[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.

                          ____________________