[Senate Hearing 114-200]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-200
FEDERAL INTERACTIONS WITH
STATE MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WATER, AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 9, 2016
__________
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.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-406 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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 BARRASSO, 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)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 9, 2016
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......................................................... 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 66
WITNESSES
Regan, Ronald J., Executive Director, Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies.............................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from Senator Sullivan...... 18
Barry, Donald, Senior Vice President, Conservation Program,
Defenders of Wildlife.......................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse.... 35
Lang, Doug Vincent, former Director, Alaska Division of Wildlife
Conservation................................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Responses to additional questions from Senator Sullivan...... 46
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Senators Murkowski and Cantwell from Jennifer Mock
Schaeffer, Government Affairs Director, the Association of Fish
& Wildlife Agencies, December 15, 2015......................... 74
Letter to Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, from Ronald J. Regan, Executive Director, the
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, January 15, 2016...... 78
Written testimony of Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality, February 3, 2016..................... 79
Letter to Joseph G. Pizarchik, Director, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, from
Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality, May 22, 2015.......................................... 88
Letter to Joseph G. Pizarchik, Director, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, from
Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality, October 23, 2015...................................... 90
Letter to Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, from Todd
Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,
December 3, 2015............................................... 96
Letter to Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, from Todd
Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,
January 19, 2016............................................... 98
Written testimony of John Corra, Director, Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, before the House Energy and Mineral
Resources Subcommittee, September 26, 2011..................... 101
Written testimony of Safari Club International................... 109
Letter to C. L. ``Butch'' Otter, Governor of the State of Idaho,
from Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, April 15, 2011.... 114
FEDERAL INTERACTIONS WITH STATE MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan, Barrasso, Capito, Boozman,
Fischer, Rounds, Inhofe, Whitehouse, and Gillibrand.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and
Wildlife will now come to order. Good afternoon to our
witnesses.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the interactions
States have with the Federal Government as they seek to manage
the fish and wildlife resources within their borders. I think a
lot of people have a misunderstanding of this very important
principle. Since the founding of our Republic, the States, not
the Federal Government, have had primacy over the management of
wildlife within their borders.
In the case of Alaska, our Statehood Act, passed by
Congress, even included language to affirmatively transfer
management authority of fish and wildlife management to the
State. By reserving certain powers to various States, the
unique needs of each of those States to manage and control
their resources are preserved. That is why traditionally there
is State management for all States.
Alaska, for example, has an excellent history of
sustainably managing our own fish and wildlife resources for
the benefit of our citizens, and when the Federal Government
and the States have been able to work together cooperatively,
which we usually do, whether through the Pittman-Robertson or
Dingell-Johnson Acts or other direction from Congress, species
have benefited, and the overall management has significantly
benefited.
Having entered the Union on equal footing, all States enjoy
management authority unless modified or diminished by an Act of
Congress. There are many examples of this where Congress does
act to preempt State management authority whether it be the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, title 8 of the ANILCA. These are
all examples where the Federal Government has taken that
management authority and preempted it. I am not always in favor
of such preemption, but the authorities of these Acts are not
nearly as damaging to our States and to our federalism system
of government as ones carried out by agency fiat.
In many ways, that is what we are going to focus on today
where the Congress makes clear that the Federal Government has
authority, agencies clearly have that prerogative and States
abide by that. The broader concern is where it is not clear,
and Federal agencies take actions that do not seem to focus on
the rule of law or Federal statutes.
In my State, conservation is not only a matter critical to
our quality of life and customs and traditions; it is also a
matter of social justice for our most remote communities who
depend on nature's bounty for food. Any time the Federal
Government intrudes into our sovereign responsibility to
sustain and manage fish and wildlife populations, it is of
great concern to all Alaskans.
I want to emphasize a theme that develops sometimes
unfortunately in this committee is that it is always partisan;
one side only wants to protect the environment. I think we all
want to protect the environment. Most of these concerns, in my
experience, are very bipartisan in terms of protecting the
environment but also in terms of how States manage their
resources.
That is why one major newspaper in Alaska referred to a
recently proposed rule from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
that would preempt Alaska's management of fish and game in the
following way: ``Alaskans should be clearly concerned, even
alarmed, that these proposed rules by the Federal Government,
are just more in a long list of attempts by the Federal
Government to amend the Alaska Statehood Act and have
preemption in terms of fish and wildlife management.''
Last fall, the National Park Service finalized similar
rules that prohibit several forms of hunting in preserves in
Alaska and would allow superintendents to simply post a notice
online preempting State wildlife laws and regulations. Calling
the rule overarching, vague and indiscriminate, the Alaska
Federation of Natives passed a resolution in opposition, again,
a group that is very bipartisan in my State.
That same resolution stated, ``Other Federal agencies, such
as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, also apply various rules
that interfere with traditional resource management practice
that reduces subsistence access to our citizens.'' In both
cases, the rules being preempted are based on practices that
subsistence hunters requested to the Alaska Board of Game,
again in an open, public process to provide food security for
passing on their traditional practices.
We are fortunate to have three very distinguished witnesses
here today to look forward to a more detailed discussion on
this important issue of the interchange between Federal and
State management of our important wildlife resources.
I am glad to have the witnesses here and my Ranking Member,
Senator Whitehouse, join me for this important hearing. I will
turn to him for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sullivan follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dan Sullivan,
U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska
Good afternoon. The purpose of this hearing is to examine
the interactions States have with the Federal Government as
they seek to manage the fish and wildlife resources within
their borders. Since the founding of our Republic, the States--
not the Federal Government--have had primacy over the
management of wildlife. In the case of Alaska, our Statehood
Act even included language to affirmatively transfer management
authority to the State. These rights were further guaranteed
under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) of 1980.
By reserving certain powers to the various States, the
unique needs of each of those States to manage and control
their resources are preserved. Alaska, for example, has an
excellent history of sustainably managing our own fish and
wildlife resources for the benefit of all Alaskans. And when
the Federal Government and the States have been able to work
together cooperatively--whether through the Pittman-Robertson
or Dingell-Johnson Acts or other direction from Congress--
species have benefited.
Having entered the union on equal footing, the States enjoy
management authority unless modified or diminished by an Act of
Congress. And on a handful of occasions, Congress has modified
the authority of the States. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and title VIII of the ANILCA are
all examples of where this is the case.
Preemption can severely affect the management authority of
the States, most markedly with the Endangered Species Act,
which leads to a Federal takeover of species management and
land use under very specific circumstances.
I am not always in favor of such preemption, but the
authorities of these Acts aren't nearly as damaging--to my
State and to our system of government--as ones carried out by
agency fiat. When agencies, as they increasingly do, seek to
bypass the will of Congress through regulations, it's Federal
overreach at its worst.
In Alaska, conservation is not only a matter critical to
our quality of life and customs and traditions. It is also a
matter of social justice for our most remote communities who
depend on nature's bounty for food. Anytime the Federal
Government intrudes into our sovereign responsibility to
sustain and manage fish and wildlife populations, it's of great
concern to Alaskans.
That's why one major newspaper in Alaska referred to a
proposed rule from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that
would preempt Alaska's management in this way: ``Alaskans
should be clearly concerned--even alarmed--that these proposed
rules are just more in a long list of attempts by the Federal
Government to amend the Alaska Statehood Act.''
The National Wildlife Refuge System was created by
President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, when he created the first
refuge by Executive Order. Today, the Refuge System is
comprised of 560 refuges and 150 million acres that have been
reserved for the conservation of fish and wildlife. In Alaska,
the Fish and Wildlife Service manages nearly 77 million acres
of land in 16 national wildlife refuges.
These refuge lands are not parks or national monuments, but
rather are intended for priority public wildlife-dependent uses
for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education and interpretation. Refuges are
conservation units, not preservation units.
The proposed regulations as currently written seek to alter
that balance and will fundamentally alter not only how national
wildlife refuges and the fish, wildlife and habitats on them
will be managed but will also change the relationship of the
Service and the individual States from one of cooperation to
subservience. The proposed Alaska regulations are not based on
any of the laws I referenced earlier but rather on an ideology
that was implemented into a policy that the FWS now seeks to
fold into regulation.
With these regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service will
administratively impose its will via regulatory action. In
doing so, they will preempt science-based management approved
by the Alaska Board of Game in an open, public process. For
those outside of Alaska, know that once this rule is adopted in
Alaska, there is no limiting its spread to other States.
Last fall, the National Park Service finalized similar
rules that would prohibit several forms of hunting in preserves
in Alaska and would allow superintendents to simply post a
notice online preempting State wildlife laws and regulations.
Calling the rule, ``overreaching, vague, and indiscriminate,''
the Alaska Federation of Natives passed a resolution in
opposition. That same resolution stated, ``Other Federal
agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also apply
various rules that interfere with traditional resource
management practice that reduce subsistence access.''
In both cases, the rules that are being preempted are based
on practices that subsistence hunters requested to the Alaska
Board of Game, again in an open, public process, to provide
food security or for passing on their traditional practices.
We're fortunate to have all three of our witnesses here
today, and I look forward to discussing this important topic
with them.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. It is good to be
with you.
Looking at the witness testimony and the scope of this
hearing, I guess I should first note that although the word
environment is in the name of this committee, it does not mean
we get to stake claim to all things water and all things soil.
In the written testimonies of both Mr. Vincent Lang and Mr.
Regan, their reference is to the National Park Service. The
relationships of State Fish and Wildlife agencies with other
Federal agencies like the National Park Service and Forest
Service may be worth reviewing. They are not jurisdictional to
this committee.
It is also worth pointing out that a critical witness is
not present at today's hearing. Though the bulk of testimony
and discussion from this hearing will be focused on the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, its director, Dan Ashe, was not
invited to participate. In a discussion about the Fish and
Wildlife Service's rules and regulations and how they are
affecting State agencies, the Service should be here to explain
and if necessary, defend its actions.
The problems here may be regional, but whatever the issue,
I should note that many States manage to get along very well
with these Federal agencies. Successful cooperation and
collaboration between State and Federal agencies, I would
argue, is actually the norm. Serious conflicts are an anomaly.
In my State of Rhode Island, Cathy Sparks, Assistant
Director of Natural Resources at the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management, notes, ``A spirit of collaboration
exists in the Northeast between State fish and wildlife
agencies and their U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
counterparts.''
Rhode Island has a ``good working relationship with the
Service, especially with issues concerning national wildlife
refuges and Endangered Species Act implementation.'' Assistant
Director Sparks shared particular appreciation for the Fish and
Wildlife Service's willingness to maintain what she called
``open dialogue with the State and a track record of being both
reasonable and forthcoming.''
I do not think the Rhode Island experience is unique. As
Mr. Barry indicated in his testimony, Nick Wiley, Executive
Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, mirrored the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management's comments in noting ``the
longstanding collaborative and positive relationships'' that
his State has with the Service.
Effective management of our country's land, air, water and
wildlife is reliant upon cooperation between States and Federal
Government. We are not one sovereign or another, and they are
dual sovereigns. Throughout the many statutes that govern
natural resource management and the relationship between
Federal and State authorities, the words ``collaboration,''
``cooperation,'' and ``in consultation with'' litter the text.
Though States are given significant deference in Federal
fish and wildlife decisionmaking, the laws make clear that
State interests cannot come at the cost of conservation,
especially not on the public lands held in trust for the
enjoyment of all Americans.
I look forward to working with you on this. I understand
that Alaska has particular concerns, and perhaps those can be
dealt with on a State or regional basis. But I would contest
any premise that this is a national categorical problem,
certainly based on Rhode Island's experience. We have a
terrific relationship with our Federal counterparts. I think
many States enjoy and manage to accomplish the same.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
I want to welcome our witnesses. Mr. Ronald J. Regan is the
Executive Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Mr. Doug Vincent Lang is the former Director of the
Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation. Mr. Donald Barry is
the Senior Vice President, Conservation Program, Defenders of
Wildlife.
Witnesses have 5 minutes to deliver their oral statements.
Longer written statements will be included in the record. I am
very excited to have such a distinguished group of witnesses
here today.
Mr. Regan, let us begin with you. You have 5 minutes to
deliver your statement.
STATEMENT OF RONALD J. REGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION
OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Regan. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan and Ranking
Democrat Whitehouse, for the opportunity to share with you our
perspectives on Federal interaction with State management of
fish and wildlife.
As the introduction suggested, I am Ron Regan, Executive
Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, of
which all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are members. The
Association's mission, which has not changed significantly from
our founding in 1902, is to protect State agency authority to
conserve and manage the fish and wildlife within their borders.
State governments hold title to fish and wildlife as
trustees of these resources for their citizens. Regulating take
for hunting and fishing resides under that authority. Case law
at all levels up to the Supreme Court upholds that trustee
ownership in the State agencies.
Where Congress has given Federal agencies certain
conservation responsibilities and thus authority for fish and
wildlife, Congress has also affirmed that State jurisdiction is
concurrent with the Federal authority starting with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 and continuing for federally
listed threatened and endangered species under the ESA and
certain migratory and anadromous fish under the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act.
Congress affirmed State agency authority for fish and
wildlife management on Federal lands in organic Acts for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Defense military
installations. Each statute directs that to the maximum extent
practicable, hunting and fishing seasons and bag limits shall
conform to State agency regulations. In general, State agencies
enjoy a good working relationship with the Federal agencies,
but they strive constantly to improve that for the benefit of
fish and wildlife resources and constituents.
Contemporary examples include State-Federal task force
collaboration on administration of the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program and Federal implementation of the ESA.
Recent conservation success stories for greater sage-grouse,
lesser prairie-chicken, monarch butterflies and the New England
cottontail attest to the strength of the State-Federal
partnership.
That being said, my written testimony suggests there are
foundational, jurisdictional concerns with managing elk in Wind
Cave National Park in South Dakota, recreational fisheries
management and access in the Biscayne National Park of Florida
and wilderness designations for two national forests in
Arizona.
However, today I will focus my brief time on proposed
rulemaking for Alaskan national wildlife refuges and preserves
that would change how the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
manages fish and wildlife resources on those refuges.
The Association appreciates the Chair's accepted amendment
to the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act which would prohibit the Fish
and Wildlife Service from further action on its proposed
regulation and preclude implementation of the like National
Park Service regulation. The Association has requested a
comment period extension, and we will continue to work with the
Fish and Wildlife Service to address our concerns.
If enacted, the proposed rule would usurp Alaska's
authority to manage fish and wildlife for sustained yield
including predators and large ungulates on national wildlife
refuges in favor of a hands-off or passive management paradigm
which would adversely impact Alaska fish and game objectives
for resident fish and wildlife. The proposed rule takes what is
now national policy on biological integrity, diversity and
environmental health and elevates it to a regulation, thereby
giving it preeminence in Alaska over other national wildlife
refuge policy and also over ANILCA.
This action may result in litigation that seeks to apply
that policy to the entire national wildlife refuge system under
the argument that what is good for Alaska should be good for
all refuges given that it is a national system. A recent public
relations appeal by the Humane Society of the United States to
support this proposed rule already refers to it as applying to
all national wildlife refuges.
I will conclude my remarks with two legislative and policy
remedies among several that were offered in my written
testimony. First, the use of savings clauses in Federal law
with respect to State authority for fish and wildlife
management needs some revision and certainly more prominent
placement in statutes or legislation than it now occupies.
Second, the Association recommends revising the several
Federal agency organic Acts to define with more certainty and
clarity the phrase ``in cooperation with the States'' at the
appropriate places with direct fish and wildlife management on
Federal lands and/or in statutes that recognize the concurrent
jurisdiction of State agencies with Federal agencies for fish
and wildlife.
The Association would be pleased to work with committee
staff on both provisions, and thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, for this opportunity to share these remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Regan.
Mr. Barry.
STATEMENT OF DONALD BARRY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CONSERVATION
PROGRAM, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Mr. Barry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to summarize five points from my testimony
that is being submitted formally to the record.
Unfortunately, hearings like this can create the false
impression that the rare exception of problems and conflict is
actually the norm. It is what I refer to in my testimony as it
gets you to start focusing on the hole instead of the doughnut.
My testimony, including the quotes from the State Fish and
Game director of Florida, indicates the norm throughout most of
the United States. He described the working relationship he had
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the other State
directors in his region in the Fish and Wildlife Service as the
``no daylight'' policy.
From his perspective, there is no daylight between the
State fish and wildlife agencies and the Fish and Wildlife
Service. He acknowledged that there would be some disagreements
and even some strong disputes, but they worked together to work
through them, and then they move on. He felt it was an
extremely constructive relationship. He believed that most of
the most of the State directors throughout the Nation feel the
same way.
One court referred to this relationship as cooperative
federalism. I think that is a term that describes the way it
has worked fairly well. I also believe that given the
overwhelming success in the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
States working together, no compelling case has been made yet
that there needs to be a significant change or amendments to
the underlying Federal laws, and Congress should not do so now.
I would also like to shift my focus to ANILCA since that
seems to be the primary focus of this hearing. It is my view
that ANILCA does not require the Fish and Wildlife Service to
accept lock, stock and barrel the State of Alaska's anti-
predator program for national wildlife refuges.
In fact, I think my testimony clearly demonstrates that
ANILCA requires the exact opposite. It requires the Fish and
Wildlife Service to reject such an outdated approach to
hammering predators on wildlife refuges as required by the
State of Alaska's intensive management legislation.
I would note that even the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's 1982 MOU acknowledges
the authority and the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to reject the State's animal damage control program
where and when it believes it is incompatible with the purposes
for a given refuge.
Even in 1982, the State of Alaska acknowledged that the
Fish and Wildlife Service was only required to substantially
try to accommodate the State Fish and Game Predator Control
Program but was not obligated to do so.
It is my view that national wildlife refuges in Alaska were
intended to be a lot more than just game factories for sport
hunters. ANILCA's natural diversity management goal for each
wildlife refuge, which was included in sections 302 and 303 of
ANILCA, and I should also note that in 302 and 303 which
expanded the wildlife refuges in Alaska, a number of those new
units specifically mentioned bears and wolves as some of the
key species those wildlife refuges were being created to focus
on.
From my perspective, when Congress added the requirement
that national wildlife refuges in Alaska be managed to conserve
in the natural diversity the species of key focus in those
refuges and included various different wolves and bears in some
of the different refuges, it seems to me to be impossible to
conclude that Alaska, under ANILCA, was being given the
authority and the power to adopt the very heavy anti-predator
program designed to suppress the population levels of predators
within those national wildlife refuges.
It is also very clear under ANILCA that all sport hunting
in the national wildlife refuges in Alaska needs to be
compatible and consistent with that natural diversity
management goal. It is also unfortunate, I believe, that an
amendment has been adopted to the bipartisan Sportsmen's Bill
to block the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to
finalize their rule. I think it is going to increase the
likelihood that bill may not ever be accepted and adopted by
the Administration and might generate a veto.
I should also say that the wildlife management and refuge
provisions in ANILCA are not in conflict with the 1997 Refuge
Improvement Act. Both statutes can apply and are in sync.
The Alaska refuges are to be managed under ANILCA and be
managed under the natural diversity management goal, and all
national wildlife refuges under the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act
are to be managed under a new broader management mission and
vision for the national wildlife refuge system to ensure that
biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of
each refuge in the system is maintained. Therefore, it is my
view that there is no conflict between the requirement under
ANILCA to management for natural diversity and the requirement
of the 1997 Act to management for the biological integrity,
diversity and environmental health of each refuge.
My time is up so I will quit at that point and look forward
to taking questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Barry. I appreciate your
interest in ANILCA as you can imagine.
Mr. Vincent Lang, may we have your testimony, please, sir?
STATEMENT OF DOUG VINCENT LANG, FORMER DIRECTOR, ALASKA
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
Mr. Lang. Senator Sullivan and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to discuss Federal overreach and
wildlife management in my State of Alaska.
My name is Doug Vincent Lang. Today, I will speak as a
representative of Safari Club International and from my
perspective as a former State chief wildlife manager. SCI is a
world leader in preserving the freedom to hunt and promoting
wildlife conservation. Our chapters in Alaska are some of the
most effective hunter conservation groups in my State.
When you consider the uniqueness of Alaska's relationship
with its wildlife resources, it is not surprising that the
framers of my State's constitution required active management
of my State's fish and game for the sustained yield and the
many benefits it provides.
It is also not surprising that the historic intent and
incredible wisdom of the framers of the U.S. Constitution
reserved certain powers to the individual States become crystal
clear. This includes recognition that it is the responsibility
of the States to manage and control their natural resources for
their unique needs.
For Alaska, Congress specifically recognized and guaranteed
Alaska's right to manage and control its resources under our
State constitution as part of our statehood compact. For the
past decade, my State has begun to experience increased
administrative intrusions by Federal agencies into the
management of our fish and game that some unresolvable given
increasingly divergent administrative management philosophies.
The intrusions are wide ranging. They include misuse of the
Endangered Species Act. As an example, let us look at the
ringed seal. These seals were listed as a threatened species
based solely on speculative models forecasting possible
reductions over a 100-year timeframe. Yet, these seals
currently number in the millions and are expected to remain at
these numbers through the mid-century. Such listings are
unnecessary and allow Federal agencies to exert management
control over the listed species as well as their landscapes.
The National Park Service recently finalized new
regulations governing wildlife in Alaska's national preserves
over my State's objection. In these regulations, the Park
Service closed preserves to hunting opportunities despite there
being no conservation concerns. The Park Service chose to
substitute their agency ethics and values as to what
constitutes appropriate hunting methods, ignoring publicly
adopted State regulations that allowed those practices.
Now we see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed new
rules that administratively exert Federal management control
over wildlife in Alaska's national wildlife refuges. These
rules fundamentally will alter the Federal Government's
longstanding wildlife management relationship with Alaska.
The Service is using their administratively adopted
biological integrity policy to thwart protections of State
management authority that Congress includes in the National
Wildlife System Improvement Act and in the Alaska National
Interest Lands Claim Conservation Act, both of which confirm
deference to State management authority.
By incorporating national diversion policies into their
permanent regulations, the Service is replacing time proven,
traditional active State management with a hands-off management
approach. Let me give you an example of how this plays out in
the real world.
On Unimak Island in Alaska, the Service has elevated
natural diversity and its hands-off management policy over
sound principles of wildlife management. On this island,
without active management of both predator and prey
populations, an indigenous caribou population has a high
likelihood of disappearing.
The Service determined that under their natural diversity
guidelines, it would be acceptable for the caribou on this
island, in the Service's own words, to blink out; this despite
one of the refuge's congressionally established purposes being
the conservation of these very caribou and their subsistence
uses. The application of this hands-off approach throughout
Alaska's refuges could put many other populations of moose,
caribou, deer and elk at risk and as a result, seriously reduce
opportunities for hunters including subsistence hunters.
Under a hands-off approach, it is questionable whether
Alaska will be allowed to continue to actively manage its sheep
and bear populations for trophy hunting opportunities. Will
Alaska be allowed to continue to actively manage its salmon
runs for optimal sustained yields since that is an active
management program? Will subsistence hunters be required to
adopt fair chase standards?
Taken together, these agency actions and others represent
an unprecedented administrative intrusion by Federal agencies
into the State's traditional role as principal manager of fish
and wildlife. It is occurring despite congressional assurances
from a variety of legislative savings clauses which statutorily
preserve the State authority to manage.
In Alaska, it is preventing my State from fulfilling our
sustained yield mandates that our constitution tells us we must
and is impacting my State's ability to manage and provide
sustained hunting and fishing opportunities.
Those will suffer the most are those who hunt and fish in
Alaska including subsistence hunters. We ask Congress to work
with us to preserve the rights and opportunities of Alaskan
hunters and fishers to prevent these Federal intrusions.
The State fish and game model is a proven success that
should be built upon, not replaced with a new, one size fits
all Federal conservation model. We need congressional action to
stop these administrative intrusions.
The Safari Club applauds the efforts of Senator Sullivan
toward this end. Safari Club International asks Congress for
assistance toward this end in protecting Alaska's hunters.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lang follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Lang.
I would like to begin by submitting for the record a letter
from Congressman Don Young on the House side who is interested
in commenting on the subject matter of this hearing, without
objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. I also want to mention Senator Whitehouse
and some of the testimony at the beginning of the hearing today
talked about the importance of a cooperative attitude or a
cooperative relationship. We could not agree more.
I remember this committee, on both sides of the aisle,
certainly thinks that is important and that is the goal. In
many ways, that is what the hearing is about, how do we get
there. I think that is a goal we all share.
The Ranking Member mentioned Dan Ashe. I could not agree
more. We would certainly be glad to have the Fish and Wildlife
Service. As a matter of fact, he has testified before the full
committee. In September, he testified here before a
subcommittee. Unfortunately, I do not think any of the members
of the other side of the aisle attended that hearing. We will
have Mr. Ashe here again to answer some of these questions.
What we wanted to do today was to not have Government
witnesses but to have some of the practitioners who I think can
help bring an objective view and then also a view from the
States where this issue is having the most impact.
Mr. Regan, I wanted to start with a question. In 2014, the
AFWA published a report entitled, Wildlife Management
Authority, the State Agency's Perspective. Can you explain what
led to the drafting of that report, what recommendations it
includes, and how that relates to the topic we are discussing
today?
Mr. Regan. Yes, I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman. In fact,
I have a copy here to submit for the record.
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
[The referenced report was not received at time of print.]
Mr. Regan. I will say just a couple of things about this.
First of all, I have been the executive director at the
Association for 7 years. Throughout that 7 years of my tenure
here in D.C., there have been ebbs and flows to the concerns
about the extent to which Federal and State agencies
effectively collaborate.
I would say, as I said in my opening remarks, by and large,
there is a great record of collaboration and partnership across
the State and Federal spectrum. However, as with any family
situation, if you will, there are issues that manifest
themselves that create challenges and stresses in working
through issues.
This particular document to which you refer, Mr. Chairman,
is really the product of those kinds of ebbs and flows over the
past 7 years since I have been at AFWA. Our president at the
time wanted to put some of these issues to rest. He appointed a
task force which was chaired by the State director from Arizona
and comprised the State directors to take a look at the broad
spectrum of Federal laws, regulations, policies and other kinds
of guidance with respect to how State fish and wildlife
agencies do their work.
This document is the product of that committee's work. It
was approved by the State membership. An annual meeting took
place 2 years ago. It summarizes our best take on that
relationship.
Senator Sullivan. What was the impetus behind it? Do you
think there was a relationship between the State and Federal
Government in this area that needed to be addressed?
Mr. Regan. Yes. I would say that these ebbs and flows,
these tensions that emerge over either public lands management
policy, wilderness policy, differing perspectives in different
parts of the country by different regional line staff or
administrators, coupled with some of the challenges that go
with working through hard issues like Endangered Species Act
listings and that sort of thing.
It was really driven not by any one particular issue but
the overall perception that there was always this undercurrent
ebbing and flowing of concern about the State and Federal
relationship.
I will conclude, if I might, by not only referring to this
document, but this document has helped set the stage for a
couple of different executive leadership retreats, both with
State agency leaders and leaders within the Forest Service and
the Fish and Wildlife Service to create a better dialogue prior
to issues becoming as big as they might.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Mr. Lang, Mr. Barry actually mentioned the 1980 MOU between
the Department of Fish and Game in Alaska and the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Are you familiar with that MOU? Do you think
that is being abided by in the light in which it was drafted?
Mr. Lang. I am familiar with that MOU. When I was director
of the Wildlife Division of Conservation of Alaska Fish and
Game, we tried to work with our Federal partners in the Fish
and Wildlife Service to implement that MOU.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government was not abiding by
much of the terms. For instance, we were not given opportunity
to go out and access fish and wildlife and be able to monitor
those fish and wildlife populations.
Senator Sullivan. The right to do that exists under the
Statehood Act, ANILCA and many other Federal laws, correct?
Mr. Lang. Correct and as also acknowledged under the MOU.
In essence, the MOU is there, but it does not really work as
well as was intended.
The other thing I would like to point out is that the MOU
says we are going to manage for natural diversity. The State of
Alaska does manage for natural diversity, but the State of
Alaska considers ecosystems as a functional part and humans as
being a functional part of that ecosystem. We manage those
ecosystems for human benefit.
When we signed that MOU back in 1982, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Federal Government agreed that humans were a
functional part of that ecosystem. Now instead, we are seeing
the Fish and Wildlife Service believes humans are a threat to
ecosystems and they are increasingly managing for natural
diversity to minimize human impact on species.
I think that is a fundamental difference in Alaska. We have
continually managed ecosystems for human benefit. The Federal
Government is managing ecosystems to minimize human impact on
those ecosystems.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
First, I want to say to the Chairman that one of the
traditions of the Senate is that when there is a home State
issue with a Senator, we tend to try to rally around one
another. If something were going badly wrong in Rhode Island, I
would hope you would be willing to help me and in the same
spirit to the extent there were issues in Alaska where I can be
helpful, I would like to try to be helpful also.
Senator Sullivan. I would.
Senator Whitehouse. I also think it is important, I do
think where there are problems, they may not be nationwide
problems, but local problems are real problems as you know very
well.
I would like to shift my questioning a little bit and let
me start with Mr. Lang. You are here representing Safari Club
International?
Mr. Lang. Yes, I am representing Safari Club International.
Senator Whitehouse. What is Safari Club International's
position on global climate change?
Mr. Lang. I think Safari Club International believes that
global climate change is occurring but that you can mitigate
those actions through a variety of different means. Climate is
affecting wildlife in a variety of different manners.
Just like any other stressor, climate change is one of
those stressors that we as managers will manage for. It is no
greater or no lesser than any other stressor. For instance, we
will manage climate in the short and long term as we would any
hunting pressure or anything else that would affect the long
term sustainability use of wildlife on our State lands that we
manage.
Again, I think we are managing it as any other stressor
that occurs out there.
Senator Whitehouse. Your described--your organization has
it as a major concern? I am reading from your Web site. Would
that be accurate?
Mr. Lang. What I am saying is that I believe that it is a
concern but is no more or greater a concern than any other
stressor we are doing in terms of managing wildlife.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you disagree with Safari Club
International's Web site statement that it is a major concern?
Mr. Lang. I did not say that. I said it is not the most
significant concern. It is a concern, but in the short term,
there may be more significant concerns affecting wildlife.
Senator Whitehouse. In the long term, can you think of any
more likely to affect wildlife?
Mr. Lang. I think as you are moving forward in time, human
use of wildlife is something we all need to consider. For
instance, I think one of the longer term impacts of managing
wildlife is going to be managing wildlife in the urban
interface.
We have been very successful in restoring wildlife over the
last 150 years. Now I think one of the stressors is going to
be, how are we going to turn that success into managing
wildlife at the urban interface.
Senator Whitehouse. The coyotes in my trash?
Mr. Lang. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Barry, global climate change, a
major concern?
Mr. Barry. Absolutely.
Senator Whitehouse. In what way does it bear on protection
of wildlife?
Mr. Barry. From a wildlife conservation point of view, I
would say it is one of the biggest concerns, if not the biggest
concern. It is going to cause a huge disruption in migration
patterns. I think along the northeastern coastline, you have
migratory birds that come back and have been coming back
probably since time immemorial. They have arrived at a certain
time because that is when some of the crabs pop up.
Senator Whitehouse. You are talking about Delaware now?
Mr. Barry. Yes, and all of a sudden it is out of sync. The
birds are coming back and the food supply is not there.
We are seeing this with other migratory patterns that are
being disrupted. Food sources are being disrupted. In Alaska,
the polar bears are in big trouble because of climate change.
We think from a wildlife conservation point of view it is
probably the largest long term, big time threat.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Regan, a major concern for
wildlife?
Mr. Regan. Yes, I would say it is a major concern. The
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has one dedicated
staff person.
Senator Whitehouse. You have a whole climate change
committee, don't you?
Mr. Regan. We have a climate change committee.
Senator Whitehouse. You take it seriously?
Mr. Regan. Yes, we take it seriously. We are working with
Federal agencies and States to think about climate change
adaptation and providing tools and best management practices to
help the States think through the adaptive challenges for the
future.
Senator Whitehouse. You are all wonderful people. But as
the Senator from the Ocean State, let me urge that we not
forget the oceans. We are a terrestrial species, but we get a
lot from the oceans in terms of cooling of the planet,
oxygenation of the atmosphere, fish that we eat, and the place
I think we might be hitting our ecosystem the hardest is
actually in the oceans.
Mr. Chairman, back to you.
Senator Sullivan. I agree with my Ranking Member on the
importance of the oceans. We have a lot of bipartisan agreement
on these issues.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Whitehouse. We may be the Ocean State, but Senator
Sullivan actually has more ocean.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regan, in your testimony, you discuss the conflict
between the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and
the Park Service management at Wind Cave National Park. I am
curious about this because of the fact that it has to do with a
South Dakota Fish and Wildlife agency.
The GF&P would prefer to use hunters to manage the elk
population in this particular national park. However, the Park
Service has found that this proposal to hunt them was
unacceptable due to statutory prohibitions against hunting in
the park.
Further, when the Park Service informed Game, Fish and
Parks that they would cull the elk, which in South Dakota terms
means they would shoot them and let them lay. Only after
significant disagreement from the Game, Fish and Parks did the
Park Service agree to consider allowing the culled elk to be
distributed to needy South Dakota families.
That decision has not been made yet. In fact, they have not
been able to come to an agreement yet with the Park Service.
I suspect this is part of the reason why the State Game,
Fish and Parks Department get frustrated with their Federal
partners who sometimes do not seem to be partnering with them
in anything that is considered close to being a local concern.
While modifying the Park Service's authorizing legislation
to allow hunting as a management tool would solve the problem
in Wind Cave National Park, it is not a comprehensive solution
to statewide wildlife management, nor is it a solution to the
tension between State and National Park Service or Fish and
Wildlife Service officials.
State officials know how to best manage wildlife in our
State, and they should be the chief decisionmakers when
deciding how best to conserve our wildlife.
The debate over how to manage an elk population has now
spanned several years in this particular case with no solution
to the over population of elk. South Dakota GF&P reached out to
the Park Service in 2015 to set up a meeting, but the Park
Service has yet to confirm a date to continue this
conversation.
How do these types of longstanding disagreements between
State and Federal officials over wildlife management impact the
overall health of the wildlife population that we all propose
to want to protect?
Mr. Regan. That is a big question, Senator. I think I will
start by saying when I first began my career with the Vermont
Fish and Wildlife Department, about 30 years ago, the State of
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Agency was having a terrible time
working with the U.S. Forest Service on the Green Mountain
National Forest.
The agency heads in that situation almost came to blows
over whether or not certain kinds of trees should be cut on the
forest for timber or potentially to the detriment of the
whitetail deer resource in the State of Vermont.
These kinds of issues emerge. I think at the end of the
day, what is required is a major commitment to think about
science, think about partnerships, and think about working
through issues.
Unfortunately, with turnover in agencies, the bureaucracies
of managing issues, and then not to mention the overlay of the
judicial system sometimes professional management is taken away
from the professional managers.
Senator Rounds. I am just curious, do you see anything that
a change in law or change in statute or a directive in terms of
the regulatory processes that could be done to basically reach
or help reach a long term solution to reinforce the State
officials' ability to control and manage wildlife populations
in their own States?
Mr. Regan. Yes, Senator. I pointed out a couple of those in
my oral testimony. There is more detail in the written
narrative. The whole notion of revisiting and making sure that
the savings clauses are contemporary and adequate for the
future when thinking about State management authority is
important.
In my written testimony, you will note that sometimes these
savings clauses find their way at the end of legislation as
opposed to being on the front end. Our opinion is when that
occurs, the courts may not give them the kind of deference they
should in thinking through decisions.
We also suggest another remedy concerning close
collaboration or coordination with the States.
Senator Rounds. With the Chair's indulgence, I have one
more quick question.
Are you aware of any other cases where U.S. Fish and
Wildlife or Park Service officials have recommended the culling
or killing of a game animal and then simply suggested they be
allowed to rot where they are shot?
Mr. Regan. Off the top of my head, no.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Chairman Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was really coming here for two purposes. One was to learn
a little bit more about Alaska and the other was to let this
committee and the witnesses know that the problems you have up
there are not unique to Alaska. We have had similar problems.
There is a thing called the Sikes Act that the Secretary of
Defense in collaboration with Fish and Wildlife would take care
of the wildlife on military establishments. Are you familiar
with that, Mr. Lang?
Mr. Lang. Yes, I am.
Senator Inhofe. Is that working pretty well?
Mr. Lang. At times, it works well, and at times it does not
work very well. I think it works better than the Refuge System
Improvement Act because it clearly recognizes State authority.
Senator Inhofe. Are any of you familiar with the lesser
prairie-chicken issue? It is unique to five States, Oklahoma,
Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Texas.
We had a five-State plan that goes out for the purpose of
taking care of and evaluating what is happening with the lesser
prairie-chicken. Five States all agreed and signed off on this.
Somehow there is this perception that if you are a landowner or
a rancher, somehow you do not want to conserve. That is so
wrong. One of the few really good things that has worked is the
partnership program.
In this case, you had five States that had experts in those
States, the landowner stakeholders in those States all agreeing
that we done a very good job with the lesser prairie-chicken,
and between the years of 2014 and 2015 our population of
prairie-chickens actually increased by 25 percent. It does not
get any better than that, does it? Yet, they went ahead and
gave an endangerment listing.
We have an example in Oklahoma of what does work and what
does not work. How about you, Mr. Regan; can you tell me the
logic behind that decision in spite of the effort that went
into it and the successes we had?
Mr. Regan. You are talking about the prairie-chicken. We
were clearly disappointed as State agencies that a threatened
listing was provided by the Federal Government. On the other
hand, that was certainly better than managing to an endangered
listing.
Senator Inhofe. No, that is not the point. The point is any
listing at all when the populations increased and you had the
very best not in just one State, but five States agreeing. I
might add so did the members of the U.S. Senate from all five
of the States, of which some were Democrats and some were
Republicans.
Mr. Regan. I think one of the key story lines there, aside
from the listing decision, was the ability of those five
States, including your home State, Senator, to come together
with a proactive landscape level, voluntary conservation
program to secure and manage prairie-chicken habitat for the
future.
I think that is the big plus or bottom line story which
shows the ability of the States to come together and
demonstrate a willingness and effectiveness to grapple with a
large, landscape scale conservation issue.
Senator Inhofe. Yet, they still came to the conclusion.
Mr. Regan. That is correct.
Senator Inhofe. That is my whole point. I agree with
everything you said up to that point.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
We meet today to discuss the Federal Government's
encroachment on State rights to manage fish and wildlife
populations. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
dictates that fish and wildlife are for the non-commercial use
of citizens and should be managed in a way that ensures they
are available at the optimum population levels indefinitely.
There is certainly a role for both the States and the Federal
Government in this process.
In recent years, however, the Federal Government has
expanded its role in both managing populations and dictating
how States should manage populations. Not only do States fund
much of their conservation and management programs through
local excise taxes, but they also have more on-the-ground
expertise about local populations. Therefore, States should
have a significant role in working with the Federal Government
and the private sector to ensure the most sensible fish and
wildlife management programs are adopted and implemented.
In Oklahoma, we have worked together with local landowners,
businesses, and State agencies to develop a plan for the
conservation of the lesser prairie-chicken. The Five State Plan
has worked. In fact, estimates show that population numbers for
the lesser prairie-chicken climbed by almost 25 percent between
2014 and 2015. This is just one of many examples of the
strength and success of State management plans, when given the
opportunity to thrive.
This hearing today explores the need to re-balance the
relationship between Federal and State governments. More
directly, States must have more control over their fish and
wildlife populations. I thank Senator Sullivan for holding this
hearing today, and I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regan, I have a couple of questions. In 2014, the
Senate and Congressional Western Caucus released a report
entitled Washington Gets It Wrong and the States Get It Right,
a report on State environmental stewardship. It runs through
what happens nationally as well as what is happening locally
and how we think the States continue to do a much better job
than Washington.
It highlights the significant boots on the ground in terms
of biologists, scientists and States in the West like Wyoming.
We have nearly 300 people in Wyoming, biologists, scientists
and support staff at the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. They
live and work in Wyoming, not in Washington. They live where
the species live.
There are people in my State who have pledged to protect
our species, including the gray wolf population. I think these
dedicated men and women should be the ones we should be
entrusting to protect Wyoming's wildlife. Can you give me your
thoughts on that?
Mr. Regan. Certainly, Senator. We certainly agree that
State fish and wildlife agency managers are on the front lines
of enforcement and delivering fish and wildlife conservation in
this country. That is what the Association is all about, trying
to make sure no harm is done to that principle, that delivery
and that conservation effectiveness for the future.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Barry, your organization says in your
wolf plan entitled Places for Wolves, A Blueprint for Continued
Wolf Restoration and Recovery in the Lower 48--you say, ``No
matter how ideal the habitat, however, it is ultimately up to
the people to determine if wolves will be allowed to survive in
any given area.''
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said that the gray
wolf is recovered and that the agency has approved the plan the
State of Wyoming has put together to ensure the protection of
Wyoming's wolves. If it is up to the people to protect the
wolves, I wonder why won't outside activist groups, like your
organization, not allow the people of Wyoming to protect our
wolves if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves the
management plan and the science says the gray wolf is
recovered.
Mr. Barry. Senator, a district court judge disagreed that
the Fish and Wildlife Service had appropriately made the right
decision.
Senator Barrasso. The district court judge was not in
Wyoming and does not really know Wyoming, does not have an
ability to understand the situation, and did not study it.
Mr. Barry. I am just saying that a Federal judge, when
given a chance to review the record, concluded the Fish and
Wildlife Service inappropriately delisted the wolf.
Senator Barrasso. What was the scientific basis for that,
do you know?
Mr. Barry. I could not tell you off the top of my head. I
have not seen the record.
Senator Barrasso. You are not familiar with the specifics
of the case?
Mr. Barry. Not the specifics.
Senator Barrasso. And probably would be happy with that.
Mr. Lang, you shared many of the same concerns that Mr.
Regan raised in his testimony. In Alaska and across the West,
the Federal Government is increasingly requiring the public and
the States to take a hands-off approach to public lands. This
means the public and the States have less interaction and
access to public lands.
Would you agree that ultimately this hands-off approach to
wildlife and public land management could be detrimental to
conservation of the very species we all work to preserve if
Washington bureaucrats on the other side of the country are
calling all the shots?
Mr. Lang. The State conservation model is built on the use
or pay system. The further you separate those users from the
benefits they will gain from those systems, the less they will
be willing to pay and over the long term pay for the management
and conservation of those resources. That model is the Pittman-
Robertson Fund and the Dingell-Johnson Fund.
You have to provide benefits off refuges and parklands
across our Nation. If you do not, they will become areas that
are not of concern to people, and the people will not be
willing to pay for the long term protection and conservation of
those areas.
Hunters are some of the largest payers for conservation in
our Nation. You cannot exclude people from the management of
resources. I guess that is the bottom line. Increasingly, as I
am seeing the Fish and Wildlife Service's management model, it
views people as a threat, not as an integral part and not
something you need to provide benefits for.
In my State, if you are living a rural lifestyle far away
and you are dependent upon local resources for your food, you
cannot just let nature's cycles going up and down provide for
that. You cannot have a decade where there is no moose near
your village. You have to manage for sustained moose
populations.
In the example I gave, caribou blinking out on Unimak
Island is not good for hunters there, not good for subsistence
users to allow them to someday, some century from now, swim
back out to that island and reestablish the caribou population.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
I have a couple follow up questions. My colleague, Senator
Whitehouse, mentioned the tradition in the Senate that when we
have an issue here, actually the proposed Fish and Wildlife
Service rule that came out on January 8 was solely focused on
Alaska.
In the hearing where we had an amendment to cancel out that
rule, I specifically asked members of this committee, by using
the example of if there was a Federal rule dealing with the
California movie industry only or the Maryland crab industry
only, or the Delaware chemical industry only, I certainly would
help my colleagues on the committee.
The Fish and Wildlife Service dealt with an Alaska fish and
game management issue only. I would agree with Senator
Whitehouse's comment about the Senate colleagues rallying
around each other when there is a Federal action specific only
to your State. Unfortunately, in our last hearing, that did not
happen, which is one of the reasons we wanted to hold this
hearing but to talk about the broader issue.
Focusing on that regulation, Mr. Lang, in your testimony
you talked about the proposed January 8 Fish and Wildlife
Service rule that would allow the Federal Government to preempt
State hunting regulations based on their personal ethics or
personal preference. Can you explain that a bit more? Can you
give an example of what you were talking about?
Mr. Lang. Let's look at the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.
That refuge was originally established as a moose range before
it was established as a national wildlife refuge. It was a
Presidential executive order that said you have to maintain a
significant population of moose on that former moose range, now
a refuge.
Under the natural diversity guidelines, the State of Alaska
is now being told that we have to let moose cycle in their
natural cycles on that range. We can no longer manage them to
provide for the long term benefits that have been provided,
including subsistence.
We could see moose numbers go incredibly low, low enough
that there is no harvestable surplus for hunters or very high
where they could actually damage the refuge and the food base
they need to stay sustainable.
As the State of Alaska, we want to actively manage the
moose population to provide for human benefits, including
subsistence use and a harvestable surplus. We do not want that
population to widely fluctuate.
In working with the Service, we are growing increasingly
frustrated with the inability to manage fire, which is a
habitat component; manage the predator numbers which are
incredibly important in terms of how they affect moose numbers;
and it is all driven around these natural diversity guidelines
where human interference on the national wildlife refuge system
is increasingly disallowed versus the State's approach to
actively manage to provide for long term sustained yields and
benefits.
Senator Sullivan. What do you mean by personal preference
or personal ethics when you talked about that as part of the
rule?
Mr. Lang. Let us again go the Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that
baiting brown bears is not an ethical practice for the taking
of brown bears.
Even though it is not affecting the long term conservation
of brown bears on the refuge, they determined that no longer
can hunters practice the tradition which we have done for years
on the refuge of taking brown bears over bait near the refuge.
Senator Sullivan. Is there a law that outlaws that?
Mr. Lang. They have administratively banned it. They are
banning it through these kinds of administrative regulations
you are seeing here.
The State of Alaska largely adopted that bear baiting
practice to soften some of the interactions we were having with
local communities that were having increased problems with
human-bear interactions. We were seeing increased numbers of
maulings and a variety of other things.
Interestingly enough, when the Service banned the taking of
brown bears over bait, they allowed the continued practice of
taking black bears over bait. It is very confusing as to why
the taking of brown bears over bait would be disallowed but the
taking of black bears would continue to be allowed.
Senator Sullivan. Does the Fish and Wildlife Service employ
predator control activities, even though they have prohibited
the State of Alaska to use predator management activities?
Mr. Lang. That is an interesting observation because when I
was director one of the things we worked on closely with the
Service was to ensure that pigeon guillemots, a sea bird that
occurs in Prince William Sound, did not become extirpated from
an island in Prince William Sound.
Very similar to Unimak Island where we have a caribou
population at risk of extinction from that island because of
wolf predation, here we are not going to lose caribou overall
in the Aleutians, it is a very small area where we will lose
them and we want to take active steps and Prince William Sound
is very similar with pigeon guillemots. They are going to
potentially be extirpated from an island because of mink
predation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service came to us and asked for a
permit to exterminate these mink from this island to allow for
the restoration and prevent the extirpation of these pigeon
guillemots from the island. We worked very closely with them
and gave them the permit to do that.
We are very confused why we cannot take any steps to
actively manage on Unimak Island to prevent the extirpation of
the caribou herd, but yet the Service can go in and actively
manage State mink which are indigenous to that island from
potentially harming and causing the extirpation of pigeon
guillemots from an island.
Senator Sullivan. Let me step back a bit more with regard
to the proposed Fish and Wildlife rule that has been the source
of a lot of concern in Alaska and I think even nationally.
The Fish and Wildlife Service claimed that the proposed
rules will not affect title 8 of ANILCA, the federally defined
subsistence users category. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Lang. No, I do not because again it is the passive
management approach that we are increasingly moving to. As I
said earlier, if you are living a rural lifestyle in Alaska,
you need a steady source of food. You do not need a food source
that is going to fluctuate widely with cycles of nature.
Senator Sullivan. Can you explain that? Honestly, I do not
think most people in Washington, DC, at a hearing like this
understand what subsistence actually means. If someone does not
have the right to subsist with regard to fishing or hunting,
what possibly happens to them in the winter? Do they have a
store down the street to go to and fill up their freezer?
Mr. Lang. The thing I like to say is when you are in
Alaska, there is not a road running to your place. Every place
in the lower 48, almost every community has a road going to it.
You can drive to a store to get something.
Now picture yourself in Alaska. Oftentimes you are 3 hours
by plane to get to the nearest grocery store or anything else.
In the wintertime, there is no guarantee you will get there.
You rely on food sources for your very subsistence, for you and
your family's subsistence.
How would you like to be told that we are not going to
guarantee that subsistence is going to be there for you because
we are not going to actively manage for it? We are not going to
allow you to control the number of wolves or bears near your
area. Instead, we are going to allow moose numbers way down to
insufficient numbers to provide food for you and your family.
You are going to starve.
It is not a matter of going to a grocery store as an
alternative food source. It is a matter of social justice. You
have to be able to eat. That is the food that you have, living
off the land.
Senator Sullivan. I appreciate that. I think that is why
these hearings are important because I do not think those kinds
of issues come up in other States all the time. Maybe they do
in some States, but I do not think they do in a lot of States.
I think that kind of testimony is powerful. It also helps
us understand some of the issue at play here.
Mr. Barry, this goes to the issue of working with the
States and other organizations. The National Park Service and
the Fish and Wildlife Service have proposed a number of regs
over the course of the last several years. Has your
organization been provided an opportunity to input or review
the draft documents of these regs or EAs that have come from
some of these Federal agencies?
Mr. Barry. I certainly have not personally. I have no idea
if anyone on my staff has. I am not aware of our being given
any advance copies to take a look at or to critique.
Senator Sullivan. One of the things that has been an
enormous source of frustration which I think goes to the
federalism issues, the broader topic of today's hearing, is
there have been a number of occasions where the Department of
Interior and different Federal agencies announced proposed
rules that clearly impact States.
The States are literally the last to know. Some outside
environmental groups that clearly get heads up from our Federal
agencies get a chance to discuss them with Federal officials,
have press releases that go out as soon as the Federal
Government makes these announcements.
The States which are often, in statute, required to be
consulted and have input, the No. 1 priority organization, we
get told last. I think it is an enormous frustration and
something I have raised with different officials including
Secretary Jewell. It is an issue I think we need to continue to
work on.
The purpose of today's hearing is how important the States
are in terms of their relationship with the Federal Government
in terms of management but also in terms of what the Federal
statutes require the Federal agencies to do in terms of State
input.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two observations in closing. One is in sympathy with
Senator Rounds and the elk having to rot where they are shot.
On the fisheries side, we have, as you know, situations in
which our fishermen are allowed to go out and troll for fish.
When the net comes in, there are fish that have been caught,
and if you have ever been out, being at the back after a long
troll is not a good situation for a fish.
When they come out of the troll, they are not doing well,
yet the fishermen are not allowed to keep certain of them
because they are not permitted for it so they have to go over
the side. Some of them are really beautiful and are not going
to survive. It is a shame. It is a waste.
We have tried to work through programs so they can be
taken, frozen and given to people in need of food and so forth,
but it is a constant challenge. I think it is a place where we
can and should do better.
The second point I wanted to make is I want to push back a
little on a theme that has begun to emerge in this hearing that
it is always the local community that is the best determinant
of the conservation interest. I think that is probably usually
true, but if you think back to the era of Teddy Roosevelt, he
faced situations in which enormous natural bounty in our
country was being despoiled and ruined because the mining
interests, the timber interests, the wholesale hunting
interests had gotten control of State legislatures. They were
essentially ransacking and plundering the West. It took TR to
step in and protect those resources which we still enjoy today.
That will not be the case every time, but neither is it the
case every time that the Federal Government has no proper role.
In fact, one of the better biographies of Teddy Roosevelt
described him as the wilderness warrior because he fought to
preserve these areas of wilderness.
I think we need to look toward balance between the Federal
interests and the State interests. We need to pay particular
attention to the State interests where there is an appearance
that there is political control being abused, and I think we
need to pay very close attention to people whose lives depend
on these resources in remote areas with which many of us are
not familiar.
I think if we can stay within those principles, we can find
a lot of common ground.
Senator Sullivan. I thank the Ranking Member for those
comments. I would agree wholeheartedly with those.
Let me finish by relating to that. Mr. Lang, Mr. Barry
described some of the refuges as game factories for sport
hunters early in his testimony. For example, when you were the
head of fish and game in Alaska, is that how you managed
Federal lands as game factories for sport hunters?
Mr. Lang. No, I do not think we managed them as game
refuges at all. I think we managed them for multiple use
benefits. We certainly did manage them for human benefit. We
did not manage them just for nature's benefit. They were not
managed solely as game factories.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Regan, I mentioned the rule, and it
has been a focus of mine for obvious reasons given the State
and the people I represent. The Fish and Wildlife Service
proposed rule was the subject of an amendment in this committee
a couple of weeks ago.
As I mentioned, it is specific to Alaska. Given the breadth
of your organization and who you represent, should other States
be concerned by this kind of specific rule focused on one State
from the Federal Government in terms of game management? If so,
why?
Mr. Regan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Clearly that is why the
Association is involved. We are concerned that if this policy
guidance on biodiversity is elevated to being a regulation for
refuges in Alaska, that is going to create a new standard, if
you will, for judicial engagement and we could potentially see
the export of that rule from Alaska to other national wildlife
refuges in the lower 48.
To the extent that would perpetuate or continue to comprise
State authority, that is the real nexus for our engagement with
the issue right now.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask more specifically, the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act assigns the
Secretary 14 responsibilities when administering the refuge
system. The rule we are talking about with regard to Alaska,
the Secretary clearly seems to be prioritizing one of these
responsibilities in defining it in a regulation.
Do you think that is appropriate? Does that have an impact
beyond Alaska alone from your organization's perspective?
Mr. Regan. Mr. Chairman, we do not think it is needful. We
do not think it is appropriate. We think it could impact other
States beyond Alaska.
Senator Sullivan. For the same reason you mentioned in your
earlier answer?
Mr. Regan. That is correct.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses. You have been very patient.
I want to thank you all for your service over the years. I know
many of you have engaged and participated in public service in
different capacities.
I think this was a very useful hearing. There was a lot of
substance and a lot of potential common ground on some of these
issues. Thank you for coming, taking the time to testify and
enlightening the committee on a number of the important issues.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]