll have on how they want to get it
    in there.
        I can recall one where we were able to find them a spot to
    film a program that was just outside of wilderness in Hell's
    Canyon. It was just outside the wilderness. They said this
    would work great, and they did.
        And so, I guess, Senator, we work with people. We really do
    work with people to try to preserve the wilderness values and
    yet try to accommodate, as much as we can, what they want to do
    in filming our beautiful national forests, parks and public
    lands.
        Senator Cantwell. Well the Senator from Idaho and I are all
    for promoting Hell's Canyon and having people go there.
        But if you can follow this up in writing, thoughts about
    the specific language in this package and how it relates to the
    Wilderness Act, that would be great.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman. Thank you.
        We will now go to Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Ms. Weldon, I think I followed that you
    were concerned the provision allowing only a $200 fee for
    people to shoot films would somehow also introduce the use of
    motorized vehicles. Was that you or Mr. Ellis who raised that
    concern?
        Now I'm looking here on page eight, line 21 and motorized
    access, nothing in the subparagraph authorizes/requires
    motorized access, and it lists a variety of things. It does not
    include film shooting, but with that, it seems to me, that
    either you could add if it doesn't already preclude half track
    bringing in a crane to do a zoom shot on Baldy. Does that make
    sense?
        Ms. Weldon. It makes sense. I think what we were looking
    for there is just ensuring that the language in the--that
    portion was consistent in ensuring that we included designated
    wilderness areas along with wilderness study areas as places
    that we would still be preventing that motorized access.
        Senator Cassidy. So a minor inclusion----
        Ms. Weldon. Yes.
        Senator Cassidy. I think, would address that for you.
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, it would. Thank you.
        Senator Cassidy. Now again, you then said you were not sure
    that the limit of liability provision would overrule another
    statute in law. But on page ten, line seven, it seems fairly
    straight forward, limitational liability shall not subject the
    U.S. to any civil action, etcetera, etcetera, from personal
    injury or death. Why is that not strong enough to preempt
    another concern?
        Ms. Weldon. I believe we're concerned about how there may
    be a conflict in understanding between what the two are doing.
    So we agree that there is good language in there as far as
    we're going, but we were thinking in terms of the tort
    liability that is in place for any types of activities that
    occur on national forest land.
        Senator Cassidy. So the liability here is specifically for
    shooting injury or death. Are you saying that the other
    provision would preempt this or the other provision would
    include those activities not related to shooting?
        Ms. Weldon. It would include all activities, so I think
    it's a matter of looking at how those need to be nuance among
    each other. But I think it's something that we can work out.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay.
        Now I came from the House side and I'd be interested in the
    two of your opinions in the Benishek Bill that was passed in
    the House. It seemed like some of the language regarding access
    to wilderness for hunters and anglers was a little clearer.
        Mr. Ellis, you began by mentioning that you felt there
    needed to be some clarity. Do you have any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Ellis. Well we have a lot of hunters, hunters and
    fisherman, that use wilderness areas. I'm one of them. My wife
    and I pack our horses into wilderness areas and do both of
    those things. I think that any time we have an opportunity to
    provide access for sportsmen.
        Senator Cassidy. But the specific issue is do you think
    that the language in the Benishek Bill was clearer because you
    mentioned several occasions of a lack of clarity? And so,
    coming from the House and knowing folks over there, I'm a
    little clearer with that. Do you think that bill gives more
    clarity to this point? If so, is that something we should look
    at?
        Mr. Ellis. Well, Senator, I don't have that particular bill
    in front of me.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay.
        Mr. Ellis. I don't have the language of the bill. I would
    be happy to review that language.
        Senator Cassidy. Sounds great.
        Mr. Ellis. And get back to you. I could----
        Senator Cassidy. Now let me ask you one more thing.
        I met yesterday with Senator Murkowski. She showed me a map
    of Alaska and how much is controlled by you two. [Laughter.]
        It's just amazing. It's several states put together. So
    when you say that 98 percent of the land is open for hunting
    and fishing, heck, I figure if you're including that, all of
    the Alaska holdings, then frankly only 85 percent of the lower
    48 would have to be included and you could still make that
    number.
        So I guess my question, sometimes the particular is more
    important than the general. In my State of Louisiana, what
    percent of the Kisatchie National Forest would be open for
    hunting and fishing or if we would take someone else's state,
    West Virginia or New Mexico or Senator Stabenow's state?
        Can you give us the specific number for each state both in
    terms of how much is technically open and how much in reality
    is open because these two gentlemen have indicated that
    sometimes something may be open in theory, but in reality there
    is no access, therefore it is effectively not open? Does that
    make sense? Can you give us those kind of state specifics as
    opposed to lumping us with Alaska, sort of statistics?
        Ms. Weldon. Do you want to go, Steve?
        Senator Cassidy. You can?
        Mr. Ellis. What I have for BLM lands, there's more national
    forest land in your state than in say, West Virginia. I do have
    the numbers, the BLM surface acres that's open to hunting,
    recreational shooting opportunities of 2014, and I can provide
    these numbers for the record if you would like.
        Senator Cassidy. Yes, if you could. I think we would all be
    interested for the particular numbers for our state. You don't
    need to give the detail now, but I think we'd be all interested
    in that.
        Mr. Ellis. Okay.
        Senator Cassidy. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman. Thank you. I think all of us would appreciate
    seeing those numbers in terms of access.
        Senator Warren?
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Federal law allows individuals, non-profits and small
    businesses who sue the government and win to recover their
    costs in a lawsuit if they can show that the Government's legal
    position wasn't substantially justified. Republicans have
    expressed concern about environmental groups that are awarded
    fees under this law and they've added a provision to the
    Sportsmen's Act that would create a public data base so that
    the public could see how much these groups get. In other words
    Republicans want more transparency when environmental groups
    challenge illegal government actions and win.
        But what about transparency when the Government settles
    claims against corporations that break the law?
        Last Congress former Senator Tom Coburn and I introduced a
    bill called the Truth in Settlements Act which would require
    the Government to take these settlements with big corporations
    and make them public, and this bill was blocked from passage. I
    just want to give you one example of what that means.
        The Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection
    Agency recently settled charges against a subsidiary of Exxon
    Mobil by letting them pay $2.3 million when the company's
    hydraulic fracking operations polluted streams and wetlands.
    Our bill would have required Federal agencies to disclose some
    basic information about the settlement and post a copy of the
    agreement online, but because we haven't passed the Truth in
    Settlements Act yet the public can't even see a copy of the
    settlement.
        Mr. Fosburgh, I know that the Theodore Roosevelt
    Conservation Partnership works to ensure that energy
    development is balanced with the needs of fish and wildlife. Do
    you think it would be useful to have more information about
    this particular settlement with Exxon Mobil subsidiaries when
    its fracking operations polluted these streams and wetlands?
        Mr. Fosburgh. I am by no means an expert at what that
    settlement was or the impacts, but I generally say that I think
    that transparency when dealing with Federal resources, be they
    monetary resources or aquatic resources, whatever it is,
    transparency is a good thing. It should be a good thing whether
    you're a corporation seeing what corporate settlements are. It
    should be a good thing seeing what private NGO settlements or
    fees are. So, I think transparency, in general, is a very
    positive thing.
        Senator Warren. Okay, good.
        Let me just ask one more part to this. Often these
    settlement agreements allow offending companies to write off
    the entire penalty payment as a tax deduction or they allow
    offending companies to claim credits against the settlement for
    doing things they were going to do anyway.
        So let me ask you again, Mr. Fosburgh. As you think about
    whether the Government cut a good deal for the American people
    here, do you think it would be helpful to know if this
    settlement is tax deductible or if it provides Exxon Mobil with
    credits for doing things that was already obligated to do?
        Mr. Fosburgh. I think I will leave that answer to people a
    lot smarter than me in terms of tax and settlements.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Warren. Alright. Well, I would just like to think
    that maybe it is useful to have that information so that we can
    evaluate what these settlements are like. The Truth in
    Settlements Act moved through Committee without opposition last
    year, and it nearly passed the Senate until it was blocked at
    the last minute. I am going to press forward with this
    bipartisan proposal again in this Congress because far too
    often the critical details of these settlements are hidden from
    the public.
        Federal agencies are charged with holding companies and
    individuals accountable when they break the law. These
    investigations regularly end in settlements rather than in
    public trials. Republicans want to see more details about
    payments of attorney's fees to environmental groups and we now
    see a provision in the Sportsmen's Act to require that. But
    transparency is transparency, and I don't see any justification
    for highlighting what environmental lawyers get paid and at the
    same time hiding the details of settlements with corporations
    that break the law.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
        Senator Barrasso?
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski.
        First I want to take a moment to acknowledge your efforts
    on behalf of sportsmen all across the country, and I know that
    you and Senator Heinrich have worked hard to address the needs
    and the concerns of anglers, hunters, and outdoorsmen in this
    bill. The broad support from the sportsmen community and
    members of the Senate speaks to the quality of the legislation
    before us today, and I look forward to working with you and
    Senator Heinrich, as the primary sponsors, to advance this bill
    in the Senate.
        Mr. Crane, your testimony touches on the connectivity
    between wildlife habitat management and litigation. In your
    view how does litigation transparency lead to better wildlife
    habitat management?
        Mr. Crane. Senator, I'm going to answer by qualifying my
    answer by saying I'm not an attorney. So this is my layman's
    view of this which is that all too often we're seeing more and
    more of the conservation and habitat management, wildlife
    management, decisions driven by litigation instead of by the
    people who are on the ground doing the work.
        I think it is the belief this provision in this bill is
    there to try to provide transparency so that we can see and
    decide, you can decide, how best to ensure that we're going
    back to where wildlife management decisions are made by
    wildlife management professionals and that the resources are
    being managed in a way that the courts aren't deciding it, but
    the actual people that should be deciding it are doing it. And
    that's my belief is what the intention is.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Crane.
        Mr. Ellis, you testified that it would be a substantial
    burden, a burden, to report to the public how much of the
    public's own money is spent on lawsuits. Based on your sense of
    burdens I wonder how that burden of accountability compares to
    the burden of people that are actually paying their taxes. It
    is your responsibility to account for public funds less than
    the public's responsibility to pay their own taxes?
        Mr. Ellis. Well, Senator, I'm not an attorney either, I'm a
    forester. But let me----
        Senator Barrasso. Well, it's an Administration position
    though.
        Mr. Ellis. The staff that we would use to pull that
    information together is the same staff who are going to be
    working on many other things that I know are important to all
    of your states on the public lands. And so, you know, the
    people, for example, when we get lawsuits on plans, say in your
    State of Wyoming. We get lawsuits on plans in your State of
    Wyoming. And when we have to pull information together to
    address those lawsuits these are the same employees, the same
    employees that were working on the plan, for the most part,
    that are also doing that. And so the point is not one of not
    being transparent. The point is more of one of the most
    efficient use of the time for our staff in trying to, you know,
    get the job done on the ground.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Ms. Weldon, the Government Accountability Office published
    a report titled, Limited Data Available of USDA and Interior
    Attorney Fee Claims and Payment. The report states that most
    USDA and Interior agencies did not have readily available
    information on Attorney Fee Claims and Payments made under the
    Equal Access to Justice Act. The GAO report contradicts what
    the Forest Service is testifying that this information is
    largely already available. So is the Government Accountability
    Office wrong and you do have the information already available?
        Ms. Weldon. Thank you, Senator. I want to emphasize as well
    that it is valuable and important that that information on fees
    be transparent and available to the public.
        When we looked at the response with GAO we have this
    information in different places. We have one place where we
    track, within our financial system, what fees were paid.
    There's another part of our system that tracks the lawsuits and
    the outcomes for those.
        So similar to what Mr. Ellis was saying, it's a matter of
    constructing the data base and taking the time to do it to
    allow us to deliver the answers that are being requested in the
    legislation.
        So again, supporting the idea of transparency, but the work
    to pull that into a system that can work well is what we're
    wanting to be able to do well.
        Senator Barrasso. So then will you provide this Committee
    with all the attorney fee claims and payments made under the
    Equal Access to Justice Act and other, kind of, fee shifting
    statutes including the total amount paid, who received the
    payments and the statutes under which the cases were brought?
        Ms. Weldon. We can do that, but it will take a substantial
    effort to pull it together.
        Senator Barrasso. So when can I expect to get those
    results?
        Ms. Weldon. I'd like to get back with you on when we can
    provide that to you if you don't----
        Senator Barrasso. Because we would like to have it. I think
    all of us would like to see that information. We think that the
    public has a right to see that.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm just about
    out of time.
        Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        Let's go to our prime co-sponsor here, Senator Heinrich.
    Thank you for your leadership on this.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, I want to thank you. I, like you,
    am optimistic. I am excited about this, and I think taking a
    regular order pathway and getting on this early and just the
    bipartisan support we have should bode well for success. So
    thanks for your work.
        I want to thank Senator Barrasso as well, who I worked very
    closely with on the particulars of the Hunt Act language. I
    really appreciate that.
        And with that I want to go to a couple of questions. I
    think I will start with Mr. Crane.
        I wanted to say it is a fantastic bill, but obviously we
    can always improve things. Looking at the provisions we are
    considering today I want to get your take on how we might
    possibly beef up the sport fishing and aquatic resources
    perspective of the bill.
        I know that Senators Cardin and Crapo had a bill last year
    to support and codify the National Fish Habitat Partnership
    Program and that Chairman Murkowski and her staff are working
    with those two Senators to move a fresh version of this
    legislation into consideration for this package.
        Can you speak about why this is important to the, roughly,
    40 million sport fishers in the United States and the impact
    that those activities have on our economy?
        Mr. Crane. Thank you, Senator.
        I'm very familiar with the legislation that you're talking
    about. We are part of the working group that is working with
    the lead Senators, with Senator Murkowski's staff. We'd be very
    supportive of putting the National Fish Habitat Conservation
    Act into this legislation if it is appropriate and it will
    actually help support passage and the necessary 60 votes.
        Anglers spend in the neighborhood of $40 billion a year in
    pursuit of their sport. To have, as I said in the beginning,
    access and opportunity and opportunity means good habitat. It
    means marine habitat. It means run off. It means repairing in
    areas the things that are important in connecting these
    together as this plan would do.
        Looking at this more holistically, like the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act does for water fowl and the
    management of those resources, I think, is just something that
    would be good management. And we would love to work with you
    and continue to work with you and support this provision.
        Senator Heinrich. I appreciate your help on that and I
    think coming from New Mexico where we have very little water,
    we appreciate our ripe parinaris, our wetlands and our fish
    habitat even more.
        Mr. Fosburgh, I want to ask you a question. You mentioned
    this in your opening testimony, and I was hoping you could talk
    a little bit about the North American model for wildlife
    conservation. How is it different from management in other
    parts of the world and what that means for the average hunter
    who may not be of means and how that is different from many
    places we see around the globe?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Yes, we sort of take this for granted over
    here. But you have to really look at, sort of, you have fish
    and wildlife as managed in other places. I mean, it's still you
    go to European countries, England, and the fish and the game
    belong to the land of gentry--it was never, you know, it has
    not been for centuries a common man's sport.
        Over here that's very different, and I think you really saw
    that back to the sort of frontier mentality. We settled
    America, but also folks like Theodore Roosevelt who really
    believed that the public lands, the hunting and fishing, were
    fundamental of what it meant to be an American.
        When you can go of any walk of life, any means, you can go
    out there and get a license. You can get a tag. You can go out
    and pursue fish and game. You don't have to be able to afford a
    fancy hunt or a high fence ranch or anything like that. Anybody
    can do this, and I think that's why we have such great
    resources in this country because it incentivizes everybody,
    including the 40 million Americans that hunt and fish, to get
    out there and take care of that resource. You look at the work
    that Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Turkey
    Federation, all those groups do. That is done because those
    guys can get out there. Those guys and women can get out there
    and participate in this sport.
        But it's something that doesn't take care of itself. We
    have to nurture that. We have to encourage it, and it gets
    tougher and tougher as we get more competing demands on our
    people, but also on our lands.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, I want to thank you for pointing
    that out because it really is unique in the world. It is the
    envy of the world because it has been so successful. People
    forget there was a time when white tails were incredibly
    uncommon across the East, when elk were extinct in New Mexico
    and that is far from the case today. In fact, if anyone wants
    to visit New Mexico, I would remind them that permits on the
    game and fish website are due on the 18th of this month. So you
    better get your applications in.
        With that, I'll stick around for the next round, Madam
    Chair.
        Chairman. We appreciate that, and thank you for your
    leadership.
        I also want to thank Senator Risch for his leadership as
    the co-chair of the Sportsmen's Caucus. Your questions, sir.
        Senator Risch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        First of all I want to thank everyone who has worked on
    this. I think we have hit the sweet spot this time, Jeff. We
    have Senator Murkowski and I actually being the lead on this
    bill, Senator Manchin and I as the co-chairman of the
    Sportsmen's Caucus, and then also Senator Fischer and Senator
    Heitkamp as vice chairmen have all been very heavily involved
    in this year.
        We think we have got a different landscape than what we
    have had, and I certainly want to thank everyone who worked on
    this, including Jeff, who has been undaunted and incredibly
    persistent and undeterred by the slowness with which Congress
    works on some of these things. Thank you for that. We
    appreciate your impatience with the political process but
    that's, kind of, it is what it is sort of thing here.
        In any event we think we have got this right now. It has
    been kicking around for a long time, and we think we are going
    to get that vote on the floor that we all so desperately want.
        My issue has been with the fact that we are not getting the
    participation we should be getting from youth here in America.
    Every time I give a speech on this I urge people to mentor the
    kids and get them out, get them away from their devices and get
    them out in the field to hunt and fish because this is really
    part of our culture in America. It would be a shame to see the
    thing fade because--we all know that there's an anti-hunting,
    really anti-fishing mentality out there in some people, and if
    they flex their muscle it could be a tough fight. We need to
    engage as many people in this as we can. For people who have
    never experienced this it is their great loss not being able to
    go out in the field and do these kinds of things. So I urge
    everyone to get out there and mentor young people.
        When I was Governor I went and had them look back at the
    licenses that we issued to the youth. It is not particularly
    encouraging to see the statistics on how that has been changing
    over the years, so we all need to work at that.
        This bill is a bill that will help preserve that incredible
    tradition and culture that we have in America. I am glad to be
    part of it, and I am glad to be working with the people who are
    pressing it.
        So thank you, Madam Chairman, thank all of you who have
    worked on this.
        Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. This will be our time.
    This will be our year. Let's be optimistic about that.
        Let's go to Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Well, Hawaii has a lot of hunters and fishermen and women,
    so I certainly support these activities.
        I would like to get a better understanding of this bill and
    putting it into context. I heard in testimony this morning that
    30 million acres of public lands are not accessible or closed
    to hunting and fishing. Now I see not accessible as very
    different from closed. So I want to get that clarified. And
    that 99 percent of public lands are open.
        So is this bill really focusing on that 30 million acres of
    public lands that are either not accessible or closed or are we
    just talking about just those areas that are not accessible to
    hunting and fishing? Could somebody clarify that for me?
        Mr. Crane. I'd be happy to try to do that. I think the
    distinction of the not accessible is literally inaccessible
    physically for somebody to get there. As you're well aware, the
    West in particular is a patchwork of public and private lands.
    And there's all too often cases where public lands are
    inaccessible because of this network of private in holdings.
    There are also times when roads are closed and things like
    that, but we're really talking about inaccessible because of
    some of these networks.
        So a couple of the provisions in the bill, your colleague,
    Senator Heinrich's Hunt Act, looks at inventorying where these
    are most likely to occur, where the high value recreational
    access points are maybe being blocked physically. Making public
    lands public with the set aside from LWCF would be dedicated
    funding to look at willing participants, sellers, people
    willing to have an easement over private property, create more
    access and more opportunities.
        So----
        Senator Hirono. So for Mr. Ellis and Ms. Weldon then, we're
    all on the same page, that is, this 30 million acres of public
    lands that are inaccessible, not closed. Because you obviously
    have procedures if you are going to close off certain areas for
    these kinds of hunting and fishing activities.
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, I would agree with that. Thank you for
    that question. The opportunity we have is to find ways to
    create that additional access to those places that are closed
    off, and we can do that through the LWCF program which we work
    in great partnership with many groups to help deliver new
    connections to land, new access across private land onto public
    land.
        Senator Hirono. So this bill would require that the
    agencies determine which inaccessible lands would establish
    priorities as to how to open these areas and also you need to
    have the means and resources because if there are private
    lands, right of ways, that you have to negotiate and purchase
    you would need to have that funding. Correct?
        Mr. Ellis. Senator, I might mention that this number
    figures on accessible lands. My experience in my career, it can
    really change every year. Because what I've seen in my travels
    is that there may be an area that we access for one time, a new
    landowner comes in, buys a piece of private ground below the
    public land, slaps a lock and a gate on it. And then our phone
    starts to ring at the local BLM office, the local ranger
    district, and we look and find maybe we never had any
    easements.
        So that's always changing. What we do then is we try to
    prioritize these areas, and our public helps us do this. I know
    in one I had when I worked in Idaho, in Shoshone, Idaho. The
    sportsmen got very engaged on one of these and we worked with
    Blaine County in working with the landowners to get access to
    that area.
        What I think the key thing is to work with our local
    communities, work with all our publics, the sportsmen and all
    our publics, the hunters and the non-hunters, fishermen, non-
    fishermen, to try to set these priorities and that's really----
        Senator Hirono. Well, I think it's important because
    clearly the majority of the people who enjoy our public lands
    are not hunters and fishermen, and so I do have a question as
    to with this bill and its emphasis on hunting and fishing,
    would that create some safety, further safety issues for the
    non-hunting, non-fishing public? For example, hunting also
    includes trapping within our public lands. Would that increase
    concerns about safety for the non-hunting, non-fishing public?
        Ms. Weldon. I don't believe it would. Again, the activities
    and where they occur, it's always a question of conflict and
    how do we accommodate everything everywhere. So if there were
    places where trapping would occur that are also places where
    other recreation activities would be occurring then we would
    need to make sure and ensure it could be done safely.
        Senator Hirono. For our Federal agencies then basically the
    concerns that you have raised about this bill are concerns that
    could be addressed to allow this bill to go forward for both of
    you. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman. Good to know.
        Senator Portman is not back. It looks like Senator Gardner,
    you are up next.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
    Ranking Member Cantwell for this hearing today. Just a reminder
    to everybody, I think you could buy turkey licenses for the
    spring hunt as of yesterday in Colorado. So March 11th I think
    you can start buying the licenses for it.
        This is a difficult hearing. Next time I suggest maybe Gore
    Creek for this hearing or something like that in Colorado, if
    we could.
        I know there are a couple people in the audience here today
    from Colorado, so I want to welcome them. I hope I am not
    breaking Committee rules by doing that, Madam Chairman.
        I just wanted to talk about the importance of outdoor
    activity recreation to Colorado, a significant economic boom
    to, not just Colorado, but all of our states.
        According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife total statewide
    economic output outdoor recreation is $34.5 billion per year,
    contributing $4.9 billion in local, State, and Federal tax
    revenue. Colorado sportsmen and sportswomen support $3.6
    million spending per day and $135 million in State and local
    taxes. So it's a great opportunity to be here to promote our
    great outdoors.
        I wanted to talk a little bit about the Judgment Fund
    Transparency Act and that aspect of the Sportsmen's Act,
    contained in the bill's legislation, that I authored in the
    House of Representatives and introduced again this year with
    Senator Fischer from Nebraska. The Judgment Fund Transparency
    Act would require a public accounting of the taxpayer funds
    distributed to litigants who bring claims against the Federal
    Government.
        This fund was originally created to help small businesses
    and veterans bring claims against our Government, but it has
    been used by others now. The group continuously I am concerned
    about those who continue to sue the Federal Government and may
    be trying to influence public policy outside of the legislative
    process. Court precedents set by such litigation could
    undermine public policy and policymaking, so I think it is
    important that we have transparency when it comes to these
    public funds so that we could have these details.
        I will direct my question to you, Mr. Crane. It is good to
    see you. Do you believe this provision is important to include
    in the Sportsmen's Act?
        Mr. Crane. Yes, sir, Senator, I do. As I stated earlier, I
    think I agree with you that all too often litigation is
    defining management, habitat, wildlife management decisions.
    The agencies, clearly, are looking at tighter fiscal times and
    to the extent that they have to pursue all these legal
    challenges, I think that's taking resources away from
    conservation and the things that we care about. So I think it's
    very important to include it in there.
        Senator Gardner. Just as you stated at the end, helping
    conservation efforts, that would help our sportsmen and
    sportswomen to include this?
        Mr. Crane. 100 percent it would.
        Senator Gardner. And again, this is something to Mr. Ellis
    and Ms. Weldon. I do not know if you would be able to provide
    this today, but if you could followup, if you would, an example
    where a lawsuit against the Federal Government resulted in
    restricting hunting, angler or fishing activities on Federal
    lands. That would be fantastic if you could followup with some
    examples of that.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Gardner. In the latest hunting access report
    Colorado had a high but declining level of hunting
    participation. I know that has been brought up this morning.
        The study that referenced showed Colorado public lands were
    generally accessible and that no more than 12 percent of
    Federal lands in Colorado were land locked by private land.
    There seems to be a misconception that public lands are land
    locked when in fact a lot of accessibility is truly there, but
    we should address this lack of awareness for alternative routes
    or remote access points. I think it is very important.
        Section 101 of the bill would direct Federal land managers
    to facilitate use of an access to Federal public lands for
    recreational fishing, hunting and recreational shooting. Would
    you agree that this could lead to improved planning and require
    the BLM and Forest Service to include evaluations of hunting,
    fishing and shooting access in resource management plans, land
    resource management plans, travel management plans and energy
    development plans, further promoting the multiple use
    philosophy of our public lands?
        Mr. Ellis, I'll start with you.
        Mr. Ellis. Okay, Senator, thank you.
        Regarding Section 101 one of the concerns that I had when I
    looked at that section and again, 99 percent of the lands are
    open. And except I thought, we thought, that the language might
    imply that BLM must make decisions that maximize hunting,
    fishing and target shooting. And that, you know, those
    activities, as I have indicated, are very important to us, but
    we want to feel that that language could result in litigation
    if we make decisions that do not maximize hunting, fishing and
    shooting.
        Let me give you an example. One of the things that we did,
    I refer to Idaho a lot because I spent a lot of my career in
    that state, was we put in these green strips. And it's green
    strips of vegetation to help stop wildfire, particularly in
    some of this grouse country, in Sage Grouse country. And we do
    that along the interstate, you know, between Mountain Home and
    Boise. We've done it in other areas. And we do a NEPA. Right?
    We do NEPA and do part of that. And those are in areas, in
    those chief grouse areas, those are areas if we go through NEPA
    and we do a decision we would not necessarily look in terms of
    whether that action was something to maximize hunting, fishing
    and shooting.
        Another concern that I had when I looked at that is that
    when we do NEPA documents, particularly planning documents, we
    develop a suite of alternatives based on public scoping. And so
    we go out to our public, we have public hearings and we
    identify issues. And many times, many times, hunting, fishing
    or one of those issues, I think that's a good thing. And then
    out of those issues then we develop alternatives. As part of
    that we analyze those alternatives. So with this event,
    essentially, would do, it would say, okay, we're going to do
    that regardless of it came up in scoping, regardless of issues.
    This would be one of them.
        So with so many of these lands that are open and that we
    want to continue to have open, I think that that is something
    that, based on my experience, would be ripe, very ripe for
    litigation. And so----
        Mr. Gardner. I do not want to cut you off, Mr. Ellis, but
    Mr. Crane would you like to respond?
        Chairman. We are going to have to move through this very,
    very quickly.
        Mr. Crane. I'll make mine very short. I would just call
    attention to the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act. It
    has priority uses that defines hunting and fishing, statutorily
    and how well that is working for the Fish and Wildlife Service
    at the Refuge System. I don't believe that this is going to be
    the issue that's suggested here.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman. Senator Stabenow?
        Senator Stabenow. Well thank you, Madam Chair, and I look
    forward to working with you and Senator Cantwell as we move
    forward on this.
        I want to thank, first, the panelists who worked with us on
    another bipartisan effort, on the Farm Bill. We hope for the
    same effort going forward on this. Particularly Jeff, I want to
    thank you for helping us put together a very aggressive
    conservation title. And of course, Ms. Weldon, our Forestry
    title as well. We very much appreciate that.
        I have a question, but I wanted to mention a couple of
    things just to echo the Land and Water Conservation Fund, what
    has been mentioned already and what Senator Cantwell has said.
    Hopefully, Madam Chair, we can move forward with that, to
    reauthorize that very, very important legislation.
        I also wanted to just put a plug in for the Conservation
    Easement Program. That is in another committee, the Tax Credit
    that Senator Heller and I have in Finance Committee, but it is
    very, very important in protecting and preserving lands that we
    extend that, and we would like very much to make that
    permanent. So, we want to work with you on that as well.
        Madam Chair, with Senator Portman here I want to mention
    and ask that we work together and something that very much
    relates to this is not yet a part of the bill, but it deals
    with fishing. And that is the question of Asian Carp. Senator
    Portman and I put in legislation that has been co-sponsored by
    at least two other members of the Committee so far, that deals
    with what happens if in fact these large fish keep coming up
    the Mississippi and Illinois River into the Great Lakes. They
    can outcompete any native fish in terms of food and habitat and
    would basically destroy the $7 billion fishing industry in the
    eight Great Lakes region.
        It is critically important. I grew up North in Michigan
    where everything was about hunting and fishing, and I can tell
    you about the Great Lakes and what could happen if in fact we
    cannot stop these fish from coming to the Great Lakes. It would
    be absolutely disastrous to our fishing industry and boating
    industry as I know our panelists know.
        Senator Risch is gone now, but I did want to put in a plug
    for the next generation. My son, who is an avid, competitive
    bass fisherman and also does ice fishing, on the coldest day of
    the year so far, had my grandkids out in their ice shanty
    fishing. So there is a next generation. I think they're crazy.
    It was very cold. [Laughter.] But they were out there.
        But the Asian Carp, it is critically important, and there
    are technologies now that can be used. We have identified a
    spot, 40 miles south of Chicago, where if we increased certain
    technologies and barriers it would make a huge difference, and
    so I would like very much to work with you as we move forward
    on this.
        I have a question for panelists that is not specific in the
    bill but relates to it and that relates to the Forest Service
    and what is happening in terms of our ability to manage our
    forest lands which are so important.
        Ms. Weldon, I wanted to ask you because I am a co-sponsor
    of Senator Wyden and Senator Crapo's Wildfire Disaster Funding.
    I am very concerned about the wildfires that are happening, we
    have to address those. We know and we have gone from 1995
    spending 16 percent of our budget on fire fighting today to 40
    percent. But what is happening is important management issues
    now cannot be funded.
        So when I look at what is happening in the Great Lakes, for
    instance, and I understand why dollars are being diverted to
    the Western states, but we are seeing more and more regular
    management practices that need to happen not being able to
    happen that would relate to restoration, management activities,
    that deal with game species, open spaces, other important parts
    of this whole discussion. I wonder if you might speak to, if
    we, in fact, pass the Wildfire bill would that allow funds to
    be freed up for restoration and management activities to
    protect our forests and species on our forest land?
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator
    Stabenow. And again, our appreciation, greatly, for the years
    of work that's gone in by Congress and by many other partners
    to put us on a path to really address this issue we have on how
    we fund wildfire.
        So quickly, we know we will stay in a situation where
    wildfires have two situations. One where we are very successful
    in addressing them, and the second part where we have wildfires
    that are larger, more impactive and more costly than we've ever
    seen.
        And so having a solution which is proposed with this 2016
    bill will put us in a place where we can direct more of our
    resource management funds to address those high priority places
    for reducing risks to communities from wildfire, restoring
    areas that create better habitat, better water quality and then
    freeing up funds that help us to be of service to citizens in
    the whole array of our mission, be it developing recreation, be
    it hosting and supporting other small businesses that come to
    do work on the national forest.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman. Senator Portman?
        Senator Portman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to you and to
    Senator Heinrich, congratulations on this legislation. I know
    it is something that you have worked long and hard on, and I
    know how frustrating it is not to get legislation that you have
    spent so much time and effort on through this crazy process
    here in Washington. I will be with you on this again, and I
    hope we can get it through the gauntlet here in the Senate and
    the House, and get it to the President for signature because it
    makes so much sense.
        Senator Risch and Senator Manchin, I notice you were
    original co-sponsors as well, so a lot of members of this
    Committee are involved with this legislation.
        It is really important for Ohio. We have got, as you know,
    lots of sportsmen and women in Ohio, hunters and fishermen and
    a lot of them do not have access to private land. They just do
    not own a farm or other land themselves. So they find this to
    be, really, their top issue is how to ensure access to public
    lands.
        I want to talk about Section 105 in a second, but while
    Senator Stabenow is still here, let me say, the other issue
    that is huge in Ohio right now is the idea of these Asian Carp
    coming up into the Great Lakes. It is a $7 billion fishing
    industry in the Great Lakes now.
        By the way, the most fertile of those lakes is the one that
    is the smallest and most shallow, and that is Lake Erie. For
    both Senator Stabenow and me, of course, this is an issue that
    is near and dear to our hearts. I have gone fishing on Lake
    Erie this past summer and the summer before for Walleye and
    because we were involved in this effort, this legislation, I
    asked other fishermen that I found at the docks, you know,
    where are you from? It is not just an Ohio issue or a Michigan
    issue or even an issue related to the United States around the
    Great Lakes because there are people that are fishing from
    states all over, at least the Eastern part of the United
    States. They come for some of the best Walleye fishing in the
    world. I would argue the best Walleye fishing in the world is
    in Lake Erie, around Port Clinton.
        They are very nervous about this because what is happening
    is in other instances is when carp come in, they outcompete the
    native species and we could ruin what is a huge economic
    benefit to our region and a really important recreational and
    commercial fishing industry in the Great Lakes. I do hope that
    you will work with us and with the authors of the legislation
    to see what we can include in this legislation even on this
    issue because it directly relates to sportsmen and to the
    ability for us to continue to have this great resource.
        By the way, these fishermen, the same is true with all the
    hunters, you know, they pay fees. They pay taxes. They are
    supporting all of the conservation efforts, including on lands
    where, I know, they will never have access. They do not expect
    to have access, like our national parks and including on
    private land because the wildlife officers, of course, are also
    patrolling private land that they may not have access to but at
    least they deserve access to more of the public lands that, in
    a sense, they are paying for with the millions of dollars of
    taxes and fees.
        Again, Senator Stabenow, thank you for your leadership on
    this. We have introduced legislation recently. Do you all have
    thoughts on Asian Carp? I do not know quite who to direct this
    to because none of you have a specific responsibility for this,
    but all of you, I am sure, have an interest in it.
        Ms. Weldon. I can start. Just with this era that we find
    ourselves in our global economy and such, we are seeing a huge
    impact from invasive species. Asian Carp is a great example
    where we're seeing significant change in how ecosystems operate
    and the affect of those on these economies that you described
    and experiences that people can expect.
        So I would say that us working, especially with Fish and
    Wildlife Service, with other state agencies and with lots of
    partnership groups as well. When we get together and focus on
    these areas we can find ways for success. It's a huge issue
    with the Great Lakes and what could be loss from that that does
    require really focused attention and some innovation on how to
    solve it.
        Senator Portman. Mr. Fosburgh, do you have some thoughts
    because it seems like--and thank you very much, Ms. Weldon, but
    thanks to all of you for your work on this but on this specific
    issue would the members of TRCP and their 40 national, regional
    partner organizations I see in your testimony, would they
    support inclusion of some language in S. 556 that would address
    this concern in some way?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Yes, I think it's an incredibly important
    issue, and I think you've described it very articulately. I
    think that our community would be very supportive of seeing
    something like this added provided that it helped the bill. I
    think it would achieve final passage.
        So, I think, yes, we would be very eager to work with you
    and Senator Stabenow and others to make sure that we get the
    support for this.
        Senator Portman. Any other comments? Mr. Crane or Mr.
    Ellis?
        Mr. Ellis. I'd be happy, Senator, to get back to you, have
    someone at the service, Fish and Wildlife Service, get back to
    you on this issue.
        Senator Portman. Mr. Crane?
        Mr. Crane. We are equally concerned of the impacts of the
    Asian Carp.
        Senator Portman. Well, again, thank you very much for your
    testimony today, and importantly to the Chair and Senator
    Heinrich for their work on this. I am going to be with you. I
    am on the Sportsmen's Caucus. I am the sportsman who believes
    strongly in providing more access to public lands. We can do it
    in a responsible way as this legislation does in my view,
    including Section 105.
        So, I look forward to supporting you and getting this done.
        Chairman. Senator Wyden?
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        First of all, Senator Stabenow made the key point with
    respect to wildfire. You cannot do a lot of hunting and fishing
    in the woods if they are burning up, and the reality is the
    wildfire system and how we fund fighting fires is broken. We
    short the Prevention Fund year after year then you get an
    inferno on your hands, and all of a sudden you borrow from the
    Prevention Fund to put the fire out. It just gets worse and
    worse and worse.
        So Ms. Weldon, you all have been supportive of our bill
    with Senator Crapo. We appreciate that. We just need you to be
    very, very vocal on this.
        I flew all night last Wednesday to be home in Medford for a
    fire briefing. It was unheard of, unheard of, that you would
    have fire briefings in March. I mean, nobody had that in the
    past. They told me in Medford they were looking at the driest
    season in 25 years. Then I moved on to Eugene, and they said
    they have had 10 percent of the snow pack. So we are looking at
    a very dangerous fire season.
        So you all have been supportive, and we appreciate it, but
    you are going to need to be very, very visible and vocal on
    this because we need to get this bill passed and make better
    use of scarce resources.
        Let me ask a question of you, if I might, Mr. Crane.
        As you know this bill, which I support, allows Americans to
    transport bows across National Park Service lands as long as
    they are not ready for immediate use. I think this idea of
    protecting the transport of legal hunting and camping tools is
    going to strike a lot of people as just plain old common sense.
    So Senator Enzi and I, in a bipartisan way, have tried to build
    on that and say that we ought to protect knife owners traveling
    between places where their knife is legal, and this is the
    important part, as long as the knife is inaccessible during the
    journey.
        Now discussions about the transportation of bows or knives
    and the like are separate and different from discussions about
    their use and those decisions have historically been left to
    each state to make, but I think this idea that people who are
    just passing through can stow their knife in the trunk or in
    the glove box or a closed container, again, just strikes me as
    garden variety, common sense.
        In principle, you do not have to say you endorse the bill
    or not, but in principle do you think that makes sense?
        Mr. Crane. Yes, sir, and I'm familiar with the bill and
    thank you for your leadership on that. As you are well aware,
    knives are extremely important to sportsmen and women, and we
    endeavor to work with you and Senator Enzi to help you pass
    that.
        Senator Wyden. I think I am going to quit while I am ahead.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman. Sorry, we were just discussing in a side bar
    here. You cannot take a knife through our public lands? I am
    assuming it is a size issue?
        Mr. Crane. I think the issue is more the various states and
    municipal statutes and not running the risk of crossing a state
    line or into a municipal line and carrying a knife that might
    be illegal in that statute, not dissimilar to firearms when
    you're crossing state lines. The firearms protect----
        Chairman. I don't mean to demonstrate my ignorance, but I
    guess coming from a state that is one fifth the size of the
    country, we do not worry about crossing over into another
    state's jurisdiction there. [Laughter.]
        We go into another country, but I do want to look into that
    with Senator Wyden.
        Let's go to Senator Daines from the great State of Montana.
        Senator Daines. Madam Chair, speaking from Montana, I can
    tell you it is pretty tough to field dress an elk without a
    knife. I am just saying.
        Chairman. Well, I am thinking that.
        Senator Daines. Yes.
        Chairman. What are we going to do? Use our nail clippers?
        Senator Daines. Yes, I am not sure.
        Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, for holding this hearing
    on the bipartisan Sportsmen's Act. It is an important bill to
    Montana, and I am a proud co-sponsor.
        Like so many Montanans hunting, fishing and access to
    public lands is a way of life for us. It passed down from my
    grandfather, to my dad, to me, as a kid growing up. I will tell
    you, as a public service announcement from Montanans, remember
    March 16th is the deadline right now for special draw for deer
    and elk permits for those who are out there and may be caught
    up in DC politics.
        I also appreciated Senator Risch's comments about children
    and passing this on to the next generation. One of the best
    parts when I have taken my kids hunting, we have four children,
    we love to hunt and fish, is usually they do not have cell
    phone coverage when we are out hunting. [Laughter.]
        They have to put down their phones so they can pick up
    their rifles and their bows and so forth. That is one of the
    great parts of getting out anymore, I think, with your kids. I
    love that statement, that famous line that says if you take
    your kids hunting, some day you won't have to hunt for your
    kids. I think it is very, very true.
        Mr. Crane, as you stated in your testimony the idea of
    Conservation America began with members of the sportsmen
    community, and I know Montana sportsmen are frustrated with
    their current level of access to Federal lands in Montana. They
    are frustrated with fringe groups who are obstructing
    worthwhile projects that are important to effectively managing
    our forests.
        In fact, Montana faces a severe challenge of mismanagement
    of our forest lands, Federally, due to habitual litigation. In
    fact just two weeks ago we had Forest Service Chief Tidwell
    confirm that litigation, restraining orders, have a significant
    impact on Federal forest management. They occupy significant
    staff resources that could otherwise be spent on getting
    projects done. Yet these habitual litigants continue to get
    reimbursed by the Federal taxpayers through the Equal Access to
    Justice Act and the Judgment Fund, in particular. I am happy to
    see the provision related to ensuring taxpayers are given more
    transparency on the recipients of these funds.
        Mr. Crane, can you expand on how the Bipartisan Sportsmen's
    Act would help address the problem of these obstructionist
    tactics?
        Mr. Crane. Yes, Senator, and I'll try to keep it brief.
    There are several provisions that I think would benefit this
    issue and help solve this problem.
        The first one is the Equal Access to Justice Provision in
    there and the transparency for the lawsuits and the Judgment
    Fund. I think that will help to enable all of us to look at it
    and see where, really, the issues are and who may be, if there
    is a theme of folks that are going after access and forestry
    management.
        The Making Public Lands Public deals with set aside from
    Land and Water Conservation funding for willing sellers to
    provide physical access across private properties to make more
    access to Federal public lands.
        Then Senator Heinrich's Hunt Act requires the Federal
    agencies to look at and prioritize areas where there is an
    access, adequate access, for sportsmen and women and other
    outdoor recreationists and to try to look at how we can, with
    that inventory, then we can look at how we might be able to
    solve that.
        Senator Daines. Thanks, Mr. Crane and you brought up the
    issue of making public lands public.
        Mr. Fosburgh, in the House I introduced the Making Public
    Lands Public provision as a standalone bill. I am very happy to
    see it included in this bill before us today. I think an
    important part of LWCF, as Mr. Crane pointed out, is allocating
    dollars to ensure public access to public lands.
        In Montana we have two million acres of public lands that
    are inaccessible to the public. I am happy to see your support
    of this provision. I know that the provision is a priority for
    several sportsmen groups back home in Montana.
        Mr. Fosburgh, why is sportsmen access a worthy investment
    of LWCF?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Well, I think that first you have to look at
    the big numbers which is the $90 billion that hunters and
    fishermen provide the economy every year. Those are a
    significant part of the whole $646 billion outdoor recreation
    economy. 6.1 billion--million jobs in the broader recreation
    economy. And those are jobs that are never going to get
    exported to China. These are American jobs that we take care of
    our lands, take care of our fish and wildlife and give people
    access to those we'll have that forever.
        The concern is that it just is as access gets more and more
    difficult you're going to see a drop off in those numbers, and
    that's bad for budget reasons. One is the amount of money. When
    Jeff and I and other folks go out and buy our licenses that we
    pay into that system. We pay excise taxes on guns, ammo,
    fishing equipment, boating equipment. We buy our permits. We
    buy our tags.
        Senator Daines. Sure.
        Mr. Fosburgh. We are members of various organizations,
    contribute our money there. So you lose that also as you lose
    the access to the public lands.
        Senator Daines. One followup question, Mr. Crane, on that
    is how does that open until closed provision, Section 101 of
    the bill, help ensure public lands are, in fact, managed for
    multiple use?
        Mr. Crane. I think that we don't have the statutory
    protections in the Forest Service and the BLM that we have with
    the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think that by providing that
    we, again, support this rural economy. We support the
    traditions of hunting and fishing, and we would like to see
    those protected and ensured that they're going to remain
    protected in future generations.
        Senator Daines. Great. Thank you.
        Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        The co-chair of our Sportsmen's Caucus, Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. First of all, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman. Thank you for your leadership.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you so much. I just want to thank
    you for your perseverance. How long have you have been working
    on this? A long time.
        There is no reason it should not have passed three years
    ago. There really isn't. So we are at that point now, and I
    think with Senator Heinrich and Madam Chairman working closely
    together, this is going to get done. I am proud to be a co-
    chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus with Senator
    Risch, a dear friend of mine.
        The bottom line is that this is bipartisan. It's been
    bipartisan, and it will also be bipartisan because of the
    economics. It makes sense.
        I can just give you from my little State of West Virginia
    how important it is to our culture, who we are as people and
    how many people depend on this for a livelihood.
        Our greatest priority is to make sure the mountain state
    people and everybody across the nation continue to enjoy
    hunting and fishing and recreational shooting and have the
    ability to appreciate all the outdoors has to offer.
        In West Virginia alone we have more than 1.6 million acres
    of public land open to hunting with 28 shooting ranges on these
    lands, and when I was Governor we expanded that. It was such a
    draw, and it was really a family type of an outing, a little
    bit of something for everybody.
        We have a year-round fishing season which produces an awful
    lot of revenue from fishing licenses, and we have more than
    20,000 miles of streams and a hundred public fishing lakes.
        Let me just give you a little bit about our economics as of
    2011. We saw more than 400,000 hunters in our little state who
    supported 12,000 jobs. 400,000 hunters supporting 12,000 jobs,
    $870 million to our economy, to the economy of West Virginia
    and generated $81 million in local and state taxes.
        So when we are coming down to this, and I will ask all of
    you, who is our opposition? Where are the road blocks?
        Unless we get in our own way in the political things that
    happen here sometimes and take a different direction, where are
    you getting pushed back? Where are places we can diffuse this
    because basically I think you have answered everything. There
    are some people concerning they say, listen we don't hunt, we
    don't fish, we just like to go out and walk in the woods and
    enjoy it.
        There is not a hunter or fisherman that I know of that's
    not an environmentalist. We are out there for many, many
    reasons, not only their sport, but basically the enjoyment of
    nature.
        But where is our push back coming where some people we are
    never going to have us wanting to go in there and hunt and use
    the land? I was talking to Senator Heinrich about enhancing the
    habitat so we could all enjoy it, whether it is viewing or
    whether it is hunting or just sport shooting. Jeff we will
    start with you. Where do you think our push back is coming in
    to our degree where would that push back be?
        Mr. Crane. I would defer to the folks to my right on the
    Federal agency side. But I think Senator, that the bill goes
    out of its way to ensure that while we're talking about
    sportsmen's access for hunters, anglers and shooters, that it,
    in no way, infringes on other uses of these Federal lands and
    it no way infringes on other access for other activities on
    this land.
        I will say that, with you being a hunter and a shooter and
    an angler, there are more of the anti-use and the environmental
    extremists, animal rightists that are coming after us,
    specifically. I don't think some of the other users of the
    Federal public lands are under the same amount of pressure. And
    therefore, we're trying to take that proactive step, I think,
    in this legislation to protect that kind of access going
    forward but it's not trying to set it at an elevated level.
        So, I don't know if I can answer why there's opposition.
    We've been supportive of this for years as well. And then----
        Senator Manchin. It would have to be extreme if it is.
        Mr. Crane. It is.
        Senator Manchin. Anyone would have to be in an extreme
    position of not wanting us to be able to use public lands as
    the public should be able to use them. Ms. Weldon, do you have
    any comments on this?
        Ms. Weldon. Well, I think there's more opportunity here
    than anything else. You know, the concept in the----
        Senator Manchin. Excuse me, but have you spoken to groups
    that might show concern, might not support, might be----
        Ms. Weldon. I haven't.
        Senator Manchin. They have not gotten----
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, for the concept and what the bill
    promotes, as far as this tradition of access to public land for
    hunters, for fishers. If it's access for them, it's access for
    all citizens.
        And so again, not that our concerns are more around the
    processes we would use to achieve some of the intent of the
    bill. So that's the thing, I think, we----
        Senator Manchin. And the misnomer is a lot of people do not
    realize that most states have different hunting seasons because
    of----
        Ms. Weldon. Right.
        Senator Manchin. It is not 24/7, 12 months a year, you
    know? So it is not like we are infringing on people who do not
    want to be involved in the hunting because those seasons can be
    avoided, if needed.
        Ms. Weldon. Right.
        Senator Manchin. Mr. Ellis, any comment on that?
        Mr. Ellis. Yes. It was mentioned over here about--sportsmen
    access is a worthy investment. I would say access for all our
    publics is really worth the investment. So in answer to your
    question, so where have I push back, push back.
        I would agree with my colleague from the Forest Service
    here that on access I have not, really it's a crowd pleaser.
    Access to public land is a crowd pleaser.
        Where I have heard some concerns at times is what type of
    access. So I've had some groups that say, it should be
    motorized access. And other groups, even within hunters
    themselves, that say well, non-motorized because I have found
    that hunters, and again, I'm one of them. I hunt big game on
    horseback for the most part, alright, and others do not. And so
    there are some that see access as well it has to be motorized
    right, or it's not access.
        Senator Manchin. Right.
        Mr. Ellis. And there's other hunters and they like, as all
    of you know, a different type of experience out there. I think
    our challenge is how do we provide for all those experiences?
    How do we provide for the breadth of those experiences? What
    we're doing in the Bureau is we're doing travel management
    planning, and it's part of this travel management planning, the
    sportsmen groups have been very engaged in this. We appreciate
    them being engaged in this, to try to determine where that
    balance is on those various types of access.
        Now when somebody puts a lock on a gate, I mean that, for
    the most part, it's horse, you know, walking to ATV or pick up
    to get your fire wood or whatever.
        So I think those are the areas where we've had some of the
    real controversy. And so----
        Senator Manchin. I know we're not----
        Mr. Ellis. The solution is to work through them right
    locally with our publics and trying to identify these areas in
    our planning process.
        Senator Manchin. In our planning.
        I would like to ask you too, but I think my time has
    expired. I think I am either going to get hit with a gavel or I
    should be quiet at this time.
        So maybe if you----
        Chairman. Well, these are important questions and I
    appreciate them and have been giving everybody a little extra
    latitude because I think it is important that we get these
    issues out there.
        The balancing of the multiple uses is a really key
    consideration on our public lands and oftentimes can be very,
    very difficult as to how we balance it.
        Let's go to Senator Flake.
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for the
    testimony.
        Senator McCain and I have been hearing from the Park
    Service and Arizona Game and Fish, among others, about the
    growing challenges of managing the bison herd in Grand Canyon
    National Park. By some estimate the herd now exceeds 600, and
    they have more or less found sanctuary within the park where
    hunting is not allowed.
        Unlike traditional bison that we generally think of my
    understanding is that these are a crossbreeds buffalo and
    cattle, sometimes called beefalo because of their size and lack
    of resources they are really wreaking havoc there. The Park
    Service has issued a proposal that is currently under
    consideration to lethally and non-lethally kill the herd. I am
    just wondering, there have been proposals, and I will address
    this to Mr. Fosburgh, to allow volunteers to go in and hunt,
    and it would certainly decrease the cost and likely be as or
    more effective. Do you want to talk about that for a bit?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Yes, you know, I'm not that steeped in the
    actual situation in the Grand Canyon, but I think in general to
    the extent that you can get volunteers to get hunters out there
    doing this sort of stuff. It saves the Government money. It
    achieves the end result and it keeps people engaged and
    provides meat either for those hunters or for needy causes
    locally.
        So I think that we, as a community, ought to be used more
    often. Obviously we'd need to be supervised and you can't have
    bad actors out there doing this stuff, but I think the agency
    certainly should have the ability to do that. And they ought to
    use hunters as a resource.
        Senator Flake. This is not unprecedented. Senator Udall
    actually proposed doing this to help with regard to the
    overpopulation of elk in the Rocky Mountain National Park. So
    it has been proposed and utilized elsewhere. I hope it will be
    considered. Any thoughts on this, Mr. Ellis?
        Mr. Ellis. If I could, Senator Flake, I'd like to pivot to
    Mr. Wilson of the Park Service here to address that issue.
        Senator Flake. Alright.
        Mr. Wilson. Senator, respectfully, I'm just not prepared to
    address that issue today, but we're very aware of that issue
    and if you don't mind we'll get back to you on that.
        Senator Flake. I would appreciate that greatly.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
        Senator Flake. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Flake. Mr. Ellis, you mentioned in your testimony
    and again just a bit ago that 99 percent of BLM managed lands
    are open to hunting, recreational shooting. What impact do
    monument designations have on that overall percentage?
        Mr. Ellis. I have the numbers for the monument, for
    monuments and I believe it's 95 percent of our national
    monuments are open.
        But here's from my experience. These special designated
    areas, such as national monuments, these are areas that hunters
    and fishermen and women, sportsmen and women like to go to many
    times. In most cases they have quality habitat. They have
    quality streams and fisheries. So these are areas that they
    like to go.
        And so I believe that these are areas that, regardless of
    the designation, that we should do our best to keep them
    available to sportsmen and women for hunting and fishing.
        Senator Flake. The concern is, let's take Ironwood for a
    minute. And Mr. Crane, if you could address that, you mentioned
    the Ironwood Monument designation and the restrictions that
    come with that. Do you want to elaborate?
        Mr. Crane. Yes, Senator. Prior to you arriving here I also
    brought up the case of the Sonoran and the proposed
    restrictions or banning, complete banning of recreation,
    disperse recreational shooting. I know from your state, in
    particular, it gets worrisome because that systematic closure
    starts to go around the entire population center of Phoenix,
    Arizona. The further somebody has to travel to hunt, to fish,
    or to recreationally shoot, the less inclined they're going to
    be to continue to do it, especially those folks that aren't as
    passionately committed as some of us are.
        So the issue is real. The issue has got real long lasting
    permanence. And therefore, again, I think, the intention of
    this bill is to try to put the onus back on to say where are
    the reasons for this. And we are concerned about the situation
    in Arizona.
        Senator Flake. I appreciate that, and I just want to note
    that we hear a lot about this. As mentioned, people want to
    obey the law and we need to make sure that we keep that in mind
    as we consider such designations.
        So, thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman. Thank you, Senator Flake.
        Senator King?
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    your leadership on this important bill. I hope this is the year
    that we are going to be able to put it over the goal line.
        Mr. Ellis, in Maine we have had a presumption for many
    years that the land is open unless closed. It goes back to the
    colonial ordinance of 1641 when Maine was part of
    Massachusetts, a period we refer to as the Dark Times.
    [Laughter.]
        But is that the presumption on the Bureau of Public Land
    land? Is it presumed open unless specifically closed?
        Mr. Ellis. Well, Senator, the Dark Times, I'll have to read
    up more on that. [Laughter.]
        And they still have the state park up there, Baxter State
    Park?
        Senator King. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ellis. That's still up in Maine.
        Senator King. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ellis. I have to get up there yet. I heard it's a
    pretty area.
        Really, you know, it depends on the use. For hunting, yes,
    I mean, hunting areas, as we said, 99 percent are open unless
    they are designated closed they are open and likewise for
    recreational shooting. We have areas that we have closed for
    recreational shooting that are still open for hunting.
        Menan Buttes in Eastern Idaho is one of those areas where
    we have a lot of traffic. It's a very popular area. I think we
    had like 15,000 people up these trails in a 6-month period of
    time, and it was an area for shooting, for recreational
    shooting, target shooting.
        And so, we did deal with that through a public
    participation process. Yet the area remains open for hunting.
    It's an area that the State, Idaho Fish and Game, they still
    are the ones that regulate that hunting and we respect that.
        But with that said, the process that we use to look at
    these areas is our land use planning process. It's a full
    public participation process that when we look at this on a
    broad scale. If we're looking at closures, say to recreational
    shooting, those also are a public participation process. And I
    talked about that a little earlier this morning in some of the
    discussion.
        So I guess in short, when we look at these areas and when
    we close these areas it's primarily for public safety. And if I
    look at the experiences I've had, it's primarily for public
    safety, sometimes there are some resource issues such as in the
    Sonoran National Monument where I was about three weeks ago,
    that Mr. Crane referred to. Down there, there were some
    resource issues that we dealt with. But really that's the
    process. That's the process that we go through.
        Senator King. Good. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, I just want to, for the record, note that many
    of the provisions of this bill are particularly applicable in
    the West. The Eastern part of the United States, Maine in
    particular, has very little in the way of Federal public land.
    We have some. We have the Moose Horn Refuge, a little tiny
    piece of the White Mountain National Forest. On the other hand
    these issues, hunting and fishing, are tremendously important
    in our state both culturally, historically and economically,
    and I applaud you for it.
        I know that you are working on the National Fish Habitat
    Preservation Program. Hopefully, is there a possibility that
    will be folded into this bill?
        Chairman. We are continuing to work on that, and I
    appreciate the assistance that we have received from many in
    trying to find just that right space.
        Senator King. Well certainly I would like to be associated
    with that. I think that has been an important program in Maine,
    and I think it is an important one for the country.
        I have to tell one funny story. When I was Governor of
    Maine in 1997 the Internet had just begun a few years before
    and I told our Inland Fisheries and Wildlife I wanted people to
    be able to get hunting and fishing licenses online by January
    1997. At my State of the State address they say, oh yes,
    Governor, we'll do that. I made the address, and said you could
    do it. I found out later, in fact, you could, but when you sent
    in your application online, because we really did not know how
    to do these things, it turned into a fax at the Inland
    Fisheries and Wildlife. It then went through and you got your
    license.
        We were the second state in the United States to be able to
    get hunting and fishing licenses online, and I think it was a
    kind of example of can do. I think we have to be thinking
    always and I am delighted that we got the duck stamp online
    last December, other ways that we can make these services and
    drive down the paperwork, if you will, of being able to access
    the out of doors for these important, important, recreational
    opportunities that mean so much to many of our states.
        So I want to thank you for your leadership on this bill,
    and look forward to working on it with you. If there are other
    provisions that are of importance to us like the Habitat
    Partnership Program, I want to be sure they are included if at
    all possible. Thank you.
        Chairman. We look forward to working with you as well.
    Thank you.
        Let's go to the Senator from North Dakota, where they
    probably have a little bit of hunting and fishing and shooting
    going on up there.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        We have tremendous hunting and fishing, and I enjoy it
    myself very much as do all our citizens and many others.
        I would like to and I am pleased to be a co-sponsor on this
    legislation and look forward to passing it soon, I hope, with a
    good, strong, bipartisan vote.
        Mr. Crane, I would like to start with you as President of
    the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. What is the economic
    impact, nationally, from hunting and fishing in a year and how
    much do you think we can actually increase that economic impact
    with this kind of legislation?
        Mr. Crane. According to the last survey it was $90 billion
    collectively, nearly 40 million anglers and hunters.
        And as you're well aware, there are taxes on the equipment,
    excise taxes that are dedicated and go back to sport fish
    restoration and wildlife restoration. There are permits and
    fees that the state wildlife agencies collect. So the economic
    backbone of conservation in America is supported by hunters and
    anglers.
        Unfortunately the trend has been rather static or over a
    longer period of time, declining. And I think that all the
    aspects that we have been talking about in this room could
    hopefully help to change this. I think this bill gets directly
    at some of those key things which are access and opportunity.
    Without those, we are not going to have that growth we need to
    keep the young people engaged and bring them out. And so I
    appreciate you co-sponsoring this bill.
        Senator Hoeven. So economic impact right now, $90 billion
    from hunting and fishing. And you think with this expanded
    access that this legislation provides, we could increase that
    further, correct?
        Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. I want to start with Mr. Fosburgh at the TR
    Conservation Partnership, but then go to both Mr. Ellis at BLM
    and Ms. Weldon at the Forest Service. With this expanded access
    talk about how we can do that. How do we make that happen? What
    do you think that your organization can contribute to making
    that happen? Mr. Fosburgh?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Well we are a coalition of 40 plus different
    organizations, all of which, I think share the goals of
    increasing access and making sure we have a lot of fish and
    wildlife when we get there.
        I think that this bill, the Sportsmen's Act, is an
    important first step in getting there. It's not a silver
    bullet, and there's going to be a bunch of stuff that needs to
    get done to, you know, we talked about tax incentives got
    mentioned. That's going to be an important aspect to conserving
    private lands.
        National things like fire funding and how we fund wildfires
    and having that money freed up for actual management of our
    national forests which will be great for fish and game. That's
    another part of it.
        So I think that this is one step. It's not the only step,
    and I think that, collectively, if we work at all these things
    together, we can push this over the finish line because this is
    just too important not to do, and it benefits everybody.
        Senator Hoeven. Ms. Weldon, from the standpoint of the
    Forest Service, and Mr. Ellis, from the standpoint of BLM, what
    can you do to help implement that public access if we are able
    to pass this legislation?
        Ms. Weldon. And an important part is the reauthorization of
    LWCF, you know, that is our key tool. And with the goals for
    this next President's budget to look at making that mandatory
    and having some specific set asides for access. That puts us in
    a place where we can work through, you know, with lots of
    partnerships and input from communities, the priority places
    that we want to continue to pursue that access by having that
    additional funding or staffing support to keep pursuing what we
    know is critical access.
        Senator Hoeven. The Land and Conservation Fund is what you
    are talking about?
        Ms. Weldon. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, yes,
    LWCF.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. Mr. Ellis?
        Mr. Ellis. I would agree with my colleague that fully
    funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund would be key.
    Again, in my career, I'm trying to think of partials that we
    acquired under LWCF that did not increase public access, and I
    can't think of one. And so, it is very important.
        Senator Hoeven. How about public access on existing lands?
    What can you do there?
        Mr. Ellis. That's part of where we use groups like the
    Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing and Shooting Sports Roundtable,
    you know, the Wildlife Hunting and Heritage Council, our local
    groups and our other publics to work with our local line
    officers to try to identify and prioritize those areas. And in
    all the areas that we have private land and try to help them
    determine what should these be priority areas be for access?
        We have limited funds and we have a certain amount of
    staffing, so what we have to do is prioritize that. I think
    that's important that our publics help us do that. That our
    sportsmen, included, identify what areas are most important to
    them and help us set those priorities.
        Senator Hoeven. Set priorities. Ms. Weldon? Same question.
    How can you help create more access on existing lands?
        Ms. Weldon. There's a very large work load associated with
    gaining access from private to public or public to private that
    has so much to do with two things. One is finding those willing
    landowners who will work with us to establish and sustain
    access. Sometimes we find that to be a challenge. But also for
    us to be able to have the staffing that can consistently turn
    its attention to pursue that. So the relationship back to how
    we look at where we find that funding. How might fixing our
    funding fire can provide some additional support for our staff
    to get that work done on the ground.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it.
        Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        I have one final question and then I know that Senator
    Heinrich has one as well. I appreciate the time that you all
    have given us here this morning. I think there has been some
    good coverage on the issues that have been presented.
        I am not satisfied though with what I have heard in the
    discussion about the filming on our public lands. I am trying
    to understand whether or not we've got consistent application
    because I think some of the frustration is that you, perhaps,
    have differing interpretations of what commercial might be or
    just what the understanding and directive is.
        I believe it was you, Ms. Weldon, who responded when the
    question was asked by Senator Cantwell about filming on our
    wilderness lands. I think you also pointed out, Mr. Ellis, that
    access to the wilderness and to the wilderness study areas for
    purposes of some form of commercial filming and making sure
    that we don't impact, have impact, or negatively impact the
    wilderness values. I think you used the term, Ms. Weldon, that
    it is promoting the value of wilderness.
        Just because we have so much wilderness in Alaska, we have
    more than all the other states combined, there are big spaces.
    And when I think about the value of wilderness, I think about
    how difficult it is to access some of that wilderness. I know
    that some of my colleagues have had the benefit of being able
    to do that.
        I also recognize that some of my colleagues, like Senator
    Heinrich, who are very fit are able to climb mountains and hike
    back to places that other people will never be able to have
    access to. So the ability to be able to see it because we have
    had those who are able to provide that access through the
    visual is so important to us.
        I understand the concern about making sure that we do not
    have impact on these wilderness values, but we have to be able
    to see that. Making sure that is allowed has got to be a
    priority as well.
        I need to understand what is coming out from the Forest
    Service in terms of the directive. When we had Chief Tidwell
    before the Committee last week or the week before, he indicated
    that it was coming out shortly. What I was trying to get from
    him at that time was can you give us some indication as to what
    will be allowed particularly as it relates to individual and
    small, independent film operators. As you know in our measure,
    we are seeking to effectively have a diminumus number of folks
    that would not be required to have these permits, to pay these
    fees. So I am looking for some guidance from you all as to
    where you are going to be taking it.
        Ms. Weldon. Thanks very much for that question.
        Overall, we are finished with our public engagement and
    scoping on this directive. We received close to 5,000 comments.
    Based on the concerns that were raised last autumn we also
    added a number of public engagement sessions where we were able
    to speak with the people who had these direct concerns about
    what's the best way for us to put together a directive that is
    well understood, you know, is interpreted in such a way that
    folks would know what they would be required to do if they were
    involved with commercial filming.
        So as it relates to small operators, in the bill, there's a
    proposal that for five and under there would be a flat fee of
    $200, and then also that there would be requirements for
    checking in 48 hours ahead of time and then let the groups go
    and do their thing.
        We agree that we can make this very efficient, but want to
    make sure that, as we're understanding the activities that a
    group of five or smaller might be doing, that they are doing
    those in line in such a way that ensures resource protection.
    Our experiences when we work with folks looking for this
    activity, they cooperate with us extremely well. But we want to
    make sure that we're not setting ourselves up to have a group
    go out once they've paid that fee where we can't fully assess
    for the impacts. That's what we wanted to do.
        Chairman. Well, what are you afraid of? What are you afraid
    they're going to do?
        Ms. Weldon. Well, for example, if he goes out with a crew
    of five they could come with substantial other props and gear
    to locations that may not be the best place to have that occur.
    So we want to at least be able to put them in the best position
    to be successful.
        And the 48-hour notice piece, you know, if a group comes on
    a Friday it may not give us the ability, you know, by the time
    they get there to say that, wow, if we knew you were going
    there, we would have asked you to go here for the same thing,
    but reduce the impact to this resource or to this other
    activity going on. So what we're looking for is just the
    ability to----
        Chairman. Then you are basically prescribing where you are
    going to go in that area to film. If again, what you are trying
    to show people through the eyes of the lens is an area but you
    say, well, we only want to film this. That is all we are going
    to be able to see is what you are telling us to film.
        Ms. Weldon. Well----
        Chairman. So again----
        Ms. Weldon. I don't think our intent is to say look this
    way, don't look that way. It's just to make sure we're not
    creating a conflict if we can avoid it. So we think there are
    vast opportunities for folks----
        Chairman. It sounds like you are making a lot of work for
    yourselves.
        Ms. Weldon. Well, if we want it to be something that we
    ensure we can continue doing by not having entities that we
    don't know where they cause a level of impact or damage that--
    --
        Chairman. But if you've got three or four individuals who
    are basically packing their gear----
        Ms. Weldon. Right.
        Chairman. On their back.
        Ms. Weldon. And that would be an instance where we would
    say, go do your thing. We would be more concerned if a group
    were to go and they had different types of gear and equipment
    and went and caused an impact that we could have prevented if
    we knew about it.
        So, not trying to add more process in, but we just want to
    make sure we, along with whomever is looking for that
    experience, can see what it means for us to take care of that
    resource while we're out there.
        Chairman. Well, I would like you to look very critically at
    what we are proposing because I think it is imminently,
    imminently reasonable when you have five or less. Again,
    limitations in terms of what it is that they are bringing in.
        If you are, from an agency perspective, going to say we
    only want you to see this over here, and we don't want you to
    allow----
        Ms. Weldon. Yes and next----
        Chairman. Access.
        Ms. Weldon. Right.
        Chairman. It is not like you have a big Hollywood film
    crew.
        Ms. Weldon. Correct.
        Chairman. What you have are those who are committed to the
    resource, who have a passion for the land, who want to share it
    through the lens of a camera with others who will never be able
    to experience that. I do not want our agencies to be viewed as
    the choke point.
        Ms. Weldon. No, that's----
        Chairman. And limit access that way.
        Let me go to my colleague for his final questions.
        Senator Heinrich. I want to thank the Chair for her
    questions on this. I think we share a fairly similar approach
    on this issue. I know a number of folks who film outdoor shows
    in these wilderness areas and wilderness study areas.
        I think the key issues are one, the tools. None of us want
    a big cherry boom in the middle of the Gila wilderness, and
    limiting that with what people can carry in terms of a tripod
    and handheld equipment is a very effective way at getting at
    that. If I am hunting in the back country and I want to take a
    tripod with me, I can do that.
        The other piece of this that I think may be problematic is
    you spoke to, sort of, the intent of the content of a show or
    of something that is filmed. I really think we have no business
    being in that area. When you film in a low impact way in these
    places, even if you never use the word wilderness, what you are
    really doing is educating people about wilderness. They see
    this resource that is unique.
        I do not think we should get in the business of saying that
    we will allow you to film a documentary on Aldo Leopold in
    McKenna Park in the Gila Wilderness, but we will not let you
    film a hunting show on how great the elk resource is in the
    Gila National Forest if you do not use the word wilderness. I
    think both of them are equally valuable.
        I want to move to the access issue, but maybe first, just
    say a word or two about the national monuments, the
    recreational shooting and hunting. I want to give a shout out
    to the BLM because we have two new national monuments that are
    BLM-managed in the state, Rio Grande Del Norte in the North
    along the Rio Grande Gorge and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks in
    the South. Both were community-driven efforts. Both are open to
    hunting and fishing, although good luck fishing in Organ
    Mountains-Desert Peaks.
        I have certainly hunted in Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks. We
    have Javelina in New Mexico. We are one of the few states that
    have that resource, and a lot of people hunt for deer in that
    area as well. One of my friends, who owns a fly shop up in Rio
    Grande Del Norte, got an enormous bull elk last year on the
    monument. Part of the reason why those efforts came together
    and why people chose to make them Bureau of Land Management
    monuments was because of that support for hunting and fishing
    and having a little bit different approach on those issues in
    particular. So I urge you to keep that issue up.
        Mr. Ellis, one of the things that does concern me on this
    access issue is that there is so much variability from district
    to district on how to solve these things. I have heard that
    from other states as well as from users in my state. We have
    had some great successes in New Mexico, opening up some areas
    that previously were inaccessible, private, or public Bureau of
    Land Management lands that you couldn't get to legally and full
    stop.
        We have also seen that the prioritization of that issue and
    the regularization of how to deal with those issues really
    varies dramatically. I am wondering if the Bureau has taken any
    steps to, sort of, regularize that work across the system to
    learn what has worked and maybe apply it in the places that
    have been less successful?
        Mr. Ellis. Well, Senator, again what I've learned in my
    travels is that the relationship between the field managers,
    the field office manager and a local district manager in the
    BLM with local land owners and with the community are so key.
    It's a lot about relationships. So much is about successful
    relationships, internally and externally.
        And so, you know, Director Kornze and I are going to put
    great emphasis when we select people for these type of
    positions on those skills and being able to work with the
    communities, being able to work with the publics to have those
    traits that are so important everywhere we manage public lands.
        And so communications, leadership and communications, a
    willingness to work with local communities, those are some of
    the traits that we will be looking for whether it be Mexico,
    Alaska----
        Senator Heinrich. Obviously, Mr. Ellis, I am running out of
    time, but I would say that in some places I absolutely agree
    with you that those relationships are key but there has been an
    enormous interest in solving this issue in some districts and I
    would say a lack of interest in others. I think getting the
    facts on the table as to the areas that are inaccessible and
    making us look at this is a data driven way which will help us
    solve many of these issues. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        I look forward to working with you as we move forward on
    this bill.
        To Mr. Ellis and Ms. Weldon, we look forward to working
    with your agencies. You have identified some areas that you
    want to work with us on, and I will take you at face value on
    that.
        I also greatly appreciate the many coalitions that have
    stepped up and helped us with this. It has been a very, very
    broad effort and has been noted by many at the Committee today,
    an effort that has gone on for quite some time and we would
    like to see some resolution with this.
        I do think that it was telling this morning that we had 15
    members of the Committee stay for a long period of time. I
    think it clearly demonstrates the level of interest in this
    issue.
        I think Senator Risch was the first one to remind us that
    when we do more to encourage our young people to experience our
    public lands, whether it is through hunting or fishing or
    recreational shooting, just getting them outside, our kids are
    better. Our kids are healthier, I think, when we have a greater
    connection to our land. Doing so in a way that is fun, doing so
    in a way that shows respect for the land, doing so in a way
    that allows a teaching and a training from father to daughter
    as my father taught me or mother to son, as I did my sons and
    who are now re-teaching me how to be a better shot, I should
    say. I think about those experience as some of the best times
    that I have had with my father have been as we were running up
    the slough looking for just that spot to wait for the birds to
    come in on that early morning or to be walking quietly through
    the fields with my son, not saying a word but just being
    together with an activity that meant so much to us. I want to
    make sure the access that I have had and that my sons are
    seeking continues for a long, long time.
        We know we have some amazing public spaces, but we have to
    make sure that we do not get in our own way in providing
    access. Whether it is by way of saying well, we are worried
    about litigation or there have to be so many hoops that you
    have to jump through and the bureaucracy that is involved makes
    it so difficult that it deters people or that there are fees
    that are just simply too much.
        As was pointed out earlier, we have an amazing system here
    in the United States with our public lands. Let's make sure
    that public really means public, and that multiple use really
    means multiple use. This is a big challenge for you in the
    agencies because just as I want to be able to enjoy my snow
    machine, I have got my cross country skier neighbor who wants
    the solitude there. These are big challenges for us, but they
    are not irreconcilable. It is only when we stop and say it has
    got to be this way and we are not involving the public in it
    that we cannot do better.
        So I look forward to working with all of you, but I am
    very, very serious that we are going to push. We are not only
    going to push hard, we are going to deliver on this sportsmen's
    bill. It is an issue that we have been working on for far too
    long. Its time, truly, has come. Our young people deserve the
    opportunities that so many have had, and I want to work to
    ensure that they continue to have that.
        So thank you for the time that you have given us this
    morning, and look forward to working with you.
        With that, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]