[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 131 (Monday, September 19, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    SPORTSMEN: KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY

                                 ______


                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 19, 1994

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as cochairman of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, I have tried to keep a close watch on attempts by 
animal protection groups to stop hunting and trapping in the United 
States. The enclosed article by Mr. Alston Chase, which was printed in 
the September 16, 1994, issue of the Washington Times, discusses one of 
the many efforts being made to deny sportsmen their hunting rights.
  Mr. Chase's article describes a problem that was brought to my 
attention by a number of hunters. In sum, as the result of an out-of-
court settlement of a lawsuit and the shifting of budget priorities, 
certain elements in the Clinton administration found a way to try and 
stop hunting in national wildlife refuges. This issue was addressed by 
the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in a hearing on 
refuge management that was held in August. At that time, a number of 
Members of the House made clear their opposition to those animal 
protection shenanigans.
  I also joined with my colleague, John Dingell, in writing to the Fish 
and Wildlife Service and asking them to explain their actions. Ms. 
Mollie Beattie, the Director of the Service, responded by reaffirming 
her commitment to protecting sportsmen's rights. To quote from her 
letter: ``There is no way we are going to turn our back on this vital 
constituency.''
  While I am encouraged by Ms. Beattie's recognition of the important 
role that hunters, trappers, and fishermen play in conserving wildlife, 
I know full well that the animal protection community will not give up 
their fight. I urge all of my colleagues to be aware of these efforts 
and work with the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in preserving 
sportsmen, as well as wildlife.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask consent that Mr. Chase's article to be reprinted 
in the Record.

              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 16, 1994]

              Targets For Exclusion From Wildlife Refuges

                           (By Alston Chase)

       While sportsmen oil their weapons in preparation for 
     hunting in wildlife refuges this fall, they should be 
     forewarned: This season could be their last. Very quietly, 
     the Clinton administration is seeking to ban recreational and 
     economic activities--including hunting, fishing, swimming, 
     canoeing, camping, picnicking, haying, forestry and farming--
     from the nation's 510 wildlife refuges. And while Congress 
     has succeeded in forcing the postponement of this elitist 
     policy, preservation in ideologues within the White House 
     continue to prepare the way for its eventual implementation.
       The gambit began October 1992, when several activist 
     groups, including the Wilderness Society, sued the U.S. Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, which runs the refuges, insisting 
     outdoor sports were ``incompatible'' with preservation, which 
     they said was the highest purpose of the refuges.
       This claim was patently false. Such activities are clearly 
     permissible by law and are allowed under appropriate 
     circumstances. Every since the first sanctuary was 
     established in 1903, managers were given considerable freedom 
     to decide how to run their reserves. This flexible approach 
     was sound ecological policy, recognizing that since each area 
     is unique and subject to changing environmental conditions, a 
     single national policy would do more harm than good. The same 
     commitment to multiple use was evinced by the National 
     Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. Organizing 
     refuges into a system, it authorized the Interior secretary 
     to ``permit the use of any area within the system for any 
     purpose, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, 
     public recreation and accommodations.''
       The lawsuit therefore should have been easy for the service 
     to win. But last October, the administration settled the suit 
     out of court, giving away the store to environmentalists--a 
     decision that coincidentally occurred after Wilderness 
     Society President George Frampton was appointed assistant 
     secretary of Interior, thus being transformed from plaintiff 
     to defendant. In that agreement, the service promised to 
     produce a plan by this Oct. 20 showing how it will terminate 
     outdoor recreation in each refuge ``expeditiously'' unless 
     stringent conditions were met.
       Suggesting the settlement gave it no choice, the 
     administration launched a ``compatibility'' study 
     transparently designed to end outdoor recreation. But its 
     bigger aim was philosophical: to replace the service's 
     stewardship conservation ethic with a preservationist, hands-
     off approach. Rather than allowing such acts as maintaining 
     dikes that protect wetlands or cultivating vegetation to 
     improve bird habitat, it would implement the same regime of 
     benign neglect that is decimating biological diversity in the 
     national parks.
       Fashioning new priorities, it proposed diverting funds from 
     recreation to ``biological diversity,'' endangered species 
     and land acquisition (whose budget would increase 188 
     percent). Simultaneously, it announced there might not be 
     sufficient funds for recreation. So although refuges already 
     covered 92 million acres (an area larger than the state of 
     Nevada), it planned to purchase more, even as, pleading 
     poverty, it would close these places to most public use.
       Naturally, duck shooters and others cried foul, and 
     Congress reacted. In June, Sen. Don Nickles, Oklahoma 
     Republican, inserted language into the service's 
     appropriations package directing that ``current activities be 
     continued.'' Given little option, Service Director Molly 
     Beatty issued a press release promising ``no hunting programs 
     on national wildlife refuges will be halted this fall.''
       Ms. Beatty's emphasis was clearly on ``this fall.'' And 
     indeed, Mr. Nickles' measure will only delay the anti-
     recreation juggernaut, not stop it.
       The service still intends to reprogram money toward its 
     purist objectives. Meanwhile, with the help of environmental 
     groups, it is composing a policy statement called ``Refuges 
     2003'' to institutionalize these priorities. Ostensively 
     intended to prevent ``political meddling,'' his effort's real 
     purpose is to render wildlife policy immune from public 
     account ability by making it more difficult for Congress or 
     future administrations to change. By creating a paper trail 
     that gives preservation highest priority, it provides a 
     record activists can use to prevail in future lawsuits aimed 
     at ending activities they oppose.
       Pandering to a small clique of elitists, the Clinton 
     administration has narrowed the service's political 
     constituency until it could sit on the head of a pin. That's 
     the name of the game in preservation politics these days. As 
     environmentalism becomes more extreme and less 
     representative, its adherents pursue their agendas in ways 
     that avoid public debate. And as Congress evinces growing 
     hostility toward a preservation purism that abuses property 
     rights and favors insects and rodents over people, these 
     perfectionists depend less on legislation than they once did. 
     Rather than seeking new laws, they bend old ones, relying on 
     favorable decisions from magistrates, who, coming from the 
     same privileged class, share their arrogance.
       After all, the last thing they want is to let the people 
     decide.

                          ____________________