[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.
____________________