U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

94–984 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–24 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 659, THE 

BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN’S ACT OF 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 17, 2015 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER AND WILDLIFE

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BASSASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 17, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 3 

WITNESSES 

Crane, Jeff, President, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation .......................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hall, Dale, CEO, Ducks Unlimited ........................................................................ 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Pacelle, Wayne, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the United 

States .................................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 32 

Senator Sullivan ........................................................................................ 39 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement of David Sollman, Executive Director, Fur Industries of North 

America ................................................................................................................. 154 

Letter from more than 100 national, regional, and local organizations regarding the Bipartisan Sportmen’s Act of 2015 ........................................................ 154 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 659, THE 

BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN’S ACT OF 2015 

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015 

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

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

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

subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Sullivan, Inhofe, Boozman, Fischer, 

Whitehouse, Booker, Cardin. Also present: Senator Crapo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good morning and welcome to our hearing on 

S. 659, the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015. I see a number of 

the members of the audience wearing the green of St. Patrick’s 

Day. I think it is altogether fitting that we are discussing this bill 

on St. Patrick’s Day. I am sure most of you know that St. Patrick 

was a sportsman, an outdoorsman, chased all the snakes out of Ireland. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. He obviously was outside doing a lot of work 

with animals. 

So it is great that we are starting this important bill on an important day. 

This legislation represents years of hard work by the sporting 

community. I am appreciative of the efforts that have gone into 

crafting what is a collection of bills that have demonstrated broad 

bipartisan support over the years, including measures that enjoy 

the support of the Obama administration. 

I am hopeful that in this Congress, we will be able to take these 

long efforts across the finish line. Because doing so means more opportunities for America’s sporting community and importantly, 

more dollars for wildlife conservation. 

Specifically, S. 659 would codify an existing exemption that 

would exclude the EPA from regulating lead fishing tackle and ammunition, provide the States greater ability to use Pittman Robertson funding for shooting ranges on public lands, allow the Secretary of Interior to issue permits to 41 hunters, including two 

Alaskans, so that they can import their legally taken polar bear 

trophies from Canada, ensure farmers are not cited for illegally 

baiting when hunting birds from their farm fields, allow the possesVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:20 Jul 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94984.TXT VERN
2 

sion of firearms at water resource development projects, reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, reauthorize 

five multi-national species conservation funds and extend Pittman 

Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act interest payments. 

This morning, I know we are going to hear many positive things 

about the bill. We will also probably hear a few criticisms regarding the polar bear and lead ammunition provisions. Here are the 

facts, the straightforward facts on those provisions. This legislation 

simply codifies an existing exemption regarding the regulation of 

lead tackle and ammunition, and in no way restricts the ability of 

fish and wildlife agencies, both at the State and Federal levels, 

from restricting their usage if there is compelling scientific reason 

to do so. 

Further, there are those who may be opposed to amending the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow for the importation of 41 

polar bear trophies from Canada and refer to the language as a 

loophole. But the intent of Section 4 couldn’t be clearer: to allow 

only those hunters with a legally taken polar bear trophy prior to 

the 2008 ESA listing to bring those trophies into the U.S. This section reflects drafting changes requested by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and has the support of the Obama administration. 

I hope we won’t let these few differences detract from the bipartisan nature of this legislation, which represents the furtherance of 

the American system of conservation funding, which has funded 

fish and wildlife conservation for the past 76 years. Hunting and 

fishing licenses purchased, along with the excise taxes on the 

equipment sportsmen buy pay for State fish and wildlife management efforts that benefit both game and non-game species and continue to enhance our Nation’s sporting heritage. But there is no denying that the greatest source of conservation funding comes from 

the sporting community itself. 

Finally, this bill includes important conservation reauthorizations, like the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Multinational Species Conservation Act, which provide matching grants 

to organizations, governments and land owners for projects. Both 

projects leverage non-Federal dollars at a ratio that far exceeds a 

one to one match. 

With our Federal deficit now over $18 trillion, our Federal debt, 

it is important that we adequately justify why Congress should 

continue to appropriate a small but symbolically important amount 

of taxpayer money to these programs. I hope our witnesses today 

will help us tell that story. 

Thank you again for being here. I look forward to hearing the 

testimony of our witnesses. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Whitehouse for 5 minutes to 

deliver any opening statement he may have. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sullivan follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Good morning and thank you for being here to discuss legislation I sponsored, S. 

659, the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015. 

This legislation represents years of hard work by the sporting community, and I 

am appreciative of the efforts that have gone into crafting what is a collection of 

3 

bills that have demonstrated broad-based bipartisan support, including some that 

enjoy the support of the Obama administration. 

I am hopeful that in this Congress, we will be able to take this effort across the 

finish line, because doing so means more opportunities for America’s sporting community and more dollars for wildlife conservation. 

Specifically, S. 659, would: 

• Codify an existing exemption that would exclude the EPA from regulating lead 

fishing tackle and ammunition; 

• Provide the states greater ability to use Pittman Robertson funding for shooting 

ranges on public lands; 

• Allow the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits to 41 hunters, including two 

Alaskans, so that they can import their legally taken polar bear trophies from Canada; 

• Ensure farmers are not cited for illegal baiting when hunting birds from their 

farm fields; 

• Allow the lawful possession of firearms at water resource development projects; 

• Reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act; 

• Reauthorize the five Multinational Species Conservation Funds; and 

• Extend Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act Interest Payments 

This morning, I know we’re going to hear criticisms regarding the polar bear and 

lead ammunition provisions. However, the facts are simple. 

This legislation simply codifies an existing exemption regarding the regulation of 

lead tackle and ammunition, and in no way restricts the ability fish and wildlife 

agencies, both on the State and Federal level, from restricting their usage if there 

is compelling scientific reasons to do so. 

Further, there are detractors here today who are opposed to allowing for the importation of 41 polar bear trophies from Canada and refer to the language as a 

‘‘loophole.’’ But, the intent of Section 4 couldn’t be clearer—to allow only those 41 

hunters with a legally taken polar bear trophy, taken prior to the 2008 ESA listing, 

to bring those trophies into the U.S. This section reflects drafting changes requested 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Administration now supports this portion 

of the bill. 

Those who legally hunted and harvested these polar bears fully complied with all 

U.S. and Canadian laws in place at the time. In many instances, these hunts were 

planned for years as savings were set-aside to book a once in a lifetime experience. 

Most importantly, I want to stress that the prohibition on bringing these trophies 

into the U.S. is not providing any conservation value to polar bear populations. In 

fact, if we allow these trophies to be imported, we can raise much needed funds for 

conservation activities for the polar bear population. 

I hope we won’t let these few differences detract from the bipartisan nature of 

this legislation, which represents the furtherance of the American System of Conservation Funding, which has funded fish and wildlife conservation for the past 76 

years. The hunting and fishing licenses purchased by sportsmen, coupled with excise 

taxes on the equipment sportsmen buy, fund State efforts to manage fish and wildlife that benefit an array of species, and continue to enhance our nation’s sporting 

heritage. There are always going to be those who don’t think we should kill animals. 

But, there is no denying that the greatest source of conservation funding comes from 

the sporting community themselves. 

Finally, this bill includes important conservation reauthorizations like the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act and Multinational Species Conservation 

Funds, which provide matching grants to organizations, governments, and landowners for projects. Both programs leverage non-Federal dollars at a ratio that far 

exceeds a 1–1 match. With our Federal deficit now over $18 trillion, it’s important 

that we adequately justify why Congress should continue to appropriate a small, but 

symbolically important, amount of taxpayer money to these programs. I hope our 

witnesses today will help us tell that story. 

Thank you again for being here this morning and I look forward to hearing the 

testimony of our witnesses. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan. 

I think what I would like to do is ask that my opening statement 

be entered into the record, without objection, because I want to 

make a rather different point. This has always been a strongly biVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:20 Jul 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94984.TXT VERN
4 

partisan bill. There has been a lot of support for it. I voted for it, 

I think every time it has come up. 

I am even OK with the polar bear business, even though I think 

it is probably the larges amount of congressional intention ever devoted to the smallest issue in the history of Congress. But never 

mind, if it is important enough to a few polar bear owners to bring 

them in and all of Congress wants to respond to that, that is, I 

guess, our business to do. 

But what I see over and over again is bills that come to the floor 

or bills that come to the committee that should be bipartisan, that 

could be non-controversial that have a stowaway loaded into them 

that causes partisan problems that are unnecessary. We are dealing right now on the floor with a human trafficking bill which has 

been jammed up because an abortion-related stowaway provision 

was stuffed into it at the committee level without notice to the 

other side. 

OK, now we are where we are. This bill has a new section that 

wasn’t in, I don’t think I have ever seen it before in the earlier 

versions of the Sportsmen’s Act, which is this Section 6, giving people the right to run around water resources development projects 

with loaded firearms. Well, this isn’t like being out in a park with 

a firearm. This is dams. This is hydroelectric power houses. This 

is navigation locks. This is river systems and levees, flood risk 

management infrastructure. These are things that are within our 

national security infrastructure. 

And at the moment, Army Corps Rangers have responsibility for 

many of these areas, and they are not trained or equipped to be 

law enforcement officers. They don’t have authority to carry firearms themselves, they can’t make arrests, they can’t execute 

search warrants. And now they are going to have to make decisions 

about whether somebody running around in national security infrastructure with a loaded weapon is doing so as a demonstration of 

their Second Amendment rights or has a worse intention. 

I don’t think that makes any sense. You may want that in Alaska, but in places like Rhode Island, that kind of behavior would be 

intensely alarming and frightening to other people and would be 

very, very unwelcome. I think this is a completely unnecessary addition to the bill. I would like to support it but I think that the best 

way to go forward is to let the bill go forward in the way that it 

has customarily gone forward, with bipartisan support, rather than 

put a stowaway provision that puts at risk national security infrastructure and puts in peril the folks who have security authority 

over these areas, and is completely inconsistent with at least the 

way a lot of Americans live. We simply don’t expect to see armed 

people running around what could very well be national security 

facilities when they have a security component there. To put enforcement people at the risk of figuring out who is there with a 

good or bad motive when they are running around with a loaded 

firearm I think is a mistake. 

So I hope that the majority will reconsider putting such a contentious, unnecessary, potentially unsafe provision in this bill, when 

they enjoy a bill that is already very strongly supported by both 

sides. It doesn’t seem necessary to put that stick in the public’s eye. 

With that, I will yield to the hearing. 

5 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

I want to welcome our witnesses, Jeff Crane, President of the 

congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. Mr. Dale Hall, the CEO of 

Ducks Unlimited, and Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of 

The Humane Society of the United States. 

The witnesses have 5 minutes to deliver an oral statement, and 

a longer written statement, of course, will be included in the 

record. 

I also want to, before we begin with the witnesses, ask unanimous consent that Senator Crapo will be allowed to sit on the dais 

and participate in this subcommittee hearing. Hearing no objection, 

so ordered. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. With absolutely no objection. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Crane, sir, you have 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF CRANE, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL 

SPORTSMEN’S FOUNDATION 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Whitehouse, 

members of the committee. My name is Jeff Crane. I have had the 

privilege for the past decade of serving as the President of the congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. Established in 1989, CSF 

works with the largest, most active bipartisan caucus on Capitol 

Hill, the congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. With nearly 300 members in the House and the Senate, a number of you are here today, 

our past chairman in the caucus, Senator Crapo, is with us here 

today, I think that we work in the most bipartisan manner possible 

here in Washington. 

I am here in support of S. 405, which is the expanded Bipartisan 

Sportsmen’s Act that includes provisions contained in S. 659, which 

we also support. 

I would like to point out, as you did, that this bill, S. 405, has 

18 bipartisan co-sponsors, evenly divided between Republicans and 

Democrats, which again is a rarity these days in this town. A very 

similar bill had 46 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate last year, 

but failed to pass. So in borrowing some of my lexicon from the 

sportsman’s world, where patience and persistence yields to success 

in the field, I am hoping this will be our year. 

As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration 

specifically supported three of the provisions that are in S. 659. In 

their Statement of the Administration Position dated February 3d, 

2014, it stated ‘‘The Administration supports Title 2, which is Section 3 of S. 659, which amends funding requirements under the 

current law for target range construction and maintenance, thus 

reducing the financial burden on State and local governments for 

public target ranges.’’ 

Continuing on, ‘‘The Administration also supports Title 4, which 

is Section 4 of S. 659, which allows the importation of certain polar 

bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada.’’ Finally, the Administration staff says ‘‘The Administration has no objection to Title 1, 

which is Section 2 of S. 659, which includes certain sport fishing 

equipment, from the classification of toxic substances.’’ 

With all of this broad support, Mr. Chairman, I believe is time 

to pass the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015. As a life-long conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:20 Jul 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94984.TXT VERN
6 

servationist and outdoorsman, I learned to hunt and fish from my 

father and grandfather, and I am passing these traditions on to my 

three daughters. In my home, we eat doves, deer, waterfowl, wild 

turkey and small game taken from the iconic eastern shore of 

Maryland. In the summer time, we catch crabs and fish for rockfish, which the rest of you might know as striped bass, from the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

So the pursuit of game and fish is a way of life for me. This bill 

is very important to me personally. But I think more importantly, 

it is important to the nearly 40 million Americans who hunt and 

fish and spend $90 million in support of this economy, oftentimes 

in rural parts of this Country. 

Conservation started with hunters and anglers. I draw a very 

great quote from Gifford Pinchot, who was the first chief of the 

Forest Service, who defined conservation as the wise use of the 

earth and its resources for the lasting good of mankind. With this 

comes a responsibility for stewardship. I think again that the 

sportsmen’s community has always taken a leadership role in that. 

As part of this, I would like to submit, which is part of my written testimony, a letter from nearly 50 of the leading hunting conservation and fishing conservation groups in America, asking for 

support and passage of S. 405. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection. 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you. 

SO quite simply, in my final minutes, the overarching purpose 

behind this bill is to provide clarity where it doesn’t exist and ensure access and opportunity for hunters, shooters and anglers. 

With an ever-increasing population, urbanization and suburban 

sprawl into areas that we traditionally hunt and fish, it is ever 

more important. With young people that spend more time on the 

couch and behind computers, we need to get them outside. Hunting 

and fishing are great opportunities to do just this. 

So where this does exist, we are looking for guarantees that it 

will continue to exist in the future. Where it doesn’t, we are looking 

for your help to try and rectify that. That is all this bill does today. 

I thank you for providing me the opportunity and I will be happy 

to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:] 

7 


94984.001
8 


94984.002
9 


94984.003
10 


94984.004
11 


94984.005
12 


94984.006
13 


94984.007
14 


94984.008
15 


94984.009
16 


94984.010
17 


94984.011
18 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you, Mr. Crane, for your outstanding statement. 

Mr. Hall, you are recognized now for 5 minutes. Thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF DALE HALL, CEO, DUCKS UNLIMITED 

Mr. HALL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here with you. 

My name is Dale Hall. I am the CEO of Ducks Unlimited. I spent 

31 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With the grace 

of this committee, headed by my good friend, Senator Inhofe, I was 

able to be the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service from 2005 

to 2009. So it is a pleasure to be back here in front of you. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify in behalf of Ducks Unlimited, fully supporting the Sportsmen’s Act, including the reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, known 

as NAWCA, and the reauthorization of the interest from the Pittman-Robertson to fund NAWCA, as well. As has been stated, Pittman-Robertson was passed in 1937 at the request of hunters and 

shooters to be taxed so that money would go into the treasury and 

support the State game and fish agencies in their management of 

the resources within the State. Interest gained from that fund has 

been agreed to by all of the States to go into the NAWCA fund to 

be used as part of the grant program. It has been very successful 

and we fully support that. We are here also to talk about other provisions, such as the baiting issue and different aspects of this bill 

that we fully support clarity on. 

These programs are all the way government can and should 

work. The partnership with the public, partnership with our 

friends out there, these programs represent good governance and 

we support them. 

With more than a million supporters at Ducks Unlimited, we 

have a significant conservation voice for migratory birds and other 

habitats that live in wetlands that we helped create across the continent with our friends. Our work is always, I repeat always, scientifically based. We like to say that the motion and passion brings 

us to do what we do, but science and facts drive our decisions. I 

believe this bill is based on science and fact, and I think that is 

the way we ought to be looking at things, and good governance 

comes from that. 

Since enactment, NAWCA has accomplished measurable success 

in all 50 States. This program has conserved more than 27 and a 

half million acres across North America. Reauthorization of 

NAWCA is critical to build on this success and ensure the health 

of high quality wetlands in the United States. 

Despite those successes, wetlands here in the U.S. are disappearing. The lower 48 States of the U.S. have lost approximately 

53 percent of our original wetlands. The most recent nationwide 

study documented that wetland loss had dramatically accelerated 

to 140 percent since 2004. 

Wildlife-related recreation generates, as has been said, nearly 

$100 billion a year in economics for this Country. It is more than 

just the right thing to do; it is the right economic thing to do. 

19 

Another part of this is the use of those interest funds to help 

with NAWCA projects. At a maximum level, they have contributed 

between $15 million and $16 million in a given year to help go out 

and put wetlands and other habitat on the ground. And as I said 

earlier, all of the States have agreed that this is a good use for the 

interest on funds that were originally directed to go to them. 

Finally, the migratory game birds baiting issue, as Director of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service in a past life, one of the things that 

always concerned me was if a regulation is so confusing that the 

public doesn’t understand it, then we are missing the mark. And 

the ultimate objective of law enforcement is to have the public voluntarily comply and carry out the law. If they don’t understand it, 

it is going to be very difficult to do. 

Today, many landowners have to simply call the game warden 

and say, will you come by and tell me if we are legal. If it is that 

hard to understand, then there needs to be clarity. We believe that 

this last aspect here in helping to understand what normal agricultural practices are, and including the State agencies as well as the 

Fish and Wildlife Service in that, is simply the right thing to do. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing us to testify in full 

support of this bill. We look forward to answering any questions 

that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

20 


94984.012
21 


94984.013
22 


94984.014
23 


94984.015
24 


94984.016
25 


94984.017
26 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I couldn’t agree 

more with your statement on the need for clarifying regulations. 

Mr. Pacelle, you have 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE 

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you very much. Thanks for the invitation, 

I really appreciate it. 

I am Wayne Pacelle, with The Humane Society of the United 

States. I hate to be a skunk at the party here. I do have a few concerns about this issue, and again, I really appreciate your allowing 

us to offer our perspective. 

I want to say at the start that we are not opposed to hunting. 

We are not seeking to ban deer hunting or duck hunting or other 

very common forms of hunting. We have been critics of captive 

hunting. We have been critics of bear baiting, a practice that we 

think is reckless and unsporting. 

So when we bring our concerns here today, we do so because we 

are zeroing in on particular concerns that are within this bill, not 

because of a general opposition to hunting. 

We are glad, of course, that the lead ammunition provision applies more to EPA and not to Interior. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that the Feds and the States would still have the authority 

to restrict that. We think that is appropriate and important. 

We are just not quite sure why we are even discussing the EPA 

piece. We don’t think the EPA is working on this issue. It is not 

moving on the issue. And I guess we are concerned about the precedent being established of the Congress telling a Federal agency 

that clearly does have some germane experience that it can’t take 

action on an issue if the science compels an examination. 

So again, we are critics of the use of lead ammunition. Just like 

we have seen in society, we don’t have lead in gasoline, we don’t 

have lead in paint. The world is moving away from lead ammunition. We are moving to non-toxic forms of shot that essentially 

don’t see bullets and ammunition continuing to kill long after they 

have left the chamber. 

So I say that just as a general concern. I am not quite sure why 

we are focused here on EPA on this issue. 

On the polar bear piece, I know, Senator Crapo, you have been 

concerned about this. And we are glad this doesn’t involve why are 

polar bears being shot, and then being brought in. These animals 

are dead. We recognize that. They cannot be brought back to life. 

If it were just that issue, I don’t think I would be here expressing 

concern. I think again, our concern really relates to the precedent. 

What happened with the polar bear issue is that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service gave appropriate notice to the sport hunting community that a listing for polar bears was coming. Many hunting 

groups told hunters, listen, if you go up and do this and you don’t 

bring the trophies back by a date certain, you are unlikely to get 

these animals’ carcasses and the trophies back into the U.S. 

These guys went up there anyway and shot the polar bears. Now 

we view it as a pleading to Congress to get these trophies back in. 

27 

Now, what happens when the Fish and Wildlife Service says, 

OK, we are going to list the African lion as threatened or endangered and we are going to restrict trophies? Are we going to see 

a mad runs of people going to kill these rare animals and then 

coming back to the Congress to override an executive agency decision to grant these import permits? If it were just polar bears and 

this class of 41 folks, while we don’t like what they did, we think 

it is wrong what they did, we wouldn’t be here objecting. I think 

we are deeply concerned about the precedent. 

The larger issue of this bill, I think the biggest practical concern 

that we have is, you are talking about the Forest Service, principally, and you are talking about the BLM. The Federal Government cedes authority for wildlife management to the States in all 

of those jurisdictions on hunting seasons and the like. Ninety-nine 

percent of these lands are already open to hunting. We are not 

quite sure what is being accomplished by having this open and less 

closed provision. Except, and when we get a little bit paranoid on 

this is the issue of traffic. 

There has been a lot of concern expressed by humane organizations about inhumane and indiscriminate forms of body-gripping 

traps, steel jaw leg hold traps, snares and the like. This language, 

not before your committee today, but the other portion of this larger bill that was before Energy and Natural Resources, essentially 

equates trapping with these other forms of wildlife taking, hunting 

and fishing. We think this could be also a very dangerous provision 

to enable trapping activities in wilderness areas and other areas 

where there is an appropriate reason for the restriction. 

If you have a firearm and you are shooting an animal, you are 

zeroing on the target. If you leave a trap in the woods, any animal 

can be victimized by that trap. We have likened them to land 

mines for wildlife. And there may be very compelling and appropriate reasons to restrict them, what we are doing is we are eliminating the discretion of local land managers with the Federal Government when the history of these particular agencies’ involvement 

in hunting and fishing and trapping issues is to be entirely permissive. 

So again, I think our criticisms, just to wrap up, really are zeroing in on, why are we doing these things? The lands are already 

open to hunting. And for the polar bears, let’s not send a signal to 

the trophy-hunting community that if there is an endangered species listing looming, you guys go ahead and then the Congress can 

bail you out and you can bring your trophies back into the United 

States. 

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify. Much 

appreciated. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:] 

28 


94984.018
29 


94984.019
30 


94984.020
31 


94984.021
32 


94984.022
33 


94984.023
34 


94984.024
35 


94984.025
36 


94984.026
37 


94984.027
38 


94984.028
39 


94984.029
40 


94984.030
41 


94984.031
42 


94984.032
43 


94984.033
44 


94984.034
45 


94984.035
46 


94984.036
47 


94984.037
48 


94984.038
49 


94984.039
50 


94984.040
51 


94984.041
52 


94984.042
53 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your 

testimony. I now recognize myself for 6 minutes for questions. Mr. Crane, in your written testimony you discuss the nearly $7 

billion in excise tax payments since the Pittman-Robertson program began. This is obviously a significant amount of money that 

goes directly to States to run their fish and game departments and 

to implement local conservation programs. In fact, some have suggested that this money had a direct impact on the recovery of populations such as the white-tailed deer, black bear and the American 

elk. 

IF we do not clarify the law by enacting Section 2 of this legislation, what effect will that have on the conservation dollars paid 

under the Pittman-Robertson account and how will that affect overall State conservation programs? 

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, we are very proud of this uniquely 

American system. As you pointed out, it is a system of those of us 

who hunt and fish, the industries that manufacture this pay the 

taxes and everyone else benefits from it. Seven billion dollars is a 

lot of money even in this town. So we are very proud of the accomplishments that this system has. 

By unnecessarily putting an agency that doesn’t have the authority, doesn’t have the ability, has declined to take these petitions in 

the past, and run that risk that somebody will petition this in the 

future and basically break this financial model, I think we are 

going to do a tremendous disservice to conservation in America. 

I would encourage this committee to leave this provision intact. 

I think that these issues are much better handled by the State 

wildlife agencies and those professionals that can deal with them 

when they rarely occur on a much more localized basis. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So the Section 2 provisions, you are supportive of? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Let me continue with you, Mr. Crane. 

If a situation occurs where sound science irrefutably identifies a 

population impact from lead-based ammunition, as was the case 

with waterfowl, do you think that the government has a role to 

play in responding? And if so, what would be that kind of role? 

Mr. CRANE. I absolutely do. Again, I think the right agencies to 

handle that are the State wildlife management authorities and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Where these happen, they have the 

tools in their toolkit to be able to handle things like season length, 

like areas that they may have to temporarily close and other ways 

to address this. 

There are no population-wide issues with lead contamination on 

any species in the United States, save maybe the California Condor, and that has a very long, long history and would take up to 

much time talking about it. 

Senator SULLIVAN. How about you, Mr. Hall, on that issue? I 

know you must have experience from your previous directorship at 

Fish and Wildlife. 

Mr. HALL. I agree with that. I think if it is endemic, if it is all 

over the United States, and across the State boundaries, and we 

have an issue like we did with lead shot for waterfowl hunting, 

then there is a very appropriate role for the Federal agency to play. 

54 

That has not come to bear in any science that I have seen dealing 

with lead since we shut down the use of lead shot for water fowling. 

Therefore, I agree completely that a proper place to do that is 

where it is locally found. Condor might be an example in California, Arizona. Let the State agencies address it. That is the proper role of the State agencies. I would agree with that. 

And if I might, I want to correct just a procedural point that Mr. 

Pacelle made. That is that we can’t compare apples and oranges 

when we are talking bears and lions. Under the polar bear, it is 

a United States species. Therefore, it is protected in Alaska and 

other places. It is one of our species. 

So when it was listed as threatened, it was listened as a domestic species, listed. If a lion were listed or some species that is not 

domestic to the United States, then it would go on the international list of threatened and endangered species. And the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, particularly, would defer to the origin 

country from where the animal was coming on what rules they 

wanted us to implement. If they had permits from there, we would 

be able to let them come in. 

Thank you for allowing me to clarify the procedure there. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Sure. Let me ask a followup question with 

you. You talked about NAWCA and I mentioned in my opening 

statement about the private matching money that far exceeds the 

Federal investment. Help us explain, help some of my constituents 

to understand, if this is the case, why not shift all the funding to 

the private sector? What happens if there is no Federal investment? What should the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayer be in 

this regard, particularly, as I mentioned, in a time of very austere 

Federal budgets? 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for that question. It is a legitimate question that the citizens need to really understand. When we look at 

the North American model of wildlife management and conservation that Jeff referred to a few minutes ago, that is a partnership. 

It goes back to Aldo Leopold’s concept of the citizen conservationist. 

That is why we in the private sector are so willing to stand up and 

put money into the system. 

But that needs to have the partnership of the Federal Government relaying that this is a United States value. Our natural resources are something important to us as a Country, us as a people. And by this small token, really one quarter under NAWCA is 

what is spent by the Federal taxpayer. They get $4 back for $1 expended. 

As we look at good governance, as we look at efficient governance, I can’t think of a program that ever exemplifies the Federal 

taxpayer getting more back for the resource they own by Constitution and the management of those resources than something that 

gives them back a $4 payoff for $1 investment. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you for that. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before you start the clock, let me tell you how I am going to 

manage my 6 minutes. I do have two brief questions to ask, one 

of Mr. Crane and one of my good friend, Dale Hall. But then I have 

55 

a longer question to ask our friend, Mr. Pacelle. So when I ask this 

question, I am going to ask you to be brief, if you don’t mind. 

First of all, Mr. Crane, I have to say this. In your opening statement, you talk about coming from a hunting family. Back when I 

enjoyed life, I never missed a day of goose season in Oklahoma. 

People don’t realize we have one of the big flyways through there. 

In fact, I had the first 10-gauge full choke 36-inch double barrel 

shotgun. And people wondered how in the world I was getting them 

out further than anybody else. 

But anyway, that is not my question. The question is, you heard 

the statement that Mr. Pacelle said about lead ammunition. What 

effect would it have if you left EPA in that regulatory position, for 

lead ammunition? 

Mr. CRANE. Again, Senator, a couple of points. First of all, I want 

to clarify that there are not readily available, widely available alternatives to lead. Ninety-five percent of current ammunition is 

lead or copper based. 

Second, the price of that is probably four times or more should 

it be available. So while that may not be important to everyone in 

this room, for our rural folks back in Oklahoma, if their box of 

shotgun shells goes from $25 to $125, and they are trying to feed 

their families, I think that makes an impact. 

And third, and finally, as was asked by the chairman, there is $7 billion that has gone off the Pittman-Robertson excise tax to 

support conservation. You apply the same thing to the fishing side 

of the equation, then the alternatives to that are anywhere from 

10 to 20 times more expensive. They don’t work as well. 

So we have a serious problem here. Let’s leave it to the State fish 

and wildlife agencies. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. You gave the same answer my son 

gave me. 

Mr. Hall, I look back wistfully at the days when you were at the 

helm. Your partnership program just was a booming success. It 

takes away this image that anything, that the government is there 

saying, we are doing it because the people don’t want to take care 

of their own property. You did such a great job. 

The question I have to ask you is, both NAWCA and the Pittman-Robertson need to be reauthorized in this bill. Can you real 

briefly explain the difference between the two and why they are 

both important? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir, thank you. The North American Wetland 

Conservation Act was passed as the implementing tool for the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan that was put together back in the 1980’s. It is a standalone program to try and 

help restore and protect wetlands and grasslands and other waterfowl habitat in order to follow the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

The Pittman-Robertson excise taxes go into separate grants to 

the States in order for them to help carry out their operations. This 

provision here simply for the interest that is gathered on those 

funds that are collected each year, and that interest has been designated to go into NAWCA so that it can go into making grants as 

well for wetlands and waterfowl and other habitat. 

Senator INHOFE. I see. That is very interesting. 

56 

Mr. Pacelle, I have to say that I have had to change my mind 

twice since I saw you were going to be one of the witnesses. I always thought of your group as being philosophically very liberal 

and on liberal causes and all that. Until I saw the ad shortly after 

our disaster, the tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, you had an ad, I 

think it is still running, and it shows the dogs out there, the pitiful 

dogs, that hit me hard. Because that is one of the things I do, is 

help with abandoned dogs and that type of thing. 

So I was changing my feelings a little bit until I realized that our 

Attorney General, Scott Pruitt, has a lawsuit against you based on 

the fact that in the programs we have had, you have actually extracted, as a result, probably of that ad, I almost contributed myself, some $1.7 million from Oklahomans. And in the same timeframe that money came in, only $110,000 was donated to animal 

shelters and other institutions in my State of Oklahoma. 

So Oklahomans paid you $1.7 million and got back $110,000. Is 

that true? 

Mr. PACELLE. No, it is not true. I guess if that was a concern of 

yours, I am glad you have raised it in public, so that I can have 

an opportunity to address it. 

Senator INHOFE. Stop there for a moment. Since you said it 

wasn’t true, your general counsel, is it Roger Kindler? 

Mr. PACELLE. Yes, he is general counsel. 

Senator INHOFE. Roger Kindler, in those proceedings, and this is 

a State court proceeding, a district court, he said, Mr. Kindler stated that between 2011 and 2013, donations from within Oklahoma 

totaled $1,714,000. Of that total, only $110,288 in grants came to 

Oklahoma organizations. Is he a liar? 

Mr. PACELLE. Let me clarify. First, we did no fundraising on the 

Moore, Oklahoma tornado disaster. 

Senator INHOFE. No, I said it was around that timeframe. 

Mr. PACELLE. Senator Inhofe, we do continuous promotional 

work and programmatic work. So we don’t simply give grants to 

other organizations. Foundations are grant-making groups. Nonprofit charities like The Humane Society of the United States conduct a wide range of programs. And our work is to protect all animals. So it is raiding dogfights, cockfights, supporting shelters. For 

instance, later this month, we have our annual Care Expo where 

shelter leaders throughout the Country come to get training. We do 

work on helping elephants, rhinos, turtles, which I know you are 

such a devotee of so many marine species of turtles. We run an animal rescue team. We go to Indian reservations. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, you do a variety of things. 

Mr. PACELLE. The fact that a percentage of our money, which is, 

I think a great feature of our program, that we give grants to shelters, that is a sliver of the incredible work that we do to save millions and billions of animals in Oklahoma, in the United States and 

throughout the world. 

So Scott Pruitt has not filed a lawsuit against The Humane Society of the United States. He has been driven by the Farm Bureau 

to make inquiries. I am sure that when he looks at our fundraising 

materials, he will see that. 

57 

Senator INHOFE. But the figures that I used in terms of amounts 

of money coming back to organizations within my State of Oklahoma are accurate. Some 4 percent. 

Mr. PACELLE. We are not a grant-making group, Senator Inhofe. 

The American Farm Bureau Federation doesn’t just give grants to 

farmers. The American Farm Bureau Federation advocates for the 

interests of farmers. The congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, the 

NRA does not just support shooting ranges. 

Senator INHOFE. I understand. My time has expired. The only 

question I would ask you to respond to is, will you agree to give 

to Scott Pruitt all the information that he has asked? 

Mr. PACELLE. We have given General Pruitt all the information 

about fundraising materials. We are entirely confident that he will 

see that we do exactly what we say we do. He wanted materials 

that were entirely unrelated to our issues. Then we sought to enjoin him and won in a State court on that issue. 

He can have any materials. We are very transparent. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Pacelle, can you answer the question? 

Mr. PACELLE. We gave him what he wanted and then for additional materials that he sought that were beyond the scope of what 

he said, he was denied by a court that information. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK, so I am still not sure that is responsive 

to Senator Inhofe’s question. 

Mr. PACELLE. He asked if we would give the material to General 

Pruitt. And I said, yes, we gave him everything that was relevant 

and we didn’t give him the stuff that was a fishing expedition. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. 

Senator INHOFE. That is answered. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Booker? 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I truly appreciate 

your calling this hearing. 

Let me start out really quickly by complimenting my colleagues, 

Senators Heinreich and Murkowski, for coming together across the 

aisle. Lord knows we need more bipartisan work in the Senate. 

Unfortunately, both the portion of this legislation that we are 

considering today and the larger Sportsmen’s Bill contain multiple 

provisions which need to be modified or eliminated before I could 

support this bill. 

Outdoor recreational activities play an important part in our 

economy. It is estimated that hunting, angling and recreational 

shooting and trapping generate about $90 billion of annual spending and Americans spend another $550 billion on other outdoor recreational activities. The vast majority, as many as 90 percent or 

more of the recreational users of our Federal lands, use those lands 

for activities such as hiking, horseback riding, backpacking, camping, nature study and climbing. That is 90 percent of the use of our 

Federal lands. 

We need to make sure that Congress is balancing the needs of 

all of our users of Federal lands, and that we are not passing legislation that would put some of our most vulnerable visitors to Federal lands, including our children, at serious, serious risk of harm. 

As drafted, the Sportsmen’s bill would prohibit the EPA from 

ever, ever regulating or even assessing the actual science of the 

human risk posed by lead bullets and lead shot. This is what we 

58 

know about lead. Lead exposure is toxic to humans. The effects of 

lead poisoning can include kidney disease, damage to the central 

nervous system, nerve disorders and memory and concentrating 

problems. In large enough doses, lead can even cause brain damage, leading to seizures, coma and actually death. 

Lead is especially dangerous for our young children. Childhood 

lead poisoning is even more pronounced because the lead is absorbed faster, causing slow growth, developmental defects, damage 

to the brain and nervous system and more. 

I saw this in Newark first-hand, the devastating and challenging 

detrimental impacts of lead poisoning on our kids. It is a crisis. The 

toxicity of that crisis, of that entrance into the system, has already 

been reduced or eliminated in gasoline, plumbing, paint, pesticides, 

toys and other products. We seem to have got it in every other area 

of our society. But somehow, we are afraid to confront the realities 

of lead buckshot. 

Every year, thousands of tons of lead are put into the environment from this lead ammunition, especially near shooting ranges 

and heavily hunted sites. Let me repeat. Every year, thousands of 

tons of lead are put into our environment from lead ammunition. 

This lead is not only poisonous to our wildlife, it is estimated that 

as many as 20 million birds and other animals each year die from 

lead poisoning. Twenty million birds and animals. 

But it also gets into our land, our waters, and it gets into our 

food supply. In addition, a Seattle Times investigation last year 

found that lead poisoning is a major health threat at America’s 

shooting ranges. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that the Seattle 

Times investigation be entered into the record. Reading it is sickening. And the reality is, we know that there is lead poisoning 

going on. We know that these are threats to our environment. 

Mr. Pacelle, given all that we know about the toxicity and dangers of lead, is there any reason that you are aware for why Congress should permanently, forever, ban the EPA from even assessing the risks posed to human health, almost as if we are afraid of 

science and knowing the truth? Is there any reason or justification 

for this whatsoever, Wayne? 

Mr. PACELLE. I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service made the 

right call in 1991 when President George Bush was President, a 

Republican and a hunter, looking at the evidence, seeing that so 

many migratory birds and other animals were dying as a consequence of lead. The NRA and a number of other groups opposed 

that effort then. 

Now I do think that the Interior Department is the most appropriate agency to look at this issue. That said, if there is tremendously compelling science and if EPA has toxicologists and others 

who have something to contribute, Senator Booker, I don’t see the 

compelling rationale for the Congress to preclude EPA from making 

an examination. 

I don’t think that is happening now. I don’t think EPA is 

chomping at the bit to do this. I think the debate is better placed 

in the States and within the Interior Department. But I don’t understand this overreaction in terms of including this provision in 

this bill, when the EPA is not contemplating the issue right now. 

59 

Senator BOOKER. Right. But to prevent it from studying the 

issue, even knowing it in the future, as tons and tons of lead are 

introduced into our natural environment, consumed by animals, 

poisoning our children, to not even be able to study it seems to me 

ridiculous. 

Mr. PACELLE. We would like to enter into the record a letter from 

168 organizations, local, State and national, opposing that provision and others in this bill. There are 130 different species of wildlife that have been documented in the scientific literature that are 

poisoned as a consequence of lead ammunition being left in the environment. 

And we understand the tradition of hunting in this Country. The 

fact is now, we have alternatives. We have non-toxic shot. We have 

other metals that are now much more competitive on price. So we 

are not talking about doing something that is going to entirely disrupt hunting. There was just a study from the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department about performance of lead versus other forms 

of shot with dove hunting. And the hunters couldn’t tell the difference. It was basically a blind test. 

Senator BOOKER. So there are alternatives that are less expensive. They do better in some cases for our hunters. But yet we seem 

to be afraid of doing what is just reasonable, studying the toxicity 

of this. 

My time is expired. Hopefully we will get another round, Wayne, 

because I am not done with you yet. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding this important hearing on this Bipartisan Sportsmen’s 

package that is within the EPW jurisdiction. Legislation I introduced to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights on lands 

managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is thankfully included in this important package. 

According to the data compiled by the congressional Research Service, the Corps is responsible for $12 million acres of land and 

water, including 422 lake and river projects within recreation, 

92,844 campsites, 7,700 miles of trails and 3,544 boat launches. 

While some Corps lands and waters are open for hunting, there are 

a small number of authorized shooting ranges. Much of the land 

managed by the Corps is off limits to lawful possession of firearms. 

I wish Senator Whitehouse was still here, because he raised a 

concern about the fact that this would allow people to own and 

carry firearms at dams and other hydro facilities, where he thought 

there would be a concern. This legislation only allows that the possession of firearms in those places that are open to the public and 

specifically exempts the Federal facilities that I think Senator 

Whitehouse was talking about. 

The fact here is that it is a clear Second Amendment right that 

Americans should be allowed to exercise. Not only is this restriction a clear violation o the intent of the Second Amendment, but 

it is also inconsistent with the laws and regulations governing land 

that other Federal regulatory agencies implement. 

Enabling Americans to carry firearms on land managed by the 

Corps will allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and to 

engage in the kinds of recreation we have already discussed here 

60 

on lands and facilities designed for that. This change will also provide needed consistency across Federal lands that will reduce the 

complication of tracking where one Federal agency’s management 

jurisdiction ends and another begins. 

The Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right and the 

right to an operable firearm for self-defense is one that Americans 

have. This right should apply on all lands managed by the Federal 

Government. 

Moreover, a Federal district judge in my home State of Idaho 

agrees. In the case of Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

brought by plaintiffs in Western Idaho who used Corps-managed 

land for recreation, including camping, the plaintiffs challenged the 

regulation as being unconstitutional and in violation of their Second Amendment rights. In October of last year, the Court found 

that the regulation was in fact unconstitutional and banned the 

Corps policy, unfortunately, only in Idaho. 

Burdening law-abiding citizens of this Country with the additional Second Amendment restrictions that this Corps is now implementing is not the answer to safeguarding the public. Americans’ Second Amendment rights must be restored to lands managed 

by the Corps. My legislation included in this package does just 

that. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions and I hope 

I can get quickly through them. Mr. Crane, do onerous and confusing firearms regulations for public lands discourage sportsmen 

and their families from utilizing the land? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. Do you want me to expound on that? 

Senator CRAPO. Briefly. I am trying to be brief. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. And as you pointed out, in 2009, the National Park Service and the Wildlife Refuge System, there was legislation that was bipartisan that was passed that allowed carry on 

those. 

The Army Corps lands are the last remaining lands. I think this 

is just consistent with making it easier and folks to understand 

where the lines are, as you pointed out. So, yes. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Hall, I would like to followup 

with you. Are your members unnecessarily burdened by the Corps’ 

conflicting and confusing outright ban on firearms? 

Mr. HALL. Our members are as concerned as Jeff’s are on what 

is legal and what is not. When you have the Federal Government, 

have different arms of the Federal Government have different rules 

dealing with Federal Government land, our citizens are never clear 

on what is allowed and not allowed. 

I was the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service when the 

Park Service issue came up. Although it wasn’t mine, I worked 

with them on getting the legislation passed that you passed here 

that said that following State law is the proper thing to do. 

I think any time that there are different rules on different public 

lands that are basically confusing to the public that it needs to be 

clarified. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I was involved in 2009 

when we had the congressional fight to make this change in the 

law. At that time, all of the dire concerns and consequences were 

61 

raised by those who object. Frankly, by those who don’t like the see 

the Second Amendment family and fully implemented, in my opinion. And we haven’t seen that kind of problem. 

Another question for you, Mr. Hall. According to the Corps’ own 

data, seven of the top ten migratory bird flyways in the United 

States cross over Corps-managed water. From a waterfowl hunting 

perspective, would you support a consistent approach to firearms 

possession across all Corps-managed land? 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely. Our members and those that pay the bill 

and help to get out there a drink just a little bit of the fruit of the 

vine that they helped grow the vineyard for deserve the right to 

understand and be able to use those waters. 

Senator CRAPO. I only have about 30 seconds left, but I understand that it is possible you may have an example of the kinds of 

things we are talking about, where a boat ramp might prohibit the 

possession of firearms, where a person is trying to put a boat in 

to go out to another place where firearm possession is allowed. 

Those kinds of restrictions are complicating the ability of Americans to freely utilize their Second Amendment rights in pursuit of 

hunting or other purposes. 

Mr. HALL. I know we have some of those. But I want to be cautious and be accurate. If you would allow me, I will answer that 

question for the record after this is over with specific examples. 

Senator CRAPO. I would appreciate that. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Hall. I see my time is up, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank 

you for chairing this hearing, it is very important. 

I want to followup on Senator Crapo’s point first. It is good to 

have a bipartisan bill. I have some concerns about some of the provisions, but I do appreciate the manner in which this bill has been 

put together. It is a real effort to try to get legislation to the finish 

line. We started this in the last Congress and we made progress. 

Many of these provisions have been worked on by both Democrats 

and Republicans, so I very much appreciate that. 

There will be interest to see whether there are other areas that 

may not be in the original bill that we hope will get incorporated. 

Because quite frankly, we don’t get too many bills to the finish line. 

I think we have a good chance to get this bill to the finish line. 

So I want to followup on Senator Crapo’s point, because the two 

of us have worked together on a bill dealing with the national fish 

habitat conservation, a non-controversial bill that we would hope 

will be able to be included in the package. It allows for the partnership between State and local governments and the private organizations in order to deal with fish habitat issues, which are, we believe, the sensible way to go about doing this. 

Mr. Crane, your organization has been part of these efforts dealing with fish habitat. I would like to get your assessment as to the 

importance of encouraging partnerships to deal with the fish habitat, specifically the bill that senator Crapo and I have been working on. 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your leadership along with Senator Crapo on this important legislation. We 

are supportive of it and we recognize the value of these partnership 

62 

not unlike the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. As you 

pointed out, they leverage private funds. They go across States and 

effectively look at the conservation goals as a whole. We would be 

very supportive of working with you and if we can figure out a way 

that this enhances the bill and the chances for it to get those 

much-needed 60 votes, we would like to work with you. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes. Of course, our objective is to look at areas 

that do not cause additional concerns on the support. We think this 

is one of the categories. As you point out, what it basically does is 

leverage private sector involvement to protect our fish habitats, 

which is in everyone’s interest. Some of the modifications that Senator Crapo and I made in the version this year deal with some of 

the technical concerns raised in the last Congress. We think we 

have hit the sweet spot. We look forward to talking to the committee about that. 

I want to mention one other area that this committee has acted 

on in previous Congresses, basically without controversy, and that 

is neo-tropical bird issues, which deal with the fact that many of 

our bird species in this Country migrate as far away as down in 

South America. This is a bill that allows us to participate and protects the habitats of birds that we very much want to see in our 

community. 

Again, I don’t believe this is a controversial issue. It has been basically without opposition in this committee in the past. I hope that 

we will have a chance, Mr. Chairman, as we talk about putting together a bill, looking at those issues that truly are not controversial 

but give us a chance to make significant progress to protect habitats for beauty, for the economics, for the sportsmen and for all of 

us to enjoy for future generations. 

I yield back my time. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of 

you for being here. We really do appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Hall, the bill contains a provision that the Arkansas delegation has worked on, been very active in writing and promoting. The 

provision helps clarify that farmers are allowed to engage in normal agricultural practices that have added the benefit of providing 

habitat for ducks. We have seen a lot of misinformation surrounding the important element of the bill. 

In your testimony you stated that conservationists have established population-based waterfowl habitat goals that depend on the 

presence of rice agriculture on landscape. The growth of a second 

crop of rice is normal agricultural practice. I guess the question is, 

really a couple of things, does this normal agricultural practice enhance winter waterfowl foraging habitat? And second, would you 

say that the bill provides a win-win for both farmers and for migratory game birds in that regard? 

Mr. HALL. The answer, simple answer is absolutely. What we 

need to recognize first, and if I may say so as part of the record, 

with the loss of wetlands that we have had here in the United 

States, when the wintering habitat comes into question, rice has 

become a surrogate wetland in order to support those waterfowl 

populations. 

63 

We are at the highest level of nest productivity and nesting waterfowl since we have been taking records in 1955. Yet we have lost 

so much of the native habitat. The reason we have been able to do 

that is we have taken advantage of our partnership with agriculture, whether it is winter wheat in the north for nesting, or 

whether it is rice in the south and west for wintering habitat. In 

your particular question dealing with the Gulf Coast joint venture, 

they have actually put 41 percent of the food requirements to be 

coming from rice. This second ratoon crop is critical. 

The rules, as they are stated now, and it is not ever where the 

ratoon crop comes in, where they grow rice, but in the south it happens that the second one naturally comes in after the harvest. 

Well, the rules of harvest kick in because you have manipulated 

the ground. So by causing the farmer to choose between taking care 

of waterfowl and making additional money on being able to lease 

out hunting facilities, and we are strong supporters of that, because that brings additional economic value and support for waterfowl management and conservation. To make them choose, we believe, is an absolutely unnecessary question. It is not about the 

abandonment of fair chase. It is about managing the resources with 

the regional conservation agricultural practices that are normal. 

And they do vary from region to region. Therefore, we support this 

provision. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. 

I would like to yield a minute to Senator Inhofe, if that is OK. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection. 

Senator INHOFE. Thirty seconds of your time. I want to get to 

Senator Fischer, because our votes have started. 

But for clarification purposes, Mr. Pacelle, when I asked the 

question about the very effective ad you had, implying that is going 

to animal shelters and other places, and that you have raised from 

my citizens in Oklahoma over $1.7 million, and the total amount 

that has come back for organizations within Oklahoma from you 

was $110,000, and you said no, that wasn’t true, and I read you 

the following statement, your general counsel said that between 

2011 and 2013, donations from within Oklahoma totaled some $1.7 

million. Of that total, only about $110,000 in grants to Oklahoma 

came to Oklahoma organizations. 

Now, is that statement correct? 

Mr. PACELLE. The statement is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, I only want a yes or no, because 

we have votes. 

Mr. PACELLE. Those ads say that we are not giving the money 

to animal shelters. The presumption that somehow the ads say we 

are giving money to shelters is a false presumption. 

Senator INHOFE. They are very effective ads to get $1.7 million 

out of Oklahoma. 

Mr. PACELLE. There is language that says it is not going to local 

animal shelters. Explicit language. We do all animals. And we do 

it outside of shelters and inside of shelters. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Pacelle, do you want to take the opportunity to answer that yes or no? 

Mr. PACELLE. It doesn’t lend itself readily to a yes or no answer. 

The answer is $110,000, if that is what Roger Kindler said in terms 

64 

of grants to societies in Oklahoma, I am sure that is true. We do 

so much more outside of the shelters in Oklahoma to help animals. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am proud to be a vice chair of the congressional Sportsmen’s 

Caucus. And I am very happy to be a co-sponsor of the Bipartisan 

Sportsmen’s Act. 

A priority that I would like to work on as we consider this legislation is addressing duplicative permitting of pesticides under 

FIFRA and the Clean Water Act. This duplicative process creates 

unnecessary resource burdens and challenges for pesticide registrants and users, including the sportsmen community. 

Pesticides are actually critical for outdoor recreation, enabling 

healthy habitats and ecosystems to thrive, while suppressing vector-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus, which threaten outdoor activity of all kinds. Eliminating harmful and invasive pests 

is critical to vegetation and management. The U.S. State agencies 

have testified that these FIFRA permitting requirements offer no 

additional environmental benefits. 

While the House acted on legislation to address this problem in 

both the 112th and 113th Congress, and is already taking action, 

this year the Senate has yet to address this issue. It is time for this 

committee and the U.S. Senate to act. So I look forward to working 

with my colleagues on exploring opportunities to accomplish this 

goal as we move forward to debate this bill. 

Mr. Crane, I am very grateful for the work of the Sportsmen’s 

Caucus in developing this important legislation. Thank you very 

much. It has been a pleasure to be involved with the Caucus. 

For the benefit of everyone here, can you please talk about the 

work that went into putting together this bill, both the bipartisan 

cooperation in the Caucus and the Senate, and also the collaboration that we have seen from all of the organizations and partners 

that are out there in the sportsmen’s community? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, Senator. Thank you for your leadership on this. 

This process started probably more than 6 years ago. Senator 

Tester from Montana was the Democratic co-chair of the Caucus. 

We attempted to assemble in the Senate for the first time a comprehensive Sportsmen’s Act. In successive Congresses, it has gotten 

closer to passage. SO I hope this is going to be the year. 

The House has passed similar legislation on a bipartisan basis in 

the last two Congresses. So again, I hope this is going to be our 

year. I did in my opening statement hold forth a letter from all the 

leading sportsmen, hunting, fishing, conservation groups, endorsing 

the parent bill, S. 405. Again, thank you for your leadership on 

that. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. I can tell you, with really the 

great bipartisan support we have, this should be the year that this 

passes. 

In your testimony you discuss the modifications of definition of 

sport fishing equipment under the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Can you please go into further detail on the potential implications? 

We see there are anti-hunting and fishing citizen suits that force 

EPA to expand that TSCA authority to regulations of our ammunition and our tackle as well. 

65 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, Senator, and if you will permit me about 15 seconds, I would like to point out, there is a difference between elemental lead, which is on the periodic table. Lead is an inert substance that is found in the earth in molecular lead, which is what 

is transformed and used in paints and gasoline and things like 

that. The molecular lead is highly toxic. That was a statement that 

I would just like to put for the record. 

But the definition of fishing tackle under the IRS code basically 

would involve every single piece, from a fishing rod to a fishing reel 

to all the terminal tackle. It would basically, if they were successful 

in being able to push back and put restrictions on lead, you would 

be going back to the days of Tom Sawyer with a cane pole and a 

piece of monofilament line. The attendant moneys that are raised 

through the Wallop-Breaux excise taxes on fishing equipment, it 

would be devastating to the conservation and economy of the 

United States. 

Senator FISCHER. So it would have really a very harmful impact, 

not just on the recreation industry but on our conservation practices as well? 

Mr. CRANE. This is where the lion’s share of the money comes 

from. 

Senator FISHER. Thank you. Mr. Crane and Mr. Hall, you have 

heard Mr. Pacelle try to defend HSUS’s positions here this morning. I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to any of 

those statements, detailing, I think, his organization’s stance on 

hunting and what impact his organization has on the sportsmen’s 

community. 

Mr. CRANE. I will be happy to do that. I would like to focus on 

the polar bear, but in my opinion and being around in this industry, I am not so sure I take at face value that The Human Society 

of the United States does not oppose hunting. But I think that is 

a debate maybe for another time. 

In his testimony on the polar bear, he pointed out that when the 

Service was proposing the listing that people rushed up there to 

shoot these bears. First of all, you have to book these hunts well 

in advance. There is a significant deposit that is required for these 

animals. So the idea that somebody rushed up there is erroneous. 

Second, usually, and I will defer to the former Director of the 

Service, but usually there is a minimum of a 30-day period after 

a listing occurs to allow people to bring them back in. A judge in 

California ordered that this would have immediate effect. And it 

caught these people in a catch–22 position up there. They were victims of something that they don’t deserve. This is just seeking justice for those people. 

Senator FISCHER. Mr. Hall, do you have any comments? 

Mr. HALL. I would simply echo that I agree with Mr. Crane. It 

is not my experience that HSUS runs out and supports hunting. 

They may not oppose it, and I am not going to question that; he 

is going to give his own testimony. But at the same time, we are 

concerned often with tactics that we think are less than aboveboard on trying to portray hunting as something of a blood sport 

and not giving the proper credit back to the people that actually 

pay for those animals to be there. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

66 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

We are going to move into a second round of questioning, but we 

have a vote pending here, so we are going to limit that to 2 minutes each. 

I will begin. Mr. Pacelle, I didn’t have a chance to ask you any 

questions, so I am going to ask one. There was a lot of discussion 

on lead and its impacts. But importantly, there are 20 million 

hunters in the U.S. whose families eat game, rely on game, harvest 

it with traditional ammunition. Can you tell us the percentage of 

the 20 million families who have gotten lead or get poisoning as a 

direct result of eating game meat? 

Mr. PACELLE. Mr. Chairman, according to the fish and Wildlife 

Service, there are about 13 million hunters. I am not sure how 

many hunting families that translates into. We are not contesting 

the tradition of hunting. If someone is killing a deer and eating a 

deer, that is arguably a better outcome for the animal that if someone gets meat from a factory farm. 

So we have on our national council a life-long hunter, Renee 

Tatro, from Kansas. It is not a debate for us about hunting. 

If you are talking about lead, there is abundant evidence that as 

lead ammunition fragments, it becomes undetectable for the consumer of the product. There is a study out of North Dakota, I 

would be happy to submit it, about high lead levels in game meat 

that has been consumed by North Dakota hunters. There have 

been a number of other food pantries and others that have raised 

concerns about this issue as well. 

Again, I understand the tradition of hunting. The issue is, if we 

have an alternative that is increasingly competitive on price and 

meets all the ballistic properties that lead has, and is indistinguishable, according to this latest survey from dove hunters in 

Texas, why would we not make a switch if we can do something 

that is not going to kill as many animals and threaten as many 

hunting families in terms of consumption? Again, if we can shift to 

that. 

The world changes all the time. We went from the typewriter to 

the personal computer. The world is going to move away from lead. 

The question is, are we going to do it in a rational, science-based 

way? That is what we want. I am not sure it is rational to say, 

EPA should never be allowed to look at the issue. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Pacelle, this is a speed round, so I am 

going to ask you one question and ask that you submit that for the 

record, then I am going to give you a question to take for my 60 

seconds left. 

I have a serious concern about trapping. It is something that I 

know other countries have banned specific types of traps, because 

of their inhumane nature, body-gripping traps, specifically, and accidents that happen with body-gripping traps, the unintended consequences of body-gripping traps. So I would appreciate it if you 

could submit to the record some of your testimony on that. I think 

it would be objectionable to the overwhelming majority of Americans if they knew more of the truth of what those traps do and how 

this legislation would open up nearly all Federal lands to such a 

67 

barbaric practice that has some pretty negative consequences that 

are unintended. 

But a specific question I want to ask you, because I saw the sort 

of grilling that you were taking from my honorable colleague and 

a partner of mine on many efforts, I know you are a non-profit. In 

the world of non-profits, where some of them are involved in some 

skeptical practices, yours is actually pretty amazing in terms of the 

return it gives to the donors, whether it is Oklahoma or New Jersey. I know you get lots of donations from New Jersey. 

So for the record, to give you the last 30 seconds I have, would 

you expound a little bit about donors in Oklahoma and New Jersey 

and what they are getting for the money they are investing? 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you, Senator Booker. Briefly on that issue, 

The Humane Society of the United States is about protecting all 

animals. We are the No. 1 direct care provider to animals in the 

United States in terms of the number of animals that we directly 

touch. We are the largest wildlife rehab center in the U.S. Again, 

we see the toxic effects of lead on some of those animals who come 

into our facility as a consequence of lead poisoning. 

We have equine sanctuaries. We have an animal rescue team. 

We help tens of thousands of street dogs throughout the world, 

which is a public health issue as well, because of rabies-related 

concerns. 

We do advocacy work for horses, for farm animals, for animals 

in laboratories, for wildlife. And for anyone to say that The Humane Society of the United States should just give money to shelters as a grant-making exercise so narrow the mission and focus 

of our work, and it is never anything that we ever said. 

Senator BOOKER. The Chairman is my friend and I don’t want 

to tread upon his patience. 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you for asking. I appreciate the opportunity 

to clarify. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your 

testimony. All the materials requested to be entered into the record 

are hereby done so without objection. 

[The referenced materials follow:] 

68 


94984.043
69 


94984.044
70 


94984.045
71 


94984.046
72 


94984.047
73 


94984.048
74 


94984.049
75 


94984.050
76 


94984.051
77 


94984.052
78 


94984.053
79 


94984.054
80 


94984.055
81 


94984.056
82 


94984.057
83 


94984.058
84 


94984.059
85 


94984.060
86 


94984.061
87 


94984.062
88 


94984.063
89 


94984.064
90 


94984.065
91 


94984.066
92 


94984.067
93 


94984.068
94 


94984.069
95 


94984.070
96 


94984.071
97 


94984.072
98 


94984.073
99 


94984.074
100 


94984.075
101 


94984.076
102 


94984.077
103 


94984.078
104 


94984.079
105 


94984.080
106 


94984.081
107 


94984.082
108 


94984.083
109 


94984.084
110 


94984.085
111 


94984.086
112 


94984.087
113 


94984.088
114 


94984.089
115 


94984.090
116 


94984.091
117 


94984.092
118 


94984.093
119 


94984.094
120 


94984.095
121 


94984.096
122 


94984.097
123 


94984.098
124 


94984.099
125 


94984.100
126 


94984.101
127 


94984.102
128 


94984.103
129 


94984.104
130 


94984.105
131 


94984.106
132 


94984.107
133 


94984.108
134 


94984.109
135 


94984.110
136 


94984.111
137 


94984.112
138 


94984.113
139 


94984.114
140 


94984.115
141 


94984.116
142 


94984.117
143 


94984.118
144 


94984.119
145 


94984.120
146 


94984.121
147 


94984.122
148 


94984.123
149 


94984.124
150 


94984.125
151 


94984.126
152 


94984.127
153 


94984.128
154 

Senator SULLIVAN. The subcommittee hearing on the Bipartisan 

Sportsmen’s Act of 2015 is hereby adjourned. Thank you again. 

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SOLLMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FUR INDUSTRIES OF NORTH AMERICA

On behalf of the Fur Industries of North America, an organization that represents 

wildlife trappers throughout the country, we appreciate the opportunity to provide 

information to the Committee on the current State of trap technology and ongoing 

research programs. While trapping is not a direct subject of the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act, we recognize that trapping is an important component of wildlife management and that issues related to trapping have been raised during debate on this 

important legislation. We, therefore, offer the following information on the current 

status of trap technology research, best management practices and our international 

obligations under agreements on humane trapping. 

In 1997, the United States and the European Union signed an Agreed Minute on 

humane standards for trapping of furbearing animals. The Agreed Minute represents a binding international treaty commitment of the United States. Concurrently, an agreement was reached between Canada, Russia and the EU. The Agreement on International Humane Trap Standards (AIHTS) seeks to develop humane 

methods for the capturing of furbearing animals. The Agreed Minute reflects the 

U.S. commitment to the principles of the AIHTS. 

As a result, the United States is committed to ongoing programs designed to meet 

U.S. obligations by testing trapping devices that measure humaneness, safety, selectivity, practicality and efficiency that are incorporated in the Agreement. Accordingly, the program was designed, with Federal oversight, to allow State control of 

the research. While as a constitutional matter, trapping is regulated by the states, 

this is more than an issue of State vs. Federal control over trapping. States have 

the right to regulate their respective wildlife populations. Also, State control is more 

practical because of: (1) the competency of the states residing with their respective 

DNRs; and (2) the great diversity of habitats across the country, which require 

state-specific solutions to issues of wildlife management. 

To date, research has been completed and best management practice recommendations have been distributed on traps for 21 species with two more soon to 

be released. Over 100 trap types have been tested and a substantial number of devices have been identified that meet international animal welfare standards. Those 

traps that fail to meet international standards have also been identified. These findings have been published and distributed by the states to wildlife managers, users 

and available to the general public. Future efforts will increase State level education, outreach, and training to ensure that best management practices are integrated into professional and agency programs. 

The Agreed Minute specifically obligates the U.S. Government to fund an annual 

research program to improve the quality of traps and to ensure new traps meet welfare criteria set forth in the Agreement. The United States research program, undertaken by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center, has been developed in 

partnership with the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which have regulatory authority over trapping. Failure to maintain this commitment could result in reduced 

access to European and other markets for American fur products. For this reason, 

the USDA and the States have maintained their commitment to continued research 

and development in this important area. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to the Committee as 

it considers issues that relate to wildlife management. 

March 24, 2015 

Re: Please oppose S. 405, the so-called ‘‘Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015’’ 

Dear Senator: 

On behalf of our more than 100 national, regional, and local organizations and 

our millions of members, we write to express our strong opposition to S. 405, the 

so-called ‘‘Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015’’ and its related Senate bills (S. 556, 

S. 659). We oppose this legislation because it threatens the conservation of fish, 

wildlife, and habitats that benefit all Americans. While there are many adverse special interest provisions contained in this legislation, the following aspects of the bill 

clearly demonstrate the harm it will do and why it must be opposed. 

155 

ROLLBACK OF PUBLIC LANDS PROTECTION

S. 405 contains several alarming rollbacks of long-standing Federal environmental 

and public land laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Wilderness Act, and the National Forest Management Act. These rollbacks would 

reduce or eliminate important protections for America’s public lands that have been 

in place for decades. 

In regards to NEPA, for example, the bill exempts all decisions on Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) lands regarding trapping and recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting from compliance with NEPA by 

mandating that these lands be open to these activities. NEPA ensures that agencies 

assess and consider the impacts of their land-use decisions before those decisions 

are put into action. It also serves as an effective platform for the public to assess 

the environmental consequences of proposed agency actions and to weigh in on governmental decisions before they are finalized. 

Underlying changes to the Wilderness Act embedded in S. 405 seek to overturn 

decades of congressional protection for wilderness areas. For example, the bill would 

require lands managed by the USFS and BLM, including wilderness areas, to be 

managed as ‘‘open unless closed’’ to recreational shooting. This includes ‘‘sport, 

training, competition, or pastime whether formal or informal’’ in designated wilderness. Wilderness areas have always been closed to competitive events and commercial enterprises by statute and regulation. 

Moreover, the bill prioritizes hunting, trapping, recreational fishing, and recreational shooting in most Wilderness areas by requiring that all Federal land managers (except for lands managed by the National Park Service or the United States 

Fish & Wildlife Service) facilitate the use of and access to lands under their control 

for these activities. The agencies could interpret prioritizing hunting, trapping, fishing, and recreational shooting in wilderness areas to mean that they can permit 

management measures such as the use of motorized vehicles in these areas to artificially increase game or fish numbers. Such measures would be inconsistent with the 

concept of wilderness and the Wilderness Act. 

Further, section 106 of S. 405 would significantly change current practices and 

open up all wilderness areas across the country to commercial filming activities and 

their attendant problems, preventing Federal land managers from protecting designated wildernesses from commercial filming production. The language in this section that exempts ‘‘cameras or related equipment used for the purpose of commercial 

filming or similar projects’’ from the prohibitions on motorized and mechanized 

equipment in designated wilderness could lead to calls to allow motorized access in 

wilderness areas for commercial filming. Congress recognized that wilderness areas 

can easily be damaged by commercialization. The Wilderness Act’s section 4(c) provides that, except as specifically provided otherwise, ‘‘there shall be no commercial 

enterprise . . . within any wilderness area.’’ We are deeply concerned that making 

exceptions for commercial filming would lead to opening wilderness areas to even 

more commercial enterprises. 

Such changes are in direct conflict with the stated purpose of the Wilderness Act 

to establish areas ‘‘where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by 

man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.’’ It is also in direct opposition to the Act’s fundamental mandate that Federal agencies preserve the wilderness character of these lands so that they are left ‘‘unimpaired for future use and 

enjoyment as wilderness.’’ 

The legislation promotes the priorities of various special interests by making substantive policy changes to public land law. It prioritizes recreational shooting activities by promoting and facilitating the establishment of target ranges on public 

lands. As defined, recreational shooting activities are unrelated to, and potentially 

at odds with, the unique natural resource values of the various Federal land management systems on which they would occur. 

Under the National Forest Management Act, forest managers manage for the resilience of our national forests so that both current and future generations can benefit from multiple uses of the land. In some cases, managers need the flexibility to 

stop certain actions to promote long-term use of the forest resources. Requiring that 

all Forest Service lands be ‘‘open unless closed’’ to hunting, trapping, fishing, and 

shooting is one example of many where this legislation undercuts their ability to do 

that. 

Appropriate management of our public lands plays a critical role in stewardship 

for biodiversity as well as for recreational opportunities. The natural resource management laws affected by this legislation were created to ensure public lands were 

managed to protect biodiversity. This stable habitat, in turn, allows for healthy 

wildlife populations, which can prevent them from needing to be listed under the 

156 

Endangered Species Act. They work to ensure that our wildlife and public land resources thrive and that hunters, birders, and anglers alike can enjoy them for generations to come. By weakening these important laws, the proposed legislation 

would significantly undermine these important public land values. 

LEAD AMMUNITION POLLUTION

Second, S. 405 would remove the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate toxic lead or any other toxic substance used in ammunition or 

fishing equipment under the Toxic Substances Control Act. A nationwide ban on 

lead shot in migratory waterfowl hunting was adopted in 1991 after biologists estimated roughly two million ducks died each year from ingesting spent lead pellets. 

The hunting industry groups that want to prevent the EPA from regulating lead 

ammunition and fishing tackle are the same groups that protested the ban on lead 

shot for waterfowl hunting in 1991. Despite the doom-and-gloom rhetoric, hunters 

know two decades later that this didn’t lead to the end of duck or goose hunting. 

A Federal agency should be able to carry out its duties without uncalled for and 

unscientific laws impeding this process. Such decisions should be left to the discretion of Federal agencies based solely on the best available science on the impacts 

of toxic substances such as lead. Congress should not tie the hands of professional 

scientists and prevent them from even evaluating or considering future policies to 

protect the public and the environment. 

Switching to non-lead hunting ammunition isn’t about stopping hunting or taking 

anyone’s guns away. In fact, some of the staunchest supporters of the effort to rid 

our public lands of lead are hunters. The switch to non-lead hunting ammunition 

in California, for example, proves that replacement of toxic lead in ammunition is 

compatible with hunting. Hunters have been hunting with copper rounds in 14 California counties since non-lead hunting ammunition requirements went into effect in 

2008 to protect endangered California condors from lead poisoning. 

POLAR BEARS IN PERIL

S. 405 would allow the import of 41 sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada. This would be the latest in a series of import allowances that Congress has 

approved, and the cumulative effect is devastating to our most imperiled species. 

Despite having notice of the impending prohibition on import of polar bear trophies 

from Canada for 16 months (between January 2007 and May 2008), a number of 

trophy hunters went forward with their hunts anyway. In fact, the 41 individuals 

all hunted polar bears AFTER the Bush administration proposed the species for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and all but one hunted more 

than a year after the listing was proposed. They were given repeated warnings from 

hunting organizations and government agencies that trophy imports would likely 

not be allowed as of the listing date, and that they were hunting at their own risk. 

If this behavior were rewarded through a congressional waiver, it could accelerate 

the pace of killing any species that is proposed for listing in the future, since hunters would believe they could get the trophies in even after a listing becomes final. 

Each new allowance may involve only a few animals, but the cumulative impacts 

of these waivers time and time again lead to more reckless trophy killing. 

CONCLUSION

This bill is extreme and reckless. It would undermine decades of land management and planning practices and would topple the delicate balance between allowing for public use and the need to protect public resources. In regards to increased 

public land access for recreational hunting and fishing, it is also unnecessary. Hunting and fishing are already permitted on 85 percent of public lands. This bill’s proponents seek to solve a problem that does not exist, and the legislation they propose 

could in fact cause serious damage to America’s natural heritage. 

Please oppose S. 405, as well as any related legislation such as S. 556 and S. 659, 

and oppose any effort to attach any of these to another bill. This legislation is bad 

for public lands and water resources, bad for fish and wildlife, and bad for the 

American people. 

Thank you. 

• The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals • Adirondack 

Wildlife Refuge and Rehabilitation Center • Alliance for the Wild Rockies • Animal 

Legal Defense Fund • Animal Protection League of New Jersey • Animal Welfare 

Institute • Animals Are Sentient Beings, Inc. • Audubon Society of Corvallis • Audubon Society of Kalamazoo • Blue Ridge Wildlife Center • Born Free USA • Cascades 

157 

Raptor Center • Center for Biological Diversity • Center for Food Safety • Center 

for Public Environmental Oversight • Center for Wildlife Ethics, Inc. • Citizens for 

the Preservation of Wildlife, Inc. • Connecticut Council for Humane Education 

Conowingo Bald Eagles • Conservation Congress • Conservation Northwest • Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology • Coyote Coexistence • Coyote Watch Canada • Earth 

Island Institute • Endangered Habitats League • Endangered Species Coalition Environmental Action Committee of West Marin • Environmental Protection Information Center • Footloose Montana • Four Harbors Audubon Society • Freedom Center 

for Wildlife • Friends of Georgia • Friends of the Bitterroot • Friends of the Clearwater • GooseWatch NYC • Great Old Broads for Wilderness • Gulf Restoration 

Network • Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Headwater • Heartwood • The Humane Society of the United States • Humane Society Legislative Fund • The Humane Society 

Wildlife Land Trust • Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association • In Defense 

of Animals • nternational Fund for Animal Welfare • The International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council Jayhawk Audubon Society • Justice for Wolves • Kittitas Audubon Society • Klamath Forest Alliance • Laramie Audubon Society • League of Humane Voters, Alabama • League of Humane Voters, Florida • League of Humane 

Voters, Georgia • League of Humane Voters, Indiana • League of Humane Voters, 

Nevada • League of Humane Voters, New Jersey • League of Humane Voters, New 

York • League of Humane Voters, Ohio • League of Humane Voters, Pennsylvania 

• League of Humane Voters, Virginia • Long Island Orchestrating for Nature • 

LoonWatch • Los Padres ForestWatch • Madrone Audubon Society • Maricopa Audubon Society • MOMS Advocating Sustainability • National Urban Wildlife Coalition • New Hampshire Audubon • North County Watch Northcoast Environmental 

Center • Northeast Oregon Ecosystems • Prairie Dog Pals • Predator Defense • Preserve Our Wildlife • Project Coyote Rainforest Relief • Raptor Education Group, Inc. 

• Raptors Are The Solution • Raptor Rehabilitation of Kentucky Inc. • RESTORE: 

The North Woods • Rocky Mountain Wild • Save America’s Forests • Save Our Sky 

Blue Waters • SAVE THE FROGS! • Sequoia ForestKeeper • Speak Up for Wildlife 

Foundation • Sky Island Alliance • South Florida Wildlands Association • Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance • Tamarack Wildlife Rehabilitation Center • TEDX, The 

Endocrine Disruption Exchange • Tennessee Ornithological Society • Tri-City Ecology Center • Walden’s Puddle Wildlife Rehabilitation and Education Center • Western Lands Project • White Mountain Conservation League • Wild Wings Raptor Rehabilitation, Sisters, OR • WildEarth Guardians • Wilderness Watch • The 

Wildlands Network • Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Northern Utah • WildWest 

Institute • Yellowstone to Uintas Connection • Zumbro Valley Audubon Society 

Æ