[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 14 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E181-E182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT 
                                OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 6, 1997

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to introduce on 
Tuesday, February 4, along with our distinguished colleagues John 
Dingell, Jim Saxton, and John Tanner, the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997.
  This measure, which is the product of several years of careful 
deliberation, would be the first comprehensive refuge reform 
legislation since the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge 
Administration Act of 1966. In fact, this is an improved version of the 
bill that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted on April 
24, 1996, by a vote of 287 to 138.
  By way of background, it is important to note that the National 
Wildlife Refuge System is comprised of Federal lands that have been 
acquired for the conservation of fish and wildlife and offer 
recreational opportunities for millions of Americans. Totaling about 
91.7 million acres, the System provides habitat for hundreds of 
species, including nearly 700 kinds of birds, 200 mammals, 250 reptiles 
and amphibians, and 200 kinds of fish. These refuge lands are not 
Federal parks, wilderness areas, or national marine sanctuaries. In 
fact, hunting and fishing occur on more than 95 percent of the total 
acreage of the System.
  The first wildlife refuge was created at Pelican Island, FL, in 1903, 
by one of our Nation's most prominent sportsmen and conservationists, 
President Theodore Roosevelt. Today, the System has 511 refuges, which 
are located in all 50 States and 5 territories. These units range in 
size from the smallest of 1 acre at Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge 
in Minnesota to the largest of 19.3 million acres in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. In the last decade, more than 80 
refuges and approximately 4 million acres have been added to the 
System. Funding for refuge acquisitions comes from two primary sources: 
First, annual appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund; 
and second, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which is funded from 
duck stamps and refuge entrance fees. In fiscal year 1995, $410.9 
million was collected from our Nation's anglers and sport hunters.
  While the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 
authored by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, 
has been a landmark law, there are many people who believe that this 
act is in need of modernization. For instance, there is no statutory 
list of purposes for the National Wildlife Refuge System, there is no 
statutory definition of what constitutes a compatible use of a refuge, 
refuges are not managed as a national system, fishing and hunting are 
arbitrarily prohibited on new refuge lands until governmental studies 
are completed, and there is no requirement to complete comprehensive 
conservation plans for any of the 511 refuges.

  Under the terms of our new legislation, we have established for the 
first time a nationwide set of six purposes for our Refuge System. 
These purposes are: to establish a nationwide network of lands to 
conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and plants; to preserve, restore, 
and protect endangered and threatened species; to conserve and manage 
migratory birds, anandromous fish, and marine mammals; to allow 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, which has been defined as 
fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education; 
and to fulfill international treaty obligations.
  Second, we have defined the term ``compatible use'' by using the 
language the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incorporated into their 
operating regulations years ago. While a refuge manager will retain the 
power to determine what is a ``compatible use,'' this definition should 
provide the guidance needed to make the proper decision.
  Third, wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed to occur during 
the interim period after the land has been acquired, but before the 
implementation of a management plan, as long as the refuge manager 
determines that those activities are compatible.
  The author of this ``open until closed'' provision is the Gentleman 
from New Jersey, Jim Saxton. It is an essential change because there 
are a growing number of Americans who are angry and frustrated over the 
Service's land acquisition process. These Americans have worked hard to 
protect certain lands, they have contributed millions of dollars to the 
purchase of refuge lands, and they have found, much to their dismay, 
that for no rational reason their favorite fishing spot is not off 
limits during open-ended periods of governmental studies.
  Fourth, this legislation provides that fishing and hunting should be 
permitted unless a finding is made that these activities are 
inconsistent with public safety, the purposes of the specific unit, or 
are not based on sound fish and wildlife management.
  Finally, the proposal requires the formulation of conservation plans 
for each of the 511 refuges within 15 years of the date of enactment. 
It is important for the public to know what kind of archeological, 
natural, or wildlife resources exist on these refuges, and the allowed 
public uses of these resources. This inventory has been a goal of the 
environmental community for many years.
  While this is a brief overview of the provisions of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, there are a number of 
things that the legislation does not address. For instance, it:

  does not permit or require hunting and fishing to occur on every 
wildlife refuge. These activities must be found ``compatible'' and must 
meet a three-part test. Fishing and hunting can only occur on refuges 
when consistent with sound fish and wildlife management practices, with 
the fundamental reasons the refuge was created, and with public safety;
  does not affect Federal, State, or local water rights. This bill does 
not limit the ability of the Federal Government to secure water for a 
refuge;
  does not facilitate nonwildlife-dependent uses such as grazing, 
farming, mining, oil and gas development, jet skiing, etc. As under 
current law, nonwildlife-dependent uses may continue to occur when 
compatible, and when the Fish and Wildlife Service lacks legal 
authority or sufficient ownership interest in the property to prevent 
them. But this bill does not mandate, enhance, or protect such uses;
  does not increase or decrease the size of any of the 511 refuge 
units;
  does not permit unapproved pesticides to be used by row farmers or 
anyone else in the Refuge System;
  does not permit the commercialization of our Refuge System. To 
repeat, this bill makes only compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses a purpose of the system. They are clearly defined as fishing, 
hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education; and
  does not limit the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to acquire new 
refuge lands at existing refuges. In fiscal year 1998, the service will 
propose to spend millions of dollars to acquire additional new acreage 
for our Refuge System. Our bill will not delay, stop, or otherwise 
affect those acquisitions.
  It is my hope that during the debate on this bill in the 105th 
Congress, we will witness an accurate portrayal of the true impact of 
the provisions of this proposal. It is time to stop the 
misrepresentation of this bill as an effort to require hunting on 
refuges and the commercialization of the System.
  This legislation is supported by the American Archery Council, the 
American Sportfishing Association, B.A.S.S., Inc., the California 
Waterfowl Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Foundation 
for North American Wild Sheep, International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies, International Bowhunters Organization, Masters of 
Foxhounds Association of America, Mzuri Wildlife Foundation, National 
Rifle Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, New Jersey 
Federation of Sportsmen, North American Waterfowl Federation, Quail 
Unlimited, Ruffed

[[Page E182]]

Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Wildlife Forever, and the 
Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. It has also been endorsed by the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, which has a membership of more than 
200 Members of this body.

  Finally, this legislation is an improvement over the President's 
Executive Order of March 25, 1996. While the Executive order contains 
nonbinding ``directives'' to the Secretary of the Interior, our 
legislation statutorily establishes six purposes for the National 
Wildlife Refuge System. The Executive order is also deficient in that 
it does not stipulate that 511 individual refuge units should be 
managed as a national system or that conservation plans should be 
completed. Furthermore, like all Executive orders, it suffers from the 
inherent problem that unlike statutory law, it can be easily modified, 
replaced or ignored by future administrations.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Wildlife Refuge System must be managed more 
effectively in the future. This System needs to have a statutory list 
of purposes, uniform guidelines to determine what activities are 
permissible, comprehensive conservation plans, and the enthusiastic 
support of the American people who finance this System with their hard 
earned tax dollars.
  These are the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997. It is a sound piece of conservation 
legislation that reaffirms the legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt 
and the vision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 
Act of 1966.
  I would urge my colleagues to join with me, John Dingell, Jim Saxton 
and John Tanner in this important effort to improve our National 
Wildlife Refuge System. This legislation will ensure that this system 
is alive and well for all our constituents for many years to come. It 
is interesting to note that the year 1997 has been designated as the 
``Year of the National Wildlife Refuge System''. It would, therefore, 
be fitting to enact the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 
this year.

                          ____________________