[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1002-H1006]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1500
OUR COVENANT TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT WHILE PRESERVING LIBERTY AND
UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Radanovich). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of May 12, 1995, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] for 43 minutes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, it is a rare individual who does not
want an effective environmental policy. Sometimes these policies, or
the remedies thereof, have been called extreme, just like we heard from
my friends on the other side of the aisle. I am one of the freshman
Members, but I find it interesting that a party who has lost its vision
can use only one word to define the other party, and that is the word
``extreme.'' I beg of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
come up with alternative programs that will benefit the American
people.
I just have to say Mr. Speaker, this was not a planned part of my
speech, but I do want to say that it is private individuals who risk
and who invest who employ Americans. I join the gentlewoman from Ohio
[Ms. Kaptur], a woman I admire greatly, about the fact that we do want
to keep American jobs here in America. I do agree with her there. But,
you know, we either have one of two employers: Either you, the
taxpayers, are employing individuals through government, or we have
private businesses employing people. I prefer private entrepreneurs in
employing people and downsizing government.
Mr. Speaker, it is a rare individual who doesn't want an effective
environmental policy. We all want to promote the wise use of America's
natural resources, but the driving force behind our current policies
have little to do with sound science, foresight, or reason. Instead,
environmental policies are driven by a kind of emotional spiritualism
that threatens the very foundation of our society, by eroding basic
principles of our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one quote I could center my remarks around
today, I think it would be a personal statement made by Thomas
Jefferson, who probably was the world's greatest articulator of man's
heavenly endowed individual rights and liberties. Jefferson wrote in
1776:
I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow, I may
recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my
own judgement; but I cannot be saved by a worship I
disbelieve and abhor.
Mr. Speaker, the very first clause of the very first amendment to our
Constitution states that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,'' and yet there is increasing evidence of a
government sponsored religion in America. This religion, a cloudy
mixture of new age mysticism, Native American folklore, and primitive
Earth worship, (Panthe- ism) is being promoted and enforced by
[[Page H1003]]
the Clinton administration in violation of our rights and freedoms.
Proponents of this new-environment- alism are the first to recognize
its religious nature. Just to name a few: Sierra Club Director David
Brower announced ``We are a kind of religion.'' Scientist James
Lovelock, author of the bestseller ``Gaia,'' admits that ``Gaia is a
religious as well as a scientific concept.'' Bill McKibbon, author of
``The End of Nature,'' proclaimed that ``it is not in God's house that
I feel his presence most--it is in His outdoors.'' According to
columnist Alston Chase, nearly all environmental leaders have conceded
that environmentalism is a religious movement.
The trouble is that these sentiments are not just expressed by
leaders in the environmental movement, but frequently, by government
leaders who influence and promulgate the regulations we live under.
When Vice President Al Gore was invited to speak at the Episcopal
Cathedral of St. John the Divine, he sermonized that ``God is not
separate from the Earth.'' Espousal of this environmental religion by
political leaders and regulators carries profound constitutional
implications.
I recently came across the transcript of a speech delivered by U.S.
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt on November 11 to a joint
meeting of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment and
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was
entitled ``Between the flood and the rainbow: Our Covenant to Protect
the Whole of Creation.'' In this speech, Babbitt explains how he became
disillusioned with Christianity because the commandment that man should
have dominion ``over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth''
conflicted with his view of nature's supremacy. ``I always had a
nagging instinct,'' he explained, ``that the vast landscape was somehow
sacred, and holy, and connected to me in a sense that my catechism
ignored.'' Babbitt explains how a young Hopi friend taught him ``that
the blue mountain was, truly, a sacred place,'' and he became ``acutely
aware of a vacancy, a poverty amidst [his] own religious tradition.''
To fill this vacancy he adopted the new environmentalism, and he has
every intention of regulating and enforcing his dream of utopia into
reality.
You may ask, what is the harm of public officials maintaining deeply
held beliefs? The problem, Mr. Speaker, comes when those deeply held
beliefs become the driving force for policy which that nonbelievers
face persecution. Mr. Babbitt has made it clear that environmentalism--
the religion--is driving this Nation's regulatory scheme. This is a
violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. It smothers
our values and it threatens our liberties.
James Madison wrote his great ``Memorial and Remonstrance'' against a
Virginia tax for the support of an established church. In it, he
eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law;
that no person, either believer or nonbeliever, should be taxed to
support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of
a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and
that cruel persecution were the inevitable result of government-
established religions.
Madison was right. The backbone of America--workers, small
businessmen, and property owners--are becoming victims of this new-
environmentalism.
Businesses like Stibnite Mine in my district, whose mining operation
was shut down for 2 years waiting for the National Marine Fisheries
Service to determine whether they could haul supplies on a Forest
Service road.
People like the Yantis family in my district, who were told by the
National Marine Fisheries Service that they should just give up their
right to irrigate for a fish that is not instream now, but could be one
day.
People like a Minnesota farmer who had two 1-acre glacial potholes on
his property. To make farming around them easier, the farmer filled one
and expanded the other two acres. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
objected, and the Federal Government ordered him to dig out the pothole
he had filled and fined him $45,000.
Whole families throughout the Northwest who have lost their jobs
because government restrictions and environmental lawsuits have shut
down the region's ability to keep forests healthy.
Farmers in the Bruneau Valley whose livelihoods have been held
hostage to a snail the size of a buck shot. The Fish and Wildlife
Service has yet to scientifically prove that farming activities have an
effect on the snail.
For those who still refuse to see the dangerous character of an
established religious environmental movement, let me give you another
example:
Wayne and Jean Hage bought a cattle ranch in Nevada in 1978. The
former owner had been forced to sell because the regulatory pressure by
the U.S. Forest Service had become unbearable. But Hage was confident
that he could work with the Forest Service to resolve any problems that
might occur. He was wrong. Problems started when, without warning or
notification, a nearby Forest Service Ranger Station began to pump
water from a critical spring on Hage's property into the ranger's
cabin. The Forest Service maintained a fence around the spring so that
cattle could not drink, but Hage felt that if the Service needed the
water an amicable agreement could be reached. The Forest Service
refused to cooperate, and when Hage held a field hearing on the issue,
they launched an all-out holy-war against the rancher.
For the sacrilege of questioning Forest Service actions, Wayne was
contacted no less than 110 times with violations of bureaucratic
regulations. Most, if not all, were wild goose chases, but each
required time consuming and often expensive responses. The Forest
Service even resorted to several armed raids on the ranch, confiscating
104 head of cattle and keeping the proceeds of their sale. Hage also
faced felony charges for clearing brush from his own irrigation drains.
The charges were thrown out by the courts, but this was the last
straw--Hage filed a suit for the regulatory and physical taking of his
ranch.
Unfortunately, CIGNA Corporation, the lender and lien holder on
Hage's property is one of the environmentalist faithful, and has been
attempting to foreclose on the property to effectively kill the case.
CIGNA is a major corporate donor to the National Wildlife Federation
which is acting as a friend of the court on behalf of the Forest
Service. This is an organization that instructs environmental activists
on how to use Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regulatory
power to ``Make it so expensive for the rancher to operate that he goes
broke.''
Mr. Speaker, there is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Environmentalism need not be a religion. It could--and should--be
based on science and logic and aimed at secular goals. But Secretary
Babbitt rejects the protection of species for potential cures for
disease, or new strains of drought-resistant crops, or bioremediation
of oil spills, in favor of uniting ``all state, county and federal
workers under a common moral goal.'' He concluded his speech by
affirming that ``religious values remain at the heart of the Endangered
Species Act, that they make themselves manifest through the green eyes
of the grey wolf, through the call of the whooping crane, through the
splash of the Pacific salmon.''
The fact that this moral philosophy makes villains of hard working,
productive citizens makes it repugnant to American values. The fact
that it dismisses science prevents technological progress. The fact
that it violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution makes it
an attack on our form of government. And the fact that it places
obstacles in the way of American prosperity makes it a threat to our
children's future.
Mr. Speaker, policies inspired by this new green religion are having
devastating effects on my State. One example that I think exemplifies
this new trend is unnecessary introduction of predators such as wolves
and grizzlies against the will of the people and at great expense to
the taxpayer.
Many people do not realize that the idea of releasing wolves in Idaho
and in the west is not a new one. There were attempts as far back as
1982, when Senator Craig held the seat that I hold now. At that time,
when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service introduced this idea, the plan
was quickly shelved after then-Congressman Craig held hearings in which
obvious flaws of artificially introducing the wolves were exposed.
[[Page H1004]]
In those hearings biologists admitted that the wolf was recovering
naturally in Canada and Alaska, where there are currently as many as
40,000 to 50,000 of the grey wolves. Moreover, the plan was soundly
rejected after it became clear what the consequences would be of
introducing a dangerous predator into an area that was no longer
completely wild, but in fact, where there are activities such as
ranching, logging, mining, and recreation.
The mere suggestion of introducing wolves prompted the State
legislature to pass a number of bills prohibiting the introduction of
wolves unless it was under the terms and conditions of the State. I
would like to insert into the Record the testimony of State
representative JoAn Wood, who came before the House Resources Committee
and testified to the long history of Idaho's objection to Federal wolf
introductions.
Nevertheless, when President Clinton was elected, Bruce Babbitt, the
President's appointed Secretary of the Interior, again resurrected the
idea of introducing wolves in the West. This time, instead of trying to
establish a sound, practical, scientific basis for the program, the
Government promoted wolf introduction as a romantic notion of restoring
the western ecosystem to its pre-Colombian state. Indeed, Mr. Babbitt
has gone as far as saying that it fulfills a ``spiritual'' void. Mr.
Babbitt proclaimed in his November 11 speech that wolf introduction
efforts were driven by the ``elevated nature of America's conservation
laws: laws with the power to make creation whole * * *.'' in essence
recover ``our ancient religious values.''
The Department of the Interior also responded differently to the avid
opposition to wolf reintroduction by States of Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming. The Fish and Wildlife Service promised the States that no
wolves would be released until an agreement of how these wolves would
be managed was in place. The Department of the Interior, in conjunction
with the many environmental groups also initiated a large scale
nationwide advertising campaign--in places where nobody would have to
worry about managing the critters--to sell the romantic notion of
returning these animals to the west.
Very little has been mentioned during the governments publicly
campaign blitz of the overall costs of the wolf introduction, which
includes aircraft, ground vehicles, equipment such as kennels, shipping
crates, sophisticated radar tracking devices, radio collars,
tranquilizing guns, and extensive staff of biologists, veterinarians,
technicians, and administrators--not to mention a massive publicity
campaign. Added up, it amounts to about $1 million per wolf.
I first dealt with Mr. Babbitt's infatuation with the green eyes of
the wolf just after I was sworn in to represent the citizens of Idaho's
First Congressional District. It was apparent that after the fiscally
austere Republicans won the majority in Congress, Babbitt determined
that the release of the wolves must be greatly expedited or his chance
``to make nature whole'' would once again be jeopardized. We found that
his attempts to work out an arrangement with the States were not only
completely disingenuous, but merely used as a device to detour the
legitimate concerns of the States while he found a way to implement his
plan. When Babbitt realized that his costly wolf scheme could come
under scrutiny by this Congress, he went into emergency mode, bypassing
all the processes, including State laws and section 6(f) of the
Endangered Species Act which specifically requires the Secretary to
work in coordination with the States in any introduction effort. He did
this while ignoring the pleas of Governors and legislators to not
proceed, but by actually speeding up the capture of the wolves.
By early January, just days after the new Congress had been sworn in,
Babbitt had his wolves ready to be released at Yellowstone and in
Idaho. My office received a firestorm of pleas and concerns from
constituents and State officials calling for an immediate halt to the
releases. In fact, one of my first official acts as a Congressman was
to send a letter to the Secretary requesting that he halt any releases,
and at the very least let due process take place. Babbitt defiantly
responded by immediately releasing the wolves into Idaho--and even
forging a highly questionable agreement with the Nez Perce Indian Tribe
to manage the wolves.
Despite all, Secretary Babbitt proceeded with the release of his
imprisoned green-eyed friends--although I don't know how anyone can
consider him a friend of the wolf considering the abrupt way these
wolves were tracked down and shot by a tranquilizer gun, forced into a
pen, had a collar placed around their neck, taken away from their
native habitat, and released into unfamiliar and unfriendly territory.
Moreover, problems resulting from the unnatural methods used became
evident when wolves which were released into Yellowstone, that were
under the care of humans for weeks, refused for a time to leave their
newfound comforts and security. Even now the wolves, which in the wild
stear clear of humans, are routinely seen--and quite possibly fed--by
many of the tourists visiting the park. It is easy to see that the wolf
program in Yellowstone Park has done nothing more than create more
dependents on the Government dole.
The released wolves faced--and caused--even more dire consequences in
Idaho. Shortly after the wolves were released in Central Idaho, a wolf
was shot near Salmon after feeding on the carcass of a newborn calf.
The body of the wolf was found on the property of a 74-year-old World
War II veteran and rancher by the name of Mr. Gene Hussey. The reaction
of the Fish and Wildlife Service was to initiate a full-blown
investigation that included a $500,000 autopsy performed on the dead
wolf. The Fish and Wildlife Service obtained a search warrant, and
without notifying Mr. Hussey or the local sheriff, proceeded to send
several officers to investigate Mr. Hussey's property. In a hearing
about this incident held jointly with the Resources and Agriculture
Committees, on which I sit, Mr. Hussey testified that on arriving home
from his neighbor's house, he discovered several armed Fish and
Wildlife officers crawling over his gate--damaging the gate in the
process--and refusing to heed his warnings to leave his property until
the local sheriff arrived. The predicament escalated to the point that
the Federal agents accused this 74-year-old man of throwing rocks at
them, and rushed across a stream to confront him about it. In the
meantime, the local sheriff, Mr. Barsalou, was speeding to the scene--
very concerned about the possibility of a violent confrontation.
Fortunately, he was able to arrive in time to defuse the situation.
After some of the problems that we have witnessed with the release of
only 14 wolves last year, I am amazed to see the media reporting the
program as ``remarkably successful.'' I was even more disappointed to
find out that even during the Government shutdown, and before their
appropriations were approved, the Fish and Wildlife Service was busy
preparing to capture another 30 wolves in Canada for release in Idaho
and Wyoming. The Service has spared no expense and has let nothing stop
them including inclement weather, lack of appropriations, animal rights
protesters, the continued disapproval of the State legislature, and
another call by this Congressman to refrain from capturing and
releasing more wolves.
Apparently one of Mr. Babbitt's green-eyed friends did not like the
whole idea and bit one of his handlers before receiving the unlucky
fate of being killed by one of the Fish and Wildlife officials. Of
course, if I had just been tracked down from my home, snared, darted,
caged, drugged, and jostled, I would have bitten someone too.
The truth of the matter is that there remain many unanswered
questions and unaddressed concerns about the wolf introduction program.
Despite the fact that the Government continues to disregard the wishes
of the local citizens, to implement a program that serves no scientific
purpose, creates the potential for more conflicts, and costs taxpayers
a bundle, the Government and the national media continue to paint the
program as a better than expected success with few hitches. I believe
this is because the media, like Mr. Babbitt, are not focusing on the
logic or scientific merits of the program, but on how well it has
fulfilled their own spiritual expectations.
Some wonder why I have fought so hard against a Federal program that
[[Page H1005]]
has little direct impact on most Americans. I fight because I believe
that we should be practicing great fiscal constraint, because excessive
deficits threaten the future stability of this country. I fight because
the taxpayer deserves to know that millions of their dollars are being
spent on aircraft outfitted with sophisticated radio equipment which
daily track a handful of confused wolves meandering about and stirring
up trouble in the mountains of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.
I also fight because I believe there are deep implications about the
wolf introduction program that affects all Americans--and that is the
precedent it has set.
Now the Federal Government is finalizing plans to introduce an even
more dangerous predator into the Selway-Bitteroot mountain range
located in Idaho and Montana--the grizzly bear. Mr. Speaker, only a few
years ago--the very idea of introducing grizzlies into central Idaho
was considered pure lunacy. Why? Quite frankly, the grizzly bear, a
species that now numbers over 100,000 in Canada, Alaska, parts of
Montana, and in Yellowstone, simply has a propensity for violence
against humans and animals. Last year there were numerous incidents of
bear maulings during unprovoked situations. In one case a hiker was
merely taking his shoes and socks off to cool his feet in a mountain
stream when the odor of his socks apparently caught the attention of a
nearby grizzly. And in the State of Wyoming and Montana, there has been
an epidemic of nuisance bears which have been killing cattle and sheep,
and rummaging around human habitation. Some are even suggesting that
the grizzly no longer needs the special protection of the Endangered
Species Act.
Mr. Speaker, the response that I have received from my constituents--
even some who do not normally agree with me--has been overwhelmingly
against the introduction of the grizzly. I believe that some in the
forest industry have been driven by fear or strong coercive tactics
into supporting a program that simply will not work. Other than that,
the reaction against the idea comes from all types of individuals and
for many legitimate reasons. Campers and hikers are concerned for
obvious safety reasons, and that many of the trails and areas would be
made off-limits. Hunters are concerned about dramatic reductions in
game animal population. Ranchers are concerned about the loss of cattle
and road closures. Miners are concerned about the possibility of
restrictions on their activity as well, and property owners are deeply
concerned about bears foraging about their garbage, and around their
homes. Overall, people are not only afraid of the potential danger of
having the bears in their backyard, but also having severe restrictions
in accessing the forests and lands, both for recreational and
industrial purposes. In fact the public comments compiled by the Fish
and Wildlife Service show overwhelming opposition to the grizzly
introduction plan in the Selway-Bitteroot coming from places as far as
California and Colorado.
Moreover, introducing the bear has little scientific merit. The Fish
and Wildlife Service has not shown how the grizzly is vital to the
survival of the ecosystem of the Selway-Bitteroot. In fact, no solid
evidence proves that the bear once roamed there in great numbers. Some
have pointed to a supposed journal entry by Lewis and Clark claiming
that they shot around 20 grizzly in the area during their travels.
Considering that no taxonomy was even in place at the time to
distinguish between types of bears, it is ludicrous to use a journal
entry almost 200 years ago as a solid basis of the facts. Finally, the
small amount of data that does exist from previous attempts to capture
and release grizzly into unfamiliar and rugged terrain shows that it is
impossible to predict the behavioral response of the bear. I believe it
is not worth the cost, both in human and budgetary terms, to find out.
Mr. Speaker, considering the significant amount of opposition to, and
the lack of scientific need for the proposed grizzly introduction, we
must look again at what is clearly the real impetus behind this idea.
Introducing the bears addresses only an emotional attachment to the
romance of having grizzly bears roaming the wilderness. It contributes
to Mr. Babbitt's realization of the spiritual dream that he envisioned
with his Hopi Indian friend so many years ago.
If environmentalists get their way with the grizzlies, there will be
a devastating impact on the freedoms and livelihoods of my
constituents, and significant ramifications throughout this country. I
have seen evidence lately of ambitious goals by the Fish and Wildlife
Service and environmental groups to populate regions of the West with
thousands of grizzly bears. This would have the drastic consequence of
shutting down access to many of our lands and forests to all human
activity, including hiking and camping which virtually all Americans
enjoy from time to time.
This would be a giant step closer to the utopia religious
environmentalists are striving to create--a utopia where human beings
have only as much value as the razorback sucker fish, and possibly
less.
Mr. Speaker, this religious vision is not shared by every American
and no American should be forced to promote a religious vision contrary
to their own beliefs. The environmentalists want a new Inquisition to
eradicate those with opposing views, and they have the might of the
Executive behind them. This threatens, in the most profound way, our
entire way of life. It is thoroughly un-American, and I won't stand for
it.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following documents:
Testimony of JoAn Wood, Idaho House of Representatives, Before the
House Resources Committee, January 26, 1995
Madam Chairman, I am JoAn Wood of the Idaho House of
Representatives. I am the ranking member of the House State
Affairs committee, Resources and Conservation committee, and
presently chairman of the House Transportation and Defense. I
was the first committee co-chair of the Idaho Wolf oversight
committee.
My purpose here is to establish before the committee the
stand the people of Idaho, represented by its legislature,
have taken concerning the federal policies of the
reintroduction of wolves into our state and region. I am also
here as the representative of the state government to demand
that, first, the Department of Interior immediately cease and
desist the releasing of wolves into central Idaho, which has
been done without the consent of the Idaho Legislature or any
of its elected official--as required by Idaho State law; and,
second, it abandon this wolf re-introduction program
entirely, which is both scientifically and economically
flawed.
I have a number of items that are pertinent to my testimony
that I would at this time ask unanimous consent to be entered
into the record.
I would like to refer to a letter and petition signed by
elected officials of our state government, including our
governor, and over \2/3\ of our state legislature to our
Congressional delegation stating a request that the
delegation demand Secretary Babbitt immediately stop this
illegal action. I would like to include this letter in the
record.
Let me call your attention to Idaho law, code 36-103, which
states that wildlife is the property of the state, and that
it ``shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and
managed.'' We are outraged because of the possible legal
liability that has been forced upon our state by the
unauthorized release of these wolves on January 14, 1995.
Further, Idaho code 36-715, pertaining to wolf/dog
hybridizations, which are not protected by the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), requires a biological evaluation be
performed on wolves to determine species priority before the
Department of Fish and Game may take any action in accordance
with the U.S. ESA. A request by the legislative committee and
the Idaho State Veterinarian to quarantine and biologically
test, as required by this law, was ignored by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife. This was in direct violation of Idaho State
law.
Also, this law (36-715) gives direction to our own Fish and
Game Department that they not expend funds, transfer assets,
or enter into any cooperative agreements with any agency,
department, or entity of the United States Government
concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state
statute, with the exception that one representative
participate in the wolf recovery team. The total recovery
cost for this wolf re-introduction program is estimated to be
12.7 million dollars. We are concerned that Idaho may be
forced by federal mandate to pick up as much as 25 percent
of this cost. This has not been agreed to by the Idaho
Legislature. The fear of this forced obligation is born
out by a letter received by Idaho Fish and Game Director
from Mr. Donald Friberg, Deputy Assistant Regional
Director, and a copy of a letter from Minnesota State
Director, Richard Wetzel, as to the problems encountered
in Minnesota concerning wolf depredation and cost to that
program. We received a letter also from the Wildlife
federation under the signature of Thomas France Esquire,
that once wolf populations are recovered, defenders of
Wildlife will make a decision about continuing the
compensation in
[[Page H1006]]
conjunction with the states and other affected interests.
Further we charge that the agencies involved did not comply
with Idaho Code 36-715(b), by not taking into consideration
local economies, custom, culture, and private property
rights. Proper notifications were not given for hearings on
this matter. In addition, Suggestions that the government
provide funding for compensation to livestock owners for all
losses and to all people economically affected by land-use
restrictions, among other local economic considerations,
given to the Fish and Wildlife Services by the Wolf Oversight
Committee, of which I was the ranking member, were completely
struck out of the completed wolf plan. I would like to
include a copy of the original plan in the record.
As early as 1984, the Idaho Legislature sent House Joint
Memorial 11 to the President, the secretary of Interior, and
other federal authorities wherein we urged the department of
Interior and US FG&W service terminate any plans to plant
wolf populations into Idaho. It is obvious that was ignored.
Again in 1991, the state legislature sent a memorial (to also
be included in the record) to the same federal officials
(HJM6) stating the serious negative impact on the resource
base of our state. The federal government responded to this
memorial by threatening to turn the wolves over to the Nez
Pierce Indians, who have no plan or process in place
whatsoever to handle the wolves and compliances required by
law.
We presented in the 1991 memorial five criteria for
cooperation of Idaho oversight if the reintroduction cannot
be stopped. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Tod Hoffman's
testimony an Idaho Veterinarian and member of the Wolf
Oversight Committee as a further witness of my testimony.
In conclusion, we submit to this congressional committee
that the U.S. F&W under the direction and authority of the
Secretary of Interior comply with 17.81 of the rules and
regulations (A) refuted by Dr. Charles E. Kay and also Dr.
Edward Goldman, renowned scientists in wildlife biology and
ecology. We also request from Congress that you support
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson's legislation to stop any
further ESA action in Texas, but Idaho as well.
I am the latest effort by Idaho to petition Congress for
relief from these recent unwarranted actions of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Program, and urge for a desisting of the wolf and a
stop to this 6.4 million waste of tax payer money. So far, we
have been ignored.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope my state does not have to sue
our own Federal Government.
____
Office of the Governor,
Boise, ID, January 25, 1996.
Hon. Helen Chenoweth,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Chenoweth: The state of Idaho is
strongly opposed to reintroduction of grizzly bears in Idaho.
The state has many concerns regarding reintroduction, however
there are two major areas that stand out. First, introduced
bears will pose serious public safety concerns for Idahoans
and tourists vacationing in our wonderful state. Second, the
reintroduction has the potential to affect the social and
economic stability of our rural communities by imposing undue
burdens and restrictions on Idaho's natural resources based
industries.
As you are aware, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service is developing an Environmental Impact Statement on
the reintroduction of grizzly bears in central Idaho. I urge
you to explore every available option to stop this
reintroduction process as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
Philip E. Batt,
Governor.
____
State of Idaho,
Boise, ID, January 18, 1996.
Mr. Ed Bangs,
Wolf Reintroduction Coordinator,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT.
Dear Mr. Bangs: I write to reiterate the State of Idaho's
objection to the reintroduction of wolves into central Idaho.
Last year, the Idaho legislature determined that the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service's wolf reintroduction
program did not adequately respond to the concerns of the
people of Idaho. Those inadequacies have been pointed out to
you many times.
Since that time, the United States Congress has also
indicated its dissatisfaction with wolf reintroduction by
holding up the appropriation for the program. I cannot
overemphasize my frustration that the Service has decided to
proceed with wolf reintroduction despite the State of Idaho's
and the U.S. Congress' opposition to the program.
I am encouraged, however, by the statements attributed to
you in an article carried in the January 18, 1996, issue of
the Idaho Statesman newspaper. In that article, you state
that the 1996 shipment of wolves into Idaho may be the last
shipment that is necessary to meet the goals of the program.
I certainly hope so. I implore you to make this the last year
that is marked by the controversy of this ill-conceived
program.
Thank you for being responsive to the concerns of the
people of Idaho.
Sincerely,
Alan G. Lance,
Attorney General.
____
Office of the Governor,
Boise, ID, January 17, 1996.
Ed Bangs
Wolf Reintroduction Coordinator,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT.
Dear Mr. Bangs: According to the Gray Wolf Reintroduction
Progress Report, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) began capturing gray wolves, to be released in
central Idaho, on January 16, 1996. This capture is being
commenced even though the USFWS has not been issued the
appropriate wildlife importation permits by the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game. Without these permits, the USFWS
is ignoring Idaho state laws and its responsibility under the
Endangered Species Act to cooperate with affected states to
the greatest extent possible.
USFWS management of the wolves released in January of 1995
has been unsatisfactory. The monitoring of the wolves has
been inadequate. There have been a number of occasions when
some of the wolves could not be located. Additionally, the
USFWS has failed to notify Idaho citizens, or state agencies,
when wolves were in close proximity to residential areas or
livestock.
Until the USFWS adequately addresses the concerns of the
state of Idaho, I must reiterate my opposition to the release
of any more wolves in central Idaho. Please advise me of the
USFWS's intentions.
Very truly yours,
Philip E. Batt,
Governor.
____
Idaho Fish & Game,
Boise, ID, 21 December 1995.
Ed Bangs,
Wolf Reintroduction Coordinator,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT.
Dear Mr. Bangs: In 1995, the Idaho Legislature rejected a
wolf recovery and management plan that would have allowed the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game to assume the lead role in
wolf recovery in Idaho. As a result of this legislative
action, our Department will not be issuing a special permit
for the release of additional wolves into Idaho. Because we
remain the agency responsible for the management of elk,
deer, and other potential prey of the wolf, we will continue
to work with your agency, the Nez Perce Tribe, and other
agencies and organizations as wolf recovery proceeds.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Jerry M. Conley,
Director.
____________________