Federal News Service
July 20, 2000, Thursday 10:52 AM Eastern Time
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
HSUS Wayne Pacelle testimony before Congressional subcommittee
LENGTH: 1447 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF WAYNE PACELLE BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES
COMMITTEE FISHERIES, CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS SUBCOMMITTEE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4790, the "Hunting Heritage Protection Act." I am Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President for Communications and Government Affairs for The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest animal protection organization with more than 7 million members and constituents nationwide. One of every 40 Americans is a direct supporter of The HSUS. I deliver this testimony also on behalf of the American Humane Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Doris Day Animal League, The Fund for Animals, and the Society for Animal Protective Legislation.
The HSUS and the above-mentioned organizations oppose this needless, nebulous, and unworkable legislation. H.R. 4790 will waste taxpayer dollars, impose an unfunded federal mandate on the states, and, last but not least, cause more gratuitous abuse of wildlife.
It is hard to understand the motivation for this legislation, except as an attempt to secure and mount a political trophy for an ideologically driven faction of the hunting lobby. There is no legislation in Congress that would seek to restrict any common form of hunting on federal lands. There is bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1202, the "Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act," that would halt the odious and unsporting practice of shooting exotic mammals in cages or fenced enclosures -- a practice which occurs exclusively on private lands; while many rank-and-file hunters and local hunting groups unreservedly support this legislation, some of the hunting groups represented here today are working to defeat even this extraordinarily narrow measure which seeks to address such an acute abuse. There is also bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1581, to restrict the use of the barbaric and indiscriminate steel-jawed leghold trap, a device so inhumane that its use has been barred in 89 countries and it has been declared "inhumane" by every reputable organization that has a sincere interest in alleviating animal suffering and promoting animal welfare, including the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association.
The Fairbanks Daily Miner ran a news story recently on H.R. 4790 in which a hunting industry spokesperson credited last year's amendment by Rep. Sam Farr to the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act with the decision to introduce and pursue the "Hunting Heritage Protection Act." That amendment, which sought to halt the use of steel-jawed leghold traps and neck snares for commerce or recreation on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, was dropped in a conference committee and recreational and commercial trapping on refuges still occurs throughout the country.
There is hardly a pitched battle in the Congress over common hunting practices on federal lands. There is an attempt to deal with some of the worst abuses in the hunting industry where the federal government has a legitimate stake in intervening to protect wildlife. H.R. 4790 amounts to a remarkable overreaction to a problem that does not exist.
What's more, H.R. 4790 cannot achieve its intended objective, even if the threat to hunting were legitimate. Any statute passed by Congress cannot be protected from a future action of Congress. Congress can pass a new statute to override the measure, amend the original statute, or restrict funding for hunting programs through the appropriations process. Take the case of the Farr amendment on trapping. That measure advanced in spite of the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge Reform Act of 1997, which designated hunting as a "priority public use" on the 93 million-acre refuge system. H.R. 4790 amounts to nothing more than an attempt to choke off debate over the socially controversial practice of hunting and to tie the hands of Congress and federal land and wildlife management agencies in the future -- objectives which are impossible to achieve in either the Congress or in the larger cultural context. Ironically, when the Farr amendment on trapping was advanced, its opponents led with the argument that trapping on National Wildlife Refuges is a matter that should be reserved for the states. Now, in the form of H.R. 4790, which presumably applies to lands administered by the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and some lands administered by the National Park Service, we have the argument turned on its head, where "federal public land and water shall be open to access and use for recreational hunting." Under this bill, the federal government is supposed to tromp the states and push hunting on federal lands.
When specific lands are closed to hunting, there are sound reasons for it. It's not simple fiat from the federal government or the states. And it's not the norm.
The plain fact is, hunting is allowed on almost all lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service -- on nearly 500 million acres. Hunting occurs also on a large share of the nation's 93 million acres of National Wildlife Refuges, on some of the 25 million acres of Department of Defense lands, and on some national seashores, national preserves, and units of the National Park Service other than national parks and monuments. So, the question is, where's the problem and what's the need for this legislation?
The application of the "no net loss" concept to hunting has potentially preposterous implications. If the federal government restricts the baiting of black bears on a national forest because the public finds the practice unsporting or is offended by the dumping of rotting food and litter as bait, must the U.S. Forest Service then examine its land holdings and identify an area it can open to bear baiting where the practice is now prohibited? Or if the BLM determines that high-tech hound hunting of mountain lions on its lands is not appropriate for social or biological reasons, shall the federal government then promote hound hunting on some other federal land? If a national seashore with a pheasant stocking program designed to provide recreational shooting opportunities for hunters determines that the introduction of exotic pheasants has an adverse impact on the health and viability of native upland bird species and thereby halts the stocking program, must pheasant stocking subsequently be undertaken on other federal lands?
H.R. 4790 accepts federal land hunting restrictions only on the basis of"national security," "public safety," or "for reasons specifically authorized in applicable federal statutes as reasons for closure." It gives no attention to hunting restrictions needed for biological and conservation purposes, compatibility with other federal land users, or social and sociological concerns. The fact is, hunting programs raise more than national security or public safety concerns.
While there are 14 million hunters in the United States -- less than 6 percent of the population of the United States -- there are more than 50 million birdwatchers. There are tens of millions of hikers, backpackers, and other outdoor recreationists. More than half of all Americans participate in wildlife-associated recreation, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation." Hunting programs need to be balanced with programs to accommodate these other public-lands users, not simply thrust upon the lands and land users as a blanket federal mandate.
Opening lands to hunting will cost money. Agencies may have to conduct Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements. They may have to hire additional wildlife personnel to manage hunts. They may have to hire law enforcement personnel to police the hunts. This legislation authorizes no monies associated with these costs. One thing is certain, however: the taxpayers will have to bear the burden, whether at the state level or the federal level, for the exercise. Taxpayers will also have to bear the overhead burden for the operations and administration of a new National Recreational Hunting Coordination Council, whose purposes and powers are poorly described in H.R. 4790.
Congress can -- and does -- take action if there is a specific issue relating to hunting on a wildlife refuge or some other federal land unit. There is no need for a one-size-fits-all mandate to cover a range of issues that affects states and citizens across the country in a variety of ways. This legislation is unsound and unneeded. I urge that the Resources Committee take no further action on it.