[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 2, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S477-S479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DELISTING OF THE GRAY WOLF

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have joined my colleagues to introduce 
legislation to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to remove the 
gray wolf. The Endangered Species Act has proved a failure for wolf 
conservation. I believe Congress must pave the way for a new State-
based approach.
  Since the listing of the gray wolf as endangered in 1976, the Federal 
wolf recovery programs have been in continuous litigation. The latest 
Federal district court decision returning the Rocky Mountain gray wolf 
to the Endangered Species List despite a population in excess of agreed 
upon recovery goals was the last straw. It is evident now that science 
is not driving recovery; rather, judicial decisions and consent 
agreements with special interest groups are dictating the fate of 
wolves and impacted communities. Despite the authorities and 
responsibilities conveyed to States by Congress under section 6 of the 
Endangered Species Act, State wildlife agencies have become mere 
bystanders in wolf management under this paradigm.
  Take the Mexican gray wolf in the Southwest. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, USFWS, has not been able to revise the recovery plan 
for that wolf in 28 years. Why? Because of the litigious nature of 
activist organizations. Another attempt to overhaul the program and 
develop a recovery plan is under way, but USFWS estimates that plan is 
at least 4 to 6 years away, assuming no litigation. We can't expect the 
public or the wolves to continue to wait.
  Acceptance of wolves on the landscape requires preventing, mitigating 
and responding to livestock depredation and nuisance issues on public, 
private and tribal lands. It requires trust and implementation of 
solutions collaboratively developed by local stakeholders. It's time to 
give States the chance to demonstrate that they can make wolf 
conservation work for both people and wolves.
  Restoring wildlife is not new to States or tribes. In my home State 
of Arizona, the Game and Fish Department has been very successful in 
collaborative conservation. A great example is the Southwestern bald 
eagle. The Game and Fish Department's intensive interagency management 
of this species has increased its numbers and prevented its listing. 
The Arizona Game and Fish seeks to apply this proven approach to wolf 
conservation. This bill, if enacted, would give them the opportunity.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in 
the Record in support of this legislation: a letter from the Arizona 
Game and Fish Department dated December 7, 2010, and a resolution 
adopted by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies dated 
January 9, 2011.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             The State of Arizona,


                                     Game and Fish Department,

                                    Phoenix, AZ, December 7, 2010.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Trent Franks,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator John McCain, Senator Jon Kyl and Congressman 
     Trent Franks: The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has 
     concluded it is beyond time to try a different approach to 
     Mexican wolf conservation. We ask

[[Page S478]]

     that you help us do that by working with other members of 
     Congress to delist the gray wolf rangewide (i.e. including 
     the Mexican wolf) and place the conservation burden for this 
     species on the States and willing Tribes. Restoring wildlife 
     is not new to either the States or the Tribes. Witness what 
     has been accomplished with many other species since the early 
     1900s. And recognize that when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service (USFWS) speaks with justifiable pride about its 
     efforts to recover endangered and threatened species, many, 
     if not most, of those efforts are carried out by or at least 
     with substantial assistance from State and Tribal wildlife 
     agencies.
       After a lengthy public session on December 4, the Arizona 
     Game and Fish Commission (Commission) voted 4-1 to support 
     Congressional actions to delist the gray wolf from protection 
     under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. 
     The vote reflects the fact that we do not want to get out of 
     the wolf conservation business; rather, we want to get in 
     deeper but more affordably, efficiently and effectively. 
     Bureaucratic process compelled by litigation has driven the 
     cost of Mexican wolf conservation out of reach for States, 
     Tribes and private stakeholders. We cannot print our own 
     money.
       According to USFWS estimates, we are faced with the 
     prospects of at least 2 years of recovery planning, 4-5 years 
     of environmental impact analysis and 1 to 2 years of federal 
     rulemaking. Even if some of the Federal process can occur 
     simultaneously, and even if litigation does not draw the 
     process out (an extremely unlikely event), it would likely be 
     4 to 6 years before all the pieces are in place to effect 
     significant change in the current approach to Mexican wolf 
     recovery through reintroduction. We want to put precious 
     State resources, public resources and private resources into 
     on-the-ground wolf conservation rather than regulatory 
     process and legal fees.
       The Commission sees this as an opportunity to break through 
     the litigation and Federal process gridlock in Mexican wolf 
     recovery and reintroduction that has impeded progress since 
     2001 and welcomes the opportunity to manage this important 
     species. The Commission desires to work with every 
     stakeholder and all who are willing to come to the table to 
     seek (and collaboratively fund) solutions to issues. Local 
     governments, sportsmen, livestock operators, 
     environmentalists and the White Mountain Apache Tribe have 
     all repeatedly stated their support for Mexican wolf 
     conservation in Arizona, as has the Commission. Opponents of 
     wolf conservation are a distinct but vocal minority.
       If the Mexican wolf were delisted by Congressional action, 
     the Commission would anticipate taking the same approach to 
     its conservation that we have taken with the Southwestern 
     bald eagle. We would sustain the interagency conservation 
     effort that has been in place since 1998 but modify it as 
     necessary to address significant problems that were 
     identified in program reviews in 2001, 2002 and 2005. USFWS 
     is our most important agency partner in wildlife conservation 
     and we would work closely to engage them under a new paradigm 
     developed with our stakeholders. We are confident that, 
     unfettered by the regulatory and litigation gridlock that has 
     peaked over the past three years, we and willing cooperators 
     in the governmental (including USFWS and Tribes) and 
     nongovernmental sectors could find an appropriate balance 
     among the more significant needs for and constraints on 
     Mexican wolf conservation. Such a balance would result in an 
     ecologically appropriate wolf population, sufficient prey 
     populations to support the wolves without eroding hunter 
     opportunity or unnecessarily reducing other outdoor 
     recreation, and with significantly reduced uncompensated 
     impacts on public, Tribal and private lands livestock 
     producers in Arizona.
       Maintaining a robust Mexican wolf conservation program is 
     fundamental to our commitment to wildlife under Arizona 
     Revised Statutes Title 17 and is indicative of our commitment 
     since 1985 under Section 6 of the ESA to maintain an 
     ``adequate and active program for the conservation of 
     endangered species and threatened species.'' We have invested 
     more than $5 million in Mexican wolf conservation and since 
     2003 the Department has been the primary glue holding the 
     interagency Arizona-New Mexico wolf reintroduction project 
     together at the agency oversight and field levels. We have 
     tried everything possible, short of legal action or 
     Congressional intervention, to remedy the gridlock resulting, 
     in large part, from litigation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service has been unable to respond as necessary to resolve 
     even the most obvious significant problems, perhaps largely 
     because of legal and policy issues stemming from litigation 
     over the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes gray 
     wolf programs as well as the Mexican wolf program, but 
     also, at least in part, because of the complexity and 
     rigidity of Federal regulatory processes. Regardless, the 
     livestock producers affected by Mexican wolf 
     reintroduction simply cannot afford more years of gridlock 
     and neither can Arizona Game and Fish. Further, Arizona 
     cannot afford to continue investing significant time and 
     money in wolf conservation only to arrive at a day when, 
     as has occurred in the Northern Rockies and Western Great 
     Lakes, special interest groups with public lands agendas 
     much broader than wolf conservation refuse to accept as 
     recovered even a population of wolves that is several 
     times larger than required by an approved Recovery Plan 
     they helped develop.
       We realize Congressional listing or delisting of any 
     species would usurp authorities conveyed through the ESA to 
     the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce. That would set a 
     precedent few if any of us have ever wanted to see, including 
     Arizona Game and Fish. However, none of us ever anticipated 
     the degree to which the judiciary would usurp those same 
     authorities in an environment of continuous litigation under 
     the ESA and the Administrative Procedures Act. Congressional 
     delisting is not a step that we advocate lightly but the 
     Mexican wolf was included in the 1976 Federal listing of the 
     gray wolf as endangered and there is still no indication the 
     ESA-driven approach to recovery will ever be successful. In 
     fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary. USFWS has not 
     been able to revise the Recovery Plan in 28 years; how can 
     anyone possibly hope it can achieve Mexican wolf recovery in 
     our lifetimes under the current procedural morass that 
     constrains it?
       Congressional delisting would represent sailing uncharted 
     waters fraught with unforeseen challenges. So be it. Far 
     better to test ourselves against those challenges than to 
     allow the current gridlock to force us all to continue doing 
     the same unproductive things over and over again for another 
     decade; with litigation at virtually every step of the way, 
     no change in outcome and no greater hope for success in our 
     lifetimes. A decade from now, we would much rather regret 
     having stepped boldly and failed than having wasted another 
     10 years trying to make the litigation-driven approach to 
     Mexican wolf conservation work.
       It is truly ironic that successful conservation of the 
     Mexican wolf might hinge on removing it from the control of 
     the Congressional Act that was intended to save it.
       Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to 
     encourage or facilitate your consideration of this crucial 
     issue. I would be happy to send a member of my staff to 
     Washington, D.C. to provide key members of your staffs a more 
     detailed description of the gridlock I have referenced above. 
     One member of my staff has worked with Mexican wolf 
     conservation for 28 years and has a comprehensive grasp of 
     the story from the beginning through present times. It is a 
     compelling story that makes the depth of frustration among 
     Arizona stakeholders more understandable.
       Representatives from sportsman, environmental, livestock 
     producer, Tribal and local government stakeholders are 
     prepared to accompany my staff to answer your questions 
     regarding this situation and the need for constructive 
     change. An alternative would be for key members of your 
     staffs to meet with these stakeholders in Alpine, Arizona, so 
     a better appreciation of the local situation could be 
     provided, possibly through a tour of ``wolf country'' in 
     Arizona. I would be equally happy to facilitate such a 
     meeting, as I believe would any of the three County 
     governments in eastern Arizona that are among our most 
     constructive cooperators in Mexican wolf conservation.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Larry D. Voyles,
     Director.
                                  ____


                               Resolution


       DELIST THE GRAY WOLF AND RESTORE MANAGEMENT TO THE STATES

       Whereas, the northern Rocky Mountain distinct population 
     segment of gray wolves exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service recovery level of thirty or more breeding pairs in 
     2002; and
       Whereas, population estimates as of 2009 include at least 
     1,700 animals well distributed among Idaho, Montana, and 
     Wyoming; and
       Whereas, the remarkable increase in gray wolf populations 
     was only possible because of the historic management and 
     stewardship of ungulates by state fish and wildlife agencies; 
     and
       Whereas, a primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act 
     (ESA) is to ``provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon 
     which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 
     conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such 
     endangered species and threatened species, and to take such 
     steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the 
     treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this 
     section.''; and
       Whereas, the primary purpose of the ESA has clearly been 
     achieved for the gray wolf, and gray wolves have recovered in 
     the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; and
       Whereas, a lack of delisting, given the species has met 
     recovery goals, can result in an erosion of public acceptance 
     of wolves and the ESA; and
       Whereas, State wildlife agencies are the competent 
     authorities to manage resident species for their sustained 
     use and enjoyment; and
       Whereas, the overall aim of the ESA is to recover species 
     such that the species can be managed by the appropriate 
     entity. State wildlife agencies are the appropriate entities 
     to assume management of the gray wolf as a resident species; 
     and
       Whereas, delays in federal decision-making, induced partly 
     by citizen-suit litigation over virtually all aspects of 
     Mexican gray wolf recovery, have, after 34 years of 
     protection under the ESA, including 12 years of 
     reintroduction efforts, resulted in failure to recover the 
     Mexican gray wolf; and
       Whereas, the States of Arizona and New Mexico, the White 
     Mountain Apache Tribe,

[[Page S479]]

     various local governments and local stakeholders are willing 
     and able to use incentives and interdiction measures without 
     being encumbered by the gridlock resulting from federal 
     listing, to increase the Mexican gray wolf population to 
     levels in both states that, coupled with conservation efforts 
     in Mexico, would establish and maintain a rangewide 
     population of Mexican gray wolves that is self-sustaining and 
     managed at levels sufficient to meet scientifically-valid 
     population objectives. Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 
     Agencies supports and endorses immediate delisting of gray 
     wolves in the WAFWA member states from the ESA, either 
     through legislative or administrative means, and that this 
     species be managed by the respective State wildlife agencies.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined my colleagues 
in introducing legislation that would delist the gray wolf from 
endangered species status thereby returning wolf population management 
to the respective State wildlife agencies. As my colleagues know, 
Federal efforts to recover the gray wolf and related subspecies are 
controversial throughout the West and Midwest including my home State 
of Arizona.
  Officially listed in 1974, the gray wolf was among the first animals 
protected under the Endangered Species Act. At that time, gray wolves 
were undoubtedly a broken species, hunted to near extinction by western 
pioneers. But in the 1990s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched 
an ambitious wolf repopulation effort in several States where wolves 
had been eradicated. Federal biologists released dozens of wolf 
breeding pairs into parts of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho as well as Arizona 
and New Mexico in the hopes that these so-called experimental 
populations would reestablish their historic ranges.
  In the northern Rocky Mountains, these efforts largely paid off in 
2002 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it achieved 
its population goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves in Idaho, 
Montana and Wyoming. In fact, the Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 
was so successful at breeding pups that by 2005 they reached 49 
breeding pairs and 663 total wolves. Today those numbers stand at over 
71 breeding pairs and about 1,700 total wolves, far surpassing the 
stated goals of the Federal Government's wolf recovery plan. Despite 
this remarkable comeback, several environmentalist groups have used the 
judicial process to keep gray wolf populations under various forms of 
Federal protection, even to the detriment of native deer and elk 
populations which are dropping dramatically because of so many predator 
wolves. By keeping wolves locked into federally protected status, State 
wildlife authorities are legally prevented from rightfully controlling 
their exploding wolf population. At the same time the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service is forced to overextend its resources, reach and 
welcome on a program that achieved its goals almost a decade ago. This 
simply cannot continue.
  With respect to Arizona, my support for delisting the gray wolf is 
not a mandate for wolf hunts but rather to establish a path forward for 
saving the Mexican gray wolf from a failed Federal recovery program and 
to provide essential protections for livestock growers. If you compare 
the success of the northern Rockies against the dismal returns of the 
Mexican Wolf Recovery Program in Arizona and New Mexico, you see how 
Federal mismanagement and judicial activism have combined to hurt both 
ranchers and wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service introduced 13 
wolves in 1998 and estimated that the Southwest should have 100 wolves 
by now but in fact we have barely topped 42 wolves over the past 12 
years. Pup survival in Arizona and New Mexico remains bleak with 31 
observed in 2009 but only 7 surviving the winter. Livestock 
depredations remain a constant concern even though the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service recently rescinded rules that allow rancher's to 
protect their cattle for depredation. To date, the Mexican Wolf 
Recovery Program has cost taxpayers roughly $20 million or roughly 
$500,000 per wolf with no end in sight. By removing Federal protections 
for the Mexican gray wolf, management and recovery responsibilities 
would be transferred from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the 
State's wildlife authority, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, which 
recently voted to support this proposal.
  The facts on the ground paint a clear picture that it is time to 
return management and recovery of these wolf populations to the States. 
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________