U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

68-266 PDF 2012

H.R.l, ‘‘CABIN FEE ACT OF 2011’’; H.R. 2834, 

‘‘RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING 

HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES ACT’’; & 

H.R. 1444, TO REQUIRE HUNTING ACTIVITIES BE A LAND USE IN ALL MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR FEDERAL LAND 

UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE 

WITH THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE 

FEDERAL LAND IS MANAGED 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Friday, September 9, 2011 

Serial No. 112-57 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

David Rivera, FL 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

John Garamendi, CA 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, September 9, 2011 .......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Broun, Hon. Paul C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Georgia ........................................................................................................... 1 

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

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Oral statement of ....................................................................... 24 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bailey, Pete, Former Director, National Forest Homeowners and the C2 

Coalition ......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement on Draft Bill ............................................................ 15 

Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1444 ........................................................... 7 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2834 ........................................................... 9 

Prepared statement on Draft Bill ............................................................ 11 

Horn, William P., Director of Federal Affairs, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance .. 31 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2834 ........................................................... 32 

Ratcliffe, Bob, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and 

Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the 

Interior ........................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2834 and H.R. 1444 ................................. 27 

Recce, Susan, Director, Conservation, Wildlife, and Natural Resources, 

National Rifle Association ............................................................................ 39 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2834 ........................................................... 40 

Simpson, Melissa, Director of Government Affairs, Safari Club 

International ................................................................................................. 35 

Prepared statement on Draft Bill and H.R. 1444 .................................. 36 

‘‘List of Anti-hunting Regulatory and Administrative Actions over 

the last 12 months’’ ............................................................................... 37 

Additional materials supplied: 

Wilderness Society, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 2834 ............. 52 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON DRAFT BILL H.R. l, TO 

MODIFY THE FOREST SERVICE RECREATION RESIDENCE PROGRAM BY IMPLEMENTING A SIMPLE, 

EQUITABLE, AND PREDICTABLE PROCEDURE FOR 

DETERMINING CABIN USER FEES, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES. ‘‘CABIN FEE ACT OF 2011’’; H.R. 2834, TO 

RECOGNIZE THE HERITAGE OF RECREATIONAL 

FISHING, HUNTING, AND SHOOTING ON FEDERAL 

PUBLIC LANDS AND ENSURE CONTINUED OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE ACTIVITIES. ‘‘RECREATIONAL 

FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES ACT’’; & H.R. 1444, TO REQUIRE THAT HUNTING 

ACTIVITIES BE A LAND USE IN ALL MANAGEMENT 

PLANS FOR FEDERAL LAND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR THE 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO THE EXTENT 

THAT SUCH USE IS NOT CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE 

WITH THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL 

LAND IS MANAGED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

Friday, September 9, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Paul C. 

Broun [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Broun, Hastings, McClintock, Benishek, 

Grijalva and Costa. 

Mr. BROUN. The hearing will come to order. The Subcommittee 

on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is meeting today to 

hear testimony on three bills that fall within our jurisdiction. 

Under the rules opening statements are limited to the Chairman 

and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent to 

include any other Members’ opening statements in the hearing 

record if submitted to the Clerk by close of business today. Hearing 

no objections, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL C. BROUN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BROUN. I want to thank our colleagues and the other witnesses who have agreed to testify today. On the agenda are three 

bills designed to promote and protect wholesome outdoor family 

recreation on public lands. 

Our first bill is the Cabin Fee Act of 2011. This is an urgently 

needed bill to save the popular, nearly century-old program under 

which 14,000 American families have been able to build cabins for 

non-commercial family use in our national forests. Our second and 

2 

third bills, H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834, are needed to provide clear 

and specific statutory language that will protect sportsmen, fish 

and wildlife agencies, Federal land managing agencies, and the 

taxpayers from lawsuits and administrative gridlock. 

Congress has spoken many times on the issue of hunting on our 

multiple-use public lands, and has come down on the side of allowing sporting activities to take place under state laws. Despite what 

I think is clear Congressional intent, some zealous, but I believe 

very misguided, groups have continued to mount challenges to 

hunting by seeking to exploit any ambiguity in the laws to tie up 

the agencies in administrative delays or to try to find an anti-hunting judge. 

It is past time for Congress to settle the issue once and for all, 

and I am proud to be the author of one of the bills that we will 

take up today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Paul C. Broun, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Georgia, on H.R. 1444 

I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop for allowing this 

hearing today on H.R. 1444, a bill I introduced that would require that hunting activities be considered as a land use in all management plans for federal land, to the 

extent that it is not clearly incompatible with the purposes for which the federal 

land is managed. 

I am an avid hunter and outdoorsman. In fact, I am life member #17 of Safari 

Club International and began coming to D.C. as a volunteer advocate for them. I 

am also proud to call myself a life member of The National Rifle Association. These 

are just a few of the numerous sporting associations of which I am a Life Member. 

In fact, a full-body-mounted African lion and Kodiak bear are just a few of my 

prized trophies that visitors see when they come to my Washington office. 

Hunting is already permitted on most Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service lands. It has provided a positive force in habitat conservation, 

support for wildlife restoration, and contributed billions of dollars in benefits to 

state and regional economies throughout the nation. 

I look forward to finding ways to expand hunting on our vast federal lands, and 

I believe that H.R. 1444 can play an important role in achieving that goal. 

Mr. BROUN. I will now turn to the Ranking Member for his opening remarks. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with your indulgence, the Full Committee Chairman has a comment and I would 

defer my time at this point, then pick it up after. Sir. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. I now recognize the Full 

Committee Chairman, Doc Hastings. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the Ranking Member, I hope that is the pattern. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you again for holding this hearing on today’s bills, including the Cabin Fee Act legislation. The goal of this 

bill is to create a simple, straightforward, and predictable fee 

schedule for the cabin owners nationwide as well as taxpayers and 

the Forest Service. It will replace the current complex and unfair 

payment system by assigning the cabins to tiers based on 

appraised value. The fees would rise with inflation but would 

3 

otherwise remain fixed so families would no longer face sudden unexpected jumps to unaffordable levels. 

Last year a similar measure I introduced passed the House Natural Resources Committee, but due to the expiration of time in the 

last Congress was not considered on the House Floor. This year’s 

legislation improved upon last year’s bills in two significant ways. 

First, it modifies the fee schedule to include additional tiers that 

will keep the fees reasonable while also ensuring sufficient revenue 

to implement the program. Our Congressional Budget Office has 

yet to provide its score for the bill, and turmoil in the real estate 

market has created uncertainties in the data used to score it. I remain optimistic that the bill will be revenue neutral with the new 

fee schedule. 

Second, this bill expands the coverage to include private cabins 

located in all national forests, not just those derived from public 

lands. Many private cabins on Forest Service lands are simple, rustic structures hand-built by the grandparents or relatives of the 

current owners early in the last century, and passed down from 

generation to generation. The overwhelming majority of these 

cabins are modest family retreats. During these tight economic 

times, the intent of this bill is to keep the fees affordable for people 

such as teachers, factory workers, and retirees and not just millionaires, which is what will happen if we don’t address the problem 

now. 

The current system has resulted in unrealistic arbitrary fee hikes 

that are completely unaffordable for average families. For example, 

last year the Seattle Times reported that Lake Wenatchee cabin 

owners—Lake Wenatchee is in my district—received notice that 

their fees would increase by more than 1,000 percent, from $1,400 

to $17,000 a year. Skyrocketing fees almost make these part-time 

homes unmarketable, leaving families who are unable to pay the 

high fees also unable to sell their cabins. 

Having family-owned cabins encourages wholesome outdoor 

recreation which is an important use of our vast public land system, and I think that is particularly so when so many of us today 

are increasingly distracted by all the electronic products that are 

on the markets. By encouraging a broad and diverse range of activities in our national forests, we foster the kind of sound stewardship that allows us to more fully obtain the many benefits that 

these lands can contribute. 

So, thank you again Mr. Chairman for the courtesy of allowing 

me to be here, and thank you for scheduling this hearing. I look 

forward to hearing from the witnesses on this bill today. I yield 

back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on 

Natural Resources, on H.R. __, The Cabin Fee Act of 2011 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on today’s bills, including the 

Cabin Fee Act legislation. 

The goal of this bill is to create a simple, straightforward and predictable fee 

schedule that benefits cabin owners nationwide, as well as taxpayers and the Forest 

Service. It would replace the current complex and unfair payment system by assigning cabins to tiers based on appraised value. 

The fees would rise with inflation, but would otherwise remain fixed so families 

would no longer face sudden, unexpected jumps to unaffordable levels. 

4 

Last year, a similar measure I introduced passed the House Natural Resources 

Committee, but due to expiration of time of the last Congress, was not considered 

on the House floor. 

This year’s legislation improves upon last year’s bill in two significant ways. 

First, it modifies the fee schedule to include additional tiers that will keep the 

fees reasonable while also ensuring sufficient revenue to implement the program. 

While the Congressional Budget Office has not yet provided its score for the bill, 

and turmoil in the real estate market has created uncertainties in the data used 

to score it, I remain optimistic the bill will be ‘‘revenue neutral’’ with the new fee 

schedule. 

Second, this bill text expands coverage to include private cabins located in all National Forests, not just those derived from public lands. 

Many private cabins on Forest Service land are simple, rustic structures handbuilt by the grandparents or relatives of the current owners early in the last century 

and passed down from generation to generation. The overwhelming majority of these 

cabins are modest family retreats. 

During these tight economic times, the intent of this bill is to keep the fees affordable for people such as teachers, factory workers and retirees, not just millionaires— 

which is what will happen if we don’t address the problem now. 

The current system has resulted in unrealistic, arbitrary fee hikes that are completely unaffordable for average families. For example, last year, the Seattle Times 

reported that Lake Wenatchee cabin owners received notice that their fees would 

increase more than one thousand percent, from $1,400 to more than $17,000 this 

year. 

Skyrocketing fees also make these part-time homes unmarketable, leaving families who are unable to pay the high fees, also unable to sell their cabins. 

Having family-owned cabins encourages wholesome outdoor recreation which is an 

important use of our vast system of public lands—particularly today when many 

youth are increasingly distracted by Ipods, video games and computer screens. 

By encouraging a broad and diverse range of activities in our National Forests, 

we foster the kind of sound stewardship that allows us more fully to obtain the 

many benefits these lands can contribute. 

Thank you, again, for scheduling this hearing and I look forward to hearing from 

the witnesses. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your statement. It is a good bill, and I hope we can see Congress pass it because we need to protect the ability to do that. 

I now recognize Mr. Grijalva for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as Chairman of 

this Subcommittee in the last Congress, I was pleased to hold hearing on the Chairman’s Cabin Fee legislation, and to work with him 

to get the bill favorably reported from this Committee. I share the 

Chairman’s concern regarding the proposed fee increases and look 

forward to continuing to work cooperatively on a solution that 

might mitigate those increases without negatively impacting the 

Federal budget. 

Regarding the other two measures on today’s agenda, hunting, 

fishing, trapping and other recreational activities that depend on 

robust wildlife populations that have flourished on Federal lands 

mostly because Congress has stayed out of the way. Most Federal 

land is open to hunting and fishing and Federal regulation is minimal with states managing most of the aspects of these activities. 

As a result, hunting and fishing are enormously popular on Federal 

land and support a multi-million dollar industry, employing tens of 

thousands of people in outfitting, guiding, and equipment manufacturing. 

5 

An example, roughly eight percent of the visitors to national forests between 2005 and 2009 listed hunting as their primary activity. That is more than 13 million people in each of those years. 

If the threat to these exist, it is not from biased Federal land 

managers or animal rights activists, the real threat to hunting and 

fishing and other wildlife-dependent activities comes from Congress 

in the form of misguided budget priorities and shortsighted land 

management policies that could destroy habitat and reduce wildlife 

populations. 

On the funding front, proposals to slash budgets for Federal land 

management agencies threaten efforts to address backlogs of maintenance on roads, trails, campgrounds, and other facilities used by 

hunters, anglers, and other visitors. Proposals to virtually eliminate funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund would destroy plans to acquire and preserve valuable habitat. 

As urban development swallows more and more open space, 

defunding the land and water conservation fund, as Republicans in 

Congress have proposed to do, would deprive the Federal Government of the one tool we could use to preserve opportunities for 

hunting and fishing. 

On the policy front, attacks on the National Environmental Policy Act, along with attempts to weaken management of wilderness, 

threaten to further limit opportunities to hunt. NEPA provides a 

tool for assessing the potential impacts of Federal land management decisions, including potential impacts on hunting, fishing, 

and other recreational activities. Truncating or abandoning the 

NEPA process to allow unrestricted energy development, for example, makes it more likely that harmful impacts, including those to 

hunting and fishing, will not be considered or even evaluated. 

Finally, attacks on wilderness are attacks on hunting. If all areas 

of Federal land are open to roads, off-road vehicles, oil and gas production, and timber cutting, there will be nowhere left for wildlife 

populations to flourish, as a result nowhere left to hunt. 

Despite the critical role wilderness plays in supporting wildlife 

populations, less than three percent of the continental United 

States is designated wilderness and opportunities to preserve new 

wilderness grow more scarce by the day. Congress is already failing 

to adequately manage and invest in wildlife populations on Federal 

land. The two bills before us today claim to be pro-hunting and 

fishing, but contain provisions that would only make a bad situation worse. Further attacks on NEPA, on wilderness, and on funding for land acquisitions are not the answer. 

We appreciate the witnesses being here today and we look forward to their thoughts on these proposals and the legislation before 

us. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́l Grijalva, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Mr. Chairman, in 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools Act to provide 

rural counties with a stable source of funding for schools and roads. This stable 

funding provided the certainty these communities needed to make important investments in transportation and education. 

Unfortunately, the 109th Congress, under Republican leadership, allowed the program to expire. 

6 

It took a new Democratic majority to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools program in the 110th Congress by pursuing legislation that was measured and bipartisan. 

I am concerned that history is about to repeat itself. The Discussion Draft that 

is the subject of today’s hearing is not measured, it is not bipartisan and it represents a significant step back toward the old days when funding for local school 

kids was directly tied to cutting down our forests. 

This approach will not work, but more important, it will not gain enough support 

to pass and thus it will not lead to the continuation of the program. We stand ready 

to work with the Majority on a more effective proposal. 

The second bill, H.R. 2852, would require the American people to give away 24 

million acres of the public land that they own to State governments. The bill is apparently based on the allegation that federal land ownership harms states and localities. 

This claim overlooks the wide variety of federal programs which provide direct 

revenue to states—including Payment In Lieu of Taxes, IMPACT Aid, Secure Rural 

Schools and many others. 

Further, this claim ignores the significant indirect benefits to states from federal 

lands, such as travel and tourism dollars and the role these lands play in improving 

the quality of life and standard of living in communities across the West. 

Our public lands are the backbone of the outdoor recreation economy, which generates over $730 billion in economic activity, 6.5 million jobs, and $88 billion in annual state and federal tax revenue. 

Funding for public schools is a complicated and difficult problem facing communities across the country. H.R. 2852 is not an appropriate or workable solution to 

these challenges. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today and look forward to their thoughts on 

these proposals. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you. Our witnesses today on the Cabin Fee 

Act are Joel Holtrop, Chief Deputy of the Forest Service and Peter 

Bailey of the National Forest Homeowners Association. Gentlemen, 

please take your seats and do it quickly. We are really tight on 

time. We are going to have votes scheduled at 10:35 to 10:50 a.m., 

somewhere in that neighborhood, so if you would please observe 

our five-minute rule. I appreciate you all being here, and Mr. 

Holtrop, we will begin with you. You are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. And just for clarification, would you 

like my oral statement on all three bills at this time? 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, that would be fine. Great, go ahead, please, sir. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide 

the Department of Agriculture’s views on three bills. I would like 

to start my testimony with the Cabin Fee Act of 2011. 

As we have previously testified, the Department appreciates the 

over 14,000 cabin owners across the country and the recreational 

experiences they enjoy on National Forest System lands. While the 

Department does not support the legislation as currently written, 

we would like to work with the Committee to address areas of concern identified in the written testimony in order to capture the advantages that are incorporated in this legislation. 

The Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, or CUFFA, was the 

latest attempt passed by Congress to achieve an equitable fee for 

the use of National Forest System land. As cabin owners received 

7 

notice of the new fees, some experienced dramatic increases 

because the old fees were based on appraisals completed 10 to 30 

years in the past. Many of the proposed fees in this new legislation 

would be less than those under the current law, which results in 

fees being below market value for many of the lots. 

This bill would create nine payment tiers or categories and provides for an additional payment on the sale or transfer of the cabin. 

We do not agree with the concept of the transfer fee as it would 

inappropriately involve the Department in the disposition of the 

structures themselves. We do agree with the concept of the payment tiers. However, we recommend that the fees be based on market value. 

Fees below market value can lead to windfall profits as recognized by the market when cabins are sold as the sale prices will 

reflect the value of the locations as much or more than the value 

of the cabins, especially at the higher end values. 

The Department understands the financial burdens that some 

cabin owners may face as a result of CUFFA, and we welcome the 

opportunity to work with Congress to create a bill that takes into 

account the needs of cabin owners, other National Forest System 

users, the American taxpayers, and that can be administered efficiently. 

Regarding H.R. 1444 and 2834, I would like to emphasize that 

the Forest Service has been a very strong supporter of hunting and 

fishing on the national forests and grasslands since the agency was 

created in 1905. It has been, and continues to be, a large part of 

our heritage. The Forest Service supports these activities by providing opportunities to enjoy hunting and fishing on the National 

Forest System lands throughout the country. Furthermore, the 

America’s Great Outdoors Initiative supports these same activities 

by reconnecting Americans to our nation’s land, water, and wildlife. 

However, the Department does not support these bills. The intent is already achieved through existing laws and agency policy. 

An enactment would neither enhance nor improve existing hunting 

or fishing opportunities on our national forests and grasslands. 

Particularly regarding H.R. 2834, we are additionally concerned 

that certain provisions in the legislation would be in conflict with 

existing statutes and agency policy, establish unnecessary analysis 

and reporting requirements, require consultation with executive 

order advisory councils that already occurs, and establish administratively costly annual Congressional notification processes. And finally, this bill contains provisions that would seriously undermine 

the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

This concludes my statement and I will answer any questions 

that you have. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Holtrop follows:] 

Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1444, a bill ‘‘To 

require that hunting activities be a land use in all management plans for 

Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the 

Secretary of Agriculture to the extent that such use is not clearly 

incompatible with the purposes for which the Federal land is managed, 

and for other purposes’’. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Joel Holtrop, Deputy 

Chief for the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

8 

you to provide the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service on H.R. 1444. 

First, I would like to emphasize that the Forest Service has been a very strong 

supporter of hunting and fishing on the nation’s National Forests and Grasslands 

since the agency was created in 1905. The Forest Service supports these activities 

by providing opportunities to enjoy hunting and fishing over much of the National 

Forest System (NFS) land throughout the country. Furthermore, The America’s 

Great Outdoors Initiative (AGO), established by President Obama in 2010, supports 

these same activities by reconnecting Americans to our nation’s land, water and 

wildlife. We very much appreciate the outstanding contributions we receive from our 

partners, including States and hunting and fishing organizations that support the 

conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats on our federal public lands. 

Their steadfast support through partnership projects and volunteer work on federal 

public lands, as well as, their willingness to support state management of fish and 

wildlife though fishing and hunting fees are widely recognized as a significant factor 

in the success of fish and wildlife management in North America. 

H.R. 1444 is intended to ensure continued hunting and fishing opportunities on 

federal public lands, including the 193 million acres of NFS lands on 155 National 

Forests and 20 Grasslands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Specifically, as 

it pertains to the Forest Service, H.R. 1444 would require the agency, when developing or approving a management plan or an amendment to a management plan, 

to ensure that hunting activities are allowed as a use of NFS lands to the extent 

that such use is not clearly incompatible with the purposes for which the Federal 

land is managed. In addition, the legislation would provide that fees charged related 

to hunting activities on NFS land are to be retained to offset costs directly related 

to management of hunting on NFS land and that the fees are to be limited to what 

the Secretary reasonably estimates to be necessary to offset costs directly related 

to management of hunting on the NFS land upon which hunting activities related 

to the fee are conducted. 

The Department does not support this legislation which is unnecessary and would 

not enhance or improve existing hunting and fishing on National Forests and Grasslands. 

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act is an important statute that guides management of our NFS lands. Hunting and fishing activities are very important components of the Forest Service multiple-use mission. Although many other recreational 

activities are also popular on our National Forests and Grasslands, hunting and 

fishing remain very important to thousands of the Nation’s sportsman and sportswomen. The latest National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data collected over the 

past 10 years shows that on an annual basis more than 13,022,068 visitors to NFS 

land participated in hunting as their main activity, and another 14,050.126 visitors 

fished as their main activity. This use represents 7.6% and 8.2% (respectively) of 

all annual recreation visitations to all NFS land. 

Much of the NFS land has been, and continues to be, open to hunting and fishing. 

However, Forest Service officials may authorize very localized closures on NFS 

lands under special circumstances, usually to protect public health and safety, such 

as areas in the vicinity of buildings and campgrounds. For example, shooting is prohibited in areas near residences, buildings and campgrounds. 

As part of the land management planning process, the Forest Service analyzes opportunities for hunting and fishing as recreational activities. Within the planning 

process, the decision to allow or limit various recreation activities is complex. Conflicts between user groups can be a legitimate reason to limit or allow various recreation activities. In the rare instances where hunting or fishing is restricted, the rationale for such a decision is clearly described. 

Section 1(c)(2)(B) of H.R. 1444 provides that ’’ a fee charged by any entity related 

to hunting activities on Federal land that is in excess of that needed to recoup costs 

of management of the Federal land shall be deemed to be a restriction on hunting.’’ 

Additionally, section 1(d) of the bill would authorize the Forest Service to retain fees 

for hunting activities on NFS lands to offset the costs of managing hunting on NFS 

lands and would limit the amount of fees that may be collected by the Forest Service. The Forest Service does not charge fees to hunt or fish on NFS lands. Fees are 

charged by States and by outfitter and guides, neither of which is collected by the 

Forest Service. 

In summary, the Forest Service has a long history and active policy and practice 

of strongly supporting hunting and fishing opportunities on the public’s National 

Forests and Grasslands. Much of the NFS lands are available for these recreational 

activities. The intent of this bill is already achieved through existing laws and agency policy, and enactment would neither enhance nor improve existing hunting or 

fishing opportunities on our National Forests and Grasslands. 

9 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee this concludes my testimony. 

I will be happy to answer any of your questions. 

Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2834, to recognize the heritage of recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting on federal 

public lands and ensure continued opportunities for these activities. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Joel Holtrop, Deputy 

Chief for the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you to provide the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service on H.R. 2834. 

First, I would like to emphasize that the Forest Service has been a very strong 

supporter of fishing, hunting and shooting activities on National Forests and Grasslands since the agency was created in 1905. Not only does the Forest Service support these activities, the Forest Service provides opportunities to enjoy hunting and 

fishing and recreational shooting over much of the NFS land throughout the country. 

H.R. 2834 is intended to ensure continued recreational fishing, hunting and 

shooting opportunities on federal public lands, including the 193 million acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands on the 155 National Forests and 20 Grasslands 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The Department opposes H.R. 2834 which 

is unnecessary and would not enhance or improve existing fishing, hunting and 

shooting opportunities on National Forests and Grasslands. Additionally, we are 

concerned that certain provisions in the legislation would be in conflict with existing 

statutes and agency policy, establish unnecessary analysis and reporting requirements, require consultation with Executive Order advisory councils that already 

occur, and establish annual Congressional notification and approval processes for 

closures of National Forests and Grasslands determined by local land managers to 

be necessary to protect public health and safety. And finally, this act contains provisions that would undermine the Wilderness Act of 1964. H.R. 2834 was only formally introduced three days before this hearing, the Department has not had sufficient time to conduct an in-depth analysis of the legislation as introduced. Our testimony today is based upon a discussion draft of the bill. We would like to reserve 

the right to submit additional comments about the introduced bill. 

The Forest Service coordinates with other federal agencies, states, non-profit organizations and community groups in efforts to provide fishing, hunting and shooting 

opportunities as well as a wide-spectrum of other recreational opportunities. The 

agency has relationships with the recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting communities such as the Shooting Sports Roundtable, Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, and the Wildlife Hunting Heritage Conservation Council and we keep 

them informed about pending federal actions through planning and environmental 

process requirements. We very much appreciate the outstanding contributions from 

States and hunting and fishing organizations that support the conservation of fish 

and wildlife and their habitats on our public lands. Their steadfast support through 

partnership projects and volunteer work on public lands, as well as their willingness 

to support state management of fish and wildlife though fishing and hunting fees, 

are widely recognized as a significant factor in the success of fish and wildlife management in North America. 

Although many other recreational activities are also popular on our National Forests and Grasslands, fishing, hunting and shooting sports remain very important to 

thousands of hunters and fishermen. The latest National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) data shows that the U.S. Forest Service National Forests had 13,022,068 

visitors that participated in hunting as their main activity, and 14,050,126 visitors 

that fished as their main activity. This represents 7.6% and 8.2% (respectively) of 

all annual recreation visitations to all National Forests. 

Definitions—Section 3 

Hunting, recreational fishing, and recreational shooting are defined very broadly 

to include these activities when authorized under special use permit, i.e. when hunting and fishing are authorized as outfitting and guiding, or when a shooting range 

is authorized as a facility. 

Planning—Section 4(c) 

The Forest Service analyzes opportunities for hunting, fishing and shooting as 

recreational activities in the Land Management Planning process. Section 4 (c)(1)(A) 

would add analysis requirements to various public land planning documents that 

would potentially add costs and time to federal decision making. Also, in regards 

10 

to forest planning, the decision to allow or limit various recreation activities is complex. For example, it should be recognized that conflicts between uses can be a legitimate reason to limit or allow various recreation activities. These choices are best 

made in local planning efforts. 

The Forest Service opposes the statement in section 4(c)(1)(B) of H.R. 2834that 

any decisions made and actions taken on these or any other activities described in 

this H.R. 2834shall not be deemed major Federal actions. Exempting these activities from current National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and the attendant environmental review processes would impair the Forest Service’s ability to 

accurately assess the likely impacts of our decisions to manage NFS lands. Properly 

developed NEPA reviews are a critical tool for public involvement and they improve 

decision-making by allowing the responsible official to evaluate ways to resolve resource use conflicts and address issues that the public raises. The Forest Service 

defers to the DOI regarding the implications of this section on the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

Further, Section 4(c) (1) (B), of H.R. 2834 specifically prohibits the analysis of 

hunting, fishing, or shooting opportunities that occurs on adjacent public or private 

lands. Contrary to H.R. 2834, the Forest Service believes it is both prudent and important to consider cumulative effects for proposed actions on NFS lands during the 

decision making process, including consideration of activities that occur or can be 

expected to occur on private lands or other public lands adjacent to NFS lands. Additionally, cumulative effects analyses help avoid duplication of activities (such as 

shooting ranges that are on other lands nearby) and the resulting increased impacts. Conversely, Section 4 (c) (1) (A) would require more specific evaluations of 

the effects of other plans for the use of NFS lands (such as travel management, conservation, land resource management) on opportunities to engage in recreational 

fishing, hunting or shooting. Hunting and fishing activities currently are and should 

continue to be considered when developing these plans and accompanying NEPA 

analyses, rather than establishing a new process. The additional evaluation process 

required by this bill is unnecessary. 

Public Notification—Section 4(d)(1). 

Almost all of the National Forest System (NFS) land managed by the Forest Service has been, and continues to be, open to fishing, hunting and shooting. These are 

all valued recreational opportunities that the agency provides under our broad multiple-use mandate. However, Forest Service officials may authorize very localized 

closures on NFS lands under special circumstances, usually to protect public health 

and safety, such as areas in the vicinity of buildings and campgrounds. Due to the 

bills requirement for issuance of a public notice prior to implementation of closures 

or restrictions, emergency closures for public safety would not be allowed. This is 

not in the best interest of all forest users and adjacent communities. In addition to 

severely curtailing our ability to provide for public safety, advanced public notice on 

closures or restrictions on NFS lands such as individual closures or as a compilation 

of closures on an annual basis, would affect our ability to appropriately manage 

non-emergency situations that warrant closures, including habitat management and 

conservation for threatened and endangered species and areas recently burned by 

wildfire. 

Leasing –Section 4(d) (2) 

The bill would allow for leasing of NFS lands for shooting ranges (Section 4 (d) 

(2)). Currently, the Forest Service allows for shooting ranges through special use 

permits issued pursuant to the Term Permit Act. Utilizing special use permits adequately allows for shooting ranges, leasing is not a needed tool. The Forest Service 

allows for dispersed shooting opportunities (equivalent to ‘‘informal’’ shooting opportunities) on NFS lands without a special use permit or a lease. 

Wilderness—Section 4(e) 

The language in this bill regarding wilderness (Section 4 (e)) would supersede the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. Wilderness should be managed to provide opportunities for 

recreational use and enjoyment and understanding of the area as wilderness, consistent with the primary responsibility of preserving the wilderness character of the 

area. Hunting and fishing related opportunities are currently managed by the Forest Service to be consistent with preserving wilderness character. 

Reporting—Section 4(f) 

Section 4(f) would add annual reporting requirements adding unnecessary costs 

to gather, maintain, and report data on the agencies business costs, including those 

associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Shooting Sports Roundtable 

Memorandum of Understanding (signed by 40 federal, state and non-government 

11 

partners) includes reporting on a number of hunting/shooting items of interest. Reporting on NFS closures can be accommodated through this very productive and effective partnership. 

Preference—Section 4(h) 

Section 4(h) states that no preference is given to shooting, hunting and fishing 

over other activities. However, other provisions in H.R. 2834 are clearly designed 

to limit the agency’s discretionary authority related to those activities. For example, 

section 4 (a) states that the Agency must facilitate use of, and access to, federal 

lands for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting. Section 4 (b) (1) states 

that lands must be managed in a manner that supports and facilitates recreational 

fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities. Section 4 (c) (1) requires that federal 

land planning documents evaluate effects on opportunities to engage in recreational 

fishing, hunting, or shooting. All of these requirements appear to favor these three 

activities at the expense of other activities on NFS lands. As an agency with multiple-use management responsibilities, the Forest Service is committed to providing 

fishing and hunting related activities as well as a spectrum of other uses where they 

can be conducted safely while minimizing conflicts among user groups and without 

environmental damage. 

Consultation—Section 4(i) 

Section 4(i) directs the agencies to consult with respective advisory councils as established in Executive Order 12962 (Recreational Fisheries, June 1995) and Executive Order (EO) 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, 

August 2007) as amended. This direction is unnecessary, as the Forest Service is 

actively involved in carrying out EO 12962, actively participates in the National 

Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council, is actively involved in carrying out EO 

13443, and is an ‘‘ex officio’’ member of the Wildlife Hunting Heritage Conservation 

Council, the Federal Advisory Committee established pursuant to EO 13443. 

In summary, the Forest Service has a long history and active policy and practice 

of strongly supporting hunting, fishing and shooting recreational opportunities on 

the public’s National Forests and Grasslands. Almost all of the NFS lands are available for these recreational activities. The intent of this bill is already achieved 

through existing Statute and agency policy. We do not believe this legislation is necessary. This legislation does not enhance or improve existing fishing, hunting and 

shooting opportunities on our National Forests and Grasslands. We are concerned 

that some language would be in conflict with existing legislation and agency policy, 

establish unnecessary analysis and reporting requirements, require consultation 

with Executive Order advisory councils that already occurs, and establish annual 

Congressional notification and approval for necessary closures exceeding a total of 

640 acres across the entire National Forest System. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee this concludes my testimony. 

I will be happy to answer any of your questions. 

Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. _, The Cabin Fee 

Act of 2011 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to provide the Department of Agriculture’s views on 

H.R. ____, the Cabin Fee Act of 2011. Our testimony today is based upon a discussion draft of this bill, as the bill has not yet been introduced. As we previously testified on April 22, 2010, the Department appreciates the over 14,000 cabin owners 

across the country and the recreational experiences they enjoy on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands. 

While the Department does not support the legislation as currently written, we 

would like to work with the Committee to address areas of concern identified in this 

testimony in order to capture some of the advantages that are incorporated in this 

draft legislation. 

Before describing the challenges of this bill, it is important to consider the history 

of this program. In the early part of the twentieth century, the Forest Service began 

introducing Americans to the beauty and grandeur of their National Forests. One 

way to accomplish this objective was to permit individuals to build cabins for summertime occupancy within the National Forests. Cabin owners were permitted to occupy NFS land during the summer months in exchange for a fee. In 1915, the agency began to issue permits for up to twenty years for occupancy of NFS land. At that 

time, there was relatively little recreational use of the National Forests. 

12 

Today, the National Forests host over 171 million visitors per year. When this recreational cabin program began, there was limited interest in building and owning 

a remote cabin on NFS land. Today, similar land at ski resorts, near lakes, and remote mountain settings are highly prized, selling for prices beyond the means of 

many Americans. In the early years, permit fees were nominal, but since the 1950s, 

the Forest Service has been mandated to obtain fees approximating market value 

for the use of NFS land. Increasing fees have led to controversy and have resulted 

in enactment of multiple fee moratoriums and caps over the years. 

Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (CUFFA) was the latest attempt to achieve 

an equitable fee for the use of National Forest System land. CUFFA prescribes the 

parameters the agency must follow in conducting appraisals and establishing fees, 

which are based on five percent of the appraised market value of the lot under permit. The agency began the appraisal process pursuant to CUFFA in 2007, and will 

be continuing that effort through 2012. As cabin owners received notice of the new 

fees, some have experienced dramatic increases because the old fees were based on 

appraisals completed ten to thirty years in the past. In response, Congress included 

appropriations language for FY2010 which limited fee increases to no more than 

25% of the fee paid in calendar year 2009. 

There are a number of examples of families who have had cabins for generations, 

but are having difficulty paying the new fees. However, there are also examples 

where low annual fees in the past have led to significant financial gains when cabin 

owners have sold their cabins for considerably more than the value of the structure, 

essentially benefiting from a lower than market value for their use of public land. 

When this occurs, cabin owners are, in effect, selling the location of their cabin, 

which is owned by the American people. Some cabins have sold at a premium price, 

only to be torn down by the new owner and replaced with a new structure. 

This bill would replace the current fee structure under CUFFA on recreation residence cabins on National Forest System lands reserved from the public domain. 

This bill under section 3(b)(2), will create nine payment tiers or categories and provide for an additional payment under section 4 on the sale or transfer of the cabin 

as referenced in the transfer fees. We agree with the concept of the payment tiers; 

however, we recommend that the fees be based on market value. If the payment 

tiers are based on market value, the transfer fee section could be eliminated. This 

bill does not return a fee based upon market value, especially those in the ninth 

tier. 

H.R. ___ would revise the procedures for determining the amount an owner of a 

cabin on the National Forests must pay to lease the underlying public property. Our 

projections indicate that enactment of H.R. ___ in its current form would result in 

fee revenues significantly below the fee revenues expected to be generated under 

current law, with some cabin owners potentially being subject to fees below the market value of their property. 

The Department understands the financial burdens that some current cabin owners may face as a result of CUFFA. The Department welcomes the opportunity to 

work with Congress to create a bill that takes into account the needs of cabin owners, other users of the National Forests, and the taxpayer, and that can be administered without undue burden on the agency or cabin owners. 

Here are our concerns with the bill as written: 

Section 3, Fee Amount: Our analyses indicate that many of the proposed fees 

would be less than those under current law which results in fees being below market value for many of the lots. As previously noted, fees below market value can 

lead to windfall profits as recognized by the market when cabins are sold, as the 

sale prices will reflect the value of the locations as much or more than the value 

of the cabins, especially at the higher end values. When the buyer of a cabin knows 

he or she will be paying market value for the location, prices tend to reflect only 

the value of the structure being conveyed. To reduce the likelihood of windfall profits, the proposed fee schedule should be based on market value or a percentage 

thereof. In addition, to reduce the administrative burden of billing or reimbursing 

fees due to changes in the fee estimate, the appraisals should be updated as scheduled and in place prior to implementation of any new fee legislation. The basis for 

establishing the fee amounts for the individual Tier levels should be based on first 

and second level appraisals and other indicators of market value. The assignment 

by the Agency of individual Tier levels for the cabin holders should be administrative in nature. 

Section 3 (d) (1) Effect of Destruction, Substantial Damage, or Loss of Access: This 

section deals primarily with the management of the cabins and prescribes a course 

of action due to destruction, substantial damage, or loss of access. With the exception of the loss of access, this section of the bill will cause additional administration 

13 

burden, costs, and is unnecessary as it pertains to the structures (cabin, outbuilding, 

etc. . .) occupying the lot. 

Section 4, Cabin Transfer Fees: H.R. ___ would require the Department to verify 

the price at which these private cabins are sold and subsequently obtain a payment 

from the seller based on a percentage of the sale. The Department recommends that 

Section 4 of this bill as it is currently drafted be deleted. The fundamental purpose 

of the Recreation Residence program is to provide the land for the cabins and USDA 

should not be involved in the disposition or assessment of the structures that occupy 

the land. 

Need to study cabin lots that may have lost their National Forest character: Over 

time, occupancy of some ‘‘summer’’ cabins has evolved into four-season use, particularly those located on the periphery of the National Forests. While year-round use 

remains contrary to agency policy, administration of these cabins can become more 

complex as owners desire typical public services found in residential subdivisions; 

such as electric, phone, cable, and sewer. In addition, their proximity and similarity 

to neighboring private subdivisions, suggests that some of these lots may have lost 

their National Forest character. The Department would like the opportunity to 

study this issue more carefully and to consider options to more effectively manage 

these areas. 

Technical Changes: Additionally, there are a number of additional technical suggestions which we would like to work with the Committee to address. 

We acknowledge that there are advantages to this bill from an administrative perspective. For example, it would reduce the agency’s appraisal costs. For cabin owners, enactment of H.R. ___ would provide certainty in terms of future fees. Again, 

we welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to develop legislation that 

is also fair to taxpayers and other users of the National Forests and Grasslands, 

and can be administered without undue burden on the agency or cabin owners. 

This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. We would like to reserve the right to submit additional comments about 

the bill once it is introduced. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Bailey, you are recognized for five minutes. If you would like to comment on all three, 

that is fine, too. 

STATEMENT OF PETE BAILEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL FOREST HOMEOWNERS 

Mr. BAILEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, and I want to thank you, Mr. Hastings, for your strong 

support of this bill. 

As you know, it is a very similar bill to the Cabin Fee Act of 

2010 that you introduced in the 111th Congress along with 27 

bipartisan cosponsors. H.R. 4888 was favorably reported by the 

Natural Resources Committee last September. At last year’s hearing before this Committee, long-time cabin owners of modest means 

with families who have loved and maintained their cabins for generations expressed their deep concern that the cabin stewardship 

is being jeopardized by high fees. 

The current use of fee simple land appraisals to set fees as mandated by the Cabin Users Fee Fairness Act, or CUFFA, fails to determine actual market value because of the highly restricted nature of our use is not valued in the CUFFA appraisal process. 

Interdependent equity interests where the permittee owns the 

cabin and the government owns the land are difficult and subjected 

to separate. The Cabin Fee Act acknowledges these interdependent 

interests and offers needed reform. 

The Act recognizes that cabin owners contribute value to the 

land and location at their expense. Cabin owners maintain their 

lots, remove dangerous trees and non-native vegetation while many 

often organize fire safety efforts and often provide utility infraVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14 

structure, including power, water systems, sewer, and septic systems. 

We believe nearly 35 percent of cabin owners will reach their affordability break point under CUFFA. When these folks try to sell 

and can’t because of above market value fees, we estimate roughly 

15 percent of the cabins will have to be torn down or removed at 

the owner’s expense, causing a 30 percent drop in U.S. Treasury 

fee revenue with corresponding loss of local tax revenue and other 

forest stewardship benefits. 

This Act provides for a reasonable user fee index annually that 

helps maintain cabin value and does not destroy the ability to sell 

the cabin. Instead of fees ranging from $125 to an astonishing 

$76,000 annually, under CUFFA user fees will range from $500 to 

$4,500 per year where the highest fee is nine times the lowest, not 

100 times the lowest. 

Permitted lots will be assigned to one of nine fee tiers based on 

the rank order of current appraised values when CUFFA is completed. The lower eight percent of appraised values are assigned to 

the $500 tier, the highest four percent are assigned to the $4,500 

tier. The total revenue projected is $30 million. 

A transfer fee intended to capture the location value of a cabin 

site is paid when the value is actually realized at the time of sale 

of the cabin, thus reducing questioned windfall profits. 

This new fee structure compares favorably to the broader market 

of similar private and public cabin lease programs. A comprehensive survey examined the market for cabins and programs similar 

to the Recreation Residents Program and further validates the use 

of public forest lands for recreation purposes. The 11,000 cabins reviewed had use fees that varied with permit and lease terms, of 

course, and location differences, but the average user fee was less 

than $1,000, which is less than half of the average fee under the 

Cabin Fee Act, showing that the proposed fee structure provides a 

fair return to the U.S. Government and is based on sound market 

principles. 

The 2011 Cabin Fee Act improves last year’s bill in three ways. 

Chairman Hastings has outlined a few of those. The latest Forest 

Service cabin appraisal data shows that less revenue will be generated under CUFFA than had previously been projected, so it is 

possible to adjust the fee tier percentages and still generate the 

same amount of revenue projected under CUFFA. 

Second, during the three-year transition period from CUFFA to 

Cabin Fee Act fees some cabin owners might have paid higher or 

lower fees under CUFFA than under the Cabin Fee Act. These differences would have received credits or debits for future Cabin Fee 

Act fees. The 2011 Cabin Fee Act drops that complex procedure 

and simply provides that such transition fee increases cannot exceed 25 percent per year. 

And third, last year’s bill applied only to cabins on national forests derived from the public domain. The 2011 Cabin Fee Act 

dropped that limitation and the legislation now applies to all 

cabins on all national forests. 

Mr. Chairman, the Cabin Fee Act of 2011 will preserve a cherished program that has been a major source of outdoor recreation 

for thousands of American families for nearly a century while conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
15 

tinuing to provide a fair return to the Treasury. It is a marketbased approach that correctly balances the interests and needs of 

cabin owners with the public interest by obtaining a fair market return on these public lands. We urge that it be enacted into law, 

and thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bailey follows:] 

Statement of Pete Bailey, National Forest Homeowners and the 

C2 Coalition, Regarding the Cabin Fee Act of 2011 

Introduction 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

I am Pete Bailey from Tacoma, Washington, and I am pleased to present this 

statement of the National Forest Homeowners and the C2 Coalition of Cabin Owner 

Organizations in support of the Cabin Fee Act of 2011. There are more than 14,000 

cabin owners who have permits for recreation residences on the national forests and 

who have a vital interest in the legislation now being considered. I have had my 

cabin since October, 2000, on Lake Quinault in the Olympic National Forest. 

We are especially appreciative to you, Mr. Chairman, for your support of this bill. 

As you know, it is very similar to the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 (H.R. 4888) that you 

introduced in the 111th Congress more than a year ago, along with 27 bi-partisan 

cosponsors. That bill was favorably reported by the Natural Resources Committee 

on September 16, 2010, but did not receive a floor vote. Senator Tester introduced 

S. 3929 as a companion bill in the Senate. 

At the House hearing last year, testimony and written statements were submitted 

that included strong and touching statements from long-time cabin owners of modest means whose families for generations have tenaciously maintained their cabins 

through hardships and challenges but who are now concerned that their cabin stewardship is being jeopardized by sharply rising fees. 

The 2011 Cabin Fee Act is very similar to the bill approved by this committee 

last year and this statement will later briefly compare the two bills. Suffice it to 

say for now that this year’s Cabin Fee Act does not differ in any significant respect 

from last year’s bill and is even more strongly supported by cabin owners. 

Problems with CUFFA 

Since the passage of the Organic Act in 1915, the Recreation Residence Program 

has been a valid use of National Forest lands, but it is now being threatened by 

the fee setting process mandated by the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, commonly referred to as CUFFA. (Note: We will adopt the more commonly used terms 

‘‘cabin program’’ and ‘‘cabin owners’’ instead of the more technically correct ‘‘recreation residence program’’ and ‘‘recreation residences.’’) Use of fee simple land appraisals to set value has not worked for more than 40 years due to interdependent 

equity interests whereby the permittee owns the cabin while the government owns 

the land. Both location and the cabin structure influence market rents and sale 

prices. Separating these two influences is difficult and subjective. The Cabin Fee 

Act, which is supported by most cabin owners, acknowledges the real nature of a 

Program with interdependent interests and offers a new and badly needed system. 

The Act will simplify and improve the fee-setting process. It will encourage better 

relationships between the Forest Service and permittees and will reduce agency administrative workload and expenses. 

The Act institutes a fair and reasonable annual User Fee that recognizes the influence of cabin location by establishing a Transfer Fee upon sale. The Act provides 

fair compensation to the U.S taxpayer, while recognizing that cabin owners convey 

value to the land and location at their expense. Cabin owners must maintain the 

site and often remove dangerous trees and non-native vegetation, organize FireSafe 

efforts and often provide and pay for utility infrastructure including power, water 

systems, septic and sewer systems that become attached to the land and benefit all 

users of the forests. 

Survey data compiled by the National Forest Homeowners indicate that almost 

35% of cabin owners will reach their affordability breakpoint in the current CUFFA 

appraisal cycle. Excessively high fees will be disincentives to potential buyers and, 

as a result, we estimate roughly 15% of cabins (2,100) will have to be torn down 

or removed at the expense of the owners. This will cause U.S. Treasury revenue to 

decline approximately 30% from the total potential fee revenue under CUFFA, while 

local governments and communities will also suffer tax revenue losses. The loss of 

cabins will also reduce volunteer labor, forest stewardship and infrastructure support contributed by cabin owners. 

16 

The Cabin Fee Act of 2011 

The Act establishes an affordable User Fee, indexed annually, that will help to 

maintain cabin value and not destroy the ability to sell the cabin if the current 

owner cannot or decides not to pay the fee. Instead of fees ranging from $125 to 

an astonishing $76,000 annually under CUFFA, annual User Fees will range from 

$500 to $4500 per year. Nine fee tiers will replace the current CUFFA fee structure. 

The User Fee tiers were determined by balancing the rights and privileges that all 

permit holders share, regardless of location, while acknowledging that location does 

influence the value of the permitted use. This balance of common rights with differences for location yields a fee structure where the highest fee is nine times the 

lowest fee. This contrasts with fees under CUFFA where the highest fees are more 

than 100 times greater than the lowest fees. 

The Cabin Fee Act requires the assignment of each permitted lot to one of nine 

fee tiers, based on the rank order of current appraised values. The lowest 8% of appraised lot values are assigned to the $500 tier. The highest 4% are assigned to the 

$4,500 tier. Following this process, User Fee revenue is projected to be about $30M 

when fully implemented. User Fees are adjusted annually by a rolling average of 

the IPD–GDP index. This broadly-used Department of Commerce index provides for 

a reasonable, straightforward method for increasing fees annually, while ensuring 

that user fees keep pace with the market. 

The Transfer Fee is intended to capture the value influence of the National Forest 

location of these cabins and is paid when that value influence is actually realized 

at the time of sale. The Transfer Fee addresses the possibility of questionable ‘‘windfall’’ profits alleged by some. The Transfer Fee has two components. First, a flat fee 

of $1,000 is collected for all cabin sales and transfers. Second, if the sale price exceeds $250,000, an additional 5% is collected on the sale price exceeding $250,000 

up to $500,000 and an additional 10% on sale amounts exceeding $500,000. 

Cabin marketability is not encumbered, because cabin owners will have full 

knowledge of the indexed annual User Fee and both a seller and buyer can factor 

the Transfer Fee into their negotiations at the time of sale. Moreover, the Act provides long-term annual revenues to the U.S. Treasury comparable to CUFFA, particularly after consideration of cost savings by the elimination of expensive appraisals and revenue lost from abandoned cabins that will occur if CUFFA stands unchanged. 

With the elimination of the appraisal process under CUFFA, the Forest Service will save approximately $1 million annually. The complexity and expense of the appraisal process will be replaced with a cost effective fee system and greatly simplified program administration. 

We can compare this fee structure to the broader market of public and private 

cabin lease programs. A comprehensive market survey by the National Forest 

Homeowners reviewed over 11,000 cabins in programs similar in character to the 

Forest Service Recreation Residence Program. This survey examined the market for 

similar cabin programs and further validated the use of public forest lands for recreation residence purposes. While user fees ranged widely due to variations in permit 

and lease terms and location considerations, the average user fee was less than 

$1,000. This is less than half the average fee of $2,075 under the Cabin Fee Act. 

We offer this as clear evidence that the proposed fee structure provides a fair return 

to the U.S. Government and is based on sound market principles. 

With predictable and affordable fees under the Cabin Fee Act, we expect all 

14,150 current permits to remain active the Forest Service Program will stay within 

reach of the typical American family. By contrast, while CUFFA is expected to provide similar total revenue over time, we project that unaffordable high fees and uncertainty will result in a decline in the number of permit holders under CUFFA to 

less than 12,000 over the next decade, thus reducing family participation in the Program. This same pattern of permit loss is likely to be repeated in future appraisal 

cycles under CUFFA, further eroding the Recreation Residence Program. 

A great strength of the Cabin Fee Act is its simplicity. The simple and straightforward fee structure provides long-term predictability and affordability for the 

cabin program plus significant administrative time and cost savings to the Forest 

Service. These cost savings allow for the redeployment of Forest Service resources 

away from managing appraisals, re-appraisals and permit fee appeals to a more productive delivery of programs and public services. The Cabin Fee Act provides a true 

win-win-win outcome for the cabin owner, for the U.S. Forest Service and for U.S. 

taxpayers. 

In summary, the Cabin Fee Act of 2011 ensures the long-term viability of the 

Recreation Residence Program and produces cabin permit fees that will: 

1. be affordable and determined by the true ‘‘cabin market;’’. 

2. be simple, understandable and predictable; 

17 

3. be revenue neutral by maintaining current revenues and fair return to U.S. 

taxpayers; 

4. be implemented more efficiently, saving time and money for the Forest Service; 

5. recognize the complexities of interdependent cabin ownership interests; 

6. recognize the locational value of the cabin as sold, fixing fees according to 

actual benefits received; 

7. protect the future ability to sell cabins. 

Comparison of 2010 and 2011 Cabin Fee Acts 

There are three differences between the 2010 Cabin Fee Act and this year’s bill. 

(1) Reduced Tier Fee Structure. The latest cabin appraisals completed by the 

Forest Service and reported in May, 2011, show that less revenue will be 

generated under CUFFA than had previously been projected. As a result, 

it is possible to reduce the tiered fees that would have been set under the 

2010 Cabin Fee Act and still generate the same amount of revenue that can 

be projected under CUFFA. 

(2) Cap on Fee Increases. Under the 2010 Cabin Fee Act it was possible that 

during the two or three year transition period from CUFFA to the Cabin 

Fee Act some cabin owners would have had to pay higher fees than CUFFA 

alone would have required. These increased fees would have been offset by 

later credits (or debits) against Cabin Fee Act fees once that legislation was 

finally and fully implemented. The 2011 Cabin Fee Act drops that complex 

offset procedure and simply provides that such transition fee increases cannot exceed 25% per annum. 

(3) Including All Cabins on All Forests. The 2010 Cabin Fee Act would have 

applied only to cabins on those national forests that were taken from the 

public domain. The 2011 Cabin Fee Act drops that limitation and the legislation now applies to all cabins on all national forests. 

These are positive improvements in the bill that make it more equitable for more 

cabin owners and more acceptable to all cabin owners. 

Conclusion 

We appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the National 

Forest Homeowners, the C2 Cabin Coalition and nearly 14,000 cabin owners 

throughout the nation. We believe the cabin program is not only an invaluable 

source of multi-generational family outdoor recreation but that it makes a significant contribution to the health of the national forests and the economic vitality of 

local gateway communities. Unfortunately, as a result of the appraisal based fee 

system imposed by CUFFA, many cabin owners are facing a dramatic escalation in 

their fees, threatening this historic program and jeopardizing its many contributions. 

The Cabin Fee Act of 2011 will preserve the program as we have known it for 

nearly a century while continuing to provide a fair return to the Treasury. It is an 

equitable approach that properly balances the interests and needs of cabin owners 

with the public interest in obtaining a fair return on these public lands. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. We will now go to questions. 

I have just been informed that we are going to have votes probably 

in about five minutes. We will try to get through a few questions 

here before we will adjourn temporarily to go vote and then we will 

come back and re-adjourn and finish this hearing. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Mr. Holtrop, particularly given our current deficit situation, does 

the Administration support the provisions of this bill that provide 

benefits and savings and administrative costs for the Recreation 

Residents Program? It seems from your testimony that opposition 

to the bill is based solely on the possibility of cabin owners reaping 

windfall profits from cabin sales instead of simply wanting to be 

able to continue enjoying their cabins. 

Mr. HOLTROP. We do support the efficiencies and I think my testimony also points out that one of the advantages of this piece of 

legislation is less of a reliance on a continuing recurring appraisal 

18 

process, and that has efficiencies and cost-effective benefits for us, 

and my testimony does recognize that and we appreciate that about 

this piece of legislation. 

I think the opposition is more over some of the more technical 

aspects such as the transfer fee which, from our perspective, inappropriately involves us in valuation—in dealing with the value of 

the cabin itself. If there is a profit that the owner of the cabin gets 

from that possibility, we don’t believe we should be a part of that 

at all. We are solely interested in management of, and correct valuation of, the land. 

Mr. BROUN. Very good. Mr. Bailey, are objections to the current 

cabin free structure from National Forest Homeowners based more 

on the fact that it will force them to relinquish cabins many have 

enjoyed for generations, or on the fact that it might prevent them 

from turning a profit on their cabin? 

Mr. BAILEY. The real issue is that the CUFFA appraisal process 

is based upon land values, when what we are facing is the use of 

the land because we do not own the land. By applying the appraisal process, approximately 15 percent of the cabin owners this 

year are going to be above—their fees are going to be above market 

value. Now while a few very wealthy people exist in the program, 

the vast majority of cabin owners are of modest means and cannot 

afford a fee that might exceed $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000. Those 

folks, when they can’t afford the fee and try to sell, will find that 

the market also rejects those fees as unreasonable, and they will 

then be forced to remove their cabins from the national forest land. 

So, that is the real driving force behind the motivation of the Cabin 

Fee Act. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Just for expediency, we will 

go next to Mr. Grijalva for questions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and one quick question 

if I may, Mr. Bailey. 

It is true, as has been stated, that the families that own these 

cabins run the gambit from what we can describe as wealthy to 

many others that are not. I am assuming that is correct. 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, that is very true. I think that characterization—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, and given that range of income levels are you 

concerned at all that rearranging the tiers for cabin fees to avoid 

large increases for some of the most valuable cabins could result 

in the less wealthy cabin owners having to pay more? So, how do 

we assure, because you are going to want to score the same, that 

the fees generated now, or identify an offset, if that is not going 

to happen? So, how can we assure that an equitable distribution 

is occurring if we are capping the top rate? 

Mr. BAILEY. Good question. Fair question. Right now some of the 

lowest fees are well under $500. In fact, the lowest fee nationally 

occurs somewhere in Washington and Oregon where it is $125 a 

year, and the Forest Service has indicated to us that to administer 

the program costs at least $500, perhaps $700 per year per cabin, 

and the National Forest Homeowners and the Coalition of Cabin 

Organizations believes that a minimum fee needs to at least cover 

the cost of administration of the program, and that is a fair consideration overall. So, at the very low end we realize that some of 

19 

those fees must go up, and we believe that is a reasonable consideration. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. But we understand, I think, as we work through 

this that we can go no less than what is being collected now or we 

need to have an offset or something else has to be restructured. 

You are aware of that part of it. 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROUN. I have a unanimous consent request that Mr. 

Benishek and Mr. Costa participate in the hearing since they are 

not members of the Subcommittee. Hearing none, so ordered. 

Now the Chair recognizes Doc Hastings for questions for five 

minutes. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. I just have one question and it has 

been addressed by your question, Mr. Chairman, to Chief Holtrop. 

I recall your testimony or the testimony of the Service last year 

was on the revenue neutrality that Mr. Bailey said ought to be part 

of the mix, and I totally agree with that, and the trick is how you 

figure the tiers to get that revenue neutrality. Yet your testimony 

today, and maybe I am missing something here because your testimony seemed to be a bit in conflict with what the Chairman asked 

you about the windfall profit and somebody making a profit. 

So, just tell me what your main concern is, I guess, on your testimony today compared to the testimony from last year about the 

revenue neutrality. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you for the question. I think if I could I will 

say maybe two main concerns. One is there are a variety of technical aspects of the bill that—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. I understand, set those aside. 

Mr. HOLTROP. So setting those aside—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Set those aside because those are normal things 

that happen and I understand that. 

Mr. HOLTROP. So, let us talk about the windfall profit aspect of 

my testimony. If there is a windfall profit that occurs because the 

land has been undervalued, I don’t believe I am doing my job or 

we are doing the job that we are held responsible for of making 

sure that we are managing the land for the entirety of the American taxpayer and all the people who own that land. 

If the windfall profit occurs because there has been an increase 

in value of the cabin itself, that should be the owner of the cabin’s 

value, not the American people’s because the cabin is owned by the 

cabin owner, the land is owned by the American people. 

So, my testimony, and I believe it is consistent with what my testimony last year was as well, is largely generated by our interest 

in making sure that we fairly value the land, and that we not be 

a part of the valuation and those aspects of actually managing the 

value of the cabins themselves. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. We need to work our way through this, but 

it is interesting to hear the government talk about the value of the 

land when we hear so many times the public owns the land. I 

mean, clearly the difference in the value is going to be if a cabin 

is sold for a higher level which would move that into a different 

category. So, it just struck me, I guess, when I heard your testimony this time and last time that there was a difference. 

20 

I think the key thing we need to work out is the revenue neutrality. I totally agree with that. Mr. Bailey said that in his testimony, because going back to what the Chairman said in his opening remarks on all three bills, these are public lands that were designed for multiple use, and cabins on public land have been 

around for nearly 100 years for goodness sakes, and generations of 

family like that experience that they have every summer and so 

forth. We need to respect all of that because this is multiple-use 

land. 

So, I want a clarification. I thank you for your answer. I am not 

sure I fully understand it but nevertheless I understand that you 

did raise the issue. 

Mr. HOLTROP. And if I may, I also want to express appreciation 

of the program itself, an appreciation of the improvements of this 

legislation compared to last year, and our commitment to continue 

to work with you to reach the solution we both want to have happen. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. Mr. McClintock will be 

recognized next. We have probably got about five more minutes in 

the clock on votes. Do you have questions and want to make them 

quick, or do you want to come back? All right, we will recess and 

resume the hearing. I apologize to the witnesses for having to do 

this, but I am sure you all recognize that is the way these votes 

go, but we will reconvene just five minutes after the last vote. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BROUN. Reconvene the Committee. Appreciate you all’s patience and standing by. I apologize that we had to interrupt things, 

but we will try to get through this as quickly as possible. 

Now Mr. McClintock from California is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Holtrop, I wanted to begin with a comment that you made 

assuring us that the U.S. Forest Service was strongly supportive of 

hunting and fishing on our national forests. I can assure you, sir, 

from a flood of complaints that have reached my office that that is 

not the practice of the Forest Service. In fact, I met with a group 

of hunters not more than four weeks ago who complained about a 

whole host of actions by the Forest Service, all evincing a design 

to expel them from the national forests. Road closures, requirements that forbid them from parking more than one car length 

from a road edge, which makes it impossible for them to retrieve 

game. One group had camped in the same spot two weeks running 

and were told that they were now forever banned from that particular forest. What you just said is so completely contrary to the 

reports I am hearing from my constituents. I have to conclude, with 

all due respect, that you are either being deliberately disingenuous 

in that statement or you are badly disconnected from reality. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, I don’t believe either of those are the case, 

but I would be happy to work with you to look into some of the 

concerns you have expressed. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I wonder, how many hunting groups from my 

region have you met with? 

21 

Mr. HOLTROP. I am not sure how to answer that. I have met with 

many hunting groups that have national constituencies. I have met 

with state fish and game—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I will tell you the folks in my district in 

the northeastern corner of California are mad. They feel that they 

have been badly abused by the Forest Service and they feel that 

they have been made completely unwelcome in their own national 

forest. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, I am sorry they are feeling that way, and 

again I would be happy to—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, again, I think they have strong reason 

to feel that way, and when you come here before this Committee 

and blithely assure us that you want to do everything you can to 

open the forests to these activities I have to tell you your practice 

is entirely contrary, and that does not give you a great deal of 

credibility in my eyes when you come before this Committee. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Again, my statement was based on the fact that 

the National Forest System is open to hunting and fishing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me move—— 

Mr. HOLTROP. And I am aware there is access. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And I am telling you the folks that you are referring to are telling me that the national forests are being closed 

to their use. That is what is actually happening. 

Getting to the cabin rates, I would like to know, how many cabin 

sites have been re-leased at the higher rates that are being imposed by the Forest Service? 

Mr. HOLTROP. If you are referring to the appraisals that we are 

doing under the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, the majority—well, I am not sure I have the answer. I will be able to get 

you the answer to that. I am aware that there are a lot of appraisals yet to be done in the State of California, but most of the appraisals—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What I am trying to get at is how many of 

these cabins, once the rate is increased that are then abandoned 

by the cabin owner because the rate is too high for them to pay, 

are you finding other people to lease those cabins? How many are 

going unleased because I am hearing quite a few? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I don’t have a figure along that line. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Bailey, do you have any insight on this? 

Mr. BAILEY. The permit process and the determination of fees 

functions separately, sir, and the permit was issued for all cabins 

across the country about three-four years ago, and it was a long 

process. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What I am trying to find is, are these appraisals in an actual market rate or are these appraisals deliberately 

well above a market rate with the intention of simply forcing the 

public off the public lands? 

Mr. BAILEY. Well, I certainly don’t understand the intention, but 

there are many, many examples across the country where the rates 

that the cabin owners are facing are well above the market to the 

point where they not only can’t afford it, but when the fee is fully 

instituted and we are in the middle of that process—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Those cabins will not be re-leased out. 

Mr. BAILEY. That is correct. 

22 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So not only are we not getting the higher rate 

we are getting no rate, we are losing the rate that had been paid 

because we deliberately put it above the market rate. There is only 

one purpose for that, and it is not to raise revenues. It is to force 

people off the public lands. 

Mr. BAILEY. That is inherent in this appraisal process that there 

are fees that are going to do that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I will tell you, in 16 months or so I believe 

there is going to be a new administration, and there is going to 

have to be a top-to-bottom housecleaning at the Forest Service and 

a top to bottom re-alignment of the attitudes in that agency which 

has turned so completely radically away from Gifford Pinchot’s vision of a Forest Service that welcomed the public to the public’s 

lands. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. Dr. Benishek, you are 

recognized for five minutes for questions. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s 

hearing and for your leadership on this Committee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here today. 

I am speaking more about the Recreational Fishing and Hunting 

Heritage Opportunity Act that I introduced. It is very personal and 

important to me. In northern Michigan, hunting and fishing is 

more than just a sport or a hobby, it is a way of life. It is something I share with my children and I hope to share with my grandchildren. I introduced this bill so that they and future sportsmen 

and women are guaranteed access to Federal lands, and I appreciate you all participating today. 

I tend to agree actually with Mr. McClintock about the effect. 

You know, you say that you welcome hunting and fishing on the 

Federal forests. I live in the Ottawa National Forest. I have a 

hunting camp there, and the actual practices of the Forest Service 

don’t seem to jive with what you are saying, and I am hoping that 

this piece of legislation will at least perhaps change the on-theground attitude of the forest management because I know the access to many of the roads are blocked off by berms, and you can’t 

drive four-wheelers on certain roads anymore, and it just seems 

that there is an attitude of not being able to use the Federal forests 

at all, and we have hunting, fishing. 

We would like to be able to cut the Federal forests. I mean, that 

is another issue facing us that is really problematic; getting efficient use of the resources in our Federal forests have been increasingly difficult and bad for employment in my district because, 

frankly, it takes eight to ten years to get a cut done apparently. 

Every time the Forest Service sells land they lose money, or sells 

timber they lose money. That doesn’t make any sense to me because of the prolonged process. 

Are there any things on your end that you can do to help me believe that you have hunting, fishing, and multi-use of our forests 

on your agenda? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, I think there are a lot of reasons for you to 

be able to believe that. First of all, if the concern isn’t a land allocation issue, do we allow hunting on the National Forest System? 

The answer is yes, we allow hunting on the National Forest SysVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23 

tem. The exceptions are minimal such as in recreational areas like 

campgrounds or—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Of course, but I mean allowing access to the 

forest is becoming more and more of a problem. 

Mr. HOLTROP. So, it is a concern is if it is an access issue or how 

to provide access, there are a great number of issues that need to 

continue to be resolved on that. 

Mr. BENISHEK. But it is my opinion that the hunting and fishing 

activities take a lesser precedent, I mean a lesser standing in the 

multiple-use mission of the forest. 

Mr. HOLTROP. I don’t feel that way, but I do understand that 

there are members of the hunting and fishing community who have 

expressed concerns about that, but I believe what we are continuing to strive for is a correct balance of the management of road 

and trail systems in a multitude of uses on the National Forest 

System lands, but hunting and fishing is a proud part of the heritage of the Forest Service and continues to be, and we will continue 

to encourage that activity, those activities on the National Forest 

System lands. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, I am just hoping that this piece of legislation will help codify then into law because to me it doesn’t seem 

like it is adequately protected under the legislation that exists at 

this time. You know, I understand the difficulty working in a bureaucracy like the Federal Government agencies, but I am very 

frustrated by my interaction with the Forest Service on a personal 

level, and I just want you to understand my position here. 

Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Doctor. I know Mr. Costa had some 

questions but seeing that he is not here yet what we will do is we 

will just move on. I thank this panel. We will move to the next one. 

Mr. Bailey, I see that Mr. Jeff Anderson, the President of the National Forest Homeowners Association is here today. Thank you, 

Mr. Anderson, for all your hard work on this issue, and your hard 

work on behalf of cabin owners, so thank you very much, appreciate your being here. 

Mr. Holtrop, if you would continue to stay, and Mr. Bailey, you 

can be excused, and we will ask the next panel to take their seats, 

please. 

As the next panel is taking their seats, Dr. Benishek is the sponsor of Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act, and I understand he has a statement to make on that, and 

I have a statement also on my bill. I think my bill is the most important bill that Congress is going to face this year because it is 

my bill, but anyway. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Were you recognizing me now, Mr. Broun? Is that 

what you said? 

Mr. BROUN. Well, let us get them seated. Dr. Benishek, I will 

recognize you now. You are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. I just wanted to say I would rather have you 

speak because I don’t have much more to add than my previous 

statement here with the question, and you know, if you would rather just go on with your statement or the witnesses, that would be 

fine with me. 

24 

Mr. BROUN. All right, I will recognize myself for five minutes 

then. 

Mr. BROUN. I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop for allowing this hearing today on H.R. 1444, a bill 

that I introduced that would require that hunting activities be considered as a land use in all management plans for Federal land, 

to the extent that it is not clearly incompatible with the purposes 

for which the Federal land is managed. 

I am an avid hunter and an outdoorsman. In fact, I started my 

political activism as the government affairs vice president for Safari Club International, and I am a life member number 17 for SCI. 

I began coming to Washington as a volunteer advocate for Safari 

Club. I am also a member, life member of the National Rifle Association, Gunners of America, National Wild Turkey Federation, 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, et 

cetera, et cetera, so I am a life member of multiple conservation 

and hunting organizations. In fact, if someone comes to my office 

they will see a full-bodied mounted African lion as well as a Kodiak 

brown bear. They are just a few of my trophies that are in my office and that I invite visitors to come and see when they come to 

Washington and come to my office. 

Hunting is already permitted on most of BLM and Fish and 

Wildlife Service lands. It has provided a positive force in habitat 

conservation, support for wildlife restoration and contributed billions of dollars and benefits to state and regional economies 

throughout the nation. I look forward to finding ways to expand 

hunting on our vast Federal lands and I believe that H.R. 1444 

can play an important role in achieving that goal. 

Now I would like to hear from the panel. I think Mr. Holtrop already commented, and let me see, Mr. Costa has just joined us. 

Welcome back. If you would like to ask a question on the cabin bill, 

we would be glad to go to that or you can ask as we come to questions on this panel. It is your preference. 

Mr. COSTA. With the pleasure of the Chairman, I would just like 

to make a brief statement as related to the cabin issue. These other 

two issues are not issues that I am directly involved with. 

Mr. BROUN. Without objection. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM COSTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member. 

I have been involved with Congressman Hastings on the cabin fees 

issue now for almost four years, and I, like a number of my other 

Californians, represent a number of the 14,000-plus cabin owners 

that are primarily in the West that are impacted by these fees. I 

appreciate Congressman Hastings’ efforts to reach an agreement 

and a resolution to this issue. There are some questions, I think, 

that were raised earlier in the hearing and I thank the Chair for 

giving the opportunity to shed some additional light on that as we 

try to work through this. Obviously this has been a long festering 

issue. 

I was somewhat perplexed by the gentleman from the Forest 

Service who talked about the value of the land when the land is 

owned by the United States, the Forest Service, because I have recVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
25 

reational areas that I have spent many years with in which you 

can have a very basic cabin and you can have a very nice cabin, 

but the value of the cabin doesn’t, I think, impact the land per se 

because it is a lease and that lease, it is no longer the 99-year lease 

that used to exist in the past. 

So, I will work with you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Hastings, as we work to a resolution because the 14,000-plus cabin 

owners throughout the West that have been good stewards, good 

stewards of these areas in which, as you know, in many cases they 

have been passed from generation to generation, are what is wonderful about having the opportunity to protect and be good stewards of our forests and to allow families to enjoy those parts of the 

lands that are all part of our heritage. 

So, I thank you for your efforts. I thank you for allowing me to 

make a comment. The cabin owners that are represented here 

today have been working on this issue long and hard for awhile 

and hopefully this year we will bring a resolution to this matter. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Costa. In fact, I agree with you. 

Hopefully we will bring a very positive resolution to this issue. 

Joining us on the panel is Mr. Bob Ratcliffe, the Deputy Assistant Director of BLM; Former Assistant Secretary William Horn 

representing the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance; Melissa Simpson of Safari Club International; and Susan Recce with the National Rifle 

Association. Like all our witnesses your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record so I ask that you keep your oral 

testimony to five minutes. When you begin to speak a green light 

will show up there in front of you. After four minutes the yellow 

light will come on, and you should begin to conclude your statement. At five minutes the red light appears, and if you would 

please very quickly conclude your statement. 

Mr. Holtrop, you have already made your statement previously. 

Do want to make any additional comments at this time? Very good. 

Mr. Ratcliffe, your statement, please. You are recognized for five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BOB RATCLIFFE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR, RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2834, and 

H.R. 1444. I am Bob Ratcliffe, Bureau of Land Management’s Deputy Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning. 

It is a particular pleasure to be here today to discuss public land 

outdoor recreational issues. As a former outfitter, guide and public 

land recreation manager in some of the West’s most spectacular 

landscapes, outdoor recreation has been a lifetime passion of mine 

not only in my career but also in my personal and family life. In 

addition, I have had the opportunity to work extensively with the 

Shooting Sports Roundtable over the last decade on proactive efforts to promote and facilitate hunting and shooting on Federal 

lands. 

26 

I am here to provide the departmental views on these bills and 

to answer questions related to the BLM. With me are Bert Frost, 

Associate Director of Natural Resource Stewardship and Science at 

the National Park Service, and Jeff Rupert, Acting Deputy Assistant Director for the National Wildlife Refuge System at the Fish 

and Wildlife Service who will answer questions specific to national 

parks or Fish and Wildlife Service lands. 

For generations, American hunters and anglers have been at the 

forefront of conservation of our nation’s wildlife resources. Hunting, 

fishing, shooting are often life-long recreational activities. They 

build an appreciation and understanding of our lands, water, and 

wildlife. The Department strongly supports promoting these opportunities. Activities of several Department agencies strongly promote recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities on 

Federal lands. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service actively supports hunting and fishing program on the majority of its 553 units. Hunting and fishing 

are given priority as two of the big six wildlife-dependent activities. 

When appropriate and compatible, hunting and fishing are given 

priority as recreational uses on refuges. 

The National Park Service allows hunting in all of its regions except for the National Capital Region. Roughly 70 percent of Service 

lands are available for hunting. Fishing is allowed in nearly all 

Park Service units either by Federal statute or by special regulation. Outstanding opportunities for recreational hunting and fishing are also found on the 245 million acres of public lands managed 

by the BLM, including gold metal trout fisheries in Colorado, and 

trophy prong horn mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk in Wyoming 

to name just a few. 

Across the West the BLM’s remote lands are highly regarded for 

the quality of hunting experiences they offer and we estimate that 

over 95 percent of BLM lands are open to hunting. The vast majority of BLM lands are also open to recreational shooting. In Arizona, 

for example, less than two percent of BLM-managed lands are 

closed to recreational shooting. In Nevada, it is less than one-half 

of one percent. Sometimes it is necessary to close an area to target 

shooting. For example, in Southern California with an urban population of more than 25 million people the BLM has prohibited recreational shooting in a handful of heavily used off-highway vehicle 

areas. It is just not good sense to try to manage thousands of vehicles racing over dunes and target shooting in the same place at the 

same time. 

The Department is concerned that provisions of these bills seem 

to duplicate or overlap with existing management authorities and 

policies. Much of the Department’s public lands are already open 

to fishing and hunting and shooting unless there is a conflict with 

public safety or otherwise prohibited by local jurisdictions or other 

state or Federal laws and regulations. Fishing and hunting and 

shooting are already addressed in the agency management plans 

and our priorities where the public has made them a priority 

through the National Environmental Policy Act’s public involvement process. 

H.R. 1444 would apply a one-size-fits-all standard requiring 

hunting to be uniquely considered in all land management planVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
27 

ning regardless of local priorities. The Department strongly opposes 

the provisions of H.R. 2834 which undermine the Wilderness Act. 

For example, the bill could be interpreted to allow motorized activities or developments in wilderness, which is clearly contrary to 

Congressional intent, judicial precedent, and agency management 

of wilderness for over 40 years. 

The Department also strongly opposes provisions in H.R. 2834 

which exclude management decisions from public review and comment opportunities of NEPA and the Federal Land Management 

Policy Act. This bill would disconnect the public from their right to 

be involved in these Federal agency decisions. 

While the Department has concerns with these bills, we look forward to continuing our work with Congress and stakeholders in 

promoting and facilitating recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities on the Federal lands. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I will be available for any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ratcliffe follows:] 

Statement of Bob Ratcliffe, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable 

Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, on H.R. 2834 and H.R. 1444 

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of the Interior’s (Department) views on two bills pertaining to recreational fishing, hunting and shooting on 

federal public lands: H.R. 2834, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and 

Opportunities Act, and H.R. 1444, which concerns hunting and land management 

planning. 

As H.R. 2834 was only formally introduced on September 2, 2011, and the text 

of the introduced bill only became available yesterday, September 8th, 2011, one day 

before this hearing, the Department has not had sufficient time to conduct an indepth analysis of the legislation as introduced. Our testimony today is based upon 

a discussion draft of the bill. We would like to reserve the right to submit additional 

comments about the introduced bill. 

The Department strongly supports the goal of promoting recreational fishing, 

hunting and shooting opportunities. These important recreational opportunities 

abound on public lands and are valued by millions of Americans who hunt and fish 

on DOI-administered parks, refuges and public lands. The Department also recognizes the economic and community benefits associated with hunting and fishing and 

fully considers these opportunities when developing our land planning and management. 

However, the Department strongly opposes provisions of the bills which exclude 

management decisions from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—the 

cornerstone law guiding environmental protection and public involvement in federal 

actions—and provisions which undermine the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Department also has concerns with the provisions in the bills which seem to duplicate, 

overlap, or potentially interfere with existing management authorities and policies. 

The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to 

promote highly important and traditional outdoor recreation activities—including 

hunting, fishing and recreational shooting where authorized– on lands administered 

by Department agencies. 

Background 

American hunters and anglers, concerned about the future of wildlife and the outdoor tradition, have made invaluable contributions to the conservation of the nation’s wildlife resources since the late 19th century. This tradition continues today, 

with hunters and anglers remaining at the forefront of American conservation. 

Hunting and fishing, and shooting are often life-long recreational activities and they 

build appreciation and promote understanding of the lands, water and its wildlife. 

The America’s Great Outdoors Initiative (AGO), established by President Obama 

in 2010, supports these same goals by reconnecting Americans to our nation’s land, 

water and wildlife. During the recent summer listening sessions on AGO, support 

for hunting and fishing access and opportunities on public lands and waters was a 

common theme. The goals of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation CounVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
28 

cil (WHHCC), an official advisory group established under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), are complementary: promote and preserve America’s hunting heritage for future generations by advising the Federal government on policies 

that benefit hunting, wildlife and encourage partnerships. Activities of Department 

land management agencies reflect these goals. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administers the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), which is comprised of 553 refuges and 38 Wetland 

Management Districts (WMDs) and more than 150 million acres of land and water 

across the country. Hunting programs are actively supported in the majority of 

these refuges, and the Service also strongly supports hunting and fishing activities 

through many of its other programs and expenditures. In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, hunting and fishing are given priority as two of the 

‘‘big six’’ wildlife-dependent recreational activities in the statute. Each individual 

National Wildlife Refuge is established with a primary purpose or purposes related 

to conservation, management, and in some cases restoration of fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats. The management of each refuge gives priority 

consideration to appropriate recreational uses of the refuge that are deemed compatible with the primary conservation purposes of the refuge, and the overall purpose 

of the Refuge System. Given hunters and anglers special relationship with our National Wildlife Refuges, hunting and fishing are already given priority among uses. 

When appropriate and compatible, hunting and fishing opportunities are allowed 

and often facilitated on refuge lands. Currently, approximately 375 of the 591 refuges and WMDs of the Refuge System have hunting programs and approximately 

355 have fishing programs. Recreational shooting is not deemed a wildlife-dependent use of a refuge, and is therefore not a priority use within the Refuge System. 

National Park Service 

The National Park Service (NPS) administers the National Park System, which 

is comprised of 395 units on more than 84 million acres across the country. The 

NPS Organic Act of 1916 established the mission of the National Park Service to 

conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein 

and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means 

as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Of the 84 

million acres of NPS lands, 29 million are in the lower 48 states and 55 million are 

in Alaska. Hunting is allowed in all regions of the National Park Service except the 

National Capital Region. Roughly 70 percent of NPS lands are already available for 

hunting (8.3 million in the lower 48 states, which is 29% of NPS lands in the lower 

48 states and 50.3 million in Alaska, which is 91% of NPS lands in Alaska). 

NPS allows recreational fishing when it is authorized or not specifically prohibited 

by federal law, provided that it has been determined to be an appropriate use per 

the 2006 National Park Service Management Policies. Hunting, trapping or any 

other method of harvesting wildlife by the public is allowed where it is specifically 

mandated by federal law or where it has been authorized on a discretionary basis 

under federal law and special regulations. Hunting is authorized in 62 of the 395 

national park units, while fishing is allowed in nearly all applicable NPS units, in 

accordance with non-conflicting state regulations and federal restrictions. Trapping 

is allowed in 16 units. Units of the National Park System where there is no hunting 

or trapping are some of the only federally managed areas in the U.S. that may provide a system relatively unaltered by humans that, because of the lack of alteration, 

are useful as control areas for scientific studies. These areas also provide opportunities for non-consumptive recreation by members of the public and significant opportunities to see wildlife in their native habitats. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the protection of resources and multiple-use management of our Nation’s 245 million acres of public 

land. The BLM manages the public land for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation and timber harvesting, while protecting an 

array of natural, cultural, and historical resources. 

The BLM’s recreation program is one of the key elements of our multiple-use mission. In the west, these lands constitute America’s backyard, providing close-to-home 

outdoor recreation venues. In addition, they afford extensive backcountry recreation 

opportunities. The expansive landscapes and world-class recreation opportunities offered by the BLM’s public lands are among America’s greatest treasures. BLM has 

strived to maintain high quality dispersed recreation opportunities where visitors 

and recreationists are free to explore and discover undeveloped places in the outVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
29 

doors. There are countless outstanding examples of fishing and hunting opportunities on the public lands. For example, the Gunnison River Gorge National Conservation Area is designated by the State of Colorado as a Gold Medal Trout Fishery and 

supports excellent rainbow, brown, and cutthroat trout populations; Wyoming BLM 

lands provide habitat for abundant herds of trophy pronghorn and Rocky Mountain 

elk; and the BLM-managed Steens Mountain area in Oregon supports fantastic big 

game hunting opportunities for trophy mule deer. In many places across the west, 

the BLM’s remote lands are highly regarded for the quality of the hunting experiences they offer. 

Hunting activities and regulations on public lands are generally managed by 

State fish and wildlife agencies. The BLM estimates that over 95 percent of BLMmanaged public lands are open to hunting. The BLM restricts hunting and shooting 

in administrative sites, campgrounds and other developed facilities and in a few 

other areas with intensive energy, industrial or mineral operations or nearby residential or community development. When lands are closed to hunting and shooting, 

those restrictions are typically implemented to comply with state and local public 

safety laws and ordinances or private property considerations. For example, in Arizona where the BLM manages more than 12 million acres of public lands, less than 

1.3% of BLM public lands have recreational target shooting restrictions and only a 

few administrative sites and developed areas are closed to hunting. 

Any consideration of closures or restrictions is completed through the management planning process that includes extensive public input. This is an open process 

through which BLM’s proposals for managing particular resources are made known 

to the public before action is taken. The BLM responds to substantive comments received from the public and stakeholders, on the proposal, during the NEPA public 

review process. 

H.R. 2834 

H.R. 2834 would require federal land managers to facilitate access to public lands 

and waters for fishing, hunting and shooting except for reasons of national security, 

public safety or resource conservation. Under the bill, the effects of a Federal action 

on opportunities to engage in recreational fishing, hunting and shooting must be 

analyzed in all planning documents. The bill also prevents any action taken under 

this legislation to be considered a ‘‘major Federal action’’ which would preclude any 

analysis and the public review process under NEPA. Provisions of the bill also substantially affect the Wilderness Act of 1964. The bill allows lands managed by the 

BLM and the Forest Service to be leased for shooting ranges and limits liability. 

Finally, the bill would require public notice, coordination and a report to Congress 

for all closures or fishing, hunting and shooting restrictions on tracts of land greater 

than 640 contiguous acres. 

The Department has serious concerns with several of the provisions of H.R. 2834. 

The bill’s provisions (Sections 4a and 4b) which aim to provide greater access to 

Federal public lands for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting appear to be duplicative of existing authorities and policies, and are therefore unnecessary. For example, the BLM regards public lands as open to fishing, hunting and shooting because these activities are currently allowed without restriction unless it is demonstrated that the activity could result in unacceptable resource damage or create 

a public health and safety hazard or is incompatible with the purposes for which 

certain special areas have been designated. Any determination to close public lands 

to certain activities is made following extensive public involvement and notification 

through management planning NEPA processes and public notices. Further, 

through BLM, land use planners are not only required to notify the general public 

but are specifically required to contact over 40 hunting and fishing interest non-government organizations, as specified in the Federal Land Hunting, Fishing and 

Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), expressly to 

help ensure that these activities and issues are fully considered in resource management plan development. 

The bill contains provisions (Section (4) (c)) which restrict consideration of effects 

of certain management actions and activities on adjacent or nearby non-Federal 

lands. This is inconsistent with both the BLM’s planning policy, which is based on 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and NEPA; and with cumulative impacts analyses the NPS uses in its planning efforts. Furthermore, section 4(c)(1)(B) exempts all actions taken under the legislation, as well as all National Wildlife Refuge System activities from the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) regulations and the attendant environmental review processes. Such an exemption would impair the ability to accurately assess the likely impacts of decisions 

to manage federal lands under the Department’s jurisdiction. Properly developed 

NEPA reviews are a critical tool for public involvement and they improve decisionVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
30 

making by allowing the officials to evaluate ways to resolve resource use conflicts 

and address issues that the public raises. These restrictions will limit the agencies’ 

ability to make well-informed land management decisions. The Department strongly 

opposes these provisions. 

Section 4(c)(1)(C) states that recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting that occurs 

on adjacent or nearby public or private lands shall not be considered in determining 

which Federal public lands shall be open for these activities. However, it is prudent 

and important to consider the cumulative effects of proposed actions on public lands 

during the decision making process. In the NEPA planning process, there could be 

impact topics that require consideration of nearby or adjacent lands in the analysis. 

Section 4(d) of the bill authorizes the BLM to lease its lands for shooting ranges 

and to designate specific lands for recreational shooting activities. This section of 

the bill is unnecessary because the BLM has in the past and currently can transfer 

title of lands to other public entities including state and counties, for their management as public shooting ranges under the Recreation and Public Purposes Lease 

Act. The BLM can also implement non-reversionary leases with other entities for 

public use as shooting ranges. The bill also provides limitations on liability related 

to activities at the shooting ranges. The Department of the Interior defers to the 

Department of Justice on the bill’s limitation on liability related to activities occurring at shooting ranges. 

The Department strongly opposes and recommends deletion of Section 4 (e) of the 

bill, which appears to have the unintended consequences of undermining the principles of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Specifically, the bill could be interpreted to 

allow motorized and commercial activities in wilderness, which are clearly contrary 

to Congressional intent, 45 years of wilderness management, and judicial precedent. 

H.R. 1444 

H.R. 1444 requires that hunting activities (defined as hunting, trapping, netting 

and fishing) be a land use in all management plans for lands administered by Department agencies. The bill provides that hunting shall be allowed as a land use 

unless clearly not compatible with the purposes for which lands are managed, with 

any closures or restrictions clearly spelled out in management plans. It is unclear 

to which management plans the bill is referring, or if it requires agencies to develop 

specific hunting management plans. 

Applying a one-size-fits-all approach for the automatic allowance of hunting on 

public lands precludes full public engagement and involvement in the land use planning process, which is critical when determining which significant issues will be addressed in the land management plan. 

The bill’s provisions duplicate, and in some cases contradict, existing authorities. 

The BLM, for example, already allows unrestricted hunting on BLM-managed lands 

unless it has been determined to be specifically incompatible with the purposes for 

which the lands are managed. Hunting and fishing programs are commonplace in 

the Refuge System administered by the FWS, and occur in most, if not all, refuges 

where such programs are found to be compatible with the conservation purpose of 

each refuge and the overall Refuge System. Similarly, hunting and fishing are currently permitted in many NPS units with an appropriate land base. However, the 

National Park System includes units created for a variety of purposes in a variety 

of settings. Hunting may not only contradict existing NPS enabling legislation and 

other authorities, it also may be incompatible with state or local ordinances. 

For the FWS and NPS, this bill reverses the long held standard that an activity 

needs to be found compatible before it can be allowed. It places the burden on land 

managing agencies to show why hunting and fishing activities should not take place 

unless it is clearly incompatible with the purposes for which the federal land is 

managed or for which it was established. Agencies would need to develop this analysis for all public lands. 

The bill also considers fees collected by any entity, over and above the costs associated with managing lands administered by Department agencies for hunting, a restriction on hunting. These fee provisions are unclear and require clarification. For 

example, while the BLM charges fees to commercial recreation providers, including 

hunting outfitters and guides, the agency does not charge fees to individuals wishing to fish, hunt or shoot on BLM-managed public lands. Although fees collected at 

many FWS-administered refuges help to defray costs or improve public facilities for 

hunting, they do not fully cover the costs. Fees are kept low to ensure more hunters 

have access. The fee provisions of the bill are unclear and have the potential to introduce confusion into fee programs related to hunting and fishing in the Refuge 

System, including the Federal Duck Stamp program. 

31 

Conclusion 

The Department looks forward to continuing its work with the Congress and 

stakeholders in promoting and facilitating recreational fishing, hunting and shooting opportunities on lands administered by Department agencies. Thank you for the 

opportunity to present testimony on these two bills. I would be glad to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Horn, you have long 

experience both as a public land manager and as a citizen conservationist. I look forward to hearing what you have to say today, 

sir. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

Mr. BROUN. You are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HORN, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL 

AFFAIRS, U.S. SPORTSMEN’S ALLIANCE 

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the record, my name is Bill Horn, representing the U.S. 

Sportsmen’s Alliance, and thanks to the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear today in support of H.R. 2834. We would like 

to start by commending Representative Benishek and the bipartisan cosponsors of the bill which establishes clearly that fishing, 

hunting, and recreational shooting are important activities that 

have a key place on national forest and BLM public lands. Expressed legislative recognition that these activities are legitimate 

and valuable would help fend off the growing attacks from animal 

rights radicals and others who appear committed to running anglers and hunters off our public lands. 

Now, unfortunately, existing law lacks this needed expressed recognition. Neither the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, which 

governs forests, nor the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act 

governing BLM lands makes specific references to angling and 

hunting or continuation of those activities. 

We are convinced that continued failure to recognize the importance of these activities on forest and BLM lands in law and provide for the continuation of such uses sets the stage for activist 

judges to rule in favor of some animal rights plaintiff somewhere 

and ban or restrict angling and hunting on these lands. I think 

that would be an untenable situation. 

What we are struck by is that this situation we face today is very 

similar to that that this Committee dealt with in 1996 and 1997 

when it produced the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act that passed 

the house by a 403 to one vote before signed into law by President 

Clinton. Earlier, Wildlife Refuge Administration statutes had not 

expressly provided for hunting or fishing as the notion that these 

activities could be barred on the refuge system was simply incomprehensible. No one thought that they needed to make those types 

of references when those initial statutes were passed in the fifties 

and sixties. By the mid-1990s, however, there had been a string of 

animal rights lawsuits to bar hunting on refuge lands, and Congress saw the need to codify that hunting and fishing were legitimate activities on refuges and that hunting and fishing merited 

statutory designation as priority public uses on public lands. That 

bill was passed to almost overwhelming acclaim, signed by the 

32 

President in the fall of 1997, and shortly thereafter virtually all of 

the anti-hunting refuge lawsuits stopped dead in their tracks. 

We think comparable treatment is necessary for BLM and Forest 

Service lands. There has been nothing but good come out of the 

1997 Refuge Act and we think something similar needs to be done 

for 440 million acres of other public lands. 

Now, USSA has been urging Congress to pass this legislation, 

comparable legislation since 1998. Part of it is that we have seen 

these problems grow and intervening years have taught us that 

there are problems, that we have seen decisions like the Sixth Circuit’s Meister case involving the Huron-Manistee Forest exposed 

how quickly hunting can be restricted or barred on forest units. 

Hostile animal rights groups continues to grow and uses its everswelling war chest to harass hunters and anglers, and an increasingly urban nation disconnected from America’s outdoor heritage 

either doesn’t care or joins in that hostility. Continued silence in 

the law regarding the legitimacy and contributory roles of fishing 

and hunting on our public lands will ultimately cause us to lose 

those rights and activities on these lands. 

Now, other specific provisions protect recent fishing and hunting 

by reversing recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that 

upset 40 years of legal status quo involving statutes like the Wilderness Act. For many years the agencies interpreted the provisions of that Act to allow a variety of activities when deemed to be 

necessary. The activists disagree with some of those necessity determinations involving wildlife conservation and recreational access 

projects, and the Ninth Circuit agreed and has made satisfying the 

necessity test much, much more difficult for recreation fish and 

wildlife management. 

We think that it is only a matter of time before again some plaintiffs run off to court, take that new elevated necessity standard and 

use that to erect new barriers and new obstacles to hunting and 

fishing on wilderness. So in that sense we would urge Congress to 

pass 2834, which includes corrective provisions that restores the 

legal status quo regarding the Wilderness Act that existed from 

1964 through 2004. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the 

Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. 

We look forward to working with this Committee to assure prompt 

favorable action on this very important and necessary bill. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:] 

Statement of William P. Horn, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, on H.R. 2834— 

Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act 

Mr. Chairman: My name is William P. Horn representing the U.S. Sportsmen’s 

Alliance (USSA). Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and support enactment of H.R. 2834. USSA was organized in 1977 for the purposes of protecting the 

American heritage to hunt, fish, and trap and supporting wildlife conservation and 

professional wildlife management. It pursues these objectives at the federal, state, 

and local level on behalf of its over 1.5 million members and affiliates. 

We commend the bipartisan sponsors of the Recreational Fishing and Hunting 

Heritage and Opportunities Act and strongly recommend its prompt enactment by 

the Congress. The bill clearly establishes that fishing, hunting, and recreational 

shooting are important traditional activities that have a key place on our National 

Forests, administered by the U.S. Forest Service, and public lands administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Express legislative recognition that these 

33 

activities are legitimate and valuable will help fend off the growing attacks from 

animal rights radicals and others committed to running anglers and hunters off our 

public lands. Clear statutory support will also signal, and direct, the land management agencies to exercise their discretion in a manner that facilitates these traditional activities. 

Existing law lacks this recognition and clarity. For example, only part of the 1960 

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, which governs Forests, references ‘‘outdoor recreation’’ and ‘‘wildlife and fish purposes.’’ That general language has been insufficient 

to protect hunting and fishing: it has not stopped the Forest Service from proposing 

planning regulations that give fishing and hunting (and conservation) short shrift 

nor has it prevented federal courts from ordering the same agency to consider banning hunting because the sound of gunfire might upset the tender sensibilities of 

a bird watcher. Similarly, the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) (which is the ‘‘organic act’’ for BLM public lands) makes no specific references to fishing or hunting. We are persuaded that continued failure to expressly 

recognize the importance of these activities on Forest and BLM lands, and provide 

for continuation of such uses, sets the stage for an activist judge in San Francisco, 

New York City, or D.C. to rule in favor of some animal rights plaintiff and ban angling or hunting on these public lands. 

This situation is similar to the circumstances that produced the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act (which passed the House with only one dissenting vote and was 

signed into law by President Clinton). Earlier refuge administration statutes passed 

in the 1950’s and 60’s had not specifically provided for hunting or fishing; the authors of those bills—hunters all—saw no need as there was no animal rights movement and no clamor then to close hunting on Teddy Roosevelt’s wildlife system. The 

notion that hunting could be barred on the Refuge system was simply incomprehensible. By the mid-90’s, however, there had been a string of anti-hunting lawsuits to 

bar hunting on refuge lands. Even though President Clinton issued an executive 

order recognizing the value of continued hunting on the Refuge system, Congress 

saw the need to codify such recognition in statute stating clearly that hunting and 

fishing were legitimate activities on refuge lands, the managing agency had a duty 

to facilitate these activities, and fishing and hunting merited designation as priority 

public uses in the law. After the bill was signed by President Clinton, virtually all 

of the anti-hunting lawsuits stopped. 

President Bush in 2008 issued a similar hunting executive order (EO) for public 

lands. Just as the Clinton EO was insufficient to guard hunting on refuges, the 

Bush EO is not enough to protect hunting and fishing on Forest and BLM lands. 

Accordingly, we urge this Committee, and Congress, to provide needed statutory 

protection for Forest and BLM lands by enacting H.R. 2834. 

USSA has been urging Congress to pass comparable legislation since 1998. Initially we were told there was no need and previous versions of this bill were dismissed as ‘‘solutions in search of a problem.’’ The intervening years have taught of 

the sporting community that there is a problem. Decisions like the 6th Circuit’s Meister case exposed how quickly hunting can be lost. Activists have mounted efforts 

to preempt state management and bar bear hunting on public lands. Clever lawsuits 

seek to misuse federal environmental laws to restrict or ban fishing and hunting 

on federally administered lands. The hostile animal rights movement has grown and 

uses its ever swelling war chest to harass hunters and anglers. And an increasingly 

urban nation—wholly disconnected from America’s outdoor heritage—either doesn’t 

care or joins in the hostility. Continued silence in the law regarding the legitimacy 

and contributory roles of fishing and hunting on Forest and BLM lands will ultimately cause the loss of these activities on over 400 million acres of our public 

lands. 

This silence must be corrected and H.R. 2834 does precisely that. It plainly recognizes fishing, hunting and shooting as legitimate and important activities on Forest 

and BLM lands. It directs the agencies to exercise their discretion, consistent with 

the other applicable law, to facilitate fishing, hunting (and trapping as a hunting 

activity) and shooting. This duty extends to the preparation of land planning documents required by the National Forest Management Act and FLPMA. No one will 

be able to argue to an agency or a court, with a straight face, that fishing and hunting have no place on these public lands following enactment of this bill. 

One of the clever ploys to indirectly attack these activities has been to treat continuation of fishing and hunting as a ‘‘new’’ decision or action requiring completion 

of a full blown environmental impact statement (EIS). Antis then file suit contending the EIS was inadequate and that the decision to ‘‘open’’ an area to fishing 

or hunting must be suspended until the EIS is made adequate. H.R. 2834 provides 

a simple solution: Forest and BLM lands are considered ‘‘open’’ to fishing and hunting so no new EIS or other document needs to precede continuation of these tradiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
34 

tional activities. The Forest Service and BLM remain free to impose those restrictions and closures that they determine are necessary (if supported by facts and evidence) but an ‘‘open until closed’’ regime will be far more efficient, save millions of 

dollars of administrative expense, and insulate fishing and hunting from unwarranted indirect attacks. 

USSA strongly applauds other features of the bill that facilitate wildlife conservation, ensure fishing and hunting opportunities, and help the agencies direct finite 

personnel and dollar resources to on-the-ground conservation rather than more 

planning documents. In 2003, antis sued to stop hunting on 60 wildlife refuge units 

arguing that even though the Fish and Wildlife Service had done EIS’s or environmental assessments (EA’s) authorizing hunting on each unit, FWS had not (the 

antis claimed) done a sufficient ‘‘cumulative effects analysis’’ on the overall effects 

of hunting on the entire Refuge system. We intervened in the case with Ducks Unlimited, NRA, and SCI and argued—along with FWS—that deer hunting on the 

Bond Swamp unit in GA, woodcock hunting in the Canaan Valley, WV refuge, and 

duck hunting on ND units for example had such limited and unconnected effects 

that a ‘‘cumulative effects’’ review made no sense. Moreover, Congress in the 1997 

Refuge Improvement Act made it clear that unit-by-unit Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP’s), dovetailed with EIS or EA documents, would be sufficient to approve the priority public uses of fishing and hunting. A D.C. judge disagreed, ordered FWS to prepare the cumulative effects analysis, and FWS spent years and 

countless hours of personnel time and money engaging in this superfluous paper exercise—using precious dollars that would have been better spent on actual wildlife 

conservation and refuge management. And last week FWS had to pay anti-hunting 

plaintiffs over $100,000 in attorney’s fees for this case—more money diverted from 

conservation. Section 4(c)(1)(B) of H.R. 2834 reiterates the intent of the 1997 Act 

that FWS need not prepare unnecessary, costly cumulative effects analyses to continue to open refuge units to fishing and hunting and ensures that anti-hunting 

plaintiffs cannot capitalize on the D.C. court ruling to collect even more fees for 

their lawyers. 

Section 4(e) of the bill also restores the status quo regarding the 1964 Wilderness 

Act that existed between 1964 and 2005. For example, some refuge units are overlaid with Wilderness designations. The 1964 Act—section 4(a) to be precise—specifies that Wilderness purposes ‘‘are hereby declared to be within and supplemental 

to’’ the purposes of the underlying land unit. In the case of refuges, that plainly 

means a unit is Wildlife Refuge first and a Wilderness second. In case of a conflict, 

the wildlife conservation purpose and mission of the Refuge system would be primary and Wilderness purposes secondary. That was the state of the law until recent 

9th Circuit rulings in the Kofa Refuge case. Kofa was established by President 

Franklin Roosevelt with the primary purpose of conserving desert bighorn sheep. 

Over the years, FWS, the Arizona Department of Game and Fish and conservationists learned that water supplies are the primary factor limiting sheep populations. 

To enhance the bighorn population and provide greater genetic diversity to assure 

long term survival, the parties constructed during the 1980’s small water catchment 

basins in Kofa to retain precious rain water and keep it from simply sinking into 

the sand. These small unobtrusive basins became important oases for the sheep 

(and other wildlife) and the population prospered. 

Wilderness activists were upset that some of these small basins were situated in 

parts of Kofa designated as Wilderness by Congress in 1990 (after the basins had 

been built). Last year two 9th Circuit judges disregarded the Wilderness Act ‘‘supplemental purposes’’ language, held that Kofa is Wilderness first and Refuge second, 

and ordered FWS that the water basins had to go unless the agency could demonstrate that the basins were ‘‘necessary’’ to fulfill Wilderness purposes. These legal 

conclusions are simply wrong, must be corrected by Congress and section 4(e) does 

just that. 

The 1964 Act also allows a variety of activities in Wilderness areas when ‘‘necessary’’ to assist wilderness purposes. For decades, agencies like BLM and the Forest Service interpreted this to allow a variety of outdoor recreational activities including horseback trips. But activists disagreed and sued arguing that horseback 

trips were not ‘‘necessary.’’ The 9th Circuit agreed and has made the ‘‘necessary’’ 

finding much more difficult for both recreation and conservation actions (e.g., Kofa, 

Tustemena Lake case). USSA believes it is only a matter of time before antis go 

to court to argue that neither fishing nor hunting is ‘‘necessary’’ in Wilderness 

areas. We have every reason to believe that hostile Forest Service or BLM political 

personnel, or the 9th Circuit, will buy this bogus argument and impose new restrictions on anglers and hunters in Wilderness areas. Rather than wait—and worry— 

we urge Congress to stop this nonsense and enact corrective legislation like 

H.R. 2834. 

35 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. USSA is committed to working 

with the Committee to assure prompt favorable action on this important legislation. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Secretary Horn. I want to add a little 

thing. We have seen the warning that you bring to us as playing 

out a different issue, but Lake Lanier that supplies water for 

Atlanta, Georgia in Gwinnett County, Georgia, doesn’t have statutorily in its water use that humans can utilize that water for consumption, and we have seen a Federal judge come and rule that 

Atlanta and Gwinnett County cannot take water out of the lake 

where it has been going on since that lake was first impounded, so 

I think it is extremely necessary to have this statutorily placed so 

that Federal judges and other can’t do that, so I thank you for your 

testimony. 

Now Ms. Simpson, I think the Safari Club is the voice of wisdom 

on conservation and hunting issues, particularly since I was so 

strongly involved with the Safari Club as you very well know. You 

are recognized for five minutes, looking forward to what you have 

to say. 

STATEMENT OF MELISSA SIMPSON, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL 

Ms. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to share the views of 100,000 Safari Club International members 

and its affiliates, all of whom support H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834. 

My name is Melissa Simpson. I am Director of Government 

Affairs for Safari Club International here in Washington, D.C. 

SCI’s missions are the conservation of wildlife, protecting of 

hunting, and education of the public concerning hunting and its 

use as a conservation tool. SCI believes that Federal lands should 

be managed under the principles of multiple use to maximize habitat for wildlife and protect our outdoor heritage. We believe the opportunity to hunt and fish on Federal lands should be a priority for 

every land and resource and management plan. 

H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834 would require Federal agencies to ensure that abundant hunting and fishing opportunities are provided 

for. Some organizations have stated that this legislation is unnecessary. Meanwhile. litigious anti-hunting groups have misused wellmeaning environmental laws to stop hunting and fishing anywhere 

possible. 

In addition, the continual stream of regulations from the Administration that discourage participation in outdoor recreation appears to be a coordinated front to our hunting heritage. 

In the last two years the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service have introduced 

anti-hunting policies. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum on roadless 

areas, the Forest Service planning rule, Secretary Salazar’s wild 

lands order, the BLM’s shooting range policy, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service vision document are all examples of where multiple-use management is being curtailed to the detriment of wildlife 

and access for sportsmen is being denied. 

36 

Since the beginning of the last century, sportsmen have voluntarily contributed to conservation through license fees and excise 

taxes to ensure that wildlife would be around for future generations. Now we need your help. If Congress does not expressly designate hunting and fishing as priority uses of our Federal lands it 

is only a matter of time before we lose these opportunities that 

have been central to the North American model of wildlife conservation. 

We need Congress to pass H.R. 1444, H.R. 2834, and the handful of other pro-sportsmen bills that have been introduced in the 

112th Congress to help protect our outdoor heritage. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to highlight the Jobs Frontier 

Report released by the Western Caucus this week. SCI calls upon 

Congress and the Administration to please give full consideration 

to the report’s conservation and wildlife provisions. They include 

the legislation being considered by the Subcommittee today in addition to H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Simpson follows:] 

Statement of Melissa Simpson, Director of Government Affairs, Safari Club 

International, on H.R. 1444, ‘‘Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage 

Opportunities Act’’ and the ‘‘Cabin Fee Act of 2011’’ 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my views, the views of Safari Club International, and 

the sportsmen’s community, all of whom support H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834. 

My name is Melissa Simpson. I serve as the Director of Government Affairs for 

Safari Club International (SCI). SCI’s missions are the conservation of wildlife, protection of hunting, and education of the public concerning hunting and its use as 

a conservation tool. SCI works both nationally and globally to protect hunting opportunities and strengthen the link between hunting and wildlife conservation. 

Safari Club International believes that U.S. Federal lands should be managed 

under the principles of multiple-use. Outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, have been and should continue to be a primary use of U.S. Federal lands. The 

opportunity to hunt and fish on Federal lands should be a priority for every land 

and resource management plan. H.R. 1444 and H.R. 2834 would require Federal 

agencies to ensure abundant hunting and fishing opportunities are provided for unless hunting and fishing are determined to be incompatible with a specific unit of 

land. 

Mr. Chairman, in the past some organizations have stated that this legislation is 

unnecessary. This could not be further from the truth, hunting is under attack. Litigious anti-hunting organizations have misused well-meaning environmental laws to 

stop hunting and fishing anywhere possible. These organizations are aggressively 

seeking to undermine hunting opportunities on America’s Federal lands. An attempt 

to end hunting in the National Wildlife Refuge System was recently defeated, but 

even now anti-hunting organizations are at work to eliminate hunting on our National Forests and BLM lands. If Congress does not expressly designate hunting and 

fishing as priority uses of our federal lands it is only a matter of time before we 

lose these opportunities that have been central to the North American Model of Conservation. 

In August of 2000, America’s leading wildlife conservation organizations met to 

identify how best to work collaboratively to help chart the course for the future of 

wildlife conservation in the United States. These organizations formed the American 

Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP), a consortium of over 40 organizations representing over 4 million hunters at the time. The impetus for this historic meeting 

was the urgent recognition that habitats on federal forests and rangelands were deteriorating; declines in hunter participation was putting America’s hunting heritage 

at risk, and along with it, the tradition of America’s game management; public conflict and polarization over wildlife issues were increasing; and finally, the stewardship of federal lands was hampered by conflicting laws and regulations guiding the 

management of these lands. AWCP subsequently presented ‘‘Wildlife for the 21st 

37 

Century’’ policy recommendations to President George W. Bush in both his terms 

and to President Barack Obama in 2009. 

In the decade that AWCP has engaged the Administration, sportsmen have tirelessly worked to resolve the same ongoing issues with the federal land management 

agencies. During the Bush Administration, I served as a liaison to the sportsmen’s 

community through high level positions at the Department of the Interior and US 

Department of Agriculture, focusing on facilitating relationships between the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service with the sportsmen’s community to better integrate sportsmen’s issues into agency decision making, specifically 

focusing on access to public lands. 

In 2005, I organized a conference between Interior and AWCP to advance their 

policy recommendations. Policy sessions with high-level Administration officials, the 

Interior Secretary, Interior Counsel and AWCP executives led to the recognition 

that the hunting community needed a more direct conduit to engage the Administration. Consequently, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture established 

the Sporting Conservation Council (SCC); a federal advisory committee specifically 

for members of the hunting community to advise on access, conservation funding, 

habitat management, and hunter recruitment and retention. The SCC recommendations resulted in President Bush’s Executive Order #13443: Facilitation of Hunting 

Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, which called for a White House Conference on 

North American Wildlife Policy and a ten year Recreational Hunting and Wildlife 

Conservation Plan. The ten year plan was referenced by the Obama Administration 

in the charter for the current sportsmen’s federal advisory committee, the Wildlife 

Hunting Heritage Conservation Council. 

In 2006, 40 hunting, fishing and wildlife organizations and three federal agencies 

signed the Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing, and Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding with the purpose of ‘‘implementing mutually beneficial 

projects and activities.’’ The chief of the US Forest Service has repeatedly reminded 

field staff of the importance of hunting and sport shooting on national forest lands 

through directives. Lastly, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council was 

established to benefit recreational fishing. Despite all these efforts and the supposed 

commitment of the present Administration to hunting and fishing opportunities, the 

reality is that the policies and regulation currently being proposed actually undermine the efforts of the past ten years. 

While sportsmen and women began with high hopes for the Administration, it has 

become increasingly clear that these hopes were based on paper promises. The continual stream of regulations that discourage participation in outdoor recreation has 

come from many different agencies and appears to be a coordinated affront to our 

hunting heritage. In the last two years, anti-hunting regulations have come from 

most of the public land agencies including the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Nor has the current Administration made progress in implementing the ten year Recreational Hunting and Wildlife 

Conservation Plan. 

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the last century sportsmen saw the problems 

that over-utilization can do to wildlife. Hunters and anglers asked to contribute to 

conservation through license fees and excise taxes to ensure that wildlife would be 

around for future generations. Over the last century sportsmen and women have 

upheld our end of the bargain and provided billions of dollars to conserve wildlife 

including over 75% of all funding for state conservation agencies. Now we need your 

help. We need Congress to pass H.R. 1444, H.R 2834 and the handful of other prosportsmen bills that members have been introduced in the 112th Congress and help 

protect our outdoor heritage. 

Thank you for the opportunity and I would be happy to answer any questions that 

the Committee might have. 

List of Anti-hunting Regulatory and 

Administrative Actions over the last 12 months 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vision Document 

A second draft of the refuge vision document was recently published by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS). The document is to provide direction for National Wildlife Refuges for the next generation. The newest version of the vision document 

again neglects hunting and recreation while greatly expanding the FWS’s mission 

to include controversial climate change adaptation. The Hunting Advisory Council 

created by the Administration (Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council) has recommended changes to the vision document after the first draft was released, and even their recommendations are ignored in the second draft. 

38 

Forest Service Planning Rule 

The Forest Service released the Draft Planning Rule on February 10, 2011 (76 

FR 8480). When it is finalized (Fall 2011) this Rule will affect every land management plan on the 193 million acres of the National Forest. SCI and many other 

hunting and conservation groups filed comments expressing fundamental concerns 

with the rule. 

• The Draft Planning Rule makes negligible mention of hunting and offers little 

in the way of express protections for hunting, potentially inviting the courts 

to resolve questions over the role that hunting will play on National Forests 

in the future. 

• The definition of the phrase ‘‘sustainable recreation’’ makes no specific mention of hunting. In addition, the definition is troublesome because it restricts 

‘‘sustainable recreation’’ to opportunities, uses and access that are ecologically, economically and socially sustainable, without providing a definition 

of what qualifies as ‘‘socially sustainable.’’ 

Secretary Vilsack’s Memorandum 

Secretary Vilsack has issued memorandum for the last three years that reserve 

all decisions over road construction, or timber removal to the Secretary’s office. (Secretarial Orders 10420–154,10420–155,10420–156) These orders take the power of 

land management away from local decision makers and concentrate that power in 

Washington, D.C. By removing these powers from local land managers, the Secretary’s office is greatly limiting the ability of local land manager to thin forests to 

reduce the chances of catastrophic wildfire, mitigate insect infestation, and manage 

forest habitat for the benefit of wildlife. 

BLM Shooting Range Policy 

Earlier this year the BLM issued a draft shooting range policy. This policy fails 

to acknowledge the traditional and historic use of public lands for recreational 

shooting. Even worse the policy maintains the BLM’s current policy of not operating 

shooting ranges or issuing new leases for shooting ranges because of the ‘‘potential 

liability related to lead contamination of the environment.’’ This is a false concern 

because, as the BLM is fully aware, the EPA has developed guidance for management of spent lead ammunition at shooting ranges. SCI believe that this policy 

sends a negative message to land managers about the role that recreational shooting should have on BLM land. 

Wild Lands Order 

In December 2010 Secretary Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3310, containing 

the controversial Wild Lands policy, without any public input. This policy would 

have allowed the BLM to circumvent Congressional authority over designating wilderness by allowing the BLM to use the public resource management planning process to designate certain lands with wilderness characteristics as ‘‘Wild Lands.’’ 

Sportsmen and the Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies (representing the 

50 state fish and wildlife agencies) opposed this order because it would undermine 

states’ authority by creating unnecessary barriers to fish and wildlife management 

and related recreation on public lands. The Secretary reversed this Order only after 

Congress acted to remove funding for this policy. 

FWS Importation Problems 

Importation of hunting trophies into the United States has become more difficult 

over the past few years. SCI members have been subject to an increasing frequency 

of seizures of hunting trophies that are being imported into the United States by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. These seizures seem to be the result of minor paperwork problems and seizure or forfeiture of expensive wildlife trophies is an outsized 

penalty for minor paperwork errors, especially when many of these errors are 

caused by wildlife officials in developing countries. 

Additionally, the administration was unwilling to support a beneficial definition 

of ‘‘hunting trophies’’ at the last Conference of the Parties of the Convention on 

International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) in 2010 that would have helped 

reduce the seizure problem. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Ms. Simpson, appreciate your hard work 

for SCI and for hunters around the country. God bless you. I really 

appreciate your work. 

39 

Ms. Recce, thank you again for being here. I know you have been 

very hard at work for many years on these issues. You are now recognized for five minutes. Look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN RECCE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. RECCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the invitation to testify. 

The National Rifle Association strongly supports H.R. 2834 and 

commends the sponsors for its introduction. The bill contains a 

number of important objectives. It recognizes the rightful place of 

hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on Federal lands, and 

ensures that these historic and traditional public uses are embedded in land management plans. It supports Executive Order 13-443 

that directs Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting. It removes barriers to providing safe and responsible use of Federal lands and restores Congressional intent in 

laws that court rulings have misconstrued and which will certainly 

bring harm to hunting, fishing, and other recreation. 

The Forest Service and the BLM manage their lands as open unless closed, but that policy holds hidden pitfalls. It doesn’t encourage proactive management of recreation. It doesn’t prevent sudden 

and arbitrary closures, and it doesn’t require reasonable access to 

these open lands. 

H.R. 2834 provides the security we need for the future of our 

historic and traditional uses. The bill takes guidance from the 1997 

Refuge System Improvement Act which protects hunting and fishing on refuge lands and requires land managers to proactively provide for these public uses. The passage of the Act was in part a response by litigation from animal rights activists who were attacking hunters and anglers, the very people who help create the refuge 

system and fund it for the last seven decades. Passage of 

H.R. 2834 will ensure the protection of these public lands public 

usage is accorded to national forests and BLM lands. 

The bill also reverses a recent court ruling in a case brought by 

the same activists whose sole mission was to grind to a halt the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s ability to open refuges to hunting and 

fishing. The bill affirms the test of compatibility enshrined in the 

Improvement Act and provides sufficient assurance that these programs will not have adverse environmental impacts. 

Because land management plans set the stage for and drive decisions made about and use, it is paramount that hunting, fishing, 

and shooting are addressed in these plans. If they aren’t, they can 

cease to exist. 

The bill also prevents land closures without public notice, comment and supported by sound science. This takes bias and personal 

agenda out of the equation. The bill also requires that all land 

management plans include evaluation of the effects that management alternatives have on our traditional uses. All too often it is 

impossible to determine how these decisions will affect us. 

Americans need places to target practice and sight in their hunting rifles. In much of the West the only places for informal shooting 

are found on Federal lands managed by the Forest Service and the 

40 

BLM. Planners need to be able to identify and designate areas that 

are suitable for safe shooting, but the agency’s claim they can’t do 

it because it imposes an undue liability against the government. 

This is prejudicial and discriminatory treatment of a recreational 

activity that has a record of one of the safest activities on Federal 

lands. The bill permits the agencies to designate safe shooting 

areas without incurring liability. 

The bill also safeguards the interest of the states by protecting 

them from being burdened with the responsibility of providing public use when recreationalists are displaced from Federal lands by 

irresponsible management decisions, and it reverses a Sixth Circuit 

Court ruling that has enormous implications for hunting, fishing, 

and for that matter all recreation on forest lands across the country. 

Another provision of the bill addresses BLM’s recent decision to 

no longer lease land to build a shooting range. The BLM changed 

its policy because of concern that leased land returned to the agency would require environmental clean up, but EPA’s guidance from 

management of spent lead ammunition has been in place since 

2003, and it is designed to obviate the need for environmental 

clean up if a shooting range closes. The concern from BLM is simply a smoke screen. 

And last, the BLM supports language ensuring that the designation of Forest Service and BLM wilderness, wilderness study areas, 

primitive and semi-primitive areas cannot be used to preclude 

hunting, fishing, and shooting, and I add that it does not open up 

wilderness areas to mechanized or motorized uses. And the bill restores its status quo regarding recreational and sound wildlife 

management practices in wilderness areas by overturning a Ninth 

Circuit Court ruling. The court’s imposition of an necessity test 

gives Federal land managers and future animal rights litigators 

the tool to distort the Wilderness Act for the purpose of closing 

these lands to hunters and anglers and wildlife management. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Recce follows:] 

Statement of Susan Recce, Director, Conservation, Wildlife and Natural 

Resources, National Rifle Association, on H.R. 2834 ‘‘Recreational Fishing 

and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act’’ 

Mr. Chairman, the National Rifle Association (NRA) appreciates the invitation to 

testify today on legislation that is critical to securing the future of our hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting heritage on Federal public lands. We commend the 

sponsors of H.R. 2834, the ‘‘Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act,’’ for its introduction and pledge our support for and assistance in its 

passage through Congress. 

H.R. 2834 accomplishes six important objectives and they are the following: 

• First, it recognizes the rightful place of hunting, fishing and recreational 

shooting on Federal public lands. 

• Second, it ensures that these historic and traditional public uses are responsibly provided for in land management plans as are other popular recreational activities like hiking and camping. 

• Third, it applies this policy across the board in our Federal land systems. 

• Fourth, it supports Executive Order 13443 titled ‘‘Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation’’ that directs the relevant Federal agencies to 

‘‘facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the 

management of game species and their habitat.’’ 

• Fifth, it removes barriers to providing safe and responsible public use of Federal lands. 

41 

• Sixth, it restores Congressional intent in laws that court rulings have misconstrued and which will cause deleterious effects on hunting and other recreational pursuits, as well as on sound wildlife management practices. 

The NRA has long been involved in issues related to sportsmen’s access to our 

Federal public lands. We have participated in numerous symposia, research studies, 

and surveys focused on barriers to access and opportunities to hunt and target 

shoot. Beginning in 1996, the NRA has chaired a Roundtable with representatives 

of Federal land management agencies and national hunting, wildlife conservation, 

and shooting sports organizations. The Roundtable was created by a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) that seeks to resolve issues and enhance opportunities related to hunting and recreational shooting. The current MOU titled ‘‘The Federal 

Lands Hunting, Fishing and Shooting Sports Roundtable’’ is signed by the Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and 

40 national hunting, fishing and shooting sports organizations. Fifteen years of experience has clearly defined what is achievable by working with our Federal agency 

partners and what can only be achieved through legislation, specifically through 

passage of H.R. 2834. 

The Forest Service and the BLM will state, in truth, that lands they manage are 

‘‘open unless closed’’ to recreational activities meaning that millions of acres are 

opened to nearly unfettered recreational pursuit. But that policy holds hidden pitfalls. It does not encourage proactive management of recreation, it does not prevent 

sudden and arbitrary closures of public land to recreation, and it does not require 

that reasonable access to these open lands be provided. The land is simply open 

until at such time by administrative fiat it is closed. This policy provides no security 

for the future of our historic and traditional uses of Federal public lands. 

Years of working with the Federal agencies have demonstrated that even with directives sent from an agency head to the field recognizing the legitimate and historic 

use of Federal public lands for sportsmen’s activities, the agencies are so decentralized that field managers are left to their own discretion as to whether headquarter 

memoranda are adhered to, or for that matter, whether they are read or remembered. H.R. 2834 provides the security we need. It directs that Federal land managers will support and facilitate the use of and access to Federal lands and waters 

for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. 

This provision of H.R. 2834 is not only in the best interests of sportsmen and 

women, but it is in the best interests of America’s economy. The most recent economic report on hunting on Federal lands is the 2007 report conducted by Southwick and Associates and the American Sportfishing Association. The report found 

that hunting on just national forest lands alone annually generated $894 million in 

expenditures from 2000 to 2003. The report’s executive summary noted that as 

these expenditures are spent and re-spent by businesses, additional economic effects 

are created for state and national economies. The money hunters spent supported 

over 21,000 full and part-time jobs across the country, and increased Federal income 

tax receipts by $111 million. 

One objective of the above mentioned MOU is to work in partnership with the 

Federal agencies to resolve issues in a manner that prevents closures. There are 

some land managers who have worked with sportsmen’s organizations in the spirit 

of the MOU partnership. However, when faced with a management challenge, the 

land manager’s response is more often to close the area. Under H.R. 2834, Federal 

land that is being utilized for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting cannot be 

closed without public notice and comment and supported by sound science. This removes biases and personal agendas from the Federal management of legitimate and 

traditional public uses. 

H.R. 2834 takes guidance from Congress’ passage of the 1997 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act which elevated hunting, fishing and other wildlife 

dependent recreation above all other public uses and made them priority public uses 

of the Refuge System. The language of the Act was a direct result of litigation by 

animal rights activists who endlessly attempted to shut down the Refuge System 

to hunters and anglers, the very segment of our society who created the Refuge System and who has helped fund it for the past seven decades. Although H.R. 2834 

does not elevate hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting above other uses of nonrefuge lands, it will ensure that these activities are anchored in law for national 

forests and grasslands and for public lands managed by the BLM. Where H.R. 2834 

and the Refuge Improvement Act converge is in requiring land managers to be 

proactive in providing for these public uses. 

Because land management plans set the stage for and drive decisions made about 

land use, it is paramount that hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are addressed in these plans. If they are not provided for in land management plans, they 

can easily cease to exist. As a case in point, there was a shooting range that the 

42 

BLM considered unsafe so the agency requested the expertise of the NRA. NRA provided the expert who concluded that the range was located in a bad site and improvements were not possible to enhance safety. But the expert identified several 

suitable sites for relocation of the range. The BLM’s response was that it could not 

entertain a new site because the recently adopted management plan for the area 

did not address recreational shooting—so such a relocation decision could not be 

made. With the closure of the range, the entire area was closed to recreational 

shooting. This is not atypical of the apathy and disregard for the needs and interests of local sportsmen and a breach of the goodwill as embodied in the MOU that 

occurs at the field level. The MOU is designed to forge partnerships, not adversarial 

relationships. 

All too often management plans are silent about the impacts of proposed management options on these public uses, making it impossible to assess how they will be 

treated. For example, both the Forest Service and the BLM have been developing 

Travel Management Plans that designate routes and trails for motorized vehicle 

use. Some plans make an exception for the use of a vehicle to retrieve legally 

downed big game some distance off a designated route. Other plans make no exception. It is completely arbitrary at the local level as to how hunting access will be 

treated, particularly for older and disabled hunters. H.R. 2834 requires that all 

land management planning documents include evaluations of the effects that management alternatives have on opportunities to engage in hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. 

H.R. 2834 directs Federal land managers to support and facilitate the use and access to public lands and waters for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting 

through the land management planning process. Land managers will not address 

public uses unless the subject is brought up by the public during the initial stages 

of planning. However, even if it is, there is no guarantee how these public uses will 

be addressed in a plan. As an example, an area of BLM land undergoing a new land 

use plan had some 20 areas where informal recreational shooting took place. Concern for the future of that traditional use of the area was expressed by sportsmen 

in the initial planning stage. When the draft plan was released, the agency’s selected management option was to close the entire area to recreational shooting. So 

even if hunting, fishing and recreational shooting have traditionally been conducted 

on a unit of Federal land and it is raised as a subject to address in a management 

plan, there is no guarantee that it will be fairly and responsibly treated. H.R. 2834 

is the only way that sportsmen can be guaranteed their rightful place on their Federal public lands for now and into the future. 

Americans need places to target practice. In much of the West, the only places 

for informal shooting are found on Federal lands managed by the Forest Service and 

the BLM. Such places are important to introduce family members and friends to the 

safe and responsible use of firearms and to the enjoyment and challenge of sport 

shooting. But these places are also important to hunting because it is here where 

hunters can sight in their hunting rifles and where youth can get basic training before taking a hunter education course. Gone are the days when much of this land 

would be termed remote. All too often informal shooting sites are being threatened 

by encroaching development and conflict with other recreationists, exacerbated by 

anti-gun bias within the agencies. This is why it is critical that recreational shooting be addressed in land management plans. 

Planners need to be able to identify and designate areas that are suitable for safe 

shooting and to ensure that such suitable sites are not made unsuitable because a 

trail or campground was built in or through the area. But both the Forest Service 

and the BLM claim that they are unable to designate such areas because it imposes 

an undue liability against the United States. This response has no anchor in written 

policy that I can find. Nor does it explain why recreational shooting is being singled 

out as a liability. The agencies will tell you that recreational shooting has a record 

of being one of the safest activities on Federal public lands. Accidental injuries and 

death involving shooters or other recreationists pale in comparison to activities like 

off highway vehicle use, white water rafting, and horseback riding. But because the 

agencies have refused to address this prejudicial and discriminatory treatment of 

recreational shooting, H.R. 2834 removes this roadblock to safe shooting by permitting the agencies to designate areas for recreational shooting without incurring liability for so doing. 

H.R. 2834 puts into law the ‘‘open unless closed’’ policy of the Forest Service and 

the BLM and establishes a transparent public process when the agency head intends to close an area or restrict its use by hunters, anglers and recreational shooters. Before the action can be taken, the public must be notified, the agency must 

show that it is necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence, or 

mandated by other law. The NRA is also very supportive of the bill’s parallel reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

quirement that when an agency’s action will have the effect of closing or significantly restricting hunting, fishing or recreational shooting on 640 or more contiguous acres (or an aggregate of acres affected), Congress and the public must first 

be notified and coordination must take place with the state fish and wildlife agency. 

There is an important reason to have state involvement because Federal land closures and restrictions transfer the management responsibility to the state to provide 

for the needs of the displaced recreating public. 

H.R. 2834 safeguards the interests of the states in providing access and opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting by protecting states from being 

burdened with the Federal agencies’ responsibilities for providing for these public 

uses as well. This is necessary step that Congress needs to take as a result of a 

6th Circuit Court ruling in a lawsuit brought against the management plan for the 

Huron-Manistee National Forest (MI). The court said that the Forest Service’s Planning Rule required it to take into account recreational activities, hunting in this 

case, that are ‘‘duplicated’’ on adjacent state or other Federal lands in determining 

whether the Huron-Manistee should remain open to hunting. This ruling poses 

threats to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting and, for that matter, all recreational activities on forest lands across the country. It suggests that the states 

and Federal sister agencies are to find ways of accommodating recreationists that 

are forced off of forest lands because of this ruling. The new draft Forest Planning 

Rule does not correct this problem. 

The draft Forest Service Planning Rule is another excellent example of why administrative policies and rules cannot provide a secure future for our historic and 

traditional public uses and why H.R. 2834 is needed. The first public look at the 

Rule was an outline that barely mentioned recreation as an element, let alone an 

important element, of national forest management. The recreation community was 

assured that this would be rectified in the draft Rule itself. The draft Rule, which 

was released for review and public comment earlier this year, addresses recreation 

in the context of whether it is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Recreation is not defined and there is no explanation of what parameters the 

sustainability of any recreational activity will be measured against. These are real 

threats that need real solutions and the only real solution is passage of H.R. 2834. 

Just as the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act dispensed with 

threats against hunting and fishing, so too has the time come to build into law security for these pursuits on Federal lands managed by the Forest Service and the 

BLM. 

Another provision of H.R. 2834 allows Federal agencies to lease land for shooting 

ranges. By way of background, the BLM also has a long-standing policy of not building or managing shooting ranges. This means that some 170 million acres of BLM 

land just in the lower 48 states are closed to any infrastructure for recreational 

shooting, including basic improvements like berms, target holders and shooting 

benches, even if the improvements would enhance shooting safety. It is impossible 

to understand how trails can be built or campsites can be provided for, but yet simple, cost-effective improvements for shooting are not allowed by policy. I would like 

to see language inserted in the bill directing the BLM to provide for such improvements when those improvements would enhance the safety of a shooting area and 

reduce potential conflicts with other public land users. 

The bill’s language, however, responds to a recent policy adopted by the BLM instructing field managers not to lease lands for shooting ranges. The BLM stated 

that this change in policy was due to concern over environmental liability, specifically concern that leased land returned to BLM management will contain spent lead 

ammunition requiring the agency to engage in an environmental cleanup. The BLM 

knows very well that in 2003 the EPA issued guidance for the management of spent 

lead ammunition at shooting ranges. The guidance is titled ‘‘Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges.’’ The guidance is designed to obviate the 

need for environmental cleanup if and when a shooting range closes. This concern 

over environmental liability is simply a smoke screen which the BLM is happy to 

hide behind. 

BLM’s response is that land leasing is unnecessary because it has the authority 

to patent land under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to a state or local entity for the purpose of building a shooting range for the community. However, BLM 

does not reveal the exceedingly long and costly process involved. Land has to be 

identified for disposal in a land management plan, the agencyhas to have the interest and funding to pursue a patent request, and there are numerous and costly environmental studies that must be conducted. One such example is the transfer of 

BLM land to the Arizona Game and Fish Department which took on the responsibility of building and managing a shooting range to replace one on BLM land that 

had been closed. It has taken 14 years to complete the process of just transferring 

44 

the land. No spade of dirt has yet been turned and local sportsmen continue to wait 

for a place to go shooting. This policy needs to be reversed. Both of BLM’s policies, 

on allowing infrastructure to be built and on leasing lands, are clear examples of 

discriminatory and prejudicial treatment of a legitimate and traditional activity that 

ultimately shifts the management responsibility to the Forest Service and the 

states. 

Turning to other sections of the bill, the NRA supports language ensuring that 

the designation of Federal land as wilderness, wilderness study areas, primitive and 

semi-primitive areas under the management of the Forest Service and the BLM cannot be used to preclude hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. And H.R. 2834 

restores the status quo regarding recreation and sound wildlife management practices in wilderness areas by overturning a 9th Circuit Court ruling that disallowed 

the restoration of water catchments for the survival and enhancement of desert bighorn sheep in the wilderness portion of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge 

established to protect and enhance this species. The Court ruled that the Refuge 

had not exhausted all other means to protect the sheep and so could not show that 

these water catchments were necessary. The Court’s imposition of a ‘‘necessity’’ test 

gives Federal land managers and future anti-hunting litigators the tool to distort 

the Wilderness Act for the purpose of closing these lands to hunters and anglers 

and wildlife management. H.R. 2834 also makes an important statement that the 

primary purpose for which a unit of Federal land was established guides its management and that a wilderness overlay cannot materially interfere or hinder that 

guidance. 

And lastly, the NRA supports language in H.R. 2834 that reinforces Congressional intent in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act which requires hunting and fishing programs to be compatible with the purposes for which the specific 

refuge was established and with the mission and purposes of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Litigation by anti-hunting organizations and a subsequent court ruling resulted in an additional layer of analysis being imposed upon the agency. This 

additional layer of review is unnecessary and costly to the FWS which is already 

struggling with huge backlogs in operation and maintenance needs within the Refuge System. 

The compatibility test provides sufficient assurance that hunting and fishing programs will not have adverse environmental impacts. That was proven a number of 

years ago in a different lawsuit filed against the Service over refuge hunting and 

fishing programs. A thorough and exhaustive review was conducted of the hundreds 

of programs with the result that an adjustment was made to one hunting program 

and one fishing program had to be closed. There was no evidence then and none 

now that suggests taxpayers’ dollars are well served by pointless layers of analyses 

behind the test of compatibility. The only desire of the plaintiffs was to find some 

other means of grinding to a halt the FWS’ ability to open refuges to hunting and 

fishing and enhancing existing programs. 

In conclusion, the NRA wholeheartedly supports H.R. 2834 because it legislatively recognizes the legitimate and traditional activities of hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on Federal public lands. It safeguards these activities from prejudicial and discriminatory treatment. It requires the Federal land manager to be 

proactive in managing these activities through the land management planning process. It makes administrative decisions that close or significantly restrict these activities to be anchored in a transparent public process and removes administrative 

and judicial roadblocks that obstruct sound and responsible management of recreation and wildlife resources. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2834 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Ms. Recce. Appreciate you all’s testimony. Now we will turn to questioning. I will recognize myself for 

five minutes. 

Mr. Horn, you heard the representatives from the Administration’s testimony. You also heard Mr. McClintock’s questioning, I am 

sure, previously, and I would like to give you an opportunity to 

make a comment. Do you have any comments about the testimony 

from the Forest Service or the BLM? 

Mr. HORN. Well, I think it is safe to say we are disappointed by 

the overt opposition. As I said, I talked about the 1997 Refuge Act, 

and I can recall when we had hearings on that proposed bill in 

45 

1996 the then administration was adamantly opposed to the then 

Refuge Administration Act. Secretary Babbitt sat right here and 

threatened veto of the bill that was signed into law by President 

Clinton a year and a half later. 

I think that the statutory recognition of fishing and hunting in 

the Refuge Act has proven to be a great success from an agency 

perspective and from the perspective of the angling and hunting 

and conservation community, and what we are trying to do here is 

to essentially enshrine in law these expressed references to the legitimate role that these activities have on the two major public 

land systems so that they can point to provisions in the law to defend continuation of these activities. It worked in the refuge system. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ratcliffe talked about the 1997 Act 

in his statement. It worked there. We see no reason why comparable legislation like 2834 cannot work in regard to the Forest 

Service and BLM lands. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Horn. 

Mr. Ratcliffe, has hunting harmed, damaged, destroyed any of 

the refuges that you know of? 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I would defer that question to—— 

Mr. BROUN. Turn on your microphone, please. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE.—Jeff Rupert from the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. RUPERT. Yes, sir. My name is Jeff Rupert, and I work with 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Your question, has hunting activities harmed refuges in an way, 

shape or for, from a Fish and Wildlife perspective, you know, the 

Refuge Administration Act, which governs the refuge system and 

provides the mandate for us that effectively promotes hunting on 

refuges, we administer hunt activities based on a compatibility 

standard that looks at potential impacts or effects prior to creating 

or administering the hunt. And no, we haven’t seen—we haven’t 

seen negative impacts that I am aware of. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, thank you. I appreciate that testimony. And 

the contributions of the hunter conservation and fishermen conservation is basically the true conservationists in this country in 

my opinion are the hunters, the fishermen, the farmers and the 

foresters because they really take care of the land, they put money 

where their mouth is, and that is the reason that these activities 

are absolutely critical in the management of the Federal lands. 

Secretary Horn, what effect would it have on NEPA, these bills? 

Mr. HORN. The only provision in H.R. 2834 that has any impact 

on NEPA is to, again, restore the legal status quo that existed up 

until just a couple of years ago involving determinations that the 

refuge system makes regarding hunting and fishing. The 1997 Refuge Act provides that each unit in the refuge system has to have 

a comprehensive conservation plan, a CCP, which is the counterpart to plans that both the Forest Service and the BLM have for 

their respective units. 

In those CCPs Fish and Wildlife conducts NEPA compliance in 

the form of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement to make the compatibility statements that Mr. 

Rupert referenced. 

A few years ago, again one of the animal rights groups, brought 

a lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service challenging a deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
46 

sion to allow hunting on 60 refuge units, arguing that even though 

the Service had done the CCPs and had done all the NEPA documents they hadn’t done a sufficient cumulative effects analysis of 

the impact on the hunting on the entire refuge system. And the 

Service told the court, District judge here in D.C., how do we 

equate the impact of hunting deer on the Bon Swamp Refuge in 

Macon, Georgia, with shooting woodcock in Canaan Valley in West 

Virginia, or hunting moose on the Kenai Refuge in Alaska, those 

are such disconnected activities that trying to put together a cumulative effects analysis is probably a superfluous exercise and intellectually challenging to boot. 

Nonetheless, the D.C. Court said, no, you guy have to do this cumulative effects analysis, and Fish and Wildlife Service spent four 

years, thousands and thousands of dollars, thousands of personnel 

hours to put together this cumulative effects analysis that was ultimately upheld by the Judge. 

One of the provisions in 2834 says, no, the CCP process spelled 

out in the 1997 Act and the completion of EISs and EAs in conjunction with the CCPs fully satisfy NEPA, and there is no need to 

spend useless dollars doing this useless cumulative effects analysis 

on a system-wide basis. Our attitude is this provision [a] restores 

the status quo that Congress thought it was putting into place in 

1997; and [b] we wish all those dollars that had been spent on that 

useless exercise, as well as a payment of $116,000 of legal fees to 

the lawyers for the animal rights group, should have been spent on 

refuge conservation where we had a hearing in another committee 

here in May about the budget shortfalls afflicting refuge management. 

So, that is the only provision in this bill that impacts NEPA. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Horn. My time is way past due. I 

now recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes plus if you 

would like it, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Holtrop and Mr. Ratcliffe, you 

know, quickly if you could answer some of these. Just repeat the 

number of acres or percentage of Federal land under your respective agency’s management that are open to hunting and fishing. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. For the BLM we estimate 95 percent of our lands 

are open. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Mr. HOLTROP. I don’t know if I have that precise a figure. I 

would have said something more than that on the National Forest 

System. The only exceptions might be recreation sites. I would 

guess something in that five or four percent of the area not open 

to hunting. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And Mr. Rupert, would you chime in on what percentage? 

Mr. RUPERT. I don’t know the exact percentage figure; somewhere around 375 refuges are open to hunting. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With those figures in mind, I keep searching to 

what the problem that Congress is being asked to solve here is. Are 

we turning away hunters and anglers from our public lands or are 

we not? Given the percentages, I guess we are not. 

Mr. Rupert, H.R. 1444 appears to prohibit the charging of any 

fees for anything other than cost recovery for hunting. What impact 

47 

might this provision have on the Duck Stamp Program which 

under current law allows revenue to be used for land acquisition? 

Mr. RUPERT. Yes, sir, thank you. 

Unclear. As you state, the duck stamp is required for hunters 

who are hunting migratory waterfowl. The proceeds from duck 

stamp sales are in turn used to acquire additional land with waterfowl habitat to be included in the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

and it is unclear what impact the fee provision may have on that. 

We would be very interested in having further discussions with the 

Committee—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Mr. RUPERT.—to ensure that there are not any unintended consequences. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Again, Mr. Rupert, 2834 contains a broad, I believe from my reading, a broad NEPA waiver for activities under 

the Refuge System Act. Could you discuss the impact of those waivers on the operations to the refuge? 

Mr. RUPERT. Again, from Fish and Wildlife Service perspective, 

you know, we feel that—you know, again, the Refuge Administration Act, which governs these activities and the planning and the 

administration of these activities in the refuge system, you know, 

it does effectively promote hunting and fishing on refuges. 

Where it is compatible and where it is one of those primary wildlife-dependent recreational uses, we find it compatible. We believe 

that it is appropriate that the Refuge Administration Act gives that 

first priority to wildlife management and conservation—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. As Mr. Horn indicated that the NEPA waiver is 

narrow, is it as narrow has he says, is it broad? It covers all of Section 4 of the Refuge System Act and that appears to be broad to 

me. 

Mr. RUPERT. The current approach for us to conduct NEPA say, 

for example, new or expanded hunts, includes cumulative impact 

analysis. Under our current approach we conduct that cumulative 

impact analysis, and at this point we believe we have a process in 

place that allows us to effectively meet that mandate. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I believe that narrow/broadness issue particularly 

includes Section 4. I think as the legislation moves forward I think 

that really does need to be clearly defined. I don’t believe it is narrow because it includes the whole section. It broadens it in a huge 

way, and that is problematic. 

Mr. Ratcliffe, Section 4 of H.R. 2834 appears to redefine the 

terms of Wilderness Act in such a way that would require the establishment of roads and the use of motorized vehicles in designated wilderness to facilitate hunting. Can you describe what impact that might have on wilderness areas, and would that change 

that fundamentally? 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. The Department is very concerned about the 

wording in that provision of the act, the bill, because we feel that 

it opens the door to the potential for increased motorized activities 

and other human developments inside wilderness which, of course, 

is a slippery slope, I think, when it comes to the management and 

the integrity of the Wilderness Act. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rest 

of the questions for—you know, we are talking a lot about exemptVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\68266.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
48 

ing oil and gas in this Committee, or timber production from 

NEPA. We don’t know what impact that would have on habitat or 

hunting. And if hunting is also exempt from NEPA, does that really help the situation? I think we need to answer these questions 

as this legislation moves forward. I appreciate your indulgence, and 

I yield back, sir. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Now the Chair will recognize Mr. McClintock for five minutes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

hear from Ms. Simpson and Ms. Recce. Do your members believe 

that the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service are encouraging and 

welcoming hunting and fishing on the 95 percent of the public 

lands we have just been told are open for that purpose? 

Ms. RECCE. I would definitely say that our members who target 

shoot, and he used public lands particularly in the West, which is 

the only place to shoot, find that they are being dislocated; that 

there are shooting areas closed. Shooting ranges that have been 

built have been closed, and there has not been really a proactive 

effort on the part of the—in this case the Forest Service—to rectify 

those situations. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What is your beef? We have just been told that 

95 percent of these lands are open for that purpose? 

Ms. RECCE. Well, they can be open. It is getting to them. So how 

far do you go back in to engage in the recreational activity? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, can’t you drive in? Aren’t there roads? 

Ms. RECCE. Well, many of these places there are not roads 

and—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. There were roads once though, weren’t there, 

but they are closing them? 

Ms. RECCE. Well, they are doing that, and I think that access is 

one issue. I think the opportunities that had existed are closing, 

and a lot of it is because I don’t think there is proactive planning 

for these activities to protect them into the future. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Ms. Simpson, are your members being welcomed and encouraged to participate in hunting and fishing activities on the public lands by these agencies? 

Ms. SIMPSON. I think that the SCI members would maintain that 

the issue for our organization is more to the habitat management, 

an active management that is not occurring on the public lands, 

and active management, as the scientists have told us, has a direct 

relationship on healthy animals. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, what is the impact of hunting and fishing activities by the road closures under the travel management 

plans? 

Ms. SIMPSON. Well, obviously—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. They are radical in my area, I mean. They are 

closing down most of the roads, most of the access to the public 

lands in my region. 

Ms. SIMPSON. Access is number one priority. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am wondering if you are deer hunting and 

you kill a deer, how are you supposed to get it out if you can’t get 

your vehicle there? 

Ms. RECCE. I am very familiar with the travel management plans 

and share the pain of your constituents. It is catch as catch can at 

49 

the local level as to whether travel management plans they allow 

big game retrieval off of designated routes, and it really is whatever the local land manager decides to do. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Our hunters have been told they can’t take 

their vehicles even one car’s length off the few roads that are remaining. 

Ms. RECCE. This is probably true, and that is why we support 

this bill because right now there is no consistency across the board 

in how decisions are done that would affect hunters and anglers, 

and there really is no consideration given to what effect these decisions have, and that is why we support another provision of the bill 

that addresses that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What about the increasingly Draconian restrictions on camping? Are you hearing from your members on that 

because I got an ear full about a month ago? 

Ms. RECCE. I cannot answer that because the constituency hasn’t 

spoken to that. I don’t know. 

Ms. SIMPSON. We haven’t heard necessarily about camping, but 

I think the bigger point by both of our organizations that are here 

supporting this legislation is that there is such an inconsistency at 

the local level, and despite White House conferences and executive 

orders and internal memoranda and Federal advisory committees, 

et cetera, that has been established to have communication it just 

isn’t happening. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So you are welcome to hunt on the public 

lands, but you are not allowed to get there and you are not allowed 

to stay there if you do get there. 

Ms. SIMPSON. That is what we are hearing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is what I am hearing, too. There is a radical leftist ideology that the public should be forced out of all rural 

areas and be restricted instead to dense urban cores. The rest of 

these vast tracks of land are to be restored to their pristine prehistoric condition. The only problem I have discovered with that is 

that most people don’t like to live in dense urban corridors, and in 

order to restore the planet to its pristine prehistoric condition we 

have to restore the human population to its pristine prehistoric 

condition which is not going to end well. 

Are you seeing that ideology leak into the policies of this Administration? 

Ms. RECCE. I think that I will say that in the documents we have 

seen, the Forest Service planning rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service vision document, that a lot of the attention is paid on wildlife 

management and natural resource management, which is a good 

thing, but it is coming at the expense of, you know, the traditional 

public land users, the hunters, the anglers, the shooters. That is 

what I have seen is an imbalance. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I think Gifford Pinchot summed that up very 

nicely when he said that the vision for the U.S. Forest Service was 

to manage the forests to achieve the greatest benefit for the greatest number in the long run, and this group has gotten so radically 

away from that initial vision. It is a difference between night and 

day. Thank you. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you. Now the Chair will recognize Doc 

Benishek for five minutes. 

50 

Mr. BENISHEK. I would like to thank the additional members for 

being here today. I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Horn, we have had some testimony on the effects that the 

bill has on the Wilderness Act and how it is going to allow access 

by motor vehicles and all that, and in my reading of the bill I don’t 

see that. What is your interpretation of that? 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I think that that is a 

red herring. I don’t think that is the intent. Without delving too 

deeply and taking up the Committee’s time on the lawsuits, the 

Wilderness Act provisions in our understanding have been drafted 

to essentially restore agency discretion, and the state of the law 

that existed regarding 1964 Wilderness Act for the first 40 years 

of its existence. That statute has provisions that talk about wilderness purposes being supplemental to the purposes of the underlying refuge or forest status. There are provisions in the law that 

allowed the agencies to make certain necessity determinations to 

allow a variety of recreation and fish and wildlife conservation activities. Those things were fairly well implemented for a long period of time until the Ninth Circuit kicked things off the track by 

changing the law by judicial fiat and it started with a case in Alaska involving the refuge system where a long-established fishery’s 

enhancement program on Tustumena Lake was declared to be in 

violation of the Wilderness Act and terminated overturning the 

professional judgment of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Then there was the High Sierra case in which the Forest Service 

permitted horseback trips, we are not talking motorized, horseback 

trips into part of the Sierra wilderness, and the Ninth Circuit said, 

no, it did not have to defer to professional judgment of the Forest 

Service, and it said that the Forest Service hadn’t demonstrated 

that these horseback trips were really necessary for wilderness 

management. 

Then just recently the Ninth Circuit did it again overturning another decision of the Fish and Wildlife Service involving desert big 

horn sheep conservation in the Kofa Refuge saying, no, this is a 

wilderness area first, and a refuge second. It doesn’t matter that 

the plan approved by the Service helped the wildlife wilderness 

trumped it. 

The provision in my book reverses that decision, restores the discretion that these two agencies had for the first 40 years of the 

Wilderness Act; tells the Ninth Circuit, no, judges do not substitute 

their judgment for that of the professional land managers, and puts 

the law back to the way it was. It does not deal with motorized vehicle access. That is a red herring. And if it is not a red herring, 

our organization is more than willing to tweak the language to 

make that red herring go away. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you. Last night we heard a lot about jobs 

and jobs plans. One thing we don’t talk about too often is that 

hunting and fishing, particularly on Federal lands, are job creators. 

Ms. Simpson, can you comment on the jobs created by making Federal lands guaranteed to be open to hunting and fishing? 

Ms. SIMPSON. First of all, the active management that is required to have healthy habitats is something that is a job creator 

right there. Whether or not it is coming from the timber industry 

51 

or oil and gas isn’t the point. The point is we need healthy habitats, OK? 

So, as I referred to earlier, H.R. 1581 is a wonderful example of 

a way to get active management back into our Federal lands. The 

hunting and fishing aspect on Federal lands access there is of vital 

importance. The gateway communities that benefit from the hotels, 

the motels, the restaurants, all of the equipment that is purchased 

on the way into town and out of town is all beneficial to job creation. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Ratcliffe a question. 

Do you explicitly include hunting and fishing in your management 

plans? 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Management plans are developed based on the 

issues of a particular area in which the plan oversees. And so if the 

issue comes up, whether it is any recreational activity, then we are 

obliged to address it in the plans, and therefore where it is an issue 

where the public identifies it and wishes it to be addressed we 

treat it equally among all recreation activities. 

Our multiple-use management mandate requires us to treat all 

uses equally, and if you start setting one as a priority over another—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. I understand that, but I just wanted to know if 

explicitly in the plan there was something about hunting and fishing. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Yes, we have many plans that address hunting 

and fishing. 

Mr. BENISHEK. All right. Well, I see my time is up. Thank you. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Doctor. 

Just want to say in closing that not only do I appreciate you all 

being here, but I think both of these bills are extremely important. 

My bill requires hunting to be a part of a management plan statutorily so that it is not an elective process, and it has to be considered, and then your bill, which is extremely necessary also, actually puts into place statutorily that hunting and fishing is a land 

use, and so I think both bills are so extremely important. I look forward as these two bills go forward, hopefully we can get them 

passed into law in this Congress. 

I appreciate your introducing the bill and I look forward to seeing how this Committee as well as the Full Committee takes all 

three of these bills into consideration. I thank you all for participating in this hearing today. But I really appreciate you all being 

here. I apologize for the interruption and it is well into lunchtime. 

Before we adjourn the hearing I ask unanimous consent that the 

statement by William Meadows of the Wilderness Society be included in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of William Meadows follows:] 

52 


68266.001.eps
53 


68266.002.eps
54 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you all so much. If there is no further business, without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


68266.003.eps