    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       UNDERSTANDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF.
                         EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS UNDER
                          THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

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

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
                                   INVESTIGATIONS

                                      OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             Tuesday, March 4, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-11

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    59-554 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                      ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
                       JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

    Robert J. Wittman, VA,			Raul M. Grijalva, AZ,
    Tom McClintock, CA			Joe Neguse, CO
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ			Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Melanie Stansbury, NM
    Doug LaMalfa, CA			Val Hoyle, OR
    Daniel Webster, FL			Seth Magaziner, RI
    Russ Fulcher, ID			Jared Golden, ME
    Pete Stauber, MN			Dave Min, CA
    Tom Tiffany, WI				Maxine Dexter, OR
    Lauren Boebert, CO			Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
    Cliff Bentz, OR				Emily Randall, WA
    Jen Kiggans, VA				Yassamin Ansari, AZ
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Sarah Elfreth, MD
    Mike Collins, GA			Adam Gray, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY			Luz Rivas, CA
    Mark Amodei, NV				Nydia Velazquez, NY
    Tim Walberg, MI				Debbie Dingell, MI
    Mike Ezell, MS				Darren Soto, FL
    Celest Maloy, Utah			Julia Brownley, CA
    Addison McDowell, NC
    Jeff Crank, CO
    Nick Begich, AK
    Jeff Hurd, CO
    Mike Kennedy, UT

                        Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                          William David, Chief Counsel
                   Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                            PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
                         LAUREN BOEBERT, CO, Vice Chair
                       MAXINE DEXTER, OR, Ranking Member

    Lauren Boebert, CO                   Yassamin Ansari, AZ
    Mike Collins, GA                     Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
    Mark Amodei, NV                      Vacancy
    Nick Begich, AK                      Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                  -----------

                                   CONTENTS

                                   ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
    Hearing held on Tuesday, March 4, 2025...........................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     1

        Dexter, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Oregon............................................     3

        Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     5

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Dobson, Dalton, Rancher, Dobson Timberline Ranch, Thatcher,
          Arizona....................................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     8

        Clark, Kent, Manager, Double R Ranch, Loomis, Washington.....    15
            Prepared statement of....................................    17

        Servheen, Chris, Former United States Fish and Wildlife
          Service Bear Recovery Coordinator (Retired), President and
          Board Chair of the Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena,
          Montana....................................................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    21
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    23

        LeValley, Robbie, Secretary, Public Lands Council, Hotchkiss,
          Colorado...................................................    29
            Prepared statement of....................................    31
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    34

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar

            Catron County Commission, Letter.........................    66
            PowerPoint Presentation..................................    69

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Dexter

            Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Letter........................    84

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Crane

            Joint Announcement from Arizona Game and Fish Department
              and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.............    54

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    To:        House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members

    From:     Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations staff, Michelle
            Lane (Michelle.Lane@mail.house.gov) and Lucas Drill
            (Lucas.Drill@mail. house.gov) x5-2761

    Date:     March 3, 2025

    Subject:   Oversight Hearing titled ``Understanding the Consequences of
            Experimental Populations Under the Endangered Species Act''
    ________________________________________________________________________
            _______

        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold an
    oversight hearing titled ``Understanding the Consequences of
    Experimental Populations Under the Endangered Species Act'' on Tuesday,
    March 4, 2025, at 10:15 a.m. in 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
        Member offices are requested to notify Cross Thompson
    (Cross.Thompson@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on March 3 if their Member
    intends to participate in the hearing.

    I. KEY MESSAGES

         Although well-intentioned, the Endangered Species Act
                (ESA) has been exploited by both the federal government and
                radical environmental organizations over the years to
                stifle development and hinder species conservation.

         The purpose of section 10(j) of the ESA was to provide
                exceptions to the regulatory requirements for experimental
                populations.

         Over time, previous administrations, acquiescing to
                radical environmental groups, have weaponized the 10(j)
                process while ignoring crucial local stakeholder input.

         The negative impacts on ecosystems of experimental
                predator populations, like gray wolves, Mexican wolves, and
                grizzly bears, present the clearest examples of 10(j)
                abuses.

         Not only must the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) heed
                local stakeholder input before introducing experimental
                populations, but they should also effectively manage the
                population once placed, by removing those that pose
                specific risks to livestock, humans, and pets.

         To return to the ESA's original intent, the FWS and the
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) must
                prioritize local input from stakeholders on the ground
                rather than radical environmental groups with conflicting
                interests.

    II. WITNESSES

         Mr. Dalton Dobson, Rancher, Dobson Timberline Ranch,
                Thatcher, AZ

         Mr. Kent Clark, Manager, Double R Ranch, Loomis, WA

         Ms. Robbie LeValley, Secretary, Public Lands Council,
                Hotchkiss, CO

         Dr. Chris Servheen, Former United States Fish & Wildlife
                Service Bear Recovery Coordinator (retired), President &
                Board Chair of the Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, MT
                [Minority witness]

    III. BACKGROUND
    Experimental Populations Under the ESA
        In 1973, Congress enacted the ESA, ``seek[ing] to conserve
    endangered species and threatened species.'' 1 Nine years
    later, the ESA was amended for a second time 2 to
    reflect the 97th Congress' understanding of conservation
    needs.3 This 1982 amendment established a new exception
    4 under subsection 10(j) to the ESA's general provisions and
    prohibitions, titled ``experimental populations.'' 5
    Experimental populations under the ESA are now codified in 16 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1539(j).
        The ESA defines experimental populations as ``any population
    (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the
    Secretary 6 for release . . . but only when, and at such
    times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from
    nonexperimental populations of the same species.'' 7 The
    Secretary of the Interior can authorize the release and related
    transportation of ``any population (including eggs, propagules, or
    individuals) of an endangered species or a threatened species outside
    the current range of such species if the Secretary determines that such
    release will further the conservation of such species.'' 8
        Before the Secretary may authorize the release of an experimental
    population, they ``shall by regulation identify the population and
    determine, on the basis of the best available information, whether or
    not such population is essential to the continued existence of an
    endangered species or a threatened species.'' 9 Generally,
    ``each member of an experimental population shall be treated as a
    threatened species'' even if that species is listed as endangered
    elsewhere.10 Additionally, critical habitat can only be
    designated for experimental populations that the Secretary determines
    is ``essential to the continued existence of a species.'' 11
    This experimental population exception could also be applied
    retroactively to populations reintroduced before October 13,
    1982.12
        Because experimental populations are definitionally excepted from
    ``the general regulations that extend most of the ESA's prohibitions,''
    experimental populations are designated through rules promulgated by
    FWS or NOAA.13 These 10(j) rules, which follow notice-and-
    comment rulemaking procedures, contain ``the prohibitions and
    exemptions necessary and appropriate to conserve the designated
    experimental population.'' 14
        In 2023, in an attempt to warp the 10(j) exception, the Biden
    administration promulgated a final rule allowing FWS to broadly
    introduce experimental populations into habitats outside of species'
    historical ranges.15 The text of 16 U.S.C. Sec.  1539(j),
    however, has not changed since its enactment in 1982.
    FWS & 10(j) Populations
        At its core, the experimental population exception--particularly in
    cases of nonessential experimental populations--is a conservation tool
    designed to help recover species listed as endangered or threatened
    while easing the ``regulatory burden associated with endangered
    species'' and the ESA.16 When used appropriately, the
    experimental populations exception can be an effective way to balance
    successful species recovery with practical considerations.
        For nonessential experimental populations, FWS is afforded greater
    flexibility in species management,17 and also certain
    incidental harm otherwise restricted by the ESA would be legal when
    resulting from lawful activities like traditional management or land
    use.18 For example, after FWS biologists introduce an
    experimental population into a habitat containing public and private
    lands, landowners can ``continue to manage their lands without concern
    about violating the ESA by inadvertently harming'' a member of that
    experimental population.'' 19
        However, the experimental populations exception as applied by
    previous administrations, particularly when influenced by radical
    environmentalists, tended to focus on harmful preservation rather than
    effective conservation. This in turn, presents dire consequences for
    communities into which some species are introduced. The impacts of
    experimental apex predator populations, like wolves and bears, present
    perhaps the clearest examples of 10(j) abuses.
    Gray Wolves
        In 1994, in effort to recover the once-endangered gray wolf, FWS
    finalized 10(j) rules for two nonessential experimental populations of
    gray wolves: one in the greater Yellowstone area and another in central
    Idaho and southwestern Montana.20 In 1995 and 1996, Canadian
    gray wolves were brought in to establish these
    populations.21 In just five years, the population met all of
    FWS' initial management goals.22 At the time, these
    experimental population rules empowered private landowners with the
    ability to protect their livestock and property, provided that certain
    reporting requirements were met.23 However, FWS did not
    initially allow killing wolves to resolve excessive big game
    predation.24
        As the gray wolf population quickly ballooned, supported in large
    part by the experimental population introductions, problems arose. Wolf
    predation significantly hindered big game herds from ``reaching state
    or tribal management goals.'' 25 The wolves, as apex
    predators, preyed on livestock, reduced hunting opportunities, and
    posed safety risks to people and pets. Accordingly, FWS was forced to
    expand the possibilities in which wolves could be suitably
    controlled.26
        The gray wolf experimental populations also ignited substantial
    litigation campaigns, focused largely on the areas into which FWS
    released the experimental wolves. Statutorily, experimental populations
    must be completely geographically distinct from other populations of
    the species.27 Yet, because wolves occupy expansive ranges,
    as the populations grew and wolves roamed freely, it became extremely
    difficult to differentiate between supposedly distinct
    populations.28
        Additionally, even though gray wolf populations, including the
    experimental populations, not only met but also exceeded recovery goals
    across the lower 48 states, delisting gray wolves from the ESA has been
    nonsensically challenging. Gray wolf population numbers and activities
    show that the wolves recovered in the lower 48 states, should be
    delisted, and management should be returned to the states. But, due
    largely to environmentalist litigation efforts, widespread delisting
    has not yet been achieved.
        Worse yet, decades after the first gray wolf experimental
    populations were introduced, ESA 10(j) rules are being exploited to
    bring new gray wolves into areas where they are not wanted. At the end
    of 2023, FWS issued a final rule establishing a nonessential
    experimental population of gray wolves in Colorado following the
    passage of Colorado's 2020 Proposition 114, a proposal to introduce new
    wolves to the state.29 Colorado's own Parks and Wildlife
    Commission had previously rejected a similar proposal, citing
    successful gray wolf recovery and additional wolves' devastating impact
    on Colorado's livestock ranching industry and big game management
    efforts.30 Notably, the Colorado ballot measure and
    subsequent 10(j) rule were vehemently opposed by communities in the
    areas identified by FWS as the epicenter for wolf introduction and
    supported by more urban communities with little or no threat of wolf
    presence after the introduction of an experimental
    population.31
    Mexican Wolves
        In 1998, FWS finalized a rule to establish a nonessential
    experimental population of Mexican wolves 32 in Arizona and
    New Mexico.33 FWS' 10(j) designation for Mexican wolves
    largely mirrored the previous rules for gray wolves. One notable
    difference was that, given the Mexican wolf's smaller stature and
    appearance, FWS was explicitly permitted to ``kill, capture, or subject
    to genetic testing any feral wolf-like animal, feral wolf hybrid, or
    any feral dog found within the experimental population area.''
    34
        Like the experimental populations of gray wolves, the new Mexican
    wolf population ushered in significant opposition and litigation.
    Shortly after the 10(j) rule's finalization, ranchers unsuccessfully
    sued to block the introduction of Mexican wolves, highlighting the
    catastrophic impact of wolf depredation on livestock.35
        Unfortunately, the ranchers' concerns proved true. For example, a
    single-collared Mexican wolf and its mate were responsible for more
    than 15 confirmed livestock depredations in less than a
    month.36 These same wolves produced pups and formed a pack,
    which killed more livestock, terrorized ranching families, and charged
    at least one ranch employee.37 Despite requests from at
    least one Member of Congress and local community residents and being
    empowered by its own 10(j) rule, FWS refused to lethally remove the
    problem wolves.38
        Moreover, FWS's 10(j) rule establishing a gray wolf population in
    Colorado also opened the door to introducing Mexican wolves into that
    state even though Colorado is not part of the Mexican wolf's historic
    range.39 Worse still, given that Colorado's 10(j) rule
    enabling the introduction of nonessential experimental wolves spawned
    from a statewide referendum masquerading as local input,40
    FWS is not only empowered but also pressured to prioritize the presence
    of gray and Mexican wolves in regions where they are undesirable at
    best.
        Also, because wolves are highly mobile, the various wolf
    populations occupy overlapping territories, and FWS itself recognizes
    the possibility of feral hybridization, identifying specific
    populations of gray and Mexican wolves is increasingly problematic.
    Nevertheless, FWS refuses to acknowledge the complications of
    introducing experimental wolves, and its 10(j) Mexican wolf
    experimental population continues to exist, grow, and wreak havoc.
    Grizzly Bears
        Most recently, in 2024, FWS decided to establish a nonessential
    experimental population of grizzly bears in the North Cascades
    Ecosystem in Washington State.41 Before this final rule was
    issued, grizzly bear population numbers in the Greater Yellowstone
    Ecosystem and the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem revealed that
    the bears had biologically recovered and exceeded their recovery goals.
        For decades prior to FWS's 10(j) rule, residents of Northern
    Washington raised concerns regarding the potential reintroduction of a
    grizzly bear population in their region.42 Over the years,
    the surrounding communities of the North Cascades region have
    consistently opposed the introduction of grizzly bears due to the
    potential consequences for their communities, including danger to
    people, local wildlife, livestock, and crops.43 The State of
    Washington has been so strong in its opposition that state law limits
    the transportation or introduction of grizzly bears. Specifically,
    Washington Revised Code (RCW) 77.12.035 states: ``Grizzly bears shall
    not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears
    native to Washington State may be utilized by the department for
    management programs.'' 44
        Despite this local opposition and the grave dangers apex predator
    grizzly bears can have for an ecosystem, FWS's North Cascades grizzly
    bear 10(j) rule did not even afford residents the same protections
    previous 10(j) rules provided for species such as wolves. FWS's final
    rule does not allow the intentional taking of any experimental grizzly
    bear except to protect human life during exigent
    circumstances.45 Accordingly, as FWS continues to use 10(j)
    rules to establish experimental populations, it becomes clearer that
    experimental populations are not being used as an ESA exception to
    further conservation but to appease radical eco activists regardless of
    consequences.
    NOAA Fisheries & 10(j) Populations
        Section 10(j) of the ESA also allows NOAA Fisheries to designate
    populations of listed species as experimental populations.46
    In 2016, NOAA Fisheries promulgated a final rule to update and
    establish recommendations for 10(j) populations. These recommendations
    included the following definitions and procedures:

         ``Establishing and/or designating certain populations of
                species otherwise listed as endangered or threatened as
                experimental populations

         Determining whether experimental populations are essential
                or nonessential

         Promulgating appropriate protective measures for
                experimental populations.'' 47

        One example of a species considered under the 10(j) rule by NOAA
    Fisheries is the Spring-run Chinook Salmon in specific areas above the
    Shasta Dam.48 This is an example of a distinct population of
    fish where the region is key, as ``NOAA Fisheries works in cooperation
    with federal, state, tribal, and Canadian officials to manage these
    commercial, recreational, and tribal harvest of salmon and steelhead in
    ocean and inland waters of the West Coast and Alaska.'' 49
    Depending on the specific state and region, the same type of fish could
    be listed as endangered or be available for commercial harvest.
    Local Input is Essential to Effective Species Recovery
        FWS regulations require that, before a 10(j) rule is finalized and
    an experimental population is established, the agency ``consult with
    relevant state fish and wildlife agencies and local governmental
    entities as well as with affected federal agencies and private
    landowners.'' 50 In its regulations, ``FWS states that any
    experimental population regulation shall reflect an agreement between
    the agency and the relevant stakeholders with which it consults to the
    maximum extent practicable.'' 51
        Yet, the most apparent characteristic of some of the most adversely
    consequential FWS 10(j) experimental populations is a lack of
    meaningful response to local input. Instead of listening to community
    stakeholders and local experts expressing valid concerns about
    introducing experimental populations of apex predators into areas that
    are unprepared and unable to support them, the FWS has opted to yield
    to the demands of environmental preservationists. So, until the FWS
    adheres to its own regulations and genuinely considers local input,
    airdropped predators will keep killing livestock and posing a threat to
    human life and property consequences due to the experimental
    populations under the ESA.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             OVERSIGHT HEARING ON UNDERSTANDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF
                         EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS UNDER
                           THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, March 4, 2025

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Gosar, Boebert, Collins, Begich,
    Dexter, Ansari, Hernandez, and Huffman.
        Also present: Representatives LaMalfa, Tiffany, Hageman,
    Hurd, Newhouse, Crane, and Downing.

        Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    will now come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
    Understanding the Consequences of Experimental Populations
    under the Endangered Species Act.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
    I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members
    opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
    are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
    allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing: the
    Gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa; the gentleman from
    Minnesota, Mr. Stauber; the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Tiffany; the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman; the
    gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crank; the gentleman from
    Colorado, Mr. Hurd; the gentleman from Washington, Mr.
    Newhouse; the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane; the gentleman
    from Montana, Mr. Downing; and the gentlewoman from Michigan,
    Mrs. Dingell.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        That was a list, wasn't it?
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Dr. Gosar. Good morning everyone and thank you very much. I
    am welcoming the witnesses, several who have come from
    beautiful stretches in Arizona, Washington State, and Colorado
    to be here with us.
        Thank you for appearing before the Committee today discuss
    the consequences of experimental populations under the
    Endangered Species Act.
        I would like to ask our audience to take a moment and
    imagine life as our answer. You wake up before dawn, pull on a
    pair of well-worn leather boots, and head out with a cup of
    coffee just as the sun begins to peek over the mountains in the
    distance. Before going to check the fences, you drive your
    children to the bus stop miles away, asking them to wait in the
    truck. Wolves have been spotted in the area recently and you
    don't want to risk their safety.
        Out in a nearby pasture, you find the remains of a dead
    calf, just pieces of the carcass left behind. Before you get on
    the phone to call Fish and Game, you find another carcass. The
    loss is not just painful to witness, but expensive to your
    operation.
        For most of you, this gruesome scene may be fuel for
    nightmares. But for ranchers in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado,
    Washington, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and other states into
    which apex predators have been introduced as experimental
    populations, this nightmare is a reality. And this reality is
    the consequences of a weaponized 10(j) process that ignores
    crucial local stakeholder input in favor of appeasing radical
    environmental groups.
        To be clear, the 10(j) experimental population exception is
    foundationally a conservation tool meant to ease the ESA's
    regulatory burden. Creating non-essential experimental
    populations affords the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
    landowners greater flexibility in species management, including
    removal of problem animals that pose a danger to humans,
    livestock, and pets.
        Yet rather than to use the 10(j) process appropriately as
    an exception to the ESA, Fish and Wildlife Services exploited
    the rules to introduce populations of apex predators like
    grizzly bears and wolves into areas unprepared, unable, and
    unwilling to support them.
        And by ignoring local input before and after the
    introduction of experimental populations, Fish and Wildlife
    Service has allowed animals like bears and wolves to wreak
    havoc on unsuspecting families working tirelessly to make a
    living off their own land.
        A grizzly bear, for example, consumes as much as 30 to 40
    pounds of food per day when bulking up for the winter.
    Similarly, a single wolf eats up to 20 pounds of meat in one
    sitting.
        Some wolves, hunting alone or in packs, slaughter easy to
    kill livestock for food. Others seem to kill family pets and
    livestock just for amusement. Others still threaten children
    playing innocently in their yards.
        This depredation takes a great emotional and physical and
    financial toll on hard working American ranching families.
    Families grieve their pets and fear leaving their homes not
    knowing whether a predatory animal lurks around the corner.
        Rather than tend to their herds and collect eggs, ranchers
    document evidence of attacks, haul bodies of dead livestock and
    wash blood from chicken coops. Instead of selling their cattle
    for profit, ranching families wake up with their income
    literally having been gobbled up overnight.
        Even just the presence of an experimental apex predator
    results in financial hardship. One study from the University of
    Montana revealed that on average, calves on ranches that
    experienced at least one wolf predation weighed 20 pounds less
    than calves on ranches without a wolf presence.
        This 3.5 percent decrease in weight means that these
    animals fetch much lower prices when sold. Moving forward, the
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service must seek local input
    that highlights not only valid concerns about de-predation but
    also solutions that make species recovery more palatable and
    effective.
        For example, rather than mass attract movement of
    experimental predator populations, Fish and Wildlife Service
    can make GPS collar data available to ranchers who will use
    this data to protect themselves and their animals.
        For years I have been hearing from ranchers in my district
    and across the state of Arizona about the impact of wolves on
    their communities. In the 114th Congress I introduced the
    Mexican Wolf and Transparency Act which will work to resolve
    this issue.
        I am looking forward to working with my colleagues again
    this Congress on this legislation in the upcoming weeks.
    Unfortunately, lack of local input isn't limited to just
    wolves. There are grizzly bears in the Pacific Northwest and
    other species that impact communities around the country.
        The key here is to truly listen to community leaders and
    stakeholders impacted on the ground. I hope today we can find a
    robust and insightful discussion for those whose lives are
    impacted daily by these decisions that have been made here in
    Washington.
        I look forward to working with the new Administration on
    policy that will work better in the future and with that I
    yield to the Ranking Member, Dr. Dexter for her opening
    statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXINE DEXTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Dr. Dexter. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to our
    witnesses for joining us today.
        In just the first couple months we have seen the Trump
    administration nominate and appoint cabinet officials with
    strong ties to the fossil fuel industry, promote an explicitly
    anti-environment agenda, and lay off thousands of experienced
    servants who are responsible for maintaining our precious
    national parks, preserving critical ecosystems, and protecting
    endangered species.
        These reckless actions risk causing irreparable damage that
    will undo decades of conservation and recovery progress.
    Fighting to protect vulnerable wildlife has never been more
    vital. That is why I am happy to be here today to discuss the
    important progress that has been made to prevent wildlife
    extinction and facilitate species recovery under the Endangered
    Species Act.
        The ESA is a 50-year-old, demonstrably successful program
    that has led to the recovery of the bald eagle, gray whale, and
    many other vulnerable and nearly extinct species. The
    impressive science-based work conducted by the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, under the ESA, has enriched and protected our
    valuable biodiversity which is essential for preserving a
    healthy planet today.
        Thanks to ESA protections and associated conservation
    recovery efforts, over 99 percent of the species listed under
    the ESA have not gone extinct. In fact, most currently listed
    species are on track for recovery. Truly remarkable results.
        The focus of today's discussion is on a critical
    conservation tool, provided by the ESA, that allows for a
    population of at-risk species to be designated as experimental
    and reintroduced into the wild under more flexible rules.
        Under ESA Section 10(j), wildlife managers can adjust the
    usual protections for these experimental populations to align
    with local needs and activities. This could include more
    flexible land-use regulations so that routine activities like
    farming, ranching, or development can continue with fewer
    restrictions or special management practices that make it
    easier to relocate or control animals.
        Species like the Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New
    Mexico, the wood bison in Alaska, and the Oregon silver spot
    butterfly have been significant successfully reintroduced under
    10(j).
        I am glad we have Chris Servheen, former Fish and Wildlife
    Service employee with decades of species recovery experience
    testifying today to share more about how this tool has been
    used to reintroduce and restore critical species.
        Though the ESA has long been the cornerstone of our efforts
    to protect vulnerable wildlife, some of my Republican
    colleagues are not presenting the whole story as they work to
    undermine its vital protections. They argue that the
    populations of grizzly bears and wolves have been recovered in
    certain areas, so these animals should be delisted and allowed
    to be killed. But this oversimplifies the issue.
        While populations in some regions have improved, these
    species still face significant threats, including habitat
    destruction and climate change. Population rebound is also just
    one factor in considering delisting. There must also be a
    comprehensive management plan in place that ensures the species
    long-term survival, among other considerations.
        We have already seen the consequences when protections are
    lifted prematurely. In 2020, the Trump administration delisted
    the gray wolf from the ESA, ending 45 years of protections and
    shifting management to individual states.
        States rushed to allow increased hunting. Idaho passed
    legislation allowing for 90 percent of their gray wolf
    population to be culled by nearly any means, including killing
    pups. And in Wisconsin, one hunting season wiped out over 30
    percent of the state's gray wolf population.
        In 2022, a Federal judge reinstated Federal protections for
    gray wolves, arguing the delisting was based on bad science and
    should not have happened without a more comprehensive recovery
    plan.
        That is why section 10(j) is so important to balance
    conservation with the needs of local communities. As this
    Committee considers oversight of conservation efforts, it
    should be incredibly concerned about Elon Musk and his DOGE
    crew firing hundreds of employees at the already short-staffed
    Fish and Wildlife Service at the direction of President Trump.
        The dismantling of the main Federal Governmental agency
    responsible for conserving species and ecosystems will have
    devastating long-term consequences. Some, like the extinction
    of a species, will be irreversible.
        It is incumbent upon this Committee to investigate these
    reckless and unlawful actions using our oversight capacity to
    ensure the work of these critical agencies continues.
        I look forward to today's discussion and hope my Republican
    colleagues will join us in fighting to preserve critical
    ecosystems and protect endangered and threatened species.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
        Now the gentleman from California, the Ranking Member for
    the Full Committee, Mr. Huffman, is recognized for his 5
    minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar.
        Good morning, everyone. I could have sworn I was in this
    room just last week talking about the same subject as today's
    hearing, trashing the Endangered Species Act, a popular theme
    for my colleagues across the aisle.
        You know, this Committee has plenty of things that it could
    be spending its time on that could be exercising genuine
    oversight on but instead, we're rehashing debates about
    protections for endangered species while the Trump
    administration has spent the last several weeks dismantling
    Federal agencies under Elon Musk's vision of efficiency and
    Musk's wrecking ball is suspending services to veterans,
    sending our national parks into chaos, impeding fire safety
    projects all over the West leaving working families suffering
    terribly from these actions.
        And that suffering will get a lot worse in the weeks and
    months to come. These are things that I would hope an Oversight
    Subcommittee would care about but no, we are here once again
    debating whether we should save species from extinction.
    Something that really shouldn't even be subject to debate.
        I expect we will hear a lot of misinformation today, so
    let's go straight to the facts. The ESA is one of the most
    effective conservation laws in history. It has prevented the
    extinction of 99 percent of the species it protects. Section
    10(j), in particular, has been a critical tool for
    reintroducing endangered species into their historic habitats,
    while allowing for flexibility in management.
        This provision allows wildlife officials to establish
    experimental populations in areas where species once thrived,
    balancing conservation with local community concerns. And it
    works. In California, the California Condor, once down to just
    27 birds, was saved through captive breeding and experimental
    reintroduction. We now have over 500 condors soaring across the
    West, thanks to this law.
        And let's talk about the gray wolf, because I know my
    Republican colleagues certainly will. The wolf was eradicated
    from the lower 48 due to government-backed extermination
    programs. But under section 10(j), wolves were successfully
    reintroduced to Yellowstone and central Idaho in the 1990s.
        That has become one of the most well documented
    conservation success stories in American history. The return of
    wolves restored balance to ecosystems, controlling overgrown
    elk populations, which in turn allowed willows, aspens, and
    vegetation to recover. That in turn helped beavers, birds and
    even fish thrive again because wolves are a keystone species.
    Look it up. It is a big deal.
        That is how ecosystems work. They are interconnected. And
    the ESA, through tools like 10(j), recognizes that.
    Unfortunately, Republicans are attempting to strip away
    protections for animals like wolves and grizzly bears that they
    deemed too successful at surviving, apparently. That is what
    today's hearing is really all about. Removing protections for
    politically inconvenient species. And they have used 10(j) as
    their narrow excuse to tout the same old misinformation that we
    have heard in this Committee for years.
        It is not about whether the ESA works. It does. It is
    whether Section 10(j) is an effective tool, it is, for
    Republicans, though it is about promoting fake science and real
    fear to justify removing safeguards for species they simply
    don't like.
        Some of my Republican colleagues even stoop to conspiracy
    theories about the viciousness of these animals and the
    motivations for liberals and Democrats and environmentalists
    for wanting to release them.
        It would be laughable if it wasn't in service of policies
    that actually undermine decades of conservation work. Of
    course, any predator will occasionally come into contact with
    livestock. That is a legitimate issue, which is why we have
    compensation programs for ranchers who lose cattle.
        And human deaths from these animals, which are always
    tragic, are just exceedingly, vanishingly, rare. You are more
    likely to be killed by a cow than a wolf, that is the fact. But
    that doesn't fit into the fear mongering narrative being
    peddled here today.
        For opponents of reintroduction, this is not about safety,
    it is not about science, it is about justifying the removal of
    protection so that these animals and the lands they inhabit can
    be handed over to extractive industries. That is the central
    theme. It always is.
        There again are plenty of issues that we could be doing
    quality bipartisan oversight on right now. The issues are
    really screaming out for our attention, unfortunately, and I
    have been here 12 years, we are back to the broken record. I
    have been through dozens of these ESA bashing hearings and I
    guess we are going to waste a couple hours on another one.
        I yield back.

        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from California.
        I am now going to introduce our witnesses. First of all, we
    have Mr. Dalton Dobson, rancher from Dobson Timberline Ranch,
    Thatcher, Arizona; Mr. Kent Clark, Manager, Double R Ranch,
    Loomis, Washington; Dr. Chris Servheen, President and Board
    Chair, Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, Montana.
        Did I say that right?
        And then Ms. Robbie LeValley, Secretary, Public Lands
    Council, Hotchkiss, Colorado.
        Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you
    will limit your statement to 5 minutes, but your whole entire
    statement will appear in the record.
        When you first start, you will see the green light go on.
    Make sure you push the button. Sometimes I don't, but you get a
    beep so you can be heard. When you see it turn yellow, that
    gives you about 1 minute, and when you see it red, you need to
    summarize it up. OK?
        So with that I am going to introduce Mr. Dobson for his 5
    minutes.

     STATEMENT OF DALTON DOBSON, RANCHER, DOBSON TIMBERLINE RANCH,
                           THATCHER, ARIZONA

        Mr. Dobson. Chairman Gosar, esteemed Committee members,
    thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of Arizona Farm
    Bureau.
        My name is Dalton Dobson, a fifth-generation rancher from
    Apache County, Arizona, where my family has run a sheep and a
    cow calf operation for over a century. After a career in
    agricultural lending I've returned full-time to work on my
    family's ranch with my wife and our four children.
        Today I'm here to address the harsh realities of the
    Mexican wolf reintroduction, a Federal program burdening
    ranchers like me. I was seven when wolves were reintroduced to
    Arizona and New Mexico. I've lived with this issue my entire
    life.
        One memory still haunts me. After gathering cattle, we
    found a calf barely alive with the soccer ball sized chunk torn
    from its leg, proof of wolves eating it alive before being
    scared off. Our livestock depredation inspector confirmed a
    wolf attack but told us not to euthanize the suffering animal
    as compensation required death by wolf itself.
        We watched it suffer through the night and into the next
    day. That's life in wolf country, full of slayings, financial
    strain, and mental stress. We do our best to co-exist. We've
    worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA's APHIS,
    and Arizona Game of Fish. We've been a part of research
    studying livestock stress levels and the usefulness of range
    riders. We've used fladry, solar ear tags, bells, flashing
    lights, and cut grazing short when wolves encroach, losing full
    access to our grazing allotments and lower cattle weights.
        We haul water to avoid wolf areas and patrol with radio
    antennae to track. Despite this, the costs are crushing. Direct
    losses from wolf attacks hurt, but indirect costs like those I
    just mentioned are worse.
        My family grazed sheep on this land before Arizona was a
    state but wolves drove us out of the sheep business entirely
    back in 2012 and now endanger our cattle ranch. My father and
    grandfather, both still alive, say no predator they have ever
    dealt with matches the Mexican gray wolf's devastation.
        Flawed policies make it worse. In 2023, U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife and APHIS changed depredation confirmation guidelines
    that have been in place since 2004. The new rules bring about
    more complication, demanding subcutaneous hemorrhaging as the
    primary proof ignoring other evidence.
        In remote pastures, carcasses often deteriorate before
    discovery, erasing the evidence of hemorrhaging. Worse, trained
    field staff no longer decide. Untrained staff in Fort Collins,
    Colorado do.
        In the 2024 Fish and Wildlife meeting, officials admitted
    field staff are highly trained, but office staff are not. Why
    are bureaucrats overriding experts? I got no answer.
        In January 2024, we had a clear wolf kill. Carcass found
    within 2 days. Collared wolves nearby tracks, a fight scene,
    crushed bones, bite measurements all confirmed by field staff.
    Distant office staff downgraded it to probable because no soft
    tissue remained.
        There's also no appeal process for a rancher, for me, to
    overturn this decision, this policy limits confirmed kill,
    denying fair compensation. Gray wolf programs in other states
    use all evidence. So why is the Mexican wolf different?
        This lack of transparency devastates us. I'm not advocating
    for the removal of the wolf, but only for fair compensation for
    ranchers having to carry the cost burden of these animals.
        American Farm Bureau economists show weaning weights
    dropped three and a half percent in wolf pressured herds. This
    is one measurement that could be used to calculate a fair
    compensation program that takes into account indirect losses.
    100 percent reimbursement of market value for confirmed kills,
    not the present 75 percent of market value is also critical.
        Ranchers shouldn't bear this Federal burden alone. Without
    relief, small ranches like mine could give way and endanger
    America's food security.
        Thank you for your time. I'm grateful for the chance to
    seek a sustainable and reasonable path forward. And letting me
    provide safe, affordable food to Americans as my family has
    done for generations.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dobson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Dalton Dobson, Rancher, Arizona Farm Bureau

        Chairman Gosar and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    allowing me to be here today representing the voice of the American
    rancher. I am a 5th generation rancher from Arizona. We own and operate
    a cow/calf operation in Apache County, Arizona. I made the decision
    recently to leave a career in AG lending and move my wife and 4 kids
    back to the ranch that I grew up on and that has been in my family for
    generations.
        I was seven years old when the wolves were reintroduced into
    Arizona and New Mexico so have been dealing with this issue for my
    entire life. I can recall one fall day after working tirelessly to get
    all our cattle gathered off the mountain, we received a phone call
    about a calf laying in a field. As we approached the scene, we knew
    that something wasn't right. The calf could be seen breathing heavily
    and he was not getting up to run away. This is how a calf usually acts
    when something is very wrong with its health, we were thinking it was
    some sort of sickness, the thoughts were already going through our
    minds of how we were going to treat this little guy to help him have a
    full recovery. Nothing prepared us for what we were about to witness.
    We quickly realized this was not going to be a routine medical
    treatment as we came face to face with the reality of living in wolf
    country. A soccer ball sized chunk of flesh had been ripped out of the
    calf's rear leg (Figure 1), not only was flesh torn away but the
    evidence was clear, the wolves had been eating this calf alive when
    something had chased them away from the scene before they could finish
    their job of killing this calf. As we sat in disgust, we called our
    USDA APHIS livestock depredation inspector to come out. We told them of
    the gruesome scene and that we had thought it was wolves but needed him
    to come and confirm. We told him the calf was too far gone and would
    not be able to recover from his injuries so that we would be
    euthanizing him before the inspector arrived. That is when our anger
    compounded, the inspector told us not to euthanize the little calf
    because if we did then there would not be any compensation for the calf
    if in fact wolves had been responsible for the maiming. This was
    because the calf needed to die from the actual wolf attack. After the
    inspector arrived and confirmed the attack from the size of the bite
    marks and puncture wounds we had to sit around all night and part of
    the next day watching that poor calf suffer because we were not allowed
    to euthanize the animal and put it out of its misery. (Figure 1)
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        On another occasion early in the wolf reintroduction program,
    my father was concerned with the wolf population (Paradise Pack) being
    dumped in the middle of our sheep operation. He was assured by United
    States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) that there were no wolves in
    the area and that it would be a while until they would reach us, and,
    in that case, we would be notified ahead of time. One night a baby
    horse was harassed and had its rear leg ripped from its body in its own
    pen at our barn less than 200 yards away from our house. My dad
    immediately knew this gruesome scene was nothing like he had seen
    before in his 40+ years of being on the mountain and dealing with
    predators. He immediately called the United States Forest Service
    (USFS), as well as USFWS. They assured him there were no wolves in the
    area, even after my dad had relayed the story and evidence of larger
    than normal bite marks. Because my dad was told there were no wolves in
    the area, he made the decision to euthanize our livestock guard dogs.
    The day after our dogs were euthanized, USFWS was at our corrals and my
    dad went to see what they were there for. USFWS representatives told
    him they were doing an investigation into a wolf that was shot, and
    they needed to see his guns. This was just days after they had assured
    us there were no wolves in the area and convinced my dad it was our own
    dogs that were responsible for the killing of our baby horse. After
    this news my dad called a United State Department of Agriculture,
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (USDA APHIS) representative
    to come and do an investigation on the baby horse that was killed.
    During this investigation they found scat, tracks, and confirmed the
    bite marks were wolf bites with measurements this led to the
    investigation being our first of many confirmed depredations. Sadly,
    this experience of non-communication, secrecy, and deceit was a
    foreshadow of how the next 21 years would go.
        These two stories are just the beginning of a long list of horrific
    attacks that exemplify the harsh realities, financial burden, and
    mental stress that we face being on the frontlines of the federal
    government's experiment to reintroduce the Mexican Gray Wolf. Although
    there are many more stories from the hundreds of slayings that we have
    had since the reintroduction, I hope these two that stick with me every
    day will also stick with you.
        As I further discuss this topic, I would like to detail out some
    ways that we try to co-exist with the wolf in our home. We try to have
    a good working relationship with the USFWS as well as APHIS and the
    Arizona Department of Game and Fish (AZGFD). For the last three summer
    and fall seasons we have been working with a graduate student from Utah
    State University that is working through Montana State University's
    Western SARE Research and Education Proposal in Sustainable
    Agriculture, entitled: ``Landowner Collaborative Strategies for
    Nonlethal Predator Control'' This study is trying to measure the
    benefits of range riders and their effectiveness to help reduce stress
    in livestock. To collect data for this study the students come down
    while we are doing our work on the cattle before our long drives to
    different pastures. We have been trimming the tails of cows and taking
    body condition scores of the cows. Those scores are then sent to a lab
    so they can do research on their cortisol levels, which allows them to
    measure stress in the cattle. Through gathering this data and comparing
    it to wolf pressure during the year they are trying to get an idea of
    the added stress from having to deal with these predators and if range
    riders help reduce that stress. Here is a list of other things that we
    have done to try and co-exist and mitigate encounters with the wolf as
    much as possible.
         We have hired extra laborers to put up fladry to help
                mitigate the wolves when we still ran sheep.

         We have worked to install collars onto our cattle that had
                fladry as well as bells in hopes of minimizing contact with
                wolves. (Figure 2)
                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         We have worked to install solar ear tags that flash at
                night in hopes to keep wolves away from livestock (Figure
                3).
                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         We have worked to install flashing lights on fence posts
                to keep wolves away at night.

         We have regularly cut our grazing periods short in
                pastures due to a wolf pack moving in. Not only do we lose
                out on the grazing fees we have paid for that pasture, but
                we also lose out on the gain our cattle would have gotten
                from that grass.

         We spend long nights with radio antennas patrolling our
                herds to ensure the frequencies of wolves do not get too
                close to our animals. We haul water to keep cattle away
                from water sources that are known to be close to wolves.

         I have been in contact with Dr. Malmberg with Wildlife
                Services after she gave a presentation on pursuit myopathy
                (wolves running cows until they die). I contacted her to
                see if she would like to do a study on our ranch as I
                believe we may have a lot of cases of this. We are hoping
                to do some future studies and certainly would stress the
                importance of investing resources in research.
        We like to think of ourselves as forward-thinking ranchers that are
    willing to try and do anything to co-exist with the wolf. I believe
    this is evident in my previously mentioned relationship with the
    differing agencies as well as adding countless hours of extra work to
    our busy season just to try and help researchers that could hopefully
    help benefit the entire industry.
        While these items are burdensome to say the least, we also bear a
    harsher reality to the presence of wolves on our forests. Aside from
    the direct costs of cattle being chased to death and eaten alive, the
    indirect costs far outweigh the direct costs of depredations. As I have
    worked on policy with our county Farm Bureau that made its way up to
    the American Farm Bureau, resulted in Congressman Stanton introducing
    H.R. 2695, the Wolf Act in the 119th U.S. Congress that was ultimately
    included in Chairman Thompsons farm bill that passed out of committee.
    Congressman Stanton has already begun working to gain bipartisan
    support for this effort once again.
        I have done a lot of work to track the indirect costs that are
    associated with our specific ranch. In my analysis I have calculated
    what the wolves have cost us over the years. In 2021 my figures came
    out to be over $100,000 in indirect costs. In 2024, with record high
    cattle prices I have estimated over $320,000 in indirect costs to our
    ranch. Some of the indirect costs include items such as hauling water,
    trucking hay, extra trips to the mountain to check cattle when wolves
    are close to cattle, extra labor to haze wolves, decrease in calf
    weights at weaning time, decline in the number of cows re-breeding, and
    equipment depreciation from extra wear and tear. These exorbitant
    numbers may not seem like a large sum of money to you but in an
    industry where profit margins are already stressed because of
    increasing input costs, every dollar counts.
        My family has been grazing this forest allotment since before
    Arizona was a state. We were the only sheep operation left in the White
    Mountains when the federal government decided to use the middle of our
    summer grazing lands as the launch point for the reintroduction in
    Arizona. We now no longer graze sheep due to the devastating losses
    directly attributed to the Mexican Gray Wolf; we simply could not
    absorb the costs any longer and now I am afraid we are getting to that
    point with our cattle operation. I have two generations still alive in
    my grandpa and father that were well acquainted with running livestock
    in the White Mountains alongside other predators. Both generations I
    have living today say there is nothing like the devastation brought
    about by the experimental Mexican Gray Wolf.
        I would like to take a moment to briefly discuss the evidentiary
    guidelines that USDA APHIS and USFWS uses to determine livestock
    depredations that ultimately decide if a producer gets compensated for
    a depredation. This exemplifies the challenges that producers face as
    they attempt to co-exist with the Mexican Gray Wolf. In 2023 USFWS
    services changed the guidelines that had been in place since 2004.
    These standards recognized that in the American West, we deal with
    large acreage pastures and a lot of rough terrain. Some of my neighbors
    have ranches with pastures that are only accessible by a three-hour
    horseback ride. It is simply impossible to be everywhere every day and
    see every animal. If a calf is killed in a large pasture and not found
    until a few days later, a lot of the evidence that is now being
    required by FWS to be a confirmed kill has deteriorated to the point
    where a confirmation cannot be given. The new evidentiary standards
    adopted in 2023 specifically state that ``subcutaneous hemorrhaging is
    the best physical evidence available to field investigators to directly
    associate a depredation with a direct and lethal attack by a
    carnivore'' leading investigators to only confirm a kill with this
    evidence, as opposed to the previous standards that allowed for all the
    evidence to be considered when making a determination. Wolf fight
    scenes are unique, since they hunt in packs, the cow usually stops in
    one spot and spins in circles while fighting for its life, trampling
    brush and grass in the process. In the past, this fight scene could be
    used as part of the evidence collected in the report, along with bite
    marks on the hind legs, and bite impressions matching wolf jaw
    dimensions, were all allowed to be considered in confirming a wolf
    kill. In addition to the new standards, trained field staff are no
    longer able to make determinations on whether it was a kill or not.
    They simply take the information and send it to an office in Ft.
    Collins, Colorado for someone else to make a final determination on
    whether it was a kill or not. In a 2024 meeting with USFWS and USDA
    APHIS, USDA APHIS admitted that the field staff undergo multiple
    trainings and qualifications before they are allowed to do
    investigations on wolf depredations. In a follow-up question I asked if
    the office staff has the same training as the field staff and the
    response was ``no''. Other western states' Gray Wolf depredation
    programs allow for all evidence to be submitted and considered for
    confirmation of wolf kills Why are Mexican Gray wolves the only ones
    being held to a different standard?
        In January of 2024 we had a wolf depredation that had all the
    textbook wolf killing signs as well as mountains of evidence pointing
    to it being a wolf kill. The full report can be found as Exhibit L.

         The kill was found within two days of the death of the
                animal (very fresh for depredations as pasture sizes are so
                large).

         Collared wolves had been reported in the area in the time
                frame of the kill with GPS pinpoint data

         AZGFD personnel reported hazing two wolves from the kill

         There was a sign of a struggle

         There was 0-25% of the carcass that remained (no soft
                tissue remained to find subcutaneous hemorrhaging)

         There were tracks in the area

         There was a fight scene

         There was evidence of typical wolf consumption (crushing
                of bones)

         Measurements on the head of the calf that matched wolf
                canine spreads

        With the large amount of evidence collected by the trained field
    staff, this kill was recommended as a confirmed kill. However, when it
    reached the office in Ft. Collins, CO, it was overturned from confirmed
    status to a ``probable'' status with no option for me to contest that
    change. Untrained office staff are making final determinations and
    overturning highly trained field staff that are boots on the ground. It
    is for reasons such as this that I am advocating for finding a solution
    that fairly compensates ranchers on an annual basis for direct and
    indirect costs. These costs can be researched, found, and applied to
    different areas and make the burdens borne by ranchers more equitable.
    The American Farm Bureau has recently done research on weaning weights
    in cattle herds that have wolf pressure vs. herds without wolves. Their
    research has shown that weaning weights in herds with wolf pressure are
    3.5% lower than in herds without resulting in a $34 (would vary year to
    year with cattle market) reduction in each calf. The economists then
    put together a calculation model that would figure what payment could
    be made that determined wolf pressure and the cost of decreasing
    weaning weights. A model such as this would be extremely beneficial and
    a step in the right direction when trying to compensate ranchers for
    the undue burden they face trying to manage around the federal
    government's experiment. Another thing that needs to be implemented is
    100% compensation for livestock depredations. Right now, the USDA Farm
    Service Agency (FSA) under the Livestock Indemnity Program only pays
    75% of market value on a confirmed wolf kill.
        These new standards of evidence used by these agencies are so
    restrictive and only have one goal in mind, limit the number of
    depredations being reported. The USFWS and APHIS officials are claiming
    that the reason there were so many wolf depredations was because field
    staff was confirming kills to appease ranchers. This led to an
    investigation by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG). USFWS and
    APHIS officials have said the report had many instances of depredations
    being confirmed that should not have been and because of this the OIG
    instructed them to re-design their standards when it comes to
    confirming wolf kills. However, this is false, the OIG's report only
    recommendation was that a more consistent standard needed to be in
    place when specifying which pictures were required to be in the report.
    In a response to the OIG's request, APHIS admitted they did not have
    the authority to make changes to the standards and that would need to
    be done by the Mexican Wolf Executive Committee. However, in 2023 not
    only did APHIS and USFWS re--write a new standard for collecting
    evidence, but they implemented it without the Executive Wolf committee.
    I understand this committee does not have oversight of USDA APHIS;
    however, I bring this to your attention as the problems associated with
    the evidentiary standards and confirming wolf kills exacerbate the
    difficulties of living and operating within the experimental wolf
    recovery range.
        With profit margins being so slim for small family farms and
    ranches and the high costs of carrying the burden of the Mexican Gray
    Wolf, it would be wise to find a solution to fairly compensate
    ranchers. I am pleading for help to alleviate the burden that is being
    unfairly borne by me, the American rancher, trying to serve my noble
    purpose of providing safe, affordable food to the American people.
        I am not advocating for the complete removal of the wolf
    population; I am simply asking that the burdens that have been unfairly
    placed on the backs of ranchers in AZ and NM be met with fairness and
    proper compensation. In December 2024, USFWS released their 5-year
    evaluation of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Strategy. The report highlights
    that in the U.S. we are exceeding abundance and genetic targets with
    257 wolves observed in 2023 while the Mexico population has not
    reported the same growth with only 35 wolves being reported in 2022.
    So, while the population in the US continues to grow the success of
    recovery rests in the success of Mexico's population. The continual
    moving of goal posts for the program, whether it be increasing the
    number of sustainable populations from the original 100 wolves to 300
    or changing standards of evidence, are burdensome and costly to
    ranchers. This program is an expense to the federal government and
    should not be paid for by the ranchers and the others who live in the
    community. There are many more issues that I could discuss and cover,
    however, to be direct and concise, I have limited my testimony. I am
    very grateful for this opportunity, thank you for your time and
    consideration as we continue to work toward a sustainable and equitable
    path forward.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Dobson.
        I now recognize Mr. Clark for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF KENT CLARK, MANAGER, DOUBLE R RANCH, LOOMIS,
                               WASHINGTON

        Mr. Clark. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter and
    members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    provide testimony today on the consequences of experimental
    populations under Endangered Species Act.
        My name is Kent Clark and I manage the Double R Ranch. I'm
    a member of the National Cattleman's Beef Association, the
    Washington Cattlemen Association, and the Public lands Council.
    Since 1925, the Washington Cattleman Association has
    represented ranchers and promoted the cattle industry across
    the state.
        I grew up on a family sheep and cattle ranch in eastern
    Oregon near Burns. I have managed ranches in Oregon and
    Washington for the last 27 years. The Double R Ranch is part of
    Agri Beef Company. A family-owned operation based in Boise,
    Idaho that produces high quality beef.
        Like many Western ranches, we own a base property and
    utilize a combination of state and Federal grazing permits for
    the summer range. Our ranch covers roughly 150,000 acres in the
    Loomis State Forest and Okanagan National Forest.
        In April 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced
    plans to introduce an experimental non-essential population of
    grizzly bears into the North Cascades. As President of the
    Okanagan County Cattlemen's Association, I submitted comments
    and helped others do the same.
        At public meetings, opposition was overwhelming. Families
    voiced serious concerns about their livelihoods and safety,
    especially after years of failed wolf management.
        For locals, it's clear that if there was habitat, bears
    would be there, since there are bears just over the border in
    Canada. Despite clear opposition from the local community, the
    Fish and Wildlife Service ignored our input and forged ahead.
        The decision felt rushed, driven more by political pressure
    than sound science or responsible management. I felt like the
    agency was on a political deadline to finalize the plan before
    the Administration's term ended. No matter what we said.
        This pattern is all too familiar to those of us in the
    West. Repeatedly we've seen the Federal Government introduce
    predators with promises of tools, flexibility, and clear
    recovery targets. Then, when the populations grow too big, the
    Federal Government seems powerless to delist the species.
        We saw the same thing with wolves. The Double R Ranch is
    west of U.S. Highway 97, which is part of the Western
    Washington Management Zone. We have three packs of wolves
    within 35 miles of my house but the entire zone breeding para
    quota has not yet been met so we continue to wait for some
    threshold to be reached while managing our area with very
    limited flexibility.
        On the other side of Highway 97, wolves are under state
    management, so managers have more tools at our disposal.
    Managers are able to kill wolves that are caught in the act of
    depredating and where there are areas of chronic depredation,
    the state will offer additional resources.
        The highway is an artificial boundary, not one that
    reflects the wolf habitat and because we're west of the
    highway, we have no management action we can legally take if a
    wolf is caught in the act of attacking one of our animals.
        This is one of the reasons we had little faith when the
    same agency proposed introducing another larger predator in our
    backyard. The Fish and Wildlife Service claims you will have
    the right to protect your livestock under attack on private
    grounds and the recovery area.
        What happens if they attack our livestock grazing on our
    permits or leases? All we can do is contact Fish and Wildlife
    Services personnel and hope they authorize the removal of the
    bear. The cow, calf, horse, dog, or worse yet, ranch hand that
    was attacked won't be able to fight for the two to five
    business days it takes to get approval to defend ourselves.
        Grizzly bears are apex predators and the burden of managing
    conflicts always falls on those of us who live and work on
    these landscapes. Agencies make promises about management tools
    and compensation, but those assurances rarely go far enough.
    Depredation compensation funds only go so far. And as these
    predator populations grow, it will be challenging to keep up
    with these incidents.
        Ranchers continue to invest in non-lethal deterrents, but
    these have limited effect as the predators learn and adapt. The
    use of Section 10(j) experimental non-essential populations
    needs more oversight. We've seen time and again that the
    Federal Government is willing to gamble with rural communities
    to see if they can create more species stability but we bear
    the burden of their experiment.
        The process should demand more collaboration with local
    communities and adopting our concerns. We need better
    management tools to reduce the risks we face from new entrants
    to our ecosystem. It always seems that 10(j) is the way the
    service gets a foothold in an area for an ESA listing that will
    last for decades.
        Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and members of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to share my
    perspective. I love the land. I love the species that we
    manage. I accept that there is risk in my work and my life and
    I believe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shouldn't
    make this life riskier.
        I'm happy to offer suggestions about how to have policy
    that works for all of us. I'm happy to answer any questions you
    may have.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Kent Clark, Manager, Double R Ranch

        Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on
    ``Understanding the Consequences of Experimental Populations Under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA).'' My name is Kent Clark, and I am the
    manager of the Double R Ranch, a member of the National Cattlemen's
    Beef Association, a member of the Washington Cattlemen's Association,
    and a member of the Public Lands Council. Since 1925, the Washington
    Cattlemen's Association has developed a statewide, grassroots
    organization that devoted itself to promoting agriculture and the
    cattle industry, and today, 95 years later, it remains the hallmark of
    our association.
        I welcome this opportunity to share my perspective with members of
    the Subcommittee on the consequences that experimental populations
    under 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act can have on rural areas
    throughout the West.
        I grew up on a family sheep and cattle ranch in a predominantly
    rural area of Eastern Oregon near the town of Burns. My parents and
    older brother still live and work there on a ranch that has been in our
    family since the late 1800s. Following graduation, I attended Oregon
    State University, earning a degree in animal sciences. I began my
    career as a ranch manager in the remote Southeastern Oregon community
    of Paisley. I managed a cattle ranch there for 13 years when I met and
    married my wife and started our family of four children. In 2011, I
    made a change and entered my current job managing the Double R Ranch in
    Loomis, Washington, which is in North Central Washington near the
    Canadian border. To say the least, I have been in the ranching business
    my entire life, and it is truly my passion.
        The Double R Ranch is part of the Agri Beef Company based in Boise,
    Idaho. We are a family-owned operation that produces and sells high-
    quality premium beef. Our brands include St. Helens, Double R Ranch,
    and Snake River Farms Beef. Our products are served in some of the
    finest restaurants in the United States and worldwide.
        The Double R Ranch is typical of most western ranching operations.
    We own a base property where cattle are kept during winter months and
    calving season. The balance of the ground that we utilize for summer
    grazing is a combination of Washington State's Department of Natural
    Resources (DNR) grazing permits and leases, U.S. Forest Service (FS)
    grazing permits, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing leases.
        The total area for all these permits and leases is around 150,000
    acres in the Loomis State Forest and the Okanogan National Forest,
    which are all on the eastern slope of the Cascade Mountain range. As we
    graze these cattle in the summer, we are responsible for maintaining
    all the fencing and other improvements and for moving the cattle with
    horses and dogs from one pasture to the next during the grazing season.
    The ranch employs a full-time crew of myself, my wife, and four others
    to accomplish the demands that come with ranching.
        In April 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or the
    Service) announced they intended to use section 10(j) of the ESA to
    introduce a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of grizzly bears
    into the Northern Cascades of Washington State. This action was
    followed by a public comment period. Meetings were held the previous
    year as attempts to introduce them without a 10(j), which failed.
    During this process, I submitted written and oral comments and gathered
    others to submit comments in my role as Okanogan County Cattleman's
    Association President. At all the public meetings, the opposition to
    introducing these bears was overwhelming. Families were concerned about
    their farms, ranches, and children. The areas who would have bears in
    their backyard already had felt the impact of wolves for years, as
    state and federal agencies largely failed to mitigate impacts to these
    communities in wolf management efforts.
        Despite this opposition and over the voices of those who
    represented the communities and knew the landscape best, USFWS
    personnel forged ahead with their plans and decided grizzly bears need
    to be a part of our lives in Washington State. In the final decision,
    the Service acknowledged they'd received comments opposing the
    introduction but made clear that these local perspectives were not
    important to the agency's decision. It felt like a parent telling a
    child, ``Because I said so, end of story.'' For those of us on the
    ground, it seemed clear that the Service rushed the process, knowing
    that the end of the Administration's term was drawing near, and the
    outcome of the election was uncertain. There are so many examples of
    political gamesmanship in species recovery, but this case drew a clear
    line between regulatory burdens and political action.
        The Okanogan Valley is home to many commercial apple orchards. All
    the growers I have visited with and heard testify were in opposition to
    another bear species coming to the area to destroy their crops and,
    worse yet, harm those working in the orchards. The North Cascades is
    lined by the Okanogan Valley on the east and the Skagit Valley on the
    West. Both are productive agricultural areas where grizzly bears could
    cause significant economic harm. For comparison, in 2023, it's believed
    grizzly bears were responsible for 82 livestock deaths in the state of
    Montana. According to Montana's Department of Livestock, $211,721.98
    was reimbursed to cover the loss of 145 animals in 2023. It is much
    easier for a grizzly bear to dine in an apple orchard or cattle than
    looking for scattered wild berries and other wildlife on a 20-degree
    slope. By introducing a 10(j) population, USFWS claims that they will
    be able to remedy this situation by removing bears that are causing
    problems in these areas. Unfortunately, USFWS has a poor track record
    of addressing those concerns in 10(j) species.
        Based on my experiences with wolves, I remain skeptical that USFWS
    has the freedom to offer flexibility to manage impacts of populations,
    because they and the state have offered similar assurances for wolves
    to little effect. While I recognize that wolves are listed in the state
    under a different ESA class, the impact to my family and my livestock
    is still the same if there are predators that cannot be swiftly
    deterred from depredation. While wolves kill for sport, grizzlies kill
    for scale, and the combination would be devastating for family
    operations. Wolves do not respect ``management areas,'' ``state
    lines,'' ``tribal boundaries,'' ``private/public land boundaries,'' or
    any of the lines on a map that were drawn when the gray wolf
    introduction was proposed.
        Despite the lines that were drawn, wolves are predators and will go
    where the food is available. The Double R Ranch is west of US Highway
    97, which is one of those lines drawn, making it part of the Western
    Washington Management Zone. This means that even though we have three
    packs of wolves within 35 miles of my house in that zone, the entire
    zone breeding pair quota has not yet been met, and we must continue to
    live with the wolves being listed as an endangered species with limited
    to no flexibility. Our neighbors east of Highway 97 are managed by the
    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, so problem wolves can be
    managed even though it is still very restricted. On our ranch, we have
    no management action we can legally take if a wolf is caught in the act
    of attacking one of our animals. Throwing a rock at them would be
    considered harassing an endangered species and could lead to fines and
    prison time.
        I am not saying this for dramatic effect. Last summer, one of my
    employees moved cattle on horseback with two border collie dogs. A pack
    of wolves came out of the trees, advanced toward them, and attacked his
    dogs. One was killed immediately, and the other managed to run off and
    went missing for 4 days before being located. He could do nothing to
    protect his dogs without risking immense fines and jail time. Without
    any deterrent tools, the wolves in our area have very little fear of
    human activity. We see them frequently in the middle of our calving
    areas in the spring, and they usually stand and watch you. Introducing
    grizzly bears into our backyard will only leave us dealing with the
    consequences of another apex predator.
        USFWS claims that you will have the right to protect your livestock
    under attack on private grounds in the recovery area. However, what
    happens if they attack our livestock grazing on our permits or leases?
    Again, all we can do is contact USFWS personnel and hope they authorize
    the removal of the bear. Regardless, the cow, calf, horse, dog, or
    worse yet, ranch hand that was attacked will most likely not be able to
    fight for 2-5 business days. That is the time needed to get approval to
    remove the grizzly bear.
        The ranch hands moving cattle, fixing fences, and tending to other
    tasks associated with caring for cattle will now be put in danger with
    little to no resources for managing the species. As I have detailed in
    my previous description of our operation, the cattle we run are all
    very valuable to our ranching operation, our overall company's bottom
    line, and over 100 other rancher's bottom lines. This does not even
    include all the distributors, restaurants, grocery stores, and butcher
    shops that handle our products. The implications these predators pose
    on our operations impact the supply chain. The genetic value of some of
    our animals is almost priceless when you put it into perspective. If
    that cow happens to be the one that the wolf or grizzly decides to kill
    for consumption, it can take years to try and recreate. It does not
    matter if they were introduced as a 10(j) population; the damage is
    done.
        Our area has historically been one of the premier areas in the
    state for finding mule deer. I do not have any scientific data to put
    in front of you, but anecdotally, in the 14 years I have been here, I
    would guess that the mule deer population is 50% of what it was. The
    only real change in that amount of time has been the movement of wolves
    into our area. There were already significant populations of black
    bears and cougars, so adding another predator that uses deer as a
    portion of their diet has been dramatic. I am certain adding grizzly
    bears will not help that situation but will only further the decrease.
    As the deer population decreases, it is safe to assume that predation
    on livestock will increase.
        In closing, section 10(j)--nonessential experimental populations
    need more oversight, collaboration with local communities, and
    management tools for those constantly interacting with the species. The
    track record of these decisions speaks for itself. Too many empty
    promises seem to be being made with the 10(j) filings that, in the end,
    are never actually being carried out. What we've seen with the wolf is
    rapid growth in populations across the West that don't adhere to lines
    on a map. Do we believe the bear will be any different?
        Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide a review of the
    last several years and offer suggestions about how to build a stronger
    future for the coexistence of our operations and the wildlife on these
    lands.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark.
        Now Dr. Servheen, you are recognized for your 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF CHRIS SERVHEEN, FORMER UNITED STATES FISH AND
    WILDLIFE SERVICE BEAR RECOVERY COORDINATOR (RETIRED), PRESIDENT
      AND BOARD CHAIR OF THE MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, HELENA,
                                MONTANA

        Dr. Servheen. Good morning everyone. My name is Chris
    Servheen. I was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear
    Recovery Coordinator for 35 years.
        The application of 10(j) experimental population status to
    the management of wolves and grizzly bears allows management
    flexibility necessary to successfully establish wolves and
    grizzly bears under the ESA.
        Section 10(j) of the ESA was developed by Congress to allow
    the successful reintroduction of listed species, particularly
    carnivores, where more flexibility is necessary.
        More than 60 10(j) experimental populations of many kinds
    of species have been established and have led to successful
    conservation for these species. Examples include the gray wolf,
    grizzly bear, black-footed ferret, California Condor, and
    chinook salmon. Two 10(j) populations of gray wolves were
    released in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the mid-90s and
    eventually both were recovered.
        Mexican wolves, as you know, are reintroduced into Arizona
    and New Mexico and recently into Colorado under 10(j) status.
    For the 10(j) grizzly bear population restoration in North
    Cascade, maximum flexibility was built into the rule that
    allows increasingly aggressive management and removal of
    conflict bears further out from the core areas in North
    Cascades National Park and surrounding forests.
        There are both Federal and state reimbursement programs to
    pay livestock owners for losses from 10(j) experimental
    populations and fully listed populations of both wolves and
    grizzly bears.
        There are also many state and Federal programs to assist
    livestock producers with non-lethal methods to reduce livestock
    losses like range riding to increase human presence, providing
    trained livestock guard dogs, hazing, electric fencing,
    livestock carcass removal, and even, in some cases,
    diversionary feeding. And the ranchers and the agency share the
    fact that neither one wants wolves or grizzly bears to kill
    livestock.
        There is a 4(d) rule under the ESA that also allows
    flexibility and when applied to grizzly bears it allows grizzly
    bears to be captured and relocated or even killed in conflict
    situations such as livestock depredations.
        Between 2003 and 2024, almost 500 grizzly bears have been
    killed across the Northern Rockies by bear managers when it was
    necessary to respond to livestock conflicts or to bears
    becoming conditioned to garbage or human foods to the point
    that they were dangerous.
        This section 4(d) rule for grizzly bear management is like
    10(j) has been an excellent way to balance the needs of local
    residents in the livestock industry with the objectives of
    grizzly bear recovery.
        The 4(d) rule for grizzly bears allows cooperative
    consultation on the fate of bears managed under this rule. I
    was the Fish and Wildlife Service contact person and worked
    closely with my tribal and agency colleagues thousands of times
    to decide the fate of hundreds and hundreds of grizzly bears.
        I cannot recall a single time that there was a disagreement
    between my state and tribal colleagues and myself over the
    management of a single grizzly bear.
        We are in a time when thousands of Federal employees are
    being terminated from their jobs without cause or explanation.
    These job cuts include agency bear/wolf management specialists
    that work closely with livestock producers and the public. When
    these people are gone, the livestock producers will lose the
    assistance from their agency professionals to help prevent or
    respond to livestock conflicts.
        Without the Federal support from these people that have
    been terminated, many livestock producers will be high and dry.
    Most grizzly bears and wolves do not kill livestock. For
    perspective, in Montana, there are at least 2,400 Grizzly Bears
    and wolves today.
        In 2023, these 2,400 Grizzly Bears and Wolves killed 104
    cattle and sheep, which is four one thousandths of 1 percent of
    the cattle and sheep in Montana and all those losses were
    compensated.
        I can confidently say that in my 35 years of experience,
    most state bear managers and livestock grazing associations
    believe they already have all the flexibility they need to
    address issues like conflicts related to these species.
        The ESA works because it is based on science and facts.
    Grizzly bears and wolves are representatives of the heritage
    and culture of our nation. We have eliminated grizzly bears and
    wolves from almost all their former range. Grizzly bears live
    in about 5 percent of their current range.
        I hope you can continue to support the state, tribal,
    agricultural, and Federal agency people working together in
    partnership to continue recovering grizzly bears and wolves in
    a few places they remain today. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Servheen follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Dr. Christopher Servheen, Retired USFWS Grizzly
      Bear Recovery Coordinator, President and Board Chair of the Montana
                              Wildlife Federation

        Good morning. My name is Chris Servheen, and I was the USFWS
    Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for 35 years. As such, I led the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) grizzly bear recovery program from its
    beginning until I retired in 2016. I am currently the Board Chair and
    President of the Montana Wildlife Federation. I speak to you as a
    professional grizzly bear biologist, and as a longtime resident of
    Montana and a lifelong hunter and fisherman.
        My testimony will focus on the application of the Endangered
    Species Act's 10(j) experimental population status to the management of
    wolves and grizzly bears. In that context I'll also address the
    management flexibility to manage wolves and grizzly bears that is
    available to state and federal wildlife managers under the Act.
        As a FWS employee, I wrote the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and
    the original delisting proposal for the Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly
    population. That delisting was litigated in federal court, and I
    participated in the legal defense of the case with the Department of
    Justice. It is important to know that I believed in and promoted the
    eventual delisting of recovered grizzlies and wolves and turning them
    over to state management. I had faith in the wildlife professionals in
    state fish and game agencies and I believed that these state wildlife
    professionals would be good stewards who would continue to carefully
    manage grizzly bears and wolves using science and facts after recovery
    and delisting.
        The application of 10(j) experimental population status to the
    management of wolves and grizzly bears allows the management
    flexibility necessary to successfully reestablish wolves and grizzly
    bears under the Endangered Species Act.
        Section 10(j) of the ESA was developed by Congress to allow the
    successful reintroduction of listed species, particularly carnivores,
    to aid their recovery. 10(j) relieves landowner and user concerns that
    reintroductions may result in restrictions on the use of private,
    tribal, or public land. Under section 10(j), the FWS may designate a
    population of a listed species as experimental if it will be released
    into suitable natural habitat outside the species' current range but
    within its historic range. Treating the experimental population as
    threatened allows the FWS the discretion to devise management programs
    and special regulations for that population. Under a 10(j) designation
    as ``nonessential, experimental,'' both the lethal removal prohibitions
    and consultation requirements of the ESA are relaxed, easing the
    regulatory burden associated with endangered species, and further
    allowing federal, state, and Tribal wildlife managers to respond to
    community concerns.
        More than 60 10(j) experimental populations for many kinds of
    species have been established and many have led to successful
    conservation of these species. Examples include the gray wolf, grizzly
    bear, black-footed ferret, California condor, and Chinook salmon. Two
    10(j) populations of gray wolves were released in Idaho, Montana, and
    Wyoming in the mid-1990s, and eventually both wolf populations were
    recovered. Mexican wolves were reintroduced into Arizona and New Mexico
    as 10(j) and recently in Colorado gray wolves were reintroduced as
    10(j). Last year, with the support of the state of Washington and many
    tribes, a restoration plan using 10(j) was finalized to bring grizzly
    bears back to North Cascades National Park as per the grizzly bear
    recovery plan.
        When FWS designates an experimental population, Section 10(j) of
    the ESA also requires that they determine whether the experimental
    population is ``essential to the continued existence'' of the species.
    An experimental population is essential if losing the population would
    likely ``appreciably reduce the likelihood'' of the species surviving
    in the wild. To date, no experimental population has been designated as
    essential. Critical habitat is not designated for nonessential
    experimental populations.
        10(j) allows for innovative management such as occurred for the
    proposed grizzly bear reintroduction in the Bitterroot Ecosystem in
    Idaho and Montana allowing management of the 10(j) population by a
    citizens management committee with citizen members appointed by
    Governors. This committee was to make decisions that lead to recovery,
    and they could use innovative approaches. For the experimental
    population of Mexican wolves, 10(j) designation allows ranchers to kill
    Mexican wolves on private and tribal land that are attacking livestock.
        For the 10(j) grizzly population restoration in the North Cascades,
    maximum flexibility was built into the rule that allows increasingly
    aggressive management of conflict bears further from out from the core
    area of North Cascades National Park and the North Cascades USFS
    Wilderness areas. This includes the authority to preemptively capture
    and relocate bears as needed and authorizations for lethal take to
    private landowners for human safety, livestock protection, or property
    protection as needed.
        There are both Federal and state reimbursement programs to pay
    livestock owners for losses from both 10(j) experimental and fully
    listed populations of both wolves and grizzly bears. Payments for
    losses to Mexican wolves are made by the Livestock Indemnity Program
    (LIP) authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill and administered by Farm Service
    Agency. There are state and Federal livestock loss programs in Montana,
    Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico and Washington.
        There are many state and Federal programs to assist livestock
    producers with non-lethal methods to reduce livestock losses like range
    riding to increase human presence, providing trained livestock guard
    dogs, hazing, electric fencing, livestock carcass removal and even in
    some cases diversionary feeding. Range riders are particularly
    effective by being present to deter wolves from areas where livestock
    are present. Range riders can also help find and doctor sick or injured
    livestock due to non-predator causes, report the presence of bears or
    wolves and assist in many ranching needs like fence repair.
        For non-reintroduced threatened species that might come into
    conflicts with human activity, Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the FWS
    to adopt regulations necessary and advisable to provide for the
    conservation of a threatened species. There is a 4(d) rule for grizzly
    bears that allows grizzly bears to be captured, relocated or even
    killed in conflict situations such as livestock depredations or bears
    that are deemed dangerous to humans. The existing 4(d) rule for grizzly
    bears (50 CFR 17.40) has been highly successful because it has
    simultaneously allowed the management of bears when necessary while
    allowing grizzly populations to increase and reoccupy many areas and
    has promoted close cooperative efforts between state and federal bear
    managers.
        Between 2003 and 2024 almost 500 grizzly bears have been removed
    (killed) across the Northern Rockies by bear managers when it was
    necessary to respond to livestock conflicts or to bears becoming
    conditioned to garbage or human foods to the point that they were
    dangerous. This 4(d) rule for grizzly bear management has been an
    excellent way to balance the needs of local residents and the livestock
    industry with the objectives of grizzly bear recovery.
        It is important to note that the application of the flexible
    management under the ESA with 10(j) experimental populations of wolves
    and the 4(d) rule to threatened grizzly bears has resulted in progress
    toward species recovery and validated the close cooperation between
    state, Tribal and National Park Service managers and the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. The grizzly bear 4(d) rule requires cooperative
    consultation on the fate of bears managed under this rule. I was that
    FWS contact person and worked closely with my Tribal, and agency
    colleagues thousands of times to decide the fate of hundreds of grizzly
    bears. I cannot recall a single time that there was disagreement
    between state or tribal bear managers and FWS about the management
    decision for any grizzly bear.
        We are in a time when thousands of federal employees are being
    terminated from their jobs without cause and without explanation. These
    job cuts include agency bear and wolf management specialists who work
    closely with livestock producers and the public to help reduce
    conflicts with bears and wolves and to remove or relocate any bears or
    wolves that have committed depredations. The non-lethal bear and wolf
    conflict management programs in USDA Wildlife Services are at risk of
    disappearing. Livestock producers will lose the assistance from these
    agency professionals to help prevent or respond to livestock conflicts
    in bear and wolf habitat.
        There are also threats to funding sources such as Natural Resources
    Conservation Service (NRCS) who lost 1700 employees and much of the
    funding they use to assist livestock producers is now uncertain. NRCS
    provides funding for assisting livestock producers with range riders,
    trained livestock guard dogs, hazing, electric fencing, carcass removal
    and other ways to assist producers with conservation solutions.
        These programs are fundamental to keeping agricultural producers in
    business and to helping them remain successful. There are thousands of
    livestock producers and farms that depend on these agency staff people
    and this NRCS funding. Without this Federal agency support and
    assistance, many livestock producers will be left high and dry. State
    and federal agencies have programs and dedicated personnel in place to
    manage grizzly bears and wolves that kill livestock. State and federal
    wildlife management agencies share the interests of livestock producers
    in that they don't want grizzly bears and wolves to kill livestock
    either. Livestock losses to predators are a real and valid concern
    because they impact people's livelihood and property. When there is a
    depredation, state and federal specialists respond promptly and capture
    or kill the depredating animal. Most grizzly bears and wolves do not
    kill livestock. For perspective, in Montana there are approximately
    2,400 grizzly bears and wolves combined. In 2023, these 2,400 grizzlies
    and wolves killed 104 cattle and sheep,\1\ which is 0.004% of the
    cattle and sheep in Montana.\2\ \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Board/
    Livestock-Loss-Statistics-2023
        \2\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/
    Publications/Charts_and_ Graphs/2022-MT-Cattle-info.pdf
        \3\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/
    Publications/Charts_and_ Graphs/2021-MT-Sheep-info.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary the management flexibility under the ESA with 10(j) for
    reintroduced species and under 4(d) for listed species provides many
    opportunities to address conflicts between wolves and grizzly bears and
    the public. I can confidently say that, in my 35 years of experience,
    most state grizzly bear managers and livestock grazing associations
    believe they already have all the flexibility they need to address
    issues like livestock conflicts under the 4(d) rule while the grizzly
    bear remains listed as a threatened species. 10(j) flexibility for
    wolves also provides effective tools to address the needs of livestock
    producers and the public while moving forward with recovery of wolf
    populations.
        The ESA works because it is based on science and facts, and it
    specifically requires that the listed status of any species must be
    judged solely on the best available scientific data. There have been
    bills introduced in Congress that direct the Secretary of Interior to
    remove ESA protection from grizzly bears and wolves. I urge you to not
    pass legislation to circumvent the requirements of the ESA, and
    Congressionally delist grizzly bears.
        I also urge you to support the flexible management provisions of
    the ESA under 10(j) and 4(d). These provisions allow us to proceed with
    the recovery of grizzly bears and wolves while simultaneously
    addressing the concerns and needs of livestock producers and the
    public. Grizzly bears and wolves are representatives of the heritage
    and culture of our nation. We have eliminated grizzly bears and wolves
    from almost all their former range. I hope you can continue to support
    the state, Tribal, agricultural and federal agency people working
    together in partnership to continue recovering wolves and grizzly bears
    in the few places they remain today.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

                                     ______

      Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Christopher Servheen, FWS
    Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator (retired), President and Board Chair,
                          Montana Wildlife Federation

                  Questions Submitted by Representative Dexter

        Question 1. Can you tell us how the states responded between the
    time Trump delisted wolves in the Northern Rockies and the time the
    courts reversed the delisting because it lacked evidence? What did that
    mean for wolf populations?

        Answer: On March 3, 2017, the D.C. Circuit reinstated the rule
    promulgated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (``FWS'') in
    2012 to remove the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf in Wyoming from
    the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act (``ESA'').
    Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, -F.3d.-, 2017 WL 836089 (D.C. Cir. Mar.
    3, 2017).
        Wolves in Montana and Idaho were Congressionally delisted in 2011
    because of a rider attached to a budget bill. Therefore, by 2017,
    wolves were delisted in the 3 states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The
    recovery goal for each state was to maintain a minimum of at least 150
    wolves. There is consensus many among wildlife biologists that this
    recovery goal of 150 per state was a floor population and not a
    population target that would allow states to manage down to the minimum
    levels of wolves rather than manage for healthy populations in the
    habitats that could support them. The most recent data shows that
    Wyoming has 192 wolves, Montana has approximately 1100 wolves and Idaho
    has approximately 1500 wolves, but these numbers are likely lower as of
    March 2025 as the wolf hunting and trapping season is still underway
    and hundreds of wolves have been killed in these states since the fall
    of 2024. In most of Wyoming, wolves are considered a predatory species
    and can be killed by any means year around (see map). In Idaho and
    Montana, wolves can be trapped and snared with bait and hunted in many
    areas. Wolves can also be shot a night over bait on private land with
    spotlights and with thermal and night vision scopes. Idaho and Montana
    allow payment of bounties for killing wolves and allow the
    reimbursement of expenses for the public to try to kill wolves. The
    Idaho legislature recently passed a bill requiring the reduction of
    wolves in Idaho from the current estimate of 1500 down to 150, the
    minimum number to avoid relisting. The Montana legislature has passed
    legislation to reduce wolf numbers from an estimated 1100 down to 450-
    550.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question 2. As a scientist who has worked through analyses for
    delisting species, what sort of state-level policies would you want to
    see before de-listing?

        Answer: State-level policies would be improved by recognition of
    all the ESA's requirements for recovery instead of just focusing on
    increases in the numbers of listed species. Many people tend to believe
    that recovery is strictly achieving a certain number or animals, but
    this is incorrect. In addition to meeting population objectives, a
    mandatory requirement of the ESA for a species to be recovered and
    delisted is that adequate regulatory mechanisms to control mortality
    and to assure that necessary habitat remains available after recovery
    are necessary. It is a requirement of the ESA that these adequate
    regulatory mechanisms must be in place before delisting can occur and
    must remain in place after delisting. Healthy and recovered populations
    are populations that are carefully managed in the long term and are
    distributed across their suitable available habitat.
        The greatest threat today to the recovery and delisting of grizzly
    bears and to keeping wolves delisted is the lack of adequate regulatory
    mechanisms resulting from state legislatures and governors who are
    passing and signing legislation that implements harmful anti-predator
    policies that are not informed by science. These polices from state
    legislatures result in more dead grizzly bears and wolves and directly
    threaten the ability of state fish and game agencies to regulate
    grizzly and wolf mortality to sustainable levels.
        Some examples of harmful state legislation:

         Mandating the use of neck snares to trap wolves in grizzly
                habitat when grizzly and black bears are out of their dens.
                This was recently enjoined by federal court sin Idaho and
                Montana, but these Federal court limits on such activities
                would disappear if grizzly bears were delisted from the
                ESA.

         Allowing the use of hounds to hunt black bears in areas
                occupied by grizzly bears. The use of hounds to hunt black
                bears will result in conflicts and death for grizzly bears
                in the areas where hounds are used.

         Allowing the use of bait around wolf traps and neck
                snares. Bait will also attract grizzly bears, black bears,
                and other forest carnivores to these sites where they will
                be trapped, or neck snared and be killed or maimed.

         Paying people to try to kill wolves. This is a bounty, and
                it is unethical.

         Allowing shooting wolves at night over bait using
                spotlights and night-vision scopes. This will result in
                other non-target carnivores being shot and it is unethical
                and a violation of fair chase hunting.

        If it is the intention of state agencies, legislatures, and/or the
    public that once delisting takes place, regulation of mortality can be
    relaxed, this is proof that there are in fact no adequate regulatory
    mechanisms ``in place''. ``In place'' means that regulatory mechanisms
    will continue after delisting to carefully manage and limit mortality
    so the species can remain healthy and recovered. Regulatory mechanisms
    are not a temporary mechanism to be used by state agencies and
    legislatures to get a species delisted, and once delisting is achieved,
    then eliminate or dilute regulation of mortality.
        If we are to move toward real recovery than can lead to successful
    delisting, we need state policies that are based on science and facts,
    and that commit to managing for healthy and recovered populations. We
    need to move away from some state policies of managing some species
    like wolves down to the minimum number to avoid relisting. The minimum
    number to avoid relisting should not be treated as a population target.
        If anti-carnivore state legislation continues, we stand to lose
    much more than healthy carnivore populations. These laws threaten the
    very foundation of scientific wildlife management as well as the
    acceptance of hunting as a legitimate and non-political management
    tool. If some state politicians are going to ignore science-based
    wildlife management and prescribe how many predators should be killed
    and the specific methods to be used to kill them, it will be difficult
    to ever manage most carnivore populations sustainably, to ever achieve
    species recovery, and have in place the adequate regulatory mechanisms
    necessary for state agencies to credibly manage recovered species like
    bears and wolves.

        Question 3. Should state policies be assessed when analyzing
    threats to species during ESA listing reviews?

        Answer: Yes, state policies are fundamental to the management and
    conservation of species. Since the ESA is supposed to be a temporary
    mechanism to recover at risk species to the point that they can again
    be turned over to state management, then state management policies are
    key to evaluating threats to species status. In addition, in some
    cases, state policies may be at least partially responsible for the
    species being threatened or endangered in the first place. In some
    cases, recovery efforts under the ESA must improve state mortality
    management or regulations that led to the need to list species.
        Therefore, the assessment of state polices is fundamental to
    appropriate analyses of threats to species during listing reviews.

        Question 4. Ranchers are understandably concerned about predation
    on livestock. How do compensation programs help ranchers mitigate these
    losses? How can Congress support the availability and effectiveness of
    these programs?

        Answer: It is important to the conservation and recovery of listed
    species that the burden of coexisting with certain species does not
    fall on particular elements of society. The recovery of these species
    is a shared interest of the public at large. In the case of some
    predator species like bears and wolves, there can be livestock losses
    due to predation. Compensation programs to reimburse livestock
    producers for losses are a way to assure that the financial burden of
    maintaining these species is not borne by livestock producers. The
    ultimate solutions to easing the financial burdens of livestock
    producers from reintroduction or recovery of wolves and bears should
    involve a combination of assistance to livestock producers to reduce
    conflicts with livestock and predators combined with a reimbursement
    program for livestock losses when they do occur. There are many state
    and Federal programs to assist livestock producers with non-lethal
    methods to reduce livestock losses like range riding to increase human
    presence. Range riders are specialists funded with federal assistance
    who ride in often remote areas with livestock where predators may be
    present. The range riders can help reduce conflicts by providing an
    additional human presence to deter predators. They can also find
    livestock carcasses soon after death and determine the cause of
    mortality and remove such carcasses, so the carcasses do not attract
    predators. It is important to note that most livestock do not die from
    predators but from other causes like disease, weather or poisonous
    plants, but such carcasses of animals that die from these non-predator
    causes can attract predators if not removed promptly. Range riders act
    as additional eyes on the ground and can assist in reducing predation
    in many ways. Range riders can also help find and doctor sick or
    injured livestock due to non-predator causes, report the presence of
    bears or wolves and assist in many ranching needs like fence repair.
    Other conflict prevention programs with federal government assistance
    include hazing of predators, electric fencing, livestock carcass pickup
    and removal and eventual composting livestock carcasses to remove them
    from private ranches and leased property so they do not attract
    predators, and even, in some cases, diversionary feeding. Community-led
    conflict prevention efforts in Montana are part of a broad public-
    private partnership that is providing resources to ranchers, farmers
    and communities to expand the use of nonlethal wildlife conflict
    prevention tools. These grants operate on a reimbursement basis,
    covering costs incurred by recipients for the following community
    investments:

         Bear-resistant waste solutions--Purchase and distribution
                of bear-resistant garbage cans, dumpsters, grease traps and
                food storage lockers.

         Infrastructure improvements--Establishing or upgrading
                rural transfer stations to better secure attractants.

         Public outreach and education--Developing educational
                materials and programs to increase public awareness about
                bear safety.

         Electric fencing--Installing portable or permanent
                electric fencing and electric drive-over mats on access
                roads to protect orchards, compost piles, garbage,
                livestock, and grain storage.

         Program support--Funding staff time dedicated to
                community-led conflict reduction and education efforts.

        Applicants may request a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of
    $150,000. If depredations occur, it is important to reimburse the
    livestock producers for the market value of their lost stock. The
    combination of deterrence efforts to prevent predation losses and
    reimbursements when necessary are ways to address livestock predation
    and losses and to share the burden of living with some predatory
    species.

        Question 5. We heard concerns regarding the economic impacts of
    wildlife on the livestock industry. In your career, and as a longtime
    resident of Montana, what have you learned about the economic benefits
    wildlife restoration is providing to communities?

        Answer: Wildlife restoration efforts usually involve public lands
    sometimes adjacent to private lands. Such intermingled ownership can
    provide challenges as wildlife are restored as when elk herds grow and
    impact forage availability of private lands adjacent to public lands,
    or when bison expand outside reserves and move onto private lands
    damaging fences. Predator populations can also expand onto private
    lands when they are initially restored on adjacent public lands. In
    many areas of the west, wildlife on public lands can contribute
    significant economic benefits to communities in the area. For example,
    tourism to Yellowstone National Park contributes $828 million annually
    to the local economy including creating 8,560 jobs in surrounding
    communities. Visitors to Yellowstone and Grand Teton Park list the top
    two species they want to see when visiting the Parks as grizzly bears
    and wolves. Of that $828 million, people who came to see wolves
    contributed $82 million each year. Obviously, wildlife in National
    Parks contribute significantly more economic benefits than wildlife
    outside Parks, but there are also economic benefits from people who
    visit non-Park public lands such a National Forests and BLM lands to
    see wildlife, and who appreciate the existence value of restored
    wildlife and intact natural ecosystems.

        Question 6. What role does misinformation play in shaping public
    perceptions of wolves and grizzlies as major threats?

        Answer: Misinformation about predators is a common problem when
    producing policy decisions on these species. It is unfortunate that
    some state anti-predator laws and the specific hunting techniques they
    prescribed such as shooting them at night over bait or paying people to
    try and kill wolves are not based on any demonstrated biological
    necessity and, in many cases, depart from the principles of ethical,
    fair chase hunting. Their passage is based on emotional appeals stoked
    by misinformation about predators and demonizing predators as the cause
    of most problems. Biological data are rarely presented to the
    legislators to justify these anti-predator laws. Contrary to some of
    the claims made about predators, there is no demonstrable or measurable
    threat from wolves to the livestock industry or to state big-game
    populations. Some of the arguments used in the Montana and Idaho
    legislatures to justify laws to kill wolves and bears are that wolf and
    black bear numbers need to be reduced to ``save'' deer and elk from
    predation and that wolves are a serious threat to the livestock
    industry. There is no evidence that either of these concerns are true
    in either state. According to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
    and Parks, Montana's elk population was 136,151 in 2020 (MT FWP 2020),
    48% above the state's elk management plan objective of 92,138 elk (MT
    FWP 2020). The situation is similar in Idaho, where the state Fish and
    Game Department announced in 2020 that ``elk and whitetails continue to
    thrive, and mule deer herds are bouncing back. Deer and elk hunters
    should see plenty of game in Idaho during fall hunts as mild winters
    have helped rebound mule deer herds hit hard in recent years, and
    Idaho's elk herds continue to soar, and harvests have come roaring back
    over the last six years.'' Elk survival was also high. Biologists in
    Idaho found adult cow elk survival was 97% and calf survival was 73%--
    up from 66% in the 2018-19 winter. Mountain lions were the leading
    cause of elk calf mortality, and they were tied with hunter harvest as
    the leading cause of cow elk mortality (IDFG 2020). Wolf predation on
    livestock in both states is also low. Between 2018 and 2020, the three-
    year average number of cattle and sheep lost to wolves in Idaho was 113
    per year or 0.00428% of the cattle and sheep in the state (Western
    Livestock Journal 2021). In contrast, more than 40,000 cattle were lost
    in Idaho in 2015 (the most recent year data are available) due to
    weather, disease, poisonous plants and other non-predator causes (USDA
    2017). In Montana, the three-year average was about 110 cattle and
    sheep losses per year to wolves (Inman et al. 2020)--just 0.00415% of
    the state's sheep and cattle. Most grizzly bears and wolves do not kill
    livestock. For perspective, in Montana there are approximately 2,400
    grizzly bears and wolves combined. In 2023, these 2,400 grizzlies and
    wolves killed 104 cattle and sheep \1\, which is 0.004% of the cattle
    and sheep in Montana.2,3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Board/
    Livestock-Loss-Statistics-2023
        \2\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics--by--State/Montana/
    Publications/Charts_and_Graphs/2022-MT-Cattle-info.pdf
        \3\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/
    Publications/Charts_and_Graphs/2021-MT-Sheep-info.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Debates and decisions about the need for increased predator
    management to improve ungulate populations or to assist the livestock
    industry should be informed by the best available science collected and
    analyzed by agency wildlife management experts. However, such decisions
    are rarely clear or satisfying to all involved. This is even more so
    when the public's attention has been drawn to wolves as the ``culprit''
    and misinformation rather than science is the point of reference.
    Natural systems are complex and the explanation of the dynamics of
    these natural systems involving predators and their prey is rarely as
    cut and dried as the public would like.

        Question 7. How can policymakers ensure that wildlife management
    decisions are based on scientific evidence rather than fear-based
    narratives?

        Answer: The ESA works because it is based on science and facts, and
    it specifically requires that the listed or delisting status of any
    species must be judged solely on the best available scientific data. In
    my view, the best way that Congress can ensure that wildlife management
    decisions are based on scientific evidence is to avoid legislation that
    circumvents the requirements of the ESA and to reinforce the importance
    of basing decisions solely on the best available science. I urge you to
    not pass Congressional legislation to delist species by circumventing
    the requirements of the ESA because that inserts politics into
    decisions that should be based only on science. If there are concerns
    about the status of species, I urge you to hold hearings where the
    views and concerns of people can be presented along with the scientific
    facts concerning the status of the species. More importantly, such
    hearings could be a forum where the adequacy and continuity of existing
    state mortality control mechanisms and federal land management
    regulatory mechanisms can be presented and debated. Such hearings could
    also be a forum to allow state authorities to voice their commitment to
    maintaining mortality control mechanisms in place after delisting
    rather than diluting or eliminating such mechanisms once the ESA no
    long applies as they are currently doing with delisted wolves.

        Question 8. Your testimony spoke to the balancing act that is
    required to restore America's wildlife in partnership with farmers,
    ranchers, tribes, and rural communities. We also heard critical
    perspectives that speak to the concerns of those ranching on publicly
    owned lands and nearby. Based on your experience, where would you
    suggest we dedicate additional resources to support the type of
    flexibility and innovation that section 10(j) of the ESA provides? What
    improvements to the implementation of 10(j) would you recommend?

        Answer: The management of animals that can kill livestock or even
    rarely threaten human safety, requires managing these animals, not just
    strictly protecting them. The implementation of these management
    systems benefits from the development and application of a detailed
    protocol of how management will be applied in various situations. Such
    a system worked for the multi-state, multi-agency management of grizzly
    bears over 35 years by the application of the Interagency Grizzly Bear
    Guidelines, particularly the details on pp. 51-60.\4\ While the
    Guidelines were not perfect, they did provide a common and standardized
    approach to the management of human-bear conflicts while also offering
    the ability to tailor appropriate responses based on the experience of
    state and federal field specialists who knew the details of each
    situation. The acceptance of management decisions will vary depending
    on the view of the publics involved, but over time, the application of
    management actions based on a common set of decision criteria did
    benefit grizzly bears and the public perception of grizzly bears. This
    is not to say that such decision criteria do not exist for wolf
    management in some areas where they were reintroduced or where their
    populations are expanding, as such criteria may exist, but I am not
    aware of them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://npshistory.com/publications/wildlife/interagency-
    grizzly-bear-guidelines.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The acceptance of reintroduced animals that can conflict with human
    activities will be built on the understanding and trust of the public
    in such areas. Trust is built with outreach and education about the
    potential for conflicts and the consistent application of management
    actions to prevent conflicts and address conflicts when they do occur.
    In the long run, in my experience, public trust is built on consistent
    response so that livestock producers know they will get help on ways to
    avoid conflicts and management of those animals that do create
    conflicts. There should be clear messages to the public in the
    reintroduction area that the agencies and the livestock producers have
    a shared interest neither one wants livestock to be lost to predation.
    Most wolves and grizzly bears do not kill livestock, and the management
    agencies share the interests of livestock producers. These messages,
    implemented with consistent application of actions to help livestock
    owners avoid conflicts while responding to conflicts if they happen,
    can be the foundation of trust in the long run. Building trust takes
    time. Trust will be built on actions and mutual cooperation toward the
    shared interests of both agencies and livestock producers.

        Question 9. Committee Democrats released a list of Department of
    the Interior offices, including offices of the US Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS), that are slated for closure by the GSA. The FWS offices
    are listed below. Will their closure impact the speed with which, or
    likelihood that, ranchers are reimbursed for depredation by wolves or
    grizzlies?

        Answer: We are unfortunately in a time when thousands of federal
    employees are being terminated from their jobs without cause and
    without explanation. These job cuts include agency bear and wolf
    management specialists who work closely with livestock producers and
    the public to help reduce conflicts with bears and wolves and to remove
    or relocate any bears or wolves that have committed depredations. The
    non-lethal bear and wolf conflict management programs in USDA Wildlife
    Services are at risk of disappearing. As these unwarranted job cuts
    continue, livestock producers will lose assistance from these agency
    professionals to help prevent or respond to livestock conflicts in bear
    and wolf habitat. The funding from FWS that assists livestock producers
    with ways to reduce conflicts comes from the bipartisan infrastructure
    law.
        Other grants to assist livestock producers with these actions come
    from USDA/NRCS and FWS and USFS:

         Bear-resistant waste solutions--Purchase and distribution
                of bear-resistant garbage cans, dumpsters, grease traps and
                food storage lockers.
         Infrastructure improvements--Establishing or upgrading
                rural transfer stations to better secure attractants.
         Public outreach and education--Developing educational
                materials and programs to increase public awareness about
                bear safety.
         Electric fencing--Installing portable or permanent
                electric fencing and electric drive-over mats on access
                roads to protect orchards, compost piles, garbage,
                livestock, and grain storage.
         Program support--Funding staff time dedicated to
                community-led conflict reduction and education efforts.

        These assistance programs to the livestock industry and to rural
    communities will all cease if the funding is cut, and the personnel are
    fired. The result will be that the livestock producers and these rural
    communities who appreciate this help and embrace these efforts will be
    left high and dry. The ultimate result of the loss of these staff
    positions and this funding to help reduce conflicts will be the
    reversal of recovery efforts for some species and declines in their
    numbers and range once again. The millions of dollars of funding and 40
    plus years of effort that went into recovering this species will be
    negated.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Servheen.
        And I recognize Ms. LeValley for her 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF ROBBIE LeVALLEY, SECRETARY, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL
                          HOTCHKISS, COLORADO

        Ms. LeValley. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
    Dexter, and members of this Subcommittee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the
    impacts of the experimental populations under the Endangered
    Species Act.
        My name is Robbie LeValley and I serve as the Secretary of
    the Public Lands Council. Since 1968, PLC has been the only
    organization in Washington, D.C. dedicated to representing the
    unique perspectives of the cattle and sheep producers who hold
    the 22,000 Federal grazing permits.
        I am a fourth-generation rancher from Hotchkiss, Colorado
    where my family and I run a cow/calf operation. Our ranch holds
    Federal grazing permits not only on the BLM, but the National
    Park Service and Forest Service as well.
        We have a strong partnership with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service as we have partnered to manage our grazing,
    build additional habitat, build ecosystem projects for the
    threatened Gunnison sage grouse.
        In 2020, Colorado narrowly passed Proposition 114 which
    directed state officials to introduce and manage gray wolves
    West of the Continental Divide by the end of 2023. Colorado
    Parks and Wildlife then released 10 gray wolves only on the
    Western Slope, aiming to establish a self-sustaining
    population.
        Those who supported the introduction of the wolves were
    primarily from the Front Range of Colorado, far from the
    potential reintroduction sites. Ranchers and land managers on
    the West Slope did not support reintroduction forced by
    politics because we have seen what happens when species
    management is driven by talking points rather than science and
    local feasibility.
        After the passage of the proposition, we worked hard to
    develop a plan that would fulfill the legal obligations while
    minimizing the regulatory burdens and practical impacts of
    introducing a predator in our backyard.
        While the proposition did not take into account local
    input, local Fish and Wildlife Service staff worked with us to
    provide some flexibility through a 10(j) rule. Despite applying
    the most flexible terms, we still faced increased risk to
    families and livestock with new predator population.
        There was a new risk and new Federal regulations that
    didn't exist before. All section 10(j) population caused the
    same new burdens. And while the Service tried to minimize the
    impact in our area, that isn't the experience of most other
    communities across the West.
        Experimental populations carry the burden of a regulatory
    system built on hope that a 10(j) population can thrive and 1
    day be part of the numbers that can lead to a recovered
    population.
        I would argue that for the wolves and the bears and other
    species that are undoubtedly recovered, an additional 10(j)
    population unnecessarily expand the regulatory burdens over a
    wider area since their success has little bearing on the
    species listing status.
        The reintroduction, regardless of how, causes widespread
    impacts. Wolves kill or severely injure cattle and sheep and
    dogs and other pets, leading to that direct economic loss. They
    impact allotments for the indirect loss. And even when
    compensation is available, proven causation is difficult.
        In 2024, two Colorado producers submitted a $582,000
    depredation compensation claim, exhausting the state's fund in
    1 year. This does not include the probable kills or those kills
    that can't be proven.
        The presence of bulls increases stress on livestock,
    causing lower weight gain, reduced calving success, and even
    stress induced abortions. Costs that don't show up in any
    compensation program but directly impact ranch sustainability.
        States see this financial impact as well. The states absorb
    the financial burden of monitoring mitigation and compensation
    programs for introduced species, often to the detriment of the
    other big game species in that state.
        The 10(j) designation is vulnerable to a political and
    legal shift and what is originally an experimental, non-
    essential population can quickly be upgraded to a full-fledged
    protected species. Ranchers need certainty, not a revolving
    door of rules and regulations and moving the goalpost.
        Despite these challenges, we remain committed to stewarding
    these landscapes. In my written testimony, I have made
    recommendations to the wider Committee on how to improve ESA
    administration because section 10(j) is just one small part of
    a larger species recover issues.
        Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter and members of this
    Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share our
    experiences and discuss ways to ensure both species recovery
    and ranching sustainability.
        Thank you. And I look forward to the questions.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. LeValley follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Robbie LeValley, Secretary, Public Lands Council

        Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on
    ``Understanding the Consequences of Experimental Populations Under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA)''. My name is Robbie LeValley, and I serve
    as Secretary of the Public Lands Council (PLC). Since 1968, PLC has
    been the only organization in Washington, D.C., dedicated solely to
    representing the unique perspectives of cattle and sheep producers who
    hold the 22,000 federal grazing permits. On behalf of those thousands
    of permittees and landowners across the West, I appreciate the
    opportunity to provide testimony to this Subcommittee.
        I am a fourth-generation rancher from Hotchkiss, Colorado, where my
    family and I run a cow-calf operation. LeValley Ranch is located in
    West Central Colorado and is a multi-generational business that manages
    private and federal land. We hold federal grazing permits on Bureau of
    Land Mangement (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands. We have a
    strong partnership culture and have worked cooperatively with the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for decades as our private and public
    lands provide the habitat for one of the satellite populations of the
    Threatened Gunnison Sage Grouse. LeValley Ranch and countless other
    permittees across the West provide key habitat for grouse and other
    species, and when necessary, have modified grazing management plans to
    supplement agency actions for the benefit of the grouse.
        Through our family operation and in our leadership roles across the
    industry, my family has been involved for decades in conversations
    about a host of species, including predators like wolves. In November
    2020, the state of Colorado passed Proposition 114, which became state
    statute 33-2-105.8. Despite robust concern from ranchers and rural
    communities alike. The initiative directed the Colorado Parks and
    Wildlife Commission (CPW) to develop a plan to introduce and manage
    gray wolves in Colorado west of the Continental Divide no later than
    December 31, 2023. In December 2023, CPW experts captured 10 gray
    wolves in Oregon. They released them onto public land in Summit and
    Grand counties with the goal of creating a permanent, self-sustaining
    wolf population in Colorado.
        As part of this reintroduction process, CPW requested that the
    USFWS designate the population that would be reintroduced as an
    experimental nonessential population under section 10(j) of the ESA.
    The ESA prohibits the ``take'' of any listed species except as
    specifically allowed by the statute and accompanying regulations. By
    designating wolves in Colorado as a NEP with the 10(j), take of the
    species is authorized in a broader range of circumstances than
    otherwise allowed for an endangered species, including lethal take for
    depredating wolves. While the ballot initiative and subsequent
    introduction was not my preferred outcome, I appreciate the Colorado
    USFWS employees who diligently worked on the entire NEPA process to
    authorize the10(j) designation.
        Gray wolves in much of the United States are listed under the
    federal ESA as endangered and in most places, there are very limited
    tools for ranchers like me, and our state agencies, to take action when
    conflict arises between these apex predators and everything else in the
    ecosystem.
        As a listed species under the ESA, primary management authority
    over gray wolves' rests with the FWS. FWS has delegated some of this
    authority to CPW to take the lead in carrying out the reintroduction in
    Colorado. This delegation, however, does not strip FWS of any of its
    authority to manage the species that it would otherwise have.
    Accordingly, under the current regulatory regime, it is possible, from
    a legal perspective, for FWS to assert its primary authority and impact
    wolf management. However, there is significant uncertainty regarding
    whether FWS would take meaningful action on wolf management. Although
    the agency has the legal authority to do so, even over the state's
    objections, FWS may not be willing or able to have that fight. There is
    also no telling how long such helpful intervention would last.
        While this list is not exhaustive, it compiles some of the direct
    hardships that producers like me and many others face due to the
    federal wolf policy.

      1.  Livestock Depredation--Wolves kill or severely injure cattle and
                sheep, leading to direct economic losses. Even if ranchers
                are compensated for confirmed kills, verifying wolf
                predation can be difficult. Carcasses are often scavenged
                before documentation, and stress-induced injuries or weight
                loss--both of which negatively impact herd health--are not
                compensated. Ranchers bear the financial burden of these
                losses, often with little recourse. At the end of the year,
                two counties submitted a $582,000 depredation compensation
                claim to CPW. If all claims are approved, this would
                deplete the state's compensation fund--and the state is
                preparing for a second round of introductions later this
                year. Costs and depredations will continue to grow
                exponentially.

      2.  Stress and Herd Disruption--The mere presence of wolves alters
                livestock behavior. Increased stress makes cattle skittish,
                leading to reduced weight gain, lower calving success, and,
                in severe cases, stress-induced abortion in pregnant cows.
                These biological responses directly impact the economic
                sustainability of ranching operations and highlight the
                unseen costs of predator management. A 2014 study in
                Montana found that for ranches that had experienced
                depredations by wolves, there was a statistically
                significant decrease in rate of gain: calves were
                approximately 22 pounds lighter \1\ than calves from
                similar operations that did not experience depredation.
                This non-death loss can be the difference between a
                producer operating on a gain or a loss. Additional studies
                suggest that the financial impacts of indirect effects from
                wolves likely exceed direct losses.\2\ while producers are
                only compensated for direct losses of protected species.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ramler, Joseph P., Mark Hebblewhite, Derek Kellenberg, and
    Carolyn Sime. 2014. ``Crying Wolf? A Spatial Analysis of Wolf Location
    and Depredations on Calf Weight.'' American Journal of Agricultural
    Economics 96(3): 631-656. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/
    aat100.
        \2\ Steele, Jordan R., Benjamin S. Rashford, Thomas K. Foulke, John
    A. Tanaka, and David T. Taylor. 2013. ``Wolf (Canis lupis) Predation
    Impacts on Livestock Production: Direct Effects, Indirect Effects, and
    Implications for Compensation Ratios.'' Rangeland Ecology and
    Management 66: 539-544. Available at: https://bit.ly/46Afz7a.

      3.  Impact on Rural Communities--Ranching is the economic backbone of
                many rural communities. As wolf populations expand,
                ranchers face mounting losses that threaten the viability
                of family-run operations. The long-term sustainability of
                these rural economies depends on the ability of ranchers to
                operate without the constant risk of predation losses that
                federal regulations fail to address adequately.
                Additionally, managing NEPs imposes significant financial
                burdens on states, requiring resources for monitoring,
                mitigation, and compensation programs. For example,
                Colorado's wolf reintroduction program has already led to
                millions in taxpayer-funded expenditures, like
                surveillance, management planning, and conflict resolution.
                While the voters who supported reintroduction of the
                species live primarily in eastern Colorado, those of us in
                the West bear the costs of introduction. These financial
                burdens extend beyond direct state funding--rural economies
                reliant on agriculture, outfitting, and tourism face
                increased losses and higher operational costs due to
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                restrictions and predation impacts.

      4.  Uncertainty in Future Management--For too long, ranchers and many
                other industries have faced the pendulum swing of executive
                agency regulation. Federal wildlife policy has become
                unpredictable, where regulatory certainty is nonexistent.
                Under Section 10(j) of the ESA, the USFWS designated
                Colorado's reintroduced wolves as a nonessential
                experimental population, providing some management
                flexibility. However, this status is subject to change
                based on political shifts or legal challenges. Ranchers
                need regulatory certainty--not a revolving door of changing
                policies that disrupt our ability to plan for the future.

        The presence of nonessential populations causes land and resource
    management to change. By introducing a new species, USFWS places
    regulatory burdens on the area that previously did not exist, changing
    the expectation for the landscape and multiple use. This often occurs
    with little regulatory certainty for longstanding economic and social
    uses of the landscape, including grazing, hunting, fishing, and
    wildlife tourism. Large predators introduced under 10(j) designations
    can reduce game populations or change their movement patterns, leading
    to lower hunting success and reduced revenue from hunting licenses--an
    essential funding source for state conservation programs. Additionally,
    federal land agencies must shift management priorities to accommodate
    predator populations, which can disrupt grazing allotments, restrict
    public access, and increase regulatory burdens on land users. These
    shifts often come without adequate stakeholder input, putting rural
    communities at a disadvantage when balancing conservation with economic
    stability.
        Without a doubt, there are substantial unintended consequences and
    increased regulatory burdens as part of any ESA designation.
    Designations made under Section 10(j) are not immune from that
    regulatory burden, because of the transitory nature of the designation.
    In the best-case scenario, a successful 10(j) population will be
    expanded, and tools could be taken away to allow for the full weight of
    the ESA to be applied to ``ramp up'' the intensity of recovery efforts.
    In truth, this could happen whether a 10(j) shows promising
    improvement, or if the species struggles to take a foothold. In either
    case, the 10(j) is the foot in the door that allows the Service to
    introduce a new federal nexus and the accompanying regulatory burdens.
    While this approach makes sense on paper, this Committee is aware that
    ESA has a long, ineffective history that makes clear that a more
    stringent ESA classification does not make it more likely that the
    species will recover.
        As a federal lands grazing permittee, navigating compliance with
    federal regulations and looking for opportunities to improve the
    landscape is part of my baseline mentality. The introduction of the
    gray wolf in Colorado presents a direct threat to operations already
    navigating complex regulatory regimes. While the tools provided under
    the 10(j) have provided some flexibility, many tools to protect our
    cattle, children, and families comes too little, too late. Despite all
    of this, we're still here. We're here because we take pride in our work
    on the landscape and the active management to ensure it stays healthy
    and resilient. We are always adapting to a changing landscape,
    including a dynamic regulatory landscape. While we do what we can to
    continue to feed our nation, I offer some suggestions to members of
    this subcommittee regarding the Endangered Species Act.
        Congress must take meaningful steps to modernize the ESA to ensure
    that conservation efforts do not come at the direct expense of those
    who work the land. The following policy solutions would help address
    the ongoing challenges ranchers face:

      1.  Regulatory Certainty--Stop Moving the Goalpost: The ESA was never
                intended to serve as a permanent regulatory tool--it was
                designed to recover species and then remove protections
                once recovery goals are met. While the 10(j) population in
                Colorado is a new population for the state, it will not be
                the tipping point for the lower 48's species' viability,
                yet populations across the country continue to be treated
                as though they will be the lynchpin that finally secures
                delisting. Congress must ensure that once a species has met
                recovery criteria, the Service takes action to delist the
                species in a timely and final manner.

      2.  Support Science, not Litigation, in Decision-making: The ESA must
                rely on transparent, peer-reviewed, and objective science
                in both listing and delisting decisions, and in decisions
                about critical habitat and recovery plans. Too often,
                species' recovery goals and listing status are based on
                outdated science, politically driven data selection, and
                poorly crafted court edicts that do not reflect the
                scientific reality. Congress should bolster provisions in
                the ESA to support USFWS's position in defending their
                listing, recovery, and delisting decisions from frivolous
                litigation.

      3.  Local and State-Led Management: States are best positioned to
                manage wildlife populations within their borders. States
                have robust state wildlife management plans, are
                responsible for managing all non-listed species within
                their borders and are best attuned to local dynamics.
                Federal oversight is simply unable to accurately account
                for regional ecological conditions, economic realities, and
                the direct needs of rural communities. Congress should
                bolster the requirements for USFWS to consult and work with
                states through the ESA process. This would move away from
                the Service's tendency to promote single-species management
                that compromises all other entities on the landscape and
                would make recovery and post-delisting processes more
                durable.

      4.  Consider Economic Impacts in ESA Listings: The ESA currently
                prohibits economic impacts from being considered in listing
                decisions. This is an outdated and impractical approach.
                Wildlife policy should not be formulated in a vacuum--it
                must account for the people and industries it affects. Or,
                as I would say, wildlife doesn't stop where the gate
                closes. The economic impact analysis should be considered
                before listing decisions are finalized. Rural communities
                should not bear the costs of species protection without a
                seat at the table.

      5.  Incorporate Improved Management Tools for Ranchers and Rural
                Communities: Many of the more controversial species this
                Committee considers are large predators that evoke
                widespread public engagement. When species pose a physical
                risk to their operations and families, the Service should
                ensure ranchers and landowners must have access to the full
                range of predator management tools, including:

         The ability to immediately remove wolves attacking
                livestock without excessive permitting hurdles.

         Greater flexibility in deploying non-lethal deterrents
                such as guard animals, fencing, and the ability to repair
                infrastructure damaged by predators--without burdensome
                federal restrictions.

         Address compensation programs so the impacts aside from
                depredation are considered and producers don't continue to
                carry the weight of these decisions.

        The ESA must be reformed to reflect scientific integrity,
    regulatory certainty, and economic realities. Section 10(j) is a
    starting point and an area where we can begin to listen and learn from
    those on the ground who interact with these species routinely. Wolves
    have met recovery goals, yet their management remains dictated by
    political interests rather than biological science. Ranchers, who
    steward millions of acres of grazing land and contribute to
    conservation through active land management, are being sidelined in
    favor of a regulatory agenda that ignores the on-the-ground realities
    of predator coexistence.
        Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide a review of the
    last several years and offer suggestions about how to build a stronger
    future for the coexistence of our operations and the wildlife on these
    lands. As a fourth-generation rancher, the institutional knowledge of
    the lands we manage will continue to be invaluable to these Western
    landscapes, but we will only be successful if we can maintain a
    business model that supports our families and communities.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

                                     ______

         Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. LeValley, Secretary,
                              Public Lands Council

                  Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar

        Question 1. Ms. LeValley, in your testimony, you mentioned that
    adoption of a 10(j) has consequences for other uses of the landscape,
    particularly on public lands. In Colorado, have you seen any impacts to
    how agencies manage public lands for grazing or other uses as a result
    of the reintroduction of wolves under this section?

        Answer. As outlined in my testimony, the presence of nonessential
    populations causes land and resource management to change. By
    introducing a new species, USFWS places regulatory burdens on the area
    that previously did not exist, changing the expectation for the
    landscape and multiple use. This often occurs with little regulatory
    certainty for longstanding economic and social uses of the landscape,
    including grazing, hunting, fishing, and wildlife tourism. Large
    predators introduced under 10(j) designations can reduce game
    populations or change their movement patterns, leading to lower hunting
    success and reduced revenue from hunting licenses--an essential funding
    source for state conservation programs. Additionally, federal land
    agencies must shift management priorities to accommodate predator
    populations, which can disrupt grazing allotments, restrict public
    access, and increase regulatory burdens on land users. These shifts
    often come without adequate stakeholder input, putting rural
    communities at a disadvantage when balancing conservation with economic
    stability.
        An example that comes to mind, for public lands permittees, is that
    the BLM is currently requesting that any permit renewal include a
    consultation with USFWS under Section 7 because of the experimental
    population of wolves being introduced in Colorado. This includes a
    change-of-season permit. As proposed species, BLM's evaluations would
    be conducted under the regulations for conference (50 CFR 402.10)
    rather than consultation. This means the determination BLM will make
    for wolves in Colorado is based on whether the agency action will
    jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or not. Based on the
    information provided in the background here, no BLM action occurring in
    Colorado could result in jeopardy of this nonessential experimental
    population. There is a completed BA in the Kremmling BLM office
    determining no jeopardy. Holding up permits for a minimum of 120 days
    to consult when a programmatic NEPA was already conducted for the
    entire State of Colorado is causing undue delays for permittees.
        Additionally, the mere presence of wolves on the landscape has
    created uncertainty for permittees. Livestock losses due to wolf
    depredation often go uncompensated or are subject to lengthy,
    bureaucratic verification processes. Even with compensation programs in
    place, the stress on herds, reduced weight gain, and changes in grazing
    patterns negatively impact the bottom line for ranchers. The long-term
    viability of grazing operations is threatened when federal agencies
    prioritize predator recovery over multiple-use mandates that support
    both conservation and working lands.

        Question 2. Has the introduction of wolves as a 10(j)-population
    strengthened or undermined state authority in wildlife management?
    Please explain.

        Answer. The introduction of wolves as a 10(j) population has
    strengthened state authority to some extent, particularly through the
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Colorado Parks and Wildlife
    (CPW) and the USFWS. Section 10(j) provides a framework for increased
    flexibility in management, which is a critical component for landowners
    and permittees. CPW specifically requested the 10(j) designation to
    ensure greater local control over wolf management, particularly
    regarding depredation incidents.
        However, while the MOU provides a pathway for state engagement, the
    reality on the ground is that federal oversight still heavily dictates
    wolf management decisions. The ability of the state to effectively
    manage wolves, including implementing lethal control when necessary--is
    subject to federal review and potential legal challenges from activist
    groups. The extent to which 10(j) strengthens state authority is
    therefore limited by how much deference federal agencies are willing to
    give state wildlife managers.

        Question 3. Under the ESA, the law requires species recovery to be
    based on the best available science. Unfortunately, this is not always
    the case.

        Answer. USGS is the keeper of research papers and citations. Too
    often, older studies remain the default references in NEPA documents,
    rather than incorporating newer research that provides greater clarity.
    This outdated information can lead to agency decisions that fail to
    reflect current conditions on the landscape. Permittees and groups must
    actively submit updated research during public comment periods in the
    hope that it will be incorporated into decision-making.
        One of the biggest issues is that natural resource studies
    typically last only 2-3 years, which is not reflective of long-term
    landscape dynamics. Additionally, research methodologies often do not
    align with real-world management practices, as many studies compare
    ``no grazing'' versus ``bad grazing'' rather than evaluating
    responsible, science-based grazing management. This flawed approach
    reinforces biased conclusions that may not reflect the actual impact of
    livestock grazing on habitat.

        Question 4. In your experience, is the science for species recovery
    always up to date and reflective of real-world conditions, or do you
    see instances where outdated or incomplete data drives agency
    decisions?

        Answer. In my experience, it isn't always outdated or incomplete
    data that drives agency decisions, but this is certainly a factor.
    Litigation seems to win out over science and peer-reviewed research.
    Too often, species recovery goals and listing status are based on
    outdated science and politically driven data selection because poorly
    crafted court edicts that do not reflect the scientific reality have
    excluded more updated data. The ESA needs provisions that bolster
    USFWS's position in defending their listing, recovery, and delisting
    decisions from frivolous litigation. Despite being a well-intentioned
    policy, it has become a punitive land management tool driven by
    politics that puts the burden on ranchers and rural communities.

        Question 5. Could you provide some examples of outdated or
    incomplete data driving agency decisions for species recovery?

        Answer. While there are numerous examples, the most well-known
    example is the stubble height requirement for sage grouse habitat.
    While Greater Sage-Grouse are not protected under the ESA, federal
    agencies have still adopted nonsensical management requirements.
    Federal agencies have historically enforced a blanket 7-inch stubble
    height requirement, assuming that taller grass equates to better
    habitat. However, more recent studies suggest that the quality of
    perennial grasses and overall habitat diversity play a more significant
    role in sage grouse survival than a rigid stubble height measurement.
    Despite this, agencies continue to rely on outdated standards that do
    not account for site-specific conditions or adaptive management
    strategies that could better support both livestock grazing and habitat
    conservation. However, as it relates to predator species I can name a
    couple of cases.
        Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE):
    The USFWS has continued to list the grizzly bear population in the GYE
    as threatened despite multiple scientific studies--some conducted by
    federal agencies themselves--showing that the population has exceeded
    recovery goals for decades. The decision to keep grizzlies listed has
    been driven more by legal challenges and shifting bureaucratic
    requirements rather than the best available science. State wildlife
    agencies, which have the most up-to-date population data, have been
    sidelined in management decisions, creating unnecessary conflicts
    between federal and state authorities.
        Mexican gray wolves: The recovery plan for the Mexican wolf has
    been based on population models that fail to accurately reflect real-
    world conditions. Federal agencies have repeatedly moved the goalposts
    for what constitutes a ``recovered'' population, making it nearly
    impossible to delist the species. Furthermore, depredation impacts on
    livestock are often underreported or dismissed, as agency studies
    prioritize ecological modeling over direct field observations from
    ranchers and land users who experience wolf conflicts firsthand.

        Question 6. The reintroduction of Mexican Wolves and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's poor management of the population has led to a
    catastrophic impact of wolf depredation on livestock in Arizona. How
    has the depredation of livestock affected your bottom line?

        Answer. Our members have certainly felt the impact. Ranchers
    operating in areas with Mexican wolf populations have experienced
    direct losses due to depredation, as well as indirect losses due to
    increased stress on livestock, lower conception rates, and reduced
    weight gain. Compensation programs, where they exist, rarely cover the
    full economic impact of wolf presence. In many cases, verification
    requirements for depredation claims are so stringent that producers
    receive no compensation for missing or injured animals, even when
    circumstantial evidence strongly suggests wolf involvement.
        Arizona Game and Fish recently published the updated numbers for
    the Mexican Gray Wolf.
        In their words:

            ``Mexican wolves saw another year of growth in 2024, according
            to the results of the annual census. The 2024 population survey
            revealed a minimum of 286 Mexican wolves distributed across
            Arizona and New Mexico. This increase marks the ninth
            consecutive year of population growth, the longest continuous
            streak since recovery efforts began. The 2024 minimum count
            represents an 11% increase from the minimum of 257 wolves
            counted in 2023. Survey results show the population is
            distributed with a minimum of 162 wolves in New Mexico and 124
            in Arizona.''

        Despite the continued consecutive growth rate, the subspecies
    remain protected with rural communities bearing the burden. The
    goalpost and recovery plans have been moved to a point where recovery
    will never occur.

        Question 7. And, overall, what effect has depredation by Mexican
    Wolves had on the livestock industry in Arizona?

        Answer. The livestock industry in Arizona has faced significant
    challenges due to wolf depredation. Beyond direct losses of cattle and
    sheep, ranchers have been forced to implement costly mitigation
    strategies such as increased monitoring, range riders, and modified
    grazing practices. These measures add financial and labor burdens
    without fully preventing losses. The presence of wolves has also
    strained relationships between ranchers and wildlife agencies, as
    federal protections often limit management options for problem wolves.
    The cumulative effect is reduced economic viability for ranching
    operations, forcing some producers to downsize or exit the industry
    altogether.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
        Now we recognize Members for their 5 minutes. The first
    gentleman up is Mr. Collins from Georgia.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess you all can tell by the accent I am not from the
    Midwest. I am actually from Georgia, represent the 10th
    district. And I kind of like to make the joke a lot of times, I
    think we have more cows in my district than we have people.
        So it kind of tells you we are a very rural district. And
    while we may not have grizzlies or wolves, I do want to kind of
    give you a problem that we do have that I hear about every year
    from my cattlemen's association. And that is the black vulture,
    which is in Georgia. And this actually is across much of the
    south and it attacks and has been known to kill calves, lambs,
    piglets, and just other type of livestock.
        And so while we don't have your problem, we do have a
    problem because the animals that are attacked, sometimes they
    are not even killed but a lot of times you just have to put
    them down because of the nature of the severity of the
    injuries.
        Despite this and with the problems that we have, these
    black vultures, their nests, their eggs, they are protected by
    the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. And it is because of those
    protections that it keeps us from addressing the problem in
    many ways that you have the same.
        I will give you an example real quick. If a rancher has a
    problem, animals killed, he has got to go through the process.
    And Mr. Clark, I heard a little bit about what you were
    testifying there a few minutes ago. He's got to go through the
    process just to get a migratory bird depredation permit before
    he can even attempt to potentially take lethal remediation
    against the black vultures.
        And that just leaves his livestock wide open for the
    vulture to have a buffet and keep killing. So I understand your
    frustrations. I hear it. I hear it every year from my ranchers,
    from my cattlemen. And it is the same thing. They are subject
    to the Federal Government's abuse of the Endangered Species Act
    and the misuse of the 10(j) process.
        So Mr. Dobson, I wanted to go over a few things with you
    right quick. Over the years, how has the introduction of the
    experimental population of Mexican wolves impacted ranchers'
    ability to protect and care for their livestock?
        Mr. Dobson. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
        It's made it difficult at times. Obviously there's, there's
    flexibility with the 10(j), especially on private property.
    There's not a lot of private property in my state. Only about
    10 or 13 percent of the land in Arizona is private property. So
    not a lot of flexibility on that. But even if there was, the
    majority of our ranches is forest permits.
        So would I want to run the risk of, you know, the publicity
    of taking a wolf on my private property and then having
    everyone show up at my doorstep?
        Mr. Collins. Let's follow up on that. I know what you're
    saying. So you can, you can actually take a wolf on self-
    defense if you have to, but where's the burden of proof? And
    what are the evidentiary standards that you have to show to
    keep those people off your back?
        Mr. Dobson. That's a great question. So you have to prove
    that either the livestock was in the act of being attacked or
    you were in grave danger. I don't know the legalities of, you
    know, does it have to be photo evidence or anything like that.
    But again, I would never even want to be in that position to
    begin with.
        Mr. Collins. Mr. Clark, you were talking about two to 5
    days to get a permit. And it seems like under 10(j), once the
    Federal Government gets a foothold, it's like any other Federal
    agency just over overreach and overburden, you can't get rid of
    it. What's your greatest concerns? I know you have experience
    with wolves. What's your greatest concerns with the grizzly
    bears in the North Cascades?
        Mr. Clark. Thanks for the question. My greatest concern is
    that even though the promises that have been made in the 10(j)
    process are on paper, they're going to get enforced just like
    the wolf recovery effort was. And that is funding can be up in
    the air whether or not compensation is made.
        And also if there's actual how hard it is to prove that my
    animal is attacked by a grizzly bear and that removal can be an
    option.
        Mr. Collins. Do these predators, do they understand what
    state lines and boundaries or how they move about?
        Mr. Clark. No. We were told that the wolves wouldn't swim
    the Columbia river and evidently they took swimming lessons
    somewhere along the way. So they don't respect any sort of
    line.
        Mr. Collins. I think they're going to go where the food is,
    right?
        Mr. Clark. Exactly.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I was going to yield you some time. It looks
    like I'm down.
        Dr. Gosar. You had some great questions.
        So now the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Whenever I talk about Alaska to my colleagues, I remind
    them my home state does resource development the right way.
    This includes oil and gas exploration and production. You don't
    have to take my word for it. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    own ESA Species Status Assessment for polar bear published in
    August 2023, asserts and I quote, ``Past history has determined
    that onshore oil and gas operations can be conducted safely and
    effects on wildlife and the environment minimized.'' Further,
    they go on to say that, ``Plans are reviewed by both leasing
    and wildlife agencies prior to any activity so protective
    measures specific to polar bears can be put into place prior to
    any new activity.''
        We're proud of our record of responsible development in
    Alaska. Yet, with regards to the polar bear, the ESA seems to
    be weaponized to halt projects in Alaska's Arctic.
    Unsurprisingly, the actual numbers of polar bears in the world
    are at record high numbers.
        The agency's decision to list them as threatened was based
    on a prediction of a reduction in sea ice habitat. However, it
    failed to account for these bears' ability to adapt.
        So my question is to anyone who would like to answer it on
    the panel today, why does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    only use leading indicators of negative impacts when building
    population models?
        And also why do they seem to fail to adapt to disconfirming
    evidence of those models?
        Seems like our expert panel doesn't have any answers to why
    they failed to adapt to disconfirming evidence, but I think
    that that is an indicator that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service needs reform in the ESA in order to adjust those
    models.
        And I will now yield the balance of my time back to our
    Chair.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
        Now, Mr. Servheen, are you familiar with the chicken rule?
        Dr. Servheen. The chicken rule? No, sir, I am not.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, there is supposedly 18 birds in a pen, a
    chicken can only recognize 16 of the other birds. So they hired
    a chicken psychologist, believe it or not, to find out what the
    birds think about those other two birds in the pen.
        You know, I'm going to come back to you, Mr. Clark. We are
    seeing pictures up here. You have to let this animal die before
    you get compensated, right? You can't kill it? They are not
    feeling that, right?
        Mr. Clark. Incorrect. Thanks for the question.
        No, that the, the animals are suffering the entire time
    until we can put them down, sir.
        Dr. Gosar. So I don't get this. We are concerned about
    chickens, but we are not concerned about cattle, sheep? Does
    that make sense to you?
        Mr. Clark. No, sir.
        Dr. Gosar. Would surprise you that previous Administration
    tried to rush rules and regulations on consultation through?
    Last year it was mucked up that the consultation is very needed
    with individuals and local municipalities more so today than
    ever before?
        Mr. Clark. Yes. Thanks for the question.
        I believe that, you know, we went through this process
    several times in the last decade. They tried to reintroduce the
    species without 10(j) and during that process, the public input
    was very against that. And so then they rolled out the 10(j)
    process in order to circumvent their re-introduction.
        Dr. Gosar. Wow. So let me ask another question. Do these
    animals, when you show up, do they just run away, these apex
    predators?
        Mr. Clark. No. Thanks for the question.
        No, because there is no physical harm deterrent to these
    animals. They become very acclimated to human presence. And so
    we literally will have them within, you know, 50 to 100 yards
    of humans and vehicles. And they just watch you do whatever
    you're doing.
        Dr. Gosar. I am familiar with grizzlies, that they are very
    sensitive to boat horns, but wolves are not. Can you tell us a
    little bit about that?
        Mr. Clark. So in my experience, wolves are a very
    intelligent animal and they figure out where they can and can't
    get away with predation. And whenever they associate a certain
    thing with danger, then they remove themselves from that area.
    But when there is no real danger deterrent for those animals,
    they're no longer afraid of anything that you throw at them.
        Dr. Gosar. So I want to ask one more question of you. So
    you're not against this 10(j)? It is just that it needs
    consultation and it needs better outlines, right? To follow?
        Mr. Clark. Exactly.
        Dr. Gosar. OK.
        And same thing with you, Mr. Dobson, correct?
        Mr. Dobson. Correct.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank you.
        I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa,
    for his 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it a
    lot.
        You know, we are having just a big outbreak of wolf kills
    up in the Northeast corner of California and on the Oregon side
    of the line here and people are just running out of options.
        On the Oregon side, they are actually taking some action to
    deter wolves. California is much more open to wolf destruction.
    So it is difficult, but I would like to ask the panel. Is there
    a target number that we will see that the wolf is recovered,
    that it is no longer threatened or endangered in North America?
    Is there some kind of number that we can put our finger on that
    we have been successful with through the ESA?
        Mr. Clark. Thanks for the question. That's an excellent
    question. We've been asking that of the managers of those
    species ever since the introduction of them and we've yet to
    receive an answer. If it is an answer, it changes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Do we need to do a Freedom of Information Act
    to get the answer from them or where is the answer?
        Mr. Clark. I would love to know that answer.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Me too. There is a pretty extensive population
    of gray wolf in the upper middle Midwest states and in Canada,
    right? I mean, tens of thousands; is that correct? Are they
    considered endangered up there as well? Anybody who wants to
    please.
        Mr. Clark. Yes, thanks.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And more than one of you.
        Mr. Clark. To my knowledge, there's a fully recovered
    population in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming. The states are in the
    eastern third of Oregon and Washington. The states are in
    charge of managing those species. So that means they're fully
    recovered and also in the upper Midwest.
        Mr. LaMalfa. But they're still on a list of endangered or
    threatened, right?
        Mr. Clark. Depends on the minute.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Depends on what?
        Mr. Clark. Depends on the minute.
        Mr. LaMalfa. The minute. OK, so if we were to introduce
    giraffes to Northern America, I don't think they're considered
    endangered in Africa, I'm not current on that, but if you
    started introducing giraffes, would they become endangered here
    in North America as we don't have enough of them in each state.
    You don't have to answer that, but that seems to be the logic
    of how it goes.
        Now when there's tons of wolves that we can go view and
    enjoy in the upper Midwest, my home state of California seems
    to have mating pairs or packs in every single county otherwise
    it's still considered endangered.
        Is that sort of more or less the logic that we're dealing
    with here?
        Mr. Clark. So yes, thanks for the question. That's where
    I'm stuck where I live is I live on the west side of Highway
    97, and I'm still in a federally protected endangered area.
        So even though there's just as many wolves in my backyard
    as my neighbors across the river, I have to deal with it.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, that arbitrary, we have 97s down in my
    part of California, too, so same deal.
        My understanding, too, is we have had, you know, at least
    15 calves killed in my region there recently. And of course,
    the burden to prove it is a wolf kill seems to be very
    arbitrary as well. I mean, there's not like, you know, alien
    ships coming down making crop circles or also mangling a few
    calves. It is pretty obvious, but the Fish and Game folks don't
    seem to want to verify and make whatever meager award that is
    going to be.
        But we do have a situation where they keep catching them
    and tagging them and putting collars on them, and our
    understanding of that is that it is basically halfway
    domesticating them. We have incidents where wolves run right
    past people that are doing whatever legal hazing they can do,
    and they run right past either getting livestock or pets right
    off somebody's porch.
        Talk to me about that little bit there with what measures
    do you really have that are effective in keeping the wolves off
    of you?
        Mr. Dobson. So the question is, what issues do we have to
    keep the wolves off of us?
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
        Mr. Dobson. There's a lot of issues but I think the largest
    issue----
        Mr. LaMalfa. What tools? I guess what tools? Is there
    anything that's effective? You're kind of alluding to that
    there isn't?
        Mr. Dobson. Right. And I alluded to that in my oral and
    it's also in my written testimony. But there's a lot of
    indirect costs that we bear as ranchers too to keep wolves off
    of our livestock.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Are they effective? Yes or no?
        Mr. Dobson. At the beginning, they can be effective. And
    then immediately after the wolves figure out, like Mr. Clark
    said, that there's no danger associated with it, then they
    kind----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Right. So they become used to it? They become
    used to it.
        Dr. Servheen, you think this is working for people?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, I think with proper management we can
    recover grizzly bears and wolves. And I want to comment about
    the issue, you know, like wolves that are being calm around
    people and walking up to people. That's not normal and animals
    like that need to be removed. That's what's called habituation.
    Loss of normal fear response.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And how do we remove them?
        Dr. Servheen. You shoot them and get rid of them.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Do we have permission to do that?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, I'm not a wolf manager in California
    and Oregon, so I can't give you those details. But I'm a
    longtime manager of a large, fairly aggressive species and you
    can balance the needs of people with the needs of those animals
    by removing animals that do come into conflicts. And for
    grizzly bears, we don't like animals that are habituated that
    walk up to people. That's dangerous.
        Mr. LaMalfa. It is. I am glad you agree with that because
    we have not heard a whole lot of help coming from anybody on
    the official side. You put collars on and you tag them and they
    get used to it and they just run right past you.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Chairman, I'm over time. I appreciate it. I
    yield back. Thank you.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin.
        I'm sorry, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Boebert is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And apologies to the
    gentleman from Wisconsin. We'll get right to you, sir.
        Thank you, Chairman, for having this hearing today. And
    thank you to our witnesses for joining us. And I would
    especially like to thank Ms. Robbie LeValley for coming in from
    Hotchkiss, Colorado. Beautiful part of Colorado, if I may add.
    My mom's actually here. She's living in Montreux, so she's
    fairly close to you.
        But we're here to discuss the impacts on the ESA and those
    that they have on the LeValley Ranch. In 2020, voters in Denver
    and Boulder passed Proposition 114, directing the Colorado
    Parks and Wildlife Commission to develop a plan to introduce
    and manage gray wolves in Colorado West of the Continental
    Divide.
        Because of this, Colorado has rushed through the
    importation of Canadian gray wolves and has set them loose in
    our state, despite numerous protests and questions about the
    legality of this dysfunctional and chaotic approach putting
    predators over people.
        Ms. LeValley, I have heard from farmers and ranchers across
    the state how this misguided proposition has created so many
    issues from depredation to increased regulatory burden. Would
    you mind discussing how the reintroduction of the gray wolf has
    impacted your ranch, specifically in Hotchkiss, Colorado?
        Ms. LeValley. Thank you for the question. When we think
    about the impacts, and you all have heard the impacts, as was
    mentioned in opening statements, for many years to come, for
    many years in the past and going forward, it is that regulatory
    uncertainty. It is the changing of the goalpost. It is the lack
    of ability when there is a predation that the tie actually goes
    to the landowner who has experienced the significant loss,
    whether it be a livestock or a working dog or a pet. Those are
    the individuals that have experienced that loss.
        And again, because of this, when we look at the entirety of
    that program, it is very difficult to confirm those predations.
    It is very difficult for them to have that compensation in
    place. It is written down that compensation will occur. It is
    written down in the process but the reality on the ground is
    that is extremely difficult.
        The same has played out in the state of Colorado with this
    10(j) population. I want to be clear, we did ask for this and
    we worked very hard for this, but what is on paper is very
    difficult to implement on the ground because the reality does
    not match the plan.
        Ms. Boebert. Yes, and I would agree that 10(j) ruling is
    very important and something that we have all fought hard to
    get. I have heard from farmers and ranchers across the state
    how misguided this proposition has created so many issues. And
    with this we have seen since the reintroduction of the wolves
    in our state, the gray wolves kill or severely injure cattle
    and sheep, resulting in direct economic losses to ranchers
    themselves.
        And so you mentioned how difficult it is to verify these
    kills to ensure ranchers can get compensation for these losses.
    And at the end of the year, I think two counties submitted
    depredation compensation claims to CPW. And if all claims are
    approved, this would deplete the state's compensation fund. And
    the state is preparing for a second round of introductions
    later this year, not to mention how much the state is spending
    on bypassing U.S. sources to import wolves from Canada.
        So Ms. LeValley gray wolf populations, including the
    experimental populations, not only met but also exceeded
    recovery goals across the lower 48 states. I believe that it is
    past time to delist the gray wolf and return management to the
    states, but will working with the state government simplify the
    management of these populations compared to handling the
    complexity of the Federal Government and the ESA?
        Ms. LeValley. Again, thank you for that. Each state, when
    we look across the entire range of whether we're talking about
    the wolf or the bear, then again, they have to balance that
    management of that species with all of the other management of
    the big game species.
        And so it is that management and not just the single
    species focus that is critical for the states to take on and
    again have that balance for that. So overall, the numbers have
    recovered again.
        Again, additionally, states have taken on the approaches
    based on their numbers, based on their habitat, based on their
    ability to manage, and as we move forward, then those states
    will continue with that. But we have to have that approach for
    the individual rancher who pays the price for all of these
    regulations and has to manage for that with cumulative impact,
    be able to look at a predation, be able to say that that
    predation is from one of the predators that is being introduced
    and then move forward with the process without undue regulation
    and burden of proof.
        Ms. Boebert. Thank you so much, Ms. LeValley, for being
    here in Washington, D.C. from Hotchkiss.
        Today, Colorado's agriculture producers have lost 580,000
    in just 1 year from wolves already introduced. And we should be
    working with our farmers and ranchers who tirelessly labor to
    feed us instead of rushing foreign predators into our state and
    bloating even further a terribly mismanaged wolf program.
        I think we need to have the ability to immediately remove
    wolves attacking livestock and without excessive permitting
    hurdles.
        Thank you again and I yield.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
        The gentleman from Arizona, the newest member of our
    delegation is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Ansari. Thank you. Mr. Chair.
        I am proud to represent Arizona's third congressional
    district. My district in which is Phoenix, Glendale and
    Guadalupe is very much on the front lines of the climate
    crisis. In 2024, we saw 143 days that reached temperatures of
    100 degrees or warmer, leading to nearly 600 heat related
    deaths in Maricopa County.
        The Endangered Species Act has been a lifeline for
    Arizonans. It has brought species back that stitch our
    ecosystem together. The Mexican gray wolf, down to seven in the
    1970s and now 257 strong across our state, is a keystone
    species. Our ecosystem dies without it. That is the ESA at work
    stabilizing the forest and rivers we rely on.
        Section 10(j), the experimental populations provision
    allowed the wolves to be reintroduced and now Republicans want
    to gut it. These Trump administration rollbacks of the ESA are
    a theft for our communities and our ecosystems.
        When Republicans talk about rolling back the ESA, it is not
    just about wolves or bears. It is just another piece of the
    agenda to silence our communities, the communities I proudly
    represent. They want to strip American communities of our right
    to be a part of the decision-making process about the land we
    live on, the water we drink, and the air we breathe and this is
    just another example of that.
        Instead of undermining the Endangered Species Act, I urge
    my colleagues to strengthen critical conservation and recovery
    efforts.
        With that, I'd like to turn to my questions.
        Mr. Servheen, can you describe how Section 10(j) of the ESA
    was applied to successfully reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf,
    California condor, black-footed ferret, and other threatened
    species in my home state of Arizona?
        Dr. Servheen. 10(j) is used under the Endangered Species
    Act for the reintroduction of species, and all the species you
    mentioned were basically gone and had to be reintroduced. 10(j)
    does allow more management flexibility, and it was specifically
    put in place for reintroductions where there might be concerns
    about the impacts of this new species. New, because it was gone
    for a while and now it's being returned.
        In general, 10(j) should have the flexibility to give local
    people the needs that they have to meet their needs for,
    whether it's livestock conflicts or safety issues or whatever.
    We've heard a lot in the comments today about maybe they don't
    believe that the way it's being applied is proper, but maybe
    the details on how it can be applied and those management
    details can be fixed or improved but 10(j) in and of itself is
    a very effective way to bring species back from the edge.
        And we've done a tremendous job of eliminating species
    across the United States and under the ESA and 10(j), we've
    brought a lot of them back, as you mentioned. And what I could
    hope, or what I would hope, is that we could improve the
    application of 10(j) and not eliminate 10(j) as an application.
        Ms. Ansari. Thank you.
        Predators such as grizzlies and wolves are known to play
    vital roles in our ecosystem but we hear concerns from ranchers
    about the potential for attacks on livestock. How do wildlife
    managers aim to balance the ecological importance of these
    animals with the needs of local communities? How would you say
    common compensation programs help ranchers mitigate these
    losses? And how can Congress support the availability and
    effectiveness of these programs?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, compensation is really important
    because we don't want the livestock producers, my colleagues
    here at the table, to be bearing the burden for these species
    that are brought back, like wolves and grizzly bears. They need
    to be compensated for any losses they have. And there should be
    prompt and effective programs to manage those particular
    animals that are involved in predation, which we can do. We can
    figure out which ones are the problem and remove those.
        As I mentioned in my testimony, the vast majority of
    grizzly bears and wolves do not kill livestock. There's a few
    offending animals, and those animals need to be dealt with. So
    I think there are ways that we can balance the needs of people
    with the needs of these animals. We've shown that with grizzly
    bears and wolves in the Northern Rockies, and I would hope that
    we could do that with other areas, such as the Mexican Wolf and
    some of the other species that were mentioned at the hearing
    today.
        Ms. Ansari. Thank you so much. And my final question. The
    ESA has successfully restored wolf and grizzly populations
    throughout the country, as you've mentioned. However, the
    growth is now being used to justify removing protections that
    have allowed these animals to thrive.
        Under the ESA population count is just one of the criteria
    that must be met to delist a threatened species and ensure its
    long-term stability. What are some of the other criteria and
    what are the risks of prematurely delisting a species before it
    has fully recovered?
        Dr. Servheen. That's a really important question because
    many people, when they think about the recovery of listed
    species, just look at the numbers of animals on the landscape.
        Another part of the Endangered Species Act is it requires
    that adequate regulatory mechanisms be in place before any
    population is delisted. Adequate regulatory mechanisms by and
    large deal with two issues, mortality regulation and the
    maintenance of proper habitat.
        If you don't have adequate regulatory mechanisms and you
    turn the management over to an entity like the state, you could
    have serious problems where the mortality for the species that
    was doing fine when it was listed starts to be excessive and
    the population numbers go down.
        And we've seen that with wolves where the states,
    particularly Idaho and Montana, have put in place extremely
    aggressive systems to try to kill the wolves. Idaho's trying to
    eliminate 90 percent of its wolf population from 1,500 to 150.
    Montana is going from 1,100 down to 450. And those are not
    based on any facts. There's no need to do that. The wolves are
    not threatening big game populations. And in fact the wolves in
    and of themselves have been stable since 2013.
        So you know, without adequate regulatory mechanisms, what
    will happen is that recovered species will start to decline
    again and they'll be in trouble.
        Ms. Ansari. Thank you.
        Mr. LaMalfa [presiding]. The Committee now recognizes Mr.
    Tiffany.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are hearing once
    again move the goalposts. The species have recovered, but we're
    going to move the goal post out of some other reason.
        I want everyone in this room to take a look at this picture
    behind me. Everyone in this room, take a look at this picture
    behind me. This is the slaughter that is going on in my home
    state of Wisconsin as well as many other states. And it is the
    reason why Representative Boebert and I have once again
    introduced the Wolf Delisting bill, the Pet and Livestock
    Protection Act.
        I see some people in the room have not looked at that
    picture yet. Take a look at it. That is what is happening all
    over the state of Wisconsin and in particular in my district.
        So let's Read this off from the Wisconsin Farm Bureau,
    Bayfield County. My child isn't safe at the bus stop. Wood
    County. I drive a school bus. I've seen wolves in people's
    driveways. Price County. I have a lot of young stock dairy
    cows. I went to the DNR, pictures of what happened, they told
    me I don't have enough evidence for a case. I sold my herd.
        We are wary of our Labrador taking it for a walk in Iron
    County. Portage County. Numerous deer kills. Langley County.
    Afraid to walk my property with a dog. Langley County. I've had
    to secure pets indoors, especially at night. Lincoln County. We
    had to put one horse to sleep as it was chased through a fence
    and severed its hoof. A year later, we had another horse spend
    8 days in the vet clinic recuperating.
        Those are the stories of the carnage that is happening
    around America, including in my home state of Wisconsin.
        Mr. Dobson, have you heard of ranchers or farmers that have
    not even bothered filing wolf depredation claims?
        Mr. Dobson. Yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. And why are they not filing those claims?
        Mr. Dobson. We spend a lot of time out on in the forest and
    spending time with these investigators. And over the years we
    have come to find out what will pass and what will not. And so
    we realize that these investigators have limited time and
    resources.
        Mr. Tiffany. So you're not being compensated, is that
    correct? For some?
        Mr. Dobson. Not on all of them, yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. And are you being compensated for a loss of
    weight gain or a loss of production like with milk cows?
        Mr. Dobson. No, sir. And that's, that's my largest
    complaint about everything is direct cost is a fraction of what
    the indirect costs are.
        Mr. Tiffany. Dr. Servheen, the original recovery goal for
    wolves in Wisconsin was 100. That was 100 for Wisconsin and the
    Upper Peninsula of Michigan that exists yet today, now there
    are well over a thousand wolves that are in Wisconsin alone,
    and add the Upper Peninsula and I am sure you are looking at
    two to 3,000 wolves that are in that area.
        Would you say wolves have recovered?
        Dr. Servheen. I'm not a wolf expert, sir. I can't give you
    the details on that. The numbers sound like there's a lot of
    wolves out there. But as I said, to achieve recovery, you have
    to have more than just a number of animals.
        Mr. Tiffany. Should we allow mitigation of conflicts? You
    talked about that earlier. Should we allow mitigation of
    conflicts?
        Dr. Servheen. What do you mean by mitigation, sir?
        Mr. Tiffany. Removing wolves?
        Dr. Servheen. Yes. I think you need to manage wolves. They
    can't be totally protected.
        Mr. Tiffany. So do you agree with the judges that have said
    you cannot dispatch a wolf unless it is threatening you as a
    human. You can't protect your pets. You can't protect your
    livestock. Do you agree with that rationale by some judges?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, I don't know the whole story there. You
    know, if a wolf is threatening livestock or threatening people
    or threatening dogs, it would seem that that wolf needs to be
    removed. Who does the removal? I can't tell you that, based on
    the law.
        Mr. Tiffany. Do you believe those wolves should be removed?
        Dr. Servheen. I think that wolves that are aggressive to
    people and pets and livestock should be removed, yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. You said you don't trust the states. Why don't
    you trust my state of Wisconsin, the Pet and Livestock
    Protection Act, we want to return management to the states. Why
    don't you trust the state of Wisconsin Department of Natural
    Resources to manage their wolf population?
        Dr. Servheen. I have never said anything about the state of
    Wisconsin, sir. I don't know anything about the state of
    Wisconsin.
        Mr. Tiffany. You alluded to you do not trust states in,
    when you were under questioning from the gentlewoman from
    Arizona, you said we can't always trust states because they get
    it wrong. Why don't you trust a state like Wisconsin?
        Dr. Servheen. I think the problem is not so much the state.
    It's the politicians in the state. Sometimes politicians go in
    directions that are not really proper for wildlife management.
        By and large, politicians do not make good wildlife
    managers. I don't want to argue with you about these issues.
        Mr. Tiffany. I'm going to conclude here my time's up.
        So you want to have it both ways is what you want to have
    here, Dr. Servheen You are going to need to make a decision at
    some point. The slaughter continues here in America. The wolf
    has recovered. It is time to pass the Pet and Livestock
    Protection Act.
        Look behind me. Dr. Servheen and others. 26 wildlife
    biologists in the upper Great Lakes states 10 years ago said it
    is time to delist the wolf, in particular to save the
    Endangered Species Act.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Servheen. So I'm not advocating to maintain listing for
    Wisconsin wolves. I want to make that clear. I don't know the
    situation in Wisconsin. A lot of those people on that board
    behind you are good friends of mine and I trust them.
        Mr. LaMalfa. The gentleman yields back.
        We now recognize Ms. Hageman from Wyoming.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
        We have recovered the wolves and the Grizzly bear in
    Wyoming and we do a dang good job of managing both. I also
    think that we have to return to the old adage from the Bible
    that says those who hate wisdom love death. And that summarizes
    radical environmentalist obsession with predators.
        Over the many years, when talking about wolves in Montana,
    Idaho and Wyoming the recover goal for each of those states is
    150 wolves. That was agreed to by the fish, or, excuse me, the
    Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Wyoming, and has also
    been approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington,
    D.C.
        Both Idaho and Montana have over 1,000 wolves. That's why
    they have an aggressive control program because of the
    depredation on their livestock association with having that
    many wolves in their state.
        In Wyoming, we do a very good job in managing them. We have
    about 350 head, but we are able to manage them as predators in
    the vast majority of the state because that's what they are.
        Mr. Dobson, in Wyoming and other Western states, we have
    seen firsthand how predatory introductions under ESA 10(j)
    rules devastate rural economies and private landowners. Your
    experience in Arizona mirrors the struggles faced by ranchers
    in my home state. And when you talk about compensation, there
    are so many people who will claim that the compensation
    programs make up for livestock losses due to predator
    depredation. Yet, we know that they often fail to fully
    reimburse ranchers for their financial and operational burdens.
    In fact, there is no compensation for loss of weight or other
    impacts on livestock. There's no compensation for the
    disruption to breeding programs.
        And in fact, in Wyoming, we did a study on the gray wolf
    population after they were introduced in 1994 and we found that
    for every head of livestock that was killed, there were seven
    to eight that went missing that were killed by the wolves and
    none of that was subject to compensation by anyone.
        The introduction of Canadian gray wolves in one Wyoming
    under Rule 10(j) has had a terrible impact on our livestock
    industry and on our other wildlife.
        Have you or other ranchers in your area received adequate
    compensation for livestock losses due to experimental wolf
    populations?
        Mr. Dobson. No.
        Ms. Hageman. No. And that's been the experience that I have
    had as well and the same with the grizzly bear. Going to the
    grizzly bear. They have been designated as threatened since
    1975. They have been recovered for over two decades.
        Wyoming, in fact, does have an adequate regulatory
    mechanism in place to protect the grizzly bear but the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and rogue courts refused to allow us to
    delist.
        In fact, the recovery goal was 500 bears. We have over
    1,100 in the state of Wyoming. So again, you can imagine the
    impact on our livestock industry and our other wildlife
    populations.
        The previous Administration's approach to ESA enforcement
    has often ignored the concerns of local communities and
    landowners. In fact, many administrations and Dr. Servheen, I
    would include you in this category, it doesn't seem that it
    really matters to you what the impact is to our livestock
    producers, to our local communities when you have these
    predators that are either brought in from another place or
    allowed to exponentially increase their population because of
    the protection.
        Mr. Dobson and Mr. Clark, what would be some of your
    recommendations of how we can better manage these species to
    protect and provide the balance that some people give lip
    service to in terms of species protection at the same time that
    we are also protecting our other industries?
        Mr. Dobson, what are your ideas?
        Mr. Dobson. As far as the 10(j)? I'm not sure I have any
    suggestions on that. My suggestion would that we find some sort
    of compensation model that takes into effect those indirect
    costs that we have to deal with. Like I mentioned earlier with,
    with Farm Bureau, three and a half percent drop in weaning
    weights. That's one fraction of it, right? I have to hire extra
    people specifically for wolves. I have to make extra trips to
    the mountain. I have to haul hay, I have to haul water. All of
    these things that don't even touch any of the cost that I have
    to pay out of pocket.
        Ms. Hageman. You know, one time I was talking to somebody
    who was an expert on the ESA, somebody who really wanted to
    have it interpreted as broadly as it possibly could and to list
    more and more species and to delist fewer. And I asked them,
    OK, what about compensation for landowners or livestock
    producers or the individuals that are affected by this? And
    they said we don't believe it is a problem appropriate to do a
    compensation program under the ESA. And I said why not? If this
    is a national policy adopted pursuant to the 1972 Endangered
    Species Act and you have some people who say it doesn't matter
    what the cost is, it doesn't matter what the economic impact is
    we must protect all species at all costs to make sure that they
    do not go extinct.
        And I said if that is the national policy, why isn't there
    a national compensation program? And they said because we
    recognize if there is and if everybody has to bear that cost,
    that there will be less support for the Endangered Species Act.
        If the cost is only borne by a limited number of people,
    primarily in the Western United States, primarily some of the
    industries such as ranching, farming, energy production, they
    believe that that was a fair trade off because then the rest of
    America could believe that this was a good policy. A small
    number would bear the cost, everybody else could, I guess,
    believe that they were doing the right thing without regard to
    the economic cost was and I think that's really what so many
    people, who support these policies, believe.
        With that, I yield back.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
        The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hurd, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to our witnesses.
        Well, it's great to have producers here from Arizona,
    Washington and Colorado. I am particularly glad to have a
    rancher from Western Colorado here, Ms. LeValley, thank you for
    all you and LeValley Ranch do to feed our families, to care for
    our land, and to contribute to the fabric of Delta County and
    Colorado and the West.
        In your testimony you mentioned the economic hardships that
    come with forced introduction of wolves. Can you talk a little
    bit more about not just the direct, but also the indirect costs
    that ranchers and livestock growers face from wolf introduction
    and to the extent to which those are compensated or not?
        Ms. LeValley. Thank you so much for this question.
        And again, when I am sitting here and I am representing the
    Public Lands Council, I am representing grazing permittees
    across the West. And when we think about the economic hardship,
    here is an area that is often not talked about.
        You've heard it alluded to today about the decrease in
    weaning weight, the decrease in conception rate, the impact
    there, the increased labor cost, the other cost that has come
    to bear out so significantly across the West is whole grazing
    allotments.
        Significant well-managed grazing rotations are seriously
    impacted by the presence of either the wolf or the grizzly and
    whole landscapes can no longer be used. That is an economic
    hardship that is often not talked about.
        When those grazing allotments cannot be used, then those
    areas have to be managed other ways and that management comes
    at a cost that is often not played out on the ground and we
    have that increase in fuel load and we have that increase in
    the potential for fire.
        So it's not just that straight compensation for the
    depredation. It is significant loss in the weaning weight, as
    you see in the testimony based on research of a minus 22 pounds
    per animal for just the weaning weight alone.
        It is the grazing allotments. It is the reduction of the
    grazing management rotations and the well-managed systems, as
    well as the conception rate as well as the stress. And in
    addition to that, it is the mental anguish for our producers as
    well to not only ride up on these depredations but constantly
    have to deal with that changing goal post.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you very much, Ms. LeValley.
        My next question is for Mr. Dobson, Mr. Clark, and Ms.
    LeValley. In his testimony, Mr. Servheen said that in his
    experience running one of the most controversial predator
    programs in this country's history, he believes that
    cattlemen's associations think that they have the tools they
    need to deal with depredation.
        Do you agree, Mr. Dobson?
        Mr. Dobson. No.
        Mr. Hurd. What is missing?
        Mr. Dobson. To me, what's missing is a full compensation
    for indirect losses. And also, as Ms. LeValley pointed out, the
    changing of goal posts. That's something huge that we've dealt
    with from the beginning of this program.
        We talked about number of wolves in Arizona, New Mexico.
    When first introduced, it was about somewhere 100 wolves. A
    little over 100 wolves is what the population needed to be. Now
    they've changed it to 300 because there wasn't enough genetic
    diversity.
        So changing a goalpost makes it really hard for us to
    manage anything that we are told.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Dobson.
        Mr. Clark, do you believe that cattlemen's associations
    think they have all the tools they need to deal with
    depredation?
        Mr. Clark. No, I'd respectfully disagree with that
    statement. All the interactions that I've had in our local
    county cattleman's organization as well as our state, the
    producers are very frustrated, to say the least, with the
    process. They feel like they do their part, they do all the
    deterrence, everything that they can possibly do, and then,
    like Dalton mentioned, then the goal post is moved and they
    can't remove a problem wolf or they can't protect their
    livestock.
        And so it's very frustrating. And so as they get frustrated
    process, they become withdrawn from it.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Clark.
        Ms. LeValley.
        Ms. LeValley. Again, it is written down on paper and what
    is often written down on paper is not the reality when it comes
    to the implementation. And so, no, there is not all the tools,
    and there definitely is not the ability to actually implement
    what tools are listed on the paper.
        And too often the tools on the landscape do not reflect the
    reality of distance, topography, terrain, impact, and the fact
    that you literally do not see these animals.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the
    producers here and across the West for feeding our families.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Dr. Gosar. I appreciate it.
        Now, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Gosar, Madam Ranking Member, Chairman
    Gosar, thank you very much for the opportunity to be part of
    this hearing today.
        I joined because I wanted to have some input into this
    discussion about the Biden administration Fish and Wildlife
    Service introduction of the 10(j) rule that truly has the
    potential, and I think has proven, to have grave consequences
    not only in my constituents, but visitors to the northern part
    of my district. And as you've heard from other Members of
    Congress, other states in the country.
        Against the will of my constituents, the Biden
    administration decided to, to move forward last year,
    finalizing a rule to establish a get this non-essential
    experimental population of grizzly bears into my district.
        Now, this decision is a long time in the making. Over a
    decade of public meetings, comment periods, over two
    administrations, Republican and Democrat, my constituents have
    submitted numerous comments, almost too many to count, as well
    as have come here to Washington D.C. to testify, and that's not
    a short distance from the state of Washington.
        They've attended every public meeting available to describe
    the potential major negative impacts that the introduction of
    another apex predator will have into their backyards. And yes,
    I said another. The Canadian gray wolf has already wreaked
    havoc across my district for farmers, for ranchers, even for
    specialty crop growers, making it nearly impossible to shelter
    their operations from a predator that truly knows no bounds.
        So I appreciate every single one of the witnesses that are
    here to testify on the impacts of these experimental
    populations of predators.
        First of all, I would like to, to ask Mr. Clark a question
    and thank you for making the long trek out here in Washington
    D.C.
        You described in your testimony the negative impacts of
    such a designation in our state, and I think you did that
    extremely well. Could you talk a little bit more about how the
    previous Administration ignored constituents and the impact
    that a dual predator load could have on operations such as
    yours and your neighbors?
        Mr. Clark. So like you mentioned, we had an extensive
    process over the last decade and a half of this reintroduction
    or introduction happening. It was overwhelmingly a negative
    response at all the public meetings, all the comments. We raise
    a lot of concerns that we felt like were not addressed
    properly. And so kind of the last minute of the last
    Administration, we felt like that he shoved this through
    quickly.
        And as far as the second part of your question, again,
    what?
        Mr. Newhouse. To know if the Administration ignored our
    constituents, which I believe you answered that, but also the
    impact of having these predators to you and your neighbors?
        Mr. Clark. So we've already been dealing with a significant
    population of wolves for the past about 15 years. And so that
    has had a devastating effect on the local wildlife population,
    especially large ungulates, you know, deer and elk populations.
        So by introducing the grizzly bear, there's, in my opinion,
    there's not going to be enough food source for both grizzlies
    and wolves to not have a bigger impact on the livestock
    industry than they would have if there was only one of those
    species there.
        Mr. Newhouse. Yes, that's the point that we have been
    trying to make, that bears eat a lot. They are going to be
    dropped into places that are supposedly a long ways away from
    population centers but where are they going to go for their
    food? And that's to where the people live.
        Ms. LeValley, apologize, Mr. Dobson, as well as Mr. Clark,
    I wanted you to comment, if you could, on what I heard Mr.
    Huffman say.
        He's of the belief that the impacts of wolves and bears
    are, in his words, exaggerated. Do any of you guys think that
    you are exaggerating the impacts to your farms or to your
    ranches? Or maybe are the impacts not being verified? Could
    that be part of the answer?
        Mr. Clark. That's an excellent question. As been alluded to
    before, there is a big percentage of the depredations that go
    unreported because of our frustration with the process.
        And so there's, you know, in my opinion, a large portion of
    those that never get reported. And then there, as far as being
    exaggerated, I welcome you come visit sometime and I'll show
    him firsthand.
        Mr. Newhouse. Awesome. We will extend that invitation.
        Look, realize I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I just want
    to say I appreciate all the witnesses coming and testifying and
    also appreciate the efforts of Mr. Tiffany and Ms. Boebert of
    bringing this issue to the forefront.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Gosar. Thanks.
        The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Hernandez is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There aren't that many grizzly bears or wolves where I come
    from. But I am concerned about the wider implications of
    meddling with the Endangered Species Act, as well as the cuts
    that are affecting the agencies that supervise its execution,
    like, for example, USDA Wildlife Services Predation Management
    Program, or even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Puerto Rico is home to a diverse array of ecosystems, many
    of which support unique and endangered species found nowhere
    else in the world. One such area is La Parguera, for example, a
    coastal region renowned for its rich biodiversity, including
    the endangered West Indian manatee and various species of sea
    turtles.
        La Parguera, along with other protected areas on the
    island, serves as a vital sanctuary for these and many other
    threatened species. And by fostering collaboration between
    Federal, state and local entities, Section 10 of the ESA helps
    ensure that both development and conservation can co-exist in
    harmony.
        We must protect La Parguera and places like La Parguera.
        Mr. Servheen, can you explain how the dismissal of Federal
    employees and agencies like wildfire, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and the Wildlife Services Predation Management Program
    can undermine the ability of these agencies to operate?
        Dr. Servheen. Yes sir. Many of the people that are being
    fired or laid off, whatever you would call it, are people that
    are the on the ground tech technical people because they're
    younger, they're working in the field.
        For example Wildlife Services which is the agency that
    deals with conflicts, apparently they've lost all their ability
    to hire seasonals so they won't have any seasonal people on
    board.
        Those are the folks that work with the livestock industry
    within our conflicts. So I think these are going to be
    tremendous impacts on the people that live on the ground and,
    and live, work, and recreate with these animals. And if you
    remove the skills that are out there then the ability for the
    agencies to function and the ability for the public to be OK
    with this because they need responsiveness, they're not going
    to have responsiveness anymore.
        So I think it's going to be tremendously negative impacts
    across the board. Not only for the agencies and the knowledge
    set, but for the public.
        Mr. Hernandez. Thank you sir.
        And as I said, we must protect La Parguera and places like
    La Parguera in Puerto Rico and across the United States.
        I yield back the remainder of my time.
        Dr. Gosar. I think the gentleman.
        The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding
    this important hearing today.
        I want to thank the ranchers for coming here today. Thank
    you for all your hard work to make sure that that were fed here
    in this country. I also want to thank you for inspiring one of
    my favorite television shows, Yellowstone.
        I would like to introduce something into the record.

        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    __

        Mr. Chairman, this is a joint announcement from Arizona
    Game and Fish Department. Mexican wolf population grows for the
    ninth consecutive year. The 2024 minimum count represents an 11
    percent increase from the minimum of 257 wolves counted in
    2023. Survey results show the population is distributed with a
    minimum of 162 wolves in New Mexico and 124 in Arizona.
        Mr. Dobson, thank you for coming here today sir and
    representing Arizona ranches. It is appalling to hear some of
    the real-life examples you have shared of what it is like to
    run a ranch in wolf country. I sent a letter last year to the
    Fish and Wildlife Service to find out more information related
    to their Mexican wolf efforts in my district because I was
    hearing stories like yours.
        They waited 5 months to respond to that letter and seemed
    to double down on this ever changing recovery plan goal.
        Mr. Dobson, you have shared that your ranch has been in
    your family for five generations and you were only 7 years old
    when Mexican wolves were reintroduced into your area. Did you
    have to stop any operations as a result of reintroduction of
    wolves at that time?
        Mr. Dobson. Yes. We got out of the sheep business
    completely. We were the last sheep operation left in the White
    Mountains and we stopped that in 2012.
        Mr. Crane. How much did that cost your family business?
        Mr. Dobson. I haven't run the numbers, but it probably a
    lot of money over the last 12 years or 13 years. And time/value
    money into the future as well.
        Mr. Crane. How has Fish and Wildlife Service response to
    livestock depredation evolved since they first began
    reintroducing the wolves?
        Mr. Dobson. We have, at first it was a relationship of not
    having any trust. There's a lot more trust there now with the
    boots on the ground. But it changes from administration to
    administration.
        The higher levels, like I mentioned before in Fort Collins,
    with them taking back over the final say in depredations,
    they're overstepping their trained professionals that they have
    in the field.
        Mr. Crane. Can you tell us what measures you and your
    family have had to take to prevent livestock depredation
    incidents?
        Mr. Dobson. Yes. So we, when we had the sheep, we would do
    fladry where we would put a electric fence along the bottom
    strand of barbed wire with red flags on it. We've had flashing
    ear tags placed in cattle. We've hauled water, we've hauled
    hay. We have done studies, partnered with universities to do
    research and range riding programs, different things like that.
        Mr. Crane. Does Fish and Wildlife Service provide funds or
    assistance in those prevention efforts or does that burden fall
    entirely on you?
        Mr. Dobson. There are grants that you can apply for. Most
    of the time we are doing those things out of our own pocket.
    They'll come to us with the, you know, with the ear tags, with
    the fladry. They'll donate those goods. But as far as time
    spent implementing those things, extra days work to get the ear
    tags in to take measurements. The extra time I'm covering all
    the labor and all the extra.
        Mr. Crane. You did mention that indirect cost of
    depredation far outweigh the direct cost, $320,000 in 2024 by
    your estimates, is that correct?
        Mr. Dobson. Correct.
        Mr. Crane. Do you worry that your cattle operation could
    face the same fate as your sheep operation after decades of
    this experimental wolf population terrorizing your ranch and
    the associated costs?
        Mr. Dobson. Yes.
        Mr. Crane. How have these new 2023 guidelines impacted your
    ability to be compensated for confirmed kills by wolves?
        Mr. Dobson. It's greatly affected us. The standards that
    are widely used all across the West, they take into account
    subcutaneous hemorrhaging as well as other evidence of fight
    scene, bite marks, raking, things like that.
        And now with the new SOP 11 for, for the Arizona, New
    Mexico Mexican gray wolf population, it relies solely on
    subcutaneous hemorrhaging as being able to confirm a wolf kill.
    And without that, there's no confirmed kill.
        Mr. Crane. So it's become a lot more difficult for you to
    recuperate some of the money from wolf kills, is that what
    you're telling us?
        Mr. Dobson. Correct.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
        The gentleman from Montana, Mr. Downing, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Downing. Thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    important hearing here and thank you to the witnesses for your
    time.
        So recent reports show a noticeable increase in human-
    grizzly bear encounters in Montana as bear populations continue
    to expand. And you know, human interaction, livestock
    depredation. We've seen hunters, hikers, mountain bikers.
    There's a horrible tragedy in Ovando a couple of years ago with
    a bicyclist.
        In the Northern Rockies, grizzly numbers have surpassed
    2,000, contributing to more frequent interactions with people,
    including property damage and attacks.
        I am going to start with Dr. Servheen. You have been deeply
    involved in grizzly bear recovery efforts. The grizzly bear
    populations in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem and Northern
    Continental Divide ecosystem have met and exceeded all
    biological recovery benchmarks.
        So would you agree that these populations have surpassed
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recovery goals, including
    maintaining a minimum population of 500 bears in the Greater
    Yellowstone ecosystem for over two decades and exceeding the
    requirement of at least 48 females with cubs of this year's in
    the demographic monitoring area.
        Dr. Servheen. Well, the numbers of bears are sufficient in
    the Northern Rockies, that is true. And as I mentioned
    previously, there are other Endangered Species Act requirements
    for delisting and recovering species. In addition to numbers of
    animals it requires that adequate regulatory mechanisms be in
    place so that the population, if it's delisted, doesn't
    immediately start reversing and go downhill.
        I was the original writer of the first delisting rule for
    Yellowstone for grizzly bears in 2007. And it was litigated and
    overturned. And I was supportive of recovery and delisting.
        But what has happened is that in recent, recent years we've
    seen the involvement of politicians in the management of
    grizzly bears. And what has happened is that politicians have
    now put extremely risky and mortality causing activities across
    grizzly bear habitat that has negated the ability to manage
    mortality.
        And so there are no longer adequate mortality regulatory
    mechanisms in place for grizzly bears, Particularly in Montana
    and also in Idaho. And what we've seen is that politicians are,
    in their efforts to kill wolves, that are putting new and
    innovative ways to kill wolves on the landscape, which also
    kill grizzly bears. And therefore we won't know about those
    grizzly bear deaths.
        And it's really unfortunate because I was a big proponent
    of recovery and delisting until politicians at the state level
    started getting involved in the management of grizzly bear and
    wolves. And now I do not trust the state politicians, and I
    don't think grizzly bears should be delisted because of the
    risky factors they've put in place.
        Mr. Downing. Thank you. I'm gonna go a little deeper on
    another part of this here, Dr. Servheen. You know, the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed reintroducing grizzly
    bears to the Bitterroot ecosystem. And given the grizzly bears
    have been documented moving temporarily from the Northern
    Continental Divide ecosystem into the Bitterroot before
    returning to the Northern Continental Divide, is there a
    concern that reintroduced bears would do exactly the same,
    potentially negating the reintroduction?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, at this point, I don't believe there's
    been a decision made to reintroduce bears. As you say, there
    have been bears that have moved down in there from other
    ecosystems. All those bears have been males because males are
    the ones that disperse. Females tend to be much more resident,
    and they don't move down to new places.
        And the reason that we're concerned about bears moving in
    on their own is that all you're going to get is males. They
    won't find any girlfriends down there, and because of that
    they'll probably go back.
        So maybe there'd be a combination where you'd put a few
    females in there, and that way those dispersing males might
    stay there. It will be a gradual process, but some might go
    back.
        Mr. Downing. Thank you.
        I am going to switch lines here. Mr. Clark, you run a ranch
    in Loomis, Washington, an area where the Federal Government has
    moved forward with grizzly bear introductions under 10(j),
    despite clear opposition from the state and local community.
        Can you describe how these Federal decisions will impact
    your ability to operate your ranch and protect your livestock?
        Mr. Clark. Thanks for the question. As I said before, we
    run on a mix of state and Federal grazing permits. And the way
    the 10(j) language is, the decision they made, there will be
    different zones and in those zones any Federal ground in the
    North Cascades, basically, to put it simply, will be in the
    most protected areas.
        And the burden will be basically there will have to be
    severe problems before anything will be addressed. And so since
    I run cattle in that area, I feel like I'm going to have not
    only wolves trying to attack my cattle, but I'm going to have
    grizzly bears now attacking my cattle as well. And then, and
    then the burden of proof will be on me to try to figure out how
    to handle that.
        Mr. Downing. Right. Thank you for your answer. I wish I
    could go deeper, but unfortunately I have run out of time, so,
    Mr. Chair, I yield.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentleman, the Ranking Member, Dr. Dexter, is
    recognized for her 5 minutes.
        Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for
    coming.
        I know great lengths for all of you or most of you.
        Mr. Servheen, DOGE, under the direction, and Dr. Servheen,
    I'm sorry, under the direction of Elon Musk, has targeted the
    Fish and Wildlife Service for mass layoffs.
        We understand that the USDA Livestock Indemnity Program is
    also on the OMB's master list for analysis. These are skilled
    professionals who have dedicated their careers to saving our
    plants and animals from extinction and also working with our
    ranchers.
        Do you believe our ranchers are more likely to be
    compensated and worked with fewer staff?
        Dr. Servheen. No. As fewer staff are available, there's
    fewer people to investigate, fewer people to respond. Fewer
    people to respond when rancher calls and says, hey, I've got a
    depredation here. Fewer people to determine whether it really
    was a depredation.
        I mean, the whole system is going to really come down on
    the shoulders of the agriculture community and the ranching
    community because they're not going to have much help anymore
    if these people are gone.
        Dr. Dexter. That does sound like a distinct possibility and
    certainly one that our witnesses have all talked about, that
    the lack of ability to get proof of a predation undermines
    their ability to be compensated. So it feels like that is
    absolutely something that we should all be trying to prevent.
        How would the loss of staff impact the services ability to
    implement 10(j) specifically?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, you know, the implementation of 10(j)
    depends on personnel to make decisions, to work with partners
    at the state level, to work with partners in wildlife services,
    to work with and go out to communities. Those people could be
    the people that disappear.
        I mean, the whole grizzly bear recovery program right now
    that I ran for 35 years may disappear because of this. And, you
    know, then there wouldn't be people to implement the recovery
    of species at all.
        And once people are gone, they're never going to be
    replaced. And this idea that, you know, you can kind of remove
    professionals and things keep going, that's not the case. It's
    like going to the auto shop and they say, well, they laid off
    half the mechanics and so we're not going to be able to fix
    your car here for like 3 months.
        That's what's going to happen to the people of the United
    States with this continuing.
        Dr. Dexter. And obviously I am concerned about species
    recovery. Do you believe that species will recover more quickly
    or slowly with the loss of these Fish and Wildlife Service
    employees and USDA employees?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, there probably won't be recovery at all
    because recovery requires a lot of effort to, you know, build a
    recovery program, which is what I did for 35 years starting it.
        We started with like 250 grizzly bears and we've got 2,000
    now. That takes a lot of effort, a lot of working with the
    public, a lot of cooperation with the state agencies and
    building the system that allows those animals to recover on the
    landscape. Without people in place, that will not happen.
        Dr. Dexter. And who stands to benefit from a hollowed out
    Fish and Wildlife Service?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, I guess those people that don't want
    species recovered, you know, and I'm not denigrating my
    colleagues here at the table because I'm a big supporter of the
    livestock industry.
        I mean, we need these people on the land. Not only do they
    feed us, but you know, the old term cows not condos. We'd
    rather have big operating ranches than a bunch of subdivisions.
    And we want to keep these people on the landscape. We want to
    work with them and help them with their needs that they've
    talked to you about today.
        There's probably ways to improve the system and get them
    better responses so that we can balance the needs of these
    animals with their needs on the landscape. I know there are
    because we did that in Montana.
        Dr. Dexter. I appreciate that and that leads me to the last
    question I wanted to ask you, which I have heard very clearly.
    The suffering of animals is unnecessary to prove predation and
    that we are not getting appropriate compensation to our
    ranchers and our farmers.
        I believe that there is a win-win here and I've heard
    almost universal acceptance that that would be the ideal. Do
    you believe that there is more opportunity, Dr. Servheen, for
    working with the actual implementation the on-the-ground
    reality for our ranchers and making sure that we protect
    species while also protecting their livelihoods?
        Dr. Servheen. Yes, I think there are many ways to improve
    the system. And the testimony you've heard from these folks is
    not so much that they don't want wolves around, they just want
    a system that is responsive to their needs.
        I think there are ways to do that, and I would hope that we
    could be responsive to their needs to help these animals beyond
    the landscape and to keep the livestock industry healthy as
    well.
        Dr. Dexter. And just to reiterate what we have already
    established, do you think that is more likely with fewer Fish
    and Wildlife Service?
        Dr. Servheen. It's absolutely unlikely with fewer Fish and
    Wildlife Service. It'll get worse and these people and their
    need for response, there won't be anybody to respond anymore
    and everything will erode. The animals will go downhill. The
    agriculture industry will be facing conflicts. Everybody will
    be up in arms. And the erosion of our systems, our ecosystems,
    will just rapidly increase.
        Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Dr. Servheen.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
        Dr. Servheen, in your testimony you mentioned that during
    your entire career you never had disagreement with local
    stakeholders holders regarding grizzly management. This seems
    to be very different than today, than in the past. Would you
    say that?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, I'm talking about the state decision
    makers, the tribal decision makers, for example, when they----
        Dr. Gosar. But in your statement you made it broad. You
    said you didn't have any disagreement.
        Dr. Servheen. Well, we never had disagreement at the
    agency, the cooperative agency levels. The state, the tribal
    and the Federal agencies all agreed when a bear needed to be
    removed that it was removed. We could respond and do what
    needed to be done.
        Dr. Gosar. OK, so now I think you are familiar with the
    ecosystems of the Upper Green versus in Alaska versus, like
    eastern Arizona, right? They are very different.
        One is the largest primitive area in the United States out
    of the lower 48 outside of Alaska, that is the Greener River
    Basin in the eastern Arizona. They got a lot more contacts with
    a lot more people along that side. So there's a very big
    difference here.
        Now, to the, to the other three, I thought this country was
    based on, you are innocent until proven guilty. How does this
    make you feel that you are guilty till you are proven innocent?
    You have got to prove these kills.
        What do you think, sir? Go down the line.
        Mr. Dobson. Could you clarify the question?
        Dr. Gosar. Yes. When you are getting paid for these
    animals, you have to prove it. In our system, you are innocent
    until proven guilty. So how does that make you feel? Isn't
    there better ways to do this?
        Are you familiar with a little tachycardia where you get an
    AKG with your thumbs down? Technology is going to fill this in
    because, I mean, I could envision a day where you have a poor
    animal suffering and you could actually take a little dipstick
    and put it in there and you will have wolf DNA and that is
    very, very simple. And instead of somebody coming out to show
    them that you had a depredation kill, you actually have it all
    documented: you can send it right in. Would that work for you?
        Mr. Dobson. That probably is something that we'd consider.
        Dr. Gosar. How about you?
        Mr. Clark. Yes, I think that having some sort of simpler
    process of proving would be very beneficial.
        Dr. Gosar. Dr. Servheen?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, there are--we're on the verge of
    systems just like you described, where you can determine the
    DNA of the species by looking at the bite marks and determining
    that. And I'd like to clarify the fact that if an animal is
    suffering because it's been attacked and it's going to die, I
    don't see why you wouldn't be able to kill the animal.
        It's going to die anyway. I'm not going to let it suffer
    and I wouldn't advise any rancher to do that either.
        Dr. Gosar. I agree. But I have heard over and over again
    that they don't get the compensation and it is been held up
    over and over again. So I just want to make sure.
        Ms. LeValley?
        Ms. LeValley. You bring up an excellent point. And there is
    improving technologies. The bottom line, though, whatever is
    written down, it has to be easier to prove because right now
    the tie does not go to the individual on the ground.
        The tie goes to it's not determined to be a predation by
    either a wolf or another predator. And that is the reality in
    many of our states. It is that ability to say this is a
    predation by wolves because the wolves are in this area. And
    whether it's DNA or whether it is the preponderance of
    evidence, that has to be a clearer and more direct process in
    order for the animal.
        We're talking about wolves that aren't doing what they
    should be. They should not be the ones that continue to train
    their offspring to do what they shouldn't be. We know there's
    better technologies, but it has to be clearly communicated, not
    just written down communicated, that it's OK for that rancher
    to say, this is a wolf and the individual authorizing the
    compensation saying yes instead of, well, maybe not.
        Dr. Gosar. And you also have to have software on the
    receiving end too, don't you? That is up to date. So cross
    contamination really is a problem.
        Now, Dr. Servheen, do you actually support bringing back
    the desert grizzly?
        Dr. Servheen. The desert grizzly? Well, there used to be
    grizzlies in Arizona. I think it would be a challenge. You
    know, I don't know that I support bringing back grizzly bears
    to Arizona.
        Our challenge is to keep the populations. We've got six
    populations in the recovery plan. If we can recover all those,
    I think we're doing pretty good. But going into places like
    Arizona and creating a new island population, that would be
    very risky, not only for the bears, but for the public. I don't
    know that I'd support that.
        Dr. Gosar. I agree. Well, I'm going to yield back, but
    we're going to do a quick second round.
        And so I'm going to acknowledge the gentlewoman from Oregon
    for her next 5 minutes.
        Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to be really brief
    because I feel like we've covered a lot of ground today.
        But Dr. Servheen, is there anything you've heard today
    that, that you would like to respond to or would like to
    clarify?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, thank you for that opportunity.
        Yes. When I did testify that the majority of the state
    wildlife managers and the livestock associations in Montana
    feel that they've got all the tools they need to manage
    depredating bears and wolves. That's what I meant. I left out
    the word Montana.
        So yes, I think there's a lot of satisfaction with the
    system that's out there now. And I want to emphasize the fact
    that grizzly bears and wolves need to be managed. They can't be
    strictly protected.
        And so when there are problems, you have to deal with those
    problems. We eliminated the conflict bears, the conflict
    wolves. We've still got 2,400 or more grizzly bears and wolves
    after eliminating the conflict animals because most of them do
    not kill livestock. I'll just re-emphasize that.
        Dr. Gosar. All right. I have got one more question for you.
        Are you familiar with the reintroduction of wolves in the
    Upper Green River lakes?
        Dr. Servheen. The Upper Green River in Wyoming?
        Dr. Gosar. Yes.
        Dr. Servheen. Yes. Well, in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
        Dr. Gosar. Yes, it is.
        Dr. Servheen. The Upper Green is part of that. Yes.
        Dr. Gosar. What happened with that?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, there were wolves reintroduced to
    Yellowstone. Those wolves are now delisted. They're no longer
    listed. They were recovered.
        Dr. Gosar. No, but didn't they find there were some 30 some
    animals that were already there in Upper Green River? And that
    became a problem because you brought in a different bloodline
    into that whole system that was artificial?
        Dr. Servheen. I don't think there were animals there, to be
    honest with you. There were some dispersing animals from
    Northern Montana that came from Canada. There were bear, excuse
    me, wolves in Montana before the reintroduction, but they
    weren't in the Yellowstone system.
        And there may have been one or two dispersing wolves
    because they'll go 500 to 1,000 miles that were seen in the
    upper green but there was not a population of wolves. These
    were just maybe a disperser or two and they were not going to
    make wolf population stable in that area.
        Dr. Gosar. So wasn't there a presentation from a gentleman
    who actually filmed and documented there was over 30 wolves in
    that upper area?
        Dr. Servheen. There may be. I have never seen that and I'm
    not aware of that.
        Dr. Gosar. OK, a real quick question. Are you familiar with
    Beefalos in Arizona on the Grand Canyon?
        Dr. Servheen. With what in the Grand?
        Dr. Gosar. Beffalos.
        Dr. Servheen. Beefalos.
        Dr. Gosar. They look like bison, but they're really a cross
    between cows and bison?
        Dr. Servheen. No, I'm not familiar with that.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, there was never buffalo on the Grand
    Canyon. So it's an invasive species. But yet I've been here
    now, this is I am starting my 16th year and we have problems
    because the government said they were to shoot them all.
        Well, that would have been really cool. And just let them
    rot. There's been food for the condors for a couple days, but
    the smell would never get past you. And now we can't get rid of
    them.
        Now some of the tribes from the Midwest have taken some of
    those, understanding that they are a cross, but we still can't
    get rid of those. And how much have they done to the
    desecration of the Grand Canyon?
        We have these wind storms because these, as you know,
    these, these bison will rip out the roots out of the ground. So
    we have a problem there. And I think trust is a series of
    promises kept. We've always said that and I've always adhered
    to that.
        And so when we see the Fish and Wildlife Service start
    helping us out along those lines, I think you get a lot more
    cooperation. Trust is built that way.
        Now I am going to move down the line. What was the question
    that you wanted asked that wasn't asked and what's its answer?
        We'll start with you, Mr. Dobson.
        Mr. Dobson. I think we pretty well covered most of what I
    wanted to cover. I really think that when the goal posts get
    moved and it feels like the burden is on the rancher, that to
    us is the most frustrating part.
        We all have a place we'd rather be maybe today than to come
    all the way out here. And so for us to I think be looked down
    upon and say that we're just trying to complain and kill
    wolves, I think is completely false.
        If it wasn't an issue for us, if it wasn't a problem, then
    we wouldn't be making a problem. And I don't think you can find
    a single rancher that deals with wolves or that deals with
    grizzlies that feels the exact same way that we do.
        And so I don't think that it's just something that can be
    brushed aside. And so what we're really advocating for is help
    to make up the difference from these costs that we're bearing,
    because this is an experiment by the Federal Government.
        And so for the Federal Government program that's affecting
    private business and private property, then I think that that
    should be compensated.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Clark.
        Mr. Clark. Thank you for the opportunity. Two things. One
    is that I feel like the grizzly bear decision in particular was
    something that was strongly opposed by locals. And we got it
    imposed on us by people that don't have to choose to interact
    with grizzly bears if they don't want to. But I have to.
        That's where I live, that's where my children are, that's
    where my employees are, that's where my livelihood is. And the
    other thing is in the compensation criteria, I run cattle that
    I feel are better than anybody else's in this world.
        Dr. Gosar. Are they Black Angus?
        Mr. Clark. No, they're a cross of Wagyu and Angus. And it's
    proprietary. But anyway, if I lose certain cattle in that herd,
    it isn't just a two-thousand-dollar cow. It's literally the
    genetics that I've been working on my entire career that I'm
    losing and so how do I get compensated for that?
        Dr. Gosar. Gotcha.
        Dr. Servheen?
        Dr. Servheen. I think you've pretty much asked all the
    questions. I think the important issue here is that don't throw
    the baby out with the bathwater. If there needs to be a
    refinement of 10(j) and the refinement of the ESA, then you
    know, I'm all for that and would be happy to contribute to your
    efforts to do that. But don't say it doesn't work or the
    recovery of species is wrong.
        And we, you know, we have a lot of damage that we've done
    to the earth and we've got the ability to fix it and to
    maintain the heritage of the American West with some of these
    animals. And it's important to do that because the long, longer
    we wait, the harder it'll be to do that. So that's my comment.
        Dr. Gosar. Ms. LeValley?
        Ms. LeValley. The Endangered Species Act, when we think
    about when it was first written, was well intentioned and it
    did not contain this punitive initially. It did not contain the
    tie the hands behind the back it recognized that all were there
    and we needed to work together.
        And so it has morphed into a litigation tool, a land
    management tool that is absolutely punitive, it absolutely
    takes away that incentive to want to be there on the ground
    working. And it literally moves that goalpost, once numbers are
    reached or once habitat is reached, now we have to define other
    habitat.
        And so I would just encourage, as this is being looked at
    and evaluated and debated, that it morphs back to more of the
    original intent and not just strictly based on what's the new
    and shiny object to add to the more recent 1,100 pages for the
    Endangered Species Act.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, you know, I know a little bit about this
    because my grandfather brought Black Angus into the Harvard
    Country and Green River, Upper Green River. So I know a little
    bit about that.
        So it's been very interesting. It's been a great discussion
    this morning. Thank you for all that you've done. I know those
    members who have additional questions. They'll get those to you
    and we'll ask you to respond within 10 days.
        So thank you very much for coming.
        Under Rule 3, oh, I already did that.
        If there is no further business?
        We are adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    PowerPoint Presentation

    [[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Dexter

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]