U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

44-273 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE REINTRODUCTION

OF THE GRIZZLY BEAR IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN NATIONAL FORESTS

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 12, 1997—WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105-42

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa

———————————

———————————

BILL SIMMONS, Staff Director

ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held June 12, 1997 .................................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 2

Hill, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana . 3

Vento, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 4

Statements of witnesses:

Benedetto, Kathleen, Communities for a Great Northwest, Billings, MT ... 55

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 169

Branch, Senator Ric, Idaho State Senate, Midvale, ID ................................. 39

Bugli, Shirley, Concerned About Grizzlies, Stevensville, MT ....................... 59

Carlson, Rita, BlueRibbon Coalition, Lewiston, ID ....................................... 57

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 172

Church, Phil, Resource Organization on Timber Supply, Lewiston, ID ...... 70

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 199

Fischer, Hank, Defenders of Wildlife, Missoula, MT ..................................... 71

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 201

France, Thomas, National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, Montana ........... 66

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 178

Kempthorne, Senator, prepared statement .................................................... 6

Mealey, Stephen, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID ............. 41

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 151

Morgenweck, Dr. Ralph, Director, Mountain Prairie Region, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO ................................................................ 8

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 123

Riley, Jim, Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Coeur d’Alene,

ID ................................................................................................................... 67

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 194

Salwasser, Hal, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT ... 10

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 131

Strickler, Ted, Custer County Commissioner, Challis, ID ............................ 42

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 165

Additional material supplied:

Batt, Hon. Philip E., Governor, Idaho, prepared statement of ..................... 144

Briefing Paper ................................................................................................... 84

Calgary Herald edition ..................................................................................... 207

Concerned About Grizzlies, Hamilton, Montana, prepared statement of .... 175

Joint memorial .................................................................................................. 143

Outdoor Life edition ......................................................................................... 135

Public Opinions and Attitudes Toward Reintroducing Grizzly Bears to

the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area of Idaho and Montana ................ 96

Revised Draft, 5/20/96, Endangered Species Act, Rule 10(j) ......................... 89

Communications received:

Governor’s letter ............................................................................................... 141

Idaho delegation letter ..................................................................................... 85

Idaho Falls, Post Register, ............................................................................... 184

Letter to Hon. Bruce Babbitt from Members ................................................. 149

New York Times ............................................................................................... 187

Racicot, Hon. Marc, Governor, Montana, letter to John Weaver, U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service ................................................................................. 183
(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE REINTRODUCTION OF THE GRIZZLY BEAR IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN NATIONAL FORESTS

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen

Chenoweth (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ladies and gentlemen, the Subcommittee on

Forests and Forest Health will come to order. The Subcommittee

is meeting today to hear testimony on the reintroduction of the

grizzly bear in the public domain national forests.

Under Rule 4[g] of the Committee rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the ranking minority member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other

members have statements, they can be included in the hearing

record under unanimous consent.

I want to welcome everyone to this hearing today and to offer a

special welcome to our witnesses. As everyone knows, I, along with

Governor Phil Batt, Senator Larry Craig, Senator Dirk Kempthorne, and Congressman Mike Crapo, have gone on record as opposing the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitterroot

area of Idaho or anyplace in Idaho.

In addition to our opposition, I hold in my hand a Joint Memorial

passed by the Idaho State Legislature opposing the reintroduction

of the grizzly bear in Idaho. And without objection, I would like to

make sure that a copy of this memorial is entered into the record.

[Joint memorial follows:]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. With the Governor saying no, the State legislature saying no, the entire Idaho congressional delegation saying

no, and the people of Idaho saying no, what part of no doesn’t the

Department of Interior understand?

In a letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt dated May

15, 1997, as a unified congressional delegation we wrote to express

our concerns with the proposal and to try and obtain more information. We have yet to receive answers to our questions, and our con-
2

cerns remain unresolved. That is in large part one of the reasons

why we are having this hearing today.

The opposition to the reintroduction of the grizzly bear originates

from a variety of places. The grizzly bear is known to be unpredictable and dangerous to people and livestock. Its Latin name says it

all: Ursus Arctos Horribilis. What is most disconcerting is that the

Department of Interior has not demonstrated an understanding nor

a willingness to allow State and counties the ability to properly

protect its citizens.

It is my belief that the issue of reintroduction of the grizzly bear

is an issue of local control, as well as one of States rights. It is an

issue of local control. And as we will hear today, the local people

do not want the grizzly bear foisted upon them by the Federal Government.

In my view, too many issues remain unresolved. If the Federal

Government places this lethal weapon into the public domain, who

is liable for livestock and property damage? Who is liable for personal injury and the potential loss of life? What about human life

and limb? Who will pay for all of this? How can you pay for a

human life or the life of a child?

Additionally, grizzly bears do not recognize boundaries and jurisdictional lines. If a bear were to wander from the initial point of

introduction, will the new area become habitat and what effect will

that have?

More importantly though is the question that has been raised of

whether or not the proposed site of introduction, the Selway-Bitterroot, is even suitable grizzly habitat. The concerns are many but

until we received fundamental answers to questions about the loss

of local control, about the protection of people and their property,

and about the role of the State, I will oppose the introduction at

every possible opportunity.

I question the wisdom of an effort to place a lethal weapon into

public domain forests when there remain habitat suitability questions and when there currently exists a thriving population of the

species just a couple of hundred miles to the southeast of the proposed site.

This, coupled with the State’s vehement objections, should provide an easy answer to the question of whether the Administration

should proceed at all with this introduction. The Chairman now

recognizes Mr. Hill from Montana and without objection would welcome his statement. Thank you.

[Statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

I want to welcome everyone to this hearing today and offer a special welcome to

our witnesses. As everyone knows, I, along with Governor Phil Batt, Senator Larry

Craig, Senator Dirk Kempthorne, and Congressman Mike Crapo, have gone on

record as opposing the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitterroot

area of Idaho. In addition to our opposition, I hold in my hand a Joint Memorial

passed by the Idaho State Legislature opposing the reintroduction of the grizzly

bear in Idaho.

With the governor saying no, the State Legislature saying no, the entire Idaho

Congressional Delegation saying no, and the people of Idaho saying no, what part

of no does the Department of Interior not understand.

In a letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt dated May 15, 1997, as a

unified Congressional Delegation we wrote to express our concerns with the pro-
3

posal and to try and obtain more information. We have yet to receive answers to

our questions and our concerns remain unresolved.

The opposition to the reintroduction of the grizzly bear originates from a variety

of places. The grizzly bear is know to be unpredictable and dangerous to people, and

livestock. It’s Latin name says it all: Ursus Arctos HORRIBlLIS. What is most disconcerting is that the Department of the Interior has not demonstrated and understanding nor a willingness to allow State and counties the ability to properly protect

citizens.

It is my belief that the issue of reintroduction of the grizzly bear is an issue of

local control as well as one of States rights. And as we will hear today, the local

people do not want the grizzly bear foisted upon them by the Federal Government.

In my view, too many issues remain unresolved. If the Federal Government places

this lethal weapon into the public domain, who is liable for livestock and property

damage? What about loss of human life and limb? Who will pay for all of this? Additionally, grizzly bears do not recognize boundaries and jurisdictional lines. If a bear

were to wander from the initial point of introduction, will the new area become

habitat and what effect will it have?

Most importantly, though, is the question that has been raised of whether or not

the proposed site of introduction, the Selway-Bitterroot, is even be suitable grizzly

habitat. The concerns are many, but until we receive fundamental answers to concerns about the loss of local control, about the protection of people and their property, and about the role of the State, I will oppose the reintroduction at every possible opportunity.

I question the wisdom of an effort to place a lethal weapon into public domain

forests when there remain habitat-suitability questions and when there currently

exists a thriving population of the species just a couple of hundred miles to the

southeast of the proposed site. This, coupled with the State’s vehement objections,

should provide an easy answer to the question of whether the Administration should

proceed with the reintroduction.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and good morning. I

want to thank the Chairman for holding this oversight hearing,

and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Grizzly introduction is

certainly a very important issue in the State of Montana, and like

other endangered species issues, it is proving to be quite controversial.

I would also like to welcome the witnesses who are here today

and especially recognize those from Montana who are here today

to participate in the hearing. The truth that I am most interested

in today is how the Montanans feel about the reintroduction of the

grizzly and what is the reality of that reintroduction; not what

should happen in a perfect world but what will happen and how

will Montana be impacted.

As we go through this process, the most important thing to me

is public input and protecting the rights of individuals, industry,

sportsmen, and interest groups while being sensitive to the desire

of restoring grizzlies in the Selway-Bitterroot. I believe strongly

that if reintroduction actually does take place, the locals should be

involved in every aspect of grizzly bear reintroduction and management, not just in an advisory capacity but as a group that has real

power to effect change and to set policy.

Unfortunately, I think history shows that in spite of good intentions, the public is not the final decisionmaker, nor the chief manager of species and habitat. Final decisions and plans are ultimately made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service here in Washington, DC. I understand the Forest Service has met with impacted

communities and will continue to do so as the process goes forward,
4

and I appreciate the efforts being made to keep communities involved in that process.

I strongly believe that if reintroduction takes place, the only way

it will be successful is if there is a consensus among impacted

groups. Although there have been assurances that there will be a

Citizen Management Committee to develop policy and work plans,

there is a great deal of skepticism on the part of most Montanans

on whether they really will have a final say on the management

responsibility.

So I look forward to the testimony today. Montana is a great

State with the most productive game population in the lower 48.

I believe Montana has shown that it is most qualified to manage

wildlife and resources, develop community-based plans, and address the goals and desires of citizens, not the Federal Government, and will fight for those rights. Thank you again for coming

today, and I look forward to hearing from all of you. Thank you,

Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman from Montana, and the

Chair now recognizes the Minority member, Mr. Bruce Vento from

Minnesota.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Chenoweth. I

am pleased to be here today for a brief time. I will be coming and

going and I apologize for that because of my schedule but wanted

to at least weigh in with regards to an interest and concern about

the policies that are being advanced in regards to reintroduction of

the grizzly in the Rocky Mountain areas.

Obviously, this follows on a controversy with regards to the reintroduction of the wolf, and I think there are some things that—

the timber wolf—and there have been some I think lessons learned

in that particular process. And it is interesting to note that many

of the participants are at the table in terms of the various groups,

both from the timber industry and from the conservation or environmental groups, as well as State and local government, that, in

fact, Secretary Babbitt and Secretary of Agriculture Glickman and

others are attempting to try and draw together a consensus or at

least whatever consensus may exist with regards to the science and

with regards to the practical aspects and impacts of the grizzly

bear reintroduction in this area, which is, of course, and has been

or was a significant part of the ecosystem before greater settlement

occurred.

In fact, some of the documents historically that you read indicate

that there was a significant concentration of grizzly bear in the

area. Now, no one, obviously, is advancing the notion that that will

occur in the near future or in the far future I guess. But it is I

think a worthy effort. I hope that this hearing will provide some

information to the members and to the Committee and to Congress

so that if indeed any policies that are being advanced administratively are to be addressed by the Congress or informally by members that they can do so in an enlightened manner.

I would note, obviously, that there is tremendous emotional response to any type of reintroduction of a major predator like the
5

grizzly or the timber wolf. Obviously, the response there I suppose

is somewhat predictable but I think has to be measured against the

science in terms of what is taking place in these areas, clearly in

areas like Yellowstone and other areas where they have extensive

visitation, a lot of human contact in terms of the park for recreation and for other purposes.

They have been able to make adjustments to face up to the presence of the bear and their activities in that area. So I think that

it is likely that the same thing can occur in areas that are less intensively used for visitation and recreation and where there is less

human contact. Obviously, that would take a good will on the part

and I think a fair approach with regards to the policies and the use

of the information. So I look forward to the hearing. I have no prepared statement and will try to chime in as we go along. Thank

you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento. My colleague, Senator

Dirk Kempthorne, was unable to deliver testimony today due to another commitment. But without objection, I would like to place his

entire statement in the record. Also, with the committee’s indulgence, I would like to read several comments from his statement

for the record.

Senator Kempthorne wrote in his testimony prepared June 12,

‘‘As an Idahoan, I have significant concerns about the continuing

Federal involvement in the management of the grizzly bear, a species that many scientists believe is no longer threatened. And I am

particularly concerned about the Administration’s plans to artificially introduce the grizzly into Idaho without the explicit permission of the people of this State.

‘‘As an Idahoan, I worry about what these dangerous predators

will do to the people of Idaho who happen to come in contact with

them. And as Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public

Works Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife, I

also take the broader view of the grizzly and its status under the

Endangered Species Act. I have seen very credible scientific evidence that the grizzly has already been recovered.

‘‘In my mind, introduction of the grizzly raises a fundamental

question: how will we protect our citizens and their property from

this dangerous predator? We are constantly told that by following

certain safety tips, people can avoid grizzly bears or make encounters with them safe. We are also told that ranchers and other people that use livestock must accept certain small losses for the common good.

‘‘I asked a reconstructive surgeon with more than 20 years’ experience with grizzly attacks about the most common bear maulings

he has encountered. And I am going to quote from a letter I recently received from Dr. William Wennen on this issue.’’

The doctor wrote, ‘‘Probably the most common bear mauling that

I have seen is that from a sow grizzly where the tourist/traveler/

hunter/ et cetera, somehow accidentally gets in between the mother

[sow] and a cub or two. The attack comes suddenly, usually without

warning, and the first time the individual realizes that he is in

trouble is when he is virtually face to face with a grizzly in full

charge. There is little, if any, time to react, and the injuries usually

follow a fairly consistent pattern.’’ ‘‘I am going to stop here,’’ the
6

Senator wrote, ‘‘because the injuries that Dr. Wennen describes are

gruesome beyond words.

‘‘Because of the very great danger that Idahoans would face if we

allow the introduction of grizzly bears into the State, I cannot support any plan unless it is supported by the people of the State. This

is not a small issue. No matter how much people in other States

may want to see grizzly bears in Idaho, Idahoans should have the

right to make that decision.

‘‘This isn’t just an Idaho issue. The range of the grizzly when European man came to North America included California. In fact,

the only grizzly bears you will find in California today are on the

State flag or possibly in captivity. I don’t think that I have the

right as an Idahoan to insist that California accept introduction of

the grizzly to the central valley just because I think there is food

and habitat to support it there.

‘‘At a field hearing before my subcommittee in Casper, Wyoming,

I heard testimony from Terry Schramm of the Walton Ranch Company of Jackson, Wyoming, near the Idaho line. Terry testified that

Teton County is 97 percent federally owned, and that without a

grazing permit from the Forest Service, he doesn’t have a viable

economic ranch operation. In cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, he determined that he is living with 11 grizzly bears

and 22 black bears on his 88,000 acre allotment.

‘‘And when he asked for the removal of one or two of the grizzly

bears that have become habitualized to preying on his calves, he

was given the cold shoulder by the Federal Government. The bottom line is that States should have the right to make the decision

about predators like the grizzly bear. And by all measures, the bear

appears to have recovered and the species should be delisted.’’

Without objection, I would like to enter the Senator’s full testimony

in the record.

[Statement of Senator Kempthorne follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF IDAHO

Good morning Chairman Chenoweth, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for holding this hearing on the introduction of grizzly bear into Idaho. As an Idahoan, I

have significant concerns about the continuing Federal involvement in the management of the grizzly bear, a species that many scientists believe is no longer threatened. I am particularly concerned about the Administration’s plans to artificially introduce the grizzly into Idaho without the explicit permission of the people of the

State.

As an Idahoan, I worry about what these dangerous predators will do to the people of Idaho who happen to come in contact with them. As Chairman of the Senate

Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and

Wildlife, I also take the broader view of the grizzly and its status under the Endangered Species Act. I have seen very credible scientific evidence that the grizzly has

already been recovered. However, the Federal Government does not appear to agree,

and seems to constantly revise their criteria for recovery.

In my mind, reintroduction of the grizzly raises a fundamental question: how will

we protect our citizens and their property from this dangerous predator? We are

constantly told that by following certain safety tips, people can avoid grizzly bears

or make encounters with them safe. We are also told that ranchers and other people

that use livestock must accept certain small losses for the common good. I question

both of these assumptions.

The instructions that hikers get before entering ‘‘bear country’’ include:

warnings to be aware;

don’t surprise bears;

make plenty of noise;
7

camp in open areas away from streams with fish;

don’t cook near where you sleep;

don’t cook smelly foods;

don’t sleep in cloths with food odors;

don’t store food, lotions or dirty cloths near where you sleep;

bury garbage; and on and on.

But what do you do if you accidentally encounter a bear? The conventional wisdom is to stay calm, do not run, wave your arms, speak in a loud voice (I might

suggest PRAY in a loud voice), don’t climb a tree unless you can get up 30 feet, and

so on. Apparently, what you should do if you are attacked is lie on your stomach

or curl up in a ball with your hands locked behind your neck, and hope that the

bear will stop soon. That’s not very reassuring.

I was curious about this advice, so I asked a reconstructive surgeon with more

than 20 years experience with grizzly attacks about the most common bear

maulings he has encountered. I am going to quote from a letter I recently received

from Dr. William W. Wennen on this issue.

‘‘[P]robably the most common bear mauling that I see is that from a sow grizzly,

where the traveler/tourist/hunter/et cetera, somehow accidentally gets in between

mother (sow) and a cub or two. The attack comes suddenly, usually without warning

and the first time the individual realizes that he is in trouble is when he is virtually

face-to-face with a grizzly in full charge. There is little if any time to react and the

injuries usually follow a fairly consistent pattern: . . .’’

I am going to stop here, because the injuries that Dr. Wennen describes are gruesome beyond words. Believe me, something very bad happens to the unfortunate

person that ‘‘suddenly,’’ and ‘‘usually without warning’’ is attacked. I suppose the

odds of an attack are low, but tell that to the people who have to live with the injuries . . . if they live.

Because of the very great danger that Idahoans would face if we allow the introduction of grizzly bears into the State, I cannot support any plan unless it is supported by the people of the State. This is not a small issue. No matter how much

people in other States may want to see grizzly bears in Idaho, Idahoans should have

the right to make that decision.

Turn this question around for a minute. This isn’t just an Idaho issue. The range

of the grizzly when European man came to North America included California. But,

the grizzly was wiped out in California, just like it was through most of its range.

In fact, the only grizzly bears you will find in California today are on the State flag

or possibly in captivity. I don’t think that I have the right as an Idahoan to insist

that California accept introduction of the grizzly to the central valley just because

I think there is food and habitat to support it there.

At a field hearing before my Subcommittee in Casper, Wyoming, I heard testimony from Terry Schramm of the Walton Ranch Company of Jackson, Wyoming

near the Idaho line. Terry testified that Teton County is 97 percent federally owned,

and that without a grazing permit from the Forest Service he doesn’t have a viable

economic ranch operation. Terry has been forced to accept losses of cattle of between

2 and 3 percent as a cost of doing business. But, in just two years he lost 141 head

of calves, approximately 9 percent to all causes, including grizzly bears. In cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, he determined that he is living with 11 grizzly bears and 22 black bears on his 88,000 acre allotment.

When he asked for the removal of one or two of the grizzly bears that have become habitualized to preying on his calves, he was given the cold shoulder by the

Federal Government. I asked Terry who has the authority for the removal of a nuisance bear. Terry’s reply was: ‘‘I’ve been involved in this for 4 years, and I would

like to see the bear turned over to the States.’’

The bottom line is that States should have the right to make the decision about

predator’s like the grizzly bear. I have to ask, why can’t the management of the

grizzly bear be turned over to State control. By all measures, the bear appears to

have recovered and the species should be delisted.

When the population biologists who specialize in the management of small populations ask the recovery question they turn to a statistical analysis called a ‘‘population viability analysis’’ or PVA. Recently I discovered a PVA that had been done

for the grizzly bear.

Dr. Mark Boyce, previously of the University of Wyoming, and now at Stevens

Point, Wisconsin, calculated that a ‘‘. . . conservative estimate of the probability of

persistence of the [Yellowstone area] grizzly bear population for 100 years [is] in excess of 99.2 percent.’’ But because bears are relatively long-lived, Dr. Boyce recalculated the probability of the grizzly bear becoming extinct within the next 500

years at 96.1 percent. That is less than a 4 percent chance that this species will
8

become extinct considering all of the appropriate population parameters, and the

probability of natural disaster.

The other thing that interested me in Dr. Boyce’s PVA of the grizzly bear was

his desire to have existing data on habitat relationships worked into a PVA model.

Dr. Boyce stated that: ‘‘We cannot evaluate the consequences of natural resource

management actions to grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains until such a habitatbased PVA is completed.’’ In response to this need, I have asked the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide $75,000 to finish the analysis. There is every reason

to believe the completed study will demonstrate that there is an extremely small

probability that the grizzly bear will become extinct in the next millennium.

Which brings me to my final point. There appears to be no good reason to continue with the Environmental Impact Statement on introduction of the grizzly bear

into the Selway-Bitterroot area. For that reason, I have asked the Senate Appropriations Committee to spend no more money on the EIS except to obtain public

comment on the existing draft.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement to you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now, I would like to call forward our first

panel, Dr. Ralph Morgenweck, Director, Mountain Prairie Region of

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado, and

Hal Salwasser, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service in Missoula, Montana. Gentlemen, before we get started, if you will rise

and raise your right hands so we can take the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you and I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Ralph Morgenweck. Dr. Morgenweck, would you please

proceed?

STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH MORGENWECK, DIRECTOR, MOUNTAIN PRAIRIE REGION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

DENVER, COLORADO

Mr. MORGENWECK. Good morning and thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Ralph Morgenweck,

Regional Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Mountain Prairie Region in Denver, and I thank you for the opportunity to be

here today to talk about the Service’s approach to reintroduction of

endangered and threatened species on Federal lands; in particular,

this discussion of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot Ecosystem in

central Idaho and western Montana.

And I would like to compliment the Chairman for this opportunity to continue the dialog about grizzly bears in the Bitterroot,

about grizzly bear biology, and about grizzly bear recovery. I think

this is an important part of the overall discussion about what happens to grizzly bears in the future.

One thing I need to inform the Committee of is that the testimony that you have has been modified in one major way. I have

been informed that just today that the Department of Interior has

come to a conclusion and made a decision about the release of the

draft environmental impact statement and the selection of a preferred alternative. And I will pass that information on to you in the

course of my comments.

There are three additional points I would like to make in my

brief summation of my formal testimony. First, the reintroduction

of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem provides an unmatched

opportunity to ensure the continued survival of the grizzly bear

and to move toward eventual delisting of the species throughout

the lower 48 States.
9

The grizzly bear is a species that has been eliminated from about

98 percent of its historic range and today some 800 to 1,000 remain

in the lower 48 States. At the same time, because of the wilderness

designation of the Bitterroot Ecosystem, the impact on economic

development and other land use would be far less significant than

on other Federal lands.

Second, the draft environmental impact statement that the Interior Department just approved and is about to release is a culmination of a comprehensive process of scientific analysis and public

comment that began in 1975 with the listing of the grizzly bear,

proceeded through the preparation of the first recovery plan in

1982, the formation of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee in

1983 of which Idaho was a member, the evaluation of the Bitterroot Ecosystem habitat which culminated in a 5-year study in 1991,

leading to the subsequent approval by the Interagency Grizzly Bear

Committee of the Bitterroot Ecosystem as a recovery zone.

It moved on then to the preparation of the recovery plan chapter

that was completed in 1996, and the scoping for the draft EIS

which included working with the Idaho Legislative Oversight Committee. And this process has taken more than two decades. Much

of this process is detailed in my formal testimony.

Clearly, it has been one of the most exhaustive such efforts that

my agency has undertaken. Hopefully, it ensures that whatever decision is finally reached about the grizzly bear is based on the best

available science and takes fully into consideration the viewpoints

of everyone affected by the decision, including State and local governments, businesses, conservation groups, and thousands of local

citizens, and the national public at large.

Third, the process is not yet completed. The draft EIS contains

four alternatives. The Interior Department has chosen a preferred

alternative and will publish the draft by the 1st of July. Congressional members and their staff, as well as other key State, local,

and tribal participants will be fully briefed before the draft EIS is

released. The public will then have an opportunity to comment on

the draft.

Alternative one is the preferred alternative, and we believe it

contains a novel approach to ensuring continued participation by

local citizens in the reintroduction process. It proposes the creation

of a Citizen Management Committee tasked with management of

the grizzly bear population’s recovery.

The idea for this committee was suggested by a diverse group of

Idaho timber owners, Idaho labor groups, the Intermountain Forest

Industry Association, Defenders of Wildlife, and the National Wildlife Federation. In short, management for the Bitterroot grizzly

population would be delegated by the Interior Secretary to this citizen group. The only stipulation would be that their decisions

would lead to the ultimate recovery of this population.

A 1995 survey conducted for IGBC showed that 62 percent of

local, 74 percent of regional, and 77 percent of national responses

were supportive of reintroducing grizzly bears into the Bitterroot.

But these views of the majority in no way depreciate the legitimate

concerns of others about the reintroduction, including issues of personal safety, and legality of the Citizen Management Committee.
10

And we believe this EIS process is the means by which this debate should occur. We have addressed and continued to address

those concerns in the EIS process. In looking back over this process, I believe that we have made strides in improving how the people and their government can work together to find the solutions

to difficult conservation problems, and we look for more dialog on

this.

In closing, I would note that the Service has undertaken other

reintroductions of threatened and endangered species on Federal

land, including the gray wolf, the black-footed ferret, and the California condor. As you know, these reintroductions were not without

controversy, and in each case the Service actively sought the involvement of local communities. I am confident that a reintroduction of the grizzly bear to the Bitterroot would be successful and

that it would contribute greatly to the ultimate recovery and

delisting of the species. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

[Statement of Mr. Morgenweck may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Dr. Morgenweck. Mr. Salwasser,

we welcome your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HAL SALWASSER, REGIONAL FORESTER, USDA

FOREST SERVICE, MISSOULA, MONTANA

Mr. SALWASSER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for

this opportunity to discuss the reintroduction of endangered predators on Federal lands. The Forest Service’s multiple use management responsibilities include the Endangered Species Act mandate

to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems

on which they depend.

Coupled with our mandate from other statutes to provide for sustained yields of many resource uses and to provide for diversity of

plants and animals, we manage Federal public land ecosystems for

a multitude of uses including the conservation of endangered species.

Madam Chairman, about one-third of all species currently listed

as endangered or threatened in this country find their last and best

habitats on the national forests and grasslands. And we have successfully protected and improved habitat for many of these species.

For example, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, grizzly bear, eastern

timber wolf, California condor, and Puerto Rican parrot have all

been or are being brought back from the brink of extinction

through Forest Service conservation actions. Through these recovery efforts, we also preserve some of the cultural heritage of American Indian tribes.

As other lands and habitats come under increasing pressure to

provide home sites, food, and raw materials for people, public lands

become increasingly important places for the rare species or the

species at risk of extinction. Today, suitable habitat for the large

carnivores, the last pieces of America’s natural heritage of large

animals, is limited.

And road developments, developments for cities and towns, and

private land habitat losses constrain the distribution of these animals. Because these species and their habitats rarely conform to

lines on maps, the combined efforts of many agencies, organizations, and communities are needed to conserve these species.
11

The Forest Service, therefore, is only one of many cooperators

necessary to the survival of species at risk. We work closely with

the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries

Service, who are the lead agencies in implementing the Endangered Species Act. States are also partners, as well as the National

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, tribes, and other Federal agencies.

In 1986, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee developed recovery guidelines to reduce human-caused mortality and to improve

habitat security. These guidelines are the main reason that grizzly

bears still exist in the lower 48 States and, in fact, thrive in two

of their ecosystems.

Concerns relating to grizzly bears center around four issues: public safety, access restrictions, changes in economic opportunity, and

livestock depredation. I will briefly address each of these.

Public safety is the most significant concern in grizzly country.

We have found that the key to public safety in grizzly bear country

is education. For years, we have been working with local communities, the general public, and with outfitters and guides about living and recreating safely in areas with grizzly bears. While encounters between grizzlies and humans do occur, these incidents are

rare. Education works.

Access to Federal lands is another major concern. To protect sensitive public resources, we sometimes restrict access on roads into

certain areas. Sometimes restrictions are seasonal; for example,

closures to protect water quality or fisheries and reduce activities

that would cause erosion and sediment during rainy weather.

Seasonal restrictions also secure essential habitat for wildlife

such as protection of elk calving areas and grizzly spring range.

Sometimes the closures are permanent where roads are obliterated

to reduce administrative costs or environmental damage or to provide secure areas for wildlife.

Federal lands have many values including economic opportunity.

These values are in timber and grazing and a wide range of recreation activities such as commercial outfitting and guiding services,

tourism, camping, picnicking, hiking, picking berries, hunting, fishing, and watching and photographing wildlife.

In timber-producing areas where grizzly bears are present, conservation efforts have an effect on national forest timber production. However, planning access and scheduling of sales does provide

for both grizzly bear recovery and some timber sales to go forward.

The quantity of timber available for harvest on national forests has

been most influenced by issues related to roadless areas, water

quality, and fisheries.

With large carnivores such as the grizzly bear, there is the potential for livestock depredation. There are provisions within the

grizzly bear guidelines for rapid removal of animals that prey on

livestock. And in primary grizzly recovery habitats, livestock operations may be modified—for example, moving a sheep allotment

out of a recovery zone—in order to reduce potential bear and livestock conflicts and still provide public land grazing.

To conclude, Madam Chairman, in recovery of any threatened or

endangered species, the Forest Service works together with other

Federal agencies, communities, States, tribes, organizations, and
12

individuals. We strive for the common goals of land stewardship

and sustainable resource uses.

I believe the best way to balance these potentially conflicting

goals is to work with communities of interest—that is, interests on

all sides of the issues—and with locally affected people in civil discussions to create areas of common agreement. To best serve the

people, we must work in an open, fair, and inclusive setting to

build community solutions on how to share the wealth and bounty

of our great public lands and resources. Madam Chairman, I would

be happy to answer any questions you or the Committee might

have.

[Statement of Mr. Salwasser may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank you, gentlemen, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana for opening questions. Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I guess I would like to

start my questioning with Dr. Morgenweck. Just recently in the

press, and I think sometime in the last month or so, we had an incident down in Red Lodge where a grizzly bear attacked a horse.

You are probably familiar with the incident.

Mr. MORGENWECK. I am.

Mr. HILL. And the woman who owned the horse got a .22 rifle

and shot at the bear in an effort to try to scare it away, and, by

golly, she shot it in the right place and she killed the bear. And

this bear was in the process of attacking her horse. In fact, it was

a prized horse. And she reported it—appropriately reported it. An

investigation was conducted, and as I understand it, she has been

fined $1,600.

And, in addition to that, there was at least the potential for a

prison sentence for protecting her property. My question is that

under this reintroduction plan, would this citizens group have the

authority to provide for private property owners to protect their

property from grizzly bear attacks such as that?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Under the proposal in the alternative, it is

legal to defend one’s life and the life of others in terms of killing

a bear. In terms of property damage, the proposal lays out a process whereby nonlethal hazing could be used by a landowner if they

are having problems with livestock depredations.

Also the Citizen Management Committee would be asked to develop a protocol for dealing with these kinds of situations. Under

the preferred alternative, if the management agencies have done

their best to capture the animal, to move it, or destroy it depending

on the circumstances, a permit could be issued to the landowner

that if they had further problems with the bear, the bear could be

taken. So we———

Mr. HILL. But, I mean, in an instance where a person—I mean,

the bear is in the process of attacking your livestock.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Right. The———

Mr. HILL. The citizen wouldn’t be empowered to act to protect

that livestock other than to go out there and wave their arms and

try to shoo the bear away. I mean, is that———

Mr. MORGENWECK. Nonlethal hazing would be allowed. Yes, but

in a first instance, killing the bear would not be allowed.

Mr. HILL. I mean, you know, this management area has very

close proximity to a lot of citizens, a lot of people as I know you
13

know. In fact, I think that the management area goes right down

to Highway 93 or very close to Highway 93. There are a lot of people there. There is a lot of livestock there. There are a lot of horses

there. I guess what I am asking is can any provision be made in

this management plan that would allow those property owners to

protect their property using lethal force or is that absolutely prohibited?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is a very difficult question because we

are trying to reach a balance between not being too precipitous in

terms of the use of lethal control and using it when called for. That

is one of the things that Mr. Salwasser mentioned about education

that I think we have learned with wolves, for example.

The first reaction by many ranchers was, ‘‘We really need to be

able to kill wolves right off.’’ However, we have found through our

process of working with individual ranchers that when they have

problems they have been willing to consider nonlethal controls,

nonlethal ways of dealing with wolves.

Obviously, there is a time when that may not work and the animals need to be taken. So I think this is a point of importance so

that in the course of reviewing the draft if other safeguards are

identified I think we would be happy to consider them.

Mr. HILL. Well, as you know, this area is a little bit different

than other areas where endangered species, particularly bears,

have been introduced because there are a lot of property owners

that areas are not in large landholdings anymore. There is a lot of

ranchette-type ownership. I mean, there are just a lot of livestock

there. One of the things I hear from the people—the residents of

that valley is this concern. And so that is why I have raised it with

you.

But, I mean, I think you would have to admit that nonlethal hazing of a timber wolf and nonlethal hazing of a grizzly bear are two

different things. It takes a certain degree of courage to go after a

timber wolf. That takes a lot of courage to go out and haze a grizzly

bear. And there is serious concern in the valley if, in fact, you go

forward with regard to how this would impact private property,

particularly livestock.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Congressman Hill, the proposal would have

the release of the bears only north of the Salmon River, and we

would expect that given five animals or thereabouts, per year being

added, it would be many, many years before we were likely to have

enough bears to be spilling out in the other areas. Now———

Mr. HILL. But I would caution you that when we reintroduced

timber wolves, I think you substantially misestimated the period of

time it was going to take to have full recovery but the impacts

would be how wide they ranged. I mean, I think you would admit

to that, wouldn’t you?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I would admit that wolves are being more

successful in terms of reproduction than we predicted. On the other

hand, the level of problem we have had with livestock losses hasn’t

been as bad as we thought it might. And a lot of that credit goes

to the individual landowners. We have been working with some

people who didn’t like wolves very much and have become tolerant

of wolves. We have worked with them very well, and as a result

we find ourselves both from a biological standpoint and from a so-
14

cial standpoint, in a more positive place than we thought we might

be.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hill, we will return for another round of

questioning. Dr. Morgenweck, you announced today the issuance of

your draft environmental impact statement and the fact that you

have chosen alternative number 1 as the preferred alternative. Is

that correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that decision was announced today?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Did that have anything to do with these hearings that are being held today?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I don’t think so. Actually, we had planned to

have this document done last fall. It has been a long review process

including legal review and departmental review, until we simply

got to the review concluded.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are all the permits in place? For instance, the

document of decision or a decision of record from the State?

Mr. MORGENWECK. We have to remember that at this point we

are not ready to reintroduce grizzly bears. All that we are talking

about is a decision on the content and release of a draft environmental impact statement, which means that once the draft is released, there is a lot of dialog, meetings, and public comment to

reach a decision as to which alternative should be pursued. So any

issues about permits related to a reintroduction would be something that would have to be dealt with in the future. And I might

add I apologize for the delay of the release of the EIS.

Dr. Servheen points out to me that under the preferred alternative, on private lands—getting back to Congressman Hill’s question—on private lands, bears involved in the act of taking livestock

would be allowed to be killed on those private lands and that bears

getting down into the Bitterroot Valley, in among people, would be

captured and moved back or removed lethally depending on the circumstances.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you remember the case of John Shuler in

Montana where two bears were in his sheep pens?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I am sorry. I don’t remember the details.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And a grizzly bear charged him, and he killed

the bear on his own property. And the Fish and Wildlife Service

brought suit against him for illegally taking a grizzly bear?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Again, I think it is important to remember

that the management of bears in the populations that currently

exist are different or would be different than with the reintroduced

population. That is the point of having the experimental nonessential designation in that we can custom cut the management

and the rules associated with how bears are treated for that particular area. That is one of the powerful incentives for reintroduction. The rules are set through a rulemaking process. That is the

flexibility that was given to us in 1982 when the Endangered Species Act was amended.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, help me understand this. If a bear is determined to be a bear that was reintroduced and it is charging a

person and that person is on his own property and that individual
15

protects his life by shooting the bear, that is OK. But if it is determined it was a native grizzly bear by chance, then he cannot protect himself. Right?

Mr. MORGENWECK. No. If we reintroduce the bears into the Bitterroot, for example, all the bears that are there would be considered products of reintroduction because you can’t, obviously, tell

them apart unless they are marked. In the example you gave the

person was protecting his life, thus it would be legal for him to kill

the bear.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you don’t see an inconsistency between

the bears in Idaho, if this reintroduction should proceed, and the

bear that Mr. Shuler encountered on his own property?

Mr. MORGENWECK. The inconsistency, perhaps, is that there are

different rules that would be applied in a reintroduced population.

Now, while I am not familiar with the specifics of Mr. Shuler’s situation, if a person is defending their life or the life of another person, it is legal to kill the bear. Now, if Mr. Shuler was prosecuted,

there must have been some reason to suspect that the circumstances were other than that. But I just don’t know the particulars of that situation.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you please submit for the Committee

your analysis of the case after you have read it?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. I would be happy to.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. And Mountain States Legal Foundation is now defending Mr. Shuler———

Mr. MORGENWECK. All right.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] in his appeal. We will go for another round of questioning. Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Thank you again, Madam Chairman. Dr. Morgenweck,

one of the situations that we have with I guess two of our bear recovery areas—one is Bob Marshall and the other is the Mission

Mountain—is that there is now an argument that in order for those

populations to be sustained, we have to link those two populations

so that bears can freely migrate between and interbreeding of

bears. Is there any likelihood that if bears are recovered in the Bitterroot-Selway that we are then going to be faced with that argument with regard to that bear population as well?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Throughout the whole process of developing

the new recovery plan that we approved in 1993, there has been

the question of do we have to have linkage zones between the various populations of bears, and that is an analysis that has been

going on.

In some situations we have looked at trying to find ways of

reaching agreements with private landowners to protect bear habitat, that sort of thing. I believe that Dr. Servheen has been working with the county and some of these issues to try to find ways

of allowing bears to move within one of the ecosystems and between various parts of the ecosystem.

I don’t know the answer to the linkage zone question other than

we have been evaluating it. There is an alternative in the EIS, alternative four I believe it is to look at a linkage zone between the

Bitterroot and the Cabinet-Yaak so that question of linkage remains. However, at this point, we have not felt the necessity to

have linkage zones between ecosystems—say between the Cabinet-
16

Yaak and the Bitterroot, between Yellowstone and the Northern

Continental Divide, for example.

Mr. HILL. So let me just be clear that I understand your answer,

your answer then is that that could happen? I mean, if we have

a reestablished bear population in this area that we could then

down the road be faced with this issue of linking this population

with Cabinet Mountains, for example, which would impact a substantial amount of private property. Is that correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I believe there are groups that would

make that argument. It is our position that it is not necessary.

Mr. HILL. But, I mean, that position could change. Right?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I suppose that is always possible, but I think

it is pretty doubtful. I think that biologically speaking we feel comfortable that the population could exist unto itself in the Bitterroots.

Mr. HILL. I mean, I just have to point out to you that, you know,

up in the Flathead Forest when we started a recovery plan for grizzly bears, the rules of the game changed since that period of time.

And citizens have great concern that we may have a very well-intentioned effort now to involve citizens to write rules of the game

but that those rules might get changed and so there is some concern about that.

But I will have some questions about that later. But there is a

possibility that we could be faced then with a later argument once

bears are recovered in this area that we then have to go to the next

step and link this population with another population?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I, frankly, think that if we are successful in

the Bitterroot, we reduce the argument that we have to have linkage zones. One of the major reasons is that if we are successful in

the reintroduction in the Bitterroot, we will be adding about 25

percent to the occupied bear habitat in the country.

And if we get to, say, 280 bears or something like that ultimately

in 110 years or however long the estimate is, we would have added

20 to 30 percent to the total bear population of the lower 48. I

think that reduces rather than enhances the argument for linkage

zones because the bigger area we have, the more populations we

have, I think the stronger our arguments are that we don’t have

to link them.

Mr. HILL. OK. Thank you. This population would be designated

as an experimental population. Does that designation remain with

this population of grizzly bears forever, or would that designation

later be changed or could it later be changed?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not aware under any circumstances that

it would be changed or could be changed but that it would remain.

Our objective would be to have it remain experimental nonessential

until the point of delisting.

Mr. HILL. OK. And with regard to the citizens group that would

be established to develop the management plan, would this citizen

group have all the authority of the Secretary? When the Secretary

gives them authority, do they have all the authority of the Secretary?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not exactly sure what the formal mechanism would be, whether there would be a delegation order to the

Citizen Management Committee, but the intention of our special
17

rule is that they be delegated management authority. The only

source of review is the Secretary because by law he has the ultimate authority.

Mr. HILL. And he could take that authority back from them?

Mr. MORGENWECK. According to the rule, under certain circumstances, and those circumstances are very narrow. If the Secretary was to make a finding that the decisions and actions by the

Citizen Management Committee are not in the best interests of

conservation of the bear or essentially that it is not leading to the

recovery of the bear, then the Secretary would have to make known

the specific concerns that he has and give the committee a 6-month

period of time to make whatever are the required changes in terms

of their decisions.

Mr. HILL. But all that orientation is toward recovery of the bear?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. I mean, there is no other consideration for the other

balanced values that might exist there?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I think that one of the arguments that

we have to be aware of when we are making arguments about conservation of the bear is sometimes the conservation of a species

does involve the taking of the species. For example, we think that

taking depredating wolves is an action that can be found in favor

of the conservation of wolves. Because if depredating wolves were

not removed, the attitudes and the support for the wolves would

decrease.

So long-term, it is better and it is in the conservation interests

of the wolf to have those animals taken out. So I think we have

to remember that that argument is a powerful argument, and I

think you could make the same argument for depredating bears in

certain situations.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, doctor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes the ranking Minority

member, Mr. Hinchey, from New York whom I just asked if he

wanted the bears, and he said he was loaded for bear. So the Chair

would like to hear from the ranking member with his opening

statement.

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman,

and good morning, gentlemen. It is very nice to see you. I appreciate the announcement that you made today. It is a step forward

I think. It is an attempt to bring people in and to get their advice

and to try to improve this process by involving a broad array of

citizens, and I congratulate you for that initiative.

There is, of course, a great deal of concern on the part of people

in the areas where grizzly bears are proposed to be introduced.

Their concerns relate to issues of safety, obviously—safety for

themselves, for members of their family, for people who work in the

area, or livestock—things of that nature. And I think that that is

to be expected, and it is a reasonable concern.

Our responsibility—particularly yours I think—is if it is possible

to do so to allay those fears. And so I would ask you, for example,

what experience have we had in parts of Idaho and elsewhere

where the grizzly bear currently resides in its present habitat? I

understand the Bitterroot Range, for example, is a place where we

have had some experience in that regard. Have people been
18

mauled? Have there been any deaths? Have there been any injuries? What has been the experience with livestock in those areas

where the grizzly bear currently resides?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Thank you for the question. I think that

human safety is probably the number 1 concern. I think you are

right on there. It is an issue that we must absolutely be most careful about. What we believe in terms of projecting is that when—

assuming that we were reintroducing bears in the Bitterroot and

they reached 280 bears, which is approximately what we believe

full recovery would be there, we believe that the densities———

Mr. HINCHEY. Excuse me, sir. Could you speak into that microphone? I am having a hard time hearing you.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Thank you. Excuse me. At the point of full recovery in the Bitterroot, which we believe would hold about 280

bears at the time, we believe those densities would be similar to

areas outside of the national parks but still in bear country in the

Yellowstone area.

And, for example, within the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem outside of Glacier National Park, there have been two bear

injuries since 1950. One was a mortality and one was an injury.

And the injury rate in the Yellowstone area but outside the park,

while it has been increasing over the last couple of decades because

there are more and more bears in the Yellowstone area, averages

about one injury per year. And outside the Yellowstone Park area,

in the last 156 years, there have been three grizzly bear inflicted

human mortalities. So bears are dangerous, but the rate of injury

is not high.

Now, I think the question is how can we deal with this situation,

whether it is one injury or five injuries or whatever? I think Dr.

Salwasser really raised the issue of eduction. The States and the

Forest Service and the Park Service have worked extensively with

the back country outfitters.

They have worked with the public working on such things as

camp sanitation, how to act when you are hiking in the country

where there are grizzly bears to minimize the possibility of getting

into trouble with a bear. They have worked extensively with sanitation of camps in the back country, garbage sanitation, working

with private ranchers to deal with dead livestock and cattle feed,

horse feed, that sort of thing.

I think that is one of the most important things that we can do

in advance of any release of grizzly bears. In the proposal, there

would be at least 1 year where issues of sanitation education are

focused on very, very heavily before the bears are reintroduced.

Mr. HINCHEY. So the experience has been that bears do injure

people—experience has been that these bears do, in fact, injure

people. I would be curious to know—more than curious—I think it

is important information—I would like to know the circumstances

surrounding those injuries and the deaths that you mentioned.

What were people doing? What was happening in those particular

instances?

Mr. MORGENWECK. In the two instances that I mentioned outside

of Glacier Park, they were both hunting related I believe. In one

case, a hunter shot a bear that apparently he believed was a threat

to him, and the bear in turn then killed the hunter. In the other
19

case, it was a bird hunter, and the hunter shot the bear and the

bear mauled him but did not kill him.

So there are a variety of circumstances that the Chairman mentioned and other situations. Sometimes hikers may get caught between a sow and her cubs. Again, minimizing this is really, really

important and teaching people how to minimize it is absolutely essential.

Mr. HINCHEY. I would agree completely that a lot of it has to do

with education, and that is very, very important. The citizens management initiative that you have described I think is a very interesting experiment, and it demonstrates, of course, an opportunity

for an unusual collaboration between representatives of the government and citizens at the local level.

How do you expect this thing to work? Will this be an advisory

board? How much power will they have? How much influence are

they going to exercise over decisions that will be made? Will their

recommendations be controlling? How do you see the citizens advisory panel fitting into your initiatives and responsibilities and the

decisions that will flow from this?

Mr. MORGENWECK. First of all, the Citizen Management Committee is a brand new concept. We have never tried it before. It is

an attempt by our agency and the Department to make the ESA

more friendly to local people and to users of resources. We believe

that the management responsibility will be delegated to the Citizen

Management Committee, and they will be making the management

decisions.

The only oversight is the Secretary’s review, and his review is

fairly narrow in our view. So I believe that the Citizen Management Committee will be the decisionmakers, and it will be up to

the land managing agencies to appropriately carry out those actual

management actions.

Mr. HINCHEY. So as I understand it, the Citizen Management

Committee will be making the decisions. Their decisions will be

controlling subject to review by the Secretary?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Correct.

Mr. HINCHEY. And what happens if they make mistakes? What

happens if they go awry? What will occur there? Would it just be

that the Secretary will step in and take some action?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. If there are some serious mistakes made

where the Citizen Management Committee appears to be going in

a wrong direction as opposed to an isolated mistake that we all

make, the Secretary under the rule would have the responsibility

to inform the committee of what he believes is the problem and

give the Citizen Committee 6 months to fix that situation. Then if

those things are fixed, they continue on as before. If they would not

be fixed and the Secretary believed that it was serious enough, he

could take back the management responsibility.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. Dr. Morgenweck, I

wanted to followup on the line of questioning from my colleague

from New York. I am reading from Section 14 of the 10[j] revised

draft of May 20, 1996. Now, has that been changed or altered?
20

Mr. MORGENWECK. There have been modifications to it since that

time.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you produce one for me now?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I can’t right now.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you have one with you?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I don’t have one with me.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. What kind of modifications have

been made?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not—OK. Dr. Servheen informs me that

item 14 remains the same.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Item 14 remains the same?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Right.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. With regards to item 14, it is pretty clear that

the committee does not really have the ability to do any more than

suggest policy because it reads if the Secretary determines through

his representatives—that could be you or any Fish and Wildlife

Service member or Fish and Wildlife Service agent out in the

field—if they determine that the decisions of the committee are not

leading to the recovery of the grizzly bear within the experimental

area, then the Service shall solicit from the committee a determination whether the decision, the plan, or implementation of components of the plan are leading to a recovery.

Then it goes on to say notwithstanding a determination by the

committee. So the committee makes a determination but notwithstanding the determination by the committee that a decision is

leading to the recovery of the grizzly bear—notwithstanding, the

Secretary of the Interior may find that the decision is inadequate

for recovery and will assume management authority. It doesn’t look

to me like the committee has much authority.

If, for instance, the Secretary says, ‘‘You haven’t closed enough

roads. There is still some multiple use activity going on. You

haven’t managed for the prey base for the grizzly,’’ or whatever,

then whatever may be out there that the agency may think of, and

if the committee deems that it is not the right thing to do, they

have no authority whatsoever. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I believe that the Citizen Management Committee has a great deal of authority to implement the recovery plan

for the bear, to develop the management plans and policies for that

population, to establish the protocols for reaction to human and

livestock safety issues, to refine the recovery goals, and to ultimately determine whether or not the reintroduction is successful.

So I believe that they have a great deal of authority, though we

recognize that the Secretary has the ultimate statutory authority.

That was part of the reason that we put in the requirement for the

Secretary to communicate with the Citizen Management Committee; if the Secretary believes that there is some error in direction there is an opportunity to have a dialog and hopefully agreement upon the part of the committee and the Secretary that some

course of action can be taken that clears up whatever the problem

is.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think it is pretty clear that the committee

has the ability to develop, implement, determine, but they don’t

have the ability to make decisions—final decisions. And I am not

at all comfortable with this until they do.
21

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, Madam Chairman, I think that if there

are suggestions that you have or that anyone has, frankly, about

the Citizen Management Committee in terms of clarifying its authorities, strengthening them within the ESA, we would be very

pleased to consider those and have a dialog with you and other

members about that point because it is a crucial point. It is absolutely key to that alternative.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Has the Service thought about liability that

the Citizen Management Committee would be assuming in developing, implementing, determining, evaluating all of these things?

What if someone is killed or injured? They have put themselves in

a position of being personally liable.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I am not an attorney, Madam Chairman, but in discussions with our attorneys, our Solicitor’s Office

does not feel that the members of the Citizen Management Committee are going to be held personally liable. Obviously, the actions

that are going to be carried out are going to be carried out by the

agencies, i.e., removing a bear, et cetera. So I think that the liability rests, where it always has, with the agencies.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Aren’t you under the doctrine of sovereign immunity? I mean, people can sue you if you give them your permission. Right?

Mr. MORGENWECK. They also can sue us for torts and also, of

course, under the ESA. So we do perhaps have some protections,

but we also believe that that is a point that if there needs to be

more legal discussion on, then perhaps that is a good point to discuss.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Dr. Morgenweck. I am very concerned about the liability in the fact that I don’t believe that the

government can extend immunity to members of this Citizens Management Committee. We are going to go for another round of questioning, but before we do that, you have just listed the bull trout

in Idaho. And the Governor had proposed to put together a State

plan. It wouldn’t be a plan by a Citizen Management Committee,

it was a State plan under the direction of the Idaho Fish and

Game.

And that was ignored, and you went ahead and listed it even

though Secretary Babbitt had promised the Governor that they

would work it out so that the State can manage the bull trout,

which is a resident fish. If the Federal agency acted this way with

the Governor and the Director of Fish and Game, why do we have

any confidence that you would act any better with private citizens

making up a Citizen Management Committee?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, a two-part answer. First of all, I apologize. I am not that familiar with the details of the bull trout because bureaucratically it is in the lead of a different service region.

But one difference between whatever the conservation agreement

attempts were for bull trout and the case of grizzly bears, is the

bear management is in a regulation. So the agreements in a rulemaking as opposed to whatever agreements had been reached relative to the bull trout are much more explicit and much more binding.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think that the very word of the agency is in

question here because the Secretary himself promised our Governor
22

personally that the State could manage the bull trout. Then the

agency acted otherwise. So———

Mr. MORGENWECK. I recognize that credibility is a crucial issue

for the Service in dealing with the Endangered Species Act and all

kinds of situations. One of the things that we are trying to do better is to interact with local units of government and with the

States to do a better job in those communications.

Now, one of the things that we can’t always control are lawsuits.

Many times what we want to do or our agreements are overturned

because someone sues. I believe in the case of the bull trout there

was a lawsuit, and I believe it was because of that lawsuit that the

new petition finding was dictated by the Court. And as a result, I

believe a proposal to list may well be in the offing.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And the suit—the case was what?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service

was sued on warranted but precluded petition finding of some time

back. The Fish and Wildlife was sued and I believe the Court ordered that a new finding be made, and I believe, the Court gave

the Fish and Wildlife Service a date for the new finding. Like I

said, I don’t have the lead on that so I don’t know all the details.

And if you wish, perhaps we could provide some details with dates

and all that that would be more helpful than my testimony.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But for the record, the Court did not order the

Fish and Wildlife Service to list the species and manage it in Idaho

over and above the desires of the State?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, the Court ordered———

Mrs. CHENOWETH. They asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to

complete their documentation on no significant finding?

Mr. MORGENWECK. No. The Fish and Wildlife Service can be petitioned, as can the National Marine Fisheries Service, to list a species. We made one finding which I believe was a finding that the

listing was warranted but it was precluded by other higher priority

species. I believe that was the finding. Then a lawsuit ensued after

to overturn that finding, and the Court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to make a new finding on that petition based upon the

existing information at the time which I believe was up to 1994 or

1995—something like that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New

York for further questioning.

Mr. HINCHEY. I have nothing further.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Mr. Vento, do you have questions?

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I do. As I understand the announcement this

morning, Director Morgenweck, is that the Administration is going

to pursue the citizens group as an advisory group or as a management group of the grizzly reintroduction. Is that correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct. That is the preferred alternative for the EIS process.

Mr. VENTO. And so the Secretary will—he delegates this authority administratively, in other words, within the context of the law,

but he still retains responsibility in the end. In other words, if they

go off the deep end, then he has to, obviously, intercede. Is that

correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.
23

Mr. VENTO. So you don’t know. We haven’t tried this particular

method before or this particular model?

Mr. MORGENWECK. We never have and, in part, it was to the

credit of some members of the industry—timber industry and labor

groups in Idaho and the Intermountain Forestry Association and

National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife—who built the

coalition and suggested this alternative. And it is to their credit

that they really reached out to bring together different views on

this and fashioned this alternative.

Mr. VENTO. So, I mean, the issue is that, for instance, in this

particular model, he is depending upon the Governors to make

some appointments from Idaho and Montana. Is that correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct. Our proposal is that there

would be 15 members on the management committee. Seven of

those would be from Idaho with the Governor recommending persons to the Secretary and the Secretary would then appoint them;

five from Montana; one from the—named by the Department of Agriculture; one from the Fish and Wildlife Service; and one from the

Nez Perce tribe.

Mr. VENTO. So what do you anticipate in terms of their—they

would be meeting on a monthly basis? They would all be from

those regions?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Our intention is that the people be local, and

that they would be meeting pretty frequently early on to lay out

what needs to be done in terms of the education component, setting

the protocols for dealing with nuisance bears. So I would think that

early on the meetings would be quite frequent and probably quite

lively.

Mr. VENTO. The issue, of course, would be that the Secretary still

would be responsible for the administration of the species. Is that

correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.

Mr. VENTO. I mean, so he would, obviously, rely—one of the

things pointed out is that—in this document that if there is a disagreement between the Secretary and the citizens management

group that they would have 6 months to redo the proposal. That

seems to be an excessive amount of time, you know, considering the

immediacy of some of the problems when there are disagreements.

What was the basis for that? I mean, I don’t anticipate that. I

would hope that there wouldn’t be those types of disagreements,

but if there are, it seems to me that permitting something to go on

for 6 months on ‘‘some minor points’’ I guess, but if it is major

points, it would seem to be an excessive amount of time.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, Congressman Vento, this is one of those

situations where, well, we have never tried this before, and we felt

that 6 months would give people a reasonable amount of time to

try to work through it.

Certainly if it is a critical issue, I believe that we could deal with

it more quickly than that in terms of getting the input from the

Secretary and dealing with the issues with the Citizen Management Committee. So I think that we could certainly accelerate

those key issues. Again, this is a proposal, and I think that anyone

who has ideas or comment about that very point———
24

Mr. VENTO. Well, let me ask you another question because I don’t

have much time. What do you expect the life of this particular citizens management group? I mean, obviously, what is your anticipation in terms of reestablishing the grizzly bear in the Bitterroots

area between Montana and Idaho? How long will this group have

to be in existence? Is this for 5 years? Is this for a longer or shorter

period of time?

Mr. MORGENWECK. We believe that they would be in existence

until the point in which the bear is recovered in the Bitterroot because there would need to be management decisions made.

Mr. VENTO. Well, what does your modeling tell you with regards

to that, or is it not that accurate? If it is not that accurate———

Mr. MORGENWECK. Fifty to one hundred plus years.

Mr. VENTO. Fifty to one hundred years and you’d think that—but

once the policies have become regularized in terms of understood,

then there wouldn’t be any need for this particular group, would

there?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, there would still be a need to have the

group in case there were decisions to be made, but hopefully it

would become regular after, you know, a relatively short period of

time and so the frequency of meeting may diminish.

Mr. VENTO. You work very closely with the Montana counterparts in terms of Fish and Wildlife Service in Idaho, do you not,

in this instance?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes, we do.

Mr. VENTO. And so are they in concert with you? What would

their participation—do you expect that some of them might be appointed to such a formal panel?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. It would———

Mr. VENTO. But these types of arrangements now take place informally. They are collaborative, aren’t they?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. We certainly try to do that. There are

differences of opinions at times as well.

Mr. VENTO. Well, there are differences between the agencies and

departments. Someone has to make the decision, obviously, with

regards to these issues. The question of liability came up though.

Have you been recently sued because of a wildlife species that you

manage injuring an individual like buffalo in Yellowstone or something?

Mr. MORGENWECK. We have not.

Mr. VENTO. So, I mean, there are no cases like that in terms of

where individuals have been or recovered I guess in terms of punitive damage in terms of a species—I mean, taking on assumptions

of livestock depredation and so forth. Is there a plan in place to

deal with the livestock depredation? I know we have that with the

gray wolf, like all the timber wolves in Minnesota where they have

picked up the costs of that. From time to time, there has been controversy about it. Is there a depredation provision for punitive loss

in terms of cattle or other types of loss that you anticipate would

be in place in this plan?

Mr. MORGENWECK. We would anticipate trying to create or have

created a private fund for reimbursing losses of livestock.
25

Mr. VENTO. Well, that would be one of the tasks of this citizens

management group that would look at that as an alternative if it

is necessary?

Mr. MORGENWECK. It could well be.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Vento, we will return for another round

of questions.

Mr. VENTO. Oh, we are on the 5-minute rule. Oh, OK. I didn’t

know. Thanks.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaffer.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr.

Morgenweck—just tell me if this has already been covered, Madam

Chair. I am sorry. I recently arrived. This may have been covered,

but the State of Idaho, as I understand—recently the legislature

adopted a resolution basically asking that these grizzly bears not

be reintroduced. Are you familiar with that resolution?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. I am aware of it.

Mr. SCHAFFER. What kind of consideration has your agency given

to that resolution?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, we certainly are aware of the positions

of the Governor and the legislature and other units of government

in terms of their opposition. And so we consider that very carefully.

We also are interested in understanding better the basis for the opposition, and also we remain interested in the conservation of the

bear. Also we are interested in the public opinion surveys that have

been done—there have been two now—one in 1995 and one just recently that indicate strong support among the public for———

Mr. SCHAFFER. So is it your contention that the public opinion

surveys are still relevant in the face of a decision and a resolution

adopted by an elected legislature?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I believe they are relevant. How much weight

one puts on it one can argue about, but I think it is an indication

that there is not unanimous feelings among the populace that grizzly bear reintroduction is simply something that shouldn’t be discussed.

Mr. SCHAFFER. No. There is no unanimous decision on this or

many decisions, but there is a majority opinion certainly as represented by the legislature which is the—what as the Federal Government—at least the Constitution that I still believe in suggests

that we should defer to, as a matter of fact.

I guess the question I just want to get to is do you and your Department intend to honor the—you mentioned the negotiations, the

discussions that are going on with the State. That seems to be pretty definitive to me with respect to Idaho as one State. And I just

want to know whether you will abide by it or be persuaded by it

or whether you intend to ignore it?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Remembering now where we are in this

whole process, that we are talking about the release of a draft environmental impact statement which then involves taking comment

from the public, from elected officials, all interested parties. Now,

what the ultimate decision will be relative to the four alternatives,

I don’t know.

We are trying to emphasize is the dialog surrounding the EIS

where issues raised by the legislature are legitimately considered—
26

issues raised by the stockmen, issues raised by the public in terms

of their human safety. All of those things have to be weighed, but

there is no formula for how one balances those things off. But

clearly those are important and legitimate concerns, and they are

concerns that we need to understand and listen to.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Can you tell me definitively whether your Department intends to honor the stated sentiment of the Idaho legislature

in this House Joint Memorial Number 2 that they had passed and

forwarded to your office?

Mr. MORGENWECK. The only thing that I can say is I really don’t

know because the EIS is the process of discussing the

alternative———

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me restate it if you really don’t know. Do you

have any plans to honor it at the moment?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Again, I am sorry I can’t give you the kind

of definitive answer you want because we are in the midst of a

process that will ultimately lead to that decision, but that decision

is sometime off. So I don’t know the answer.

Mr. SCHAFFER. But the answer is that you don’t have any plans

to honor this as you sit here before us today. Is that correct or am

I in error?

Mr. MORGENWECK. We consider that as important input into the

process of making that decision, but the decision has not been

made. So, therefore, I can’t say that we are going to abide by that

resolution. That decision will be made sometime in the future after

much more discussion so I am sorry I just can’t give you the sort

of definitive answer that I think you would like to have.

Mr. SCHAFFER. How much authority has the Department of the

Interior deferred to the Citizen Management Committee that is involved in these listing issues and ultimately formulating the Department’s response to the bear?

Mr. MORGENWECK. You mentioned listing. In listing———

Mr. SCHAFFER. It is already listed I guess.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Right. That is correct.

Mr. SCHAFFER. In terms of the management authority, how much

authority has been delegated to them by your Department?

Mr. MORGENWECK. As I said earlier, one thing to keep in mind

is that this is the first time that we have ever had a proposal like

this—to have a Citizen Management Committee. We have, we believe, delegated to them the implementation of the recovery plan,

the development of management plans and policies for the management of the reintroduced grizzlies, the development of the necessary work plans for what should be done in directing the recovery effort, and establishing how management should respond to the

livestock and human safety issues. They would also have the authority to refine the recovery goals—that is, the definition of how

many bears is enough to delist it—and also to make the determination as to whether or not the reintroduction was successful.

Mr. SCHAFFER. We are out of time, and I don’t want you to elaborate anymore at this point. But could you submit for our record at

a later point of time the specific legislative authority or whatever

authority you cite in delegating that much authority to this management commission?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes.
27

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to stay on

this citizen thing just for a couple more minutes. Frankly, one of

the things I would like to just suggest is that—and I am not yet

endorsing the reintroduction of grizzlies I just want to make

clear—but if this does go forward, I really think you ought to think

about having legislative authority established for this citizens

group and what power they have and what their existence would

be.

And, frankly, I want to encourage you. To the extent that you are

creating a citizens group here, I think it ought to be encouraged.

And I am a strong advocate of local involvement and local control.

One of the concerns I have in this instance is that the collaborative

process that took place left a lot of people out.

It did involve some of the important interests there, but I think

hunters and motorized recreationists, local residents, agricultural

interests were kind of left out of the process. And so that makes

it a little more difficult I think to build consensus in the community. And it is my sense the closer you get to where the grizzly

bears are, the greater the resistance is to the reintroduction.

And, Hal, I don’t want you to be left out of all this. I notice that

you are sitting over there and nobody is asking you questions. Let

me ask you a few questions because whenever you have bears and

people, access and roads become an issue. Do you know approximately how many miles of roads exist in this area now?

Mr. SALWASSER. In miles of roads?

Mr. HILL. I am talking about logging roads public———

Mr. SALWASSER. In the proposed recovery area———

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. SALWASSER. [continuing] Selway-Bitterroot?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. SALWASSER. Zero. It is wilderness.

Mr. HILL. Well, but we are going beyond—the recovery area is

going beyond just the wilderness area, and that is where you are

going to reintroduce them. But the anticipated recovery area———

Mr. SALWASSER. If you get outside of that wilderness area, there

would be some roads. But I couldn’t give you an estimate of how

many miles of roads would be in that area.

Mr. HILL. There is some Forest Service land that exists outside

the wilderness area———

Mr. SALWASSER. Correct.

Mr. HILL. [continuing] of which there are currently roads, access

roads. You don’t know how many miles of roads that constitutes?

Mr. SALWASSER. I don’t have that information.

Mr. HILL. Could you provide that for us?

Mr. SALWASSER. I think we can. I think we probably have an

overlay and a data base from the Columbia project that we could

estimate the number of miles of roads in the larger area.

Mr. HILL. And in concert with that, now, obviously, road closure

is one of the tools that is used for the management of reintroduction of grizzly bears. If you could provide us some estimate of what

you think might be road closures in association with what might
28

be a recovery plan? I know since a recovery plan doesn’t exist, it

is pretty hard for you to do. But if you could provide us some estimates of that, that would be pretty valuable to us.

Mr. SALWASSER. Right now I can tell you that the plans for road

access management in the area outside the wilderness area would

be exactly what is in the forest plans as of this date.

Mr. HILL. And what does that call for for reduction of access or

motorized access?

Mr. SALWASSER. It would be variable by different areas and by

season of year, and I would have to give you the standards from

the individual forest plans to show you what that might be.

Mr. HILL. But you are saying at this point you don’t think there

would be any change in that?

Mr. SALWASSER. My understanding of the information that is in

the proposed Citizen Management Committee approach is that the

standards that are in the current forest plans are judged to be adequate for grizzly bear recovery.

Mr. HILL. So would it be your view then that—just so that I am

clear on this—that snowmobilers and four-wheelers and those motorized groups, they will not see diminished access to the public

land areas that surround the wilderness as a consequence of this?

Mr. SALWASSER. Yes. There would be no change from what is in

the forest plans, and it wouldn’t be a result of the nonessential population of grizzly bears unless the Citizen Management Committee

were to make a decision otherwise.

Mr. HILL. OK. And one of the things that occurs in grizzly areas

now is that there are restrictions on hunting, restrictions on camping, hiking based upon bear activity. Who would be making the decisions if there were going to be restrictions on those kinds of uses

either in the wilderness area or outside the wilderness area under

this proposed alternative?

Mr. SALWASSER. My understanding is that the Citizen Management Committee would be the one that would make the decisions

on changes and any of the provisions for what kinds of activities

are allowed at different seasons of the year.

Mr. HILL. But I am thinking more—for example, we will have an

incident of bear encounter so campground is closed; bear encounter,

hunting areas are closed down. Who would be making those decisions?

Mr. SALWASSER. I would imagine for efficiency purposes that the

Citizen Management Committee would set up a set of criteria or

a framework for how those decisions would be made, but the dayto-day implementation of them, the onsite decision would be in the

hands of the local Forest Service officials as long as they are consistent with the guidelines and the framework set by the Citizen

Management Committee. We wouldn’t have to convene the committee every time a bear encountered somebody in a campground.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Morgenweck, you have identified, I think at least

on a preliminary basis, 280 bears would be the recovered bear population. Is that correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes, approximately that. Again, we would

have to—the Citizen Management Committee would need to look

at that as time went on to judge———
29

Mr. HILL. And then they could make that 250 or 200 or whatever. Why 280? What evidence do you have that 280 grizzly bears

lived in that vicinity at some point in time in the history? Where

did that number come from?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, it is based upon evaluations of habitat

that have occurred over the years in the Bitterroot and looking at

the quality of the food, the isolation, the factors related to grizzly

bear biology. It is an estimate that has been made by some of our

grizzly bear biologists.

Mr. HILL. So basically what you are saying is that you think the

area could sustain 280 bears so that is why you picked that number?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Correct.

Mr. HILL. There is some concern in that area that that number

is so large that it is going to increase the likelihood of encounters

with the residents and the recreationists in that area. Was that

taken into consideration in establishing that number?

Mr. MORGENWECK. The number was driven largely by biology

but———

Mr. HILL. Not by economics, not by social factors, but simply by

biology?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Largely by biology. And, again, there are so

many factors that need to be considered as time goes on. That is

one of the reasons for having the Citizen Management Committee

have the authority to refine that number because if there are situations that are arising, they can adjust the number, as well as the

management, to deal with whatever problems come up.

Mr. HILL. Which is one of the concerns of the citizens there is

changing targets—is one of the concerns. Thank you, Madam

Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Dr. Morgenweck, you

testified that there were no lawsuits with regards to grizzly bear

attacks, and yet a ranger in Glacier National Park, Montana, is

suing the Federal Government because of emotional and physical

scars left from a grizzly rampage at a park campground in 1995.

A number of unreported bear encounters occurred shortly before

the ranger and friends had their tents ripped through and were attacked by grizzly bears early in the morning. The attack left the

ranger with a number of disfiguring scars.

Furthermore, in August 1996, a man who was on a hiking trip

was killed by a grizzly bear in Alaska. The man and his friends

had taken all of the suggested precautions in going into known

bear country such as wearing bear bells and making noise while

they hiked through the brush. The attack was quick, and the man

was killed very rapidly.

I am reading to you from press accounts that indeed there are

more than the very rare instances of bears attacking humans. In

June 1996, an elderly man hiking a common ground trail in Glacier

National Park while taking a rest was attacked by a grizzly bear.

Park officials determined that the man had inadvertently invaded

the bear’s space and, therefore, did not need to be relocated or

killed.

Since 1990, there have been 17 grizzly bear maulings in Glacier

National Park. Hunting is not allowed in the park; but five
30

maulings in Yellowstone Park; also in British Columbia, Canada,

between 1963 and 1992 10 people have been fatally mauled on and

on.

An 18-year-old Montana boy while hunting with his family in

1996 was attacked by a bear in northern Montana. The bear took

a chunk out of his right torso, had his hand and wrist chewed up,

and tore out a big part of his leg, losing about 35 percent of his

leg.

In addition, the edition of the June 1996 Time Mirror Magazine

Outdoor Life has a full accounting of bear attacks. And so I think

that they are much more numerous and the issue of human fear

is much greater than I think your testimony reflected. For the

record, I would like to enter without objection this copy of the text

from the Outdoor Life edition, January 1996.

[Outdoor Life edition follows:]

Mr. MORGENWECK. Madam Chairman, could I respond?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.

Mr. MORGENWECK. First of all, when I spoke of lawsuits, I spoke

of lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think the person you mentioned was a National Park Service employee. I am not

aware of any against the Fish and Wildlife Service in that regard.

I was not aware of the one against the Park Service that you mentioned.

Secondly, I think it is important to recognize your submission of

that article indicates there is no question, that bears do on occasion

attack and sometimes kill people. We are not saying that that

doesn’t happen.

But I also think that we have to consider too when we talk about

the parks, both Glacier and National Park—both Glacier and Yellowstone National Park, that we are talking about places that receive 2 to 3 million visitors a year, and have a very high density

of bears.

I think with as few incidents as we have, that it does show that

education is important. It doesn’t always eliminate every one of the

instances. When we look at the visitorship———

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. You have answered my question.

In the time that I have, there are some other questions that I

wanted to ask you. When we have the State of Idaho sending a resolution to you saying they want no bears, and that was passed

unanimously in the Idaho legislature, when the entire Idaho Congressional Delegation says no bears in Idaho, when the Governor

says no bears, the attorney general says no bears, and you consider

this as part of the dialog and part of the concerns.

Mr. Morgenweck, I think you are operating in an agency that is

entirely out of control, and I think there are some serious legal

questions here. I would ask that before you issue the draft EIS, I

think anyone who reviews that draft EIS ought to know how the

people of Idaho feel.

And I think a resolution from the legislature and indications that

are more than indications—actual letters from the Governor, the

attorney general, and the congressional delegation—should also be

part of the environmental impact statement. Documentation such

as this normally is part of the environmental impact statement.
31

And, believe me, Dr. Morgenweck, these are not just ordinary concerns to be put someplace in a poll and then reevaluated.

I have a number of other questions here for you. They are questions that the delegation asked you a long time ago, and I am

dreadfully concerned that you went ahead and issued your decision

today without even bothering to answer the questions that the entire delegation asked you to answer for them. And so without taking up any more time by putting you through the questions, I am

asking you to answer these questions within 10 days. The Chair

now recognizes Mr. Hinchey.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I just

have a technical question, Dr. Morgenweck, about the advisory

committee and the decisionmaking process. Will these decisions be

made by majority? Will there be an attempt to reach consensus?

Have you worked that out as to how decisions will proceed from the

advisory committee?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I don’t know that there is a specification as

to how they will make their decision. Let me turn to Dr. Servheen,

and he indicates that it is a consensus process.

Mr. HINCHEY. Consensus process. That is going to be a difficult

process I will be so bold as to predict at this particular moment.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. You are absolutely correct. I have had

experiences for the last 4 years or so on another recovery program

that has a consensus process, and it is very difficult, but it is also

a very good opportunity to work through the issues.

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, it is a good opportunity to talk about things,

but I am not so sure that any decisions will ever be made. In any

case, it will be interesting to watch how this process unfolds. If I

may, Mr. Salwasser, just ask you, sir—you may have answered

this, and I missed the answer to Mr. Hill’s questions a few moments ago, but I am interested in knowing the description of the

habitat area where this introduction is proposed to take place. Can

you just give us a general description of what it looks like?

Mr. SALWASSER. What it looks like? It is quite hilly. It is the central Idaho wilderness areas that are known as the Selway-Bitterroot with a portion of the Frank Church River of No Return area

in the south. It is a grand total of 3 plus million acres ranging from

some very high elevation, rocky areas down to the bottoms along

the Salmon-Clearwater forks of the Clearwater River drainage; lots

of conifers, lots of aspen, lots of open grassy areas.

Mr. HINCHEY. What kind of wildlife are there presently in that

area?

Mr. SALWASSER. Well, there are thousands of black bear.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thousands of black bear?

Mr. SALWASSER. That is correct. They harvest about 1,000 black

bear a year out of the area; thousands of elk, mule deer, white-tail

deer along the bottoms, cougar. There are now wolves in the area.

Mr. HINCHEY. Is this mostly wilderness?

Mr. SALWASSER. The recovery area—the introduction zone is entirely wilderness.

Mr. HINCHEY. What portion of it is not wilderness and how

would you describe that portion?

Mr. SALWASSER. Just a second. OK. I needed to get a clarification. The recovery area itself is all wilderness area, but the area
32

that the experimental population could be in includes some nonwilderness areas that adjoin that, some of which are unroaded.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thanks. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman,

I just want to say that I think that we benefited—I particularly felt

that I benefited from the trip that you organized out to Idaho just

a week or so ago to see the forestry conditions.

I think that perhaps in the future you might consider taking

some members of the Committee out to this particular area. I think

it would be instructive for us, particularly those of us who live east

of the Mississippi River, to have an opportunity to see this particular range.

I live in New York. We have black bear. I have black bear right

near my house. I live in the woods. There are some woods in New

York contrary to what some people might believe, but there are

some woods in New York. I live in the woods, and there are black

bear near my home. We never feel particularly threatened by them.

They are rather docile creatures, frankly, but I can understand the

concerns of people about this particular issue.

But it is hard for some of us particularly in the East to grasp

the enormous size of areas in the western part of the country, and

it is instructive for us to have an opportunity to see them. So it

might be a good idea at some point perhaps, Madam Chairman, for

us to go out and take a look at it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey, and it was an honor

to have you in our State 2 weeks ago, and Idahoans are grateful

that you would take the time to come out. And I certainly will work

on putting together a trip into this area so you can see the wilderness. The Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer from Colorado.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman; a couple questions. One I would like to ask Mr. Morgenweck again. I want to go

back to the whole notion of the or the issue of the Idaho resolution.

I had a chance to go through your prepared comments while I was

sitting here, which I have lost all of a sudden. Oh, here it is.

The announcement that I missed and have read about since

about the—how many alternatives? Four alternatives it looks like

that you had considered, and I guess you announced you are going

to pursue this alternative number 1. And I would like you to—the

last time I asked you questions about the Idaho resolution, as well

as the opinions rendered by the delegation and the Governor, you

indicated that you would take those under consideration and consider them.

I don’t live in Idaho, but if I did live in Idaho, how would I interpret—how do you think the people in Idaho should interpret the

announcement today to move forward with alternative number 1

given the fact that these resolutions and letters had been given to

you far in advance of the decision? Does this decision suggest or

offer any indication that these opinions are being seriously considered?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I would hope that they would be interpreted

as an opportunity to talk more about the reasons for the strong objections by the delegation and by the members of the legislature.

We have met on two occasions; one, a group met with the Governor, and we also met with the staff of the delegation of Idaho.
33

We met with the Idaho Association of Counties, and we met with

Mr. Mealey and his commission.

And they made their views quite clear, but also in that discussion, I think that we discovered that there is more discussion to

have about why it is that the positions taken have been taken. I

think there are a lot of concerns that I think that we may be able

to allay, and I think given the importance of the Bitterroot in size

and what it can mean to grizzly bear recovery, that it is worth embarking on continuation of this process of going through the draft

EIS to have those kinds of discussions.

Mr. SCHAFFER. So is your announcement about alternative number 1 then just a temporary sort of thing, or there is more discussion before you move forward with alternative number 1, or is this

a decision you have reached to actually move forward with reintroduction at this point?

Mr. MORGENWECK. No, we have not reached the decision to go

ahead with reintroduction. What we have decided is that for purposes of the review of the draft environmental impact statement alternative one is the alternative that the Department prefers. Now,

we will go through a long series of meetings, public meetings, public comment, briefings, discussion that will—at the end of that

whole process, result in a decision about which alternative to pursue.

Mr. SCHAFFER. OK. You mentioned the term consensus, that decisions will be made on consensus. What kind of consensus did you

have with the Idaho delegation, the State legislature, and the Governor that led you to the determination you made this morning on

alternative number 1?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I think the positions of the delegation currently are pretty clear, but I think, Congressman Schaffer, one also

has to look back that this has been about a 22-year effort since

the———

Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, with respect to the consensus that you described earlier and the resolution, the Governor’s statements, the

delegation statements, how were these folded into the consensus

building that led you to alternative number 1?

Mr. MORGENWECK. The consensus that we were talking about—

operating under consensus was for the Citizen Management Committee. Clearly, as we have moved through this long process of discussing the Bitterroot, there have been times when the Idaho Fish

and Game appeared to be supportive of reintroducing———

Mr. SCHAFFER. Just to be clear, so the consensus that you spoke

of is only relevant to the citizens committee, not to the alternatives

that your Department is planning to choose?

Mr. MORGENWECK. The specific question that was asked of me

dealt with the Citizen Management Committee. This process—if

you are asking me the question will we have a consensus of the

Idaho legislature, the delegation, and the Governor, when we get

to the point of making the ultimate decision, I don’t know. I hope

that we do, and I think we should try to move in that direction.

But in terms of was there a consensus that alternative one should

be the preferred alternative, the answer is no.

Mr. SCHAFFER. OK. Let me ask, you know, when the EPA and

other agencies in the Federal Government assess the impact that
34

a State may have or some particular activity would have on the environment and so on and public health, and I think of these new

air quality standards, which seem unrelated maybe at the moment,

that move from regulating PM10 and expanding that to PM2.5 in

a particular matter, we do a risk assessment as to the impact on

human health and human safety. Have you done any assessment

of the risk associated to human health and human safety with the

introduction of these bears—how many humans may die or how

many encounters you expect at the 280 level that you have established?

Mr. MORGENWECK. We have done some work in that regard in

terms of comparing what we believe would be areas that would

have a similar density of bears when full recovery would be

reached in the Bitterroot. And we have also looked at the

visitorship. I think that during the course of discussion on the

draft, that is an area that we could do more work on and should

do more work on because as I understand it, human safety is the

number 1 concern on the part of the public in Idaho.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Oh, good. How many people will be affected

healthwise with alternative number 1? Is there a risk of death, risk

of injury, risk of encounter?

Mr. MORGENWECK. Based on our projections from other similar

circumstances, we recognize that human visitorship to this area

will increase with larger human population and that once bears are

recovered in 50 to 110 years, at about 280 bears we project less

than one injury per year and less than one grizzly bear induced

human mortality every few decades will occur.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Schaffer, thank you for your questions.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Vento.

Mr. VENTO. Thanks. Dr. Morgenweck, there was some discussion

I think on the lawsuit issue. What I was trying to get at was a different question I think than what the Subcommittee Chairwoman

was talking about, and that is, you know, if you can be held liable

for the regulation because you regulate something as a threat or

endangered species in the case there is that—I mean, in terms of

successful Court cases, I mean, I understand that Court cases

sometimes can blossom like the flowers in spring in terms of possible alternatives—but are you aware of any case where you were—

in terms of the Fish and Wildlife Service in your region or outside

your region where they were, in fact, regulating a species as endangered or threatened and, in fact, were held liable for that—the

damage of it?

Mr. MORGENWECK. No, sir, I am not.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that is the important point. I mean, obviously, if you are an employer working for the Forest Service or

for the Park Service, in this case an example came up—I don’t

know—I mean, if they didn’t take reasonable cautions or there

wasn’t signs up because there were bear in the area or someone

was put in a situation where they were at risk because they didn’t

have adequate equipment or were told to do something—there are

all sorts of incidents that could arise, you know.

But, I mean, I think what really is they are playing around the

edges here in some of the questions—is whether just simply the
35

regulation, the reintroduction of the species, the management of an

endangered or threatened species, whether or not that—there

would be some liability.

Now, many may think that because you regulate it, you know—

I mean, we have had suits against the Food and Drug Administration because they regulate and put a product on the market that

their actions were, in other words, complicit with whoever the manufacturer was, you know, of the product. But those suits have been

up unto this date I think have not been successful. I guess their

arguments are made along those lines.

With regards to the regional forester or supervisor, Mr.

Salwasser, the issue with regards to the roads are, obviously, all

outside the primary area but in the range I guess of what might

be the range for the grizzlies in this case. Is that correct?

Mr. SALWASSER. Correct, in the area———

Mr. VENTO. And even some of these areas are roadless, but in

terms of road closure, you close roads for a variety of reasons

today, don’t you?

Mr. SALWASSER. We do.

Mr. VENTO. I mean, sort of on a temporary basis because, well,

somebody might be hunting an area and don’t want others driving

around berry picking or something. Is that correct?

Mr. SALWASSER. We work with the State wildlife agencies for

road closures during hunting season to protect some of the vulnerable animals. We close roads in the spring to protect elk calving.

We close roads in the wet season to protect the———

Mr. VENTO. Of course, some of them might just be—where we

have road restoration if you had enough money sometimes I guess.

That is a real road closure.

Mr. SALWASSER. Right.

Mr. VENTO. And so there are some other bases for that, and I

think that you were mentioning that you thought that the management of it—does the Forest Service—because a large segment of

this is Forest Service wilderness or Forest Service lands—what

type of role do you take in terms of the management with the Fish

and Wildlife Service of some of the activities in the land. You, obviously, have a role in hunting, but you also work with the game and

fish departments of the various States.

Mr. SALWASSER. We work with the game and fish departments

in all of the States with regard to the habitat management, habitat

improvements, with managing our transportation access during the

hunting season. With the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal

agency, we work with them wherever there is an endangered species or a proposed endangered species. We do consultation with

them to make sure that the projects don’t jeopardize the species.

Mr. VENTO. Now, I understand that the citizen management is

not required. This would be sort of a try at something new, apparently, there—in other words, because you recognize, Dr.

Morgenweck—apparently the policymakers recognize that there

were some shortfalls in terms of trying to deal in an informal way,

that you are trying to do something more formal. That is at least

what the recommendation is. Is that correct? But this would be a

pilot. This would be a trial at something. Is this correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.
36

Mr. VENTO. And so, obviously, trying to write this in law it would

provide less flexibility in all likelihood. I mean, that has been sort

of the pattern I guess when things like this have been tried to

write into law before they have been tried. We don’t know that it

will work or not.

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.

Mr. VENTO. And it may need reinforcement; maybe not. I guess

it is an effort to try to make things work out, and it sounds like

you have gained some support from groups in the area that look

at this as occurring and that want to have a greater voice or at

least participation. I guess the supposition is that if you share the

information, everybody has the information, that you will come to

decisions that people will be of a common mind. They sometimes

find that that doesn’t always work out the way it is planned that

way.

One of the other features of this particular area, and I think it

is pretty relevant because this is sometimes compared to other

types of endangered or threatened species as sort of dictating what

will happen with the land use, in other words, in terms of timber

harvest or recreational use or other use, but the changes that have

to be made here are nil, aren’t they, in terms of this wilderness

area, in terms of how it is managed?

Because the habitat already is suitable, and so it has no—there

is no corollary with other endangered species that, for instance,

have really resulted in a dramatic change in terms of the land use

patterns and management of the land. In other words, it would be

very much consistent with the way it is already being managed. Is

that correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.

Mr. VENTO. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento. The Chair recognizes

Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to actually

follow on with some of the questions Mr. Vento asked. The creation

of the citizens advisory group—part of the motivation there at least

is to gain some public support for this—some confidence on the

part of the public that they are going to have a voice in the process

and that sort of thing. Is that correct?

Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. And I want to go back to this whole issue of public

support. In spite of the fact that you have made the suggestion of

a citizens advisory group, to my knowledge, at least in Valley

County in Montana where—the adjacent county here—you don’t

have the support at this point of any of the county commissioners

there, do you?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not aware whether or not we do. I don’t

know.

Mr. HILL. I believe that you have, in fact, their strong opposition.

Any local legislators from that area, are you aware of whether any

of them are in support of moving forward with this plan?

Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not. Perhaps Mr. Salwasser is aware of

some of the local positions. Dr. Servheen informs me that they

have not seen the citizen management proposal either, and so that,

again———
37

Mr. HILL. I guess I would ask this question. Do you see going—

if you are unable to secure any local support of any local government representatives, if you are unable to secure any support from

the State of Idaho—by that, I mean the legislature, the Governor,

local political leaders—if there is a lack of support by both the

Montana and Idaho Congressional Delegation, do you see going forward with this even though you had that much opposition to this?

Mr. MORGENWECK. You mean at the end of this whole process?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Someone will make that ultimate decision

that has a higher pay grade than me, but I think that we have a

responsibility to work with the local people, local units of government, and do our very, very best to work with them to deal with

the concerns that they have.

Mr. HILL. And get their support?

Mr. MORGENWECK. And do our utmost to get their support.

Mr. HILL. I know, you know, that you are hedging some there.

I guess first of all, I want to reiterate we have a lot of contentious

polarization going on in Montana over public land management

issues and endangered species. And I am committed to the concept

of collaborative process. Again, my concern here is that the collaborative effort may have been too narrow rather than broad based.

But aside from that, you know, I would really suggest that you

consider creating the citizens group and empower that group to actually make the decision of whether there is going to be reintroduction or not or at least to make a recommendation on which the Secretary makes the decision on whether there is going to be reintroduction or not.

Because I believe there is still strong—in spite of the public opinion polls that you have cited—you know, you can ask questions and

you can series the questions, and we all know that public opinion

polls don’t necessarily reflect what really public judgment is. But

there is strong resistance yet—very, very strong resistance and

concern about this. And some of it may be well founded, some of

it may not be.

But I would certainly—I mean, I would urge you to move forward

on the collaborative process and a consensus process. But I would

certainly urge you to employ that process on a broader base before

you make the decision whether you are going to have reintroduction or not. Mr. Salwasser and I have had some conversation about

that in the past, and I just want to urge you to do that.

I want to go back to the citizens group. Would you see this citizens group decisions being subject to appeal by interest groups who

disagreed with the decisions that they made? And would that be

an appeal process that would likely be litigated or not?

Mr. MORGENWECK. One thing I have learned, Congressman Hill,

in dealing with the Endangered Species Act is virtually anything

we do can be litigated. So I would suspect that there could very

well be litigation on the question of the legality of the Citizen Management Committee and the responsibilities that are delegated.

Hopefully, if those are going to occur, they would occur early on in

the process.

Mr. HILL. Would that argue for us to pass some specific legislation with regard to that?
38

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I am not a lawyer. I guess, you know,

Mr. Vento’s point was that trying to craft legislation at this early

point in our experience with this sort of approach may well be limiting rather than enhancing. So, I think that we ought to try this—

in other words, go through the discussions.

Mr. HILL. But, in essence, what you are saying is you are going

to make a decision to reintroduce. Then you are going to create a

citizens advisory group to manage the reintroduction. I believe that

you really need to take a step back from that, and I don’t believe

you are at the point where you have built enough consensus

around the decision of whether you are going to reintroduce the

grizzlies, and that you need to employ the collaborative process further before you make that decision.

Mr. MORGENWECK. Right. Yes. And I am sorry. I apologize. I certainly did not miss your point, which is the Citizen Management

Committee if OK, if you are reintroducing, but how could citizens

have input and advice in advance of that final decision being made

and trying to develop a consensus there? I think that is good advice.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. For the record, I would

like to enter the letter from the Governor dated January 29, 1997;

also, the letter from the entire congressional delegation dated May

15, 1997.

[Governor’s letter may be found at end of hearing.]

[Idaho delegation letter may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just want to end this round of questioning

by asking Mr. Salwasser if there was a human in your forest who

was a known killer, known to maim and maul people, and that he

very likely was out or could be in an area where there was multiple-use activity where families were camping or picking berries or

hunters were in the area, wouldn’t you do all you could to, ahead

of an injury, make sure that individual was captured?

Mr. SALWASSER. Well, we certainly would do that, Madam Chairman. We have also got a lot of animals out in the forests that are

known to kill human beings at higher rates than grizzly bears, and

we don’t have the ability to go in and try to take them all out—

cougars, rattlesnakes, bees, among them.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But the grizzly bear is a pretty large and unpredictable animal, and it used to be that when the entire congressional delegation and when the Governor and the State legislature

all said no emphatically, it used to mean something. It used to

mean that an agency would redirect their resources, and those resources are becoming scarcer and scarcer as we have to allocate resources out and begin to prioritize in the Congress.

I think the American people have reason to be concerned about

the fact that money is being spent on something that the State

doesn’t want, the Representatives don’t want, the people don’t

want, and there are other priorities the government should be investing in. One of those things is managing the health of our forests. And I am very pleased with your candor, but I am very sad

about the attitude of moving ahead in spite of all of the governmental authorities from the counties on up simply saying no.
39

I think you need to rethink that position, and you have gone

through a long and arduous session, both of you, especially you, Dr.

Morgenweck, and I thank you. I would like to ask your continued

patience and ask you to remain for the rest of the hearing so that

you might benefit from the testimony that will be presented. If that

is possible, we would certainly appreciate it. Thank you very much.

And I call the next panel of witnesses. Senator Ric Branch from

the Idaho State Senate, Midvale, Idaho; Steve Mealey, Director,

Idaho Department of Fish and Game representing the Governor;

Ted Strickler, Custer County Commissioner, Challis, Idaho. Gentlemen, if you would take your seats at the witness table? Gentlemen,

as with the preceding panel, if you will all rise and raise your right

hand and take the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you and I now recognize our witnesses

starting with Senator Branch.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RIC BRANCH, IDAHO STATE

SENATE, MIDVALE, IDAHO

Senator BRANCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the

Committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify for you

today. My name is Ric Branch, and I serve on the Resources and

Environment Committee of the Idaho State Senate.

I also represent the fifth generation of my family to farm and

ranch at the foot of the west central mountains in Idaho. Two sets

of great grandparents have homesteaded within two miles of where

I presently live. My 6-year-old son, Ross, would be the sixth generation of my family to earn his livelihood in the same fashion as

his predecessors if he so desires.

There is a major threat that is jeopardizing my son’s chances of

continuing our family’s presence on the land. It is not the normal

threat you would associate with operating a farm or ranch such as

severe drought, flooding, blizzards, grasshopper infestations, or low

commodity prices. No, the number 1 threat to my son’s future is

from foolish decisions being made by Federal agencies and overzealous Federal regulations.

A small minority of elitists in the West are seeking to lock people

out of our environment. Our national resources are now being managed by professional litigants in Court instead of professionally

trained scientists and practitioners on the ground.

American families in rural America have for generations made

their living by practicing good stewardship of the environment and

by providing resources for humankind. These American families

are being displaced by a society that has been led to believe that

the only way to protect their environment is to lock people out. The

casualties of this kind of philosophy are the people closest to the

land, the very people who are best able to manage it.

On March 14 of this year, I was the floor sponsor in the Idaho

State Senate of House Joint Memorial 2, which states the Idaho

Legislature’s full support of Governor Phil Batt’s request for immediate suspension of the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Environmental Impact Statement.

This joint memorial was a bipartisan effort and passed both

Houses on a voice vote with no dissenting debate. In our Senate,
40

there were absolutely no no votes. It came out 35 to zip. When I

moved for the adoption of House Joint Memorial 2, it was seconded

by the minority leader for the Democratic party, Marguerite

McLaughlin from northern Idaho.

She said that her favorite campground would have to be closed

if the grizzly bear was introduced into Idaho. I pointed out in debate that a large Boy Scout camp is also located close to this recovery area or in the recovery area.

Over time, a maximum acceptable ratio of bears to humans has

been established in Idaho. Reintroduction would disrupt this ratio

to the detriment of humans resulting in injury, death, and loss of

personal freedoms to the citizens of Idaho.

Montanans have experienced unnecessary loss of human life, unacceptable land use restrictions, and legal denial of the right to

protect private property. This reintroduction proposal would have

the same result in Idaho. The potential for conflict with campers,

hikers, and other users of the public lands is very real.

When Montanans discovered that their homes were in the

human-grizzly conflict zone, they asked if they were going to be

able to allow their kids to go fishing in the streams behind their

homes and not have to worry about them getting consumed by

bears.

Well, the recovery coordinator responded by saying, ‘‘You might

have to modify a few of your children’s behaviors.’’ They were told

to tie bells on their children when they were sent out to play so

that the bears would hear the bells and run the other way.

We must learn from our neighboring States of Montana and Wyoming regarding the difficulties and lack of good faith they have

encountered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana has

been forced to deal with a continually expanding recovery goal

which has nullified their efforts to manage the grizzly bear which

is a game species in that State. Wyoming has been forced to spend

$678,000 on their program with only $36,000 in reimbursements.

The so-called Roots proposal for reintroduction is contrary to the

existing Endangered Species Act. It was negotiated by a limited

number of special interests under duress and cannot be enforced.

I will continue to oppose any reintroduction program pretending to

offer State or local citizen management unsupported by statute.

The heart of this problem is Rule 10[j], Section 14, which takes

in the Citizen Management Committee. This is really not local control at all because it is all left up to the Interior Secretary at his

discretion whether the committee is going forward under his wishes. So this is totally unacceptable to the State of Idaho.

The grizzly bear should be removed from the Endangered Species

List and turned over to the States for management. The Grizzly

Bear Oversight Committee conducted hearings in Grangeville and

Sandpoint and Orofino, Idaho, in 1994. 95 percent of the citizens

were against any grizzly bear introduction under any conditions.

The people of the State of Idaho, the Governor, and both Houses

of the State Legislature agree that the proposal to introduce the

grizzly bear into the Selway-Bitterroot Mountains is unnecessary

and unworkable. Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I ask that you see that common sense prevail in this issue

and that this proposal be stopped immediately. Thank you.
41

[Statement of Senator Branch may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator. The Chair recognizes Director Mealey, Director of Idaho Fish and Game.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MEALEY, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF

FISH AND GAME, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be here. I am

Steve Mealey, Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

It is a pleasure to be here today to present the State of Idaho’s position on reintroduction of grizzly bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem

of Idaho.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission has long opposed reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho. My

purpose today is to present the broader position of the State of

Idaho. I have several written documents to support my testimony.

I represent specifically positions of Governor Batt, the State Legislature, the Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho Congressional

Delegation, and the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and Department. I have submitted formal comments for the record. They contain four key messages.

Point number 1, Idaho’s Governor, legislature, county commissioners, congressional delegation, Fish and Game Commission and

Department strongly oppose reintroduction of grizzly bears to the

Bitterroot Ecosystem.

As you have referred to earlier, Madam Chairman, in a January

29, 1997, letter to the Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, Governor Phil Batt outlined the reasons why he is ‘‘adamantly opposed

to the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Ecosystem.’’ A copy of that letter is included with the testimony.

In his letter, Governor Batt questioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s position that grizzlies in the Bitterroot Ecosystem are

necessary for the recovery and survival of grizzly bears in the lower

48 States. Governor Batt also expressed concerns for public safety,

social and economic effects on many rural Idaho communities, and

overall fiscal impacts to Idaho if grizzlies were reintroduced.

Point number 2, if grizzlies were to return to the Bitterroots,

then most Idahoans, in my opinion, would probably agree that the

best way would be as a nonessential experimental population

under the guidance of a Citizen Management Committee. However,

Idaho people have expressed through their elected or appointed

representatives strong opposition to their return through reintroduction. Simply put, people have agreed with the ‘‘then’’ but not

the ‘‘if.’’

Point number 3, I have serious personal concerns about how data

were used in developing the likely preferred alternative. It is not

now any longer likely apparently so I now have serious personal

concerns about how data were used in developing the preferred alternative for grizzly reintroduction.

Simply put, the Bitterroot grizzly bear evaluation area, referred

to as a BEA, that was assessed by Davis and Butterfield in 1991

as suitable for a viable population of grizzlies does not coincide

with the grizzly bear recovery area likely associated with the preferred alternative in the draft environmental impact statement.
42

In fact, there is no document I know of that can demonstrate

that the proposed grizzly bear recovery area is sufficient, and I

want to emphasize that word sufficient, for a viable or recovered

population. The grizzly bear recovery area, which has been previously referred to as the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church

River of No Return Wildernesses, includes a large area south of the

Salmon River that was not evaluated by Davis and Butterfield, and

it excludes an area nearly as large north of the Lochsa River that

was assessed by them.

Point number 4, should the decision be made to place grizzlies

in the Bitterroot, reintroduction would occur without the necessary

authority of a permit required by Idaho State law. I would not

issue the required permit.

And, Madam Chairman, if you would permit me some personal

reflections on this issue, they are included in my comments, but I

see I still have an amber light so I will read quickly. As I reflect

on this issue, I am reminded of a passage in Teddy Roosevelt’s

book, ‘‘Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter.’’

‘‘Eastern people,’’ he wrote in 1905, ‘‘and especially eastern

sportsmen, need to keep steadily in mind the fact that the westerners who in the neighborhood of the forest preserves are the men

who, in the last resort, will determine whether or not these preserves are to be permanent.

‘‘They cannot, in the long run, be kept as forest and game reservations unless the settlers roundabout believe in them and heartily support them; and the rights of these settlers must be carefully

safeguarded, and they must be shown that the movement is really

in their interest. The eastern sportsmen,’’ Teddy said, ‘‘who fails to

recognize these facts can do little but harm by continued advocacy

of preserves.’’

And for me the main relevance of this old message for today’s

adapted management is to highlight the need for continuing understanding, acceptance, and support for actions by those directly affected by such actions. The fundamental task for all of us in the

natural resources business is to make conservation work in a democracy.

When the Governor, the legislature, the congressional delegation

of Idaho, the county commissioners, the Fish and Game Commission all have grave reservations about the reintroduction of

grizzlies to the Bitterroot area, it is time for agency representatives

to pause, take a deep breath, and reexamine where they are headed especially in terms of providing excellent public service. Not to

do so would seem to ignore Teddy Roosevelt’s wisdom and appear

arrogant relative to representative democracy. Thank you for the

chance to present Idaho’s position.

[Statement of Mr. Mealey may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mealey. The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Ted Strickler from Custer County. Commissioner?

STATEMENT OF TED STRICKLER, CUSTER COUNTY

COMMISSIONER, CHALLIS, IDAHO

Mr. STRICKLER. Madam Chairman, thank you for allowing me to

be here today. My name is Ted Strickler, and I am the Chairman
43

of the Board of County Commissioners of Custer County. I live in

central Idaho in and around the Frank Church Wilderness Area for

41 years. I have been a licensed outfitter and guide and have experience in timber and grazing industries, and I am currently a building contractor. Custer County is the gateway to the Frank Church

Wilderness Area, the largest wilderness designation in the lower 48

States.

Today, I represent all 44 counties of Idaho as a spokesman of the

Idaho Association of Counties and Custer County as a county directly affected by the introduction of grizzly bears. Custer County

and the Idaho Association of Counties are on record as opposing

the introduction of the grizzly bears into Idaho.

And as said before, the Governor of Idaho opposes, Idaho legislature opposes, Idaho Department of Fish and Game says no, Idaho

Association of County says no, Custer County says no, Idaho says

no. Elected officials are hopefully making their decisions as representation of their public. As public officials, we are first concerned and are bound by oath to protect the health, safety, and

welfare of our citizens and all other users.

The Frank Church Wilderness Area is possibly the only area of

its kind where people, and especially families with children, can

have a true wilderness experience without fear for their safety and

with the mental freedom to enjoy the total natural wilderness experience, a wilderness experience that includes camping and recreational activities free from the threat of attack by wild animals

such as the unpredictable, easily provoked, bad attitude grizzly

bear.

With the reintroduction of the wolf, this has changed, as people

are now expressing fear of camping out. What will it be like under

the grizzly bear? There is much fear about this process, some about

the bear and some about the government actions against citizens.

Some consider this a type of environmental and emotional terrorism.

The citizens of Custer County have presented their commissioners with petitions, offered here as an exhibit, containing over

1,350 signatures, demanding us to do whatever is necessary to protect them and their property from the grizzly bear. What would you

do?

We are concerned about the economy of the State and county.

Idaho is approximately 67 percent public land. Custer County, the

size of the State of Connecticut, is 96 percent public land. The economics of our county and State are heavily dependent upon public

land use for mining, timber, grazing, and recreation.

As such, we are already heavily impacted by the Endangered

Species Act. Because of the reintroduction efforts and the listing of

species in our area, grazing has been cut, logging curtailed, mining

is heavily regulated, and even recreation has been affected.

Decisions and regulations are being made by agencies without

good, supportable, science and are now suffocating the West. We

believe that the introduction of the grizzly bear in the Selway-Bitterroot, with the core areas of nonuse, restricted areas, and more

curtailment of public land use, may well be the lethal blow to what

remains of our ability to survive.
44

Tourism makes up less than 10 percent of the total economy of

Custer County, yet it is suggested as our salvation as other uses

are being diminished. Even if our economy could survive on a 90

percent cut, we do not believe tourism and grizzlies are compatible.

Past experience has shown through the Endangered Species Act

in reintroduction efforts that man has not been part of the equation

and has not been considered. We believe people in local economies

should have the number 1 priority in the equation for every issue

and Act.

We are also concerned about the lack of interaction and relationships between our State and local governments and the Federal

Government and its agencies, especially Fish and Wildlife and Marine Fisheries, who are in charge of administering these Acts. It is

time to put man and the local economics in the equation.

It is time to give the highest consideration to the desires of the

people affected by the Act and consider their historical right to protection of their custom, culture, and pursuit of happiness as they

pursue life’s successes and the American dream. The people of

Idaho and the West are speaking out—no grizzly bears. Please hear

them. Thank you.

[Statement of Mr. Strickler may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Commissioner. I am going to open

the line of questioning in this round, and I would like to begin with

Director Mealey. Can you give us your background, your educational background, and your occupational background?

Mr. MEALEY. Yes, ma’am, I would be glad to. Maybe I should

only share the appropriate parts which would be my education. I

have a Master’s Degree in Wildlife, and my graduate work dealt

with grizzly bear food habits in Yellowstone. I worked as a grizzly

bear researcher for some years and then spent about 10 years as

either a wildlife biologist on the Shoshone Forest in Wyoming and

forest supervisor there where grizzly bears were our principal occupation.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Can you———

Mr. MEALEY. My Master’s thesis dealt with the food habits of

grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. I did develop one of the

early evaluation processes for determining habitat quality for grizzly bears and published that many years ago, and it was relative

to the Whitefish Range in northern Montana.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you know if your publication was used as

part of the scientific background in this new draft EIS?

Mr. MEALEY. Yes, ma’am, it was. I am aware of that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Good. Have you reviewed the science of the

proposal to reintroduce the bear into the recovery area?

Mr. MEALEY. Yes, ma’am. Two weeks ago I met with all of the

Idaho Fish and Game Department people who had involvement in

the development of the EIS, and I spent a day with them reviewing

all of the data that they had generated, and I had a very good day

with them.

Those people included, as I already referred to, Bart Butterfield,

who in 1985 and then later, along with Dan Davis in 1991, provided the evaluation that was the basis for the conclusion to the

Bitterroot Technical Review Team that, in fact, a certain area
45

could—was suitable for grizzly bears. I have a copy of that report

here.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Generally, what did you find as far as the

science that was presented in the proposal?

Mr. MEALEY. Well, basically, the report that Davis and

Butterfield did followed a process that Craigheads—Jay Sumner

and John and Frank Craighead had published in the 1980’s that

used satellite imagery to identify habitat components. I had problems with that, as a matter of fact, simply because it was very general. It told you something. It was a very broad screen assessment

tool, and it had some shortcomings.

But for its purpose, it was probably adequate, and that was to

make some general—help draw some general conclusions about the

overall suitability on a very broad scale for a very large area. They

used that methodology, and, frankly, if I had been given the same

charge, I probably would have been forced to do something similar

because these are not easy problems to solve.

The area they assessed, however, was referred to as the grizzly

bear evaluation area, and it was an area that went up to the Mallard Lark and essentially the divide between Kelly Creek and the

St. Joe River—as you know, that country up north—and then went

down to the Salmon River on the south. So it went—that area then

was referred to as the grizzly bear evaluation area.

And they concluded generally that at that level of assessment

that the area could reasonably be assumed to be compatible or suitable for grizzlies and made that recommendation to the Bitterroot

Technical Review Team. And as Dr. Morgenweck already said, that

was the base work that sort of set things in motion toward where

we are today.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Have you read the proposed 10[j] rule?

Mr. MEALEY. Yes, ma’am, I have. And I don’t think I answered

your question completely because I didn’t say what I said in my

testimony, and that is that the area now referred to as the grizzly

bear recovery area proposed in the preferred alternative is not the

same as the area assessed by Davis and Butterfield, which led to

my conclusion that I know of no document that now says that the

area identified as the grizzly bear recovery area has actually been

assessed for its capability to produce grizzly bears.

An area north of the Lochsa area and Lochsa River that was assessed by Davis and Butterfield has been excluded from that recovery area, which is admittedly a pretty high quality area that is an

area of maritime climatic influence, quite wet, and has substantial

quality. That has been excluded from the recovery area, and a substantial area south of the Salmon River, which is actually influenced by a continental climate, rather dry, has been included.

And I am not suggesting that the inferences could be made that

it is suitable, but there is simply no report that says so. So I want

to say, and I said this in the testimony, that the information that

is the underpinning of the conclusion that the area can have bears

does not apply to the recovery area.

Now, probably someone—if you presented that to someone who

wanted to make a statement defending the approach would say,

‘‘Well, the experimental area outside the recovery area could ac-
46

commodate them. It does include the area assessed by Butterfield

and Davis.’’

But the bottom line is that it is the recovery area that the rule

that you referred to says that ‘‘will contain the recovered population,’’ not the experimental area. And so—because I read the rule.

It says that all decisions for the Citizen Management

Committee———

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Director Mealey———

Mr. MEALEY. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] I want to clearly understand this.

Mr. MEALEY. Yes. I am sorry.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. There was an area described by Davis and

Butterfield as suitable———

Mr. MEALEY. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] for relocation of grizzly bears?

Mr. MEALEY. That was referred to as the grizzly bear evaluation

area.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And this was excluded. This is not included

in———

Mr. MEALEY. Well, it wasn’t excluded, but what I was saying was

that the experimental—that is, the grizzly bear recovery area that

we will see in the preferred alternative is not the same area as

that assessed by Davis and Butterfield. They are different.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you know why that happened?

Mr. MEALEY. No, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How did that happen?

Mr. MEALEY. Well, I could only speculate. I don’t know the answer though. The implication of this is—and I only say this simply

from a documentation standpoint. From an EIS standpoint, one has

to say, ‘‘Well, can the area that we are looking at here as a recovery area actually accommodate a population?’’

Now, Dr. Morgenweck said perhaps 200 to 250 bears as a recovered population. There is no document that can support any conclusion about a recovered population. We simply don’t have such a report. You could only do it by inference. The report we have doesn’t

cover that area. So it would be very difficult to assess the effects

of the alternatives. If I were doing the EIS, I would have a difficult

time doing that because the data we have doesn’t cover the area

proposed for recovery.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Very interesting. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer from Colorado.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Branch,

I was curious. You sat through the previous testimony of Dr.

Morgenweck with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and

heard his comments regarding his intention to consider the opinions of people in Idaho and so on. I just would like to get your reaction to the confidence that you have at this point that Idaho will

be fully considered in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s actions at this

point on reintroducing these bears.

Senator BRANCH. Well, Madam Chairman, Congressman Schaffer, I sat through that with utter disbelief. With, you know, the little or no attention that has been paid to the State of Idaho or the

legislature, the Governor and our people, I mean, the surveys they

cited are real suspect in my opinion. And I just don’t have a lot of
47

confidence, you know, in the ability of the Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with our local governments. It seems as

though———

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me interrupt if I may just because I would

like to get some of this on the record. The Idaho legislature, I presume, considered public opinion when they voted for your resolution. Did they consider surveys and letters and so on before they

unanimously came to the conclusion that reintroducing the grizzly

bear in Idaho was a bad idea?

Senator BRANCH. Madam Chairman, Congressman Schaffer, I

guess if we thought, you know, politicians definitely know what is

in the wind and if we thought that the surveys were running the

other way, I am sure that there would have been some no votes.

But according to the surveys the Federal agencies are talking

about, I guess there will be a housecleaning in the Idaho State Legislature next year.

But we received no—I received no letters from constituents supporting grizzly bear reintroduction, no phone calls protesting my

vote. You know, it was a fairly cut-and-dry issue. The minority supported—the minority party, the Democratic party, really supported

the resolution. And, you know, it is just utter disbelief the lack of

responsibility of the agencies toward our wishes.

Mr. SCHAFFER. From what appears here, every member of your

legislature, your Governor, every member of your Idaho delegation

is in opposition to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal here. Do

you know of any elected officials in Idaho who support—who represent the State or in a relevant capacity, for our purposes, who

support reintroduction of grizzly bears in Idaho?

Senator BRANCH. I can speak for the Senate. We had no no votes

in our voice vote on the resolution. There was a voice vote in the

House, and I can only think of maybe one House member out of

70 that would support grizzly bear reintroduction. I know of no

other official in the State of Idaho that supports it.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me ask Director Mealey, you heard the numbers that were—the estimates that were given to the Committee—

I can’t recite them—they are on the record at this point, I presume—about the numbers of bear encounters—just the risk assessment and so on.

Do you have anything further to add about any estimates that

we should expect in Idaho if the Fish and Wildlife Service really

gets to their target of 280 bears, what kinds of—how many encounters, the nature of them, and so on?

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Schaffer, I can

only speculate about that, but I want to say that that question has

a whole lot to do about the suitability of the recovery area for

bears. If you try to put them where they don’t want to be, they go

somewhere else.

And I will say that an area north of the Lochsa, which was high

quality habitat, would not be in that recovery area, which is where

they would have to be in the end. And there is a lot of dry country

that is included where they may not want to be. So if you stick

them there, they might go somewhere else where they could get in

trouble. I can only speculate about that.
48

Mr. SCHAFFER. Are you familiar with the case of John Shuler in

Montana? This is the person who entered the zone of imminent

danger when he was attacked by bears.

Mr. MEALEY. Generally I know about that.

Mr. SCHAFFER. According to the Department of the Interior, he

entered the zone of imminent danger when a bear came into his

yard. Knowing what you know about suitability of habitat and so

on and knowing also that the Department of Interior now says that

when you get near a bear that you are endangering it or harassing

it or provoking these bears, do you think it is a good idea to have

280 more bears in northern Idaho that would meet the definition

of being provoked according to—this is the Department of Interior’s

definition of being provoked? Can that be healthy to bears, do you

think?

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Schaffer, again,

the one thing you can say for certain is that the risk to humans

is greater with bears than without them. That said, there are

ways—and I agree with earlier testimony—there are ways to minimize bear-human conflicts.

One of the things I am proud of in my years over in Wyoming

is that we were able to do that, and there is a high bear density

there. So education can certainly be effective, and you can have

people and bears in the same place at the same time, but there is

elevated risk. There is no question about it.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Madam Chairman, I would just point out again,

given the Department of the Interior’s new definition of what constitutes provoking bears, that anybody who is concerned about the

well being of bears needs to understand that we are inviting a

whole lot of provoking going on up in Idaho or anywhere else humans and bears encounter one another.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Schaffer, how does that definition read?

Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, I can just tell you that generally what occurred in the case—this is John Shuler who is actually from Mr.

Hill’s district over in Montana—had a grizzly bear in his yard or

on his property. He was fined $500 for killing the bear.

He went out in his own yard when he heard the noise and confronted the bear. He believed his life was in danger. He shot it and

the Department of the Interior ruled that he cannot claim self-defense because he was at fault for placing himself in the zone of imminent danger in his yard. And he appealed that.

The Administrative Law Judge who presided over that—where is

the word—says that—criminal laws permits the property owner to

enter any part of his or her property with a weapon even if the intruder is present—oh, that Shuler should have known that grizzly

bears were in his yard.

He should not have gone there. By doing so, he provoked the

bear. And the Interior Secretary’s Appeals Board said that—oh,

since he was not afraid of being killed by the bear, that somehow

had some kind of involvement in determining the outcome of this.

But, essentially, here is a man attacked by a bear, shot it, and

is now fined by our government for provoking bears because he was

in the zone of imminent danger; and my point merely being that

with the numbers of encounters that the Department of the Interior suggests on one hand and then redefining what it means to
49

provoke bears on the other, that it is not just humans that will be

put in some kind of jeopardy, it is, in fact, bears that will endure

some kind of hardship by being provoked continuously.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Strickler, I have to

tell you I have great admiration for county commissioners. You

have I think the toughest job in the world, but there isn’t anybody

I don’t think that is more in tune with the opinion of the people

than county commissioners.

You live there every day. You deal with the issues that impact

their lives every day, and I admire your work. You are here representing all 44 counties I think you said. So there is unanimity

in Idaho with regard to the county commissioners with regard to

the issue of reintroduction of grizzly bears. Is that correct?

Mr. STRICKLER. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. And I am curious. In the process of developing the

draft environmental impact statement, as well as the collaborative

effort that was done by the groups, were you at anytime ever invited to participate in that collaborative process?

Mr. STRICKLER. They did have some hearings in some areas away

from us, and they were not necessarily the type of—it was kind of

like a hearing—do you want the grizzly bear type of thing. But the

county commissioners—the relationship between the Marine Fisheries particularly and Fish and Wildlife has been very nil. When

we asked them to come to our meeting so we can have a face-toface discussion about our concerns, they don’t come.

Mr. HILL. So in other words, you invited them to come to your

meetings, and they declined to come. This is the Fish and Wildlife

Service that you are talking about?

Mr. STRICKLER. We have asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to

be there.

Mr. HILL. And you brought a petition of 1,350 signatures, did you

say?

Mr. STRICKLER. Yes, I do.

Mr. HILL. And that is from Custer County?

Mr. STRICKLER. Custer County.

Mr. HILL. And how many people live in Custer County?

Mr. STRICKLER. 4,500.

Mr. HILL. So this is close to a third of the people of Custer County took the time to sign a petition to bring here to the Congress

to express their opinion about grizzly reintroduction?

Mr. STRICKLER. That is correct. It was done in a short time.

There is a number of people in our county that is government employed. We have a pretty high population of government employment. Most of those refused to sign the petition for fear———

Mr. HILL. Of reprisal?

Mr. STRICKLER. Of reprisal.

Mr. HILL. In the development of the environmental impact statement, are you aware of—was there any analysis done on the economic impacts of Custer County? Are you aware of any?

Mr. STRICKLER. We have a model economic study that was done

by the University of Idaho for us. And as far as I know, that has

never been used by them. It is a very good study.
50

Mr. HILL. Thank you very much. Mr. Mealey, in your view, will

there be any—if grizzly bears are reintroduced, do you believe—

well, let me back up by saying this. First of all, we don’t manage

species anymore, we manage habitat now. And do you see changes

in the management of the habitat outside the wilderness areas if

grizzly bears are reintroduced?

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Hill, that is not

clear to me, but again I can only answer these things by inference.

As I understand it—and I don’t say these things with any criticism

implied—I am kind of a Johnny-come-lately to this EIS so a lot of

it is new to me—but as I understand it, there is a 15.3 million acre

experimental population area that encompasses an area from

Coeur d’Alene to Stanley, from Grangeville to Hamilton. That is a

big chunk of the world where a bear———

Mr. HILL. And this isn’t all wilderness?

Mr. MEALEY. No, not at all.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Excuse me, Mr. Hill. I wonder, Director

Mealey, if you might be able to show us on the map the area that

it encompasses.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. MEALEY. I will take a shot at this—kind of interpolate it one

after another, but the area referred to as the experimental population area that I referred to as being about 15.3 million acres

would go roughly from Stanley—and I am circling it here—it would

be about this point on down, up to Coeur d’Alene and from this far

over here.

That whole area would be an experimental population area. Now,

inside that is the recovery area—is the area that would be referred

to as the grizzly bear recovery area, and that is limited only to the

Selway-Bitterroot and the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.

Again, I am interpolating here because these wildernesses are

not marked, but basically my left hand marks the Lochsa River on

the north, which is the northern boundary, down to the Selway-Bitterroot down to the bottom of the top of Bear Valley, which is essentially the bottom end of the Frank Church River of No Return.

So this area of about 3.7 million acres would be the recovery area.

Now, that is an area where the population would actually be contained.

Now, your question was, if I understood it, would there be improvements in habitat in any part of the area. I assume there

would be no improvements in habitat in the experimental area outside the recovery zone. And since the recovery zone is wilderness,

there wouldn’t be any improvements there either.

Mr. HILL. So there would be no changes. In other words, if the

bears are reintroduced, it is your opinion at this point they would

not have to change the management of the habitat? In other words,

you wouldn’t have to have changes in any forest management plan.

We wouldn’t have any changes in timber harvest. We would have

no changes in road access. Your view is there would have to be no

changes in the management of the experimental area outside the

recovery area. Is that correct or not?

Mr. MEALEY. Well, again, this is only speculation, Congressman.

I can’t think of a reason why—since you wouldn’t be encouraging
51

bears in that experimental area, I can’t understand why you would

do that.

Mr. HILL. But that experimental area would be range for the

bears. Is that correct?

Mr. MEALEY. Well, I think, as I understand it, this is a place

where bears would be accommodated but not necessarily encouraged. Now, it is not clear to me though when you look at the proposed rule, if the Citizen Management Committee made some decisions that related to bears in that experimental area and that was

litigated somehow, it is hard to say how that might come out.

I do know that in Item 14 in Section 10[j] it does allow the Secretary to override the Citizen Management Committee or somehow

review their work if it doesn’t appear to be consistent with recovery, and this is complex stuff. I would assume, however, the recovery goal for the population would be that as it states in the rule,

consistent with the capacity of the recovery area, not the experimental area. And that is the area I said that we don’t necessarily

have clear studies on.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Returning to Mr. Hill’s

question about would there be a change in management in the

areas that have traditionally been multiple-use areas, taking in

mind the fact that when the salmon was listed, there has been a

marked change in management with regards to potential impact on

salmon habitat in the streams which have impacted activities on

the land; taking that as a blueprint, would you feel it might be

more likely that in managing the habitat for the bear that we could

see a similar imposition of rules and regulations on multiple-use

activities?

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, all I can do is extrapolate my

experience from the Shoshone Forest in Wyoming to what might

occur, and much of that country where we had grizzlies was wilderness. And much of the impact on people who use that country,

frankly, were recreation users, outfitters and guides, in particular.

And the thing that was affecting bears there were killing females

with cubs. And what we did there in the wilderness was make it

easier for outfitters to operate and secure things that attracted

bears from their availability.

Now, there is no question but what the activities of people who

use that wilderness country have been modified. There are requirements to hang meat differently. There are requirements to sanitize

camp. So there is no question that in wilderness there are measures that are required to minimize conflicts.

I suspect that in this part of the world that people that conduct

floating businesses on the Selway could be affected. Outfitters in

the fall could be affected. And I would also guess that it would

modify their operations from what they are currently doing. Outside of wilderness, theoretically, if that is not an area where we are

encouraging populations but accommodating them, I can’t see why

we would be necessarily improving populations outside.

Now, there may be some disagreement with folks that would

want to litigate that question, and that raises the question about

whether or not the Citizen Management Committee, in fact, would

be able to operate independently of the Secretary. That is not clear
52

to me. Section 10[j] would say, however, that the Secretary retains

at least oversight and review of their decisions.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Mealey, under number 11 of the 10[j] rule

it states that there is not sufficient information available to develop

a scientifically sound recovery goal. How important is it to have a

recovery goal? I know questions were asked of the Service trying

to establish what the goal was.

Mr. MEALEY. Yes. Madam Chairman, it is terribly important. I

think that everyone in this wildlife business knows that wildlife

management is about how many do you want and where do you

want them. And if you don’t know how many—if you haven’t decided how many you want, then any number is OK.

So as I read the rule that describes the role of the Citizen Management Committee, it says that all decisions must lead toward recovery. It must meet the goal, in other words. And, obviously, if

you don’t have a goal, then you never know whether the Citizens

Management Committee is leading toward recovery.

So the first thing to do, of course, is to decide on a goal—some

number or some trend in habitat that is a substitute for it. That

was one of the first things we did in Yellowstone was agree on

some parameters. It wasn’t necessarily a number, but it was some

characteristics that would help us.

I think the study is correct. It would be very difficult to do that.

I have already said twice now it is even harder I think than the

rule admits simply because we don’t have a study yet to show the

real capability—suitability of the country actually described within

the wilderness boundary. The study we have included other areas

as I have shown.

So the first thing, of course, is to have a good, solid piece of information that tells us what the real suitability is within the area described by the wilderness boundaries for the Selway-Bitterroot and

the Frank Church River of No Return independent of the experimental population area because by definition that is not necessary

for recovery. It is sufficient but not necessary. So that is the first

thing.

And once that is done, then you can draw some conclusions about

how many animals you could accommodate. It might be 50. It

might be 150. It might be 300. My sense it would be on the low

end, frankly—just my own judgment.

Once that is done then, then you can start—then and only then

would it be appropriate for the Citizen Management Committee to

begin to operate because then you would know whether or not what

they were doing was consistent with the goal.

For them to operate before you have a goal wouldn’t be useful

because you would never know if they were doing anything consistent with recovery. So there are some logic problems in this. But

you asked me a question how important is the goal? You can’t start

without it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mealey. I just have one more

question. Senator Branch, what is your main concern over the reintroduction of the bear into Idaho as a Senator?

Senator BRANCH. Madam Chairman, you know, we have already

had the wolf recovery taking place contrary to our citizens’ wishes.

The best way I can—the best analogy I can think of is—and there
53

is a Country Western song—the title is ‘‘What Part of No Don’t You

Understand?’’ It is about someone going to—a woman going to a

dance and a suitor keeping asking for a dance, and finally she says,

‘‘What part of no don’t you understand?’’

I guess that is what the State legislature is saying to the Federal

Government. We don’t wish to dance with the Federal agencies on

this one. We are going to create a lot more de facto wilderness in

areas, and we are going to tie up large tracts of land which are

going to create economic hardships in areas of our State.

It is just—we have already got enough predators. We have

coyotes. We have wolves, black bear, and we just don’t need another predator—cougar. Some of the depredation payments in our

State right now our Fish and Game director can’t afford to make

those. We can’t afford with our State budget—we just cannot afford

any more programs like this dumped on us by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service. So it is just a matter of losing

our rights to use the land.

The land being locked up is my greatest concern and the cooperation of the Federal agencies. I serve on a Resource Advisory Council under the Secretary of the Interior, and we work on consensus.

We don’t ever come to a consensus. We always come down to a vote

up or down by the various interest groups. And if that vote is

against the wishes of the Secretary of the Interior, he brings it

back to us and tells us what we have to change.

So I am afraid the Citizen Management Committee is just a

smoke screen. It is kind of a rubber stamp, if you will, to shield

some criticism off the Federal agencies, and I don’t think it is

workable and it just leaves all the power in the control of the Secretary of Interior. So that is my major concern, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Hill, do you have any

further questions?

Mr. HILL. I just have one. I want to go back to Mr. Mealey again

on this because in the Flathead Forest, which is about half wilderness—28 percent I think is roadless and 22 percent is multiple

use—I guess 10 years or so ago they set a targeted bear population

for recovery. And current estimates are that we have met that

number. But if you ask the Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Have we recovered the bear population?’’ they will say, ‘‘Well, no, because we

haven’t recovered their habitat.’’

And so now we are faced with changes in the management of the

remainder of that forest outside of wilderness with road closures,

restrictions on access, restrictions on use to create more habitat

even though everybody would suggest we have met recovery of the

bear. I haven’t quite figure out yet how it is that we recovered the

bears without their habitat, but I guess that is what we did. And

I have a real concern about 280 bears being contained within that

wilderness area.

I guess what my concern is is do you see any risk here that if

we get to that area that the—the area where we have to manage

habitat is more than that wilderness area causing substantial

changes in terms of how we manage both the public and private

lands outside that area? Have you looked at that, or do you have

any assessment or any concerns about that?
54

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Hill, I hope I did

express my concerns about that. I think that is a key question. The

rulemakes a clear statement that the recovery goal would be limited to the capacity of the area described by the Frank Church

River of No Return and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

Now, we don’t know what this is yet. To say that that is 280 as

far as I am concerned is—would not be appropriate. We simply

don’t have any studies of that specific area to say what population

could be sustained by that area. So to say that at this point

wouldn’t be appropriate.

Frankly, in this whole business of determining what is a recovered or a viable population for grizzly bears, that has been something of biological and legal debate now for the better part of 25

years. Something more than 150 actual census population seems to

be on the threshold of recovery.

But I will say simply, and I will repeat it again, we have no document that tells us what the capacity of the Frank Church River

of No Return and the Selway-Bitterroot is to support a population.

And until we have that, until we can have a thoughtful estimate

of what that population is, we can’t conclude that the area, in fact,

could have a recovered population.

And, frankly, I won’t speculate here, but I will say that if bear

habitat is limited to its drier components—and there are some very

important components of all grizzly habitat—one is that it has

meats in a spring period and fat in the fall. Fat usually comes from

whitebark pine. There were probably bears in this country because

of salmon in the streams earlier on, and whether or not elk and

deer can provide that in the spring is arguable.

My point is these are not easy questions, and the study that we

have does not relate to that specific area we now have in a preferred alternative. That needs to be done. Then you can answer the

question you asked or at least do it with an estimate to determine

what population it might be. And I already said it would probably

be on the lower range. I do not believe personally—this is only my

opinion—it is only my professional judgment—it would be something substantially less than 250 bears. But we really need to do

some hard work on that.

Mr. HILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Mealey. I will yield back

the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Gentlemen, I want to

thank you very much for coming so far. And, Senator Branch, I

thought it was interesting that you noted the song about what part

of no don’t you understand when a man approached or a young

man approached a girl about dancing. Can you imagine after she

said no what would happen to him if he drug her on the dance floor

and insisted on dancing with her anyway? Can you just imagine?

I thank you very, very much for your valuable testimony. We will

be submitting other questions to each of you in writing and would

appreciate your response between 10 days and 2 weeks if you don’t

mind. Thank you very much.

This panel is dismissed, and the Chair now calls Shirley Bugli

with the Concerned About Grizzlies organization from Stevensville,

Montana; Rita Carlson from the BlueRibbon Coalition in Lewiston,

Idaho; Kathleen Benedetto, Communities for a Great Northwest in
55

Billings, Montana. Ladies, if you will take your place at the witness

table? As with the preceding panel, if you will all rise and raise

your right hand?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. And I recognize Kathleen

Benedetto for your testimony. Kathleen?

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN BENEDETTO, COMMUNITIES FOR

A GREAT NORTHWEST, BILLINGS, MONTANA

Ms. BENEDETTO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman

Chenoweth, members of the Committee on Resources, thank you

for the opportunity to present the views of Communities for a

Great Northwest on the issue of grizzly bear reintroduction in the

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area. Communities for a Great

Northwest is a nonprofit group dedicated to educating its members

and the public about the difficult choices we face in trying to provide for humankind while protecting the environment.

Today, I am speaking on behalf of Bruce Vincent, President of

Communities for a Great Northwest. Bruce would like to thank

Chairman Chenoweth for the opportunity to tell his story today

and extends his apologies for not being here in person.

My name is Kathy Benedetto, and I am a minerals exploration

geologist with 17 years of field experience in the western U.S. I

have worked closely with Bruce during the past 4 years on many

environmental issues. I also serve on the Executive Committee of

the Grassroots ESA Coalition.

Bruce Vincent lives in Libby, Montana, a small timber and mining town in the Kootenai National Forest. His home is one-quarter

mile outside the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly recovery area in a zone identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a human-grizzly conflict zone.

In 1988 at the request of the community and Congress, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service developed the first of its kind community

involvement team for the reintroduction of grizzly bears. Bruce is

a 9-year member of this team. As a result of Bruce’s experience and

the experience of other members of the organization, Communities

for a Great Northwest requests the following occur prior to making

a final decision on reintroduction of this experimental population.

Number 1, the legality of the local control concept should be tested before, not after, the reintroduction debate. In our experience,

the local community has some limited advisory abilities but no real

authority and absolutely no control of their recovery program.

Second, we request that a socioeconomic evaluation be completed

on the impact of the proposed action. The study should be completed by a third party that is approved by representatives from

the local communities that will be impacted by this decision.

Third, that an accumulative effects analysis be completed. Resource providers are constantly reminded that no action is independent of other actions when they propose development of commercial projects both on public and private land.

We believe this proposal does constitute a significant action especially when we look at other issues impacting the Northwest such

as the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS, proposed listing of salm-
56

on, the listing of the bull trout, forest health issues, road closures,

and litigation over development projects.

There are two documents—the grizzly bear compendium and the

grizzly bear recovery plan that state the single most important factor in the recovery of the grizzly bear is human acceptance of the

plan and the bear. In the 900 page grizzly bear compendium, threequarters of a page is devoted to the single most important factor,

and in the grizzly bear recovery plan, less than a dozen pages are

devoted to the single most important factor in the grizzly bear recovery. This is ludicrous.

The socioeconomic studies and a cumulative effect analysis are

necessary to evaluate the viability of this project as it relates to the

single most important factor in the grizzly bear recovery, and that

is the human element. If studies of potential impact are not completed and the public is not straightforwardly appraised of the findings, the casualties of this mistake include trust between supposed

partners and ultimately the grizzly bear. This has happened in the

Kootenai.

In 1991, our community involvement team sent every resident of

our county a booklet updating them on the grizzly bear project.

That booklet flatly stated that the recovery of grizzly bears would

not have an adverse impact on timber management in the

Kootenai.

Six weeks later, a U.S. Forest Service monitoring report was released that claimed timber harvests had declined substantially and

was continuing to decline due in large part to the changing requirements for grizzly recovery. The Forest Service continues to claim

substantial impact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to

claim that there is no impact.

When our involvement team requested an economic analysis to

prove or disprove impacts, the team was told that there was not

enough money or personnel to complete the study. This brings us

to our fourth request. Resources set aside for this experimental

population be redirected and used to complete socioeconomic impact

census studies, et cetera, in areas with existing bear populations

such as the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly recovery area.

Number 5, we would like a guarantee people will be protected in

encounters with grizzly bears and not subject to the humiliation

suffered by John Shuler who was subject to—that he was subject

to. He was fined $5,000 for killing a grizzly bear in his yard that

had attacked his sheep and threatened his life.

In conclusion, while Communities for a Great Northwest appreciate efforts to find local solutions to issues such as grizzly bear

protection and recoveries, those affected by the solutions have a

right to know the legality of the promises made, the potential impacts of the solution on their lives and livelihoods, and the track

record of the agency with whom they are partnering. Thank you.

[Statement of Ms. Benedetto may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Ms. Benedetto. The Chair recognizes Rita Carlson. Rita?
57

STATEMENT OF RITA CARLSON, BLUERIBBON COALITION,

LEWISTON, IDAHO

Ms. CARLSON. Chairman Chenoweth and members of the Committee on Resources, thank you for the opportunity to present the

views of the BlueRibbon Coalition on the issues of the grizzly bear

recovery. Mr. Clark Collins sends his regrets for not being here in

person, but as a member of his organization, the BlueRibbon Coalition, it is my honor and privilege to read his statement as part of

this hearing on behalf of the recreationists.

The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national organization representing

over 500 member organizations and businesses. Through these organizations and our individual membership, they represent the interests of over 750,000 back country recreationists.

While our primary constituency is motorized trail users, we have

many nonmotorized recreation members who realize the value of

working together on shared use trail management. We also work

very closely with our resource industries and other multiple-use interests as evidenced by this presentation today of BlueRibbon Coalition’s testimony by a timber interest person such as myself.

In the name of resource protection, many recreation user groups

are being systematically excluded from traditional use areas. Green

Advocacy Groups and preservation orientated land managers are

discriminating against first one user group and then the next.

One by one, each interest group is considered guilty unless proven innocent and then locked out of one area after another. Through

administrative regulations and biased interpretation of environmental protection laws, responsible recreational users are being denied access to historically used areas.

The tool of choice in these attacks on back country recreationists

is often the Endangered Species Act. Our recreationists have seen

their access eliminated or threatened in the name of protecting

wolves, salmon, desert tortoises, bugs and most certainly grizzly

bears.

There has not been one single recorded incident between a grizzly bear and a motorized trail user that has resulted in the death

of a bear. Numerous incidents between hikers and photographers

have resulted in death or injury to humans involved and led to the

destruction of the offending bear.

And I repeat, there has not been one single recorded incident between a motorized back country trail user and a grizzly bear that

has resulted in the death of the bear. Yet, Federal agency land

management plans abound with proposed motorized access restrictions for the purpose of protecting the bear. Is something wrong

with this picture?

The truth is that the extreme antirecreation organizations are

using innocent animals in their quest for exclusive use of our back

country recreational areas. And it has become obvious by their actions that they will settle for nothing less than a total elimination

of first one recreation user group and then another. Back country

horsemen, mountain bikers, and even some hikers are realizing

that their access too is threatened.

Reintroduction of the grizzly bear is of concern to recreationists

nationwide. Even hikers have expressed their opposition to grizzly

reintroduction in Washington State. One of our member organiza-
58

tions, the Washington Back Country Horsemen, has expressed its

adamant opposition to grizzly reintroduction in areas they use.

The fact is that while motorized recreationists are often excluded

from grizzly recovery areas, it is the nonmotorized recreationists

who are most at risk and consequently pose the most risk for the

bear.

In our home State, Idaho, grizzly reintroduction is opposed, not

only by back country recreationists, but by our Governor in a January 29, 1997, letter to Secretary Babbitt, by our wildlife management agency through a position statement approved by the Idaho

Fish and Game Commission in May of this year and through a

1997 joint memorial of the Idaho legislature adopted by nearly

unanimous consent.

I contacted Golden Linford of Rexburg, Idaho, Chairman of the

Idaho House of Representatives Committee on Resources and Conservation, for his personal perspective on this issue. Representative

Linford said, ‘‘Sure, some folks fear the grizzly, but what we fear

most are the Federal bureaucrats.’’

Representative Linford’s statement, ‘‘What we fear most are the

Federal bureaucrats,’’ says a lot about what is happening on these

wildlife issues. Resource users, State and local government officials, and recreationists care about our wildlife. We enjoy viewing

them on our recreational outings into the back country, and we are

willing to help protect them as we harvest our natural resources.

We are appalled by the unprincipled use of animals, helpless or

ferocious, endangered or not, as mere tools in a power play by

greedy extremists to control our public lands. The hatemongering

and the contrived user conflicts of these Green Advocacy Groups

must not be rewarded.

Secretary Babbitt, the Sierra Club, and Earthfirst do not represent the environmental conscious of this country. We shouldn’t

call the Green Advocacy Groups environmentalists and passively

allow them to refer to us as antienvironmentalists. Neither should

the League of Conservation Voters Index be the litmus test for congressional environmental responsibility.

Just who are the real environmentalists? Just who really cares

for our wildlife? Pushing to eliminate everyone’s impact on the environment but your own doesn’t make you an environmentalist.

The Green Advocacy Groups and their allies in Congress and our

land management agencies are no longer for the environment. They

are just against everyone else’s use of it.

Chairman Chenoweth and members of this Committee,

recreationists shouldn’t be discriminated against by our land management agencies and treated like criminals. The cooperation and

volunteerism of our members should be recognized and rewarded.

On issues of environmental protection, we should be innocent unless proven guilty instead of the other way around. We can use our

natural resources wisely, share our back country recreation areas

with one another and wildlife, and preserve our natural resources

for the public instead of against the public. Thank you.

[Statement of Mr. Collins may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Ms. Carlson. And now

we would like to hear from Shirley Bugli, and you are with a citizens group entitled, ‘‘Concerned About Grizzlies’’?
59

Ms. BUGLI. That is right.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY BUGLI, CONCERNED ABOUT

GRIZZLIES, STEVENSVILLE, MONTANA

Ms. BUGLI. All right. Madam Chairman and members of the

Committee on Forests and Forest Health, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Shirley Bugli. I am

a lifelong, third generation resident of the Bitterroot Valley in

western Montana.

In appearing here today, I represent the citizens group, ‘‘Concerned About Grizzlies,’’ which is supported by 19 member organizations. I also represent the Montana Chapter of Women Involved

in Farm Economics, WIFE, and Grassroots for Multiple Use, a citizens organization where I serve on the Board of Directors.

The grizzly bear is a valued native of Montana and is the official

animal of the State of Montana. The grizzly has existed in the

State throughout recorded history. With the establishment of livestock ranches and communities in Montana, the effective range of

the grizzly bear was generally restricted to the ranges of the Northern Rocky Mountains contiguous to the Continental Divide.

This situation worked well for both the bear and human settlers.

Occasional predations by the grizzly bear on domestic livestock

were quickly controlled and a carefully regulated hunting season

kept bear numbers at a level that maintained a viable breeding

population of bears without overly encroaching on their human

neighbors. The grizzly bear reintroduction program appears to be

aimed at curing problems that do not actually exist.

Concerned About Grizzlies supporters have two overriding things

in common. We live, work, recreate among, and depend heavily

upon the natural resources within and surrounding our Bitterroot

Valley, and we are all strongly opposed to the introduction of grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot and the Frank Church River of

No Return Wildernesses.

To date, over 5,000 people in Ravalli County have signed petitions and 28 groups have signed on as opposing the proposal to introduce grizzlies into the Bitterroot Mountains. A telephone survey

designed by Dr. Raymond Karr, Ph.D. Forest-Sociology, was done

on September 9, 1995, in which 388 calls were completed in Ravalli

County.

One question was asked, ‘‘Do you favor the placing of grizzly bear

in the Selway-Bitterroot Range? Yes, no, or undecided.’’ An overwhelming majority of 59 percent opposed the introduction of grizzly

bear. The ratio of pro and con surveyed was three-to-one against

the proposal.

Since the last census in 1990, the rate of population growth in

Ravalli County is 30.4 percent. Many homes are appearing in the

forested lands along the fringes of the national forest. Some are no

farther than three or four miles from the eastern boundary of the

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

Some of these new places are home to a few horses or cattle. Others are content with a family dog or cat. These animals or pets so

close to the wilderness represent an attractive bait for a hungry

grizzly.
60

Dr. Stephen Arno, wildfire research scientist, has noted the

marked decline of whitebark pine that used to be common in the

higher elevations of the Selway-Bitterroot. Dr. Arno’s research has

shown that there is just one significant band of whitebark pine remaining and that is located in the higher elevations along the Bitterroot front overlooking the valley.

Seeds from whitebark pine cones are a preferred food for bears.

Once this stand of whitebark pine is discovered by introduced

grizzlies, they are almost certain to return to that stand year after

year to feed. Denning on adjacent lower slopes will likely result in

hungry grizzlies descending to the populated Bitterroot Valley in

the spring when they emerge from their winter hibernation.

Taking into account the sharply increased population of the Bitterroot Valley and the expected patterns of grizzly behavior, the

conclusion is unescapable. More people and bears are going to be

forced together. Bear encounters can have a variety of outcomes,

but eventually a human is maimed or killed and a bear dies.

Bear predation on livestock will certainly increase bear-human

encounters. These encounters seldom have happy endings. The role

of the Federal Government in deliberately creating this situation is

highly questionable.

The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness is well used during the summer and fall seasons. In the late spring and early summer, the

Selway River is a popular float trip from Paradise to Selway Falls.

The numbers of people using the river are carefully limited by the

Forest Service to one party of no more than 16 persons per day.

However, during the recreation season, the river corridor is steadily used by hikers, trail riders, and hunters as well as rafters.

The many different people that have become part of our group

have a wide variety of concerns about the grizzly. One of those concerns is fear. The degree of risk is immaterial. The fact is that

some people are simply terrified of grizzly bears and will not risk

even the remotest chance of an encounter. Introduction of grizzly

bears into the Selway-Bitterroot will have the effect of closing another area to those people.

As citizens, we are concerned about the cost of the grizzly bear

reintroduction program. In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

projected an estimated cost of the grizzly bear recovery program at

$26 million. In these days of budget reductions and belt tightening,

it seems frivolous to spend scarce Federal dollars on a totally unnecessary activity.

In closing, I would assure you that we are not antigrizzly bear.

We hold a deep love and respect for the land and its inhabitants.

We are ranchers, farmers, guides, foresters, horsemen and women,

anglers, campers, and forest users. We believe that we have had a

part in assuring that our land has remained beautiful and fruitful.

We are also confident that the grizzly bear will do just fine if we

just let them alone and make sure the grizzly bear population

doesn’t get out of hand as it is threatening to do around Yellowstone.

Thank you and I do have some maps of the wilderness that is

marked off, and you can see how very, very closely it comes to our

valley floor, and a petition of 3,500 signers here from the Bitterroot
61

Valley. There is another petition I didn’t bring with me. Thank you

very much.

[Statement of Ms. Bugli may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, we will enter it into the

record.

[Map and petition may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Kathleen, you are a

strong supporter, aren’t you, of collaborative process to try to deal

with the conflicts in natural resource management?

Ms. BENEDETTO. Yes, I am. I think that it is a real opportunity

for people with differing perspectives to come together and to understand one another and work out solutions that are beneficial to

those local areas. What happens often in this collaborative process

is the local people can come together and craft a solution.

But it is difficult to get that solution implemented because people

outside of the local area, say, national environmental organizations, may not support the solution that local environmental organizations have entered into and often will file injunctions or lawsuits to prevent the solution from going forward.

And I also believe sometimes that it is—if people do not share

the same principles for how to protect the environment, it often is

difficult to come to a consensus where people really understand

what they have discussed.

Mr. HILL. Sometimes you don’t reach agreement. I mean———

Ms. BENEDETTO. Yes. Sometimes you don’t reach agreement.

Mr. HILL. In this instance, there is some collaborative effort went

forward. I have some concerns about whether that was a broad

based collaborative effort. You know, could you comment on that?

Would you agree with my concern or not or———

Ms. BENEDETTO. Are you speaking about the group in Libby?

Mr. HILL. Yes. No. I am talking about here on the reintroduction

of grizzlies in the Selway-Bitterroot.

Ms. BENEDETTO. I can’t address specifically what that particular

group has come up with and who was involved in that group. I am

not familiar with all of the players in that group. I think Rita may

be able to answer part of that a little bit better than I can.

Ms. CARLSON. I am not sure what group he is talking about.

Mr. HILL. I will come back to that because you have made some

specific recommendations or some general recommendations here.

One of the concerns that you have is that a citizens group could

be created. The local community could be enticed into supporting

this effort because the citizens group is created, and then either by

virtue of a change in mind of the Secretary or by virtue of a challenge to their authority by an outside group, they could end up

with no authority, and then we would end up with a top-down

management of this reintroduction. I mean, is that a summary

kind of what you———

Ms. BENEDETTO. Yes. That is exactly right, and I think you can

look at other issues in other parts of the country and see where

that has clearly been the case. And I think the Quincy Library

Group is probably one of the most famous instances where that occurred.
62

And this was a group of—and it was initiated by the local environmentalists in town who recognized that the policies that they

were implementing and pushing forward were not working and was

having a very severe, adverse impact on the community of Quincy.

So the resource providers and the local environmental groups

came together, worked out a solution, and were unsuccessful at getting it accepted because the national environmental organizations

filed injunctions or were strongly opposed to it. They have taken

their proposal to the State legislature, and it has now been introduced into Congress. And, unfortunately, I don’t remember the

number of the bill.

Mr. HILL. Following on on that, where should we go from here?

What should Congress do in your mind about this issue, the reintroduction of grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Areas? What do you think we ought to do now? What should our

next step be? What should the Forest Service’s next step be? What

should the Fish and Wildlife Service’s next step be in your opinion?

Ms. BENEDETTO. In my opinion, what I think would be most appropriate is to take the resources that they are trying to spend on

this process and let us finish the studies that were initiated in

other areas where they have recovery programs going on.

And I think if we can finish those studies, we would have some

information and data that would either help support what they

want to do in the Selway-Bitterroot proposed recovery area, and

they would have the information so that they could make a better

decision.

I know that in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area there are outfitters up there who would like to have a real census on—a thorough census on how many bears are actually up there. What is the

population? So I think before we go and start all kinds of new

projects, we ought to finish the projects that we have already initiated.

And, again, before going forward with this plan, I think you need

to do the socioeconomic studies and the cumulative effect studies.

And then you will have a more complete body of data to make an

appropriate decision on.

Mr. HILL. We don’t have a socioeconomic study done on this?

Ms. BENEDETTO. No. And from what I understand, we do not

have a socioeconomic study done on the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly reintroduction area.

Mr. HILL. If I might follow on with this, just this line at this

point is that—I mean, your experience is substantially driven by

the experience you have had up there in the Kootenai Forest———

Ms. BENEDETTO. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. [continuing] where early on the suggestions of the community is that one set of circumstances would govern and then

what ended up happening is that the game changed, if you will.

Ms. BENEDETTO. The game changed.

Mr. HILL. And it had a substantial impact on recreationists. It

has had a substantial—a great impact on the economy of those

communities?

Ms. BENEDETTO. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Kathleen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
63

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. I would like to ask Rita

Carlson, what effect do you believe that the introduction of the

grizzly bear will have on timber sales and other multiple uses in

your area?

Ms. CARLSON. Based on what has happened in Montana, even

though they claim that there would be no effect—we heard that

testimony earlier today—it did, in fact, have a big effect in the

Cabinet-Yaak area. And I see no reason for it to be any different

for us. And with the decline in timber sales that we have seen over

the last few years, I view this is just another ploy to yet limit our

access to timber supply and recreational areas as well.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So you did see a substantial change in management practices?

Ms. CARLSON. Yes, I did. Over in the Libby area they certainly

did.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And primarily those were in timber sales and

recreation?

Ms. CARLSON. That is true. In the Libby area, they told them

that to offset the degree or the lower numbers in timber sales that

they should look toward recreation, that tourism was their future.

And so they looked, and Libby is surrounded by large mountains

so they were going to put in a ski slope, but they couldn’t because

the ideal mountain for the ski slope was right in the midst of the

grizzly bear recovery area. So that just didn’t materialize at all.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Very interesting. Shirley, I wanted to ask you,

are there any other concerns that you have with the introduction

of the grizzly bear that you didn’t make in your statement?

Ms. BUGLI. Yes. There is one statement I would like to make,

and I do think it is pertaining directly to this. I would like our Department of Interior to stop funding all of these organizations that

are the environmental organizations that are using the funds to do

this. I feel it is our tax dollars that are coming back through the

massive amounts of funding that the Department of Interior gives

to the environmental groups.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you like to elaborate on that? Who are

they funding?

Ms. BUGLI. I had a list that came from a magazine that was

called, ‘‘Ecologic,’’ and it was published—I am sorry I don’t have it

with me. I do have access to it, and it was a list of 1995, and it

was funding the conservation—Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, Trout Unlimited—just a number. I think that there

were $44 million on that list alone and probably one-third of the

list were the environmental organizations.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you mind supplying that information

for the Committee?

Ms. BUGLI. I will. I will have to wait until I get home to do it,

but I will do that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hill, do you have any other questions?

Mr. HILL. I do, yes, Madam Chairman. Shirley, you brought a petition with 3,500 people from Ravalli County?

Ms. BUGLI. Yes, I did. It is just one of the petitions.

Mr. HILL. Are you aware are there any members of the Ravalli

County Commission who support reintroduction of grizzlies?
64

Ms. BUGLI. I am sorry. I should know that answer, but I don’t

believe so, but I am not real sure.

Mr. HILL. I am pretty sure that you are right. And legislators?

I see, for example, that on your Board of Directors Steve

Benedict———

Ms. BUGLI. He doesn’t support grizzly reintroduction.

Mr. HILL. He is the State Senator representing that area. And

you indicated that you represent I think 19 groups?

Ms. BUGLI. Nineteen groups.

Mr. HILL. Are you aware were any of those 19 groups asked to

participate in the collaborative process that initiated the reintroduction or the proposal to reintroduce grizzly bears in the SelwayBitterroot?

Ms. BUGLI. Not that I really am aware of. We have had several

meetings over grizzly bears, and when we stood up and voiced our

concerns, we were called radical people and not representative of

the Bitterroot Valley.

Mr. HILL. So your participation was limited to just appearance

at public meetings during the scoping process for the environmental impact statement, but there was a community collaborative

process that went on, and you weren’t a participant or your groups

were not a participant of that collaborative process that you are

aware of?

Ms. BUGLI. Not that I am aware of.

Mr. HILL. And I guess that leads me to the next question. One

of the things—and I think that, Kathleen, you made this point—

is that the number 1 thing about making a reintroduction successful is to have people accept bears.

Ms. BENEDETTO. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. Because that is necessary. It is the people’s encounter

with bears. People have to change how they behave in the forests,

how they use the forests, et cetera. Shirley, is it your sense, and

it is certainly my sense, that there is substantial public opposition

in Ravalli County to this reintroduction?

Ms. BUGLI. Very definitely.

Mr. HILL. And there are some who are suggesting that there are

public opinion polls that show 60 or 70 percent support. You have

done some polling I think that would conflict with that. Is that correct?

Ms. BUGLI. Well, in my statement, there were 388 people that

were polled randomly from the telephone directory, and it was a

three-to-one margin against and the simple statement of do you

support the grizzly bears being reintroduced—yes, no, and undecided.

Mr. HILL. So that wasn’t a poll used to try to manipulate the results? It was a simple polling———

Ms. BUGLI. No. It was just a simple poll.

Mr. HILL. And anecdotally—I mean, just in your knowledge of

the community that you live in, is it your opinion that two-thirds

of the people there support reintroduction of the grizzly bears?

Ms. BUGLI. Oh, I think it is a very, very small number of people

that would support it; in fact, so small that when they do testify

in support of it, they run out the door quickly.
65

Mr. HILL. And the opposition there is substantially based on fear.

Is that right? I mean, people are afraid of grizzly bears, aren’t

they?

Ms. BUGLI. Well, fear and economics.

Mr. HILL. And one of the reasons for that is that the valley that

you live in there is substantially still associated with timber. We

have I don’t know—how many log home manufacturing companies

are there there? I don’t know if you know the answer to that, but

there are probably more in that valley than there is anywhere else

in America or anywhere else in the world.

Ms. BUGLI. Yes. I believe so and it is still a very strong agriculture area, although we are weakening. We are getting so many

people in there, but our valley is only 80 miles long and 20 miles

wide. And if anyone wants to look at the map, the boundary—you

can see where the boundary comes right down into our area where

it will be the logical place for the bears to come.

Mr. HILL. And, I mean, the wilderness—the reintroduction area

isn’t very far from residences?

Ms. BUGLI. Within a mile or two some places.

Mr. HILL. Right. And that is an area of rapidly growing population. Isn’t that correct?

Ms. BUGLI. That is right.

Mr. HILL. So the likelihood of encounters between bears and people is substantial. And I found it interesting—I was in—two weeks

ago in Cut Bank, and the Chairman doesn’t know where Cut Bank

is, but you know where Cut Bank is—and the people in Cut Bank,

Montana, are concerned about grizzly bears.

And you ask them why, and it is the grizzly bear is coming out

of the Bob Marshall and grizzly bears coming from Glacier Park.

I don’t know how far that is, but I think it is about probably at

least 50—60 miles. And they frequently have encounters with

bears. They have wide-ranging areas. They range out of the forests

and so it is understandable why you have that fear, and I understand it as well.

Well, thank you, all of you. I really appreciate your traveling this

far to be here to represent Montana and Idaho citizens groups, and

it has been very informative. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you all very much for your very valuable testimony. And if you wish to supplement the record, you are

welcome to do it. The record will remain open for 2 weeks. Thank

you.

We call the next panel; Phil Church, Resource Organization on

Timber Supply from Lewiston, Idaho; Hank Fischer, Defenders of

Wildlife, Missoula, Montana; Jim Riley, Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; Tom France, National

Wildlife Federation, Missoula, Montana. As with the previous

panel, I wonder if you will all rise and raise your right hands

please?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. We will begin our testimony with Mr. France.
66

STATEMENT OF THOMAS FRANCE, NATIONAL WILDLIFE

FEDERATION, MISSOULA, MONTANA

Mr. FRANCE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Tom

France. I am with the National Wildlife Federation, and my office

is in Missoula, Montana. And while I am often accused of representing one of those big green national organizations, our office

has been there for 15 years, and I have lived in Missoula for 25,

and gone to the University of Montana and graduated from law

school there in 1981.

So my national organization always accuses me of going local on

them so I am never quite sure where I am on these issues. And

I think that that is at least the beginning of the National Wildlife

Federation’s efforts in developing a citizen management proposal

for the grizzly bear reintroduction into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

Other members of the panel are going to talk about the origins

of our discussions with the timber industry about how we might accomplish grizzly bear reintroduction. I wanted to use my time

today—I have submitted written testimony—but to try and respond

to some of the concerns that we have heard from the panelists.

And I think it is appropriate that I do this because throughout

the three or 4 years that we have been working on the citizen management alternative with the Resource Organization on Timber

Supply and the Intermountain Forest Industry Association, we

have tried hard to listen to concerns.

We have tried hard to change the rule as we have heard others

make points that we thought had merit and doing a better job of

reflecting local concerns about the economy and local concerns

about recreation and local concerns about how we manage wildlife

species in the Northern Rockies.

I have heard several concerns today about Rule 14, the component of the citizen management rule that we developed that deals

with how the Secretary of Interior might reclaim authority from

the Citizen Management Committee. And let me assure the Chairman that on both sides of the aisle, conservationists accuse us of

giving away the farm to citizen managers.

Others on the more conservative side, of course, are afraid that

Secretary Babbitt will swoop in immediately upon the Citizen Management Committee being appointed and take back the authority

and use it only from inside the Beltway in Washington, DC.

But certainly we constructed that part of the rule, recognizing

that under the Endangered Species Act, Secretary Babbitt or whoever might inhabit the Department of Interior legally has to retain

authority. But we also recognize that within the framework of the

Citizen Management Committee, we wanted to vest all of the relevant decisionmaking authority locally, and we think we have set

up a rule that does that.

As we constructed it—and here is what you might call our intent

in constructing it—the Secretary can only call back authority

where decisions aren’t leading to recovery. And we used recovery

in a programmatic sense. We did not use it to say that any specific

decision would be second-guessed by the Secretary but rather a series of decisions that were not or are not leading to the grizzly bear

populations in the Selway-Bitterroot prospering.
67

And, again, following on this theme of listening, we heard some

comments today that I think we will think long and hard about.

Perhaps we can strengthen that part of the rule, and as we go

through the EIS process, that is I think the kind of constructive dialog we want to have.

In response to concerns that we heard from the Bitterroot Valley

that it was a rapidly growing area, something we all recognize, we

changed our rule in midcourse to reflect the fact that the Bitterroot—of all the areas adjacent to the national forest lands and wilderness areas that make up the Selway-Bitterroot and central

Idaho roadless and wilderness country, the Bitterroot does have the

densest population, and we recognize that conflicts there were really going to be irresolvable. There wasn’t the space for grizzlies and

people.

So the rule that we constructed, and I believe it is reflected in

what the Department will release with the EIS, says that grizzly

bears won’t be pile rated in the Bitterroot, that they will be moved

back up into the wilderness country.

And out of that experience, we also developed language where

other parts of the experimental population area where conflicts

were really irresolvable could be designated by the Citizen Management Committee as areas where we simply don’t want bears and

where bear occupancy and use will be discouraged.

And I bring that to the Committee’s attention as another place

where we tried to hear what the concerns were in a place where

we think if people pay attention to how this rule has evolved over

time, they will recognize that this can be an adaptive process, that

their input can have impact on how the decision is finally going to

look.

That leads me to a third point, and we have heard several questions for the Committee about the collaborative process that we set

up and whether we engaged with other responsible organizations,

and we did our best. But no one appointed us. We just got together

and said, ‘‘Jeez, there is a big problem out here. How can we solve

it?’’ We started small. We worked large.

We have, for the last year since we put out our draft of a rule,

tried to meet with everyone we can, and I want to assure that

Committee that that is still our commitment. We wish to exclude

no one from this process, and if there is a group in McCall or a

group in Lewiston or a group in Salmon, we are anxious to go down

and talk with them and see whether we can’t build our partnership

with them.

So those are a few of the things we have done to address concerns, and that is certainly the theme that we have tried to incorporate throughout our efforts on this issue. Thank you very much.

[Statement of Mr. France may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. France. And the Chair recognizes Jim Riley from Intermountain Forest Industry Association,

Coeur d’Alene. Mr. Riley?

STATEMENT OF JIM RILEY, INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, COEUR d’ALENE, IDAHO

Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth, and members of

the committee. I am Jim Riley. I am the Executive Vice President
68

of the Intermountain Forest Industry Association with headquarters in Coeur d’Alene and also offices in Boise, Idaho, and Missoula, Montana. Our association is privileged to represent the forest products businesses, the majority of them in both Idaho and

Montana, as well as the private forest owners in those two States.

With your permission, I will submit my full statement for the

record and just highlight a couple of elements of this which I think

are particularly relevant to today’s conversation.

First, let me report that like so many others who have testified

today, our history with this proposal began with the recovery plan

that was advanced by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1993. And

our response in 1993 and 1994 to that plan was the same response

you have seen throughout the West as endangered species proposals have been advanced upon communities and industries, and

that was of vigorous resistance.

We didn’t believe it was necessary, appropriate, or workable, and

spent many hours trying to persuade the Fish and Wildlife Service

to withdraw their recovery proposal. We were not making much

progress with that, and in 1995 under the guidance of the late Seth

Diamond, who was our wildlife biologist out of Missoula, Montana,

with his expertise on both the ESA and on grizzly bear management, persuaded our membership to take a fresh look at our approach to this issue and our way of addressing the recovery proposal.

Under Seth’s direction, we began meetings with the other folks

who I am privileged to be with on this panel today to talk about

a more productive way than the high profile conflicts that have always characterized these issues for us to engage each other over

grizzly bear management.

And I want to assure everybody, those were not easy conversations, and they took many hours, and there was much contention

among the people at this table as we tried to work through what

has become known today as the citizens management proposal.

This proposal was born, from our organization’s standpoint, not

just because of those conversations but because of our experience

throughout Idaho and Montana with what we see as failed grizzly

bear management policy. I began my career working with a sawmill in Dubois, Wyoming, which is closed today in part because of

the management constraints that grizzly bear management placed

on the timber supply in that area.

I worked in the Targhee National Forest where we tried to enter

into negotiations with grizzly bear advocacy groups to try to find

a way—a formula to keep the sawmill, which is now closed there

today, in business. I have worked, Congressman Hill, at great

length in the Swan Valley trying to resolve the issue there of grizzly bear management and found the distressing situation where

citizens have worked with the Federal Government to ensure more

bears show up.

You would think that would free up constraints on other uses. It

only made those constraints more binding, not less binding and because of those experiences and those failed policies made—motivated us to try to find something new, and that is what this proposal was all about.
69

The citizens management concept, which you have before you, we

believe that that is not only the best way but the only way to bring

about sustainable bear populations in this area and to incorporate

the interest of local communities, not just override them. The proposal that we have supported in concept includes three principal

parts that are extremely important, which I outline in my statement.

And the first of which is that the Secretary of Interior fully delegates management authority to the citizens. Second of which is

that the populations be classified as nonessential and experimental. And the third of which is that the recovery zone be defined

in a manner which minimizes conflict, not seek to create conflict.

Now, having said that, I also want to echo Tom France’s view

that in putting this together and talking with folks in the communities about this, the collaborative process is very difficult. We are

private citizens. We have other things we work on. We began with

the people around this table and then have tried over the last 12

months to the best of our ability to talk to anybody who was interested in talking about this.

I know Seth made several trips to Ravalli County and other

places. I just want to underscore it was not our intention to exclude

anyone. It was our intention to include as many people as were interested in the citizens sense about this.

Issues have arisen in our conversations and continue to arise

today which need further attention, and we support attention of

that. First, the question regarding the legal authority to create the

Citizen Management Committee that has been talked about in

many places. Section 14 has been raised. We would just say it is

a simple matter. This has to be a real delegation of authority. It

cannot be a sham committee for this proposal to continue to gain

our endorsement as the right way to proceed.

Second, our ongoing questions about the science of the bear and

what this area can sustain and not sustain in terms of bear populations. Those are also important questions that we think need a

response. And most importantly are the personal safety concerns

that have been raised over and repeatedly. Those need to be accommodated.

In conclusion, I would say that the IFIA has long advanced the

perspective that no single use of our forest lands ought to preclude

any other. And it is because of this point of view that we have come

to have these conversations about grizzly bears. I would also say

that we have promoted the concept of local decisionmaking by the

people affected by decisions as being the right way to solve resource management problems.

This proposal is consistent with that long-held view of ours, and

I would also say, and underscore, that I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the Federal Government to impose a species,

particularly one that brings the personal safety concerns that the

grizzly bear does, upon citizens of any State without the acceptance

of those citizens.

It is because of that idea and the idea that it is fundamentally

right for the Federal Government to facilitate citizens’ management

of those species that this proposal has gained acceptance within

our association.
70

And so it is because of those very same concerns that have been

raised elsewhere that we find this to be a creative solution to that

problem. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and will look forward to questions at the end of this panel. Thank you.

[Statement of Mr. Riley may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Riley. Mr. Church is recognized from Resource Organization on Timber Supply.

STATEMENT OF PHIL CHURCH, RESOURCE ORGANIZATION ON

TIMBER SUPPLY, LEWISTON, IDAHO

Mr. CHURCH. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth

and Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to be able to testify

before you. I am Co-Chairman of ROOTS, Resource Organization

on Timber Supply—can you hear me OK?—made up of organized

labor and industry entities. The group was formed to work on natural resource issues on the Clearwater National Forest and the

Nez Perce National Forest.

A brief history of what we went through so you can understand

why we promote the concept of the Citizen Management Committee. When we first started a little over 4 years ago, we went to

some meetings in Grangeville, Idaho, and those meetings were

hosted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Fish

and Game.

And it was at these meetings that, you know, we learned that

should a bear wander into this area, then without our proposal

then that bear would be listed under Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act with full protection.

In addition, the original proposed area from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the Fish and Game was about one-third of the

roaded front which would have locked us out of that area for any

harvestable timber, plus all the unroaded area, plus the proposed

wilderness area. So the original plan was a lot broader than it is

now.

We had a tremendous fear of loss of jobs, destruction of families,

and at that time we came away with a statement of not only no,

but hell no. We were not going to tolerate these actions. We were

going to fight it in any way we could.

We studied the issues, and we learned that, again, should a bear

wander in from the neighboring State of Montana, that bear will

be protected. Again, I want to reemphasize that point because then

we are locked out of that area regardless. There is no input. There

is no say. We are locked out of it.

We also learned by studying that there is more to the ESA than

simply Section 7. I firmly believe the Endangered Species Act is

broken and needs to be repaired. Based on our discussions, four

groups came together, and it wasn’t limited to these four groups.

We sent out invitations to as many groups as we could; again,

anyone that would be willing to participate. Several groups said no.

Several groups said they would like to be kept informed of the situation. Those groups were ROOTS, Defenders of Wildlife, National

Defenders of Wildlife, and IFIA—the groups here before you.

Again, we had an open-door policy to participate, most of which,

again, simply wanted to be kept apprized of it.
71

Because of our labor and management background, we realized

simply saying no is not an option. Under the Endangered Species

Act, we looked for what was negotiable and what was not. The

whole purpose was to perform damage control, again remembering

our sisters and brothers and the loss of jobs, the destruction of families over the spotted owl issue. It was during that same period of

time. And how the grizzly bear and those issues have been handled

in Montana devastating whole communities. We recognized that

and wanted to minimize that damage to our areas.

I did want to add one other point. If that bear under the first

proposal would have been reintroduced, it would have been reintroduced into the very back yard of such cities as Elk City. Elk City

was part of the proposed area.

We came up with the concept utilizing a Citizen Management

Committee, and the bear would be reintroduced into the wilderness

of the Selway-Bitterroot as a nonessential experimental population.

The Citizen Management Committee is the way of the future.

The grizzly bear is a controversial issue by itself. But remove the

bear from that issue, from the equation, and put it in its place—

bull trout or salmon. Citizens’ management has potential. The concept of citizens’ management is visionary, and I ask you to see the

vision of the future. The Endangered Species Act is broken, and

without citizens’ management and other changes to the Endangered Species Act, no one wins including the listed species.

In closing, the Citizen Management Committee is a win-win concept that needs a chance. My membership does not want the bear,

but they do see the value of a Citizen Management Committee and

are willing to give that a chance. Thank you and I will be happy

to answer any questions.

[Statement of Mr. Church may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Church, and you saw a little

bit of flurry of activity up here. It is because they have called us

to a vote. We have a 15-minute vote on the flag bill which will be

interesting. But, Mr. Fischer, before we proceed with your testimony, since Congressman Hill has left, I am going to run out too

so that we can resume the Committee just as quickly as possible.

So if I can ask your indulgence and recess the Committee temporarily, we will be back in just a moment. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The bill that we just voted on was a prohibition against desecration of the American flag, and so as you can

imagine that one passed by a wide majority. I would like to return

now to our activity and the business of the Committee and resume

testimony with Hank Fischer. It really is nice to see you again, Mr.

Fischer. We are going to have to quit meeting like this.

STATEMENT OF HANK FISCHER, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE,

MISSOULA, MONTANA

Mr. FISCHER. You had me nervous there for a second. Madam

Chairman, Congressman Hill, thank you very much for having me

here. I am Hank Fischer. I am the Northern Rockies Representative for Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders is a national nonprofit

wildlife conservation organization. I am in Missoula, Montana. Our
72

organization has approximately 200,000 members, many of them in

Montana and Idaho.

I have worked for Defenders for 20 years and have been intensely involved in these endangered species issues, and most recently very involved with the wolf restoration issue. I think plainly

wolf restoration will be viewed as an historic conservation achievement. While many people don’t agree with it, the action is going

to influence the conservation of large predators all around the

world.

But I would be just as quick to add that while wolf restoration

in Yellowstone and central Idaho may be a historic achievement, it

is a less than perfect conservation model for three reasons.

First of all, it cost too much, second, it took too long; and third,

there are still too many people in the region who are upset that

it ever happened at all. It is that combination of factors that has

drawn our group together and made us try to seek a better way

to conserve endangered species, and that is what we will present

to you here today.

I have my prepared statement, which I will submit for the

record. I thought I would go over a few items that came up in testimony today that might help elucidate this issue a bit more. First

of all, I wanted to talk a bit about the issue of public support for

Bitterroot grizzly restoration.

It is frequently asserted that there is no support for Bitterroot

grizzly restoration. Defenders of Wildlife, along with the National

Wildlife Federation, commissioned a poll that was conducted in

April of this year. We hired a firm called Responsive Management,

which is the leading market research firm in the United States on

fish and wildlife issues.

This organization has been hired frequently by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Wyoming Gam and Fish Department; Idaho Game and Fish Department. It is generally recognized as the leading firm in the United States on wildlife polling.

And we will make sure that we get you a copy of the poll so that

you can see that for yourself.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Mr. FISCHER. But, Tom, maybe you could take away the map

there. There are a couple key points that I want to go over in this

poll that are important. First of all, on—Tom, could you—the order

of those isn’t right. Could you put the first one up with the no conditions? That is the one. The first sheet is the basic question of

support and opposition, with no conditions attached to it. It shows

46 percent support grizzly restoration, 35 percent oppose, 19 percent have no opinion or did not know.

Now, I would be quick to point out to you that in my view, the

actual percentages are not that important. It is plain there are a

substantial number of people who support grizzly restoration, just

as there are also a substantial number of people who oppose it.

And we respect that opposition.

We know it is important to acknowledge the opposition. We know

it is out there, and we know we have to deal with it. That has really been the point of our work for the last couple of years—trying

to develop a constructive way to deal with the opposition and respond to their legitimate concerns.
73

The results of this poll that are really most important have to

do with when we tested the four primary conditions of our citizen

management alternative and how that influenced response. Can I

have the second one, Tom? The one on the floor I think. OK. And

what this one shows is that under the conditions that we have a

Citizen Management Committee, cost minimization, no land use restrictions, bear relocated from populated areas, we find that the

support goes up to 62 percent; opposition 30 percent; no opinion 8

percent.

And there is a final chart that shows in all three categories—people are opponents, supporters, and those who have no opinion—

they all became more supportive of grizzly restoration when we included the citizen management aspect to it. Most notably, people

who were uncertain went up the most, but even supporters and opponents became more supportive when they learned about the citizen management alternative.

And so my point here is very simple. We have gone to many

places, and I would like to talk to you more about that. We have

had extensive conversations with the Idaho legislature, especially

with the Grizzly Bear Oversight Committee that was appointed by

the Idaho legislature. We have talked with them. We have made

visits to many small towns in Montana and Idaho, and what we

find is when we talk to people and have the chance to explain this

citizen management alternative to them, they become more supportive. We think it is an alternative that has a lot of promise to

gain broad support.

In closing, I find it a curious irony that we hear today many,

many stories about how the Endangered Species Act isn’t working

for one reason or another, and yet people remain firmly resistant

to trying something new.

To me, that is the absolute reason why we need to try something

new because some of our current techniques are not working well.

And we must have the confidence to try new approaches to species

restoration if we are going to avoid continued polarization. Thank

you.

[Statement of Mr. Fischer may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Fischer, and we will open the

questioning with Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank all of you

members of the panel. I would just like to comment first of all I

encourage you in your process. I am, as was mentioned earlier, a

strong advocate of collaborative process. And I know that you folks

have invested a lot in a collaborative effort here. I have expressed

some concerns about that and I will in my questioning.

But I would certainly urge you to stay with this because no matter what the outcome here—I mean, I think that it is a constructive process with collaborative—I would ask all of you to answer

this question, if you would. What is the value that we are after?

Why is it so important that grizzly bears be reintroduced in this

area at this time? What is that shared value? Start with you, Tom.

Mr. FRANCE. Well, I think we have—each of the participants that

have worked on this have values that are similar but not identical.

Certainly for the National Wildlife Federation, our priority would

be in recovering the grizzly bear in the Selway-Bitterroot-Frank
74

Church area as part of the larger recovery effort to restore bears

in the lower 48.

Having said that, we recognize that that recovery can only occur

if we also create—we have got to create biological conditions where

that occurs. We have got to create a habitat base for that species,

but we also have to create a social contract about how we manage

a large predator like the grizzly bear. And we think that what we

have done in central Idaho with IFIA and with ROOTS and with

Defenders of Wildlife achieves both of those objectives.

It achieves the objective of establishing a grizzly bear population

in the largest piece of grizzly habitat we have left in the lower 48,

but it does it in a way that respects local communities and we

think will enhance local economies. And I conclude by saying we

have got a proposal here. We are certainly not sure where that is

going to go, but we are committed to the long-term. We recognize

that our job doesn’t stop when a grizzly bear is released in Moose

Creek in the Selway, that there are a lot of things we have to work

on after that to make that vision a reality.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Riley?

Mr. RILEY. Congressman, I would respond to that with two

points, the first of which is that we have advanced the perspective

for many years that no single use of our forest lands needs to preclude another, and that is because our industry has been on the

losing end of that preclusion equation, if you will, on lots of issues.

And if we are going to be true to that perspective, here is an

issue where it is very difficult for us to argue that our use of the

forest ought to preclude this other use of the forest, if you are with

me. So that perhaps is at the foundation of what we are talking

about.

More immediate and more importantly to many of our members

is the question of what would happen if we did nothing in this situation. What would happen to the timber supply in the Bitterroot

Valley if nothing was done at all and a bear showed up there

today. And I would tell you that the answer to that under the current law, the Endangered Species Act, is because this is a listed

species.

It receives the full protections of the Endangered Species Act

that we have seen in the Swan Valley and in Yellowstone and

other places. And so this is as much, quite candidly, a defensive opportunity for us as it is a way to advance the overall objective of

what we see. So for those two reasons is what the value of this proposal is as we see it.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Church?

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Riley said most of what I would say—damage

control. Organized labor would look at it from the point of view. We

have seen what took place over in Washington State with the spotted owl. Again, if that bear was to wander in, we know the bear

has wandered in from Montana; has not taken up residency yet.

If that bear was to take up residency, full protection under the

Endangered Species Act, Section 7, and we don’t have a voice. This

hearing is a moot point. There is nothing that can happen. That

law is—it is a different story then. Everything changes. And we are

trying to protect and minimize that damage.

Mr. HILL. Those doggone Montana bears, huh?
75

Mr. CHURCH. Sorry.

Mr. HILL. They used to beat them in football too. They cheer the

grizzlies on Saturdays down there in Ravalli County, and they

curse them the rest of the week. But, anyway———

Mr. FISCHER. I guess I would say simply that any collaborative

effort depends on some convergence of interest. Our convergence is

clearly we would like to see bears restored to this area, and I

think, you know, these people want to make sure that it is done

in a way that doesn’t significantly impact their interests. And I

think that is the convergence.

Mr. HILL. You know, but what I hear here is, you know, obviously, we want to restore them—to restore more grizzlies. We want

to have more grizzlies in the 48, and we want to restore the opportunity to industry to be able to harvest timber. But the concerns

that were expressed mostly today about this was human contact,

the impact on people, just their everyday life, not jobs, although

there is some concern about jobs—recreation, but also just safety

of their children and sense of safety when they recreate. What

about that?

Mr. FISCHER. If I could speak to that, you know, our poll asked

that question directly, why were people opposed, and our poll

showed that too, that almost on a five-to-one basis the primary reason people were afraid of this—were opposed to it because of fear

of bears. It wasn’t the issues that we think like cost and like land

use restrictions. Those were much lower.

It was the fear issue. And in some ways, that is good news because that is something that we can work on, although only to a

certain level. I mean, there is a certain fear of bears that I think

is similar to the fear some people have of flying on airplanes. And

you can tell people driving to the airport you are more likely to die,

and, jeez, I could regale you with all kinds of stories about how

gruesome it is to be in an airplane crash and all the stories of people going down and all that. And it is. It is awful. It is terrible.

But at the same time, we are all going to get on an airplane

again. And in the same way, I think all of us are going to go to

Yellowstone Park again. All of us are going to visit Alaska again,

and I think in the future all of us are going to visit the Bitterroot,

but we are going to do it with care.

Mr. HILL. I just want to remind you when we start talking about

air and water quality issues and the environmental impacts and

risk to life, I want to remind you of the fact there is a risk in life.

And when you talk about bears, it is that way in all parts of life.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. France and Mr.

Fischer, my congratulations to you, Mr. Riley, Mr. Church, for approaching this issue in a manner that I hope we see other issues

with regards to local citizen management organizations being

formed and work through these to key problems. Certainly, the

Quincy Library Group proposal that was one of the first bills in

front of this Committee I think is a prime example of how citizens

and local interest groups can work together and achieve what everyone wants.

My biggest concern is now that the bill is out of committee, we

are seeing a lot of national attention paid to this by the national
76

environmental groups. And while agreements are made locally,

there is nothing that binds the same national group from moving

ahead and then opposing the issue and either filing suit or coming

in here and heavily lobbying against it.

I know because I asked Mr. Fischer this same question in Montana, and I remember his answer. You know, it is a free country,

and we can’t bind people. And I understand that. But you can see

our concern that while we may agree locally, while we may even,

in essence, endorse this, there is no security in knowing that when

you speak for the National Wildlife Federation or Defenders of

Wildlife that when it reaches the implementation point that it is

going to move ahead. Is there anything, Mr. France or Mr. Fischer,

you can say that could give us any security about what you may

agree to on the field being carried forward?

Mr. FRANCE. Well, I would offer with one example, and I know

there are differing opinions on the wolf recovery program, but that

too was done under an experimental population rule. And we may

disagree about the specifics of that rule, but, nonetheless, it was

challenged. It was challenged by the Farm Bureau organizations in

Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. It was also challenged by the National Audubon Society and some other conservation groups.

And I am privileged to represent National Wildlife and Defenders

of Wildlife and the Idaho Wildlife Federation in intervening in that

case and were there to see that that rule was an effort at compromise. It may not have succeeded as well as we liked, but that

middle course was where we wanted to be, and we backed that up

by going into Court against other conservation organizations.

And I think we have the same level of commitment, and that is

why I made my comment earlier that in many ways if this plan is

approved and we get the situation where some day we are putting

a bear out in Moose Creek, you know, that is not the end of the

story for the National Wildlife Federation.

That has to be viewed as the beginning because that is when the

success or failure of the citizen management approach starts to be

measured. And it is all theory until then, and if we are going to

make a proposal like this, we have to have a commitment to working through as the implementation occurs. And we are well aware

of that, and we will do our best.

Mr. FISCHER. If I could make one comment?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Sure.

Mr. FISCHER. What I would say is, you know, I appreciate your

kind words about our process, but at the same time it is very necessary for us at some level to achieve some endorsement, some support for what we are doing. I think it—you know, you wonder what

makes these sort of processes grow and succeed. It is by having

people step forward and say this is the right thing to do and to

support them. And we need that kind of support, and we need that

from elected officials as well as from local citizens.

I think what makes this thing strong and such that it repels attacks is by having this bridge across different interest groups. That

is a very strong insulation from attack, in my view. And I think

lawsuits rarely succeed where you have common interest joined

like that.
77

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. France, you indicated that you have a

legal background?

Mr. FRANCE. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And are you an attorney?

Mr. FRANCE. Yes, I am an attorney.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I asked a question earlier about the liability

that individuals might be incurring as members of the Citizen

Management Committee and even citizens like you who may have

helped organize this. The long arm of the law seems to be reaching

out in issues of personal liability cases, even piercing the corporate

veil. This concerns me and as I examine the agreement, I find

nothing that will indemnify or protect individuals or organizations

or even corporations and their stockholders. Have you done a legal

analysis on this?

Mr. FRANCE. As I said in my testimony, we keep listening and

we keep hearing concerns, that this is a new concern for me. And

I will take a look at that. Two months ago, Director Mealey raised

the concern about whether the Secretary even had the power to

delegate to the Citizen Management Committee.

And, obviously, we had made an initial cut on that years ago and

said, yes, under the experimental population provision of the ESA

that authority was there. But certainly Director Mealey’s questions

have prompted us to take another look at that. And we hope to

form some sort of consensus with lawyers, both in the conservation

community and with the timber industry, and we will take a look

at that liability issue. And I would hope we could get something

to you soon on that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I really appreciate that, and I

would look forward to your response on that. Mr. Riley, welcome.

It is good to see you.

Mr. RILEY. It is always good to see you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You have been involved in this issue from the

very, very beginning. You have seen a lot of things happen to the

timber industry in Idaho. As a result of the agreement, if everything in the Citizen Management Committee agreement can go forward, presuming that the introduction has taken place, has there

been anything that we have gained?

I know that we are in a defensive measure. What we are trying

to prevent is losing more. But in a good agreement, usually two

people—both sides really benefit and they gain. While the one side

is gaining a huge territory for an endangered species, what have

we gained?

Mr. RILEY. You know, we struggled with that very same question

internally many times, and I think that it is important to sort of

shift your perspective to understand our view on this from who

gains and who loses to dealing with the situation.

I mean, we could argue at great length as to who has that

ground today, you know, what is going on—remember, this is a wilderness area where the core of the proposal is and outside of it is

part of the management area—and who ultimately has more control over, you know, or which interest does over what is going to

happen there under the status quo. When we talked about that, we

decided that that is sort of one of those endless conversations that

there is no win on.
78

We believe that under all likely possible courses of action that

could go forward from here, our interests would be better off if this

concept, as we envision it with some important legal questions

here—our interests would be better off than the other alternative

courses of action which are available. That is our assessment.

And while I am speaking to this, let me also respond to, if I can,

your first set of questions. There are some legal questions here—

very specific ones about this proposal because make no doubt about

it, the Endangered Species Act was not put together to envision

citizens managing anything.

In fact, it was put together for the exact opposite purpose where

the Federal Government would sort of swoop in and take control

in these situations. So we are trying to do something with this law

that was not specifically intended by the people who drafted it.

Now, we do think that it is legal, but we also are very much

aware that there are people who have pledged without even having

seen the proposed rule from the Fish and Wildlife Service that they

are going to litigate this. On both sides of this issue, there are people who have pledged that. So that is a highly important question.

And just as a general matter, I want to observe I have come before this Committee and testified numerous times on the need for

changes in our environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act

being one of them.

I mean, it is for exactly this reason because it is the notion that

what happens to make good environmental policy is the Federal

Government comes out and does things to citizens of the States like

our State rather than comes out and allows things to happen with

us is what has caused great resentment throughout Montana toward the bear, toward the Federal Government, as well as our

State of Idaho, and as causing polarization in our communities

rather than people trying to work together as this small group of

us at this table are today to bring about solutions to problems rather than endless fights over resource use.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Riley, you are regarded by many people

as one of the best professional governmental affairs operators not

only in Idaho but probably in the Nation, and I am not blowing

smoke. This is something that I have learned since I came back

here. It troubles me that when the Governor and the legislature

and the delegation and the county commissioners all say no how

we can move ahead with a program that cost taxpayers money.

And how do you feel about that personally, if you don’t mind?

Mr. RILEY. Well, not just personally but professionally I would

tell you that it was my advice this morning and it remains my advice to the Fish and Wildlife Service that it is inappropriate for

them to force this upon the citizens of Idaho or Montana.

The core of this proposal is based on the fact that the citizens

of the State can work with the support of their Federal Government to handle this situation. It is not something that is done to

them, but it is something that is done with them.

And I think that it is—as I watched this morning in the conversation that ensued, it seems like people are now pulling apart

to a polarized conflict with what we have been trying to advance

as coming together. It has been my personal stance and our organization’s stance to work with all of the members of the delegations
79

involved here to try to get understanding and consensus as we

have in the local communities throughout both States as to why

this concept will work rather than forcing this upon anybody.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Mr. France, I want to return to

you for another question, and that question is if the agreement

were adjusted so that the citizens were satisfied that they were indemnified, the citizens on the committee, and if Mr. Riley and Mr.

Church were satisfied that moving ahead with a multiple-use concept was drafted in the agreement, does it hold up in Court because can we agree to something that is contrary to a statutory authority?

By that I mean if—in the agreement, they agreed to a multipleuse concept, but yet the Endangered Species Act states you have

to manage critical habitat singularly. Can you agree to that which

is———

Mr. FRANCE. I think the answer on a couple of those questions

is clear under the law. Where an experimental population is designated—a nonessential experimental population is designated, the

Act expressly relieves the Secretary of designating critical habitat

and expressly commands him not to conduct Section 7 consultations for Federal actions.

So at least as far as the usual things that go with the Endangered Species Act, the law itself is clear that once we use this nonessential experimental designation, we do away with the regulatory

burdens of the Act, and we encourage flexibility and creativity.

Where the Act is less clear is it says to the Secretary go forth

and experiment, but as Mr. Riley correctly observes, it never occurred to Congress in 1982 that somebody might consider it a good

experiment to delegate authority to a bunch of people in Montana

and Idaho to manage grizzly bears.

And so that question is—there are answers for it. They are precedent in terms of other Federal statutes where delegations have occurred, and that is the kind of law we are pulling together right

now, and I will be happy to make that available when we have it

in final form.

But we know we can get rid of a lot of the baggage or a lot of

the things that have caused friction with endangered species with

the designation. We want to take a closer look, and we want to do

it in concert with the Fish and Wildlife Service on this delegation

issue. We want to provide as much certainty.

I would add too that Jim is also right. We have heard from people around the compass that feel threatened by this, that they will

sue us or sue the Secretary. And I think we will have a chance to

have the legal questions looked at in Court before we are deep into

the management of grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot. I think

we will get some firm answers from a Court. I am fairly confident

they will be in our favor.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have just one more question, and then I will

yield more time to Mr. Hill. The Davis and Butterfield report, Mr.

France, indicated that there was a certain area that was more suitable for the reintroduction or introduction of the grizzlies. And yet

an area that they did not study was set aside for that purpose. Do

you know why? What is the science behind it? What happened?
80

Mr. FRANCE. Well, I do know at least part of the answer, and

that is that the Fish and Wildlife Service listened to what we had

to say in terms of proposing this citizen management proposal. The

Service’s initial thought on reintroducing grizzly bears to Idaho

was the Selway-Bitterroot and the Clearwater country to the north

of the Lochsa. And that is what the initial studies looked at by way

of habitat capability.

When we proposed our rule in the summer of 1995, that caused

the Service to take a look at it. As Dr. Morgenweck noted this

morning, they have adopted it as a preferred alternative, and our

proposal called for keying recovery efforts into the Selway-Bitterroot—Frank Church.

And so the study came in advance of that, and we just haven’t

squared up all the round pegs with the square holes yet. But the

Service basically responded to what we said by way of an appropriate area for initial reintroduction and for management emphasis.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just, Hank, would you

be willing to make the complete copy of that poll available to the

Committee, cross tabs and everything?

Mr. FISCHER. Absolutely.

Mr. HILL. I sure would like to look at it because it is important

to me. Thank you. The big concern I think that comes out, and it

is interesting that the poll revealed this as well, in Ravalli County

is this issue of fear. I mean, obviously, people there are concerned

about their children’s lives and livestock and those sorts of things.

What strategies are there in managing a grizzly bear population

that can be used to instill a certain amount of fear on the part of

grizzly bears to people? I mean, some things I have read would indicate, for example, that without hunting, bears just don’t have a

natural fear of people. Is that true in your view? Are there strategies that can be used to———

Mr. FISCHER. Yes. I mean, there are definitely strategies that we

can use. We are using them in other places, and, yes, we know a

lot about this right now. But I think the one thing, and, again, you

know, our poll showed this as well, is when we asked people, OK,

if we had a policy whereby bears that came into areas that were

designated no bear areas were removed promptly, would that allay

your fear? Yes, it very much seemed to allay their fears.

And, again, that is what we specifically have done for the Bitterroot have been declare that private lands in the Bitterroot Valley

are places where bears won’t be tolerated. So as soon as they show

up—now, we are not going to wait for them to cause problems. As

soon as they show up, we are going to capture them and take them

back to the wilderness.

We are not going to tolerate bears on private lands in the Bitterroot Valley, and we thought that was the most effective way to directly address that, and we did that at Governor Racicot’s suggestion. He was the one who suggested that we include that after he,

you know, went and visited with people in Ravalli County and

heard their concerns about safety too.

And I would be quick to say we remain open to other suggestions

for how to improve this. This Citizen Management Committee has
81

the ability to designate other areas that may be appropriate for,

you know, declaring offlimits to bears. I think as you have heard

from several panels, including Hal Salwasser and Steve Mealey,

education makes a huge difference in keeping people from having

problems with bears.

The big difference is that, you know, we tend to think of grizzly

bears, and we have this national park image. And that is the place

where you have millions of people who are not educated in the

backwoods going out and encountering bears, and that is where

problems do occur. In places that are wilderness areas, you tend to

have sophisticated users or you have people going in with outfitters

who are sophisticated users, and they know how to not get into

trouble with bears.

Mr. HILL. That is when the bears don’t wander out of those areas

though. I mean, I agree with you. I have seen grizzly bears in the

Bob Marshall, and I am afraid of them. But I want to follow that

on because I agree with the comment Mr. Riley made. I think that

one of the critical elements here from my perspective is I think

that we have a problem down there in Ravalli County, and that we

have got a lot of work to do down there to turn around public opinion if this is going to go forward.

I don’t think that it would be fair to impose on the people of

Ravalli County this reintroduction without substantially stronger

support down there for them. And, you know, I certainly agree with

you that—and I want to encourage this process, but I just don’t

think the process has gone far enough to deal with the issues with

regard to public opinion. I am hopeful that it doesn’t go forward—

at least reintroduction doesn’t go forward until there is some popular support down there.

Tom, I have a couple questions for you. Because in your written

testimony, there are a couple statements that you made that are

a little inconsistent with some of the answers to questions that I

got earlier so I want to probe those a little bit if I could.

Mr. FRANCE. I certainly don’t want to be inconsistent.

Mr. HILL. Well, you aren’t inconsistent, but your perspective on

this is a little different than others. One of them says how would

grizzly bear introduction affect current public land use, and I want

to read you the statement, and then I want to ask a question.

It says, ‘‘The citizen management alternative assumes that current public land management is adequate for grizzly reintroduction. As the reintroduced grizzly bear population expands, the Citizen Management Committee will assess how bears are using the

experimental area and make decisions about their management.’’

And I asked some questions earlier about whether or not there

would be changes in the management of the public lands if grizzly

bears are reintroduced. And the answer that I got earlier was is

that, no, that wouldn’t be the case because the only area we are

talking about is the reintroduction area, which would be the wilderness areas.

But your statement here would seem to indicate that the citizens

advisory group would have authority and would likely be making

changes in the management of the other public lands that adjoin

that area. Am I right or am I wrong?
82

Mr. FRANCE. I think you are right. The rule expressly states that

outside of the recovery area within the boundaries of the experimental population area grizzly bears will be accommodated. And

how that accommodation takes place is the province of the Citizen

Management Committee. Mr. Mealey—I read the rule to say that

no changes were necessary there, and that could be a right answer.

But I think when we—and all of us at the table are the we that

I speak of—when we put that together, we certainly could conceive

of a scenario where a grizzly would move into the North Fork of

the Clearwater River, which is good bear habitat, where timber operations could be managed in a way that didn’t conflict with

grizzlies, and the committee would make some recommendations to

that extent, and life would go on. And we do know from other areas

where we have grizzlies that those kinds of accommodations can be

made.

I want to respond to your point about Ravalli County and its concerns, and we have noted that Ravalli County is the fastest growing county in Montana. But two and three on the list are Flathead

and Gallatin Counties, and they have grizzly bear populations literally in their back yard, and both of those counties seem to have

been able to make accommodation for grizzly bears.

Mr. HILL. But those are existing populations, not reintroductions.

Mr. FRANCE. I understand but I am just saying that we have examples where we can have growing and even vibrant economies

and populations and a grizzly bear population which gives us hope

that this accommodation can work and work well.

The other example I give to you, Congressman, is the Flathead

common groundwork that IFIA and Defenders and National have

been doing in the Flathead where we have been trying to work together collaboratively to design timber harvests, to do bull trout

protection, to do road management in a way that builds a very

strong consensus across both commercial and recreational interests. And we have been very pleased with the success we have had.

Mr. HILL. And one of the reasons there is that you have a little

broader group for collaborative purposes than occurred here. And

I want to—actually you made the comment that I want to ask a

second question about. This is a loaded question so get ready. You

talked about the citizen management group may develop reasonable accommodations for long-term occupancy of private lands

where bears appear consistently.

Now, accommodation is an interesting word. In your view, does

that mean that private lands that adjoin this area which are now

bear habitat but don’t have bears in them would be subject to what

those on our side occasionally refer to as regulatory taking? And if

so, would you support some provision here so that that accommodation would include some compensation to those private landowners

since right now they have no risk of grizzly bears being—imposing

them on the use of their land?

Mr. FRANCE. I think compensation is very much on the table. Defenders of Wildlife, of course, is the expert, as it were, in private

compensation funds with the terrific work they have done with the

wolf program. We very much see that as a solution that is there,

and I think Dr. Morgenweck said that citizen management could
83

look at that. We very much recognize that private lands is a situation that is one of accommodation. And we have seen———

Mr. HILL. So when you say accommodation, you mean you are

going to accommodate the property owner here and not just the

bears?

Mr. FRANCE. Absolutely. You have to have a willing property

owner and a working relationship, or you are not going to have

bears. And as you well know, Congressman, with elk, with many,

many species, we work at the good will of the private landowner.

And it is an ongoing dialog. There are always going to be areas of

friction, but we that want to work with the public’s wildlife have

to recognize those private concerns and those private rights.

Mr. FISCHER. I would interject that we are already working with

Plum Creek in the Lolo Pass area to talk with them about management of their areas to see—we have been investigating how compatible their current land use is with grizzly recovery in that area

and seeing what they could do voluntarily to improve it for bear

recovery, and they are very receptive to that.

Mr. HILL. OK. Thank you all very much. Again, I want to thank

you for being here. I appreciate your input and your comments, and

I am looking forward to continuing to work with you to try to find

a way through all this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam

Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Church, I have some

more questions for you, but we have just gotten a notice that the

Speaker has called an emergency meeting in HC5, and we also

have another hearing. But I think we better meet with the Speaker, and so we are going to adjourn this long and drawn out hearing.

And I thank you very much for coming out.

We do have more questions, and I invite the members of the

Committee to submit questions to Mr. Simmons, and we will submit them to you and would appreciate your answer at your very

earliest convenience. And the record here in this Committee will be

held open. Again, if there is no further business, this Committee

is adjourned. Thank you.

[Calgary Herald edition follows:]

[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional materal submitted for the record follows.]
84

BRIEFING PAPER

SUMMARY

The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health will meet on Thursday, June 12,

1997 to hold an oversight hearing on the issue of the reintroduction of the grizzly

bear in the public domain National Forests.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed reintroduction of the grizzly bear

to the Selway-Bitteroot Mountains of central Idaho and Western Montana. The history of the proposal dates back to 1982 when the Fish and Wildlife Service completed the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (GBRP). This plan was revised in 1993 by

the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.

The GBRP addressed six areas: (l) Northern Continental Divide centered around

Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness in northwestern Montana,

(2) Cabinet-Yaak also in northwestern Montana, (3) Selkirk in north Idaho and

northeastern Washington, (4) Yellowstone including lands surrounding Yellowstone

National Park, (5) North Cascades in northwestern Washington, and (6) Bitteroot

in central Idaho and western Montana.

In 1995 the Fish and Wildlife Service brought together the Interagency Grizzly

Bear Committee (IGBC) to begin the environmental impact statement (EIS) process.

IGBC members include specialists from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and

Parks, and the Nez Perce Tribe.

A public Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 9,

1995 to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to obtain input from other agencies and the public on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS. The IGBC agreed to delay the planned release of the draft EIS.

The 5,500-square mile evaluation area extends from the Salmon River north to

include the North Fork of the Clearwater River. Approximately 97 percent of this

area is public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The remainder is land

owned by woods products companies. About half of the area is located in the SelwayBitteroot and Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.

The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) can weigh up to 900 pounds and live up

to 20 years. The oldest grizzly bear captured in North America was a 35 year-old

female in the Cabinet Mountains of Montana. Grizzlies are omnivores that eat both

plants and animals. About 80 percent of their diet is vegetation and insects. Home

territory for a male grizzly can be as large as 300 square miles.

Opposition to the reintroduction of the grizzly bear to the Selway-Bitteroot Mountains is unanimous from elected officials in Idaho. The governor, State legislature

and entire Idaho Congressional Delegation including Chairman Helen Chenoweth

have made formal statements opposing the grizzly bear being reintroduced into the

State and the associated EIS process. The Legislature of the State of Idaho passed

a resolution signed by Governor Phil Batt opposing reintroduction of the grizzly

bear.
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208