[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Page H4821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           WOLVES IN THE WEST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are, doing so-called morning-
hour debate after a very late evening here in the House doing a pretend 
bill. We are providing the very similitude of a representative Congress 
by having endless series of votes on bills that are going nowhere in 
the appropriations process because the Senate isn't doing 
appropriations bills. Everyone knows there will be some gigantic 
omnibus or continuing resolution year-end deal. Nonetheless, to make it 
look like we are actually doing something, instead of taking up issues, 
as mentioned by Mr. Clyburn earlier, we are holding endless vote series 
and then debate late at night.
  At 1:45 a.m. the gentleman from Washington introduced an amendment to 
remove all protections for wolves in the United States of America. Now, 
of course, wolves only occupy a tiny fraction of their range. He did 
this under strong urging from the cattlemen and some hunting groups. 
There is only one thing wrong with what he is doing. It is actually 
going to have a countereffect.
  The wolf predation on cattle is unbelievably insignificant. 7.8 
percent of the losses of cattle are due to disease and weather. Better 
husbandry would help a lot with the cattlemen. And then, 2.7 percent is 
due to other predators, principally, coyotes, who the animal damage 
control and wildlife services people have been trying to extirpate for 
70 years. Well, 70 years after they tried to eliminate all the coyotes 
in America, there are many more coyotes much more wildly dispersed 
across the country, and there are huge packs in the West which do 
predate on cattle.
  Now, why is it a problem if they want to kill off the wolves?
  Well, wolves eat and kill coyotes. Here is a predator that does not 
prefer cattle; it prefers wild game. In fact, wolves do help also with 
wild game. They aren't trophy hunters. They aren't going after the 50-
point elk. They are going to go after the slowest and weakest that are 
out there, or caribou up in Alaska.
  They actually improve the health of the herds, but the hunters say: 
Wait a minute. They are killing some of our elk. We should be killing 
the elk.
  But the hunters are going after the trophies. The wolves aren't going 
after the trophies. So you are doing exactly the wrong, stupid thing 
here.
  I think a majority of the American people, as indicated by the 1.2 
million comments against delisting the wolf submitted to the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service, would agree that we want to restore 
ecosystems and make them more healthy.
  Look at Yellowstone. Since the wolves have come back into 
Yellowstone, the park has changed dramatically for the better. The elk 
herds don't just hang around now down in the rivers and eat all of the 
riparian vegetation and ruin the water quality. They have got to act 
more like elk and hide out in the forest. If they make themselves into 
targets, they are going to get eaten. So the health of the park has 
improved unbelievably due to the presence of wolves.
  This is a keystone species in a natural order. And because of this 
horrible depredation, this 0.9 percent loss due to wolves, compared to 
almost 10 times that due to bad husbandry practices, the answer is: 
Kill the wolves.
  We have got a 2.7 loss due to coyotes and other predators who 
actually are targeted by the wolves. The answer is: Kill the wolves.
  This is stupid, irrational, unscientific. In fact, there is a study 
from the University of Washington that found killing wolves actually 
increased livestock losses.
  The gentleman from Washington wants to persist in the myth that 
somehow, by eliminating wolves, it will help the livestock industry. It 
is just yet another misbegotten amendment on a fake bill that isn't 
going anywhere, but I would still urge my colleagues to vote against 
it.

                          ____________________