[Senate Hearing 114-24]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-24
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 659, THE
BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2015
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WATER AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 17, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-984 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and Wildlife
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BASSASSO, Wyoming SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex BARBARA BOXER, California (ex
officio) officio)
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 17, 2015
OPENING STATEMENTS
Sullivan, Hon. Dan , U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska....... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Crane, Jeff, President, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation..... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hall, Dale, CEO, Ducks Unlimited................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Pacelle, Wayne, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the
United States.................................................. 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Booker........................................... 32
Senator Sullivan......................................... 39
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement of David Sollman, Executive Director, Fur Industries of
North America.................................................. 154
Letter from more than 100 national, regional, and local
organizations regarding the Bipartisan Sportmen's Act of 2015.. 154
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 659, THE BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2015
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and Wildlife
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan, Inhofe, Boozman, Fischer,
Whitehouse, Booker, Cardin. Also present: Senator Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Good morning and welcome to our hearing
on S. 659, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015. I see a
number of the members of the audience wearing the green of St.
Patrick's Day. I think it is altogether fitting that we are
discussing this bill on St. Patrick's Day. I am sure most of
you know that St. Patrick was a sportsman, an outdoorsman,
chased all the snakes out of Ireland.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. He obviously was outside doing a lot of
work with animals.
So it is great that we are starting this important bill on
an important day.
This legislation represents years of hard work by the
sporting community. I am appreciative of the efforts that have
gone into crafting what is a collection of bills that have
demonstrated broad bipartisan support over the years, including
measures that enjoy the support of the Obama administration.
I am hopeful that in this Congress, we will be able to take
these long efforts across the finish line. Because doing so
means more opportunities for America's sporting community and
importantly, more dollars for wildlife conservation.
Specifically, S. 659 would codify an existing exemption
that would exclude the EPA from regulating lead fishing tackle
and ammunition, provide the States greater ability to use
Pittman Robertson funding for shooting ranges on public lands,
allow the Secretary of Interior to issue permits to 41 hunters,
including two Alaskans, so that they can import their legally
taken polar bear trophies from Canada, ensure farmers are not
cited for illegally baiting when hunting birds from their farm
fields, allow the possession of firearms at water resource
development projects, reauthorize the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act, reauthorize five multi-national species
conservation funds and extend Pittman Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act interest payments.
This morning, I know we are going to hear many positive
things about the bill. We will also probably hear a few
criticisms regarding the polar bear and lead ammunition
provisions. Here are the facts, the straightforward facts on
those provisions. This legislation simply codifies an existing
exemption regarding the regulation of lead tackle and
ammunition, and in no way restricts the ability of fish and
wildlife agencies, both at the State and Federal levels, from
restricting their usage if there is compelling scientific
reason to do so.
Further, there are those who may be opposed to amending the
Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow for the importation of 41
polar bear trophies from Canada and refer to the language as a
loophole. But the intent of Section 4 couldn't be clearer: to
allow only those hunters with a legally taken polar bear trophy
prior to the 2008 ESA listing to bring those trophies into the
U.S. This section reflects drafting changes requested by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and has the support of the Obama
administration.
I hope we won't let these few differences detract from the
bipartisan nature of this legislation, which represents the
furtherance of the American system of conservation funding,
which has funded fish and wildlife conservation for the past 76
years. Hunting and fishing licenses purchased, along with the
excise taxes on the equipment sportsmen buy pay for State fish
and wildlife management efforts that benefit both game and non-
game species and continue to enhance our Nation's sporting
heritage. But there is no denying that the greatest source of
conservation funding comes from the sporting community itself.
Finally, this bill includes important conservation
reauthorizations, like the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act, Multinational Species Conservation Act, which provide
matching grants to organizations, governments and land owners
for projects. Both projects leverage non-Federal dollars at a
ratio that far exceeds a one to one match.
With our Federal deficit now over $18 trillion, our Federal
debt, it is important that we adequately justify why Congress
should continue to appropriate a small but symbolically
important amount of taxpayer money to these programs. I hope
our witnesses today will help us tell that story.
Thank you again for being here. I look forward to hearing
the testimony of our witnesses.
I now recognize Ranking Member Whitehouse for 5 minutes to
deliver any opening statement he may have.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sullivan follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senator
from the State of Alaska
Good morning and thank you for being here to discuss
legislation I sponsored, S. 659, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act
of 2015.
This legislation represents years of hard work by the
sporting community, and I am appreciative of the efforts that
have gone into crafting what is a collection of bills that have
demonstrated broad-based bipartisan support, including some
that enjoy the support of the Obama administration.
I am hopeful that in this Congress, we will be able to take
this effort across the finish line, because doing so means more
opportunities for America's sporting community and more dollars
for wildlife conservation.
Specifically, S. 659, would:
Codify an existing exemption that would exclude the EPA
from regulating lead fishing tackle and ammunition;
Provide the states greater ability to use Pittman
Robertson funding for shooting ranges on public lands;
Allow the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits to
41 hunters, including two Alaskans, so that they can import
their legally taken polar bear trophies from Canada;
Ensure farmers are not cited for illegal baiting when
hunting birds from their farm fields;
Allow the lawful possession of firearms at water resource
development projects;
Reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act;
Reauthorize the five Multinational Species Conservation
Funds; and
Extend Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
Interest Payments
This morning, I know we're going to hear criticisms
regarding the polar bear and lead ammunition provisions.
However, the facts are simple.
This legislation simply codifies an existing exemption
regarding the regulation of lead tackle and ammunition, and in
no way restricts the ability fish and wildlife agencies, both
on the State and Federal level, from restricting their usage if
there is compelling scientific reasons to do so.
Further, there are detractors here today who are opposed to
allowing for the importation of 41 polar bear trophies from
Canada and refer to the language as a ``loophole.'' But, the
intent of Section 4 couldn't be clearer--to allow only those 41
hunters with a legally taken polar bear trophy, taken prior to
the 2008 ESA listing, to bring those trophies into the U.S.
This section reflects drafting changes requested by the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the Administration now supports this
portion of the bill.
Those who legally hunted and harvested these polar bears
fully complied with all U.S. and Canadian laws in place at the
time. In many instances, these hunts were planned for years as
savings were set-aside to book a once in a lifetime experience.
Most importantly, I want to stress that the prohibition on
bringing these trophies into the U.S. is not providing any
conservation value to polar bear populations. In fact, if we
allow these trophies to be imported, we can raise much needed
funds for conservation activities for the polar bear
population.
I hope we won't let these few differences detract from the
bipartisan nature of this legislation, which represents the
furtherance of the American System of Conservation Funding,
which has funded fish and wildlife conservation for the past 76
years. The hunting and fishing licenses purchased by sportsmen,
coupled with excise taxes on the equipment sportsmen buy, fund
State efforts to manage fish and wildlife that benefit an array
of species, and continue to enhance our nation's sporting
heritage. There are always going to be those who don't think we
should kill animals. But, there is no denying that the greatest
source of conservation funding comes from the sporting
community themselves.
Finally, this bill includes important conservation
reauthorizations like the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act and Multinational Species Conservation Funds, which provide
matching grants to organizations, governments, and landowners
for projects. Both programs leverage non-Federal dollars at a
ratio that far exceeds a 1-1 match. With our Federal deficit
now over $18 trillion, it's important that we adequately
justify why Congress should continue to appropriate a small,
but symbolically important, amount of taxpayer money to these
programs. I hope our witnesses today will help us tell that
story.
Thank you again for being here this morning and I look
forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan.
I think what I would like to do is ask that my opening
statement be entered into the record, without objection,
because I want to make a rather different point. This has
always been a strongly bipartisan bill. There has been a lot of
support for it. I voted for it, I think every time it has come
up.
I am even OK with the polar bear business, even though I
think it is probably the larges amount of congressional
intention ever devoted to the smallest issue in the history of
Congress. But never mind, if it is important enough to a few
polar bear owners to bring them in and all of Congress wants to
respond to that, that is, I guess, our business to do.
But what I see over and over again is bills that come to
the floor or bills that come to the committee that should be
bipartisan, that could be non-controversial that have a
stowaway loaded into them that causes partisan problems that
are unnecessary. We are dealing right now on the floor with a
human trafficking bill which has been jammed up because an
abortion-related stowaway provision was stuffed into it at the
committee level without notice to the other side.
OK, now we are where we are. This bill has a new section
that wasn't in, I don't think I have ever seen it before in the
earlier versions of the Sportsmen's Act, which is this Section
6, giving people the right to run around water resources
development projects with loaded firearms. Well, this isn't
like being out in a park with a firearm. This is dams. This is
hydroelectric power houses. This is navigation locks. This is
river systems and levees, flood risk management infrastructure.
These are things that are within our national security
infrastructure.
And at the moment, Army Corps Rangers have responsibility
for many of these areas, and they are not trained or equipped
to be law enforcement officers. They don't have authority to
carry firearms themselves, they can't make arrests, they can't
execute search warrants. And now they are going to have to make
decisions about whether somebody running around in national
security infrastructure with a loaded weapon is doing so as a
demonstration of their Second Amendment rights or has a worse
intention.
I don't think that makes any sense. You may want that in
Alaska, but in places like Rhode Island, that kind of behavior
would be intensely alarming and frightening to other people and
would be very, very unwelcome. I think this is a completely
unnecessary addition to the bill. I would like to support it
but I think that the best way to go forward is to let the bill
go forward in the way that it has customarily gone forward,
with bipartisan support, rather than put a stowaway provision
that puts at risk national security infrastructure and puts in
peril the folks who have security authority over these areas,
and is completely inconsistent with at least the way a lot of
Americans live. We simply don't expect to see armed people
running around what could very well be national security
facilities when they have a security component there. To put
enforcement people at the risk of figuring out who is there
with a good or bad motive when they are running around with a
loaded firearm I think is a mistake.
So I hope that the majority will reconsider putting such a
contentious, unnecessary, potentially unsafe provision in this
bill, when they enjoy a bill that is already very strongly
supported by both sides. It doesn't seem necessary to put that
stick in the public's eye.
With that, I will yield to the hearing.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
I want to welcome our witnesses, Jeff Crane, President of
the congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. Mr. Dale Hall, the
CEO of Ducks Unlimited, and Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and
CEO of The Humane Society of the United States.
The witnesses have 5 minutes to deliver an oral statement,
and a longer written statement, of course, will be included in
the record.
I also want to, before we begin with the witnesses, ask
unanimous consent that Senator Crapo will be allowed to sit on
the dais and participate in this subcommittee hearing. Hearing
no objection, so ordered.
Senator Whitehouse. With absolutely no objection.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Crane, sir, you have 5 minutes for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JEFF CRANE, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S
FOUNDATION
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Whitehouse,
members of the committee. My name is Jeff Crane. I have had the
privilege for the past decade of serving as the President of
the congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. Established in 1989,
CSF works with the largest, most active bipartisan caucus on
Capitol Hill, the congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. With nearly
300 members in the House and the Senate, a number of you are
here today, our past chairman in the caucus, Senator Crapo, is
with us here today, I think that we work in the most bipartisan
manner possible here in Washington.
I am here in support of S. 405, which is the expanded
Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act that includes provisions contained
in S. 659, which we also support.
I would like to point out, as you did, that this bill, S.
405, has 18 bipartisan co-sponsors, evenly divided between
Republicans and Democrats, which again is a rarity these days
in this town. A very similar bill had 46 bipartisan co-sponsors
in the Senate last year, but failed to pass. So in borrowing
some of my lexicon from the sportsman's world, where patience
and persistence yields to success in the field, I am hoping
this will be our year.
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration
specifically supported three of the provisions that are in S.
659. In their Statement of the Administration Position dated
February 3d, 2014, it stated ``The Administration supports
Title 2, which is Section 3 of S. 659, which amends funding
requirements under the current law for target range
construction and maintenance, thus reducing the financial
burden on State and local governments for public target
ranges.''
Continuing on, ``The Administration also supports Title 4,
which is Section 4 of S. 659, which allows the importation of
certain polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada.''
Finally, the Administration staff says ``The Administration has
no objection to Title 1, which is Section 2 of S. 659, which
includes certain sport fishing equipment, from the
classification of toxic substances.''
With all of this broad support, Mr. Chairman, I believe is
time to pass the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015. As a life-
long conservationist and outdoorsman, I learned to hunt and
fish from my father and grandfather, and I am passing these
traditions on to my three daughters. In my home, we eat doves,
deer, waterfowl, wild turkey and small game taken from the
iconic eastern shore of Maryland. In the summer time, we catch
crabs and fish for rockfish, which the rest of you might know
as striped bass, from the Chesapeake Bay.
So the pursuit of game and fish is a way of life for me.
This bill is very important to me personally. But I think more
importantly, it is important to the nearly 40 million Americans
who hunt and fish and spend $90 million in support of this
economy, oftentimes in rural parts of this Country.
Conservation started with hunters and anglers. I draw a
very great quote from Gifford Pinchot, who was the first chief
of the Forest Service, who defined conservation as the wise use
of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of mankind.
With this comes a responsibility for stewardship. I think again
that the sportsmen's community has always taken a leadership
role in that.
As part of this, I would like to submit, which is part of
my written testimony, a letter from nearly 50 of the leading
hunting conservation and fishing conservation groups in
America, asking for support and passage of S. 405.
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
Mr. Crane. Thank you.
SO quite simply, in my final minutes, the overarching
purpose behind this bill is to provide clarity where it doesn't
exist and ensure access and opportunity for hunters, shooters
and anglers. With an ever-increasing population, urbanization
and suburban sprawl into areas that we traditionally hunt and
fish, it is ever more important. With young people that spend
more time on the couch and behind computers, we need to get
them outside. Hunting and fishing are great opportunities to do
just this.
So where this does exist, we are looking for guarantees
that it will continue to exist in the future. Where it doesn't,
we are looking for your help to try and rectify that. That is
all this bill does today.
I thank you for providing me the opportunity and I will be
happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Crane, for your
outstanding statement.
Mr. Hall, you are recognized now for 5 minutes. Thank you
for being here.
STATEMENT OF DALE HALL, CEO, DUCKS UNLIMITED
Mr. Hall. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. It is a pleasure to be here with you.
My name is Dale Hall. I am the CEO of Ducks Unlimited. I
spent 31 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With
the grace of this committee, headed by my good friend, Senator
Inhofe, I was able to be the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service from 2005 to 2009. So it is a pleasure to be back here
in front of you.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify in behalf of Ducks
Unlimited, fully supporting the Sportsmen's Act, including the
reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act, known as NAWCA, and the reauthorization of the interest
from the Pittman-Robertson to fund NAWCA, as well. As has been
stated, Pittman-Robertson was passed in 1937 at the request of
hunters and shooters to be taxed so that money would go into
the treasury and support the State game and fish agencies in
their management of the resources within the State. Interest
gained from that fund has been agreed to by all of the States
to go into the NAWCA fund to be used as part of the grant
program. It has been very successful and we fully support that.
We are here also to talk about other provisions, such as the
baiting issue and different aspects of this bill that we fully
support clarity on.
These programs are all the way government can and should
work. The partnership with the public, partnership with our
friends out there, these programs represent good governance and
we support them.
With more than a million supporters at Ducks Unlimited, we
have a significant conservation voice for migratory birds and
other habitats that live in wetlands that we helped create
across the continent with our friends. Our work is always, I
repeat always, scientifically based. We like to say that the
motion and passion brings us to do what we do, but science and
facts drive our decisions. I believe this bill is based on
science and fact, and I think that is the way we ought to be
looking at things, and good governance comes from that.
Since enactment, NAWCA has accomplished measurable success
in all 50 States. This program has conserved more than 27 and a
half million acres across North America. Reauthorization of
NAWCA is critical to build on this success and ensure the
health of high quality wetlands in the United States.
Despite those successes, wetlands here in the U.S. are
disappearing. The lower 48 States of the U.S. have lost
approximately 53 percent of our original wetlands. The most
recent nationwide study documented that wetland loss had
dramatically accelerated to 140 percent since 2004.
Wildlife-related recreation generates, as has been said,
nearly $100 billion a year in economics for this Country. It is
more than just the right thing to do; it is the right economic
thing to do.
Another part of this is the use of those interest funds to
help with NAWCA projects. At a maximum level, they have
contributed between $15 million and $16 million in a given year
to help go out and put wetlands and other habitat on the
ground. And as I said earlier, all of the States have agreed
that this is a good use for the interest on funds that were
originally directed to go to them.
Finally, the migratory game birds baiting issue, as
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in a past life, one
of the things that always concerned me was if a regulation is
so confusing that the public doesn't understand it, then we are
missing the mark. And the ultimate objective of law enforcement
is to have the public voluntarily comply and carry out the law.
If they don't understand it, it is going to be very difficult
to do.
Today, many landowners have to simply call the game warden
and say, will you come by and tell me if we are legal. If it is
that hard to understand, then there needs to be clarity. We
believe that this last aspect here in helping to understand
what normal agricultural practices are, and including the State
agencies as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service in that, is
simply the right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing us to testify in
full support of this bill. We look forward to answering any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I couldn't
agree more with your statement on the need for clarifying
regulations.
Mr. Pacelle, you have 5 minutes for your opening statement.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE HUMANE
SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you very much. Thanks for the
invitation, I really appreciate it.
I am Wayne Pacelle, with The Humane Society of the United
States. I hate to be a skunk at the party here. I do have a few
concerns about this issue, and again, I really appreciate your
allowing us to offer our perspective.
I want to say at the start that we are not opposed to
hunting. We are not seeking to ban deer hunting or duck hunting
or other very common forms of hunting. We have been critics of
captive hunting. We have been critics of bear baiting, a
practice that we think is reckless and unsporting.
So when we bring our concerns here today, we do so because
we are zeroing in on particular concerns that are within this
bill, not because of a general opposition to hunting.
We are glad, of course, that the lead ammunition provision
applies more to EPA and not to Interior. Mr. Chairman, you
mentioned that the Feds and the States would still have the
authority to restrict that. We think that is appropriate and
important.
We are just not quite sure why we are even discussing the
EPA piece. We don't think the EPA is working on this issue. It
is not moving on the issue. And I guess we are concerned about
the precedent being established of the Congress telling a
Federal agency that clearly does have some germane experience
that it can't take action on an issue if the science compels an
examination.
So again, we are critics of the use of lead ammunition.
Just like we have seen in society, we don't have lead in
gasoline, we don't have lead in paint. The world is moving away
from lead ammunition. We are moving to non-toxic forms of shot
that essentially don't see bullets and ammunition continuing to
kill long after they have left the chamber.
So I say that just as a general concern. I am not quite
sure why we are focused here on EPA on this issue.
On the polar bear piece, I know, Senator Crapo, you have
been concerned about this. And we are glad this doesn't involve
why are polar bears being shot, and then being brought in.
These animals are dead. We recognize that. They cannot be
brought back to life. If it were just that issue, I don't think
I would be here expressing concern. I think again, our concern
really relates to the precedent. What happened with the polar
bear issue is that the Fish and Wildlife Service gave
appropriate notice to the sport hunting community that a
listing for polar bears was coming. Many hunting groups told
hunters, listen, if you go up and do this and you don't bring
the trophies back by a date certain, you are unlikely to get
these animals' carcasses and the trophies back into the U.S.
These guys went up there anyway and shot the polar bears.
Now we view it as a pleading to Congress to get these trophies
back in.
Now, what happens when the Fish and Wildlife Service says,
OK, we are going to list the African lion as threatened or
endangered and we are going to restrict trophies? Are we going
to see a mad runs of people going to kill these rare animals
and then coming back to the Congress to override an executive
agency decision to grant these import permits? If it were just
polar bears and this class of 41 folks, while we don't like
what they did, we think it is wrong what they did, we wouldn't
be here objecting. I think we are deeply concerned about the
precedent.
The larger issue of this bill, I think the biggest
practical concern that we have is, you are talking about the
Forest Service, principally, and you are talking about the BLM.
The Federal Government cedes authority for wildlife management
to the States in all of those jurisdictions on hunting seasons
and the like. Ninety-nine percent of these lands are already
open to hunting. We are not quite sure what is being
accomplished by having this open and less closed provision.
Except, and when we get a little bit paranoid on this is the
issue of traffic.
There has been a lot of concern expressed by humane
organizations about inhumane and indiscriminate forms of body-
gripping traps, steel jaw leg hold traps, snares and the like.
This language, not before your committee today, but the other
portion of this larger bill that was before Energy and Natural
Resources, essentially equates trapping with these other forms
of wildlife taking, hunting and fishing. We think this could be
also a very dangerous provision to enable trapping activities
in wilderness areas and other areas where there is an
appropriate reason for the restriction.
If you have a firearm and you are shooting an animal, you
are zeroing on the target. If you leave a trap in the woods,
any animal can be victimized by that trap. We have likened them
to land mines for wildlife. And there may be very compelling
and appropriate reasons to restrict them, what we are doing is
we are eliminating the discretion of local land managers with
the Federal Government when the history of these particular
agencies' involvement in hunting and fishing and trapping
issues is to be entirely permissive.
So again, I think our criticisms, just to wrap up, really
are zeroing in on, why are we doing these things? The lands are
already open to hunting. And for the polar bears, let's not
send a signal to the trophy-hunting community that if there is
an endangered species listing looming, you guys go ahead and
then the Congress can bail you out and you can bring your
trophies back into the United States.
Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify.
Much appreciated.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your
testimony. I now recognize myself for 6 minutes for questions.
Mr. Crane, in your written testimony you discuss the nearly
$7 billion in excise tax payments since the Pittman-Robertson
program began. This is obviously a significant amount of money
that goes directly to States to run their fish and game
departments and to implement local conservation programs. In
fact, some have suggested that this money had a direct impact
on the recovery of populations such as the white-tailed deer,
black bear and the American elk.
IF we do not clarify the law by enacting Section 2 of this
legislation, what effect will that have on the conservation
dollars paid under the Pittman-Robertson account and how will
that affect overall State conservation programs?
Mr. Crane. Mr. Chairman, we are very proud of this uniquely
American system. As you pointed out, it is a system of those of
us who hunt and fish, the industries that manufacture this pay
the taxes and everyone else benefits from it. Seven billion
dollars is a lot of money even in this town. So we are very
proud of the accomplishments that this system has.
By unnecessarily putting an agency that doesn't have the
authority, doesn't have the ability, has declined to take these
petitions in the past, and run that risk that somebody will
petition this in the future and basically break this financial
model, I think we are going to do a tremendous disservice to
conservation in America.
I would encourage this committee to leave this provision
intact. I think that these issues are much better handled by
the State wildlife agencies and those professionals that can
deal with them when they rarely occur on a much more localized
basis.
Senator Sullivan. So the Section 2 provisions, you are
supportive of?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me continue with you, Mr.
Crane. If a situation occurs where sound science irrefutably
identifies a population impact from lead-based ammunition, as
was the case with waterfowl, do you think that the government
has a role to play in responding? And if so, what would be that
kind of role?
Mr. Crane. I absolutely do. Again, I think the right
agencies to handle that are the State wildlife management
authorities and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Where these
happen, they have the tools in their toolkit to be able to
handle things like season length, like areas that they may have
to temporarily close and other ways to address this.
There are no population-wide issues with lead contamination
on any species in the United States, save maybe the California
Condor, and that has a very long, long history and would take
up to much time talking about it.
Senator Sullivan. How about you, Mr. Hall, on that issue? I
know you must have experience from your previous directorship
at Fish and Wildlife.
Mr. Hall. I agree with that. I think if it is endemic, if
it is all over the United States, and across the State
boundaries, and we have an issue like we did with lead shot for
waterfowl hunting, then there is a very appropriate role for
the Federal agency to play. That has not come to bear in any
science that I have seen dealing with lead since we shut down
the use of lead shot for water fowling.
Therefore, I agree completely that a proper place to do
that is where it is locally found. Condor might be an example
in California, Arizona. Let the State agencies address it. That
is the proper role of the State agencies. I would agree with
that.
And if I might, I want to correct just a procedural point
that Mr. Pacelle made. That is that we can't compare apples and
oranges when we are talking bears and lions. Under the polar
bear, it is a United States species. Therefore, it is protected
in Alaska and other places. It is one of our species.
So when it was listed as threatened, it was listened as a
domestic species, listed. If a lion were listed or some species
that is not domestic to the United States, then it would go on
the international list of threatened and endangered species.
And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, particularly, would
defer to the origin country from where the animal was coming on
what rules they wanted us to implement. If they had permits
from there, we would be able to let them come in.
Thank you for allowing me to clarify the procedure there.
Senator Sullivan. Sure. Let me ask a followup question with
you. You talked about NAWCA and I mentioned in my opening
statement about the private matching money that far exceeds the
Federal investment. Help us explain, help some of my
constituents to understand, if this is the case, why not shift
all the funding to the private sector? What happens if there is
no Federal investment? What should the responsibility of the
U.S. taxpayer be in this regard, particularly, as I mentioned,
in a time of very austere Federal budgets?
Mr. Hall. Thank you for that question. It is a legitimate
question that the citizens need to really understand. When we
look at the North American model of wildlife management and
conservation that Jeff referred to a few minutes ago, that is a
partnership. It goes back to Aldo Leopold's concept of the
citizen conservationist. That is why we in the private sector
are so willing to stand up and put money into the system.
But that needs to have the partnership of the Federal
Government relaying that this is a United States value. Our
natural resources are something important to us as a Country,
us as a people. And by this small token, really one quarter
under NAWCA is what is spent by the Federal taxpayer. They get
$4 back for $1 expended.
As we look at good governance, as we look at efficient
governance, I can't think of a program that ever exemplifies
the Federal taxpayer getting more back for the resource they
own by Constitution and the management of those resources than
something that gives them back a $4 payoff for $1 investment.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you for that.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before you start the clock, let me tell you how I am going
to manage my 6 minutes. I do have two brief questions to ask,
one of Mr. Crane and one of my good friend, Dale Hall. But then
I have a longer question to ask our friend, Mr. Pacelle. So
when I ask this question, I am going to ask you to be brief, if
you don't mind.
First of all, Mr. Crane, I have to say this. In your
opening statement, you talk about coming from a hunting family.
Back when I enjoyed life, I never missed a day of goose season
in Oklahoma. People don't realize we have one of the big
flyways through there. In fact, I had the first 10-gauge full
choke 36-inch double barrel shotgun. And people wondered how in
the world I was getting them out further than anybody else.
But anyway, that is not my question. The question is, you
heard the statement that Mr. Pacelle said about lead
ammunition. What effect would it have if you left EPA in that
regulatory position, for lead ammunition?
Mr. Crane. Again, Senator, a couple of points. First of
all, I want to clarify that there are not readily available,
widely available alternatives to lead. Ninety-five percent of
current ammunition is lead or copper based.
Second, the price of that is probably four times or more
should it be available. So while that may not be important to
everyone in this room, for our rural folks back in Oklahoma, if
their box of shotgun shells goes from $25 to $125, and they are
trying to feed their families, I think that makes an impact.
And third, and finally, as was asked by the chairman, there
is $7 billion that has gone off the Pittman-Robertson excise
tax to support conservation. You apply the same thing to the
fishing side of the equation, then the alternatives to that are
anywhere from 10 to 20 times more expensive. They don't work as
well.
So we have a serious problem here. Let's leave it to the
State fish and wildlife agencies.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. You gave the same answer my son
gave me.
Mr. Hall, I look back wistfully at the days when you were
at the helm. Your partnership program just was a booming
success. It takes away this image that anything, that the
government is there saying, we are doing it because the people
don't want to take care of their own property. You did such a
great job.
The question I have to ask you is, both NAWCA and the
Pittman-Robertson need to be reauthorized in this bill. Can you
real briefly explain the difference between the two and why
they are both important?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, thank you. The North American Wetland
Conservation Act was passed as the implementing tool for the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan that was put together
back in the 1980's. It is a standalone program to try and help
restore and protect wetlands and grasslands and other waterfowl
habitat in order to follow the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan.
The Pittman-Robertson excise taxes go into separate grants
to the States in order for them to help carry out their
operations. This provision here simply for the interest that is
gathered on those funds that are collected each year, and that
interest has been designated to go into NAWCA so that it can go
into making grants as well for wetlands and waterfowl and other
habitat.
Senator Inhofe. I see. That is very interesting.
Mr. Pacelle, I have to say that I have had to change my
mind twice since I saw you were going to be one of the
witnesses. I always thought of your group as being
philosophically very liberal and on liberal causes and all
that. Until I saw the ad shortly after our disaster, the
tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, you had an ad, I think it is still
running, and it shows the dogs out there, the pitiful dogs,
that hit me hard. Because that is one of the things I do, is
help with abandoned dogs and that type of thing.
So I was changing my feelings a little bit until I realized
that our Attorney General, Scott Pruitt, has a lawsuit against
you based on the fact that in the programs we have had, you
have actually extracted, as a result, probably of that ad, I
almost contributed myself, some $1.7 million from Oklahomans.
And in the same timeframe that money came in, only $110,000 was
donated to animal shelters and other institutions in my State
of Oklahoma.
So Oklahomans paid you $1.7 million and got back $110,000.
Is that true?
Mr. Pacelle. No, it is not true. I guess if that was a
concern of yours, I am glad you have raised it in public, so
that I can have an opportunity to address it.
Senator Inhofe. Stop there for a moment. Since you said it
wasn't true, your general counsel, is it Roger Kindler?
Mr. Pacelle. Yes, he is general counsel.
Senator Inhofe. Roger Kindler, in those proceedings, and
this is a State court proceeding, a district court, he said,
Mr. Kindler stated that between 2011 and 2013, donations from
within Oklahoma totaled $1,714,000. Of that total, only
$110,288 in grants came to Oklahoma organizations. Is he a
liar?
Mr. Pacelle. Let me clarify. First, we did no fundraising
on the Moore, Oklahoma tornado disaster.
Senator Inhofe. No, I said it was around that timeframe.
Mr. Pacelle. Senator Inhofe, we do continuous promotional
work and programmatic work. So we don't simply give grants to
other organizations. Foundations are grant-making groups. Non-
profit charities like The Humane Society of the United States
conduct a wide range of programs. And our work is to protect
all animals. So it is raiding dogfights, cockfights, supporting
shelters. For instance, later this month, we have our annual
Care Expo where shelter leaders throughout the Country come to
get training. We do work on helping elephants, rhinos, turtles,
which I know you are such a devotee of so many marine species
of turtles. We run an animal rescue team. We go to Indian
reservations.
Senator Inhofe. OK, you do a variety of things.
Mr. Pacelle. The fact that a percentage of our money, which
is, I think a great feature of our program, that we give grants
to shelters, that is a sliver of the incredible work that we do
to save millions and billions of animals in Oklahoma, in the
United States and throughout the world.
So Scott Pruitt has not filed a lawsuit against The Humane
Society of the United States. He has been driven by the Farm
Bureau to make inquiries. I am sure that when he looks at our
fundraising materials, he will see that.
Senator Inhofe. But the figures that I used in terms of
amounts of money coming back to organizations within my State
of Oklahoma are accurate. Some 4 percent.
Mr. Pacelle. We are not a grant-making group, Senator
Inhofe. The American Farm Bureau Federation doesn't just give
grants to farmers. The American Farm Bureau Federation
advocates for the interests of farmers. The congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus, the NRA does not just support shooting
ranges.
Senator Inhofe. I understand. My time has expired. The only
question I would ask you to respond to is, will you agree to
give to Scott Pruitt all the information that he has asked?
Mr. Pacelle. We have given General Pruitt all the
information about fundraising materials. We are entirely
confident that he will see that we do exactly what we say we
do. He wanted materials that were entirely unrelated to our
issues. Then we sought to enjoin him and won in a State court
on that issue.
He can have any materials. We are very transparent.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Pacelle, can you answer the question?
Mr. Pacelle. We gave him what he wanted and then for
additional materials that he sought that were beyond the scope
of what he said, he was denied by a court that information.
Senator Sullivan. OK, so I am still not sure that is
responsive to Senator Inhofe's question.
Mr. Pacelle. He asked if we would give the material to
General Pruitt. And I said, yes, we gave him everything that
was relevant and we didn't give him the stuff that was a
fishing expedition.
Senator Sullivan. OK.
Senator Inhofe. That is answered. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Booker?
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I truly appreciate
your calling this hearing.
Let me start out really quickly by complimenting my
colleagues, Senators Heinreich and Murkowski, for coming
together across the aisle. Lord knows we need more bipartisan
work in the Senate.
Unfortunately, both the portion of this legislation that we
are considering today and the larger Sportsmen's Bill contain
multiple provisions which need to be modified or eliminated
before I could support this bill.
Outdoor recreational activities play an important part in
our economy. It is estimated that hunting, angling and
recreational shooting and trapping generate about $90 billion
of annual spending and Americans spend another $550 billion on
other outdoor recreational activities. The vast majority, as
many as 90 percent or more of the recreational users of our
Federal lands, use those lands for activities such as hiking,
horseback riding, backpacking, camping, nature study and
climbing. That is 90 percent of the use of our Federal lands.
We need to make sure that Congress is balancing the needs
of all of our users of Federal lands, and that we are not
passing legislation that would put some of our most vulnerable
visitors to Federal lands, including our children, at serious,
serious risk of harm.
As drafted, the Sportsmen's bill would prohibit the EPA
from ever, ever regulating or even assessing the actual science
of the human risk posed by lead bullets and lead shot. This is
what we know about lead. Lead exposure is toxic to humans. The
effects of lead poisoning can include kidney disease, damage to
the central nervous system, nerve disorders and memory and
concentrating problems. In large enough doses, lead can even
cause brain damage, leading to seizures, coma and actually
death.
Lead is especially dangerous for our young children.
Childhood lead poisoning is even more pronounced because the
lead is absorbed faster, causing slow growth, developmental
defects, damage to the brain and nervous system and more.
I saw this in Newark first-hand, the devastating and
challenging detrimental impacts of lead poisoning on our kids.
It is a crisis. The toxicity of that crisis, of that entrance
into the system, has already been reduced or eliminated in
gasoline, plumbing, paint, pesticides, toys and other products.
We seem to have got it in every other area of our society. But
somehow, we are afraid to confront the realities of lead
buckshot.
Every year, thousands of tons of lead are put into the
environment from this lead ammunition, especially near shooting
ranges and heavily hunted sites. Let me repeat. Every year,
thousands of tons of lead are put into our environment from
lead ammunition. This lead is not only poisonous to our
wildlife, it is estimated that as many as 20 million birds and
other animals each year die from lead poisoning. Twenty million
birds and animals.
But it also gets into our land, our waters, and it gets
into our food supply. In addition, a Seattle Times
investigation last year found that lead poisoning is a major
health threat at America's shooting ranges. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask that the Seattle Times investigation be
entered into the record. Reading it is sickening. And the
reality is, we know that there is lead poisoning going on. We
know that these are threats to our environment.
Mr. Pacelle, given all that we know about the toxicity and
dangers of lead, is there any reason that you are aware for why
Congress should permanently, forever, ban the EPA from even
assessing the risks posed to human health, almost as if we are
afraid of science and knowing the truth? Is there any reason or
justification for this whatsoever, Wayne?
Mr. Pacelle. I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service made
the right call in 1991 when President George Bush was
President, a Republican and a hunter, looking at the evidence,
seeing that so many migratory birds and other animals were
dying as a consequence of lead. The NRA and a number of other
groups opposed that effort then.
Now I do think that the Interior Department is the most
appropriate agency to look at this issue. That said, if there
is tremendously compelling science and if EPA has toxicologists
and others who have something to contribute, Senator Booker, I
don't see the compelling rationale for the Congress to preclude
EPA from making an examination.
I don't think that is happening now. I don't think EPA is
chomping at the bit to do this. I think the debate is better
placed in the States and within the Interior Department. But I
don't understand this overreaction in terms of including this
provision in this bill, when the EPA is not contemplating the
issue right now.
Senator Booker. Right. But to prevent it from studying the
issue, even knowing it in the future, as tons and tons of lead
are introduced into our natural environment, consumed by
animals, poisoning our children, to not even be able to study
it seems to me ridiculous.
Mr. Pacelle. We would like to enter into the record a
letter from 168 organizations, local, State and national,
opposing that provision and others in this bill. There are 130
different species of wildlife that have been documented in the
scientific literature that are poisoned as a consequence of
lead ammunition being left in the environment.
And we understand the tradition of hunting in this Country.
The fact is now, we have alternatives. We have non-toxic shot.
We have other metals that are now much more competitive on
price. So we are not talking about doing something that is
going to entirely disrupt hunting. There was just a study from
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department about performance of
lead versus other forms of shot with dove hunting. And the
hunters couldn't tell the difference. It was basically a blind
test.
Senator Booker. So there are alternatives that are less
expensive. They do better in some cases for our hunters. But
yet we seem to be afraid of doing what is just reasonable,
studying the toxicity of this.
My time is expired. Hopefully we will get another round,
Wayne, because I am not done with you yet.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this important hearing on this Bipartisan Sportsmen's
package that is within the EPW jurisdiction. Legislation I
introduced to protect Americans' Second Amendment rights on
lands managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is thankfully
included in this important package.
According to the data compiled by the congressional
Research Service, the Corps is responsible for $12 million
acres of land and water, including 422 lake and river projects
within recreation, 92,844 campsites, 7,700 miles of trails and
3,544 boat launches. While some Corps lands and waters are open
for hunting, there are a small number of authorized shooting
ranges. Much of the land managed by the Corps is off limits to
lawful possession of firearms.
I wish Senator Whitehouse was still here, because he raised
a concern about the fact that this would allow people to own
and carry firearms at dams and other hydro facilities, where he
thought there would be a concern. This legislation only allows
that the possession of firearms in those places that are open
to the public and specifically exempts the Federal facilities
that I think Senator Whitehouse was talking about.
The fact here is that it is a clear Second Amendment right
that Americans should be allowed to exercise. Not only is this
restriction a clear violation o the intent of the Second
Amendment, but it is also inconsistent with the laws and
regulations governing land that other Federal regulatory
agencies implement.
Enabling Americans to carry firearms on land managed by the
Corps will allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and
to engage in the kinds of recreation we have already discussed
here on lands and facilities designed for that. This change
will also provide needed consistency across Federal lands that
will reduce the complication of tracking where one Federal
agency's management jurisdiction ends and another begins.
The Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller
affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right and
the right to an operable firearm for self-defense is one that
Americans have. This right should apply on all lands managed by
the Federal Government.
Moreover, a Federal district judge in my home State of
Idaho agrees. In the case of Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, brought by plaintiffs in Western Idaho who used
Corps-managed land for recreation, including camping, the
plaintiffs challenged the regulation as being unconstitutional
and in violation of their Second Amendment rights. In October
of last year, the Court found that the regulation was in fact
unconstitutional and banned the Corps policy, unfortunately,
only in Idaho.
Burdening law-abiding citizens of this Country with the
additional Second Amendment restrictions that this Corps is now
implementing is not the answer to safeguarding the public.
Americans' Second Amendment rights must be restored to lands
managed by the Corps. My legislation included in this package
does just that.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions and I
hope I can get quickly through them. Mr. Crane, do onerous and
confusing firearms regulations for public lands discourage
sportsmen and their families from utilizing the land?
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir. Do you want me to expound on that?
Senator Crapo. Briefly. I am trying to be brief.
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir. And as you pointed out, in 2009, the
National Park Service and the Wildlife Refuge System, there was
legislation that was bipartisan that was passed that allowed
carry on those.
The Army Corps lands are the last remaining lands. I think
this is just consistent with making it easier and folks to
understand where the lines are, as you pointed out. So, yes.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Mr. Hall, I would like to
followup with you. Are your members unnecessarily burdened by
the Corps' conflicting and confusing outright ban on firearms?
Mr. Hall. Our members are as concerned as Jeff's are on
what is legal and what is not. When you have the Federal
Government, have different arms of the Federal Government have
different rules dealing with Federal Government land, our
citizens are never clear on what is allowed and not allowed.
I was the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service when
the Park Service issue came up. Although it wasn't mine, I
worked with them on getting the legislation passed that you
passed here that said that following State law is the proper
thing to do.
I think any time that there are different rules on
different public lands that are basically confusing to the
public that it needs to be clarified.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I was involved in 2009
when we had the congressional fight to make this change in the
law. At that time, all of the dire concerns and consequences
were raised by those who object. Frankly, by those who don't
like the see the Second Amendment family and fully implemented,
in my opinion. And we haven't seen that kind of problem.
Another question for you, Mr. Hall. According to the Corps'
own data, seven of the top ten migratory bird flyways in the
United States cross over Corps-managed water. From a waterfowl
hunting perspective, would you support a consistent approach to
firearms possession across all Corps-managed land?
Mr. Hall. Absolutely. Our members and those that pay the
bill and help to get out there a drink just a little bit of the
fruit of the vine that they helped grow the vineyard for
deserve the right to understand and be able to use those
waters.
Senator Crapo. I only have about 30 seconds left, but I
understand that it is possible you may have an example of the
kinds of things we are talking about, where a boat ramp might
prohibit the possession of firearms, where a person is trying
to put a boat in to go out to another place where firearm
possession is allowed. Those kinds of restrictions are
complicating the ability of Americans to freely utilize their
Second Amendment rights in pursuit of hunting or other
purposes.
Mr. Hall. I know we have some of those. But I want to be
cautious and be accurate. If you would allow me, I will answer
that question for the record after this is over with specific
examples.
Senator Crapo. I would appreciate that. Thank you very
much, Mr. Hall. I see my time is up, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank
you for chairing this hearing, it is very important.
I want to followup on Senator Crapo's point first. It is
good to have a bipartisan bill. I have some concerns about some
of the provisions, but I do appreciate the manner in which this
bill has been put together. It is a real effort to try to get
legislation to the finish line. We started this in the last
Congress and we made progress. Many of these provisions have
been worked on by both Democrats and Republicans, so I very
much appreciate that.
There will be interest to see whether there are other areas
that may not be in the original bill that we hope will get
incorporated. Because quite frankly, we don't get too many
bills to the finish line. I think we have a good chance to get
this bill to the finish line.
So I want to followup on Senator Crapo's point, because the
two of us have worked together on a bill dealing with the
national fish habitat conservation, a non-controversial bill
that we would hope will be able to be included in the package.
It allows for the partnership between State and local
governments and the private organizations in order to deal with
fish habitat issues, which are, we believe, the sensible way to
go about doing this.
Mr. Crane, your organization has been part of these efforts
dealing with fish habitat. I would like to get your assessment
as to the importance of encouraging partnerships to deal with
the fish habitat, specifically the bill that senator Crapo and
I have been working on.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
leadership along with Senator Crapo on this important
legislation. We are supportive of it and we recognize the value
of these partnership not unlike the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act. As you pointed out, they leverage private
funds. They go across States and effectively look at the
conservation goals as a whole. We would be very supportive of
working with you and if we can figure out a way that this
enhances the bill and the chances for it to get those much-
needed 60 votes, we would like to work with you.
Senator Cardin. Yes. Of course, our objective is to look at
areas that do not cause additional concerns on the support. We
think this is one of the categories. As you point out, what it
basically does is leverage private sector involvement to
protect our fish habitats, which is in everyone's interest.
Some of the modifications that Senator Crapo and I made in the
version this year deal with some of the technical concerns
raised in the last Congress. We think we have hit the sweet
spot. We look forward to talking to the committee about that.
I want to mention one other area that this committee has
acted on in previous Congresses, basically without controversy,
and that is neo-tropical bird issues, which deal with the fact
that many of our bird species in this Country migrate as far
away as down in South America. This is a bill that allows us to
participate and protects the habitats of birds that we very
much want to see in our community.
Again, I don't believe this is a controversial issue. It
has been basically without opposition in this committee in the
past. I hope that we will have a chance, Mr. Chairman, as we
talk about putting together a bill, looking at those issues
that truly are not controversial but give us a chance to make
significant progress to protect habitats for beauty, for the
economics, for the sportsmen and for all of us to enjoy for
future generations.
I yield back my time.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of
you for being here. We really do appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Hall, the bill contains a provision that the Arkansas
delegation has worked on, been very active in writing and
promoting. The provision helps clarify that farmers are allowed
to engage in normal agricultural practices that have added the
benefit of providing habitat for ducks. We have seen a lot of
misinformation surrounding the important element of the bill.
In your testimony you stated that conservationists have
established population-based waterfowl habitat goals that
depend on the presence of rice agriculture on landscape. The
growth of a second crop of rice is normal agricultural
practice. I guess the question is, really a couple of things,
does this normal agricultural practice enhance winter waterfowl
foraging habitat? And second, would you say that the bill
provides a win-win for both farmers and for migratory game
birds in that regard?
Mr. Hall. The answer, simple answer is absolutely. What we
need to recognize first, and if I may say so as part of the
record, with the loss of wetlands that we have had here in the
United States, when the wintering habitat comes into question,
rice has become a surrogate wetland in order to support those
waterfowl populations.
We are at the highest level of nest productivity and
nesting waterfowl since we have been taking records in 1955.
Yet we have lost so much of the native habitat. The reason we
have been able to do that is we have taken advantage of our
partnership with agriculture, whether it is winter wheat in the
north for nesting, or whether it is rice in the south and west
for wintering habitat. In your particular question dealing with
the Gulf Coast joint venture, they have actually put 41 percent
of the food requirements to be coming from rice. This second
ratoon crop is critical.
The rules, as they are stated now, and it is not ever where
the ratoon crop comes in, where they grow rice, but in the
south it happens that the second one naturally comes in after
the harvest. Well, the rules of harvest kick in because you
have manipulated the ground. So by causing the farmer to choose
between taking care of waterfowl and making additional money on
being able to lease out hunting facilities, and we are strong
supporters of that, because that brings additional economic
value and support for waterfowl management and conservation. To
make them choose, we believe, is an absolutely unnecessary
question. It is not about the abandonment of fair chase. It is
about managing the resources with the regional conservation
agricultural practices that are normal. And they do vary from
region to region. Therefore, we support this provision.
Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
I would like to yield a minute to Senator Inhofe, if that
is OK.
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
Senator Inhofe. Thirty seconds of your time. I want to get
to Senator Fischer, because our votes have started.
But for clarification purposes, Mr. Pacelle, when I asked
the question about the very effective ad you had, implying that
is going to animal shelters and other places, and that you have
raised from my citizens in Oklahoma over $1.7 million, and the
total amount that has come back for organizations within
Oklahoma from you was $110,000, and you said no, that wasn't
true, and I read you the following statement, your general
counsel said that between 2011 and 2013, donations from within
Oklahoma totaled some $1.7 million. Of that total, only about
$110,000 in grants to Oklahoma came to Oklahoma organizations.
Now, is that statement correct?
Mr. Pacelle. The statement is correct.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I only want a yes or no,
because we have votes.
Mr. Pacelle. Those ads say that we are not giving the money
to animal shelters. The presumption that somehow the ads say we
are giving money to shelters is a false presumption.
Senator Inhofe. They are very effective ads to get $1.7
million out of Oklahoma.
Mr. Pacelle. There is language that says it is not going to
local animal shelters. Explicit language. We do all animals.
And we do it outside of shelters and inside of shelters.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Pacelle, do you want to take the
opportunity to answer that yes or no?
Mr. Pacelle. It doesn't lend itself readily to a yes or no
answer. The answer is $110,000, if that is what Roger Kindler
said in terms of grants to societies in Oklahoma, I am sure
that is true. We do so much more outside of the shelters in
Oklahoma to help animals.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am proud to be a vice chair of the congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus. And I am very happy to be a co-sponsor of
the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act.
A priority that I would like to work on as we consider this
legislation is addressing duplicative permitting of pesticides
under FIFRA and the Clean Water Act. This duplicative process
creates unnecessary resource burdens and challenges for
pesticide registrants and users, including the sportsmen
community.
Pesticides are actually critical for outdoor recreation,
enabling healthy habitats and ecosystems to thrive, while
suppressing vector-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus,
which threaten outdoor activity of all kinds. Eliminating
harmful and invasive pests is critical to vegetation and
management. The U.S. State agencies have testified that these
FIFRA permitting requirements offer no additional environmental
benefits.
While the House acted on legislation to address this
problem in both the 112th and 113th Congress, and is already
taking action, this year the Senate has yet to address this
issue. It is time for this committee and the U.S. Senate to
act. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on
exploring opportunities to accomplish this goal as we move
forward to debate this bill.
Mr. Crane, I am very grateful for the work of the
Sportsmen's Caucus in developing this important legislation.
Thank you very much. It has been a pleasure to be involved with
the Caucus.
For the benefit of everyone here, can you please talk about
the work that went into putting together this bill, both the
bipartisan cooperation in the Caucus and the Senate, and also
the collaboration that we have seen from all of the
organizations and partners that are out there in the
sportsmen's community?
Mr. Crane. Yes, Senator. Thank you for your leadership on
this.
This process started probably more than 6 years ago.
Senator Tester from Montana was the Democratic co-chair of the
Caucus. We attempted to assemble in the Senate for the first
time a comprehensive Sportsmen's Act. In successive Congresses,
it has gotten closer to passage. SO I hope this is going to be
the year.
The House has passed similar legislation on a bipartisan
basis in the last two Congresses. So again, I hope this is
going to be our year. I did in my opening statement hold forth
a letter from all the leading sportsmen, hunting, fishing,
conservation groups, endorsing the parent bill, S. 405. Again,
thank you for your leadership on that.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. I can tell you, with
really the great bipartisan support we have, this should be the
year that this passes.
In your testimony you discuss the modifications of
definition of sport fishing equipment under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. Can you please go into further detail
on the potential implications? We see there are anti-hunting
and fishing citizen suits that force EPA to expand that TSCA
authority to regulations of our ammunition and our tackle as
well.
Mr. Crane. Yes, Senator, and if you will permit me about 15
seconds, I would like to point out, there is a difference
between elemental lead, which is on the periodic table. Lead is
an inert substance that is found in the earth in molecular
lead, which is what is transformed and used in paints and
gasoline and things like that. The molecular lead is highly
toxic. That was a statement that I would just like to put for
the record.
But the definition of fishing tackle under the IRS code
basically would involve every single piece, from a fishing rod
to a fishing reel to all the terminal tackle. It would
basically, if they were successful in being able to push back
and put restrictions on lead, you would be going back to the
days of Tom Sawyer with a cane pole and a piece of monofilament
line. The attendant moneys that are raised through the Wallop-
Breaux excise taxes on fishing equipment, it would be
devastating to the conservation and economy of the United
States.
Senator Fischer. So it would have really a very harmful
impact, not just on the recreation industry but on our
conservation practices as well?
Mr. Crane. This is where the lion's share of the money
comes from.
Senator Fisher. Thank you. Mr. Crane and Mr. Hall, you have
heard Mr. Pacelle try to defend HSUS's positions here this
morning. I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to
any of those statements, detailing, I think, his organization's
stance on hunting and what impact his organization has on the
sportsmen's community.
Mr. Crane. I will be happy to do that. I would like to
focus on the polar bear, but in my opinion and being around in
this industry, I am not so sure I take at face value that The
Human Society of the United States does not oppose hunting. But
I think that is a debate maybe for another time.
In his testimony on the polar bear, he pointed out that
when the Service was proposing the listing that people rushed
up there to shoot these bears. First of all, you have to book
these hunts well in advance. There is a significant deposit
that is required for these animals. So the idea that somebody
rushed up there is erroneous.
Second, usually, and I will defer to the former Director of
the Service, but usually there is a minimum of a 30-day period
after a listing occurs to allow people to bring them back in. A
judge in California ordered that this would have immediate
effect. And it caught these people in a catch-22 position up
there. They were victims of something that they don't deserve.
This is just seeking justice for those people.
Senator Fischer. Mr. Hall, do you have any comments?
Mr. Hall. I would simply echo that I agree with Mr. Crane.
It is not my experience that HSUS runs out and supports
hunting. They may not oppose it, and I am not going to question
that; he is going to give his own testimony. But at the same
time, we are concerned often with tactics that we think are
less than above-board on trying to portray hunting as something
of a blood sport and not giving the proper credit back to the
people that actually pay for those animals to be there.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
We are going to move into a second round of questioning,
but we have a vote pending here, so we are going to limit that
to 2 minutes each.
I will begin. Mr. Pacelle, I didn't have a chance to ask
you any questions, so I am going to ask one. There was a lot of
discussion on lead and its impacts. But importantly, there are
20 million hunters in the U.S. whose families eat game, rely on
game, harvest it with traditional ammunition. Can you tell us
the percentage of the 20 million families who have gotten lead
or get poisoning as a direct result of eating game meat?
Mr. Pacelle. Mr. Chairman, according to the fish and
Wildlife Service, there are about 13 million hunters. I am not
sure how many hunting families that translates into. We are not
contesting the tradition of hunting. If someone is killing a
deer and eating a deer, that is arguably a better outcome for
the animal that if someone gets meat from a factory farm.
So we have on our national council a life-long hunter,
Renee Tatro, from Kansas. It is not a debate for us about
hunting.
If you are talking about lead, there is abundant evidence
that as lead ammunition fragments, it becomes undetectable for
the consumer of the product. There is a study out of North
Dakota, I would be happy to submit it, about high lead levels
in game meat that has been consumed by North Dakota hunters.
There have been a number of other food pantries and others that
have raised concerns about this issue as well.
Again, I understand the tradition of hunting. The issue is,
if we have an alternative that is increasingly competitive on
price and meets all the ballistic properties that lead has, and
is indistinguishable, according to this latest survey from dove
hunters in Texas, why would we not make a switch if we can do
something that is not going to kill as many animals and
threaten as many hunting families in terms of consumption?
Again, if we can shift to that.
The world changes all the time. We went from the typewriter
to the personal computer. The world is going to move away from
lead. The question is, are we going to do it in a rational,
science-based way? That is what we want. I am not sure it is
rational to say, EPA should never be allowed to look at the
issue.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Mr. Pacelle, this is a speed round, so I am
going to ask you one question and ask that you submit that for
the record, then I am going to give you a question to take for
my 60 seconds left.
I have a serious concern about trapping. It is something
that I know other countries have banned specific types of
traps, because of their inhumane nature, body-gripping traps,
specifically, and accidents that happen with body-gripping
traps, the unintended consequences of body-gripping traps. So I
would appreciate it if you could submit to the record some of
your testimony on that. I think it would be objectionable to
the overwhelming majority of Americans if they knew more of the
truth of what those traps do and how this legislation would
open up nearly all Federal lands to such a barbaric practice
that has some pretty negative consequences that are unintended.
But a specific question I want to ask you, because I saw
the sort of grilling that you were taking from my honorable
colleague and a partner of mine on many efforts, I know you are
a non-profit. In the world of non-profits, where some of them
are involved in some skeptical practices, yours is actually
pretty amazing in terms of the return it gives to the donors,
whether it is Oklahoma or New Jersey. I know you get lots of
donations from New Jersey.
So for the record, to give you the last 30 seconds I have,
would you expound a little bit about donors in Oklahoma and New
Jersey and what they are getting for the money they are
investing?
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Senator Booker. Briefly on that
issue, The Humane Society of the United States is about
protecting all animals. We are the No. 1 direct care provider
to animals in the United States in terms of the number of
animals that we directly touch. We are the largest wildlife
rehab center in the U.S. Again, we see the toxic effects of
lead on some of those animals who come into our facility as a
consequence of lead poisoning.
We have equine sanctuaries. We have an animal rescue team.
We help tens of thousands of street dogs throughout the world,
which is a public health issue as well, because of rabies-
related concerns.
We do advocacy work for horses, for farm animals, for
animals in laboratories, for wildlife. And for anyone to say
that The Humane Society of the United States should just give
money to shelters as a grant-making exercise so narrow the
mission and focus of our work, and it is never anything that we
ever said.
Senator Booker. The Chairman is my friend and I don't want
to tread upon his patience.
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you for asking. I appreciate the
opportunity to clarify.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your
testimony. All the materials requested to be entered into the
record are hereby done so without objection.
[The referenced materials follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. The subcommittee hearing on the
Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015 is hereby adjourned. Thank
you again.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of David Sollman, Executive Director,
Fur Industries of North America
On behalf of the Fur Industries of North America, an
organization that represents wildlife trappers throughout the
country, we appreciate the opportunity to provide information
to the Committee on the current State of trap technology and
ongoing research programs. While trapping is not a direct
subject of the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act, we recognize that
trapping is an important component of wildlife management and
that issues related to trapping have been raised during debate
on this important legislation. We, therefore, offer the
following information on the current status of trap technology
research, best management practices and our international
obligations under agreements on humane trapping.
In 1997, the United States and the European Union signed an
Agreed Minute on humane standards for trapping of furbearing
animals. The Agreed Minute represents a binding international
treaty commitment of the United States. Concurrently, an
agreement was reached between Canada, Russia and the EU. The
Agreement on International Humane Trap Standards (AIHTS) seeks
to develop humane methods for the capturing of furbearing
animals. The Agreed Minute reflects the U.S. commitment to the
principles of the AIHTS.
As a result, the United States is committed to ongoing
programs designed to meet U.S. obligations by testing trapping
devices that measure humaneness, safety, selectivity,
practicality and efficiency that are incorporated in the
Agreement. Accordingly, the program was designed, with Federal
oversight, to allow State control of the research. While as a
constitutional matter, trapping is regulated by the states,
this is more than an issue of State vs. Federal control over
trapping. States have the right to regulate their respective
wildlife populations. Also, State control is more practical
because of: (1) the competency of the states residing with
their respective DNRs; and (2) the great diversity of habitats
across the country, which require state-specific solutions to
issues of wildlife management.
To date, research has been completed and best management
practice recommendations have been distributed on traps for 21
species with two more soon to be released. Over 100 trap types
have been tested and a substantial number of devices have been
identified that meet international animal welfare standards.
Those traps that fail to meet international standards have also
been identified. These findings have been published and
distributed by the states to wildlife managers, users and
available to the general public. Future efforts will increase
State level education, outreach, and training to ensure that
best management practices are integrated into professional and
agency programs.
The Agreed Minute specifically obligates the U.S.
Government to fund an annual research program to improve the
quality of traps and to ensure new traps meet welfare criteria
set forth in the Agreement. The United States research program,
undertaken by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center, has
been developed in partnership with the State Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, which have regulatory authority over trapping.
Failure to maintain this commitment could result in reduced
access to European and other markets for American fur products.
For this reason, the USDA and the States have maintained their
commitment to continued research and development in this
important area.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information
to the Committee as it considers issues that relate to wildlife
management.
------
March 24, 2015
Re: Please oppose S. 405, the so-called ``Bipartisan
Sportsmen's Act of 2015''
Dear Senator:
On behalf of our more than 100 national, regional, and
local organizations and our millions of members, we write to
express our strong opposition to S. 405, the so-called
``Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015'' and its related Senate
bills (S. 556, S. 659). We oppose this legislation because it
threatens the conservation of fish, wildlife, and habitats that
benefit all Americans. While there are many adverse special
interest provisions contained in this legislation, the
following aspects of the bill clearly demonstrate the harm it
will do and why it must be opposed.
Rollback of Public Lands Protection
S. 405 contains several alarming rollbacks of long-standing
Federal environmental and public land laws, including the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Wilderness Act,
and the National Forest Management Act. These rollbacks would
reduce or eliminate important protections for America's public
lands that have been in place for decades.
In regards to NEPA, for example, the bill exempts all
decisions on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States
Forest Service (USFS) lands regarding trapping and recreational
hunting, fishing, and shooting from compliance with NEPA by
mandating that these lands be open to these activities. NEPA
ensures that agencies assess and consider the impacts of their
land-use decisions before those decisions are put into action.
It also serves as an effective platform for the public to
assess the environmental consequences of proposed agency
actions and to weigh in on governmental decisions before they
are finalized.
Underlying changes to the Wilderness Act embedded in S. 405
seek to overturn decades of congressional protection for
wilderness areas. For example, the bill would require lands
managed by the USFS and BLM, including wilderness areas, to be
managed as ``open unless closed'' to recreational shooting.
This includes ``sport, training, competition, or pastime
whether formal or informal'' in designated wilderness.
Wilderness areas have always been closed to competitive events
and commercial enterprises by statute and regulation.
Moreover, the bill prioritizes hunting, trapping,
recreational fishing, and recreational shooting in most
Wilderness areas by requiring that all Federal land managers
(except for lands managed by the National Park Service or the
United States Fish & Wildlife Service) facilitate the use of
and access to lands under their control for these activities.
The agencies could interpret prioritizing hunting, trapping,
fishing, and recreational shooting in wilderness areas to mean
that they can permit management measures such as the use of
motorized vehicles in these areas to artificially increase game
or fish numbers. Such measures would be inconsistent with the
concept of wilderness and the Wilderness Act.
Further, section 106 of S. 405 would significantly change
current practices and open up all wilderness areas across the
country to commercial filming activities and their attendant
problems, preventing Federal land managers from protecting
designated wildernesses from commercial filming production. The
language in this section that exempts ``cameras or related
equipment used for the purpose of commercial filming or similar
projects'' from the prohibitions on motorized and mechanized
equipment in designated wilderness could lead to calls to allow
motorized access in wilderness areas for commercial filming.
Congress recognized that wilderness areas can easily be damaged
by commercialization. The Wilderness Act's section 4(c)
provides that, except as specifically provided otherwise,
``there shall be no commercial enterprise . . . within any
wilderness area.'' We are deeply concerned that making
exceptions for commercial filming would lead to opening
wilderness areas to even more commercial enterprises.
Such changes are in direct conflict with the stated purpose
of the Wilderness Act to establish areas ``where the earth and
its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself
is a visitor who does not remain.'' It is also in direct
opposition to the Act's fundamental mandate that Federal
agencies preserve the wilderness character of these lands so
that they are left ``unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness.''
The legislation promotes the priorities of various special
interests by making substantive policy changes to public land
law. It prioritizes recreational shooting activities by
promoting and facilitating the establishment of target ranges
on public lands. As defined, recreational shooting activities
are unrelated to, and potentially at odds with, the unique
natural resource values of the various Federal land management
systems on which they would occur.
Under the National Forest Management Act, forest managers
manage for the resilience of our national forests so that both
current and future generations can benefit from multiple uses
of the land. In some cases, managers need the flexibility to
stop certain actions to promote long-term use of the forest
resources. Requiring that all Forest Service lands be ``open
unless closed'' to hunting, trapping, fishing, and shooting is
one example of many where this legislation undercuts their
ability to do that.
Appropriate management of our public lands plays a critical
role in stewardship for biodiversity as well as for
recreational opportunities. The natural resource management
laws affected by this legislation were created to ensure public
lands were managed to protect biodiversity. This stable
habitat, in turn, allows for healthy wildlife populations,
which can prevent them from needing to be listed under the
Endangered Species Act. They work to ensure that our wildlife
and public land resources thrive and that hunters, birders, and
anglers alike can enjoy them for generations to come. By
weakening these important laws, the proposed legislation would
significantly undermine these important public land values.
Lead ammunition pollution
Second, S. 405 would remove the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) authority to regulate toxic lead or any other
toxic substance used in ammunition or fishing equipment under
the Toxic Substances Control Act. A nationwide ban on lead shot
in migratory waterfowl hunting was adopted in 1991 after
biologists estimated roughly two million ducks died each year
from ingesting spent lead pellets. The hunting industry groups
that want to prevent the EPA from regulating lead ammunition
and fishing tackle are the same groups that protested the ban
on lead shot for waterfowl hunting in 1991. Despite the doom-
and-gloom rhetoric, hunters know two decades later that this
didn't lead to the end of duck or goose hunting. A Federal
agency should be able to carry out its duties without uncalled
for and unscientific laws impeding this process. Such decisions
should be left to the discretion of Federal agencies based
solely on the best available science on the impacts of toxic
substances such as lead. Congress should not tie the hands of
professional scientists and prevent them from even evaluating
or considering future policies to protect the public and the
environment.
Switching to non-lead hunting ammunition isn't about
stopping hunting or taking anyone's guns away. In fact, some of
the staunchest supporters of the effort to rid our public lands
of lead are hunters. The switch to non-lead hunting ammunition
in California, for example, proves that replacement of toxic
lead in ammunition is compatible with hunting. Hunters have
been hunting with copper rounds in 14 California counties since
non-lead hunting ammunition requirements went into effect in
2008 to protect endangered California condors from lead
poisoning.
Polar bears in peril
S. 405 would allow the import of 41 sport-hunted polar bear
trophies from Canada. This would be the latest in a series of
import allowances that Congress has approved, and the
cumulative effect is devastating to our most imperiled species.
Despite having notice of the impending prohibition on import of
polar bear trophies from Canada for 16 months (between January
2007 and May 2008), a number of trophy hunters went forward
with their hunts anyway. In fact, the 41 individuals all hunted
polar bears AFTER the Bush administration proposed the species
for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and
all but one hunted more than a year after the listing was
proposed. They were given repeated warnings from hunting
organizations and government agencies that trophy imports would
likely not be allowed as of the listing date, and that they
were hunting at their own risk. If this behavior were rewarded
through a congressional waiver, it could accelerate the pace of
killing any species that is proposed for listing in the future,
since hunters would believe they could get the trophies in even
after a listing becomes final. Each new allowance may involve
only a few animals, but the cumulative impacts of these waivers
time and time again lead to more reckless trophy killing.
Conclusion
This bill is extreme and reckless. It would undermine
decades of land management and planning practices and would
topple the delicate balance between allowing for public use and
the need to protect public resources. In regards to increased
public land access for recreational hunting and fishing, it is
also unnecessary. Hunting and fishing are already permitted on
85 percent of public lands. This bill's proponents seek to
solve a problem that does not exist, and the legislation they
propose could in fact cause serious damage to America's natural
heritage.
Please oppose S. 405, as well as any related legislation
such as S. 556 and S. 659, and oppose any effort to attach any
of these to another bill. This legislation is bad for public
lands and water resources, bad for fish and wildlife, and bad
for the American people.
Thank you.
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Adirondack Wildlife Refuge and Rehabilitation Center
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Protection League of New Jersey Animal Welfare
Institute Animals Are Sentient Beings, Inc. Audubon Society
of Corvallis Audubon Society of Kalamazoo Blue Ridge
Wildlife Center Born Free USA Cascades Raptor Center
Center for Biological Diversity Center for Food Safety
Center for Public Environmental Oversight Center for Wildlife
Ethics, Inc. Citizens for the Preservation of Wildlife, Inc.
Connecticut Council for Humane Education Conowingo Bald
Eagles Conservation Congress Conservation Northwest
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology Coyote Coexistence Coyote
Watch Canada Earth Island Institute Endangered Habitats
League Endangered Species Coalition Environmental Action
Committee of West Marin Environmental Protection Information
Center Footloose Montana Four Harbors Audubon Society
Freedom Center for Wildlife Friends of Georgia Friends of
the Bitterroot Friends of the Clearwater GooseWatch NYC
Great Old Broads for Wilderness Gulf Restoration Network
Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Headwater Heartwood The Humane
Society of the United States Humane Society Legislative Fund
The Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust Humane Society
Veterinary Medical Association In Defense of Animals
nternational Fund for Animal Welfare The International
Wildlife Rehabilitation Council Jayhawk Audubon Society
Justice for Wolves Kittitas Audubon Society Klamath Forest
Alliance Laramie Audubon Society League of Humane Voters,
Alabama League of Humane Voters, Florida League of Humane
Voters, Georgia League of Humane Voters, Indiana League of
Humane Voters, Nevada League of Humane Voters, New Jersey
League of Humane Voters, New York League of Humane Voters,
Ohio League of Humane Voters, Pennsylvania League of Humane
Voters, Virginia Long Island Orchestrating for Nature
LoonWatch Los Padres ForestWatch Madrone Audubon Society
Maricopa Audubon Society MOMS Advocating Sustainability
National Urban Wildlife Coalition New Hampshire Audubon
North County Watch Northcoast Environmental Center Northeast
Oregon Ecosystems Prairie Dog Pals Predator Defense
Preserve Our Wildlife Project Coyote Rainforest Relief
Raptor Education Group, Inc. Raptors Are The Solution
Raptor Rehabilitation of Kentucky Inc. RESTORE: The North
Woods Rocky Mountain Wild Save America's Forests Save Our
Sky Blue Waters SAVE THE FROGS! Sequoia ForestKeeper
Speak Up for Wildlife Foundation Sky Island Alliance South
Florida Wildlands Association Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance Tamarack Wildlife Rehabilitation Center TEDX, The
Endocrine Disruption Exchange Tennessee Ornithological
Society Tri-City Ecology Center Walden's Puddle Wildlife
Rehabilitation and Education Center Western Lands Project
White Mountain Conservation League Wild Wings Raptor
Rehabilitation, Sisters, OR WildEarth Guardians Wilderness
Watch The Wildlands Network Wildlife Rehabilitation Center
of Northern Utah WildWest Institute Yellowstone to Uintas
Connection Zumbro Valley Audubon Society