U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–406 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–200 

FEDERAL INTERACTIONS WITH 

STATE MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WATER, AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 9, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ................................ 1 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 4 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 66 

WITNESSES 

Regan, Ronald J., Executive Director, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies ......................................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sullivan ............................ 18 

Barry, Donald, Senior Vice President, Conservation Program, Defenders of 

Wildlife .................................................................................................................. 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse ...................... 35 

Lang, Doug Vincent, former Director, Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation ........................................................................................................................ 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sullivan ............................ 46 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter to Senators Murkowski and Cantwell from Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, 

Government Affairs Director, the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 

December 15, 2015 ............................................................................................... 74 

Letter to Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from 

Ronald J. Regan, Executive Director, the Association of Fish & Wildlife 

Agencies, January 15, 2016 ................................................................................. 78 

Written testimony of Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, February 3, 2016 ...................................................................... 79 

Letter to Joseph G. Pizarchik, Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, from Todd Parfitt, Director, 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, May 22, 2015 ..................... 88 

Letter to Joseph G. Pizarchik, Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, from Todd Parfitt, Director, 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, October 23, 2015 ............... 90 

Letter to Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 

Management, Department of the Interior, from Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, December 3, 2015 ..................... 96 

Letter to Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 

Management, Department of the Interior, from Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, January 19, 2016 ..................... 98 

Written testimony of John Corra, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, before the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, September 26, 2011 .......................................................................... 101 

Written testimony of Safari Club International .................................................... 109 

Letter to C. L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Governor of the State of Idaho, from Ken 

Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, April 15, 2011 ............................................. 114 

(1) 

FEDERAL INTERACTIONS WITH STATE 

MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Sullivan, Barrasso, Capito, Boozman, Fischer, 

Rounds, Inhofe, Whitehouse, and Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and 

Wildlife will now come to order. Good afternoon to our witnesses. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the interactions States 

have with the Federal Government as they seek to manage the fish 

and wildlife resources within their borders. I think a lot of people 

have a misunderstanding of this very important principle. Since 

the founding of our Republic, the States, not the Federal Government, have had primacy over the management of wildlife within 

their borders. 

In the case of Alaska, our Statehood Act, passed by Congress, 

even included language to affirmatively transfer management authority of fish and wildlife management to the State. By reserving 

certain powers to various States, the unique needs of each of those 

States to manage and control their resources are preserved. That 

is why traditionally there is State management for all States. 

Alaska, for example, has an excellent history of sustainably managing our own fish and wildlife resources for the benefit of our citizens, and when the Federal Government and the States have been 

able to work together cooperatively, which we usually do, whether 

through the Pittman-Robertson or Dingell-Johnson Acts or other 

direction from Congress, species have benefited, and the overall 

management has significantly benefited. 

Having entered the Union on equal footing, all States enjoy management authority unless modified or diminished by an Act of Congress. There are many examples of this where Congress does act 

to preempt State management authority whether it be the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, title 8 of the ANILCA. These are all examples 

where the Federal Government has taken that management au-
2 

thority and preempted it. I am not always in favor of such preemption, but the authorities of these Acts are not nearly as damaging 

to our States and to our federalism system of government as ones 

carried out by agency fiat. 

In many ways, that is what we are going to focus on today where 

the Congress makes clear that the Federal Government has authority, agencies clearly have that prerogative and States abide by that. 

The broader concern is where it is not clear, and Federal agencies 

take actions that do not seem to focus on the rule of law or Federal 

statutes. 

In my State, conservation is not only a matter critical to our 

quality of life and customs and traditions; it is also a matter of social justice for our most remote communities who depend on nature’s bounty for food. Any time the Federal Government intrudes 

into our sovereign responsibility to sustain and manage fish and 

wildlife populations, it is of great concern to all Alaskans. 

I want to emphasize a theme that develops sometimes unfortunately in this committee is that it is always partisan; one side only 

wants to protect the environment. I think we all want to protect 

the environment. Most of these concerns, in my experience, are 

very bipartisan in terms of protecting the environment but also in 

terms of how States manage their resources. 

That is why one major newspaper in Alaska referred to a recently proposed rule from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that 

would preempt Alaska’s management of fish and game in the following way: ‘‘Alaskans should be clearly concerned, even alarmed, 

that these proposed rules by the Federal Government, are just 

more in a long list of attempts by the Federal Government to 

amend the Alaska Statehood Act and have preemption in terms of 

fish and wildlife management.’’ 

Last fall, the National Park Service finalized similar rules that 

prohibit several forms of hunting in preserves in Alaska and would 

allow superintendents to simply post a notice online preempting 

State wildlife laws and regulations. Calling the rule overarching, 

vague and indiscriminate, the Alaska Federation of Natives passed 

a resolution in opposition, again, a group that is very bipartisan in 

my State. 

That same resolution stated, ‘‘Other Federal agencies, such as 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, also apply various rules that 

interfere with traditional resource management practice that reduces subsistence access to our citizens.’’ In both cases, the rules 

being preempted are based on practices that subsistence hunters 

requested to the Alaska Board of Game, again in an open, public 

process to provide food security for passing on their traditional 

practices. 

We are fortunate to have three very distinguished witnesses here 

today to look forward to a more detailed discussion on this important issue of the interchange between Federal and State management of our important wildlife resources. 

I am glad to have the witnesses here and my Ranking Member, 

Senator Whitehouse, join me for this important hearing. I will turn 

to him for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sullivan follows:] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Good afternoon. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the interactions States 

have with the Federal Government as they seek to manage the fish and wildlife resources within their borders. Since the founding of our Republic, the States—not the 

Federal Government—have had primacy over the management of wildlife. In the 

case of Alaska, our Statehood Act even included language to affirmatively transfer 

management authority to the State. These rights were further guaranteed under the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. 

By reserving certain powers to the various States, the unique needs of each of 

those States to manage and control their resources are preserved. Alaska, for example, has an excellent history of sustainably managing our own fish and wildlife resources for the benefit of all Alaskans. And when the Federal Government and the 

States have been able to work together cooperatively—whether through the Pittman-Robertson or Dingell-Johnson Acts or other direction from Congress—species 

have benefited. 

Having entered the union on equal footing, the States enjoy management authority unless modified or diminished by an Act of Congress. And on a handful of occasions, Congress has modified the authority of the States. The Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and title VIII of the ANILCA are all examples of where this is 

the case. 

Preemption can severely affect the management authority of the States, most 

markedly with the Endangered Species Act, which leads to a Federal takeover of 

species management and land use under very specific circumstances. 

I am not always in favor of such preemption, but the authorities of these Acts 

aren’t nearly as damaging—to my State and to our system of government—as ones 

carried out by agency fiat. When agencies, as they increasingly do, seek to bypass 

the will of Congress through regulations, it’s Federal overreach at its worst. 

In Alaska, conservation is not only a matter critical to our quality of life and customs and traditions. It is also a matter of social justice for our most remote communities who depend on nature’s bounty for food. Anytime the Federal Government intrudes into our sovereign responsibility to sustain and manage fish and wildlife populations, it’s of great concern to Alaskans. 

That’s why one major newspaper in Alaska referred to a proposed rule from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would preempt Alaska’s management in this 

way: ‘‘Alaskans should be clearly concerned—even alarmed—that these proposed 

rules are just more in a long list of attempts by the Federal Government to amend 

the Alaska Statehood Act.’’ 

The National Wildlife Refuge System was created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, when he created the first refuge by Executive Order. Today, the Refuge System is comprised of 560 refuges and 150 million acres that have been reserved for the conservation of fish and wildlife. In Alaska, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service manages nearly 77 million acres of land in 16 national wildlife refuges. 

These refuge lands are not parks or national monuments, but rather are intended 

for priority public wildlife-dependent uses for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education and interpretation. Refuges are conservation 

units, not preservation units. 

The proposed regulations as currently written seek to alter that balance and will 

fundamentally alter not only how national wildlife refuges and the fish, wildlife and 

habitats on them will be managed but will also change the relationship of the Service and the individual States from one of cooperation to subservience. The proposed 

Alaska regulations are not based on any of the laws I referenced earlier but rather 

on an ideology that was implemented into a policy that the FWS now seeks to fold 

into regulation. 

With these regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service will administratively impose 

its will via regulatory action. In doing so, they will preempt science-based management approved by the Alaska Board of Game in an open, public process. For those 

outside of Alaska, know that once this rule is adopted in Alaska, there is no limiting 

its spread to other States. 

Last fall, the National Park Service finalized similar rules that would prohibit 

several forms of hunting in preserves in Alaska and would allow superintendents 

to simply post a notice online preempting State wildlife laws and regulations. Calling the rule, ‘‘overreaching, vague, and indiscriminate,’’ the Alaska Federation of 

Natives passed a resolution in opposition. That same resolution stated, ‘‘Other Federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also apply various rules 
4 

that interfere with traditional resource management practice that reduce subsistence access.’’ 

In both cases, the rules that are being preempted are based on practices that subsistence hunters requested to the Alaska Board of Game, again in an open, public 

process, to provide food security or for passing on their traditional practices. 

We’re fortunate to have all three of our witnesses here today, and I look forward 

to discussing this important topic with them. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. It is good to be 

with you. 

Looking at the witness testimony and the scope of this hearing, 

I guess I should first note that although the word environment is 

in the name of this committee, it does not mean we get to stake 

claim to all things water and all things soil. In the written testimonies of both Mr. Vincent Lang and Mr. Regan, their reference 

is to the National Park Service. The relationships of State Fish and 

Wildlife agencies with other Federal agencies like the National 

Park Service and Forest Service may be worth reviewing. They are 

not jurisdictional to this committee. 

It is also worth pointing out that a critical witness is not present 

at today’s hearing. Though the bulk of testimony and discussion 

from this hearing will be focused on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, its director, Dan Ashe, was not invited to participate. In 

a discussion about the Fish and Wildlife Service’s rules and regulations and how they are affecting State agencies, the Service should 

be here to explain and if necessary, defend its actions. 

The problems here may be regional, but whatever the issue, I 

should note that many States manage to get along very well with 

these Federal agencies. Successful cooperation and collaboration 

between State and Federal agencies, I would argue, is actually the 

norm. Serious conflicts are an anomaly. 

In my State of Rhode Island, Cathy Sparks, Assistant Director 

of Natural Resources at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, notes, ‘‘A spirit of collaboration exists in the 

Northeast between State fish and wildlife agencies and their U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service counterparts.’’ 

Rhode Island has a ‘‘good working relationship with the Service, 

especially with issues concerning national wildlife refuges and Endangered Species Act implementation.’’ Assistant Director Sparks 

shared particular appreciation for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

willingness to maintain what she called ‘‘open dialogue with the 

State and a track record of being both reasonable and forthcoming.’’ 

I do not think the Rhode Island experience is unique. As Mr. 

Barry indicated in his testimony, Nick Wiley, Executive Director of 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, mirrored 

the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management’s 

comments in noting ‘‘the longstanding collaborative and positive relationships’’ that his State has with the Service. 

Effective management of our country’s land, air, water and wildlife is reliant upon cooperation between States and Federal Government. We are not one sovereign or another, and they are dual 

sovereigns. Throughout the many statutes that govern natural resource management and the relationship between Federal and 
5 

State authorities, the words ‘‘collaboration,’’ ‘‘cooperation,’’ and ‘‘in 

consultation with’’ litter the text. 

Though States are given significant deference in Federal fish and 

wildlife decisionmaking, the laws make clear that State interests 

cannot come at the cost of conservation, especially not on the public 

lands held in trust for the enjoyment of all Americans. 

I look forward to working with you on this. I understand that 

Alaska has particular concerns, and perhaps those can be dealt 

with on a State or regional basis. But I would contest any premise 

that this is a national categorical problem, certainly based on 

Rhode Island’s experience. We have a terrific relationship with our 

Federal counterparts. I think many States enjoy and manage to accomplish the same. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

I want to welcome our witnesses. Mr. Ronald J. Regan is the Executive Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Mr. Doug Vincent Lang is the former Director of the Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation. Mr. Donald Barry is the Senior Vice 

President, Conservation Program, Defenders of Wildlife. 

Witnesses have 5 minutes to deliver their oral statements. 

Longer written statements will be included in the record. I am very 

excited to have such a distinguished group of witnesses here today. 

Mr. Regan, let us begin with you. You have 5 minutes to deliver 

your statement. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD J. REGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. REGAN. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Democrat Whitehouse, for the opportunity to share with you our perspectives on Federal interaction with State management of fish and 

wildlife. 

As the introduction suggested, I am Ron Regan, Executive Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, of which all 50 

State fish and wildlife agencies are members. The Association’s 

mission, which has not changed significantly from our founding in 

1902, is to protect State agency authority to conserve and manage 

the fish and wildlife within their borders. 

State governments hold title to fish and wildlife as trustees of 

these resources for their citizens. Regulating take for hunting and 

fishing resides under that authority. Case law at all levels up to 

the Supreme Court upholds that trustee ownership in the State 

agencies. 

Where Congress has given Federal agencies certain conservation 

responsibilities and thus authority for fish and wildlife, Congress 

has also affirmed that State jurisdiction is concurrent with the 

Federal authority starting with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 

1918 and continuing for federally listed threatened and endangered 

species under the ESA and certain migratory and anadromous fish 

under the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. 

Congress affirmed State agency authority for fish and wildlife 

management on Federal lands in organic Acts for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest 

Service and the Department of Defense military installations. Each 
6 

statute directs that to the maximum extent practicable, hunting 

and fishing seasons and bag limits shall conform to State agency 

regulations. In general, State agencies enjoy a good working relationship with the Federal agencies, but they strive constantly to 

improve that for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources and constituents. 

Contemporary examples include State-Federal task force collaboration on administration of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Program and Federal implementation of the ESA. Recent conservation success stories for greater sage-grouse, lesser prairie-chicken, 

monarch butterflies and the New England cottontail attest to the 

strength of the State-Federal partnership. 

That being said, my written testimony suggests there are 

foundational, jurisdictional concerns with managing elk in Wind 

Cave National Park in South Dakota, recreational fisheries management and access in the Biscayne National Park of Florida and 

wilderness designations for two national forests in Arizona. 

However, today I will focus my brief time on proposed rulemaking for Alaskan national wildlife refuges and preserves that 

would change how the Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages fish and wildlife resources on those refuges. 

The Association appreciates the Chair’s accepted amendment to 

the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act which would prohibit the Fish and 

Wildlife Service from further action on its proposed regulation and 

preclude implementation of the like National Park Service regulation. The Association has requested a comment period extension, 

and we will continue to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

address our concerns. 

If enacted, the proposed rule would usurp Alaska’s authority to 

manage fish and wildlife for sustained yield including predators 

and large ungulates on national wildlife refuges in favor of a 

hands-off or passive management paradigm which would adversely 

impact Alaska fish and game objectives for resident fish and wildlife. The proposed rule takes what is now national policy on biological integrity, diversity and environmental health and elevates it to 

a regulation, thereby giving it preeminence in Alaska over other 

national wildlife refuge policy and also over ANILCA. 

This action may result in litigation that seeks to apply that policy to the entire national wildlife refuge system under the argument that what is good for Alaska should be good for all refuges 

given that it is a national system. A recent public relations appeal 

by the Humane Society of the United States to support this proposed rule already refers to it as applying to all national wildlife 

refuges. 

I will conclude my remarks with two legislative and policy remedies among several that were offered in my written testimony. 

First, the use of savings clauses in Federal law with respect to 

State authority for fish and wildlife management needs some revision and certainly more prominent placement in statutes or legislation than it now occupies. 

Second, the Association recommends revising the several Federal 

agency organic Acts to define with more certainty and clarity the 

phrase ‘‘in cooperation with the States’’ at the appropriate places 

with direct fish and wildlife management on Federal lands and/or 
7 

in statutes that recognize the concurrent jurisdiction of State agencies with Federal agencies for fish and wildlife. 

The Association would be pleased to work with committee staff 

on both provisions, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

this opportunity to share these remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Regan. 

Mr. Barry. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD BARRY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

CONSERVATION PROGRAM, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

Mr. BARRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to summarize five points from my testimony that is 

being submitted formally to the record. 

Unfortunately, hearings like this can create the false impression 

that the rare exception of problems and conflict is actually the 

norm. It is what I refer to in my testimony as it gets you to start 

focusing on the hole instead of the doughnut. 

My testimony, including the quotes from the State Fish and 

Game director of Florida, indicates the norm throughout most of 

the United States. He described the working relationship he had 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the other State directors in 

his region in the Fish and Wildlife Service as the ‘‘no daylight’’ policy. 

From his perspective, there is no daylight between the State fish 

and wildlife agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Service. He acknowledged that there would be some disagreements and even 

some strong disputes, but they worked together to work through 

them, and then they move on. He felt it was an extremely constructive relationship. He believed that most of the most of the State directors throughout the Nation feel the same way. 

One court referred to this relationship as cooperative federalism. 

I think that is a term that describes the way it has worked fairly 

well. I also believe that given the overwhelming success in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the States working together, no compelling case has been made yet that there needs to be a significant 

change or amendments to the underlying Federal laws, and Congress should not do so now. 

I would also like to shift my focus to ANILCA since that seems 

to be the primary focus of this hearing. It is my view that ANILCA 

does not require the Fish and Wildlife Service to accept lock, stock 

and barrel the State of Alaska’s anti-predator program for national 

wildlife refuges. 

In fact, I think my testimony clearly demonstrates that ANILCA 

requires the exact opposite. It requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to reject such an outdated approach to hammering predators on 

wildlife refuges as required by the State of Alaska’s intensive management legislation. 

I would note that even the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s 1982 MOU acknowledges 

the authority and the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service to reject the State’s animal damage control program where and 

when it believes it is incompatible with the purposes for a given 

refuge. 

Even in 1982, the State of Alaska acknowledged that the Fish 

and Wildlife Service was only required to substantially try to accommodate the State Fish and Game Predator Control Program 

but was not obligated to do so. 

It is my view that national wildlife refuges in Alaska were intended to be a lot more than just game factories for sport hunters. 
21 

ANILCA’s natural diversity management goal for each wildlife refuge, which was included in sections 302 and 303 of ANILCA, and 

I should also note that in 302 and 303 which expanded the wildlife 

refuges in Alaska, a number of those new units specifically mentioned bears and wolves as some of the key species those wildlife 

refuges were being created to focus on. 

From my perspective, when Congress added the requirement 

that national wildlife refuges in Alaska be managed to conserve in 

the natural diversity the species of key focus in those refuges and 

included various different wolves and bears in some of the different 

refuges, it seems to me to be impossible to conclude that Alaska, 

under ANILCA, was being given the authority and the power to 

adopt the very heavy anti-predator program designed to suppress 

the population levels of predators within those national wildlife refuges. 

It is also very clear under ANILCA that all sport hunting in the 

national wildlife refuges in Alaska needs to be compatible and consistent with that natural diversity management goal. It is also unfortunate, I believe, that an amendment has been adopted to the 

bipartisan Sportsmen’s Bill to block the ability of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to finalize their rule. I think it is going to increase 

the likelihood that bill may not ever be accepted and adopted by 

the Administration and might generate a veto. 

I should also say that the wildlife management and refuge provisions in ANILCA are not in conflict with the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. Both statutes can apply and are in sync. 

The Alaska refuges are to be managed under ANILCA and be 

managed under the natural diversity management goal, and all national wildlife refuges under the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act are 

to be managed under a new broader management mission and vision for the national wildlife refuge system to ensure that biological 

integrity, diversity and environmental health of each refuge in the 

system is maintained. Therefore, it is my view that there is no conflict between the requirement under ANILCA to management for 

natural diversity and the requirement of the 1997 Act to management for the biological integrity, diversity and environmental 

health of each refuge. 

My time is up so I will quit at that point and look forward to 

taking questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barry follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Barry. I appreciate your interest in ANILCA as you can imagine. 

Mr. Vincent Lang, may we have your testimony, please, sir? 

STATEMENT OF DOUG VINCENT LANG, FORMER DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 

Mr. LANG. Senator Sullivan and members of the committee, 

thank you for inviting me to discuss Federal overreach and wildlife 

management in my State of Alaska. 

My name is Doug Vincent Lang. Today, I will speak as a representative of Safari Club International and from my perspective 

as a former State chief wildlife manager. SCI is a world leader in 

preserving the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation. Our chapters in Alaska are some of the most effective hunter 

conservation groups in my State. 

When you consider the uniqueness of Alaska’s relationship with 

its wildlife resources, it is not surprising that the framers of my 

State’s constitution required active management of my State’s fish 

and game for the sustained yield and the many benefits it provides. 

It is also not surprising that the historic intent and incredible 

wisdom of the framers of the U.S. Constitution reserved certain 

powers to the individual States become crystal clear. This includes 

recognition that it is the responsibility of the States to manage and 

control their natural resources for their unique needs. 

For Alaska, Congress specifically recognized and guaranteed 

Alaska’s right to manage and control its resources under our State 

constitution as part of our statehood compact. For the past decade, 

my State has begun to experience increased administrative intrusions by Federal agencies into the management of our fish and 

game that some unresolvable given increasingly divergent administrative management philosophies. 

The intrusions are wide ranging. They include misuse of the Endangered Species Act. As an example, let us look at the ringed seal. 

These seals were listed as a threatened species based solely on 

speculative models forecasting possible reductions over a 100-year 

timeframe. Yet, these seals currently number in the millions and 

are expected to remain at these numbers through the mid-century. 

Such listings are unnecessary and allow Federal agencies to exert 

management control over the listed species as well as their landscapes. 

The National Park Service recently finalized new regulations 

governing wildlife in Alaska’s national preserves over my State’s 

objection. In these regulations, the Park Service closed preserves to 

hunting opportunities despite there being no conservation concerns. 

The Park Service chose to substitute their agency ethics and values 

as to what constitutes appropriate hunting methods, ignoring publicly adopted State regulations that allowed those practices. 

Now we see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed new 

rules that administratively exert Federal management control over 

wildlife in Alaska’s national wildlife refuges. These rules fundamentally will alter the Federal Government’s longstanding wildlife management relationship with Alaska. 

The Service is using their administratively adopted biological integrity policy to thwart protections of State management authority 
40 

that Congress includes in the National Wildlife System Improvement Act and in the Alaska National Interest Lands Claim Conservation Act, both of which confirm deference to State management authority. 

By incorporating national diversion policies into their permanent 

regulations, the Service is replacing time proven, traditional active 

State management with a hands-off management approach. Let me 

give you an example of how this plays out in the real world. 

On Unimak Island in Alaska, the Service has elevated natural 

diversity and its hands-off management policy over sound principles of wildlife management. On this island, without active management of both predator and prey populations, an indigenous caribou population has a high likelihood of disappearing. 

The Service determined that under their natural diversity guidelines, it would be acceptable for the caribou on this island, in the 

Service’s own words, to blink out; this despite one of the refuge’s 

congressionally established purposes being the conservation of 

these very caribou and their subsistence uses. The application of 

this hands-off approach throughout Alaska’s refuges could put 

many other populations of moose, caribou, deer and elk at risk and 

as a result, seriously reduce opportunities for hunters including 

subsistence hunters. 

Under a hands-off approach, it is questionable whether Alaska 

will be allowed to continue to actively manage its sheep and bear 

populations for trophy hunting opportunities. Will Alaska be allowed to continue to actively manage its salmon runs for optimal 

sustained yields since that is an active management program? Will 

subsistence hunters be required to adopt fair chase standards? 

Taken together, these agency actions and others represent an unprecedented administrative intrusion by Federal agencies into the 

State’s traditional role as principal manager of fish and wildlife. It 

is occurring despite congressional assurances from a variety of legislative savings clauses which statutorily preserve the State authority to manage. 

In Alaska, it is preventing my State from fulfilling our sustained 

yield mandates that our constitution tells us we must and is impacting my State’s ability to manage and provide sustained hunting and fishing opportunities. 

Those will suffer the most are those who hunt and fish in Alaska 

including subsistence hunters. We ask Congress to work with us to 

preserve the rights and opportunities of Alaskan hunters and fishers to prevent these Federal intrusions. 

The State fish and game model is a proven success that should 

be built upon, not replaced with a new, one size fits all Federal 

conservation model. We need congressional action to stop these administrative intrusions. 

The Safari Club applauds the efforts of Senator Sullivan toward 

this end. Safari Club International asks Congress for assistance toward this end in protecting Alaska’s hunters. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lang follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Lang. 

I would like to begin by submitting for the record a letter from 

Congressman Don Young on the House side who is interested in 

commenting on the subject matter of this hearing, without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
58 
59 
60 

Senator SULLIVAN. I also want to mention Senator Whitehouse 

and some of the testimony at the beginning of the hearing today 

talked about the importance of a cooperative attitude or a cooperative relationship. We could not agree more. 

I remember this committee, on both sides of the aisle, certainly 

thinks that is important and that is the goal. In many ways, that 

is what the hearing is about, how do we get there. I think that is 

a goal we all share. 

The Ranking Member mentioned Dan Ashe. I could not agree 

more. We would certainly be glad to have the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. As a matter of fact, he has testified before the full committee. In September, he testified here before a subcommittee. Unfortunately, I do not think any of the members of the other side of 

the aisle attended that hearing. We will have Mr. Ashe here again 

to answer some of these questions. 

What we wanted to do today was to not have Government witnesses but to have some of the practitioners who I think can help 

bring an objective view and then also a view from the States where 

this issue is having the most impact. 

Mr. Regan, I wanted to start with a question. In 2014, the AFWA 

published a report entitled, Wildlife Management Authority, the 

State Agency’s Perspective. Can you explain what led to the drafting of that report, what recommendations it includes, and how that 

relates to the topic we are discussing today? 

Mr. REGAN. Yes, I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I 

have a copy here to submit for the record. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection. 

[The referenced report was not received at time of print.] 

Mr. REGAN. I will say just a couple of things about this. First of 

all, I have been the executive director at the Association for 7 

years. Throughout that 7 years of my tenure here in D.C., there 

have been ebbs and flows to the concerns about the extent to which 

Federal and State agencies effectively collaborate. 

I would say, as I said in my opening remarks, by and large, there 

is a great record of collaboration and partnership across the State 

and Federal spectrum. However, as with any family situation, if 

you will, there are issues that manifest themselves that create 

challenges and stresses in working through issues. 

This particular document to which you refer, Mr. Chairman, is 

really the product of those kinds of ebbs and flows over the past 

7 years since I have been at AFWA. Our president at the time 

wanted to put some of these issues to rest. He appointed a task 

force which was chaired by the State director from Arizona and 

comprised the State directors to take a look at the broad spectrum 

of Federal laws, regulations, policies and other kinds of guidance 

with respect to how State fish and wildlife agencies do their work. 

This document is the product of that committee’s work. It was 

approved by the State membership. An annual meeting took place 

2 years ago. It summarizes our best take on that relationship. 

Senator SULLIVAN. What was the impetus behind it? Do you 

think there was a relationship between the State and Federal Government in this area that needed to be addressed? 

Mr. REGAN. Yes. I would say that these ebbs and flows, these 

tensions that emerge over either public lands management policy, 
61 

wilderness policy, differing perspectives in different parts of the 

country by different regional line staff or administrators, coupled 

with some of the challenges that go with working through hard 

issues like Endangered Species Act listings and that sort of thing. 

It was really driven not by any one particular issue but the overall perception that there was always this undercurrent ebbing and 

flowing of concern about the State and Federal relationship. 

I will conclude, if I might, by not only referring to this document, 

but this document has helped set the stage for a couple of different 

executive leadership retreats, both with State agency leaders and 

leaders within the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to create a better dialogue prior to issues becoming as big as they 

might. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lang, Mr. Barry actually mentioned the 1980 MOU between 

the Department of Fish and Game in Alaska and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Are you familiar with that MOU? Do you think 

that is being abided by in the light in which it was drafted? 

Mr. LANG. I am familiar with that MOU. When I was director 

of the Wildlife Division of Conservation of Alaska Fish and Game, 

we tried to work with our Federal partners in the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to implement that MOU. 

Unfortunately, the Federal Government was not abiding by much 

of the terms. For instance, we were not given opportunity to go out 

and access fish and wildlife and be able to monitor those fish and 

wildlife populations. 

Senator SULLIVAN. The right to do that exists under the Statehood Act, ANILCA and many other Federal laws, correct? 

Mr. LANG. Correct and as also acknowledged under the MOU. In 

essence, the MOU is there, but it does not really work as well as 

was intended. 

The other thing I would like to point out is that the MOU says 

we are going to manage for natural diversity. The State of Alaska 

does manage for natural diversity, but the State of Alaska considers ecosystems as a functional part and humans as being a functional part of that ecosystem. We manage those ecosystems for 

human benefit. 

When we signed that MOU back in 1982, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Federal Government agreed that humans were a 

functional part of that ecosystem. Now instead, we are seeing the 

Fish and Wildlife Service believes humans are a threat to ecosystems and they are increasingly managing for natural diversity 

to minimize human impact on species. 

I think that is a fundamental difference in Alaska. We have continually managed ecosystems for human benefit. The Federal Government is managing ecosystems to minimize human impact on 

those ecosystems. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

First, I want to say to the Chairman that one of the traditions 

of the Senate is that when there is a home State issue with a Senator, we tend to try to rally around one another. If something were 

going badly wrong in Rhode Island, I would hope you would be 
62 

willing to help me and in the same spirit to the extent there were 

issues in Alaska where I can be helpful, I would like to try to be 

helpful also. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I would. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I also think it is important, I do think 

where there are problems, they may not be nationwide problems, 

but local problems are real problems as you know very well. 

I would like to shift my questioning a little bit and let me start 

with Mr. Lang. You are here representing Safari Club International? 

Mr. LANG. Yes, I am representing Safari Club International. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What is Safari Club International’s position on global climate change? 

Mr. LANG. I think Safari Club International believes that global 

climate change is occurring but that you can mitigate those actions 

through a variety of different means. Climate is affecting wildlife 

in a variety of different manners. 

Just like any other stressor, climate change is one of those 

stressors that we as managers will manage for. It is no greater or 

no lesser than any other stressor. For instance, we will manage climate in the short and long term as we would any hunting pressure 

or anything else that would affect the long term sustainability use 

of wildlife on our State lands that we manage. 

Again, I think we are managing it as any other stressor that occurs out there. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Your described—your organization has it 

as a major concern? I am reading from your Web site. Would that 

be accurate? 

Mr. LANG. What I am saying is that I believe that it is a concern 

but is no more or greater a concern than any other stressor we are 

doing in terms of managing wildlife. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you disagree with Safari Club International’s Web site statement that it is a major concern? 

Mr. LANG. I did not say that. I said it is not the most significant 

concern. It is a concern, but in the short term, there may be more 

significant concerns affecting wildlife. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In the long term, can you think of any 

more likely to affect wildlife? 

Mr. LANG. I think as you are moving forward in time, human use 

of wildlife is something we all need to consider. For instance, I 

think one of the longer term impacts of managing wildlife is going 

to be managing wildlife in the urban interface. 

We have been very successful in restoring wildlife over the last 

150 years. Now I think one of the stressors is going to be, how are 

we going to turn that success into managing wildlife at the urban 

interface. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The coyotes in my trash? 

Mr. LANG. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Barry, global climate change, a major 

concern? 

Mr. BARRY. Absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In what way does it bear on protection of 

wildlife? 
63 

Mr. BARRY. From a wildlife conservation point of view, I would 

say it is one of the biggest concerns, if not the biggest concern. It 

is going to cause a huge disruption in migration patterns. I think 

along the northeastern coastline, you have migratory birds that 

come back and have been coming back probably since time immemorial. They have arrived at a certain time because that is when 

some of the crabs pop up. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are talking about Delaware now? 

Mr. BARRY. Yes, and all of a sudden it is out of sync. The birds 

are coming back and the food supply is not there. 

We are seeing this with other migratory patterns that are being 

disrupted. Food sources are being disrupted. In Alaska, the polar 

bears are in big trouble because of climate change. We think from 

a wildlife conservation point of view it is probably the largest long 

term, big time threat. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Regan, a major concern for wildlife? 

Mr. REGAN. Yes, I would say it is a major concern. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has one dedicated staff person. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You have a whole climate change committee, don’t you? 

Mr. REGAN. We have a climate change committee. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You take it seriously? 

Mr. REGAN. Yes, we take it seriously. We are working with Federal agencies and States to think about climate change adaptation 

and providing tools and best management practices to help the 

States think through the adaptive challenges for the future. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are all wonderful people. But as the 

Senator from the Ocean State, let me urge that we not forget the 

oceans. We are a terrestrial species, but we get a lot from the 

oceans in terms of cooling of the planet, oxygenation of the atmosphere, fish that we eat, and the place I think we might be hitting 

our ecosystem the hardest is actually in the oceans. 

Mr. Chairman, back to you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I agree with my Ranking Member on the importance of the oceans. We have a lot of bipartisan agreement on 

these issues. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We may be the Ocean State, but Senator 

Sullivan actually has more ocean. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Regan, in your testimony, you discuss the conflict between 

the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and the 

Park Service management at Wind Cave National Park. I am curious about this because of the fact that it has to do with a South 

Dakota Fish and Wildlife agency. 

The GF&P would prefer to use hunters to manage the elk population in this particular national park. However, the Park Service 

has found that this proposal to hunt them was unacceptable due 

to statutory prohibitions against hunting in the park. 

Further, when the Park Service informed Game, Fish and Parks 

that they would cull the elk, which in South Dakota terms means 

they would shoot them and let them lay. Only after significant disagreement from the Game, Fish and Parks did the Park Service 
64 

agree to consider allowing the culled elk to be distributed to needy 

South Dakota families. 

That decision has not been made yet. In fact, they have not been 

able to come to an agreement yet with the Park Service. 

I suspect this is part of the reason why the State Game, Fish and 

Parks Department get frustrated with their Federal partners who 

sometimes do not seem to be partnering with them in anything 

that is considered close to being a local concern. 

While modifying the Park Service’s authorizing legislation to 

allow hunting as a management tool would solve the problem in 

Wind Cave National Park, it is not a comprehensive solution to 

statewide wildlife management, nor is it a solution to the tension 

between State and National Park Service or Fish and Wildlife 

Service officials. 

State officials know how to best manage wildlife in our State, 

and they should be the chief decisionmakers when deciding how 

best to conserve our wildlife. 

The debate over how to manage an elk population has now 

spanned several years in this particular case with no solution to 

the over population of elk. South Dakota GF&P reached out to the 

Park Service in 2015 to set up a meeting, but the Park Service has 

yet to confirm a date to continue this conversation. 

How do these types of longstanding disagreements between State 

and Federal officials over wildlife management impact the overall 

health of the wildlife population that we all propose to want to protect? 

Mr. REGAN. That is a big question, Senator. I think I will start 

by saying when I first began my career with the Vermont Fish and 

Wildlife Department, about 30 years ago, the State of Vermont 

Fish and Wildlife Agency was having a terrible time working with 

the U.S. Forest Service on the Green Mountain National Forest. 

The agency heads in that situation almost came to blows over 

whether or not certain kinds of trees should be cut on the forest 

for timber or potentially to the detriment of the whitetail deer resource in the State of Vermont. 

These kinds of issues emerge. I think at the end of the day, what 

is required is a major commitment to think about science, think 

about partnerships, and think about working through issues. 

Unfortunately, with turnover in agencies, the bureaucracies of 

managing issues, and then not to mention the overlay of the judicial system sometimes professional management is taken away 

from the professional managers. 

Senator ROUNDS. I am just curious, do you see anything that a 

change in law or change in statute or a directive in terms of the 

regulatory processes that could be done to basically reach or help 

reach a long term solution to reinforce the State officials’ ability to 

control and manage wildlife populations in their own States? 

Mr. REGAN. Yes, Senator. I pointed out a couple of those in my 

oral testimony. There is more detail in the written narrative. The 

whole notion of revisiting and making sure that the savings clauses 

are contemporary and adequate for the future when thinking about 

State management authority is important. 

In my written testimony, you will note that sometimes these savings clauses find their way at the end of legislation as opposed to 
65 

being on the front end. Our opinion is when that occurs, the courts 

may not give them the kind of deference they should in thinking 

through decisions. 

We also suggest another remedy concerning close collaboration or 

coordination with the States. 

Senator ROUNDS. With the Chair’s indulgence, I have one more 

quick question. 

Are you aware of any other cases where U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

or Park Service officials have recommended the culling or killing 

of a game animal and then simply suggested they be allowed to rot 

where they are shot? 

Mr. REGAN. Off the top of my head, no. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Chairman Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was really coming here for two purposes. One was to learn a 

little bit more about Alaska and the other was to let this committee 

and the witnesses know that the problems you have up there are 

not unique to Alaska. We have had similar problems. 

There is a thing called the Sikes Act that the Secretary of Defense in collaboration with Fish and Wildlife would take care of the 

wildlife on military establishments. Are you familiar with that, Mr. 

Lang? 

Mr. LANG. Yes, I am. 

Senator INHOFE. Is that working pretty well? 

Mr. LANG. At times, it works well, and at times it does not work 

very well. I think it works better than the Refuge System Improvement Act because it clearly recognizes State authority. 

Senator INHOFE. Are any of you familiar with the lesser prairiechicken issue? It is unique to five States, Oklahoma, Colorado, 

Kansas, New Mexico and Texas. 

We had a five-State plan that goes out for the purpose of taking 

care of and evaluating what is happening with the lesser prairiechicken. Five States all agreed and signed off on this. Somehow 

there is this perception that if you are a landowner or a rancher, 

somehow you do not want to conserve. That is so wrong. One of the 

few really good things that has worked is the partnership program. 

In this case, you had five States that had experts in those States, 

the landowner stakeholders in those States all agreeing that we 

done a very good job with the lesser prairie-chicken, and between 

the years of 2014 and 2015 our population of prairie-chickens actually increased by 25 percent. It does not get any better than that, 

does it? Yet, they went ahead and gave an endangerment listing. 

We have an example in Oklahoma of what does work and what 

does not work. How about you, Mr. Regan; can you tell me the logic 

behind that decision in spite of the effort that went into it and the 

successes we had? 

Mr. REGAN. You are talking about the prairie-chicken. We were 

clearly disappointed as State agencies that a threatened listing was 

provided by the Federal Government. On the other hand, that was 

certainly better than managing to an endangered listing. 

Senator INHOFE. No, that is not the point. The point is any listing at all when the populations increased and you had the very 

best not in just one State, but five States agreeing. I might add so 
66 

did the members of the U.S. Senate from all five of the States, of 

which some were Democrats and some were Republicans. 

Mr. REGAN. I think one of the key story lines there, aside from 

the listing decision, was the ability of those five States, including 

your home State, Senator, to come together with a proactive landscape level, voluntary conservation program to secure and manage 

prairie-chicken habitat for the future. 

I think that is the big plus or bottom line story which shows the 

ability of the States to come together and demonstrate a willingness and effectiveness to grapple with a large, landscape scale conservation issue. 

Senator INHOFE. Yet, they still came to the conclusion. 

Mr. REGAN. That is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. That is my whole point. I agree with everything 

you said up to that point. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

We meet today to discuss the Federal Government’s encroachment on State rights 

to manage fish and wildlife populations. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation dictates that fish and wildlife are for the non-commercial use of citizens 

and should be managed in a way that ensures they are available at the optimum 

population levels indefinitely. There is certainly a role for both the States and the 

Federal Government in this process. 

In recent years, however, the Federal Government has expanded its role in both 

managing populations and dictating how States should manage populations. Not 

only do States fund much of their conservation and management programs through 

local excise taxes, but they also have more on-the-ground expertise about local populations. Therefore, States should have a significant role in working with the Federal 

Government and the private sector to ensure the most sensible fish and wildlife 

management programs are adopted and implemented. 

In Oklahoma, we have worked together with local landowners, businesses, and 

State agencies to develop a plan for the conservation of the lesser prairie-chicken. 

The Five State Plan has worked. In fact, estimates show that population numbers 

for the lesser prairie-chicken climbed by almost 25 percent between 2014 and 2015. 

This is just one of many examples of the strength and success of State management 

plans, when given the opportunity to thrive. 

This hearing today explores the need to re-balance the relationship between Federal and State governments. More directly, States must have more control over their 

fish and wildlife populations. I thank Senator Sullivan for holding this hearing 

today, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Regan, I have a couple of questions. In 2014, the Senate and 

Congressional Western Caucus released a report entitled Washington Gets It Wrong and the States Get It Right, a report on State 

environmental stewardship. It runs through what happens nationally as well as what is happening locally and how we think the 

States continue to do a much better job than Washington. 

It highlights the significant boots on the ground in terms of biologists, scientists and States in the West like Wyoming. We have 

nearly 300 people in Wyoming, biologists, scientists and support 

staff at the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. They live and 

work in Wyoming, not in Washington. They live where the species 

live. 
67 

There are people in my State who have pledged to protect our 

species, including the gray wolf population. I think these dedicated 

men and women should be the ones we should be entrusting to protect Wyoming’s wildlife. Can you give me your thoughts on that? 

Mr. REGAN. Certainly, Senator. We certainly agree that State 

fish and wildlife agency managers are on the front lines of enforcement and delivering fish and wildlife conservation in this country. 

That is what the Association is all about, trying to make sure no 

harm is done to that principle, that delivery and that conservation 

effectiveness for the future. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Barry, your organization says in your 

wolf plan entitled Places for Wolves, A Blueprint for Continued 

Wolf Restoration and Recovery in the Lower 48—you say, ‘‘No matter how ideal the habitat, however, it is ultimately up to the people 

to determine if wolves will be allowed to survive in any given area.’’ 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said that the gray wolf 

is recovered and that the agency has approved the plan the State 

of Wyoming has put together to ensure the protection of Wyoming’s 

wolves. If it is up to the people to protect the wolves, I wonder why 

won’t outside activist groups, like your organization, not allow the 

people of Wyoming to protect our wolves if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves the management plan and the science says 

the gray wolf is recovered. 

Mr. BARRY. Senator, a district court judge disagreed that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service had appropriately made the right decision. 

Senator BARRASSO. The district court judge was not in Wyoming 

and does not really know Wyoming, does not have an ability to understand the situation, and did not study it. 

Mr. BARRY. I am just saying that a Federal judge, when given 

a chance to review the record, concluded the Fish and Wildlife 

Service inappropriately delisted the wolf. 

Senator BARRASSO. What was the scientific basis for that, do you 

know? 

Mr. BARRY. I could not tell you off the top of my head. I have 

not seen the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. You are not familiar with the specifics of the 

case? 

Mr. BARRY. Not the specifics. 

Senator BARRASSO. And probably would be happy with that. 

Mr. Lang, you shared many of the same concerns that Mr. Regan 

raised in his testimony. In Alaska and across the West, the Federal 

Government is increasingly requiring the public and the States to 

take a hands-off approach to public lands. This means the public 

and the States have less interaction and access to public lands. 

Would you agree that ultimately this hands-off approach to wildlife and public land management could be detrimental to conservation of the very species we all work to preserve if Washington bureaucrats on the other side of the country are calling all the shots? 

Mr. LANG. The State conservation model is built on the use or 

pay system. The further you separate those users from the benefits 

they will gain from those systems, the less they will be willing to 

pay and over the long term pay for the management and conserva-
68 

tion of those resources. That model is the Pittman-Robertson Fund 

and the Dingell-Johnson Fund. 

You have to provide benefits off refuges and parklands across our 

Nation. If you do not, they will become areas that are not of concern to people, and the people will not be willing to pay for the long 

term protection and conservation of those areas. 

Hunters are some of the largest payers for conservation in our 

Nation. You cannot exclude people from the management of resources. I guess that is the bottom line. Increasingly, as I am seeing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management model, it views 

people as a threat, not as an integral part and not something you 

need to provide benefits for. 

In my State, if you are living a rural lifestyle far away and you 

are dependent upon local resources for your food, you cannot just 

let nature’s cycles going up and down provide for that. You cannot 

have a decade where there is no moose near your village. You have 

to manage for sustained moose populations. 

In the example I gave, caribou blinking out on Unimak Island is 

not good for hunters there, not good for subsistence users to allow 

them to someday, some century from now, swim back out to that 

island and reestablish the caribou population. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

I have a couple follow up questions. My colleague, Senator 

Whitehouse, mentioned the tradition in the Senate that when we 

have an issue here, actually the proposed Fish and Wildlife Service 

rule that came out on January 8 was solely focused on Alaska. 

In the hearing where we had an amendment to cancel out that 

rule, I specifically asked members of this committee, by using the 

example of if there was a Federal rule dealing with the California 

movie industry only or the Maryland crab industry only, or the 

Delaware chemical industry only, I certainly would help my colleagues on the committee. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service dealt with an Alaska fish and 

game management issue only. I would agree with Senator 

Whitehouse’s comment about the Senate colleagues rallying around 

each other when there is a Federal action specific only to your 

State. Unfortunately, in our last hearing, that did not happen, 

which is one of the reasons we wanted to hold this hearing but to 

talk about the broader issue. 

Focusing on that regulation, Mr. Lang, in your testimony you 

talked about the proposed January 8 Fish and Wildlife Service rule 

that would allow the Federal Government to preempt State hunting regulations based on their personal ethics or personal preference. Can you explain that a bit more? Can you give an example 

of what you were talking about? 

Mr. LANG. Let’s look at the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. That 

refuge was originally established as a moose range before it was established as a national wildlife refuge. It was a Presidential executive order that said you have to maintain a significant population 

of moose on that former moose range, now a refuge. 

Under the natural diversity guidelines, the State of Alaska is 

now being told that we have to let moose cycle in their natural cy-
69 

cles on that range. We can no longer manage them to provide for 

the long term benefits that have been provided, including subsistence. 

We could see moose numbers go incredibly low, low enough that 

there is no harvestable surplus for hunters or very high where they 

could actually damage the refuge and the food base they need to 

stay sustainable. 

As the State of Alaska, we want to actively manage the moose 

population to provide for human benefits, including subsistence use 

and a harvestable surplus. We do not want that population to widely fluctuate. 

In working with the Service, we are growing increasingly frustrated with the inability to manage fire, which is a habitat component; manage the predator numbers which are incredibly important 

in terms of how they affect moose numbers; and it is all driven 

around these natural diversity guidelines where human interference on the national wildlife refuge system is increasingly disallowed versus the State’s approach to actively manage to provide 

for long term sustained yields and benefits. 

Senator SULLIVAN. What do you mean by personal preference or 

personal ethics when you talked about that as part of the rule? 

Mr. LANG. Let us again go the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that baiting brown 

bears is not an ethical practice for the taking of brown bears. 

Even though it is not affecting the long term conservation of 

brown bears on the refuge, they determined that no longer can 

hunters practice the tradition which we have done for years on the 

refuge of taking brown bears over bait near the refuge. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Is there a law that outlaws that? 

Mr. LANG. They have administratively banned it. They are banning it through these kinds of administrative regulations you are 

seeing here. 

The State of Alaska largely adopted that bear baiting practice to 

soften some of the interactions we were having with local communities that were having increased problems with human-bear interactions. We were seeing increased numbers of maulings and a variety of other things. 

Interestingly enough, when the Service banned the taking of 

brown bears over bait, they allowed the continued practice of taking black bears over bait. It is very confusing as to why the taking 

of brown bears over bait would be disallowed but the taking of 

black bears would continue to be allowed. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Does the Fish and Wildlife Service employ 

predator control activities, even though they have prohibited the 

State of Alaska to use predator management activities? 

Mr. LANG. That is an interesting observation because when I was 

director one of the things we worked on closely with the Service 

was to ensure that pigeon guillemots, a sea bird that occurs in 

Prince William Sound, did not become extirpated from an island in 

Prince William Sound. 

Very similar to Unimak Island where we have a caribou population at risk of extinction from that island because of wolf predation, here we are not going to lose caribou overall in the Aleutians, 

it is a very small area where we will lose them and we want to 
70 

take active steps and Prince William Sound is very similar with pigeon guillemots. They are going to potentially be extirpated from 

an island because of mink predation. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service came to us and asked for a permit 

to exterminate these mink from this island to allow for the restoration and prevent the extirpation of these pigeon guillemots from 

the island. We worked very closely with them and gave them the 

permit to do that. 

We are very confused why we cannot take any steps to actively 

manage on Unimak Island to prevent the extirpation of the caribou 

herd, but yet the Service can go in and actively manage State mink 

which are indigenous to that island from potentially harming and 

causing the extirpation of pigeon guillemots from an island. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me step back a bit more with regard to 

the proposed Fish and Wildlife rule that has been the source of a 

lot of concern in Alaska and I think even nationally. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service claimed that the proposed rules 

will not affect title 8 of ANILCA, the federally defined subsistence 

users category. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. LANG. No, I do not because again it is the passive management approach that we are increasingly moving to. As I said earlier, if you are living a rural lifestyle in Alaska, you need a steady 

source of food. You do not need a food source that is going to fluctuate widely with cycles of nature. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Can you explain that? Honestly, I do not 

think most people in Washington, DC, at a hearing like this understand what subsistence actually means. If someone does not have 

the right to subsist with regard to fishing or hunting, what possibly 

happens to them in the winter? Do they have a store down the 

street to go to and fill up their freezer? 

Mr. LANG. The thing I like to say is when you are in Alaska, 

there is not a road running to your place. Every place in the lower 

48, almost every community has a road going to it. You can drive 

to a store to get something. 

Now picture yourself in Alaska. Oftentimes you are 3 hours by 

plane to get to the nearest grocery store or anything else. In the 

wintertime, there is no guarantee you will get there. You rely on 

food sources for your very subsistence, for you and your family’s 

subsistence. 

How would you like to be told that we are not going to guarantee 

that subsistence is going to be there for you because we are not 

going to actively manage for it? We are not going to allow you to 

control the number of wolves or bears near your area. Instead, we 

are going to allow moose numbers way down to insufficient numbers to provide food for you and your family. You are going to 

starve. 

It is not a matter of going to a grocery store as an alternative 

food source. It is a matter of social justice. You have to be able to 

eat. That is the food that you have, living off the land. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I appreciate that. I think that is why these 

hearings are important because I do not think those kinds of issues 

come up in other States all the time. Maybe they do in some 

States, but I do not think they do in a lot of States. 
71 

I think that kind of testimony is powerful. It also helps us understand some of the issue at play here. 

Mr. Barry, this goes to the issue of working with the States and 

other organizations. The National Park Service and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service have proposed a number of regs over the course of 

the last several years. Has your organization been provided an opportunity to input or review the draft documents of these regs or 

EAs that have come from some of these Federal agencies? 

Mr. BARRY. I certainly have not personally. I have no idea if anyone on my staff has. I am not aware of our being given any advance copies to take a look at or to critique. 

Senator SULLIVAN. One of the things that has been an enormous 

source of frustration which I think goes to the federalism issues, 

the broader topic of today’s hearing, is there have been a number 

of occasions where the Department of Interior and different Federal 

agencies announced proposed rules that clearly impact States. 

The States are literally the last to know. Some outside environmental groups that clearly get heads up from our Federal agencies 

get a chance to discuss them with Federal officials, have press releases that go out as soon as the Federal Government makes these 

announcements. 

The States which are often, in statute, required to be consulted 

and have input, the No. 1 priority organization, we get told last. 

I think it is an enormous frustration and something I have raised 

with different officials including Secretary Jewell. It is an issue I 

think we need to continue to work on. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is how important the States are 

in terms of their relationship with the Federal Government in 

terms of management but also in terms of what the Federal statutes require the Federal agencies to do in terms of State input. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have two observations in closing. One is in sympathy with Senator Rounds and the elk having to rot where they are shot. 

On the fisheries side, we have, as you know, situations in which 

our fishermen are allowed to go out and troll for fish. When the net 

comes in, there are fish that have been caught, and if you have 

ever been out, being at the back after a long troll is not a good situation for a fish. 

When they come out of the troll, they are not doing well, yet the 

fishermen are not allowed to keep certain of them because they are 

not permitted for it so they have to go over the side. Some of them 

are really beautiful and are not going to survive. It is a shame. It 

is a waste. 

We have tried to work through programs so they can be taken, 

frozen and given to people in need of food and so forth, but it is 

a constant challenge. I think it is a place where we can and should 

do better. 

The second point I wanted to make is I want to push back a little 

on a theme that has begun to emerge in this hearing that it is always the local community that is the best determinant of the conservation interest. I think that is probably usually true, but if you 

think back to the era of Teddy Roosevelt, he faced situations in 

which enormous natural bounty in our country was being despoiled 
72 

and ruined because the mining interests, the timber interests, the 

wholesale hunting interests had gotten control of State legislatures. 

They were essentially ransacking and plundering the West. It took 

TR to step in and protect those resources which we still enjoy 

today. 

That will not be the case every time, but neither is it the case 

every time that the Federal Government has no proper role. In 

fact, one of the better biographies of Teddy Roosevelt described him 

as the wilderness warrior because he fought to preserve these 

areas of wilderness. 

I think we need to look toward balance between the Federal interests and the State interests. We need to pay particular attention 

to the State interests where there is an appearance that there is 

political control being abused, and I think we need to pay very 

close attention to people whose lives depend on these resources in 

remote areas with which many of us are not familiar. 

I think if we can stay within those principles, we can find a lot 

of common ground. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I thank the Ranking Member for those comments. I would agree wholeheartedly with those. 

Let me finish by relating to that. Mr. Lang, Mr. Barry described 

some of the refuges as game factories for sport hunters early in his 

testimony. For example, when you were the head of fish and game 

in Alaska, is that how you managed Federal lands as game factories for sport hunters? 

Mr. LANG. No, I do not think we managed them as game refuges 

at all. I think we managed them for multiple use benefits. We certainly did manage them for human benefit. We did not manage 

them just for nature’s benefit. They were not managed solely as 

game factories. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Regan, I mentioned the rule, and it has 

been a focus of mine for obvious reasons given the State and the 

people I represent. The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed rule was 

the subject of an amendment in this committee a couple of weeks 

ago. 

As I mentioned, it is specific to Alaska. Given the breadth of your 

organization and who you represent, should other States be concerned by this kind of specific rule focused on one State from the 

Federal Government in terms of game management? If so, why? 

Mr. REGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Clearly that is why the Association is involved. We are concerned that if this policy guidance on 

biodiversity is elevated to being a regulation for refuges in Alaska, 

that is going to create a new standard, if you will, for judicial engagement and we could potentially see the export of that rule from 

Alaska to other national wildlife refuges in the lower 48. 

To the extent that would perpetuate or continue to comprise 

State authority, that is the real nexus for our engagement with the 

issue right now. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask more specifically, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act assigns the Secretary 

14 responsibilities when administering the refuge system. The rule 

we are talking about with regard to Alaska, the Secretary clearly 

seems to be prioritizing one of these responsibilities in defining it 

in a regulation. 
73 

Do you think that is appropriate? Does that have an impact beyond Alaska alone from your organization’s perspective? 

Mr. REGAN. Mr. Chairman, we do not think it is needful. We do 

not think it is appropriate. We think it could impact other States 

beyond Alaska. 

Senator SULLIVAN. For the same reason you mentioned in your 

earlier answer? 

Mr. REGAN. That is correct. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

I want to thank the witnesses. You have been very patient. I 

want to thank you all for your service over the years. I know many 

of you have engaged and participated in public service in different 

capacities. 

I think this was a very useful hearing. There was a lot of substance and a lot of potential common ground on some of these 

issues. Thank you for coming, taking the time to testify and enlightening the committee on a number of the important issues. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
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 

Æ