[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, [email protected].
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]