U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87-680 PS 2003

H.R. 1006 and H.R. 1472

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, 

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

June 12, 2003

Serial No. 108-25

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

VACANCY 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on June 12, 2003 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Dingell, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan, Prepared statement of ................................................................ 30

Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 6

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

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

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

McKeon, Hon. Howard ‘‘Buck’’, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ......................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 106

Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia ...................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Pallone, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey ................................................................................................... 3

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota .................................................................................................. 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

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

New Jersey ................................................................................................... 5

Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan, Prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Baughman, John, Executive Vice-President, International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies ........................................................................... 42

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................. 40

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

Haleen, Stephen J., National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force ................ 94

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 96

Hedren, Tippi, President, The Roar Foundation ............................................ 57

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 60

Hogan, Matt, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37

Horn, William P., Director, Federal Affairs, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance ...... 97

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 99

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................ 111

Jonkel, Dr. Charles, Co-Founder and President, Great Bear Foundation ... 79

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 82

Marlenee, Hon. Ron, Director of Legislative Affairs, Safari Club 

International ................................................................................................. 75

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 77

Juneau Empire article submitted for the record .................................... 79

Miller, Eric, D.V.M., Director of Animal Health and Conservation, 

St. Louis Zoo, American Zoo and Aquarium Association .......................... 63

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67

Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Pacelle, Wayne, Senior Vice President, Humane Society of the United 

States ............................................................................................................. 84

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 87

Additional materials supplied: 

Albert, Thomas L., Vice President, Government Relations, Feld 

Entertainment, Letter submitted for the record ........................................ 114

Amand, Wilbur, V.M.D., Executive Director, American Association of Zoo 

Veterinarians, Statement submitted for the record ................................... 64

Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, Letters submitted for the record by 

The Honorable Collin Peterson .................................................................... 12

Etter, Dwayne R., Ph.D., Wildlife Research Biologist, Wildlife Division, 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Letter submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 100

International Fund for Animal Welfare, Statement submitted for the 

record on H.R. 1006 ..................................................................................... 107

Michigan House of Representatives, Letter submitted for the record on 

H.R. 1472 ...................................................................................................... 112

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Letter submitted for the 

record on H.R. 1472 by The Honorable Collin Peterson ........................... 10

National Rifle Association, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1472 . 108

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Letter submitted for the 

record on H.R. 1472 ..................................................................................... 32

North American Bear Foundation, Statement submitted for the record 

on H.R. 1472 ................................................................................................. 13

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Letter submitted for the 

record on H.R. 1472 ..................................................................................... 109

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1006, A BILL 

TO AMEND THE LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS 

OF 1981 TO FURTHER THE CONSERVATION 

OF CERTAIN WILDLIFE SPECIES; AND 

H.R. 1472, A BILL TO REQUIRE THE 

ADOPTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS TO PROHIBIT THE INTENTIONAL 

FEEDING OF BEARS ON FEDERAL PUBLIC 

LANDS IN ORDER TO END THE HUNTING 

PRACTICE KNOWN AS ‘‘BEAR BAITING’’ AND 

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DANGEROUS 

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND 

BEARS 

Thursday, June 12, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Young, Saxton, 

Gallegly, Pombo (ex officio), Pallone, and Bordallo. 

Also Present: Representatives Kind and Moran. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND 

Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good 

morning, everyone. Welcome to the hearing and to Washington. 

Collin, Jim, welcome, this morning. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Wayne. Nice to see you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We will hear testimony on two wildlife bills this 

morning, H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, and 

H.R. 1472, the Don’t Feed the Bears Act. That sounds like a good 

story. 

2

Mr. GILCHREST. The first bill, H.R. 1006, introduced by our colleague Buck McKeon, would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 

1981 to designate certain large exotic cats as prohibited wildlife 

species. Many of us, including myself, are cosponsors of this measure and feel it is appropriate to restrict the ownership or possession of certain large cats, such as lions, tigers, and leopards, to 

those organizations who have expertise to properly care for them. 

I want to thank and compliment Congressman McKeon for his 

leadership on this legislation, and I note that one of our witnesses 

today, Tippi Hedren, is not only a famous Hollywood actress, but 

also has dedicated her life to saving and caring for dozens of 

animals that have been mistreated or abandoned. 

The second bill, H.R. 1472, has been introduced by our Committee colleague, Elton Gallegly, of California. I look forward to 

hearing the testimony and the witnesses’ thoughts on how this 

measure could impact some of the sportsmen and ethical issues it 

raises, including the management of bear populations on Federal 

lands and the traditional long-standing interaction between State 

Fish and Wildlife agencies, Federal land managers and their constituents. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on 

both sides of pieces of this legislation, and we look forward to the 

hearing today. The hearing will, in all likelihood, be interrupted 

about 11 or 11:15 for possibly a series of votes. So just be ready 

to anticipate that. 

I look forward to the testimony the witnesses will give on both 

of these pieces of legislation. We are here to preserve, to a great 

extent, the long-standing practices of understanding nature, of the 

importance of wildlife, the importance of habitat, the importance of 

States rights, and the importance of ethical treatment of all of 

God’s creatures. 

At this point I will ask for a UC. I will recognize the gentleman 

from New Jersey, but before doing that I ask unanimous consent 

that Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Miller be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee for the purposes of opening statements and asking questions. 

Without objection, so ordered. And I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, on H.R. 1006 and 

H.R. 1472

Good morning, today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on two wildlife bills, 

H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act and H.R. 1472, the Don’t Feed the Bears 

Act. 

The first bill, H.R. 1006, introduced by our Colleague Buck McKeon would amend 

the Lacey Act amendments of 1981 to designate certain large exotic cats as ‘‘prohibited wildlife species.’’ I am a co-sponsor of this measure and feel it is appropriate 

to restrict the ownership or possession of certain large cats such as lions, tigers and 

leopards to those organizations who have the expertise to properly care for them. 

I would like to compliment Congressman McKeon for his leadership on this legislation and I note that one of our witnesses today, Tippi Hedren, is not only a famous 

Hollywood actress but also a person who has dedicated her life to saving and caring 

for dozens of animals that have been mistreated or abandoned. 

The second bill, H.R. 1472, has been introduced by our Committee Colleague 

Elton Gallegly of California. I look forward to hearing the testimony and the 

3

witnesses’ thoughts on how this measure could impact some of the sportsman and 

ethical issues it raises including: the management of bear populations on Federal 

lands; and the traditional and long-standing interaction between State Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, Federal land managers, and their constituents. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on both of these pieces 

of legislation. 

I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey but before doing that I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Miller be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee for the purpose of an opening statement and asking questions. Without 

objection, so ordered. Mr. Pallone. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome all 

our colleagues and the panelists, and if I could just ask unanimous 

consent to enter into the record a statement by Mr. Stupak. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 1472

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for allowing me to 

submit my testimony in opposition to the Don’t Feed the Bears Act, H.R. 1472. 

H.R. 1472 seeks to end the hunting practice of bear baiting. I am opposed to this 

bill because it is unnecessary and counterproductive to managing the growing Black 

bear population in this country. H.R. 1472 would limit the ability of states like 

Michigan, along with the eight other states which allow bear baiting, to manage 

their bear population and to effectively reduce the number of bear—human conflicts. 

The World Wildlife Fund has conducted population surveys that show a significant increase in the Black bear population. In every state the Black bear has historically inhabited, the population of this animal is either increasing or stable. From 

1988 to 1996, the number of Black bears in the country has increased from an estimated range of 253,000 - 375,000 to 339,000 - 465,000. 

Wildlife officials in my state of Michigan have estimated that the Black bear population has increased to an estimated population range of 15,000 to 19,000 animals. 

This is up from the 12,000 animals state officials estimated in 1996. In just six 

years this population has increased by at least 25 percent from its 1996 population 

estimate. Doesn’t it make sense to leave in place a highly effective hunting technique like baiting to manage this growing population? A ban on bear baiting would 

prevent state wildlife officials from using this population management tool and may 

actually lead to a further increase in the number of bear - human conflicts. 

In Michigan a ban on bear baiting would be especially harmful to the management of these animals because our forests are dense and visibility is extremely low. 

Bear baiting provides hunters with the chance to identify that the bear they are 

hunting is not a sow with cubs. This means that hunters can selectively harvest 

these animals ensuring the cubs have a mother to nurture them through development. Bear baiting promotes a healthy growing bear population. Banning this practice would only lead to out of control bear populations and more problem bears foraging for human food. 

The fact is that bear baiting works in states like Michigan. In the most recent 

harvest, of the estimated 2000 animals taken, 82 percent of those animals were harvested through bear baiting. This form of hunting provides state wildlife officials an 

effective technique to manage a healthy and growing population of Black bears. The 

federal government should not attempt to usurp the states’’ authority to manage 

their wildlife. 

Finally, consider the fact that in my state of Michigan the voters soundly defeated 

an anti- bear baiting proposal that was on the ballot in the 1996 general elections. 

If Congress enacts a national anti-baiting measure it would disregard the will of 

millions of voters in my state. 

I hope the committee will not agree to this anti-hunting measure. We should leave 

wildlife management where it belongs, with the states, and preserve bear baiting. 

Thank you for allowing me to submit my testimony. 

4

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. I am pleased that you have scheduled 

this morning’s hearing to allow us to reassess certain aspects of the 

important relationship we share with wildlife. H.R. 1472, sponsored by our Committee on Resources colleague Mr. Gallegly, seeks 

to ban bear baiting on Federal lands. This legislation was introduced in March and currently has 86 cosponsors, including myself, 

and six other members of this Subcommittee from both sides of the 

aisle. 

Bear baiting is a controversial hunting practice whereby large 

quantities of human food or animal remains are placed in a 55-gallon drum or piled directly on the ground in order to lure bears out 

into the open. Hunters then hide near the drum and kill the bears 

attracted to the bait. As you know, Mr. Chairman, it is Federal policy to allow State law to govern wildlife management on Federal 

lands so long as it does not conflict with Federal law. Given that 

nine States allow bear baiting, the practice is also allowed on certain Federal lands within those States and, obviously, H.R. 1472 

seeks to change that circumstance. 

I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman. We do not oppose the principle 

that State laws should govern wildlife management on Federal 

lands where appropriate, nor do we oppose hunting on Federal 

lands, as some will no doubt charge. Rather it appears this is an 

instance where a particular hunting practice conflicts with prudent 

and necessary Federal policy and should be curtailed. Each of the 

four land management agencies included in this legislation have 

core policies prohibiting visitors from feeding wildlife whether they 

are bears or any other species. Such a policy protects the health 

and safety of the animals as well as the human visitors. Given the 

obvious prudence of this policy, it is inconsistent to allow hunters 

to feed bears as a hunting practice. 

Enactment of H.R. 1472 will not ban hunting, nor will it trample 

States rights; rather it will resolve an obvious conflict between Federal and State policies in a very small number of States in favor 

of a Federal policy that will better protect both bears and people 

on Federal land. 

Now, with regard, Mr. Chairman, to the second bill to be considered this morning, I just want to commend our colleague from California, Congressman McKeon, for introducing his legislation, 

H.R. 1006, to amend the Lacey Act to make it illegal to own lions, 

tigers, or other large exotic cats as pets. Evidence indicates that 

few, if any, private owners have the ability or financial resources 

to adequately protect the requisite needs of these large animals at 

maturity. Furthermore, large predatory cats present an unacceptable threat to public safety that cannot be ignored. 

The private ownership of exotic large cats is an extravagance out 

of step with the times and with our ethics of wildlife conservation. 

Wildlife should remain wild, and H.R. 1006 is sensible legislation 

that recognizes this simple truth. This issue, I think, is worth our 

thoughtful consideration. Again, I thank you for having the hearing 

this morning. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. Saxton. 

5

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to put 

in my two cents here to kind of frame this discussion, if I may. 

It just seems to me that, first of all, I think this bear baiting bill 

is a bad idea and I want to say why. I am not very fond of the notion of luring some species of wildlife into a trap for the purpose 

of slaughtering it, but I think there are some very important issues 

here that I am sure we will hear more about from our colleagues 

and from others, but the issue of wildlife management is really at 

the heart of this issue. 

Wildlife management means one thing in a State like New Jersey and another in a State like Wyoming or Alaska or any of the 

other 50 States. So in terms of wildlife management and States 

rights, this is an enormously important issue. Let me just give one 

example from my experience. I am from New Jersey, of course, and 

for whatever reason the deer population in the northeastern part 

of the country over the last several decades began to grow, and it 

grew and grew and grew to the point where deer were sleeping in 

suburban backyards, and ruining shrubs and gardens. And with 

the coming of, what is the tick fever, Lyme disease from deer ticks, 

they became a health problem, but, of course, deer baiting in New 

Jersey was never allowed. But the New Jersey Division of Wildlife, 

Fish and Game, I guess it is, finally came to the conclusion that 

something had to be done to control the deer herd. So today, in 

New Jersey, during deer hunting season, deer baiting is permitted 

as a wildlife management tool. 

It seems to me that the same concept holds true to bears when 

we talk about States rights and designing a wildlife management 

plan for the needs of that State. 

There is another issue here too that has to do with wildlife management, and I suspect that some of the support for this bill comes 

from people who are against hunting at all, and I understand that, 

but I think that should be made part of the record, too. There is 

some of that at play here. But for those folks who have been in the 

woods bear hunting, it is important, just as there are bag limits 

and seasons for whitetail deer in the Northeast, there should be a 

way to discriminate between the bears you want to kill and the 

bears you don’t want to kill. 

Now, for those of you who have been bear hunting and seen a 

bear in the wild, they do not often stand still when there is a 

hunter around. And so when a bear or several bears become concerned about people being around, they run. And if you have ever 

seen a family of bears running, you cannot tell the mother from the 

father from the cub. It is impossible. So while most people who 

hunt understand that there are some among the species that you 

would not want to kill and hunt, if you can’t tell the difference, oftentimes the wrong bears get killed. 

With regard to reducing the size of the bear population, therefore, with a general hunting permit we kill the wrong kinds of 

bears, but when bear baiting is used a hunter can discriminate between big bears and little bears and sometimes between males and 

females. So as a wildlife management tool and States rights issues, 

6

this issue is of immense importance. And this bill, therefore, in my 

view, is wrongheaded to outlaw in all States bear baiting. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Gallegly. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have scheduled this hearing today on 

H.R. 1472 to develop a consistent policy on Federal lands with respect to the feeding of bears. 

I have long served on the Subcommittee of National Parks, 

Recreation and Public Lands, and I have had the privilege and 

pleasure of visiting a large number of national parks throughout 

this country. In parks inhabited by bears, the National Park 

Service goes to great efforts to educate visitors about the perils of 

feeding bears. The Park Service strictly enforces the anti-feeding 

law. While the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

issues similar warnings to visitors about not feeding the bears, 

they do not consistently apply this principle in the field. In fact, 

they allow bear baiting on Federal lands in States that permit the 

practice, undermining their very own warnings about the damages 

of intentional feeding of bears. If it is wrong and reckless to feed 

bears in parks, it is also wrong to do so in national forests and on 

BLM lands. 

Bears fed by humans can be dangerous, regardless of where they 

are fed, be it in parks, forests, refuges or BLM lands. Once fed, the 

bears, we are told by the experts, are more likely to lose their natural weariness of people and to confront them in search of food. 

This can only result in dangerous encounters for both bears and 

people. 

Baiting is not needed on Federal lands. We know the majority of 

States ban bear baiting on all their lands, public and private, and 

maintain successful bear hunting programs, including in my home 

State of California, where over 25,000 bears live in a State with 34 

million people. However, should law enforcement need to use baiting, my bill provides for exceptions in those circumstances. 

I want to emphasize that in no way am I opposed to the practice 

of hunting, and I am an advocate of sportsmen’s rights, but the 

rights have responsibilities. We will hear testimony today that reveals after voters put a stop to baiting in Colorado, Oregon, and 

Washington, hunters in these States adapted and learned quickly 

to pursue bears in a more sportsmanlike manner. What is more, 

the sale of bear licenses dramatically increased after the baiting 

bans were imposed, returning more revenues to the State. 

I have introduced this legislation to protect bears and, moreover, 

to protect the people. It is a common-sense approach. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]

7

Statement of The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 1472

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have scheduled a hearing on H.R. 1472, the 

bill I introduced, with my colleague Jim Moran of Virginia, to develop consistent 

policies on Federal lands with respect to the feeding of bears. I have long served 

on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, and I have 

had the privilege and pleasure of visiting parks throughout our great country. 

In parks inhabited by bears, the National Park Service goes to great effort to educate visitors about the perils of providing food to bears. The Park Service strictly 

enforces an anti-feeding law. While the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management issue similar warning to visitors about not feeding bears, they do not consistently apply this principle in the field. In fact, they allow bear baiting on Federal 

land in states that permit the practice, undermining their very own warnings about 

the dangers of intentional feeding of bears. 

If it is wrong and reckless to feed bears in parks, it is also wrong to do so in national forests and on BLM lands. Bears fed by humans can be dangerous regardless 

of where they are fed, be it on parks, forests, refuges, or BLM lands. Once fed, the 

bears, we are told by experts, are more likely to lose their natural wariness of 

people and to confront them in search of food. This can only result in dangerous 

encounters for both the bears and people. 

Baiting is not needed on our Federal lands. We know that the majority of states 

ban bear baiting on all of their lands—public and private—and maintain successful 

bear hunting programs, including in my home state of California, where over 25,000 

bears live in a state with 34 million people. In no way am I opposed to the practice 

of hunting and I am an advocate of sportsmen’s rights, but with rights come responsibilities. 

We will hear testimony today that reveals that after voters put a stop to baiting 

in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, hunters in these states adapted and learned 

quickly to pursue bears in a more sporting manner. What’s more, the sale of bear 

hunting licenses dramatically increased after the baiting bans were imposed, returning more revenues to the state. 

I have introduced this legislation to protect bears and moreover, to protect people. 

It is a common sense approach, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We will now hear from the witnesses on the legislation dealing with the Lacey Act, introduced by Mr. McKeon, 

and I guess I will go to McKeon, the author of the legislation, unless Mr. Peterson or Mr. Moran, who were here first, have a time 

conflict. 

Mr. MORAN. This is going to take less time, I imagine, so let’s 

go ahead. 

Mr. GILCHREST. All right. Gentlemen, thank you, we look forward 

to your testimony. Mr. McKeon, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ McKEON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, and I thank Mr. 

Moran and Mr. Peterson for letting me go first. I apologize for 

being late. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking Member 

Pallone, the distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for holding this important 

hearing to discuss the problems associated with the private ownership of exotic cats, such as lions, leopards, tigers, cheetahs, and 

cougars. I also want to thank the Subcommittee for giving me the 

opportunity to talk about H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety 

Act, that my friend and colleague, George Miller, and I introduced 

earlier this year, which would put an end to the attacks, hopefully, 

8

by these animals that bring harm and danger to our families and 

communities. I also want to thank Chairman Pombo for his help 

in moving this legislation forward. I appreciate that help. 

I would also like to acknowledge Tippi Hedren, who has been 

leading this fight for many years. She is a good friend and constituent and I understand will be testifying later before the Committee. 

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act makes necessary improvements 

to the Lacey Act, which originally was enacted to prohibit the ability to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase 

reptiles, fish, amphibians, plants, and other animals taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of U.S. or State law. The 

law, however, does not include these dangerous exotic cats. 

Some estimates state that there are more than 5,000 tigers in 

captivity in the United States. While some are held in zoological institutions and preserves, most of these animals are maintained as 

pets, caged in backyards, basements, or closets. This problem is not 

isolated to tigers, as the unregulated commercial trade of big cats 

is flourishing throughout the country. These animals can now be 

purchased at auctions or on Web sites that advertise and sell exotic 

animals. 

Lions and tigers are not domesticated animals like your family 

dog or your playful cat, and are inherently hard-wired to hunt, attack and defend themselves with brutal force when feeling threatened. It is for this reason that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Zoo 

and Aquarium Association, and The Humane Society of the United 

States have taken public stands against keeping dangerous carnivores as pets. 

The dangers these big cats pose to people are self-evident and 

well-documented. In Loxahatchee, Florida, last February, a 58-

year-old woman was bitten in the head by a 750 pound pet Siberian-Bengal tiger mix. In Lexington, Texas, in October of 2001, a 

3-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather’s pet tiger. This past 

April alone, two people fell victim to tiger attacks, a 35-year-old 

woman in Adair, Oklahoma, and a 32-year-old man in Hennepin, 

Illinois. Both these tigers were being held at unaccredited animal 

parks. And as you can see, the result is all too clear. 

These animals require trained personnel equipped with the proper tools and facilities to ensure that they are kept in an environment where the probability of an attack is dropped to the lowest 

possible level. How can we expect a person with no experience in 

caring for a tiger or lion to have the knowledge and education to 

take the necessary safeguards to prevent an attack? People in 

neighborhoods and communities all across the country should no 

longer have to take that risk. 

This legislation would add the big cats to the Lacey Act to prevent these animals from being sold or purchased in interstate or 

foreign commerce. This, I believe, will greatly decrease the commercial aspect of wanting to keep these tigers and transport them 

and, I think, will help lessen the danger of an attack. 

In closing, I urge the Subcommittee to quickly consider 

H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which already has the 

bipartisan support of over 40 Members of Congress to protect our 

9

families and communities from any further terrible attacks. I again 

want to thank the Subcommittee for your attention to this issue 

and once again for inviting me to testify today. I appreciate this 

very much. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 1006

Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone and the distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for 

holding this important hearing to discuss the problems associated with the private 

ownership of exotic cats, such as lions, leopards, tigers, cheetahs and cougars. I also 

want to thank the Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to talk about 

H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, that my friend and colleague George 

Miller and I introduced earlier this year, which would put an end to attacks by 

these wild animals that bring harm and danger to our families and communities. 

This Captive Safety Wildlife Act makes necessary improvements to the Lacey Act, 

which originally was enacted to prohibit the ability to import, export, transport, sell, 

receive, acquire, or purchase reptiles, fish, amphibians, plants and other animals 

taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of U.S. or state law. The law, however, does not include these dangerous exotic cats. 

Some estimates state that there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the 

United States. While some are held in zoological institutions and preserves, most 

of these animals are maintained as pets caged in backyards, basements, or closets. 

This problem is not isolated to tigers as the unregulated commercial trade of big 

cats is flourishing throughout the country, as these animals can now be purchased 

at auctions or on web sites that advertise and sell exotic animals. 

Lions and tigers are not domesticated animals like your family dog or your playful 

cat and are inherently hard-wired to hunt, attack and defend themselves with brutal force when feeling threatened. It is for this reason that the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Zoo and 

Aquarium Association and The Humane Society of the United States have taken 

public stands against keeping dangerous carnivores as pets. 

The dangers these big cats pose to people are self-evident and well documented. 

In Loxahatchee, Florida, last February, a 58-year-old woman was bitten in the head 

by a 750-pound pet Siberian–Bengal tiger mix. In Lexington, Texas, in October 

2001, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather’s pet tiger. This past April 

alone, two people fell victim to tiger attacks: a 35-year-old woman in Adair, Oklahoma and a 32-year-old man in Hennepin, Illinois. Both these tigers were being held 

at unaccredited animal parks and, as you can see, the result is all too clear. 

These animals require trained personnel equipped with the proper tools and facilities to ensure that they are kept in an environment where the probability of an attack is dropped to the lowest possible level. How can we expect a person with no 

experience in caring for a tiger or lion to have the knowledge and education to take 

the necessary safeguards to prevent an attack? People in neighborhoods and communities all across the country should no longer have to take that risk. 

In closing, I urge the Subcommittee to quickly consider H.R. 1006, the Captive 

Wildlife Safety Act, to protect our families and communities from these heinous attacks. 

I again want to thank the Subcommittee for your attention to this issue and, once 

again, for inviting me to testify today on the dire need for the transaction of these 

animals to cease once and for all. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Buck. Mr. Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure if I am 

a cosponsor, but add me on because I had an issue like this in my 

district and I support and commend what you are doing. 

10

But I came here today to testify on H.R. 1472. But before I 

begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record extraneous material from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, which I am a 

former co-chairman of, and also the North American Bear Federation, if that is possible. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The letters referred to follow:]


87680.001
11


87680.002
12


87680.003
13

Statement of Brian Bachman, President/CEO,

North American Bear Foundation 

The North American Bear Foundation (NABF) wants to thank Representative 

Collin Peterson for testifying on the behalf of responsible management of our natural resources. We believe that the states are responsible for managing the wildlife 

within their borders. 

Minnesota has always used baiting for black bears in their management program. 

Since black bears came under protection and listed as a big game species in 1971 

in Minnesota their population has steadily risen. It is now estimated that around 


87680.004
14

25,000 black bears now inhabit the state up from as little as 8000 animals by estimates in the early 1980’s. This is at or above the goal that the Department on Natural Resources has set as a desired level. Because of the dense vegetation in the 

majority of the black bear range, other hunting techniques are not as effective as 

they are in other parts of the country- Baiting allows a hunter to get close to the 

animal making for positive identification and proper shot placement thereby reducing the chance of wounding loss. With this being said, baiting of black bears is nowhere near a sure thing. Of the 14,639 licensed hunters in 2042 only 1915 bears 

were harvested with a hunter success rate of 14%. Application permits have fell off 

this year with fewer applying than the number of licenses available. There is some 

speculation as to the reasons for this, but the low hunter success has to play a role. 

Without baiting you will see hunter success decline to where the majority of the 

black bears killed will be nuisance bears. The North American Bear foundation does 

not want the black bear to be return to varmint status as they had been for many 

years. 

Most people will agree that we need black bears inhabiting our forests, but when 

they show up in their yards they are sometimes not so supportive. As bear populations continue to rise and people move out into natural areas, human/bear conflicts will increase. Hunting helps reduce these conflicts by keeping populations stable and instilling the natural fear of humans. Minnesota has found the use of baiting a valuable tool in managing their black bears. As a point of interest, baiting 

for black bears is not a vanishing method for hunting them, in fact after the NABF 

consulted with the State of Arkansas in 2001 they chose to allow baiting for black 

bears to help manage their increasing black bear population. They have been very 

pleased with the results over the last 2 years. 

State wildlife departments have the knowledge and ability to manage our wildlife 

effectively and humanely, keeping the balance between the wildlife and the people 

that inhabit their states. 

Thank you, if you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, 1472 

would prohibit the use of bear baiting on Federal public land, and 

my home State of Minnesota is one of 10 States that allow bear 

baiting. 

I have been involved in this issue for some time, not directly on 

baiting, but I served in the Minnesota Senate for 10 years and was 

chairman of the Fish and Wildlife Committee and we had many gorounds over bear hunting. Back in 1977, we set up the current 

quota system where we split the State into areas so that we could 

better manage the population, and it has been fairly successful. Although at the time we started, back in 1971, they changed the bear 

from a varmint, basically, that could be shot any time it was causing problems, it was basically not protected, we made it a big game 

animal and set up the possibility for hunting seasons. I think in 

1977 we set up the quota. But at the time we made it a big game 

animal there were 8,000 bear in Minnesota. Today, there are 

25,000 bear. So what has happened, through the management and 

paying attention to the bears, we have actually tripled the population in Minnesota. 

In Minnesota, because of the cold weather and the early winter 

and so forth, there is really no other way to hunt bears other than 

baiting. You are not going to see them. They go to their dens early. 

Having a longer season is not going to solve it. We have 400,000 

deer hunters in the woods every fall for a week or 10 days and they 

see very few bear. So if we didn’t have this ability to manage, we 

would not be able to hunt or have any way to control the population. 

Now, with 25,000 bears we are actually now above the level that 

the Department has used as an optimum population. Last year, the 

people that applied for permits was down considerably because the 

15

year before that the success rate went down to 100 out of seven 

being successful. And because they had such a poor harvest, the 

Department actually gave everybody a second bear permit to try to 

increase the harvest. This year, the people that applied went from 

22,000 down to 14,000. So we are having problems getting enough 

hunters into the field and being able to manage these bears the 

way it is without having this extra burden put on top of us. 

As Mr. Saxton said, it would be a very bad policy for the Federal 

Government to get involved in managing species that are not migratory and are native to the State. That is something the States 

are much better at. They know what the situation is. And there is 

no way you can have a Federal rule that is going to work in all 

the different States. 

What has been the big issue in Minnesota over the years when 

I was there, we had a bunch of people that wanted to hunt them 

with dogs and we made a decision that hunting with dogs was a 

much less preferable way and less humane than baiting, because 

they actually start off with a feeding situation, they start the dogs 

there and then run them all over through the woods and then run 

them up a tree and shoot them, which I would argue is not, at least 

we decided in Minnesota that this is not the way that things 

should be done. Some States allow running them with dogs still. 

I think there are five or six States that do that. 

In terms of feeding the bears, this whole idea that this is going 

to cause some kind of problem, unfortunately, we have people that 

feed bears. They are not supposed to but they do. We also have 

bears, especially when we get this many bears, where they get into 

people’s groceries. They break into these cabins that are not occupied all the time, and these bears become a problem because they 

become less afraid of humans and they are the ones that interact 

and can cause problems. We also have a lot of bears ending up in 

garbage dumps feeding out of that. 

Bears are very much sensitive to human scent and the ones that 

have not been fed and have not been around humans are unlikely 

to come into the bait if there is any kind of human scent around. 

The bears that you are going to harvest are more likely the bears 

that have been fed by people or have been in garbage dumps or 

have been breaking into cabins, and so forth, and are the ones 

causing the most problems in their interaction with people. 

So it would cause us a lot of problems in Minnesota if this bill 

passed. I don’t think it makes sense. The Department of Natural 

Resources is very much against this, the American Bear Foundation is very much against this. They have done a lot of work to improve habitat and the situation status of bears. And what the Bear 

Foundation is concerned about is that the bear is going to go back 

to the status that it had before, which is a nuisance, a varmint, 

that will be killed any time that it is doing damage. And in Minnesota the law is that if a bear is doing any kind of damage, you 

can take that bear whenever you want, even though it is now a big 

game animal. 

So I think this is a misguided piece of legislation. I think the 

people that have proposed it are not familiar with what the situations are in certain States like mine, and we would just as soon 

16

they leave us alone and let the State do what they do best in managing these resources. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the time to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Collin Peterson, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Minnesota, on H.R. 1472

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

to testify today against H.R. 1472, legislation that would prohibit the practice of 

bear baiting on Federal public lands. My home state of Minnesota is one of ten 

states that permits the regulated hunting of bears through baiting. As a matter of 

fact, as a Minnesota state Senator I spearheaded the effort to legalize a hunting 

season for bears and was a strong supporter for the use of baiting as a means to 

control a growing population of black bears. 

The Minnesota black bear population is estimated at a stable 25,000, that is 

17,000 more bears than when the practice of baiting was legalized. The primary 

means of harvest, accounting for virtually 100 percent of the bears taken by sport 

hunters in Minnesota in 2002, is through the use of baiting. The dense forests and 

the long winters in Minnesota take away other harvest options that are used by 

hunters in other states, such as spot-and-stalk and relying on deer hunters to harvest bears in the fall. Ideal bear habitat in Minnesota consists of densely wooded 

lowland conifers where visibility is extremely limited, and because of the long winters, bears are usually in their winter dens before the deer hunting season begins 

in November. 

Contrary to the belief of many non-hunters, and thanks in part to misleading and 

emotional representations by anti-hunting groups, harvesting a bear using bait is 

not easy. Bears have a keen sense of smell and hearing and generally are wary of 

humans, so bait hunters must be skillful and patient to harvest a bear. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has issued specific guidelines and 

restrictions to regulate the use of bait for bear hunting, including requirements that 

the hunter must remove any unused bait once the baiting site is no longer in operation. To illustrate the difficulty in harvesting black bears from bait, in the state 

of Minnesota in 2002, only 14 percent of the bear hunters were successful in harvesting a bear. 

If it were not for sport hunting and bait use, Minnesota’s bear population would 

be expected to grow at a rate of approximately 20% percent per year. Through the 

use of a quota system for most of the state, and requirements to tag and report all 

bears harvested within the state, Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources 

(DNR) is able to monitor and control the harvest of bears to reflect acceptable social 

and biological carrying capacities. 

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources authorized licensed Minnesota 

bear hunters statewide to take two bears in 2001, in an attempt to increase the harvest and stabilize the population. Since then, the DNR has continued a two-bear 

limit in portions of the state where they do not set a quota on licensed hunters. In 

2001, there were nearly 27,000 applicants for a total of 20,710 permits. The DNR 

ended up with 16,510 licensed hunters (not all hunters drawn end up purchasing 

licenses) and they harvested 4,936 bears. We have seen a declining number of applicants for bear licenses over the past four years (2000—29,275; 2001—26,824; 2002—

21, 886; 2003—14,968). This year, for the first time, we had fewer applicants than 

total permits available, therefore the DNR offered the leftover licenses over the 

counter to non-applicants who would like to purchase them. 

In 2002, hunters harvested 1,915 black bears or approximately 7.5% of the estimated Minnesota population. According to the Minnesota DNR bear experts, this is 

not only a sustainable harvest, but necessary to keep the bear population in check. 

Approximately 13 percent of land open to bear hunting in Minnesota is Federally 

owned. In the three most successful units in 2002, units 25, 31 and 51, ranged from 

7% to 37% percent of the land is in Federal ownership. By eliminating baiting as 

a means to harvest bears on these Federal lands, a necessary management tool 

would be taken away from the Minnesota DNR and bear populations could increase 

beyond the acceptable carrying capacity. 

Congress specifically and repeatedly has affirmed the states’ rights to manage 

non-migratory wildlife, including on most Federal lands except for the National 

Parks system. This legislation would preempt these rights and set a dangerous 

precedent. Sound science and professional wildlife management through the state 

wildlife agencies has been the backbone of America’s successful wildlife management program, and regulating the method of harvest is a key tool in their 

17

management options. The state wildlife agencies that would be affected by this legislation have determined that regulated use of baiting to hunt bears is an appropriate method to harvest bears, and in the case of Minnesota, the only viable option 

to use harvest as a management option for black bear populations. 

The history of species protection and recovery in America is a tribute to these professional state wildlife agencies and the sportsmen who willingly pay the license 

fees and excise taxes to support wildlife conservation. The American black bear, like 

the white-tailed deer, wild turkey, elk and many other game and non-game species, 

are great examples that this system is working, with stable black bear populations 

across its entire range. So, let’s leave the management of black bears to the state 

wildlife professionals and view H.R. 1472 for what it really is, a thinly veiled attempt by the anti-hunting extremists to get the Federal Government to do what 

they clearly could not at the state level. 

Mr. Chairman and my fellow colleagues on the Subcommittee, I urge you to let 

sound science and wildlife professionals manage our wildlife resources, and therefore hope that you would join me in opposing H.R. 1472. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Moran. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES P. MORAN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pallone mentioned that we had, what, almost 90 cosponsors. 

We are up now to almost 120. In explaining the practice to colleagues, most of them immediately understood. This is a very unfair, unsportsmanlike method of hunting, with one exception. I 

asked Barbara Lee yesterday, our colleague, if she would go on the 

bill to ban bear baiting, and she was got very emotional and had 

a very negative reaction, which I was surprised at. But in further 

discussion I had to explain that I was talking about bear baiting, 

not bare bathing; that I was using the term B-E-A-R, while she 

thought I was using B-A-R-E, but when we cleared that up, she 

went on as a cosponsors as well. So I want to make sure what we 

are trying to do here. 

Mr. GILCHREST. It is that Massachusetts accent. 

Mr. MORAN. I think that is what the problem was, Wayne. I 

think that this is an important piece of legislation. It prohibits a 

dangerous and an unsportsmanlike practice. I want to thank Representative Gallegly for his hard work in raising awareness of this 

issue. 

For many years, every Federal land management agency, including the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the partner 

Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service have issued countless warnings to the public discouraging 

the feeding of bears. So this bill simply establishes a consistency 

of policy among all those Federal agencies. 

At the same time that we have these warning issued, though, 

hunters continue to be allowed to set up bait stations on Federal 

lands in States where bear baiting is permitted. These bait piles 

are known to consist of hundreds of pounds of human scented food, 

often including pastries, fruits, grease, and animal carcasses that 

are simply dropped on the forest floor or loaded into large cans 

awaiting the attention of bears and other animals. There are very 

few differences between bait piles and what a bear might find in 

a garbage can, dump or campground. In fact, one guide boasts on 

his Web site he goes through ten tons of pastries and eight tons 

18

of meat so that he can guarantee a successful shoot to urban 

hunters. 

But unlike garbage cans or campground trash stations, these bait 

piles often are not even picked up at the close of the hunting season. Bears, as we know, and as Mr. Peterson said, are born with 

a natural wariness of humans. The taste for human food, though, 

causes bears to lose their natural precaution and become 

emboldened in approaching people and their property. Hungry 

human-fed bears cause millions of dollars in property damage each 

year and pose a serious safety threat, occasionally result in attacks 

on humans. They get labeled as nuisance animals, they come into 

conflict with people so that they are killed as a means to protect 

people and their property. 

In recognition of this fact, the National Park Service developed 

a number of bear management plans that include such techniques 

as installing bear-proof dumpsters and bear-proof garbage cans. 

Since adoption of these policies, the number of contacts with humans and bears has decreased dramatically. Those have been common-sense methods. This is another common-sense approach. 

In my home State of Virginia, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries became aware of this dangerous practice where they 

become used to human food, so they made it illegal to use bait as 

a training tool for hunting dogs. And in their rationale, they said 

to protect the public as well as bears, we need to avoid the dangers 

of conditioning bears to finding food, human food, around human 

habitat. Artificial feeding and resulting concentrations of black 

bears increases nuisance complaints and chances of bears interacting with humans. And it is working. This is consistent with that 

type of policy. 

But beyond that, beyond that common-sense practical method, 

the practice of bear baiting really calls into question the sporting 

nature of hunting. Many wildlife advocates and hunters alike have 

compared the practice to shooting fish in a barrel. A lifelong 

hunter, the former Governor of Idaho and the former Secretary of 

the Interior, Cecil Andrus, has stated, in my opinion, bear baiting 

does not fit within the definition of hunting as a sport. 

And just as Federal regulations prohibit duck hunters from baiting for waterfowl with corn and millet, because it virtually guarantees a successful hunt, so there should be a law prohibiting bear 

baiting on Federal lands. That is why we have gained a number 

of cosponsors on this bill. In the case of bears and waterfowl, the 

use of bait gives hunters an unfair advantage because of the 

animals’ overwhelming attraction to an easily obtained and highly 

appealing food source. 

Shooting a bear in the back while its head is stuffed in a garbage 

can to feed does not constitute a fair sport. I think we understand 

that. It is not ethical. So opponents of this legislation, we know, are 

going to argue this should be entirely left up to State wildlife managers, but Congress has already spoken decisively on these kinds 

of issues in the past. Since the 1930’s, the Federal Government has 

regulated the hunting of migratory waterfowl, and in 1971 we reacted to restrict the shooting of animals with the use of aircraft. 

This is not treading on untrodden ground. This is clearly consistent 

with previous legislation with regard to hunting regulations. 

19

So what we are trying to do is to establish a uniform policy on 

Federal land in all 50 States. It is inconsistent and detrimental to 

public safety that Federal land management agencies demand citizens not to feed bears but then make an exception for bear baiters. 

Our legislation would protect the integrity of the bear population, 

the public safety, and would reduce the number of dangerous and 

costly encounters with humans visiting or living near Federal land. 

So, Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I strongly urge your 

support for consideration of this bill to rid our Federal lands of 

what is a dangerous and an unsportsmanlike practice. It is wrong, 

it is cruel, and I think it runs counter to the American principle 

of fair play. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]

Statement of The Honorable James P. Moran, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Virginia 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me to address the 

Subcommittee today regarding the ‘‘Do Not Feed the Bears Act of 2003,’’ a vital 

piece of legislation that would prohibit the dangerous and unsportsmanlike practice 

commonly known as bear-baiting. I would also like to give a special thanks to Representative Gallegly for his hard work and dedicated efforts in raising awareness 

of this issue within the halls of Congress. 

For many years, every Federal land management agency including the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have issued countless warnings to the public discouraging the feeding of bears. 

At the same time, however, licensed hunters continue to be allowed to set up bait 

stations on Federal lands in states where bear baiting is permitted. These bait piles 

are known to consist of hundreds of pounds of human scented food, often including 

pastries, fruits, grease and even animal carcasses. They are simply dropped on the 

forest floor or loaded into large drums, awaiting the attention of area bears and 

other animals. There are few differences between bait piles and what a bear might 

find in a garbage can, dump or campground. And unlike garbage cans or campground trash stations, these bait piles are often not picked up after the close of bear 

hunting season. 

Born with a natural wariness of humans, the taste for human food causes bears 

to lose their natural precaution and become emboldened in approaching people and 

property. Hungry, human fed bears cause millions of dollars in property damage 

each year and pose a serious safety threat, occasionally resulting in attacks on humans. Labeled as nuisance animals, bears that come into conflict with people are 

often killed as a means to protect people and property. In recognition of these facts, 

the National Park Service has developed a number of park bear management plans 

that include such techniques as installing bear-proof dumpsters and bear-proof garbage can covers on garbage cans in parks where bears exist. Since adoption of these 

policies, the number of reported bear-human encounters has decreased dramatically. 

In my home state of Virginia, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has 

been aware of the dangerous nature of human/bear encounters for a number of 

years. Banning the practice of bear-baiting in 1999, the department more recently 

made it illegal to use bait as training tool for hunting dogs. As stated in their rationale for adopting these regulations, the Department acknowledged that ‘‘To protect the public, as well as bears, the department needs to avoid the dangers of conditioning bears to finding food around homes. Artificial feeding and resulting concentrations of black bears has been identified to increase both nuisance complaints 

and chances of bears injuring humans.’’ The effect of these new pro-active Virginia 

regulations mirrors our effort to ban the feeding of bears on Federal land. 

Aside from endangering the public’s safety, the practice of bear-baiting also seriously calls into question the ‘‘sporting’’ nature of this hunting method. Many wildlife 

advocates and hunters alike have compared the custom to ‘‘shooting fish in a barrel.’’ A lifelong hunter, the former Governor of Idaho and former Secretary of the 

Interior, Cecil Andrus has stated, ‘‘In my opinion bear baiting does not fit within 

the definition of hunting as a sport.’’

Just as Federal regulations prohibit duck hunters from baiting for waterfowl with 

corn and millet because it virtually guarantees a successful hunt, so should there 

20

be a law prohibiting bear-baiting on Federal lands. Rep. Gallegly and I, along with 

a large number of cosponsors of this legislation, are seeking to extend this logical 

principle to bear-baiting. In the case of both bears and waterfowl, the use of bait 

gives hunters an unfair advantage because of the animals overwhelming attraction 

to an easily obtained and highly appealing food source. Let me be very clear, shooting a bear in the back while it’s head is stuffed in a garbage to feed, does not constitute a fair chase. 

Opponents of this legislation will argue that hunting laws should be left entirely 

up to state wildlife managers and that adoption of this bill would represent an unprecedented effort by the ‘‘anti’s’’ in Congress to over-regulate hunting in the U.S. 

Besides the fact that this legislation has the broad support of over 120 cosponsors 

representing Republicans and Democrats of all stripes, Congress has already spoken 

decisively on these issues in the past. Since the 1930’s, the Federal Government has 

regulated the hunting of migratory waterfowl and in 1971, Congress acted to restrict 

the shooting of animals with the use of aircraft. Clearly this legislation is not treading on untrodden ground. 

In closing, of the states where bear hunting occurs, a large majority have already 

banned the practice of bear baiting. The ‘‘Do Not Feed the Bears Act’’ would uniformly implement these states’ sound decisions on all Federal land in all 50 states. 

It is inconsistent and detrimental to the public’s safety that Federal land management agencies demand citizens not feed bears, while making an exception for bearbaiters. Our legislation would protect the integrity of the bear population, the 

public’s safety, and would reduce the number of dangerous and costly encounters 

with humans visiting or living near Federal land 

Mr. Chairman and present Committee members, I strongly urge your support for 

consideration of this bill to rid our Federal lands of this dangerous and unsportsmanlike practice. It is wrong. It is cruel. And it runs counter to the American value 

of fair play. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Moran. 

I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Kind to sit with the Subcommittee. Without objection. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony this morning. We may 

have just a couple of quick questions. I am not sure we will have 

too many for the Members, but, Mr. McKeon, can you tell us what 

it is your legislation would do, after it is signed into law, to large 

cats that are now in captivity? 

Mr. MCKEON. Make it illegal to transport them from one State 

to another, and I think will lessen their commercial value. I don’t 

know why they were originally excluded in the act, but I think it 

will lessen their commercial value and hopefully then people will 

not have the desire to keep them in unsafe conditions. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So we are not looking at confiscation of animals 

that are now in captivity in other than unsuitable places? 

Mr. MCKEON. Well, this doesn’t go as far as we would probably 

like to go, but at the Federal level it is probably all that we can 

do right now. 

Ms. Hedren will talk later, and she knows much more about this 

than I do. I have been to her preserve where she does take in 

animals and keeps them in a safe environment that is good for the 

animals and for people. You don’t walk up and try to pet them, you 

don’t get close to them, and that is how they should be kept, rather 

than in a closet or in somebody’s little backyard. I think this bill 

will discourage that. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We appreciate the legislation that you have proposed here and will move it through in an expeditious manner. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Buck. 

21

Mr. Peterson, is there any restriction in Minnesota State law on 

the kind of bait that can be used for bears? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, it has to be biodegradable. So that feature 

is in there. 

Mr. GILCHREST. If it is biodegradable, can it be left? I have seen, 

in an interesting fashion in Idaho, not in Minnesota, where somebody, and I guess it doesn’t make any difference in the long run, 

but somebody spent about 4 hours filling up their pickup by 

unwrapping Twinkies. They spent that amount of time putting the 

Twinkies in the pickup. 

Mr. PETERSON. I am not aware of anybody in Minnesota using 

Twinkies. We are not that kind of people, so. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, that sounds like the Twinkie defense 

to me. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, these two fellas were from Nebraska, so I 

don’t know if there is anybody here from Nebraska. I guess you 

leave the Twinkies for the snack food at your schools. 

The other question dealing with that, and I guess we would have 

to look to see if Twinkies are biodegradable, but do they clean up 

after the hunt? Do they go in and take away what is left over? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. I have not heard of any instances where we 

have had problems with people leaving bait out in the field. We 

have quite a few people that do this professionally, that guide. We 

have a lot of people that do it. I have two brother-in-laws that hunt 

bear every year and usually are successful on Federal land. So the 

people are, I think, pretty ethical in the way they go about this in 

Minnesota. 

But the point is, and I don’t know if I made this clear enough, 

if you pass this, we have the Chippewa and Superior National Forests in Minnesota, and that is a lot of where this hunting goes on. 

If we don’t have this way to control bears, because it is the only 

way we can hunt them and control the population, we are going to 

have way more bears than we know what to do with. Because bears 

are going to get into dumps, they are going to be fed by some 

people, they are going to move out into the area where there are 

private people and we are going to have a lot of problems. We already have three times as many bears as we had when we started, 

and maybe we were too conservative in giving out permits to let 

this thing get out of control a little bit, and now we don’t have the 

hunters out there. 

It would really tie our hands, cause a lot of problems, and would 

be worse for the bears in the long run because people would start 

shooting them because they are causing problems in their backyards or at garbage dumps, and like we used to do before when 

they didn’t really have a status. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Overpopulation. 

Mr. Moran, just one quick follow-up. On the Eastern Shore of 

Maryland, we don’t have a problem with bears, but as Mr. Saxton 

mentioned, we really have an overabundance of deer, we have 

Mute swans that really wreak havoc on the subaquatic vegetation 

and other water plants, and now a problem with resident geese. So 

to some extent we have increased the hunting season to protect the 

ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, and we also allow baiting of deer 

during much of the hunting season. In your mind, do you see any 

22

reason that that same type of management shouldn’t be applied to 

a bear population? 

Mr. MORAN. It is a very good question, Chairman Gilchrest. I 

think it is a matter of judgment and what strikes us as fair and 

reasonable. 

There is an overpopulation of deer, clearly, and there is really too 

much contact between deer and residential areas. Some of that is 

because we are developing, as you know, in areas that used to be 

fields, and so on, where they were accustomed to living. But I think 

the deer population is out of control in a number of areas and we 

have to take measures to—not only for the deer’s sake but for 

many other reasons, you have to have a reasonable control of the 

population. 

With regard to bear baiting, though, I think the difference is that 

this presents a real threat to human safety. You are deliberately 

attracting bears out of rural areas, where, as Mr. Peterson said, 

you don’t find bears like you find deer when you drive down a 

country road. But you are deliberately attracting them, getting 

them almost addicted to human food, and then they lose their natural wariness of humans and they destroy property and you can 

have serious encounters with human beings. 

That is one of the purposes of this, and that is why so many 

States have banned this practice for public safety reasons. Deer 

don’t present much of a threat to human beings, and so I think 

that that distinction is an important one. Plus the fact that the 

bear population in most areas is not something that has been out 

of control, and bears generally would much prefer to be in a clearly 

rural area away from human scent, away from human activity. 

Deer have become almost domesticated in some areas. 

So I do think there is a distinction. And at this point consistent 

Federal policy and good sound judgment and even ethical practice 

dictates that we ought to have this kind of restriction. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Moran. 

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I am really over my time, Mr. Peterson. But you 

can probably include that in a question that some other member 

has. 

Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to ask Congressman McKeon about 

this Los Angeles Times article that basically exposed a black market in the traffic of exotic cats that was essentially fueled by illicit 

private breeders. I read the article, and I have it in front of me, 

but is this widespread? Do we have any evidence to the extent to 

which this kind of illicit breeding is that this covered? 

This is talking about a specific case, but is there evidence that 

this type of practice that was in that article is widespread or there 

are other instances of it? 

Mr. MCKEON. I guess ‘‘widespread’’ is a relative term, but I 

would say, yes, it is widespread. And, again, Ms. Hedren will be 

able to address that in more detail. She was telling me some stories yesterday that kind of curl your hair when you hear things 

that are going on. Like I say, widespread, if you talk about 20,000 

bears in one State and 5,000 tigers in the country, but relatively, 

I would say yes, it is widespread. Enough to be a problem. 

23

Mr. PALLONE. OK, thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. Saxton. 

Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to use my time to put something 

in the record and then let Mr. Peterson say what he wanted to say 

at the end of your time. 

Our great staffer here, Harry Burroughs, took the time to call all 

the wildlife or bear biologists in each of the nine States where baiting is permitted, and in Alaska, for example, where the estimated 

bear population is between 100,000 and 200,000 total bears, harvested was 2,460, and 414 of those bear were killed over bait. In 

Idaho, there is an estimated 23,000 bears, and there was a total 

harvest of 1,830, and 455 were killed over bait. In Maine, there are 

a total of 23,000 bears, 3,903 were estimated harvested, and 3,173 

of them were killed over bait. In Michigan, a total estimated population of 17,000 bears, there were 2,221 bears harvested, and 1,998 

were killed over bait. In Minnesota, an estimated 25,000 bears, 

1,915 were harvested, 1,900 of them killed over bait. In New 

Hampshire, there are 5,000 bears, estimated, 338 were taken, and 

92 killed over bait. In Utah, there is a 3,500 estimated bear population, 85 bears harvested, only 8 were killed over bait. In 

Wisconsin, 13,000 estimated population, 2,437 harvested, 1,720 

killed over bait. And in Wyoming there is no estimated bear population, but there were a total of 324 taken and 171 were killed over 

bait. 

I think this demonstrates the point I was trying to make in my 

earlier remarks, that States have different needs in terms of wildlife management and these numbers point out that the policies and 

the hunting patterns in different States reflect those different 

needs. So, again, it seems to me to have a Federal policy would 

eliminate the flexibility that States have on this issue and is incorrect. 

I yield at this point to Mr. Peterson.

[A chart submitted for the record by Mr. Saxton follows:]

24

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Saxton, I appreciate that. And as 

he pointed out, in Minnesota, just about the entire harvest was 

over bait, which corroborates what I said. It will take away our 

management tool. 

I really disagree with Mr. Moran’s assertion that deer do not 

cause danger to human population. In these areas where we have 

all this deer, we are having car accidents and people injured. There 

is way more people injured by deer than by bear because of all the 

interaction they have with automobiles. So if his theory is that it 

is somehow or another good to eliminate baiting of bear on Federal 

land, then it seems to me it would also be good to eliminate baiting 

of deer or any other wildlife, if you are going to follow that logic, 

which I don’t support. But it is hard for me to understand why you 

would pick out bear and not pick out these other species, which in 


87680.005
25

Minnesota we don’t allow baiting of deer and is very much opposed 

by our hunters. They would rather hunt in the normal way. 

But in the case of bear, as I said earlier, if we don’t have this, 

we are not going to have a way to control them. And what will happen, Mr. Moran, is that the bear that are now in the State forests 

that are not interacting with humans are going to be forced, when 

we get this population explosion, will go out into the private area, 

just like happened with timber wolves. 

We had timber wolves way outside of their range because we had 

way more timber wolves than we should have and we were prohibited from shooting them or trapping them. That is now in the process of being changed. But I had timber wolves down where I grew 

up, where it would be unheard of. It was 100 miles out of their 

range. But we had way too many of them. And that will happen 

with bears if you eliminate baiting in Minnesota on the Federal 

land. We are going to cause more conflict with humans and more 

problems, not less. So I want people to be clear about that. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. 

Saxton. 

The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Peterson, just so I 

understand this, when you talk about the bear hunting that goes 

on and the baiting, is that in a suburban area? Are you trying to 

draw the bears into suburban areas? 

Mr. PETERSON. No. There is no bear hunting that goes on anywhere—well, there is some north of the Twin Cities, 50, 60 miles. 

But most of it goes on up in the northern forests, in the Superior 

and Chippewa National Forests, which is a big area, northeastern 

Minnesota, north central Minnesota. That is where the majority of 

this hunting goes on. 

What we have seen in the last couple of years, with this increase 

in population, we have seen the bears now move out into the private areas. For example, I have a bee farmer, a honey farmer up 

in Greenbush, that is imploring me to come up and help him shoot 

bears because he has too many bears getting into his honey and 

causing problems. And this is going to be what is going to happen. 

You are going to see more and more of that. But there is nothing 

going on in the urban or suburban areas. 

Mr. POMBO. So when they talk about the bears that get used to 

human food, it is not the bears that are in the suburban area? 

Mr. PETERSON. No, it is generally, if that is happening, it is because they are in the garbage dumps. That has been the traditional 

problem, and you do have some people in the city that don’t know 

any better that feed them. They have a cabin up north, or whatever. And we try to educate them not to do that. It is not our 

people up there that are doing it, it is people that come up for the 

weekend out of the city that don’t know any better that do that, 

and then we have problems. 

Some of these cabins that sit empty during the week and the 

bears might break into them and get into the food. And as I said 

earlier, the ones that are likely to be drawn into the bait are these 

bears that have gotten into food not by baiting but have gotten into 

human food by other reasons that are more likely to come into the 

bait. Those are the ones that are causing us troubles in the first 

26

place. So the management ends up taking the bears that are the 

ones that probably should be taken, that are going to cause us 

problems. 

Mr. POMBO. So if the bears are in the garbage dumps and near 

the suburban areas, there is not a season on those bears? 

Mr. PETERSON. In Minnesota, we have a quota by areas, and 

there is not hunting that I am aware of that goes on around or in 

the metropolitan areas. 

Mr. POMBO. But if a bear becomes a problem? 

Mr. PETERSON. They will shoot them. The law allows you to shoot 

a bear that is causing you a problem in your house or backyard or 

is causing some kind of problem in an urban area. 

Mr. POMBO. So you are talking about two separate areas of the 

State and different types of management? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. But the bears very seldom get into the Twin 

Cities Metropolitan Area. We have more problem with deer. Deer 

is a big problem there. We have had to have archery people go in 

there and shoot them early in the morning so people aren’t offended to try to protect them from themselves where this is getting 

out of control. 

And, as Mr. Gilchrest mentioned, we have a big problem with 

Canadian geese now. But primarily in the Twin Cities area it is 

deer and geese. The bear don’t go into—moose sometime get in 

there and run around, but I don’t know of a bear. 

Mr. POMBO. But it is your position that this is an issue that 

should be left to the State wildlife management? 

Mr. PETERSON. Absolutely. If we don’t have this ability to do this, 

we are going to basically not be able to harvest bears at all. And 

what is going to happen is they are going to move out into the private land area, in my district, basically. They are going to move out 

of Oberstar’s district into my district and they are going to cause 

all kinds of problems with livestock, with bee farmers. And that is 

what is going to happen if we don’t have a way to harvest them 

and keep the population in check. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Moran, just quickly, just so I understand what 

your position is in terms of the deer baiting, what Mr. Gilchrest 

was talking about, that—it is your position that that is part of the 

management tool that they have in Maryland, and that is OK in 

that particular case? I am not trying to lead you, I am just trying 

to understand. 

Mr. MORAN. As I said, I think this is a matter of judgment, Mr. 

Pombo. And at this point, I think there is a difference between the 

deer population and the bear population. And I think to some extent we are creating the problem with the—with bear baiting. We 

have a problem with deer population in a number of areas. I don’t 

think we ought to deliberately create one by getting bears accustomed to human food. And you see a number of ads of hunters advertising an almost guaranteed kill of bears. And the way they do 

that is by deliberately attracting bears into areas where there is 

human food. And it is—I think that, at this point, it would be in 

the public’s interest, and I think would be consistent policy for the 

Federal Government to ban that form of bear baiting because I 

don’t think that is consistent with normal hunting practice. A number of people who are far more expert than I have said that. And 

27

the majority of States have banned it. So I think makes sense to 

have a consistent Federal policy, only on Federal land. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I was not aware that they did baiting 

on deer in Maryland. I hadn’t heard of that before, but that is an 

interesting twist to this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. [Presiding.] Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. No questions. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Kind. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Chair 

and Ranking Member for allowing me to sit up on the dais today. 

I do appreciate the well intentions of the authors of what you are 

trying to get at, but I would have to concur with Mr. Peterson. Obviously, as a Representative from Wisconsin, it is one of the States 

that do allow, through the State and wildlife agencies, bear baiting. 

It really is a management issue. 

Just to preface my remarks, I have never bear hunted myself, although I love to hunt and I love to fish, but I do know a lot of 

people who do. Those who are familiar with bear hunting will be 

the first to admit it is a very difficult sport to go out in the woods 

and try to find them, locate them. Typically, they are in very thick 

terrain, thick underbrush, in order to locate them. 

But this really is, as Mr. Peterson has already testified to, a very 

crucial management tool in the States. We need to remind ourselves, however, that it has been long-standing policy of Federal 

land management agencies to defer to State agencies in the management of their own fish and wildlife within the State borders. 

And I see Mr. Hogan is here, Deputy Director of Fish and Wildlife, 

already the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife have the authority 

they need to ban baiting in the national parks throughout the Nation, as well as the refuge systems throughout the Nation. But it 

is not an issue that has gone without much thought and consideration. In Wisconsin alone, each county, of 72 counties, has their 

own conservation offices in the county. The State itself has a conservation board. The DNR holds hearings every year, throughout 

the entire State, public hearings, where people can come out and 

testify with regard to these management practices of wildlife and 

fish in the State. There is a lot of vetting and consideration that 

takes place, at least in the State of Wisconsin, in regard to the 

practice of what is being done out in the field. 

This is a growing problem, as Mr. Peterson testified, in northern 

Wisconsin especially, the management and control of the bear population. Just last year we had two kids who were assaulted by 

bears in northern Wisconsin, one that was mauled pretty badly. 

Last spring in my hometown of La Crosse, which is a fairly large 

urban city, one of the elementary schools just on the outskirts of 

town, it was quite a thrill for the kids during recess when a black 

bear was found meandering through the field right next to the 

school. DNR and law enforcement were called out in order to track 

down the bear. It was tranquilized and tested, and it was found to 

be rabid. 

Just 2 weeks ago, there was a relative of mine in northern 

Wisconsin who actually had to kill a bear at his doorstep because 

it was very aggressive, and it was trying to get into the house, and 

28

there was a young child in the house at the same time. So these 

issues have been vetted, and I think well-thought-out, in the States 

that allow this type of baiting. And I think we need to be very careful on what we are calling here the one-size-fits-all approach given 

the uniqueness of each State. 

Mr. Moran, I appreciate your intentions, the motivation behind 

the bill and that, but even you are saying that, as a matter of judgment, it should be fair and reasonable. I think that is the standard 

that is being applied in all the States that do allow some form of 

bear baiting. Is it fair and reasonable given the management problems we now have in controlling the bear population? I think that 

is really what is at stake right now. Do we really want to instill 

the value judgment or perception here in Washington on the various States that might have different unique challenges in controlling this population? One that, if it does get out of hand, we are 

going to be see more incidents of what I just described here today. 

Mr. Peterson, in the question for you is what is—I am not as familiar, with what the procedure is in Minnesota, but is there a 

similar type of vetting process in Minnesota, where there are public 

hearings held throughout the State, giving the public a chance to 

come out and comment in regard to wildlife management issues? 

Mr. PETERSON. When I was Chairman Of Fish and Wildlife 

Committee, we went to Wisconsin and studied your system. You 

have a process where your people are much more involved than 

ours, but the DNR goes out and holds hearings on the different 

seasons, not as structured as yours and not by county, but they do 

go out and allow people to have input. And it is—we were harvesting, I think, about 3,500, 4,000 bears, something like that. Last 

year it went down to 1,900. They tried, as I said, to give people two 

permits, and this year, for whatever reason, the application for licenses went from 23,000 down to 14,000. I think because the success was so bad the year before; I think one out of 7 hunters were 

successful. So it is not an easy thing. Normally— 

Mr. KIND. I would agree with you. It is a very difficult sport. It 

is hard to find them to begin with, and when do you, it can be very 

dangerous with the hunting of bears. So I certainly appreciate the 

members’ testimony today and the motivation that might be underlying the legislation, but I think we need to be careful in regard 

to establishing a one-size rule on all the States, given the unique 

challenge that is some of the States are facing. 

In regard, to the deer population, we had close to 15,000 automobile accidents in Wisconsin because of the exploding deer herd 

there. We are baiting, but for a different reason, because of the 

spread of chronic wasting disease in the State, and we don’t want 

the congregation of deer in certain locations for fear that the disease is going to spread. But, again, that is a management decision 

that had to be made given the unique situation in Wisconsin. I 

think that is how we need to look at this, on a State-by-State basis, 

and give some credit to the State agencies and to the public in the 

various States, who have to live with the rules within their own 

borders. 

And, again, I appreciate you allowing me to sit on the Committee 

today. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Gallegly. 

29

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Saxton. 

I would like to ask my good friend from Minnesota, Mr. Peterson, 

a couple of questions. But before I do, I would like to preface my 

questions with a statement. That is, the record is very clear on my 

involvement with sporting activities. This is my 9th term on this 

Committee. I have served with several chairmen, including one 

Ranking Member that ended up as the Secretary of the Interior. 

My voting record is one I am very proud of, and I think is consistent with sportsmen across this Nation for over 17 years. However, this particular issue, I believe, has really pushed the envelope 

with me. And that is the reason that I introduced this bill. 

Mr. Peterson, you made reference to timber wolves and the fact 

that they migrate. Do you see any correlation at all between timber 

wolves and bears as it relates to their natural instinct and the way 

they interface? I am not suggesting that we ban baiting for timber 

wolves. 

Mr. PETERSON. I am not a biologist, but the timber wolf range 

in Minnesota is similar to the bear range. And they are very secretive animals. They are very difficult to hunt or to trap, but we have 

been banned from doing anything to control them. And they have 

moved way out of their range and caused all kinds of problems 

with taking livestock and so forth. And I think the same thing will 

happen with bears if we don’t have a way to manage them. That 

was my point. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. That was one of the reasons I asked the question, 

was if the natural migration and so on and the psyche of the 

animal is similar. And that gets back to the threshold issue here. 

Forty-one of the 50 States in this Nation, 41 of 50, ban the practice 

of bear baiting. 

Now, there is one State that I think is clearly an exception, and 

that is the State of Alaska. I am sure the gentleman from Alaska, 

my good friend, and he is, I like to think of him as a good friend, 

Don Young, a person I have admired and respected for many, many 

years. He has a unique situation in Alaska. Alaska is not contiguous to any one of these other 41 States that do ban bear baiting. 

Getting back to the issue of the timber wolf. As you said, sometimes they will get as far as a hundred miles out of their natural 

habitat. And the reason I asked the question do bears migrate in 

a similar way, and I think I understood the answer as yes, how do 

we get the bears—let’s say that Minnesota, we do believe in States’ 

rights. And on that issue, how do we get a bear to stop at the State 

line where you have a bear baiting? Is there— 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, the bear in Minnesota, if they are going to 

go across the State line, they will probably go to Wisconsin or they 

will go to Canada. And they are not going to go to North and South 

Dakota, because you are getting into farm country. They very seldom go over that way. Both Manitoba and Ontario allow baiting of 

bear for the same reason that we do, because that is the only way 

that they can control, have a management practice that is workable. 

You know, we are, I think, unique, like Alaska. There is no other 

way to harvest bear in Minnesota than to bait. And as Mr. 

Saxton— 

30

Mr. GALLEGLY. The issue is certainly different in Alaska because 

it is not contiguous to any—I understand your argument. 

Mr. PETERSON. It is contiguous to Canada, like I am. But the 

thing is, there are some of these States that ban deer hunting—

or ban bear baiting that allow deer baiting. In Minnesota, we see 

that as reprehensible, as you see bear baiting, the sportsmen do. 

They don’t believe in deer baiting. And you know, you could argue 

that that is as inhumane as bear hunting over bait, if you want to 

look at it that way. I don’t particularly see it that way. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So you are not going to be introducing a bill to 

ban— 

Mr. PETERSON. I am just suggesting that following this, what you 

want to do is maybe you ought to ban deer baiting on Federal land 

as well. But Maryland, for example, allows baiting of deer but not 

baiting of bear. Well, I don’t see the logic. There is not a lot of difference. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. In any event, I think the issue, having to do with 

the sportsmen issue, of shooting a bear in the butt when he has 

his head in a can eating domestic food— 

Mr. PETERSON. That isn’t what happens. They are not shooting 

them while their head is in the can. It is the same thing, when you 

have a deer baiting situation, the deer come in on that field where 

the— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I am talking about bear not deer. 

Mr. PETERSON. It is the same thing. The deer come into that 

bait, they are shot coming into the bait, the same way the bear is 

shot coming into the bait. There is no difference. That is my point. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I see my time is expired. 

I have great respect for the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Alaska. But let’s just say that I would rather, much 

rather, be trying to make my argument the than yours. I yield 

back. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the testimony 

of the Honorable John Dingell, who opposes this legislation, and a 

series of letters I received from different interest groups covering 

the whole spectrum including Governors, most of the State fish and 

game people, even from those States that do not have baiting or 

do not allow baiting but which oppose this legislation. So I ask 

unanimous consent to submit. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]

Statement of The Honorable John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 1472

Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone, Former Chairman Young, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

We are today again discussing another anti-hunting piece of legislation, which is 

nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by non-hunters to restrict the rights of 

hunters and sportsmen. Legislation of this character is introduced in almost every 

Congress. And in every Congress, those of us from states that permit the baiting 

of black bears—a legitimate and necessary management tool—are forced to defend 

against needless attacks from anti-hunting organizations. 

Let me be clear. H.R. 1472 is a totally unnecessary preemption of state authority 

by Congress and should advance no further than this hearing. 

This legislation is properly described as an anti-hunting enterprise. I would note 

that it has been attempted in previous Congresses without success. As you know, 

31

the authority of state game agencies for fish and wildlife management on most 

Federal public lands has been affirmed by Congress in numerous Federal statues. 

The issue of wildlife management, including the lawful means of hunting game, is 

specifically the domain of the states. 

State fish and wildlife agencies have authority and responsibility for managing 

bears and are doing a commendable job. Contrary to the assertions of the proponents of this legislation, black bear populations in North America are robust and 

generally increasing. From the late 1980’s to 2000, the overall black bear population 

has increased 21 percent. Black bear populations across the United States are at 

historic highs, and hunting is a valuable management tool in keeping rising bear 

populations in check. 

Baiting is a means and method of take, and as such is regulated by the states. 

Ten states, including my home state of Michigan, allow regulated baiting as a method of hunting bears. This is principally in order to harvest an appropriate number 

of bears to maintain them at levels consistent with society’s tolerance level, which 

is generally below the biological carrying capacity for black bears. The professional 

opinion of the state wildlife agency in Michigan is that baiting is ethical and legal 

and one of the best ways to reduce bear numbers. 

The proposed legislation would reduce the annual bear harvest in my home state 

of Michigan. As a historically legal harvest method, baiting has remained an integral part of Michigan’s bear management strategy. About 83 percent of Michigan 

hunters used bait in 2002. 

The management of bear harvest should be left up to the states. Most of the 

states that do not allow bait for hunting bears tend to have habitat which allows 

for ‘‘spot and stalk’’ hunting; have many more hunters than Michigan does; or have 

climates that allow bears to den late in the year, so they can be hunted during deer 

and elk season. 

Bear hunting in Michigan is different than in other states. When we hunt bears 

in Michigan, it is in densely wooded forest terrain where visibility is low. We have 

less than half as many bear hunters as several states that do not allow bait hunting. Furthermore, Michigan’s bear population is already in dens by the time firearm 

deer season begins in November. These are just a few of the reasons why it is imperative for state wildlife agencies to have the authority and responsibility for managing wildlife. A one-size-fits-all Federal approach to wildlife management is neither 

necessary nor warranted. 

I should also note that the people of Michigan have also spoken on this issue. In 

1996, voters in Michigan soundly defeated a proposal to ban bait hunting for bears. 

Almost 15 percent of land open to bear hunting in Michigan is Federally owned. 

Additionally, almost a quarter of the western end of the Upper Peninsula is in 

Federal ownership, and almost half of the bears harvested annually in Michigan are 

from this area. The proposed legislation would have far-reaching and serious negative consequences for Michigan’s annual bear harvest. 

In summary, this legislation is unnecessary, unwarranted and unwise. Simply 

put, this is an anti-hunting measure, and I urge the members of the Subcommittee 

to reject it. 

Thank you, again for the opportunity to testify. 

32

[NOTE: Additional letters and articles submitted for the record 

have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to my good friend from 

California, I don’t think you quite understand those States that do 

allow baiting. We shoot very few bears over bait in Alaska. Most 

of our bears are shot for consumption, and are usually shot primarily by watching where they are eating, berry patches or fishing 

streams. We harvest quite a few bears in Alaska because most of 

my Native people do eat bears. I frankly have eaten a lot of black 

bears. I do not eat grizzly bears. I don’t even shoot grizzly bears 


87680.006
33

anymore—unless they are messing with me. By the way, they will 

mess with you. 

This really is about the State management of game, and how 

they decide it is best to do so. I know for a fact that hunting bears 

over bait is actually probably more legitimate in the sense that you 

can choose which bear you are going to shoot. Primarily, you want 

a large bear for two reasons, one it is a trophy, and, second, the 

bear, if he has his way, will kill the cubs so that the sow will get 

into estrogen, and we will have a period of heat, and he can breed 

her. That is the facts of life. 

So if you want to manage bears, you actually use the sporting 

or the baiting system for a much better way than trouncing 

through the woods and saying where, bear, are you, and hoping 

you jump one because you don’t know what you are going to jump. 

It is usually a snap shot. You talk about shooting one in the butt 

when his head is in the can, most of the time, bears run away from 

you. Most of the time, you will probably hit that bear in the lower 

side of his body. That is unfortunate. I, frankly, have had the privilege of shooting a very large brown bear. Three of them, in fact. 

But, one, I learned how to shoot very well, because I shoot a very 

small weapon. I shoot a 308. I got in a bunch of seven of them eating fish out of a heavy Salmon stream. And I watched the bears 

eat and picked out the biggest one. When he finally ate his full and 

laid down and went to sleep, I shot him. There was a reason for 

that. I didn’t want him to know where I was. You may not think 

that is very sporting, but it is similar, in fact, to the baiting with 

the artificial baits. So although your intentions may be well and 

good, it’s not what, as Mr. Moran says, this is not an attempt to, 

I think, mislead the bear. It is an attempt to manage it correctly. 

It is a State issue. No time has this Congress ever picked out an 

individual species to manage from the Congressional floor. Never. 

And we should not be doing it today. We shouldn’t even think 

about it. So I do know you have good intentions, but with all due 

respect, this is an ill-thought-out piece of legislation. I can ask Mr. 

Moran. How many bears do you have in Alexandria? 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Young, we both know that we represent very 

different districts, very different demographics and geographies. I 

respect your representation of the people that you are elected to 

serve. You represent them extraordinarily well. I do think, on this 

issue, there is some inconsistency, at least in the argument that if 

you don’t manage, harvest the bear population then they are going 

to—the implication is overwhelming, eventually, the human population. 

But then, on the other hand, we are told by most of the people 

who have argued in favor of this that they are very difficult to find 

and that is one of the reasons why you need to bait, because it is 

so difficult to find them in the wild. I don’t think we have an over 

abundance of a bear population. We do with the deer population. 

I think you can make a legitimate argument, as people in Minnesota have done, that even baiting of deer takes away the sport. 

If you have got that many deer, then it is relatively easy to find 

enough to shoot, but I am not going to get into the issue of baiting 

the deer population. 

34

I think this is a different issue. For one thing, since we have gotten into the comparison between deer and bears, the fact is that 

deer don’t eat foods that attract bears. They are not a serious safety threat unless you are driving. 

Mr. YOUNG. I just asked you how many bears were in Alexandria. What you are trying to do now is regulate—reclaiming my 

time. You are trying to legislate what is right for my people. Now, 

if your people don’t want bear hunting, you pass a resolution in 

your district saying no bear baiting, I would support it. That is 

your prerogative. You have no right, nor do your people have any 

right, of telling Alaskans how to manage their game. That is the 

thing irritates me the most. We had this argument once before, and 

you know my reaction to it. You know you are wrong. You may be 

right for Alexandria, but you don’t know anything about Alaska. 

You are sitting down here in Washington D.C. saying how they are 

going to manage their game. That is incorrect. That is not Democracy. 

Mr. MORAN. Don, I fully respect and understand where you are 

coming from. But I also—we have run into lot of issues in the past 

where, because we represent such different constituencies, we do 

come into conflict with Federal policy. But I would suggest that 

here we are only talking about Federal land. I understand an awful 

lot of Alaska is Federal land. But let me say— 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, you are on the track. Ninety percent is Federal 

land. 

Mr. MORAN. But your response is, basically, you are saying why 

are you city slickers telling me what I should be doing in Alaska, 

when you are representing an urban area? The fact is, though, that 

my constituents do, through their taxes, provide the means to purchase and to maintain that Federal land. As long as it is Federal 

land, every constituent of this, of the United States of America, 

does have a vested interest in the way it is maintained. 

We are not talking about the management of private land or 

State-owned land in any State. We are talking about Federal policy. We are trying to make that Federal policy consistent. When 41 

out of 50 states have decided it is a wrong practice, I think it is 

a legitimate legislative approach to have a consistent policy. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. Jim, you don’t know what you are talking about, 

No. 1, and No. 2, my constituents live on that Federal land. They 

live off those bears. And you ain’t going to mess with it. This bill 

ain’t going to see the light of day. I guarantee you that. Because 

you are messing with my people and that is the wrong thing to do. 

You are doing something totally wrong. I wish I had my Native 

people in this room right now, you would walk out of here with no 

hair on. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. On that note— 

Mr. MORAN. How do you feel about this issue, Mr. Young? 

Mr. SAXTON. We would like to thank you both for being here with 

us to express your points of view this morning. We will excuse you 

now and move on to the next panel. 

Thank you for being here. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Panel II is made up of Mr. Matt Hogan, the Deputy Director of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Ms. Elizabeth Estill, Deputy 

35

Chief Programs, Legislation and Communications, U.S. Forest 

Service, accompanied by Jim Gladen, Director of Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service; and Mr. John Baughman, Executive Vice-President 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

While you are taking your places, we have been informed that we 

will be having a vote in the next 10 to 20 minutes. And so when 

that occurs, we will be taking a short recess. 

Thank you for being with us this morning. We are, as you have 

noted, operating under the 5-minute rule. So each of your—in each 

case, your written testimony will be included in its entirety in the 

record. 

Mr. MORAN. And if you would like to start, Mr. Hogan, and we 

are anxious to hear your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MATT HOGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Good 

morning to the members of the Subcommittee. 

As you said, I am Matt Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here 

today on H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, and 

H.R. 1472, the Don’t Feed the Bears Act. 

H.R. 1006 would amend the Lacey Act to define prohibited wildlife species as any live lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar or 

cougar. The bill declares it a prohibitive act, with some exceptions, 

for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or 

purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any of these prohibited 

wildlife species. 

In sum, while we share the Subcommittee’s concern about the 

presence and proliferation of big cats in the pet trade, we cannot 

support this legislation for the reasons I will briefly outline. 

H.R. 1006 would provide little additional protection to big cat 

species in the wild, a high priority for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. It may even fall short of its goal of regulating the big pet 

trade. In addition, we are concerned about the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s ability to meet the extended enforcement mandate created 

by this legislation which introduces new prohibitions without providing additional resources for their enforcement. Moreover, the 

mechanism created by this bill appears to provide, at least in some 

instances, coverage that is duplicative of existing law. The Endangered Species Act already prohibits the interstate sale and the 

international trade of tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and jaguars. While 

H.R. 1006 would extend such prohibition to two unregulated 

species, it would not ban private ownership or intrastate sale of the 

prohibited species. It would also exempt numerous groups and individuals from its prohibitions. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has an authorized force of 253 special agents to enforce our wildlife laws and treaties that protect 

trust resources, including endangered species, marine mammals 

and migratory birds. Given the scope of the agency’s conservation 

mission, the limited manpower available, and our need to focus on 

our highest priority needs, the Fish and Wildlife Service concentrates its enforcement efforts on preventing illegal activities 

36

that jeopardize the continued viability of wild populations of protected species. 

In this respect, most of the thousands of big cats in the pet trade 

in this country are captive-bread animals. While big cat trafficking 

maybe be a public safety problem and animal welfare concern, it 

is not, at its core, a wildlife conservation issue. H.R. 1006 would 

expand Fish and Wildlife Service’s enforcement responsibilities into 

an area that is not a high priority for us at this time. By including 

lions and cougars in the list of prohibited cats, this bill would also 

extend the Fish and Wildlife Service’s enforcement mandate to policing currently legal activities involving interstate and foreign 

commerce of species that exist in abundant numbers in the wild 

and that are currently not subject to the same rigorous protection 

as the other defined species. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate that we share the Subcommittee’s concerns about the increased presence of big cats in the pet 

trade. However, because of the issues I have outlined today, we 

cannot support this legislation. 

I am also presenting the Department’s views on H.R. 1472, the 

Don’t Feed the Bears Act. H.R. 1472 could a require the adoption, 

where necessary, and enforcement of regulations to prohibit the intentional feeding of bears on Federal public lands in order to end 

the hunting practice known as bear baiting. 

Although it is unclear from the bill text whether the legislation 

is applicable to black bears or all bears in general, I should point 

out that in North America most black bear populations are currently robust and generally increasing. Overall, it appears that 

States are doing an excellent job managing this species. 

In the interest of time, I am not going to provide an overview of 

the various Interior Department Agencies’ management policies in 

their relationship to the general management of wildlife species, 

but they are in my written testimony. 

However, from such a review, we can take the following broad 

principle. In general, States possess broad trust and police powers 

over resident fish and wildlife, including fish and wildlife found on 

Federal lands within a State. Congress has, through numerous 

acts, reaffirmed this basic responsibility and authority to the 

States. For example, even though Congress has charged the Secretary of Interior with responsibilities for the management of certain unique national fish and wildlife resources, for example, endangered species and threatened species, migratory birds and certain marine mammals with limited exceptions, State jurisdiction 

remains concurrent with Federal authority. 

Federal frameworks work best in situations where a broad perspective on populations and habitats is required, such as in the 

case of migratory birds. This is not the case in bear management. 

By universally prohibiting bear baiting on Federal public lands, 

this legislation would eliminate the flexibility required at the State 

level to adjust harvest to meet sustainable population levels of resident species. Therefore, we believe H.R. 1472 would unnecessarily 

interfere with traditional State authority over management of resident wildlife populations and reduce State flexibility to manage 

bears at desired levels on Federal lands. We believe that management decisions for the State resident wildlife populations are most 

37

appropriately made at the State rather than the Federal level. For 

these reasons, the Department of Interior opposes this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you or the members of the Subcommittee 

might have. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much Mr. Hogan. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hogan follows:]

Statement of Matt Hogan, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1006

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Matt Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife Service). I appreciate 

this opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1006, the ‘‘Captive Wildlife Safety Act’’ and 

H.R. 1472, the ‘‘Don’t Feed the Bears Act.’’

H.R. 1006, Captive Wildlife Safety Act 

H.R. 1006 would amend the Lacey Act to define ‘‘prohibited wildlife species’’ as 

any live lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar. The bill declares it a prohibited act, with some exceptions, for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any of these prohibited 

wildlife species. 

Although we acknowledge that the increasingly popular practice of keeping ‘‘big 

cat’’ species as pets has created a growing concern about both the safety of the public and the welfare of these animals, the Department cannot at this time support 

this legislation for the reasons outlined below. 

In sum, while we share the Subcommittee’s concerns about the presence and proliferation of big cats in the pet trade, this bill would provide little additional protection to big cat species in the wild—a high priority for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

In addition, it may even fall short of its goal of regulating big cat pet trade. We 

are also concerned about the Fish and Wildlife Service’s ability to meet the extended 

enforcement mandate created by this legislation. The new prohibitions introduced 

in this legislation would need to compete against other Fish and Wildlife Service 

mission-critical priority activities within the context of the President’s Budget. 

Moreover, the mechanism created by this bill appears to provide, at least in some 

instances, coverage that is duplicative of existing law. The Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) already prohibits the interstate sale and international trade of tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and jaguars. While H.R.1006 would extend such prohibitions to two 

unregulated species (lions and cougars), it would not ban private ownership or intrastate sale of the prohibited species. It would also exempt numerous groups and individuals from its prohibitions. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has an authorized force of 253 special agents to enforce our wildlife laws and treaties that protect trust resources, including endangered species, marine mammals, and migratory birds. Given the scope of the agency’s conservation mission, the limited manpower available, and our need to focus on 

our highest priority needs, the Fish and Wildlife Service concentrates its enforcement efforts on preventing illegal activities that jeopardize the continued viability 

of wild populations of protected species. 

In this respect, most of the thousands of big cats in the pet trade in this country 

are captive-bred animals. While big cat trafficking is a public safety problem and 

animal welfare concern, it is not, at its core, a wildlife conservation issue. H.R. 1006 

would therefore emphasize and expand Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement responsibilities into an area that has not been considered a high priority. By including 

lions and cougars in the list of prohibited cats, this bill would also extend the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s enforcement mandate to policing currently legal activities involving interstate and foreign commerce of species that exist in abundant numbers 

in the wild, and that are currently not subject to the same rigorous protection as 

the other defined species. 

The bill’s definition of ‘‘prohibited wildlife species’’ would, in and of itself, limit 

the extent to which this legislation would control big cat pet trade because it does 

not cover all species that are part the problem. For example, H.R. 1006 does not 

include lynx, serval, caracal, clouded leopard, or snow leopards in that definition. 

Nor does it regulate hybrids, mixed species that are of little concern from a conservation standpoint but that account for an increasing percentage of the big cats 

bred, bought, and sold as pets in this country. 

The effectiveness of this bill would further be limited by the scope of its exemptions. We believe that, at most, such exemptions should cover only those entities 

38

that are licensed by a state or the Federal Government. Such criteria would ensure 

that exempt organizations are otherwise accountable for any interstate or international transactions involving big cats. For example, both the Service and the Department of Agriculture offers licenses and regular inspections; many state agencies 

do the same. 

For these reasons, the Department cannot at this time support this legislation. 

H.R. 1472, Don’t Feed the Bears Act 

H.R. 1472 would require the adoption, where necessary, and enforcement of regulations to prohibit the intentional feeding of bears on Federal public lands in order 

to end the hunting practice known as ‘‘bear baiting.’’

Although it is unclear from the bill text whether the legislation is applicable to 

black bear or all bears in general, I should point out that in North American most 

black bear populations are currently robust and generally increasing. In fact, there 

has been an overall 21 percent increase in black bear populations from the late 

1980s to 2000. Overall, it appears that states are doing very well managing this 

species. 

In addition, hunting over bait for grizzly bears is not permitted anywhere in the 

United States. In the lower 48 states, grizzly bears are protected as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act throughout their range; in Alaska, while 

baiting for black bears may be allowed in accordance with State laws and regulations, baiting is not permitted when hunting for grizzly bear. 

Federal Agencies and the Management of Resident Wildlife 

In general, states possess broad responsibility and authority over resident fish 

and wildlife, including fish and wildlife found on Federal lands within a state. Congress has reaffirmed this authority through numerous Acts. As discussed in more 

detail below, we must recognize these traditional roles in our evaluation of this legislation. 

Let me begin with an overview of the various Federal agencies’ management policies and their relationships to the general management of wildlife species. The 

major Federal land management agencies are the Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

National Park Service (Park Service), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

within the Department of the Interior; and the Forest Service. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Lands 

The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) mission, established by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), is: 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit 

of present and future generations of Americans. 

The Improvement Act established a clear hierarchy for uses in the System. As 

noted in accompanying House Report 105–106, ‘‘wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses, when determined to be compatible, are appropriate and legitimate uses of the 

System.’’ The Improvement Act defines six wildlife-dependent recreational uses: 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation, and states these uses should be facilitated and should receive 

priority consideration in refuge planning and management. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration 

Act), as amended by the Improvement Act, further provides that the Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, as the Secretary of the Interior’s (Secretary) designee, 

will, among other things, ensure that regulations allowing hunting or fishing of fish 

and wildlife within the NWRS are, to the extent practicable, consistent with state 

fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans. 

Traditionally, the basis of most hunting regulations for national wildlife refuges 

is the hunting regulations of the state or states in which a particular refuge lies, 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s regulations reflect this fact. For purposes of this 

discussion, state fish and wildlife agencies that currently permit bear baiting for 

hunting activities are Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, 

Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

The Improvement Act further directs the Secretary to cooperate and consult with 

the states on fish and wildlife management activities on national wildlife refuges, 

including hunting programs, in order to ‘‘complement the efforts of other State—conservation efforts.’’ (House Report 105–106) This makes sense, because while both 

Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies have authorities and responsibilities for 

management of fish and wildlife, it is often the state agencies which possess the 

unique expertise and knowledge about resident fish and wildlife needed to establish 

effective laws, regulations, and management plans. 

39

As noted in section 2 (c) of H.R. 1472, the Fish and Wildlife Service currently has 

regulations largely prohibiting baiting and hunting with bait on NWRS lands. This 

prohibition is largely based on the effects that baiting wildlife can have on relatively 

small areas, such as refuges. For example, baiting can attract wildlife from adjacent 

non-refuge lands, thus altering normal concentrations of refuge and non-refuge populations; it can alter behavioral patterns of target wildlife species; or it can attract 

undesirable species, complicating refuge management. (See 50 Fed. Reg. 36736, 

Sept. 19, 1984) Other regulations provide refuge managers the authority to waive 

this prohibition to allow bear feeding or baiting in support of research, human safety, animal welfare, or in other cases of emergency. The situation is somewhat different in Alaska, where baiting is authorized on Federal lands, including NWRS 

lands, in accordance with State regulations. Even there, however, baiting is not permitted for grizzly bear hunting. 

In sum, bear hunting is currently allowed on less than 6 percent of refuges, with 

bear baiting allowed, in accordance with State law, only on all or part of 11 Alaskan 

refuges. 

National Park System Lands 

On national park lands, human feeding of bears, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is a significant management problem wherever it occurs and is an activity 

that the Park Service works very hard to prevent on its lands. In fact, the Park 

Service evolved stringent bear protection and visitor use policies during the 1970s 

in response to clear recognition of the impacts to bears, property, and people caused 

by the improper handling of foods and trash brought into parks. 

Hunting in general is allowed on Park Service land only where Congress has authorized such activity, and hunting and trapping activities are currently either mandated or discretionary in only 57 units of the National Park System. Where allowed 

in the park system, hunting activities are governed by Federal law and applicable 

non-conflicting state law. However, the Park Service allows black bear baiting, in 

accordance with State law, for both subsistence and sport hunting in a number of 

units in the State of Alaska. (See 36 C.F.R. 13.21(d); 13.48) 

BLM-managed Lands 

Federal land management statutes under which the BLM operates also acknowledge the states’ traditional role in managing fish and wildlife. These include, for example, the Multiple–Use Sustained–Yield Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act. 

Under its own regulations, BLM defers to the states on management of fish and 

resident wildlife on public lands located within each state. While BLM works closely 

with states in the management of habitat that supports fish and resident wildlife, 

each state establishes and enforces regulations on hunting, trapping, and fishing on 

these lands. Except in emergency situations, BLM does not involve itself in determining or authorizing the type of hunting techniques allowed on public lands. 

As a consequence, where it is permitted by state law, bear hunting with bait is 

currently permitted on BLM-managed lands. If problems arise, they would be treated as site-specific issues and would be resolved through coordination with the respective state wildlife agency at the BLM field or state office level. 

Conclusion 

We take from this review the following broad principle: in general, states possess 

broad trustee and police powers over resident fish and wildlife, including fish and 

wildlife found on Federal lands within a state. As noted above, Congress has, 

through numerous Acts, reaffirmed this basic responsibility and authority of the 

states. For example, even though Congress has charged the Secretary of the Interior 

with responsibilities for the management of certain uniquely national fish and wildlife resources—e.g., endangered and threatened species, migratory birds, and certain 

marine mammals—with the limited exception of marine mammals, state jurisdiction 

remains concurrent with Federal authority. 

Moreover, practically speaking, we recognize that Federal frameworks work best 

in situations where a broad perspective on populations and habitats is required—

for example, with regard to migratory species such as ducks and geese. By prohibiting bear baiting on Federal public lands, we eliminate the flexibility required at 

the local level to adjust harvest to meet sustainable population levels of resident 

species. As previously noted, black bear populations are currently robust and generally increasing. Without a wide array of management tools at their disposal, state 

managers may experience an increase in dangerous interactions between people and 

bears. 

40

We believe that management decisions for individual resident wildlife populations 

are most appropriately made at the local, rather than Federal, level. For these reasons, the Administration opposes this legislation. 

In closing, I would like to state that we are committed to working to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants species and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American public. As such, we welcome the opportunity to work 

with all of our partners to identify and address problems associated with the management of our fish and wildlife resources. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. SAXTON. We are going to go to Ms. Estill. Then when have 

you concluded your testimony, we will have to take a little recess 

here for these votes. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF 

PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY JIM GLADEN, 

DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE, U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

Ms. ESTILL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today concerning 

H.R. 1472. 

Historically State fish and wildlife agencies have maintained the 

primary responsibility for protection and management of wildlife 

populations on the National Forest System lands, particularly with 

respect to hunting and fishing. The Forest Service enters into a 

memorandum of understanding with each State which lays out a 

framework for cooperation. The States issue regulations regarding 

hunting licenses, methods, seasons, locations and bag limits for 

resident game and have the primary responsibility for enforcement 

of the State’s fish and wildlife laws and regulations on National 

Forest Service lands. 

Federal land management statutes acknowledge the States’ traditional role in managing fish and wildlife, including the National 

Forest System Organic Administration Act, the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act, Sikes Act, Wilderness Act and so on and so 

forth. Because of consistent Congressional direction to defer fish 

and wildlife management to the States, the Forest Service is generally reluctant to override State regulations, except where Federal 

interests, such as the protection of forest land, resources and users 

requires Federal intervention. 

In 1995 after extensive public comment, the Forest Service published a policy on baiting for the purpose of hunting on National 

Forest System lands. It spells out the procedures to be used by the 

Forest Service when State regulations conflict with Federal laws 

regulations and policies. The policy retains the long-standing reliance on State hunting regulations, including the State regulation 

of baiting resident game. But it also provides for case-by-case safeguards where those safeguards might be needed. Although various 

States may have policies that, again, vary annually, the Forest 

Service consistently ensures protection of those Federal resources. 

In 1996, the District Court of Columbia—District Court upheld 

the Forest Service policy to continue the traditional reliance on the 

States to regulate hunting practices, including baiting game. Again, 

41

with those safeguards. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of 

Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 

Currently in North America, the black bear populations are robust and generally increasing. We believe that H.R. 1472 would 

unnecessarily preempt State authority over management of resident wildlife populations and reduce the flexibility of State and 

local wildlife managers to manage bears on Federal lands. 

This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to 

answer your questions. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Estill follows:]

Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation, and 

Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on 

H.R. 1472

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

to meet with you today regarding H.R. 1472, the ‘‘Don’t Feed the Bears’’ Act. Accompanying me today is Jim Gladen, Director of Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and 

Rare Plants for the National Forest System. 

H.R. 1472 ‘‘Don’t Feed the Bears’’ Act 

H.R. 1472 would require the adoption, where necessary, and enforcement of regulations to prohibit the intentional feeding of bears on Federal public lands in order 

to end the hunting practice known as ‘‘bear baiting.’’ The Administration opposes 

the bill. 

Bear Baiting on National Forests 

Historically, State fish and wildlife agencies have maintained the primary responsibility for protection and management of wildlife populations on National Forest 

System lands, particularly with respect to hunting and fishing. This responsibility 

includes adoption of State fish and wildlife laws and regulations affecting the taking 

of resident game animals. The Forest Service enters into a Memorandum of Understanding with each State in order to lay out a framework for cooperation. These 

agreements emphasize the traditional role of the States to administer State hunting 

regulations such as season, harvest levels, and methods of harvest, with respect to 

hunting of resident game on National Forest System lands. The States issue regulations regarding hunting licenses, methods, seasons, locations, and bag limits for 

resident game and have the primary responsibility for enforcement of the state’s fish 

and wildlife laws and regulations on National Forest System lands. 

Federal land management statutes acknowledge the States’ traditional role in 

managing fish and wildlife. These include the National Forest System Organic Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 480), the Multiple–Use Sustained–Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 

528), the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 1732), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133 (d)(8)), and 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1732). Because of consistent Congressional direction to defer fish and wildlife management to the States, 

the Forest Service is generally reluctant to override State regulations except where 

Federal interests, such as the protection of forest land, resources, and users, requires Federal intervention. 

An exception to this general policy of deferring to the States, is the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3111–16) whereby Congress 

determined that Federal control should supersede that of the state, with Federal 

control of fish and wildlife subsistence in Alaska. 

The practice of placing bait (food or scent to attract wildlife) is a hunting activity 

subject to State laws and regulations. State fish and wildlife agencies that permit 

the baiting of black bear (Urus americanus) as a hunting activity on Federal lands 

are: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Utah, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming. 

In 1995, the Forest Service published its policy on baiting for the purpose of hunting on National Forest System lands. The policy retains the longstanding reliance 

on State hunting regulations including state regulation of baiting resident game. 

Where state law and regulation permit baiting, the practice is permitted on 

National Forest System lands unless the authorized officer determines on a site specific basis that the practice conflicts with Federal laws or regulations, or forest plan 

direction, or would adversely affect other forest uses or users. 

42

The 1995 policy clarifies the Forest Service role with regard to regulation of baiting as a hunting method that is authorized and regulated by the states. It spells 

out the procedures to be used by the Forest Service when State regulations conflict 

with Federal laws, regulations, and policies. It relies on existing relations with each 

State and prevents the duplication of regulations by both levels of government and 

provides for case-by-case safeguards where needed. It also provides a consistent 

Federal approach to baiting throughout the National Forest System. Although various States may annually vary their policies, the Forest Service’s will remain consistent while ensuring protection of Federal resources. 

In the 1996 case of the Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Thomas, 932 F. Supp. 368 

(D.D.C. 1996), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the Forest 

Service policy of ‘‘leav[ing] the decision to prohibit baiting, or to allow but regulate 

it as a ‘‘hunting practice’’ or technique, to the individual states in which a particular 

national forest is situated.’’ Id. at 369. And as the Thomas court observed, ‘‘[t]he 

common law has always regarded the power to regulate the taking of animals ferae 

naturae to be vested in the states to the extent ‘their exercise of that power may 

not be inconsistent with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal Government by the Constitution.’’’ Id. at 369–370 (quoting Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 

519 (1896)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit subsequently affirmed 

the judgment of the District Court. See Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Thomas, 127 F.3d 

80 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 

Currently, in North America, black bear populations—specifically mentioned in 

H.R. 1472—are robust and generally increasing. We believe that H.R. 1472 would 

unnecessarily both preempt state authority over management of resident wildlife 

populations and reduce the flexibility of state and local wildlife managers to manage 

bears on Federal lands. 

Conclusion 

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer your 

questions. 

Mr. SAXTON. So that you don’t have to stay in this room unless 

you want to, we are going to recess until 12:00, 12:05, something 

like that. We will see you in a little while. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GILCHREST. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee will come to 

order. 

I apologize for my absence, but the testimony of the previous witnesses will be in the record, and it will be reviewed. 

So it is now in order to recognize Mr. Baughman. The other three 

witnesses have testified. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BAUGHMAN, EXECUTIVE VICEPRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND 

WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pallone, thank 

you. 

Mr. Chairman, I am John Baughman, Executive Vice-President 

of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. All 

50 of the fish and wildlife agencies are among our members. I am 

also talking to you from the perspective as the former Director of 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Wyoming is one of the 

nine States that allows bear baiting on Federal lands. 

Our more detailed written testimony has been made available to 

the Subcommittee, but I can summarize it as follows: First, the Association is strongly opposed to H.R. 1472 and urges that the Subcommittee give this bill no further consideration. The States have 

broad statutory, and often constitutional, authority for the conservation of resident wildlife, including bears. Congress has given 

Federal agencies certain responsibilities for migratory birds, listed 

43

threatened endangered species, and anadromous fish, where current and State Federal jurisdiction is clearly needed to meet national, State and international conservation objectives. We see 

H.R. 1427 as an unnecessary and inappropriate preemption of 

State authority to manage resident wildlife. 

The States are doing a commendable job managing bears. Black 

bear populations are robust, and they are either stable or increasing in most States. And nearly every State, that has bear populations, already has areas where bear populations exceed the level 

of human tolerance. 

Fourth, there is no evidence to suggest bear populations become 

self-regulating or density-dependent before exceeding the levels of 

society’s tolerance. Black bears are a long-lived, prolific species, 

and since bears are at the top of the food chain, unchecked bear 

populations continue to expand to the point of becoming a nuisance. The net result is that bears do and will continue to die at 

the hands of humans, either by hunters, people protecting private 

property, or, more likely, by government employees, usually at the 

cost of thousands of dollars per bear. 

Fifth, the States that do permit bear baiting have concluded that 

it is a legitimate and necessary management tool to achieve harvest and conservation objectives and to keep bear populations within the limits of human tolerance. Baiting facilitates harvest in 

dense cover habitats and in large areas with relatively low bear 

densities and low hunter numbers. Baiting also allows easier identification of sows with cubs, which are legally excluded from harvest. Baiting also allows hunting efforts to be directed toward problem bears and toward areas with nuisance problems. 

Research suggests that those bears most likely to cause nuisance 

problems, and that is usually wandering adolescent male bears, are 

those that are most susceptible to baiting. 

Sixth, even where bear baiting is permitted, it is still tightly controlled. I will use Wyoming as an example. Baiting is regulated as 

to the size of the bait, type of bait container, type of bait substance, 

number and density of baits, no hunter can have more than two 

baits, minimum distance from trails and roads and campgrounds, 

when baits can be placed, removal and clean up requirements, and 

requirements for identifying ownership of baits. Additionally, total 

harvest is limited by area-specific mortality quotas on bears. The 

season closes once those quotas are reached. And all those regulations, as someone asked earlier, are subject to public review at the 

State level through the State Administrative Procedure Act. 

Seventh, in 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia upheld the District Court ruling that bear baiting was a 

method of hunting on Federal lands, thus subject to State authority. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Nation’s successful State-based system of professional fish and wildlife conservation is justifiably the 

envy of the rest of the world. Congress has repeatedly affirmed the 

merits and utility of our system of wildlife conservation, while appropriately continuing to encourage cooperation between State and 

Federal agencies. The States successful record on black bear conservation speaks for itself. Thus H.R. 1472 is unnecessary and inappropriate from a biological, resource management perspective. 

44

And our Association strongly urges that you do not report the bill 

favorably out of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer questions. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Baughman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:]

Statement of John Baughman, Executive Vice-President,

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, on H.R. 1472

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to share the perspectives of the 

International Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies on H.R. 1472, the ‘‘Don’t Feed 

the Bears Act’’. The Association strongly opposes H.R. 1472 as an unnecessary 

Federal preemption of state wildlife management authority. The issue of baiting 

bears as a method of hunting is already subject to public discourse at the state level 

where determinations of means and methods of take are appropriately made. Also, 

black bear populations in the United States are robust and generally increasing in 

most states, a testament to the success of science-based wildlife management by 

State fish and wildlife agencies. Thus we conclude that H.R. 1472 is an unnecessary 

and inappropriate preemption of state wildlife authority and we urge that 

H.R. 1472 not be reported favorably by the Subcommittee. 

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was founded in 1902 

as a quasi-governmental organization of the public agencies charged with the protection and management of North America’s fish and wildlife resources. The Association’s governmental members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, 

provinces, and Federal Governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states 

are members. The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource management and strengthening Federal, state, and private cooperation in 

protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the states have statutory, and often constitutional, 

authority for the conservation of resident fish and wildlife (including bears) within 

their borders for the sustainable use and enjoyment of their citizens. Where Congress has given Federal agencies certain conservation responsibilities for migratory 

birds, listed threatened and endangered species, and anadromous fish, that authority remains concurrent with the states’ jurisdiction, as Congress has affirmed. Further, state authority for resident fish and wildlife extends to most Federal public 

lands, as affirmed by Congress in the National Forest Management Act, the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and the Sikes Act. Additionally, both the Departments of Interior and Agriculture have regulations (see, e.g., 43CFR Part 24) and policies that implement the 

relationship between the Federal agencies which control the land and habitat, and 

the State fish and wildlife agencies which have conservation responsibility for ensuring the sustainability of fish and wildlife. This relationship obviously compels 

close coordination and cooperation. 

The States conservation authority for fish and wildlife extends to the establishment of regulated take, where appropriate, and a determination of the allowable 

means and methods of hunting. Baiting for the purpose of hunting bears is a method of take that is allowed under certain conditions in 10 States, 9 of which also 

allow it on Federal lands. The establishment of all regulations regarding hunting 

(seasons, bag limits, and allowable means of take) are based on scientific data collected by the State fish and wildlife agencies and are subject to extensive public review at the state level. In those States where baiting for bears is allowed, it is used 

as a regulated management tool that is necessary in order to harvest a sufficient 

number of bears to maintain bear numbers at society’s tolerance level while ensuring a healthy, sustainable bear population. In states with large areas of dense forest 

habitat, or with a low bear density over a wide area, it is necessary to employ baiting in order to harvest the appropriate number of bears. Using Wyoming as an example, even where baiting is permitted it is tightly regulated as to the size of bait, 

type of bait container, number and density of baits (no more than 2 per hunter) 

where and when baits can be placed, requirements for bait removal and clean-up, 

restrictions on the type of bait substances allowed and identification of the hunter 

must be attached to the bait container. Furthermore, the total bear harvest by area 

is controlled by a female mortality quota. Permitting baiting in these circumstances 

helps achieve the desired harvest, it facilitates identification of sows with cubs 

(which are not allowed to be legally harvested), and it allows agencies or landowners 

to focus hunters on problem bears. Research suggests that those bears which most 

often cause damage, depredation, or nuisance problems (i.e. wandering adolescent 

45

males) are the same bears that are most susceptible to baiting. All aspects of bear 

bating and other hunting regulations are reviewed annually by our agencies and are 

also subject to annual public review and comment through state administrative procedure processes. 

Further, as you are likely aware Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia in 1997 upheld a district court ruling that baiting for bears was 

a means and method of hunting on National Forests and thus subject to state authority (127 F.3d 80). 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me point out that, whatever one’s opinion is regarding 

baiting as a method of take, the states are doing a commendable job in managing 

bears in the United States. Black bear populations are robust and have increased 

21% in North America from the end of the 1980s to the year 2000. Black bears are 

a long-lived, prolific species and with the possible exception of some remote parts 

of Mexico, people in some fashion control all bear populations in North America. 

Since bears are at the top of the food chain, if left unchecked bear populations will 

continue to expand to the point of being a nuisance. The net outcome is dead bears 

at the hand of hunters, people protecting private property, or by government employees usually of the cost of thousands of dollar per bear. 

Mr. Chairman, the States’ successful record on black bear conservation speaks for 

itself, thus, H.R. 1472 is neither necessary nor appropriate from a biological resource management perspective. The Nation’s state-based system of professional 

fish and wildlife conservation is justifiably the envy of the rest of the world. Congress has repeatedly affirmed the merits and utility of our system of wildlife conservation, while appropriately continuing to encourage cooperation between state 

and Federal agencies. There is no need in the instance of bear management, to set 

aside our system of wildlife management and the Association strongly urges that 

you not favorably report the bill out of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for opportunity to share our perspectives and I would be pleased to 

answer any questions. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Can you give us some more information on the 

court case that you referenced, the Fund for Animals versus Jack 

Ward Thomas, Chief of Forest Service? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I can, but if it pleases the Chairman and the Subcommittee, Mr. Paul Lenzini, our legal counsel, is 

with me, and he was right in the middle of things. If we could defer 

to him? 

Mr. GILCHREST. That would be fine if there is no objection from 

the Subcommittee. If you could give us a brief summary of the situation and the findings of the court. 

Mr. LENZINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Paul 

Lenzini. I am legal counsel to the International Association. Up 

until about 9 or 10 years ago, not all of the States that permitted 

bear baiting intentionally regulated the baiting of bears. And because baiting could be thought of as on National Forests, a couple 

of forest supervisors, one in Idaho and one in Wyoming, in States 

that had really no regulations on bear baiting, decided that they 

would control the practice by issuing special-use permits. So you 

had to have a special-use permit if you were a hunter and you 

wanted to put out bait. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that still the case right now? 

Mr. LENZINI. That has been changed. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So you don’t need a special permit? 

Mr. LENZINI. That gave rise to the litigation. What happened was 

the Forest Service saw that this practice was being regulated unevenly across the country. In some States, you needed a special-use 

permit on a National Forest. In most States, not. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Special-use permit in order to bait? 

Mr. LENZINI. In order to place bait on National Forest lands. So 

they decided a national policy would be in order. And they decided 

46

that the national policy should be one in which they continue the 

practice of deferring to State authority if the States regulated the 

baiting practice. If they didn’t, then the Federal Government would 

come in and the land managers would say, well, we are going to 

have special regulations because the State is not regulating. At 

that point, the States decided that they would have to regulate. So 

Wyoming and Idaho then introduced fairly intense baiting regulations. And the Forest Service decided that the national policy 

would be that the State, in the first instance, does the regulation, 

and if it falls short on a site-specific basis, then the Forest Service 

would step in and regulate the practice. And that--. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Does that mean that there are Federal standards for getting a permit to bait bears? 

Mr. LENZINI. The standards are now State standards and it is 

only when a site-specific situation occurs that a Forest Service officer decides, well, this is a problem here. But generally the standards and regulations of the State, of the States, are pretty close to 

what the Forest Service had in mind prior to 1995. For example, 

you have to be a certain distance away from a trail, a certain distance away from a stream because of the possible pollution. 

Mr. LENZINI. So at this point, the States that permit baiting pretty intensely regulate that practice. And the lawsuit arose over the 

allegation of the Fund for Animals that the move from special use 

permits to reliance on the States constituted major Federal action 

requiring full environmental analysis. The District Court and the 

Court of Appeals said, if it is Federal action at all, it sure isn’t 

major Federal action. NEPA is not applicable. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Baughman, I have a list of States that allow bear baiting, 

and it gives the bear population in those States from Alaska down 

to Wyoming and the number of bears that are harvested in those 

States. In Wyoming, the bear population is unknown. Can you give 

us an explanation for that? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Bears are a very secretive 

species and it is very difficult to precisely measure population numbers. Wyoming, in some areas of the State, has made some precise 

estimates of bear populations, and they know in given types of 

habitat roughly how many bears there are. To repeat that kind of 

estimate statewide and get a real good estimate, it would literally 

cost millions of dollars. In fact, the Congress, I believe, is putting 

money into the Department of the Interior’s budget to make a bear 

estimate in Glacier National Park, and I believe that is going to 

cost $1 million or $2 million for that one bear estimate. 

So usually, for States, it is more of a guesstimate where they 

have expanded from a small area where they have good numbers. 

They have expanded over a known bear habitat. So those are not 

real precise numbers you have for those States. Wyoming doesn’t 

use a number. Based on the studies where they have made the precise estimates, they have come up with characteristics of expanding 

and decreasing bear populations based on the age and the sex of 

the harvest, and they follow the bear harvest very closely. Every 

bear harvest has to be turned in to the game and fish offices within 

72 hours. So they are very closely monitoring population trends, 

but they do not really have a complete estimate. 

47

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. I am not sure of the source of the 

information that I am reading from, but it did say that Wyoming, 

and I would like to ask you if this figure is accurate, the number 

of bears harvested in the State of Wyoming was 324. Is that about 

right? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, those are precise figures. 

Those are collected through surveys of hunters. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. I have some more questions but I 

will yield first to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask our witnesses a couple of questions, I just felt compelled to register a procedural complaint about the Federal witnesses. 

As you know, under the rules of the Committee on Resources, all 

witnesses invited to testify at a hearing are required to file 75 copies of their written testimony within 48 hours of the hearing unless 

the Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, 

expressly extends this time period. 

In addition to written statements, all witnesses are required to 

submit other pertinent background information to better inform the 

Members of the qualifications of each witness. And the punishment 

to fail to meet this deadline is clear: The written statement may 

be excluded from the record and/or the witness may be barred from 

making an oral presentation. 

Mr. Chairman, I raise this procedural matter only because I believe that it has become far too common, if in fact the norm, for 

this Administration to fail to meet this requirement. Once again, 

testimony from the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service arrived late last night, which left virtually no time for the 

members or the staff of this Committee to consider the views of the 

Administration and formulate questions for the witnesses. 

This dereliction of responsibility is very frustrating, and I think 

essentially an insult to every member of this Committee and I don’t 

think we should continue it. After all, we are coequal branches of 

the Federal Government. And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that 

I think this Committee should take action or communicate our discontent with this Administration’s repeated recalcitrance and indifference to the rules of procedure. I know that all the other witnesses were able to meet the deadline and only the Federal witnesses were not. 

I know I could move to have the written statements excluded 

from the record, but I am not necessarily interested in doing that. 

I just wanted to mention this to you and see if we could do something to correct it in the future. It just seems to be becoming the 

norm rather than an exception. If you would comment on that, I 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I was not aware that 

the testimony was not given to us promptly. I think what we will 

do in the future is do what we can to help the witnesses run the 

maze of bureaucracy for approval of their statements in a more expedited fashion. 

I think this has been a problem, I don’t know if it has been a 

problem since the dawn of this institution, because I wasn’t here, 

but I think it has been a problem with every Administration and 

every agency and department since I have been in Congress. So 

48

maybe we can work together to help expedite the process of witnesses’ testimony coming to the Committee on time, certainly in 

the future, and I thank you for your statement. 

Mr. PALLONE. I would appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask a couple of questions. One, I wanted to start out 

with, I guess Mr. Hogan, with regard to the issue of the exotic cats. 

I was just a little confused about your testimony because you seem 

to give the impression that it was already illegal in some fashion 

for people to possess these exotic cats and that you were not in the 

position to enforce whatever law there was that prohibited it. That 

is not at all clear to me. 

In other words, it is not at all clear to me that this is a prohibited practice, and I guess my question is even if you think that it 

is prohibited, if you don’t enforce it, who is going to? 

Mr. HOGAN. Well, sir, maybe I can clarify the testimony a little 

bit, and I apologize for the confusion. 

Some of the species listed in the legislation are also listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Those species fall 

under that jurisdiction, and, therefore, if they enter into interstate 

or foreign commerce or there is a take of those species, the Lacey 

Act and the Endangered Species Act apply and, therefore, we have 

enforcement. However, it is not illegal for those species necessarily 

to be possessed in an individual State. 

Our jurisdiction kicks in again for those species under the Endangered Species Act and then when they enter into foreign or— 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, then, why would you be, or maybe you 

weren’t, but I got the impression that you were opposed to the bill. 

Are you opposed to the prohibition on possession? Because now you 

are saying some species are not, others are. Would you be opposed 

to the prohibition aspect of the bill? 

Mr. HOGAN. We have not taken a position necessarily on possession of the species. Our main concern is that under the bill, as 

written, they would fall under the law enforcement jurisdiction of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. Given our limited resources and the 

number of agents we have, we would like to concentrate on species 

actually in the wild. Most of these species are captive. 

Mr. PALLONE. I understand that and appreciate that, but the 

point for us is practical. We try not to be as bureaucratic. I guess 

you are not taking a position, but it seems to me that we have to 

make a decision whether the possession should be prohibited for 

these species and then we have to make a decision who is going 

to enforce it. 

I am not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me that your position is not very helpful. Because on the one hand you don’t take 

a position on whether they should be prohibited from possession, 

nor do you suggest who might do the enforcement, other than to 

say you don’t want to do it. Is that your position? 

Mr. HOGAN. Yes, that pretty accurately characterizes it. We are 

really not in a position to speak for other Federal agencies. We 

were asked specifically to respond— 

Mr. PALLONE. And you are not going to take a position for or 

against the actual prohibition on the possession? 

Mr. HOGAN. Right. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Then let me get to the bear baiting issue. 

49

My major concern here, and I don’t know if it has really been addressed by anybody so far, is the fact that it seems that there is 

a Federal policy on these Federal lands, or at least there is in certain circumstances, of not feeding wildlife. I said in my opening 

statement that it is inconsistent on the one hand to say that somehow it is not good policy in certain circumstances to be feeding the 

wildlife and then, on the other hand, allow bear baiting as a means 

of hunting or, as some have said, as a means of controlling the bear 

population. 

I just want to get some information. I don’t know who would answer it, necessarily, if you would, Mr. Baughman, about this policy 

and the inconsistency that I raised. If you would. 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pallone, I don’t see it as inconsistent. We had a large bear education program on living in 

bear country in Wyoming, and certainly people feeding bears puts 

people in close proximity to bears where they are in a hazardous 

situation. Having bears come into campgrounds or into rural areas 

and get food rewards from the presence of people puts bears in situations where they are a threat to people or a threat to their property. Both situations result in dead bears eventually. 

A baiting situation is entirely different. In a very remote location, typically, baits are placed, and you are not attracting the bear 

to people. In fact, a successful person hunting over baits does not 

want that bear to associate people with the presence of that bait. 

So it is an entirely different thing. 

I have heard a lot of talk about conditioning bears to these foods. 

If any of you own dogs, you know that you don’t have to condition 

your dog to a Twinkie or a donut or something. The first time you 

threw that object into the air, the dog recognized it as food and ate 

it. The fact is you have to make sure that there are not edible 

things there that those bears are coming into, being attracted to in 

an area where there is a human presence. 

Again, the baiting situation is a hunting situation. You don’t 

want bears to know there is a human there. You are actually trying to downplay that presence. Bears are attracted to food, period, 

whether there are humans there or not. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, could I just follow up a minute? 

I appreciate what you are saying. Again, I am not familiar with 

this type of hunting at all. We have bears, as Mr. Saxton pointed 

out, in the northwestern part of New Jersey, where the bear population is actually increasing and becoming a problem. But in my 

district I have not had any incidents. 

I understand you are trying to make a distinction, but it just 

seems to me that that doesn’t always work. In other words, it is 

almost like you are saying there are two different areas: There is 

one area on these lands where there are people, and there you 

don’t want them feeding the bears; but on the other hand, in these 

remote areas where you hunt it is OK, because, I assume, that is 

because if they come in they get shot. And so they are not a problem because they are dead. 

I don’t want to put it that bluntly but is that basically what you 

are saying? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. It really is. The kind of association people are 

going to have with bears, in the old days, when there were many 

50

bears along the roads in the national parks, there were almost 

daily conflicts with people being injured, bitten, and mauled by 

bears because you were putting people into close association with 

food and the bears. 

One of the biggest problems we have in Wyoming, and I am sure 

in rural New Jersey or California or wherever we are talking 

about, you have bears coming in to back porches to eat dog food. 

Mr. PALLONE. But what I am saying is, isn’t it possible if you 

start this practice of allowing the baiting, that some of the bears 

might get away and come back again and attack people and become 

a problem? Is there a strict separation that you point to? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. The separation is that the feeding of the bear in 

a dirty campsite or dirty rural area, that attracts bears to the presence of people. In the baiting situation the bear does not associate 

people with that situation. It is just strictly being attracted to food, 

which is a natural instinct of every bear, whether it is garbage or 

not, if they smell edible things. They are attracted to dead animals, 

they are attracted to donuts, they are attracted to toothpaste, corn, 

whatever. 

Mr. PALLONE. So it is the first instance, it is the actual presence 

of people— 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Correct. 

Mr. PALLONE. —that you don’t want them to get accustomed to? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Not associating people or people’s homes or 

buildings with food. 

Mr. PALLONE. Whereas in the second situation, with the baiting, 

they do not see the people? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Correct. If they see the people, smell the people, 

they are generally gone. In fact, the characterization of bear baiting, typically those bears approach—typically, a person sits over a 

bait that a bear has been using and nothing happens. The bear 

doesn’t show up. That is the most typical case. 

Mr. PALLONE. And you don’t see a situation where those two 

meet or there is a problem with overlap? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. No, I think it has been greatly exaggerated, conditioning bears to eating human type foods with the baiting situation. Because I think the bigger problem is bears are conditioned 

to eat anything that is edible. And if people don’t have clean campsites, clean homes in these suburban areas, they are going to attract bears. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK, thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I will pass. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So, Mr. Baughman, you would recommend that 

people going camping in wild areas not bring toothpaste with 

them? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. I see some posters over here, Mr. Chairman, but 

certainly— 

Mr. GILCHREST. How about Listerine, would that be better? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Anything like that. Beer. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Bears are attracted to beer? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Toiletries, soap, anything like that. We recommend if people are in known bear country that they are hanging 

51

these objects out of reach and then camping hundreds of yards 

from where food and those types of objects are stored. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I was hoping you could recommend that to reduce the weight in my pack the next time I go hunting in a wilderness area. 

Mr. Baughman, you said that bear baiting, in most cases, does 

not condition the bear or connect the bear or reduce the bear’s fear 

of humans, and I would assume that means if that is done correctly 

and appropriately. 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Mr. Chairman, a person baiting bears for hunting would not want that bear to associate a human presence with 

that site. Bears are very secretive animals, and if they associate 

people they are typically—as I say, in most cases, those bear hunters are not successful all the time. But if a bear comes in, it comes 

in very cautiously. If the wind switches where they scent a human 

presence or see movements, the bear is gone. That is the typical 

situation. 

Certainly they are much more wary than turkeys coming into a 

person calling turkeys or sitting in front of turkey decoys. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Estill, do you see any difference at all between—I was not here, so I am not sure how you testified on behalf 

of the U.S. Forest Service and their position on bear baiting. 

Ms. ESTILL. In general, we feel like the States have the responsibility for wildlife management. We have Memorandums of Understanding with each State. We work those things out in advance. 

We did have problems with bear baiting back until the mid1990’s, when we developed a policy that put some safeguards in the 

Forest Service regulations that said if a State was not ensuring 

that the management of those bear baits was done properly, we 

could close. Or if there was some sort of degradation of the Federal 

resource or danger to people, we could close those areas. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So each of the States that allow, and there are 

nine States that allow bear baiting, each one of those States has 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest Service? 

Ms. ESTILL. Yes. 

Mr. GILCHREST. In particular, for Forest Service land to deal 

with the management of bear baiting? 

Ms. ESTILL. Of all wildlife, including that particular kind of contact. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Of all wildlife baiting. Is baiting for wildlife on 

Forest Service land done for the management of that species, for 

example? Is it the management for the population of that species, 

for the safety of communities nearby? 

I guess if you could also give me some understanding of when 

you manage bear baiting with these various States through your 

MOU or you manage baiting of wildlife, do you have an MOU for 

whitetail deer in the same way you have for bears or migrating waterfowl or things like this? 

Ms. ESTILL. We have one MOU with each State that covers the 

whole waterfront on wildlife. 

Mr. GILCHREST. That covers the whole panorama. Is there a difference in the MOU between baiting bear versus baiting deer or 

snow geese or things like this? 

52

Ms. ESTILL. Each MOU with each State is different. What we 

have is a national policy on bear baiting for the Forest Service. So 

that if we have a problem with an individual State, we can fall 

back on that national policy and it details how we go about resolving the situation. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. The reason I passed a moment ago, I had just walked in after being caught after the last 

vote, so I wanted to collect my thoughts a little bit. Sometimes it 

takes longer for me than others to do that. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I just had one other question. I will yield to you 

your full time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. That is fine, go ahead. I just had two short questions for Ms. Estill. 

Mr. GILCHREST. OK, go ahead. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Correct me if I am mistaken, but during your testimony, a major part of the focus of the position of the Forest 

Service was predicated on your belief in the autonomy of the 

States; is that correct? 

Ms. ESTILL. In the States— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Autonomy as it relates to the issue of bear baiting or the issue of wildlife. 

Ms. ESTILL. Well, our position is that States traditionally have 

been and are responsible for regulation of wildlife. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. OK. Do the States pay for all the signs in the 

National Forest area that warn people about feeding bears or does 

the Federal Government spend any money at all in the policy of 

asking people to not feed the bears? 

Ms. ESTILL. I am quite certain the Federal Government puts 

fund into that. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So the Federal Government does take the responsibility financially and the authority to advise people not to feed 

the bears; is that correct? 

Ms. ESTILL. That is correct. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. OK. That being the case, if hunters should be allowed to set out food for bears in National Forests, why shouldn’t 

photographers and wildlife watchers also be allowed to set out food 

to increase their probability of getting a nice photo shoot? Ms. 

Estill? 

Ms. ESTILL. I don’t have an answer for you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GILCHREST. That is an interesting question, although I think 

it would be more fun to spend more time out there looking for the 

wildlife with your camera without toothpaste and other hygiene 

items. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. You don’t even have to have a hunting license, 

either. 

Ms. ESTILL. I suppose there is an answer to that, and it would 

go back to the State responsibility for managing the wildlife, and 

particularly managing hunting and managing the ways that that 

hunting is done in each State. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Very good response. It is an interesting, fascinating scenario. Although I don’t know if I would want to put 

53

more Twinkies out there than we already have for the photographers. 

Mr. Hogan, could you tell us from your perspective, I understand 

Fish and Wildlife’s hesitancy with Mr. McKeon’s legislation. Fish 

and Wildlife is already, to a large extent, stretched beyond its capacity and its resources. So adding another responsibility means 

you have to take people from other critical places. 

Can you tell us what you think, and this is not only a ballpark, 

this is the whole USA, so you can be as wide open as you want to 

be, but how many people do you think it might take to enforce this 

legislation, not allowing people to have or trade in these big cats? 

And if we did pass this legislation, well, when we pass this legislation, do you see the State Fish and Game, local organizations, 

local humane societies playing a part in monitoring and even in 

some cases enforcing this Federal law? 

Mr. HOGAN. Well, I don’t know that I will be able to give you the 

answer you are looking for, Mr. Chairman. We really don’t have a 

good idea how many of these cats are out there. So without knowing exactly how many cats there are, it would be difficult to say 

how many agents it would take. And, again, the way the bill is 

written does not prohibit possession, it only prohibits moving the 

cat in interstate commerce. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you suggest we prohibit possession as well? 

Mr. HOGAN. I am not prepared to say that for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you say there is a problem with these big 

game cats being housed in areas where people don’t have enough 

room, enough food, enough knowledge how to deal with them? 

Mr. HOGAN. In certain circumstances, it certainly seems there 

are some issues out there with people who are not educated, informed, and are not properly— 

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have recommendations if we do not pass 

the legislation as to what you would do? 

Mr. HOGAN. Well, again, our focus is again mainly on the wild 

species. We spend a lot of time looking for enforcements of violations of the Endangered Species Act, which does include four of the 

species listed. 

As far as the individual possession of those species in a State, 

I am not really prepared to suggest that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, or prepared to suggest to you what would be the proper 

way to address that. Our main concern is just that, as you appropriately noted, it would pull our limited resources off of the enforcement of some of the issues that we feel are much more high priority for conservation of those species in the wild and not focus on 

largely domestically raised, captive-bred species. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Can you give me an example of an endangered 

tiger? 

Mr. HOGAN. I am sorry, an endangered? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Tiger. 

Mr. HOGAN. Well, tigers are listed under the— 

Mr. GILCHREST. All tigers are listed under the Endangered 

Species Act? 

Mr. HOGAN. Correct. 

54

Mr. GILCHREST. What if somebody has a tiger in their backyard 

and somebody calls the Fish and Wildlife? They have possession of 

a tiger in their backyard, which is endangered, and somebody calls 

or gets in touch with you somehow? What do you do? 

Mr. HOGAN. Well, possession of the tiger wouldn’t necessarily be 

illegal. It would be if that person entered it into interstate commerce or if that person illegally took the tiger without a permit. So 

in the case if someone had a tiger in their backyard and they called 

us— 

Mr. GILCHREST. Under the take provisions of ESA why is possession of that tiger not illegal? 

Mr. HOGAN. I am sorry? I didn’t get the question. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Under the take provisions of ESA, why is possession of having that tiger in the suburbs of Los Angeles or some 

other place not illegal? 

Mr. HOGAN. Would you allow me 1 second to confer with one of 

our law enforcement agents to make sure I get this correct? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Take as much time as you need. 

Mr. HOGAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The Endangered Species Act 

doesn’t necessarily prohibit someone from possessing the tiger, especially if that tiger was, for example, raised from a cub in captivity. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The Bald Eagle is not endangered any more, 

right? 

Mr. HOGAN. No, it still is endangered. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Can I have a Bald Eagle in my house? If I had 

a Bald Eagle without a permit in my House, and somebody called 

Fish and Wildlife, what would happen? 

Mr. HOGAN. You would probably get a visit by some of our 

agents. 

Mr. GILCHREST. What is the difference between a Bald Eagle and 

a tiger? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. They are a lot bigger. 

Mr. PALLONE. And more dangerous. 

Mr. GILCHREST. All right, that is it. 

Mr. HOGAN. Well, Bald Eagle possession is actually prohibited 

not by the Endangered Species Act but by the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, so you wouldn’t be in violation— 

Mr. GILCHREST. So we need a Tiger Protection Act. We need language to protect the tiger in this legislation. That is good. I think 

we will make sure we put it in there then. So possession of a tiger 

in this legislation will result in a statute that makes it illegal? 

Mr. HOGAN. And that would be separate from the Endangered 

Species Act. Right now, possessing a tiger would not be a violation 

of the Endangered Species Act. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So there is a separate Federal law that protects 

the Bald Eagle as opposed to other endangered species? 

Mr. HOGAN. That is correct. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Are there any other endangered species that has 

that type of protection like the Bald Eagle does? 

Mr. HOGAN. If you give me one more second, I will find out for 

sure. 

55

Some species could be protected under either the Migratory Bird 

Treaty or Marine Mammals. I cannot give you the exact list right 

now, but I would be glad to supply that for the record. 

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. I was going to ask what is the difference between take and possession, but I will yield now to Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. I am going to ask Mr. Hogan another question. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We had a lot of discussion about the baiting issue and deferring 

to States on it, but my understanding is that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service prohibits baiting on refuge lands, with some exceptions for 

Alaska, for example, now. What is the rationale behind that policy? 

Because generally you seem to be saying you defer to the States. 

So why is baiting prohibited on refuge lands? What is the reason? 

Mr. HOGAN. Refuges actually are closed to all human activity unless they are specifically open, unlike BLM units or Forest Service 

units, which are actually open until closed. Now, in Alaska it is a 

little confusing in that refuges are the exact opposite. Under 

ANOCA, refuges are open to all activities until closed. So on the 

Fish and Wildlife Service refuge lands, we would literally have to 

have regulations to allow baiting. 

Refuges, comparatively, are much smaller in size than, say, 

National Forests or units of the BLM. So in that circumstance, on 

such a small area, bear baiting could actually work against some 

of the wildlife management objectives of the State. So that is why 

in general baiting is prohibited. And it is all baiting, and it is 

mainly targeted toward waterfowl. But all baiting of wildlife on all 

National Wildlife Refuges is closed in the lower 48, open in Alaska. 

Mr. PALLONE. Again, I understand your response and also Mr. 

Baughman’s response earlier, but it just seems to me there is a lot 

more interaction than you are suggesting. In other words, how does 

the bear know when it is on refuge land versus other land? And 

in terms of what Mr. Baughman said earlier, I was envisioning like 

a hiker, and you gave me this idea, which I understand about how 

the baiting is in remote areas and it is a different phenomena from 

where there are people. But there are hikers and other people that 

go in those remote areas. So it seems to me you would have circumstances where, if baiting exists, a hiker or someone might be 

exposed to a bear that has been baited and got away. 

But I guess you see those as more isolated situations, and you 

are looking at what you consider the more likely scenario. There 

may be isolated instances like that, but that is not the major concern, I guess. If either one of you want to respond, I don’t know. 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Mr. Chairman, in Wyoming, that is a good point, 

Mr. Pallone. 

In Wyoming, baits cannot be placed within 200 yards of any trail 

and within a half a mile of any campground. Before a lot of these 

regulations were in place, I know there were problems, but I think 

those problems have largely been rectified. And in fact the baits 

have to be identified as to whose bait it is, so if there is a problem 

occurring, whether it is a Forest Service employee or a Wildlife officer, they can get in touch with that person and have that bait 

moved. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

56

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Mr. Gallegly, any further questions? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Might I just have one brief follow-up question for 

Ms. Estill? Because I keep getting back to the issue of the States 

making decision on what is appropriate for bear hunting. 

If in fact you truly believe that the Federal Government should 

not be making these decisions, do you think, then, that it was unwise for Congress to pass the Federal Airborne Hunting Act that 

prohibited shooting from aircraft? That was preempting the States 

in that case. 

So what would be the difference in saying it is OK to prohibit 

one act but not OK to prohibit another act if your argument is 

predicated on a States versus Federal? 

Ms. ESTILL. I am going to defer to John to respond to that. I 

would just go back to there have been a number of bills and statutes that reinforce the States’ primary responsibility unless there 

is some danger to Federal resources. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Baughman, would you say it is unwise that 

we passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act? Do you think that 

was unwise? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gallegly, no, I don’t think it 

was unwise. In fact, flying aircraft in airspace is regulated by the 

Federal Government and I think they were regulating practices 

and the way airplanes are used. And in fact there are exceptions 

in there for wildlife management. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Baughman, you used the reference that the 

conduit there is that the Federal Government regulates airspace. 

I might remind the gentleman that the Federal Government also 

regulates Federal lands. This bill only has to do with Federal 

lands. It does not have to do with private lands within States. 

What is the difference? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gallegly, I can’t speak for 

the Congress, but I believe that there is human safety in terms of 

that method of flight and using aircraft. I believe there are safety 

factors there that do fall under Federal concerns. I don’t think the 

same concerns were there with the baiting of bears on the ground 

and in national forests. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I think the gentleman is making my argument 

for me if we are going to talk about Federal safety as well, because 

this is all about safety. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman answered the question. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. 

One more quick question for Mr. Hogan. Can you, in the coming 

days, give us, from your legal team, an explanation for the difference between take and possession? 

Mr. HOGAN. Well, I can actually give you that definition now. 

Take is actually killing or somehow taking the animal. Possession, 

in and of itself, is just simply having the animal in your possession. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Really? So we need to change that. Thank you 

very much. I appreciate everybody’s testimony. We thank the witnesses for coming today. 

Our next panel is Ms. Tippi Hedren, President of the Roar Foundation; Dr. Eric Miller, DVM, Director of Animal Health and ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:30 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87680.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
57

servation, St. Louis Zoo, and American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 

Good afternoon. 

Ms. HEDREN. Good afternoon to you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Miller, Ms. Hedren. Ms. Hedren, I hope you 

find us as fascinating as we find you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I doubt it. 

Ms. HEDREN. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. 

STATEMENT OF TIPPI HEDREN, PRESIDENT,

THE ROAR FOUNDATION 

Ms. HEDREN. I especially am very grateful to be here and I thank 

the Chairman and other members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. I am very grateful to my 

congressman, Buck McKeon, and George Miller, who introduced 

this bill a while ago. 

I am going to just tell you a little story about how I got started 

so that you will understand that I do have a validity in talking 

about these big cats and the danger that they provide us as pets. 

Thirty years ago, I did a film in Africa and became concerned 

about the diminishing numbers of big cats, wild animals in general, 

just due to encroaching civilization, sports hunting, and, of course, 

worst of all, poaching. We saw on the Ngorongoro Game Preserve 

a house that had been abandoned by a game warden because it 

flooded during the rainy season, and a pride of lion moved in and 

it grew to be the largest pride in all of Africa. 

During that time, also, environmentalists were saying if we don’t 

do something right now, the editorial ‘‘we,’’ about saving the wildlife, by the year 2000 they will be gone. A great deal of awareness 

was going out, and my then husband and I decided to make a film 

about wildlife and the problems, and we decided to use the great 

cat after seeing that house on the Ngorongoro Game Preserve. 

So we got back to California, the script was written, and we had 

full intentions of using acting animals and have a 9-month shoot, 

over and out. However, as soon as the trainers of these actors of 

these wild cats heard that we would be maybe using 20 cats at a 

time, 15, whatever, they just laughed at us and said you can’t do 

it because of instinctual dictates to fight. They suggested that we 

acquire our own animals to do the movie. 

Well, the first one was a rescue. A doctor in Mandeville Canyon 

in Los Angeles had purchased a little 8-week-old lion cub. Cute? 

Adorable? Oh, you bet. Fed it with a bottle, cuddled it, slept with 

it at night. By the time it was 7 months old, it had destroyed his 

house and it had taken a pretty good chunk out of him, and he was 

screaming someone take this unmanageable little beast off my 

hands. 

That was the beginning. Then we heard about several other little 

animals that needed a home. Pretty soon, we had seven of them, 

and we boarded them at a place that was one of the animal trainers. Then we heard about some excess zoo animals, excess older circus animals, animal parks. But the common denominator was the 

private citizen who had purchased this little cub or a little animal 

and found out they couldn’t handle it. 

58

In fact, it had become such a major, major issue with these 

animals that our 9-month shoot became 5 years, just because of a 

lot of accidents that we had. I was bitten in the back of the head 

by a lioness, my daughter was scratched severely in the face—

thank God for wonderful plastic surgeons—our director of photography was scalped, my stepson was bitten in the head. I mean it 

just goes on. 

I have three books of evidence that I took out of my files—I 

didn’t bring them all because I would have had to bring the whole 

cabinet—that I would like to enter into the Congressional Record, 

along with my testimony. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. 

[The three books referred to have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Ms. HEDREN. Thank you. And the attacks don’t stop. A little boy 

in Texas, who had put his arm in to scratch the tiger that belonged 

to his uncle, the tiger ripped the little boy’s arm off. They retrieved 

the arm. It took 11 hours to attach the arm, and he has very little 

use of it. 

A little 11-year-old girl was brought into a tiger’s cage, again in 

Texas, by the stepfather. The tiger jumped the little girl, bit her 

in the neck and she was instantly dead. The real father was on television, tears rolling down his face, saying why aren’t there laws 

to prevent this kind of a problem? A woman in Colorado had her 

arm ripped off. It doesn’t stop. 

The whole situation has become of such a concern that about 5 

years ago we formed an association, a number of us who have a 

sanctuary type of facility. And that means no breeding, no buying, 

no selling, no trading, no commercial use, perimeter fencing around 

this, and not just an 8-by-10 cage but a habitat, with adequate veterinary care. Not all veterinarians are capable of taking care of 

these animals. We formed an association called the American Sanctuary Association so that if the Shambala Preserve can’t take an 

animal because we are filled, and we are always filled, there is a 

waiting line to come into these sanctuaries, but if I can’t take an 

animal, I can call another one and I know that that animal is going 

to be safe and not end up in some horrible situation or in a canned 

hunt. And of course you know what the canned hunts are about. 

I don’t have to go into that with you all. 

But this situation has become very bad. We have a lion who was 

living in a basement outside of Branson, Missouri; another little 

lion who was walking down the streets of Kirksville, Missouri all 

by himself; a little black leopard who was abandoned in a garage 

in the bitter cold month of February in Wyoming. All four pads 

were frost bitten. She lost 4 inches off her tail due to frost bite, was 

undernourished, and was one angry little animal when she came 

to us. It took almost 4 years before she wouldn’t come flying at the 

fence at us she was so angry and so frightened. 

We have 67 animals at the moment, and every single one, or 

many of them came from, excuse the expression, the ‘‘Tiger Rescue’’ 

out in southern California, in the Riverside area. That is an area 

of California where just recently it was exposed that this man 

named John Weinhart had been keeping these animals for approximately 30 years. 

59

I went there 5 years ago and left in tears. Because of the American Sanctuary Association, it is important we check out different 

places to see if they were a sanctuary or what they were like. At 

this particular one I was very upset and appalled by what I was 

seeing. First of all, the fencing was not adequate, there was very 

little shelter for the animals. This was basically lions and tigers. 

There were dead chickens, green with mold, feathers and feces and 

the stench was horrible. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Where was this? 

Ms. HEDREN. It is in the Riverside area. It is called Colton. It 

was owned by a man named John Weinhart. He is no longer involved in it. The Fund for Animals has sort of taken over. 

Last November, Fish and Game called and asked if I could take 

13 tiger cubs that were found at John Weinhart’s place. He didn’t 

have a breeder’s permit, therefore they could confiscate the 

animals. I said I don’t have room for them, I will talk to my staff 

and see if we can take several of them, and we did take three. They 

all came in sick. They all had a terrible case of mange, which is 

a very, very communicable disease. All of our animals are in quarantine for a month, but we had to keep them in for 2 months. 

Apparently, the Weinharts home, just about 2 months ago, Fish 

and Game heard there was another tiger there. They went to check 

it out and they not only found that tiger, a young tiger sitting on 

the veranda or something, but they found two Cayman alligators 

in the bathtub; they heard scratchings in the ceiling, they opened 

the vent and a little tiger cub fell out, about 2 weeks old. There 

were nine tiger cubs and two leopard cubs up in the vent that they 

were trying to hide. This man has been breeding these animals to 

sell. There was a truck loaded with tiger skins. There were carcases of almost 20 tigers at their home, around their grounds, 

skinned. 

This is the sort of thing that has got to stop. There was another 

place in Idaho where there were 18 cats running free, just because 

the fencing was so poor, and the whole facility was falling down. 

There is another place in west Kansas with the same kind of situation. 

I don’t know how many breeders there are, but because there are 

not laws, this is why this is happening. It is happening because nobody is stopping them. And the statement was made that there 

aren’t enough investigators or there aren’t enough people to stop 

this. That should be addressed, too, and should be rectified. Because until this whole issue is stopped, there are going to be more 

people hurt, more children killed. 

It is an unconscionable act that is going on, and you, the Congress, have the capability of stopping it. I wish I could. God knows, 

I wish I could. You do. And there isn’t a reason in the world that 

these animals should be pets. They are dangerous. And, to me, in 

the vernacular of today, it is a no-brainer. You have the capability. 

You in the House, you in the Senate, you have the capability of 

doing something about this, and I urge you so fervently to vote in 

favor of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

Ms. HEDREN. I thank you so much for inviting me to be here 

today. This is a cause I have been working on for 7 years. I have 

60

been to Washington often talking about it, and to be here is a mission I feel accomplished, and I hope you will react on it. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We will, Ms. Hedren. And your passion has been 

eloquently expressed. 

Ms. HEDREN. Thank you. If there are any questions, I would be 

delighted to answer them. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hedren follows:]

Statement of Tippi Hedren, President, The Roar Foundation 

Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I am very grateful to you for electing to conduct a hearing 

on H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. I am especially grateful to my Congressman, Buck McKeon, and to Representative George Miller for introducing this 

important legislation. This bill, if enacted, would fulfill a dream I have had since 

the mid–1990’s: to see a Federal law adopted to promote public safety and to prevent the abuse of wild cats kept as pets. 

For 30 years, since I began working with big cats, I have been amazed that there 

are no Federal laws uniformly regulating the transport of wild and exotic species 

kept as pets by private owners across the United States. Consider: 

Near Houston, Texas, on March 15th, 2000, four-year-old Jayton Tidwell watched 

his uncle reach into the cage of the 400-pound Bengal tiger named Cheyenne he 

kept in the back yard. Little Jayton wanted to pet his uncle’s beautiful tiger, too. 

The tiger responded by tearing off Jayton’s arm. 

Doctors reattached the arm after eleven hours of surgery, but to date Jayton’s 

right arm remains largely useless. However, Jayton was lucky. Other children lose 

their lives to big cats recklessly kept as pets. In October, 2001, on a farm outside 

Lexington, Kentucky, one of the three pet tigers kept by Kerry Quinney snatched 

his three-year-old grandson Matthew Scott from his arms as they were having their 

picture taken in the tiger pen. Matthew died of massive head injuries after the 250-

pound tiger dragged him around the pen. 

Adults are also killed or maimed. In April, a woman who had six years’ experience 

handling the big cats suffered a fatal loss of blood when a tiger ripped off her arm. 

A volunteer at Safari Joe’s Rock Creek Exotic Animal Park in Adair, Oklahoma, she 

was working outside the cage when the tiger managed to grab her. 

Vince Lowe died at Savage Kingdom, an exotic animal ranch in Center Hill, Florida, where he volunteered as a way to gain experience for a state certificate to handle big cats. On August 1, 2001, Lowe was cleaning the cage of a 500-pound Siberian tiger named Tie when the animal tore out of an interior retaining cage to seize 

Lowe by the neck. 

Gene Light’s pet tiger Rufus, who lived in Light’s back yard in Lubbock, Texas, 

attacked him in May, 1999. The tiger dragged him down and bit his head, ripping 

out his jaw and right ear. 

These are only a few of the incidents involving big cats and people. I learn of horrific stories such as these repeated again and again around the nation. At 

Shambala, which over 30 years ago was the location in Southern California for a 

film to raise awareness about animals in the wild, we suffered our share of injuries 

when we were learning about the big cats. During the filming of our movie ROAR, 

a lioness pinned me down and held the back of my head in her jaws, requiring over 

50 stitches. My daughter, actress Melanie Griffith, had her face deeply scratched by 

a lion’s claws. Our Director of Photography, Jan de Bont, had his scalp peeled back 

by a lion. Our set photographer, Bill Dow, was hospitalized for nine days with a 

gash in his arm inflicted by a lion’s jaws. My stepsons John and Jerry Marshall 

were bitten on the head and the foot, respectively. Perhaps most frightening of all, 

our Assistant Director, Doron Kauper, was very nearly killed by a lion that repeatedly leapt at his throat. We learned the hard way, and we don’t want to see others 

learn from our bitter and painful experience. 

Injuries and deaths, when they occur, are never the fault of the animal. They are 

the fault of the person who puts himself or herself, or someone else, in jeopardy, 

and allows the animal an opportunity. Fortunately, we lived to tell the tale, learning 

our lessons about these animals from making ROAR. We are living proof that these 

animals should not be pets. 

When an attack occurs, the animal is merely acting according to its instinctual 

nature as a predator. We can never fully understand or control these instincts. More 

importantly, we deceive ourselves-dangerously-by believing wild animals such as big 

cats can ever be ‘‘tamed,’’ that is, taught to abandon their instincts. 

61

After completing ROAR, we had become a very important facility for rescuing big 

cats. State fish and wildlife departments all over the United States called us to take 

abandoned animals, as did officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, humane societies and SPCAs, circuses, zoos, and most of all, private citizens who had 

purchased a big cat as a pet. In 1983, I formed the Roar Foundation, a 501(c)(3) 

nonprofit organization, to financially support the Shambala Preserve. We had become a sanctuary with very stringent rules: no buying, no breeding, no trading, no 

selling of animals, and no commercial use. 

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act seeks to prevent the interstate transport of big 

cats for the pet trade, and it will curb the frequency of human injuries by shrinking 

the number of people who live with these animals. Exceptions are provided to allow 

for accredited facilities, such as zoos, sanctuaries, and humane societies, to keep 

these animals. 

Only 34 states have laws of any kind regulating the possession of wild and exotic 

animals. Only 17 of those states, such as California, have stringent laws that truly 

protect the public, laws with teeth. Even then, those laws may not be enforced due 

to budget constraints. The Federal Government can help protect people and the big 

cats by adopting a law to complement state efforts, and to fill a gap where no state 

laws exists. 

At Shambala, we recently built a new enclosure at a labor cost alone of $20,000 

for three young tigers. These animals survived being bred at a deplorable facility 

in Colton, California, called, ironically, ‘‘Tiger Rescue,’’ which currently houses 72 

tigers on seven acres. The leopard we rescued from this facility also needs a compound built for her. The California Department of Fish and Game originally asked 

Shambala to take 13 tiger cubs that had been bred at the facility illegally. The Department of Agriculture asked us to take three intact male tigers that have impregnated four tigresses. We expect that many more pregnant tigresses will be discovered over the coming year. Due to financial and space constraints, we had to decline 

to take these animal refugees. 

The operator of ‘‘Tiger Rescue,’’ John Weinhart, made national news recently 

when Fish and Game agents entered his home. In addition to coming across 58 tiger 

cubs in a freezer, the authorities found the skinned, rotting carcasses of many adult 

tigers littering the property, along with a truckload of tiger pelts. Weinhart appears 

to be a man who profited by breeding and selling tigers and their parts under the 

guise of ‘‘rescuing’’ them. A live tiger may be sold for less than the cost of purebred 

puppy, but its dismembered parts may yield more than $10,000, making them worth 

a lot more dead than alive. 

The trade in wild and exotic species grows larger each year. In addition to selling 

skins and other body parts, traders make money breeding the animals for sale to 

the public as pets or to canned hunting facilities. At a canned hunt, for a fee of 

three to twenty thousand dollars or more, a so-called ‘‘hunter’’ can shoot a captive 

animal at close range for a guaranteed trophy. 

Experts say the demand has created a cottage industry for breeding tigers and 

other big cats as pets, performers, or for canned hunts. When uncontrolled, such 

breeding creates conditions that make abuse of wild and endangered species almost 

inevitable. 

‘‘Once there are tigers in private hands, the production is going to go skyrocketing,’’ states Richard Farinato, director of the Captive Wildlife Protection Program of the Humane Society of the United States. ‘‘The result is too many cats, too 

little space, and ‘‘’’ tigers in places where there is no way they can care for them 

well.’’

In one form or another, such deceptive ‘‘rescue’’ operations as Weinhart’s can be 

found throughout America, especially in the Midwest. Operations such as 

Weinhart’s flourish because both state fish and wildlife agencies and state agriculture departments do not have the investigators they need to enforce the laws. 

These false ‘‘rescue’’ facilities that breed animals for commercial use often justify 

their activities by claiming they are preserving endangered species. In fact, they are 

not the answer to the tiger’s survival, since these individuals are not involved with 

any reputable species survival plan. Accredited zoos call these crossbred tigers 

‘‘mutts.’’ Unregulated breeding can lead to birth and genetic defects, compromised 

immune systems, and shortened life spans for the animals. ‘‘The tigers that you find 

in the private sector will never, ever, be introduced into the wild, and I doubt that 

they have any value for either conservation or research,’’ according to Ron Wilson, 

director of conservation at the Minnesota Zoo and coordinator of a nationally adopted Tiger Species Survival Plan that carefully controls captive breeding of tigers in 

zoos across the country. 

While all tigers are protected under the Endangered Species Act, mixed-breed tigers are subject to less stringent regulations, including being allowed to be sold 

62

under some circumstances. Purebred tigers cannot legally be sold through interstate 

commerce, and their owners must obtain Federal permits. Owners of generic tigers 

are not required to have Federal permits, according to Tim Santee, a special agent 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These loopholes create, ‘‘a second-class citizen of endangered species,’’ vulnerable to black market sale and mistreatment, said 

Craig Hoover, deputy director of TRAFFIC, which monitors illegal trade in exotic 

animals for the World Wildlife Fund. 

Increased trade in wild and exotic animals creates a growing crisis for sanctuaries. To be considered a sanctuary like the Shambala Preserve, a facility must 

be outside city limits, provide proper veterinary care, have habitats and a surrounding perimeter fence, ban commercial use of the animals, and forbid buying, 

breeding, selling or trading animals. Any animal accepted at a sanctuary will be 

protected, cared for, and given a home for the rest of his or her natural life. But 

the need far outstrips the capacity of the sanctuaries. Zoologists and veterinary experts estimate that the number of wild and exotic animals living in backyards in 

the United States far exceeds 50,000. More tigers live in the state of Texas than 

in their native habitat of India. Texas contains the majority of the breeders and half 

of the 1,000 canned hunts in the U.S. 

My desire is not to take the animals away from their current keepers, but to prevent the trade from continuing to put people and big cats at risk. I should emphasize that at no time have I proposed or endorsed any state or Federal legislative 

measure that would prohibit ownership of wild and exotic animals or require that 

animals be confiscated across the board from their present owners. Where would we 

put them all? Our sanctuaries are already overburdened. Such a scenario would be 

a nightmare, likely resulting in many thousands of innocent animals being 

euthanized and a large increase in deaths and injuries to humans due to huge numbers of animals having to be moved. Rather, my approach has been, both with the 

Shambala Wild Animal Protection Act and the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, to keep 

wild and exotic animals out of the hands of those who would cruelly exploit them 

or fail to protect the public from the dangers they present. 

How does an ordinary citizen obtain an extraordinary animal such as a lion or 

tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or mountain lion, the large cats covered in the Act? 

It is surprisingly easy. Wild and exotic animals of all types are available every 

day through newspaper ads, on the Internet, or in person from a breeder, who may 

be selling cubs out of the back of a van at a local mall. In some states it is more 

difficult to obtain a dog license than to keep a lion or tiger in your back yard. The 

cute and playful cub has likely had its claws removed and will be touted to an unwary buyer as a ‘‘good pet.’’ A breeder attempted to illegally sell two Bengal cubs for $10,000 each at a fashionable mall in Newport Beach, California. After they were confiscated, Shambala 

became the home to one of the tigers, Tamara, who has lived healthily at the preserve for many years. However, her sister died, as both were sick upon arrival. 

Spider, Dagger, and Whitey, three brothers who are a mixture of Siberian and 

Bengal tiger, were bred in Nevada. The breeder used them in television commercials 

when they were 6-weeks-old cubs. Had we not intervened to give them a home, they 

would have then ended up doing such things as providing photo opportunities in 

shopping malls. 

Boo, a black leopard, has a reputation as the most vicious cat at Shambala. He 

came from a private owner who kept him locked in a closet to protect the furniture. 

The owner donned heavy gloves to wrestle with him when he was let out, turning 

him into a potentially highly dangerous cat. Boo came to the preserve as one very 

angry animal. Over the decade of loving and respectful care he has received at 

Shambala he has gradually become less hostile to humans. But to take him for 

granted, even today, could be a terrible mistake. Only a few months of abuse can 

mark an animal for life. They never forget. 

Within a matter of weeks the buyer of an adorable, cuddly cub is likely to rue 

the decision as it becomes apparent that the rapidly growing animal is unmanageable, dangerous and destructive. The average person doesn’t know the rigorous and 

expensive care that exotic species require, nor are most veterinarians familiar or experienced with their specialized needs. 

A desperate owner’s choices are few, and may be grisly. Zoos will not take an 

animal without knowing its genetic history. State fish and wildlife agencies do not 

take in animals or routinely find them homes. Humane societies and community 

animal shelters generally deal exclusively with dogs and domestic cats. Thus, the 

animal might be euthanized, abandoned, or sold to an animal dealer, no questions 

asked, from where it may likely go to a canned hunt. Tigers are banned from such 

hunts under the Endangered Species Act, but the lure of the profits they can generate as prey may be irresistible. ‘‘The message is, if you’ve got the money, we can 

63

provide it for you,’’ says Michael Markarian, president of the Fund for Animals. ‘‘For 

$400 or $500 you can buy a tiger off the Internet,’’ Markarian notes. ‘‘And if it’s 

that easy for someone who wants to have a tiger in their backyard to buy it, it’s 

just as easy for someone who wants to shoot that animal to get it.’’

Luckier animals find space in a sanctuary. A few years ago, to coordinate the rescue efforts of sanctuaries around the country, a number of true sanctuaries formed 

the American Sanctuary Association, a network of 40 facilities that follow a uniform 

practice code of no buying, breeding, selling, or trading. Furthermore, to qualify as 

a sanctuary with the ASA, the facility must allow no commercial use of the animals, 

have proper veterinary care, be outside city limits, be completely surrounded by a 

perimeter fence, and keep animals in habitats, not just cages. 

With the leopard, Savannah, and the three young tigers we accepted from ‘‘Tiger 

Rescue’’ in Colton, our total population at Shambala now comes to 63 large cats and 

one African elephant on 40 acres. We are at capacity, as are most sanctuaries nearly 

all of the time. A week seldom goes by that I am not approached to take additional 

animals. Accredited sanctuaries all over the United States are filled, with more than 

400 animals waiting to come into sanctuary. Each animal’s care at the Shambala Preserve averages $12,315 per year, out of a total annual budget of $825,000. Our budget is nearly $70,000 per month to feed 

and house the animals, not including rebuilding, repairing, or expansion. For desperately needed improvements in our buildings and property, we need an additional 

$1 million. 

Throughout its 30 year history, Shambala has existed entirely on private donations, including my own. I have never been paid as the Director of the non-profit 

preserve, the President of the Roar Foundation that supports the preserve, or the 

President of the American Sanctuary Association. Those who share this vision and 

this cause possess a selfless dedication and willingness to sacrifice financial reward 

out of devotion to rescuing animals. We certainly don’t do it for the money. We do 

it for the love of these animals and to respond to this crying need for help. As such, 

passage of this Act will be a necessary reward and encouragement to those who 

have given their lives to the welfare of wild and exotic species. 

When a state department of fish and wildlife or a state agriculture department 

wants us to take an animal, it almost never sends funds to help us maintain the 

animal. We must make a commitment to feed, shelter and care for that animal for 

the rest of its natural life (which can be as long as 20 years or more) with no money 

attached. Yet the government has failed to pass laws to stem the growing tide of 

wild and exotic animals, many of which are destined never to find a safe, permanent 

home and thus may be subject to atrocities such as occurred at ‘‘Tiger Rescue.’’

The House of Representatives—starting with the members of this Committee—

can bring help to alleviate this crisis by passing the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. It 

is a bipartisan, common sense measure to safeguard the public and prevent harm 

to animals. It will help stop a largely underground and in many cases criminal economy that breeds, trades and butchers wild, exotic, and often endangered species. 

This inhumane, irresponsible traffic in wild and exotic animals can be stopped. 

The atrocities and accidents I mentioned earlier occurred only because nobody 

stopped them. 

I love these animals more than my next breath, but they are not pets. Not one 

more child should be hurt or killed. Not one more person of any age should suffer 

the physical pain, debilitation, and emotional trauma of an attack. 

I urge you to act responsibly. Pass the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. 

Mr. GILCHREST. There will be. We will let Dr. Miller go first, and 

then we will ask both of you some questions. 

Dr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC MILLER, DVM, DIRECTOR OF 

ANIMAL HEALTH AND CONSERVATION, ST. LOUIS ZOO, 

AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION 

Dr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunityto testify on behalf of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the 

AZA, in support of the bill 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. 

This is a much-needed bill designed to prohibit the interstate and 

foreign commerce of tigers, lions, cheetahs, cougars, leopards, and 

jaguars for use as pets. 

64

My name is Eric Miller and I am a veterinarian, and currently 

the Director of Animal Health and Conservation at the St. Louis 

Zoo. Before I begin with the AZA testimony, I would like to also 

request that the written testimony of the American Association of 

Zoological Veterinarians, which represents over a thousand veterinarians caring for zoo animals and wildlife in the United States, 

be entered in the hearing record. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. 

[The statement of the American Association of Zoological 

Veterinarians submitted for the record follows:]

Statement of Wilbur Amand, V.M.D., Executive Director,

American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, on H.R. 1006

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify this morning on a very 

important piece of legislation, H.R. 1006—the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. 

My name is Wilbur Amand. I am a veterinarian and the Executive Director of the 

American Association of Zoo Veterinarians (AAZV). 

The AAZV is comprised of approximately 1200 veterinarians working in the field 

of veterinary medicine dealing with captive and free-ranging wild animals. As an 

advocate for the profession, the mission of the Association is to improve the health 

care and promote conservation of captive and free-ranging wildlife. 

The Veterinary Standards Committee of the AAZV has established Guidelines for 

Zoo and Aquarium Veterinary Medical Programs. These Guidelines were drafted in 

response to the highly specialized medical needs of captive wild animals. The veterinary medical program requires accessibility to an adequately trained and experienced veterinarian and qualified personnel, sufficient resources to support staff and 

implement the program, and access to hospital facilities appropriate for the number 

and types of animals housed at the facility. 

Today in the U.S. there is an active pet trade in wild animals. Exotic and wild 

animals have become increasingly popular as pets and large cats (tigers, lions, 

cougars, jaguars, cheetah) are in high demand. There are an estimated 10,000–

20,000 large cats in private hands in the U.S., with approximately 5,000–7,000 tigers, (The Humane Society of the United States, February 2003). 

As veterinarians specifically trained to care for exotic and wild animals, the AAZV 

is sensitive to the specialized needs of these animals as well as the dangers of handling these animals and the tremendous expense to provide appropriate care. 

Exotic and wild animals when kept as pets, often suffer from poor health either 

due to inadequate nutrition, poor husbandry or due to various surgical procedures, 

such as declawing and dental extractions, performed for the sole purpose of trying 

to turn a wild animal into a pet. Many practicing domestic animal veterinarians 

lack the training and experience to effectively prevent and treat health problems in 

exotic and wild animals. 

Exotic and wild animals are not suited to be kept as pets. The average private 

owner lacks the expertise and facilities to provide appropriate housing, secure containment, adequate nutrition, appropriate medical care and cannot meet the complex social, emotional, and behavioral requirements of these animals. 

The AAZV is in agreement with the positions of the American Veterinary Medical 

Association, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care on the 

private ownership of wild animals as pets. 

AAZV’s Position: 

Based on the experience and knowledge of our member veterinarians, who specialize in providing medical care to exotic and captive wild species, the American 

Association of Zoological Veterinarians (AAZV) believes that nonhuman primates, 

large carnivores and venomous reptiles should not be kept as pets. 

The AAZV believes keeping and trading exotic and captive wild animals can cause 

serious problems including: (1) zoonotic disease transmission; (2) human injury and 

death; (3) compromised animal welfare due to inadequate knowledge and experience 

to meet the complex social, emotional, behavioral and physical needs of these 

animals; (4) medical problems due to inadequate veterinary care and poor nutrition; 

(5) abandonment, suffering or death due to insufficient financial resources to provide a safe and humane environment; (6) potential for escape due to improper transport, insecure containment or lack of proper equipment; (7) damage to wild popuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:30 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87680.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
65

lations of rare species due to over-collection, introduction of non-native species or 

exotic diseases. 

Dangerous wild animals should only be maintained by qualified, trained experts 

from accredited zoological institutions or other professionally operated and regulated 

facilities. Placement of abandoned pets in zoological facilities is difficult because of 

space, genetic diversity and social interaction concerns, and few sanctuaries that are 

qualified to care for these animals exist. 

The AAZV position on the private ownership of wild animals as pets is consistent 

with the statements of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 

Dr. MILLER. It is in close agreement with the statements I will 

give from the AZA. 

I would note from the Zoo Vet Association I am a past president 

and current board member, so I am closely aware of their interest 

in this bill. 

As for the AZA, I am also a member of their board of directors 

and a veterinarian adviser to the AZA Tiger Taxon Advisory 

Group. In that role, I have had the good fortune to work in the conservation of South China tigers in Asia. 

AZA represents 212 professionally managed and accredited institutions, which draw over 136 million visitors annually, and we 

have more than 5 million zoo and aquarium members. We collectively care for over 800,000 wild animals. Many of these are extremely dangerous and require our expertise. In our collections, 

AZA institutions have 300 lions, 450 tigers, 200 cheetahs, 140 leopards, 170 cougars, and 90 jaguars. Based on our member institutions’ unparalleled experience and expertise in dealing with these 

animals, the AZA firmly believes that large wild felids cannot be 

properly maintained by individuals without the necessary resources 

or knowledge to care for them. 

The wild cats identified in the bill 1006 have a very specific 

physical, behavioral, husbandry, health and nutritional needs 

which can rarely be met by someone holding these animals as pets, 

as has been so eloquently pointed out. These powerful, unpredictable animals should only be maintained by qualified experts from 

accredited zoological institutions or other professionally operated 

government regulated facilities. Curatorial staff in these facilities 

have the requisite knowledge and experience to meet the behavioral and physical needs of these animals and understand the inherent risks associated with caring for them. 

It is in this context that we express our support for this bill. This 

legislation takes direct aim at the dramatic increase in the number 

of unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining 

large wild felids as personal pets. According to most estimates, 

there are between 5,000 and 10,000 tigers in private hands in the 

United States, more than all their native habitats in Asia, where 

the numbers probably are below 5,000. 

Only 12 States have enacted outright bans on private ownership 

of these dangerous animals. Full enforcement of these bans has 

been inconsistent at best. The result has been a patchwork of laws 

and regulatory loopholes that have ultimately led to a thriving 

commercial trade in dangerous exotic animals as well as increased 

public safety and animal welfare concerns. 

The inconsistent enforcement of current regulations, coupled 

with this increasing demand, has fostered a not fully known but 

66

uncontrolled industry in exotic pets, especially large felids. Tiger 

cubs can be bought for as little as $300, about the price of a purebred house cat. Most of us have heard of the recent raid in a California home where the California State Department of Fish and 

Game found 30 adult lions and tigers and 58 cubs dead in a freezer. Allegedly, the adults were left to starve to death because they 

were no longer marketable to buyers, and the cubs were killed due 

to overproduction. 

In an unrelated event, a 3-year undercover investigation, led by 

Federal officials, uncovered a 16-member exotic animal ring in the 

Midwest that slaughtered dozens of Federally protected big cats for 

their body parts during the late 1990’s. 

As we have heard, private ownership of large felids also creates 

significant public health consequences. In the past 4 years, attacks 

by big cats either kept as private pets or in exhibited nonaccredited 

roadside zoos have killed at least 9 children and adults and injured 

uncounted others. Often in private homes, these animals are subject to unhygienic conditions that are both a public safety and 

animal welfare concern. 

Keeping these animals as pets without proper veterinary care 

husbandry increases the neighbors’ risk of contracting transmissible diseases from these animals. These animals are extremely 

dangerous in the hands of these private owners, and their presence 

in communities endangers neighboring adults, children and domestic pets. 

For the animals themselves, ignorance of their nutritional needs 

often leads to malnutrition. I brought with me, and would like to 

enter into evidence, pictures of a tiger cub that I personally treated 

that has folding fractures of one leg bone, which is typical of malnutrition, a lack of calcium in the diet. We get calls for, I am sure 

not as much as Ms. Hedren, but one case a month at our zoo, and 

our national association hears about 10 cases a month of people 

looking for homes for these maltreated animals. 

Dr. MILLER. I would note that unregulated breeding also raises 

the risk of genetic birth defects among large felids that have included skeletal metabolic problems, crossed eyes, and increased 

mortalities. These handicapped animals may eventually be slaughtered in order to rid them or sell their parts. In addition, typically 

these animals have no breeding or genetic records, and this does 

present a conservation issue for those of us that are trying to preserve them as a species. 

This is a problem for us, as you can tell, when pet owners abandon their animals at accredited zoos where we are looking for 

orphanages for them because they do not fit into our collections, or 

they do not fit our established breeding programs because of a lack 

of genetic background or they are socially misfit. 

Unfortunately, a typical case occurred in 1995 at the St. Louis 

Zoo when I was called in the middle of the night to retrieve a lion 

cub that had been abandoned as a pet and tied to the zoo’s gate. 

It was declawed and socially inept, and the zoo was unable to keep 

it as we already had a full contingent of lions. The animal was 

spayed to prevent further breeding and then was sent to a wildlife 

sanctuary in California specializing in large cats. However, it was 

never successfully reintroduced to other large cats in that facility 

67

and is now living out its life alone. It is an unfortunate outcome 

for the most social of large cats. 

The abandonment of unwanted animals is a common occurrence 

for AZA member institutions. We simply cannot take these cats due 

to limited space and our carefully managed genetic programs. In 

addition, caring for these discarded animals represents a huge financial burden that takes away from our limited resources normally directed toward animal care, conservation education, conservation science, and fields research. 

Mr. Chairman, as a zoo veterinarian and as a zoo professional, 

I believe to protect both animal and human welfare this unfortunate cycle must end, and this bill is the first logical step in a complex process. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment 

on this important public safety and animal welfare issue. I also 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:]

Statement of Eric Miller, D.V.M., Director of Animal Health and 

Conservation, Saint Louis Zoological Park, and Board Member, American 

Zoo and Aquarium Association, on H.R. 1006

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before you and the Subcommittee regarding H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. Before I begin, I 

would like to request that my written testimony on behalf of the American Zoo and 

Aquarium Association (AZA) be included in the hearing record. I also respectfully 

request that the written testimony of the American Association of Zoological Veterinarians be entered into the record as well. 

My name is Dr. Eric Miller, D.V.M. I am Director of Animal Health and Conservation for the Saint Louis Zoological Park and a member of the American Zoo 

and Aquarium Association’s Board of Directors. 

AZA represents 212 professionally-managed and accredited institutions which 

draw over 136 million visitors annually and have more than 5 million zoo and 

aquarium members. AZA institutions are the leaders in animal care and welfare, 

conservation science and conservation education. One of the cornerstones of AZA is 

its Species Survival Plan (SSP) program’a long-term plan involving genetically-diverse breeding, habitat preservation, public education, field conservation and supportive research to ensure survival for many threatened and endangered species. 

Currently, AZA member institutions are involved in 108 different SSP programs 

throughout the world covering 159 species, including African and Asian lion, three 

species of tiger—Siberian, Indochinese and Sumatran, clouded and snow leopard, 

cheetah and jaguar. 

It is in this context that AZA expresses its support for H.R. 1006. The bill is a 

logical starting point for addressing the public safety threats posed by the private 

ownership of certain wild and dangerous animals as pets, as well as the important 

animal welfare issues associated with the personal ownership of these animals. 

H.R. 1006 represents a much-needed step towards stemming the tide of the growing exotic animal pet trade. This legislation takes aim at the dramatic increase in 

the number of unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining large 

wild felids as personal pets. According to most estimates, there are between 5,000 

to 10,000 tigers in private hands as pets in the United States—more than there are 

in their native habitats throughout Asia. In addition, there are hundreds, and possibly thousands, of lions, cougars, and other big cats being kept as pets in small 

cages, on tethers in backyards, holed up in garages, and even living in people’s 

homes. 

Specifically, H.R. 1006 would amend the Lacey Act to prohibit the interstate and 

foreign commerce of dangerous exotic animals defined as lions, tigers, leopards, 

cheetahs, cougars, and jaguars for use as pets. This legislation would not ban the 

private ownership of these species. The legislation specifically exempts zoos, circuses, accredited sanctuaries, incorporated humane societies and others that are 

currently regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. 

Only 12 states have enacted outright bans on the private ownership of these dangerous exotic animals with seven other states enacting partial bans. Full enforceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:30 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87680.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
68

ment of these bans has been inconsistent. The result is a patchwork of laws, regulatory loopholes and a thriving commercial trade in dangerous exotic animals. There 

are hundreds of web sites and numerous catalogues that market exotic animals, including dangerous and powerful carnivores, as pets. 

The inconsistent enforcement of current regulations and increasing demand has 

fostered a dangerous underground industry in exotic pets. Tiger cubs can be bought 

for as little as $300, about the price of a purebred cat. The increasing demand for 

wild cats from exotic pet owners has fueled an industry of breeders who produce 

litters of large cats for sale, many times illegally in spite of USDA licensing requirements for breeding and Endangered Species Act protection for many endangered 

and threatened species of cats. These unlicensed breeders may engage in overproduction due to demand from exotic pet owners. In a raid of a California home 

in April of 2003, the California State Department of Fish and Game found 30 dead 

adult lions and tigers and 58 cubs found dead in a freezer. Allegedly the adults were 

left to starve to death because they were no longer marketable to buyers and the 

cubs were killed due to overproduction. In an unrelated event, a three-year undercover investigation by Federal officials uncovered a 16-member exotic animal ring 

in the Midwest that slaughtered dozens of Federally protected big cats for their 

body parts during the late 1990’s. 

Unregulated breeding also raises the risk of genetic birth defects including skeletal and metabolic problems, crossed eyes, and inflated mortalities. These handicapped animals may eventually be slaughtered in order to get rid of them or sell 

their parts. With unregulated breeding, these animals have no breeding or genetic 

record behind them. This is problematic when the pet owners abandon their animals 

at accredited zoos which are unable to introduce them into their legal breeding programs due to a lack of genetic background information as well as other constraints. 

This type of breeding decreases the genetic viability of the species and increases the 

risk of tainted bloodlines getting into American zoological collections and possibly 

wild populations. 

Private ownership of large felids also creates significant public consequences. In 

the past four years, attacks by big cats kept as private pets or exhibited in nonaccredited, roadside zoos have killed at least nine children and adults and injured 

uncounted others. Often in private homes, these animals are subject to unhygienic 

conditions that are both a public safety and animal welfare concern. Keeping these 

animals as pets without proper veterinary care increases the risks of neighbors and 

homeowners contracting diseases from the animals. These animals are extremely 

dangerous in the hands of private owners as pets, and their presence in communities endangers neighboring children, domestic pets and others. 

Collectively, AZA institutions care for over 800,000 wild animals on a daily 

basis—many of these animals are extremely dangerous. AZA institutions care for 

over 300 lions, 450 tigers, 200 cheetahs, 140 leopards, 170 cougars and 90 jaguars 

in our collections. Based on our member institutions’ unparalleled experience and 

expertise in dealing with these animals, the AZA firmly believes that large wild 

felids cannot be properly maintained by individuals without the necessary resources 

or knowledge to care for them. The wild cats identified in H.R. 1006 have very specific physical, behavioral, husbandry, health and nutritional needs, which would 

rarely be met by someone who possesses these animals for use as a pet. These powerful, unpredictable animals should only be maintained by qualified experts from accredited zoological institutions or other professionally-operated, regulated facilities. 

Curatorial staff in these facilities have the requisite knowledge and experience to 

meet the behavioral and physical needs of these animals and understand the inherent risks associated with caring for these animals. In addition, these facilities have 

the resources to provide the necessary housing, nutrition, veterinary care and 

enrichment to accommodate the animals’ special needs and to maintain them in a 

safe and humane environment. 

The draft AZA Guidelines for Large Felids in Captivity reinforces this position by 

stating in its section on Animal and Keeper Safety: ‘‘Large felids can easily cause 

injury or death to other felids or humans and great care should be used when raising young felids as they may become very tame toward humans, thus providing the 

opportunity for staff to get careless. It should not be forgotten that they are very 

capable of injuring their owners and that staff should not enter cages of juvenile 

or adult individuals no matter how tame they used to be as infants. Insuring that 

doors and gates are secure is critical, as is the constant checking of locks to insure 

animals cannot escape. A system of keeper labels on entrances will help insure that 

staff does not enter animal enclosures while animals are present. For personal protections, keepers should carry pepper spray.’’ The practices described are needed in 

any facility to ensure the humane and safe management of these animals. Such 

standards of practice are extremely rare in private homes. These animals are so difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:30 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87680.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
69

ficult to maintain that in the past two years exotic pet owners have abandoned hundreds of tigers at local animal shelters, sanctuaries and zoological facilities because 

they were no longer able to care for them. 

An unfortunately typical case occurred in 1995 at the Saint Louis Zoological Park, 

when I was called in the middle of the night to retrieve a lion cub that was abandoned and tied to the Zoo’s gate. It was declawed and socially inept, and the Zoo 

was unable to keep it as we already had a full contingent of lions. The animal was 

spayed to prevent further breeding of surplus lions and was then sent to a wildlife 

sanctuary in California specializing in large cats. However, it was never successfully 

reintroduced to the other large cats in the facility and is now living out its life 

alone. It is an unfortunate outcome for the most social of the large cats. This is a 

common occurrence for AZA member institutions. We simply cannot take in unwanted exotic cats due to limited space, our carefully managed genetic diversity programs among our populations and social interaction concerns. In addition, caring for 

these discarded animals represent a huge financial burden that takes away from 

limited resources which are normally directed towards animal care, conservation 

education and conservation science and field research. 

There is also emerging consensus on the part of animal welfare, public safety and 

professional organizations and the Federal Government concerning the need for concerted action to address the issue of large carnivores that are kept as pets. For example, the American Veterinary Medical Association ‘‘strongly opposes the keeping 

of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic 

of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.’’

The American Association of Zoological Veterinarians which represents over 1000 

veterinarians caring for zoo animals in the United States points out in their testimony that keeping and trading exotic and captive wild animals can cause serious 

problems including: (1) zoonotic disease transmission; (2) human injury and death; 

(3) compromised animal welfare due to inadequate knowledge and experience to 

meet the complex social, emotional, behavioral and physical needs of these animals; 

(4) medical problems due to inadequate veterinary care, poor nutrition, poor husbandry or due to various surgical procedures, such as declawing and dental extractions, performed for the sole purpose of trying to turn a wild animal into a pet; (5) 

abandonment, suffering or death due to insufficient financial resources to provide 

a safe and humane environment; (6) potential for escape due to improper transport, 

insecure containment or lack of proper equipment; and (7) damage to wild populations of rare species due to over-collection, introduction of non-native species or 

exotic diseases. 

Finally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has launched an information campaign to educate the general public about the inherent personal risks and animal 

care/welfare issues associated with wild cats as pets. The agency has released a position statement which states that only qualified, trained professionals should keep 

wild and exotic cats because the average person lacks the specialized equipment and 

expertise to provide properly for the containment, medical care, husbandry and nutrition of these animals. The statement concludes by illustrating a tragic cycle that 

has become all too common: ‘‘Large wild and exotic animals obtained as pets are 

usually acquired as appealing cubs, but when the animals are fully grown, owners 

become dismayed at the high cost and difficulty of providing for their upkeep. As 

a result of these difficulties, or because the animal has either attacked someone or 

otherwise shown aggression, the owners may try to find a new home for the animal. 

The subsequent placement of unwanted wild animal pets in zoos is difficult, if not 

impossible and few sanctuary facilities exist.’’

This unfortunate cycle must end and H.R. 1006 is the logical first step in this 

complex process. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on this important public safety and animal welfare issue. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

I do have a few questions to run through. Do either one of you—

you may have suggested it—have any idea, how pervasive this 

problem is around the country? 

Ms. HEDREN. All I can tell you is that it is enormous. Because 

of the fact that there are no laws, there aren’t agencies who can 

count how many animals are in existence. 

70

I am talking about lions and tigers and leopards and that sort 

of thing. I have heard estimates, depending on which organization 

you talk to, that there could be 50—tens of thousands, probably 

even 50,000 wild animals. I am not talking just cats, I am talking 

about—whether it is the python or whatever kind of wild animal. 

But the numbers are enormous. With these tigers that are coming out of Colton right now, there are three—the Department of 

Agriculture asked me 2 weeks ago if I could take three intact male 

tigers, which have already impregnated four females. One of them 

gave birth just 2 weeks ago to four cubs. 

There are three more that they know of, and they have no idea 

how many tigresses have been impregnated by these two male—

three male tigers. That alone is going to be an enormous situation, 

a problem of great concern to all of us who are trying to find homes 

for those animals. 

Dr. MILLER. I think I mentioned that the estimates are 5- to 

10,000. I would agree wholeheartedly, that is an estimate. It might 

be more than that. I think what is critical to remember, and for 

me and our association, where Federal legislation is helpful, some 

States regulate and some don’t. But what happens is, it just keeps 

moving to the unregulated States. 

And for the interstate commerce, the Federal Government does 

have the capability to do that. It would just be a huge and helpful 

first step to have that interstate trade regulated. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Are there any States that prohibit possession of 

big cats? 

Ms. HEDREN. Hawaii. Yes, there are. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I know my State prohibits it. 

Ms. HEDREN. There are a number of States that prohibit ownership. There are approximately 37 States that have laws about—and 

19 of them are stringent. California is one of them. That is why it 

is so amazing that this place in Colton was able to continue as it 

did. Nobody can figure that out. 

But it is simply because nobody did anything to stop it. But the 

laws are such that in—as an example, California has excellent 

laws. So if somebody is kicked out of California, they go right into 

another State that the laws are less stringent. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Miller, you said that there are more captive 

wild cats than there are wild cats in the wild. 

Dr. MILLER. Tigers. Tigers in Asia, the best estimate—and I am 

familiar with this because I worked on the South China tiger, 

which is possibly the most endangered—the estimates are 64 left 

in zoos and probably none in the wild. 

But if you put all the subspecies together, the Bengal, the Siberian, the Sumatran, numbers are certainly less than 5,000 and perhaps less than 3,000. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Are you saying— 

Dr. MILLER. Total population. Wild. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any possibility, or is there any plan underway to sort of, over a period of time, repatriate these animals 

that are captive to the wild? 

Dr. MILLER. Certainly—well, one of the problems with these tigers that we are talking about today is their genetics are unknown. 

They may be cross-breeds, they may be a mix between Siberian 

71

found on the Russian-Chinese border, and Bengal which is found 

in India, which has two different— 

Mr. GILCHREST. So you would never want to introduce those— 

Dr. MILLER. Unless we know the genetics. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Can the genetics be discovered in those specific 

animals? 

Dr. MILLER. In some cases we can with new DNA testing. Many 

we know from their genetics are cross-bred. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Would it be better to have, for future generation, 

to have some cross than to have none in the wild? 

Dr. MILLER. That is a good question. It is one that is hotly debated in the conservation community. We have chosen within the 

zoo community to carefully manage our population so that when it 

comes to repatriating Siberian tigers or Bengal tigers or Sumatran, 

that they are a pure subspecies with all of the benefits. 

I don’t think anyone is ready to say that, well, we are going to 

totally discard a cross-bred animal. It is certainly not the way we 

want to go now. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you like to see—the bill doesn’t prohibit, 

which I think we need to look into further as far as the Endangered Species Act is concerned and as far as actual possession is 

concerned—would you like us—what is your opinion on us going 

further to make it outright illegal to possess any type of wild cat? 

And the bill lists a number of exempted groups from this legislation. Do you think the number of exempted groups in the legislation is too broad? 

Dr. MILLER. I would have to address that with the AZA. I would 

like to see any—this is a personal opinion now—any bill have— 

Mr. GILCHREST. All legislation is based on personal opinion. 

Dr. MILLER. —strict regulations for what it would require. Like 

you have talked about the sanctuary movement now that has strict 

standards; that there would be strict and clear standards of what 

it would take to hold those animals. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Can you come up with those standards for us so 

we can take a look at them? We have some exemptions here, but 

some of the exemptions are animal shelters or societies for the prevention for cruelty to animals. They might not have the same kind 

of setup as a zoo, for example, would have. 

Dr. MILLER. That is correct. In my experience, most of those have 

been temporary way stations, the certified American Humane Society, or certified by other agencies. I think it is more important to 

make sure that they are certified by someone so that it doesn’t become a private owner saying, well, I am a humane society, or someone who is certified by a bona fide sanctuary movement that has 

some credentialing behind them, as we have done with the AZA 

zoos. 

There are 212 zoos that meet a standard that I am comfortable 

here defending. I would not defend every roadside zoo that may 

say, I want to hold a large cat. Not by any means. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. I am going to, at this point now yield 

to the gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For the 

record, I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I think that this is, to 

quote Ms. Hedren, a no-brainer. But one of the concerns that I had 

72

in listening to the testimony is, I think, Ms. Hedren, you said that 

currently 37 States have some form of legislation as it relates to 

this issue on the books now. 

One of the problems that we have is—and solving problems, is 

not always just getting the correct legislation but getting the enforcement mechanism to enforce the laws of the land. It is not limited to animal issues, it goes well beyond that. You can put a 65-

mile-an-hour speed limit on the freeway, but if there is no one 

there to enforce it, it really is moot. 

Do you feel that, while there are 37 States that currently have 

some form of legislation, that this Federal law not only would help 

the other 13 States but would also help the 37 States because of 

this issue of enforcement? 

Ms. HEDREN. Yes, I do think that it would help tremendously. It 

is vitally important that this happens. Otherwise this will continue. The breeding will continue. The sales as pets will continue. 

All of it will continue. It is vitally important that this issue is on 

a unilateral basis all of the way across this United States. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Miller, from an enforcement standpoint, while 

you have those laws out there, are they really being enforced? 

Dr. MILLER. It depends on the situation. But I can say on behalf 

of the AZA, and I also personally agree with it, we have lobbied 

Congress for more inspectors with the United States Department 

of Agriculture that inspects licenses to exhibit, and we have done 

the same for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I would hate to 

see lack of enforcement become the limiting factor. 

We would feel that—we want that enforcement. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. 

Ms. HEDREN. I do, too. I feel it is very, very important. I admire 

the laws that are existing in the States, that they are stringent. 

I do think that it makes a difference. I have heard people from 

States that the laws are stringent, they can’t believe, you know, 

what happens in the States that are lawless. They can’t believe it. 

It just doesn’t even seem possible that people would have these 

animals. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. In California—and you made reference to the operation, if you want to call it that, in Colton. And we know in the 

State of California that is there is a real economic crisis going on 

with being able to provide services to the people of California. 

Do you think that the enforcement aspect of this State—of course 

economic problems are not limited to California, although I think 

that ours sets a new record— but the fact is, with those economic 

situations, problems in California and other States, do you believe 

that this has been maybe one of the reasons that the operation in 

Colton may have slipped through the cracks? 

Ms. HEDREN. No, I think it slipped through the cracks a long 

time ago and nobody stopped him. That is what the problem is. I 

heard statements that he wouldn’t let inspectors in from, you 

know, the different inspectors, that he wouldn’t let anybody in to 

see what kind of damage was going on there. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. How do you prohibit an inspector, a law enforcement officer, how do you keep them from getting on your property? 

Ms. HEDREN. Well, I don’t know. Because they certainly come 

onto mine all of the time. They come onto the Shambala Preserve. 

73

Boy, if I have one nail out of place, I hear about it. And if that 

isn’t—if that nail is out of place, it is repaired immediately. But I 

don’t know, I don’t have an answer to that. I would like to hear 

the answers from Fish and Game and the Department of Agriculture about why this place was allowed to continue to go. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. It sounds to me that they are spending time in 

the wrong places. 

Dr. Miller. 

Dr. MILLER. Well, I was just going to add to that. I will use my 

own State as an example. If someone had bought a lion or a tiger 

from this Colton operation in Missouri, and they come to St. Louis 

City, we fortunately have a good local ordinance. 

But they can move to the next county and there is nothing that 

can be done about it, because it doesn’t violate the Endangered 

Species Act, it doesn’t violate any interstate trade. This legislation 

would allow us, then, if that person got caught, to say where did 

you get that? Trace it. It was from California. Now it is illegal. 

Right now that enforcement is not—there is not even the ability to 

approach that, let alone enforcement. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from 

Hawaii. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the 

lateness of my arrival. But I am so interested in what Mr. Gallegly 

is trying to accomplish. 

Mr. GILCHREST. This is not just—this is Buck McKeon’s bill for 

this panel. The next panel is Mr. Gallegly’s bill. You can ask Dr. 

Miller and Ms. Hedren about bear baiting, they may have an opinion. But this is not—you might want to wait until the next panel. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, I am interested in that. I am 

interested—I had assumed you had gotten through the first bill. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We got one more panel. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I see. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have any questions for this panel? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, I think I will wait and look at the 

record then, because I will probably go over ground that you already covered. 

Ms. HEDREN. I would like to interject that we have a mountain 

lion that came from Hawaii, who was brought in illegally into the 

State of Hawaii. And, because of the fact that had this little young 

mountain lion cub been taken to a veterinarian to give the shots 

that would keep its immune system safe, they didn’t take it to a 

veterinarian, and the little cub became ill and came to us with 

some sort of a muscle problem, and she wasn’t able to stand up. 

She would—if she took three steps, she would fall over. And what 

we did was, we tracked—we gave her all kinds of things to chase, 

whether it was a coconut or a bowling bowl or a big plastic ball or 

something for her to track. And now she can walk pretty well. She 

doesn’t fall over anymore. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I appreciate that. That is one of the points 

that I was—I didn’t want to burden the Committee with. But because of our situation in Hawaii, we have animals imported all of 

the time that are not supposed to be there. 

74

And this includes—we have all kinds of difficulties that way. We 

have no snakes there, for example; at least we are trying to keep 

them out, like the brown tree snake comes in. 

We have had to deal—our problem is that is the kind of thing 

that gets publicity, because it seems rather—it gets into pop culture, if you understand what I mean. It can attract the attention 

of the nitwit journalism shows, so that they can talk about why are 

they spending money trying to keep snakes out of Hawaii, as opposed to dealing with the real issue of trade in exotic animals, 

which tends to be something that they think goes on Animal Planet 

or Discovery Channel or something like that, whereas this is a 

really—there is a trafficking in this that is appalling. 

Ms. HEDREN. It is huge. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The consequences of it, of course, you are trying to deal with. So I am interested in the legislation, that we can 

deal with it. Particularly maybe just you can tell me one thing. 

Where do you see CITES in all of this? 

Ms. HEDREN. I don’t know that CITES is even an issue here, because the animals that I am talking about are born in captivity. 

They are bred and born to be sold as pets. Lions, tigers, leopards. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. It doesn’t get into the elixirs and exotic herbal 

compounds? 

Ms. HEDREN. Well, no, they are doing that too. In fact, the tigers 

outside of Colton in California that were being sold, that is exactly 

what happens to these animals. They are sold for their body parts. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is the point then, Mr. Chairman. I think 

this can get a lot more complicated—I don’t mean to diminish the 

pet side of it, but I am really concerned that this kind of thing can 

take place. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. 

Ms. Hedren and Dr. Miller, we appreciate your time and your patience with us today. And your testimony has gone a long way to 

improving our understanding as to what the problem is, and we 

will act expeditiously. 

Ms. HEDREN. I thank you so much. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

Our next panel will be the Honorable Ron Marlenee, the Sheriff 

of Montana—that is what it says, Ron—Director of Legislative Affairs, Safari Club International, accompanied by Dr. Dwayne Etter, 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Dr. Charles Jonkel, cofounder and president of Great Bear Foundation; Mr. Wayne 

Pacelle, Senior Vice President, Humane Society of the United 

States; Mr. Stephen Haleen, National Bear Hunting Defense Task 

Force; and Mr. William P. Horn, Director of Federal Affairs, U.S. 

Sportsmen’s Alliance. 

Thank you very much for coming this afternoon, gentlemen and 

for being so patient. We will start with the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Marlenee. 

75

STATEMENT OF HON. RON MARLENEE, DIRECTOR OF 

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL; 

ACCOMPANIED BY: DWAYNE ETTER, MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. MARLENEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. It is a pleasure to be back here with you, all of you, 

my esteemed friends of the past, and I hope that you do not recall 

the transgressions or indiscretions we may have committed while 

we were still colleagues. Do not hold it against me. 

I represent the Safari Club International, an international group 

of sportsmen, and we have looked at this legislation, we have consulted with scientists and specialists all over the United States. 

The justification of a bill is usually found in the findings section. 

With all due respect to those who crafted this legislation, we find 

that each and every item in the findings section is flawed. Sound 

science and professional wildlife officials refute them, as they have 

today continually, time after time. The bill is not needed and, 

frankly, harms both bear populations, professional wildlife management, and increases the probability of contact between humans and 

nuisance bears. 

The State of Michigan states: This bill, if enacted, would severely 

limit the ability of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

to manage Michigan’s black bear resource. 

The New Hampshire Wildlife Management specialists state that, 

‘‘The loss of baiting would constrain our management efforts and 

likely result in the increase of human and bear conflicts.’’ 

The findings statements are grossly misleading. Findings 1 and 

2 attempt to tie the bureaucracies’ discouraging of feeding the 

bears with the management tool of baiting. They are two entirely 

different cases. The first attracts bears, leaving them without fear, 

and nobody argues against that part. The second is an effective 

management tool that actually enhances bear populations by allowing selective harvest rather than— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, excuse me. Would you repeat 

that once again? I missed the point. What did you say is not a 

point? What is not an issue? You just read—can you repeat that? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Which part, Congressman? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You said something is not at issue. What is 

not at issue? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Well, let me go back here. Do you want me to 

go back through the findings statements that are grossly misleading? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Just a sentence or two back. You said something was not at issue—before you got to the management part. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Was that in the first or second? Findings 1 and 

2 attempt to tie bureaucracies’ discouraging the feeding of bears 

with the management tool of baiting. They are two entirely different cases. The first attracts bears without fear, leaving them 

without fear. Now, we don’t—there is no argument we shouldn’t do 

that. 

The second is an effective management tool that actually enhances healthy bear populations by allowing selective harvests 

rather than split-second shots at moving targets in heavy brush. 

This preserves females and cubs. Baiting diminishes the probVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:30 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87680.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
76

ability of a wounded bear and allows a humane harvest. In grizzly 

country, it greatly diminishes the accidental shooting of a threatened species, as you might guess. If you don’t have to do a splitsecond shot, if you have the opportunity to sit there and evaluate 

the animal that you want to take, you should not accidentally shoot 

a bear. And if you do, you are prosecuted. 

Findings 3 and 4 attempt to portray the baiting stations as an 

abomination in the environment. This is so misleading as to be a 

fabrication. Quote, ‘‘A typical bait station consists of hundreds of 

pounds of food,’’ end quote. Would that be a landfill or a pickup 

truck backing up to the forest or a refuse truck that missed the 

landfill and just dumps out in the forest? The truth is that sportsmen don’t want any more bait than necessary, because they first 

have to haul it out there, and, second, they have to haul it back 

out. 

They take it out, and then they haul it back out. This is a stinky, 

messy job at best. However, it discredits the idea put forth by 

animal activists that it is left in the forests. State and Federal law 

prohibit this. Generally the laws state that you may place bait at 

no more than two bait stations. Minnesota allows three. 

The bait must be biodegradable, as prescribed by most law. You 

must remove the bait, litter, and equipment from the bait station 

when the hunting is completed. This includes, if you will—goes to 

the extent of including contaminated soil. Bottom line: You either 

haul out your trash or you are subject to citation. 

Finding 5 is the paramount example that reveals the extent the 

animal activists will go to eliminate hunting. It deserves a special 

quote. And that is: The presence of bait stations on Federal land 

allows bears to increase their food intake and results in higher 

birth rates, increasing bear populations. 

Let’s be realistic. Let’s examine this. Let’s look at this fat bear 

myth. Michigan has a total population of 20,000 bears, approximately, 17 to 20. Minnesota has a population somewhere near 

30,000. 

A small amount of bait, as the witnesses have stated here, is 

used by a relatively few number of sportsmen. Now, let assume 

that every hunter used an average of 10 pounds of bait per station. 

Further assume that the entire bear population had access to all 

of the bait. It extrapolates that the bait consumption per bear per 

day would be much less than the weight of one of those infamous 

bear Twinkies that they are talking about feeding the bears. 

From this we get fat bears? I don’t think so. The animal activists 

who believe that sportsmen set up bagel bars and Twinkie 

feeders—the baiting stations last for a relatively short period of 

time. They are controlled, and every hunt there is a requirement 

to clean it up. 

Findings 7, 8 and 9 deal with feeding bears, habituating bears, 

and conflict with people. When you give handouts to bears, they 

are on your back step. Sportsmen are not out there giving handouts 

to bears. They want to bait the bears. They don’t want the bears 

to identify them as being there. 

The preponderance of the evidence from wildlife managers is that 

hunting bears increases their avoidance factor. The facts from fish 

and game departments and professional wildlife managers is that 

77

the very bears who have the potential to become problem bears or 

nuisance bears are those who are likely to be attracted, and these 

are eliminated by the very practice of baiting. Conversely, those 

who are wild and whose food supply is abundant tend to avoid 

human-scented food and are difficult to hunt. 

Finally, finding number 10. Now, this makes much of the 

National Park Service open dumps and hand-feeding of bears. This 

is an apples and oranges comparison. Again, you don’t hand-feed 

bears in the national forest and you don’t leave bait piles and 

refuse. The Alaska directors of Fish and Game stated that it should 

be noted that Juneau is one of the areas with the most chronic and 

persistent black bear problem, and it is located in a management 

unit where baiting is prohibited. 

Today or yesterday there was a news article that I ask be included with my testimony from the newspaper in Juneau that outlines the black bear being—coming in and killing a dog in a yard. 

This is a city that does not allow bear baiting or a management 

unit that does not allow bear baiting. 

Contrast that with Fairbanks where hunting, including baiting, 

is allowed in the outskirts of the community and where black bear 

problems are nil. 

Finally, the States were given the responsibility for managing 

wildlife. This legislation supersedes that State rights issue. Wildlife 

management is site-specific. Passage of this Act would usurp State 

authority and would establish an inappropriate and unscientific 

one-size-fits-all approach to the management of this particular 

species. This was succinctly pointed out by the esteemed gentleman 

that was the Chairman of this full Committee. 

NRA opposes this, SCI opposes this, the Sportsmen’s Caucus opposes this, the Sportsmen’s Alliance oppose this, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In other words, virtually 

every group that represents sportsmen, that represent the people 

who have contributed the most to wildlife management and to wildlife expansions and wildlife populations and to habitat, all—you 

can say virtually all of them oppose this legislation. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Marlenee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marlenee follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ron Marlenee, Consultant,

Governmental Affairs, Safari Club International, on H.R. 1472

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you today. My name is Ron Marlenee I am here on behalf of 

Safari Club International. SCI is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and 

promoting wildlife conservation worldwide. 

The justification for a bill is usually found in the Findings Section. With all due 

respect to those who crafted this legislation we find that each and every item in 

the Finding Section is flawed. Sound science and professional wildlife officials refute 

them. The bill is not needed and frankly harms both bear populations, professional 

wildlife management and increases the probability of contact between humans and 

nuisance bears. The State of Michigan states; ‘‘This bill, if enacted, would severely 

limit the ability of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to manage Michigan’s black bear resource. The New Hampshire Wildlife Management specialists 

state that the loss of baiting would constrain our management efforts and likely result in an increase in bear human conflicts. 

The Findings statements are grossly misleading. Findings (1) and (2) attempt to 

tie the bureaucracies discouraging the feeding of bears with the management tool 

of baiting; they are two entirely different cases. The first attract bears leaving them 

without fear. The second is an effective management tool that actually enhances 

78

healthy bear populations by allowing selective harvests rather than spit second 

shots at moving targets in heavy brush. This preserves the females and cubs. Baiting diminishes the probability of a wounded bear and allows a humane harvest. In 

Grizzly country it greatly diminishes the accidental shooting of a threatened species. 

Findings (3) and (4) attempt to portray the baiting stations as an abomination in 

the environment. This is so misleading as to be a fabrication. Quote, ‘‘A typical bait 

station consists of hundreds of pounds of food’’. Would that be two pickup loads or 

the refuse truck unloading in the forest after missing the landfill? The truth is that 

sportsmen don’t want any more bait than necessary because they have to first; haul 

it to the site and then secondly; clean it up and haul it back out. A stinky job at 

best, however it discredits the idea put forth by the animal activists that it’s left 

in the forest. State and Federal laws prohibit this. Generally, the law states that 

you may place bait at no more than two bait stations. The bait must be biodegradable and ‘‘you must remove bait, litter and equipment from the bait station when 

hunting is completed. This includes any contaminated soil’’. Bottom line, you either 

haul out your trash or you are subject to citation. This is not what the Humane 

Society and the authors of this bill would have you believe. 

Finding (5) can be the subject for ridicule that reveals the extent the animal activists will go to eliminate hunting. It deserves a special quote, ‘‘The presence of bait 

stations on Federal land allows bears to increase their food intake and results in 

higher birth rates increasing bear populations.’’ Let us be realistic. Let us examine 

the fat bear myth. Michigan has a total population of 20,000 bears. Minnesota has 

a bear population of 30,000 bears. A small amount of bait is used by a relatively 

few number of sportsmen. Michigan statistics reveal the bait size to be from 5 to 

20 pounds. Assume that every hunter used an average of 10 pounds of bait; further 

assume that the entire bear population had access to all the bait. It extrapolates 

that the bait consumption, per bear, per day would be less that the weight of one 

of the infamous bear Twinkies. From this we get fat bears? The animal activists 

would have you believe sportsmen had set up bagel bars and Twinkie feeders. The 

baiting seasons last for a relatively short time. After every hunt there is a requirement to clean it up. 

Findings (7), (8) & (9) deal with feeding bears/habituating bears/bears and conflicts with people. When you give handouts to bears they are on your back step. 

Sportsmen are not out there to give out handouts. The preponderance of evidence 

from wildlife managers is that hunting bears increases their avoidance factor. The 

facts from State Fish & Game Departments and professional wildlife managers is 

that the very bears who have the potential to become problem bears or are nuisance 

bears are those who are likely to be attracted and eliminated by baiting. Conversely, 

those in the wild whose food supply is abundant tend to avoid human scented food 

and are difficult to hunt. 

Finding (10) makes much of the National Park service open dumps and hand feeding bears. This is an apples and oranges comparison. Again, you don’t hand feed 

bears in the National Forest and two you don’t leave bait piles and refuse. The Directors of the Alaska Fish & Game stated,—‘‘It should be noted that Juneau, one 

of the areas with the most chronic and persistent black bear problems, is located 

in a management unit where baiting is prohibited. Contrasted with that in Fairbanks, where hunting (including baiting) is allowed in the outskirts of the community and where black bear problems are nil.’’

Finally, the states were given the responsibility for managing wildlife. This legislation super-cedes that states rights issue. Wildlife management is site specific. Passage of this Act would usurp state authority and would establish an inappropriate 

and unscientific one-size-fits-all approach to the management of this particular 

species. 

Mr. Chairman, the states have done an excellent job of expanding all types of 

wildlife. With sportsmen’s dollars, with habitat expansion America enjoys a plethora 

of viewing enjoyment and hunting. The states and sportsmen have provided this for 

the American public because we care about wildlife and it’s habitat. The animal 

rights groups did not do this. I would suggest the Resources Committee listen closely to wildlife specialists and evaluate sound science not the sensationalism and emotionalism sounds made by the animal cults. 

79

BEAR KILLS FAMILY DOG IN MENDENHALL VALLEY

DOG ESCAPED BEAR, ONLY TO SUCCUMB TO INJURIES AT VETERINARIAN CLINIC

BY TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER

JUNEAU EMPIRE 2003

A Mendenhall Valley black bear is being targeted for extermination after it 

dragged a dog out of its doghouse and left it with fatal wounds Monday morning. 

The attack happened at about 5 a.m. at the Montana Creek Road home of Tish 

and David Forrest. 

‘‘I’ve already cried buckets about this,’’ Tish Forrest, 42, said. ‘‘I’ve got a 6-yearold son and it’s pretty scary.’’

The Forrests’ daughter Veida, 20, woke to the desperate yelps coming from the 

family’s 11-year-old Dalmatian, Freckles. 

Veida saw a large black bear drag Freckles out of the doghouse, between the 

entryway to the home and a wooded area nearby, Tish Forrest said. 

She said her daughter began screaming, ‘‘A bear got Freckles! A bear got Freckles!’’ as the bruin pulled the struggling dog into the woods. 

The bear shook the dog by the head and neck, but Freckles escaped and limped 

back to the house. The family rushed the dog to a veterinarian, but the wounds 

were too severe. Freckles died at about 8:30 a.m. that morning. The family’s 14-

year-old black Labrador retriever Elvira also was in the doghouse at the time, but 

was not injured. 

The family lives in a sparsely populated area of the Mendenhall Valley, just west 

of the Mendenhall River. Tish Forrest described the fish stream that runs behind 

the home as a major wildlife corridor, where bears, deer and other wildlife are commonly seen. 

‘‘We’ve seen bears eating skunk cabbage across the way, but this is a lot more 

aggressive behavior than we’re used to seeing in the woods,’’ she said. 

David Forrest, 51, reported the incident Monday to the state Department of Fish 

and Game. 

Neil Barten, a Fish and Game biologist, said the agency is working to capture the 

bear and have it killed. 

He said biologists placed a large metal trap in the area Tuesday. The trap, known 

as a culvert trap, is baited with food to lure the animal inside. The bear’s presence 

inside the cage triggers a trap door, locking the bruin inside until Fish and Game 

biologists can retrieve the animal, Barten said. The bear will be killed after it is 

removed from the area, Barten said. 

He said it is uncommon for black bears to show aggressive behavior and that such 

attacks usually come from brown bears. Barten noted, though, that brown bear attacks also are uncommon. Monday’s incident was not the first time Fish and Game 

has been called out for a bear attacking a Juneau dog. 

Bill Corbus, who lives on Thane Road south of downtown, shot and killed a black 

bear last October after it tried to carry his dog Bruiser into the woods. 

Corbus, commissioner of the state Department of Revenue and former president 

of Alaska Electric Light & Power, said Bruiser, a 60- to 70-pound mixed-breed, suffered puncture wounds to the head but survived. 

Barten said the shooting was justified because the bear posed a threat to life and 

property. 

He said it can be difficult to prevent bear encounters in heavily wooded areas, 

but noted precautions can dissuade bears from returning to areas occupied by 

people. 

‘‘It is a case where we live in an area where there are bears everywhere,’’ Barten 

said. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Charles Jonkel, welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES JONKEL,

CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, GREAT BEAR FOUNDATION 

Mr. JONKEL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee, for 

hearing me also. My name is Dr. Charles Jonkel. I am President 

and Scientific Advisor to the Great Bear Foundation. I live at 830 

Evans Avenue in Missoula, Montana. I was the co-founder of GBF 

20 years ago. I have been conducting research on bears and bear 

80

management and educating and communicating about bears for 44 

years, 1 month, and 12 days as of June 12th. This has been all over 

North America and Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. 

I have a wildlife degree and an MSC in wildlife biology from the 

University of Montana, a Ph.D. From the University of British Columbia in zoology with a wildlife emphasis. I did research on the 

age of sexual maturity delayed implantation in Pine Martin for my 

master’s work. 

My Ph.D. Research was on the ecology and biology of black bears 

in the spruce fir forests of western Montana. Following my 5 years 

of research on black bears, I was for 8 years a research scientist 

with the Canadian Wildlife Service, studying polar bears. I then returned to the University of Montana to conduct 5 years of research 

on grizzly bears outside of the national parks. Many of my students 

are active in bear research, just about all over the world. As always 

in Montana, east and west, we differ a great deal. I am a dedicated 

sportsman and hunter. I have hunted for 65 years, since I was 6 

years old, but do I not hunt bears. For me it would be like hunting 

family. 

The GBF is not against hunting, but our main focus is to bears 

and to preserve and protect the habitat of all bear species of the 

world. Our highest priority is teaching, learning, and communicating about bears, primarily in elementary schools, field courses, 

and in bear news. We serve teachers, students, and the general 

public. 

I wish to especially thank Congress for the Dingell, Johnson, and 

Pitman Robertson Acts that were introduced in the 1930’s. They 

earmarked tax money. And that is the money that brought us back 

to wildlife abundance after the decades of market hunting. We owe 

a lot to that—wildlife does, too—to that aid through hunting and 

fishing. 

I would like to remind people though that those taxes are paid 

even by the guy, say, in New York City who buys a gun and some 

ammo to blow away his brother-in-law. He is helping wildlife, too. 

My positions are generally broader than local concerns. They include data from all eight species of bears, and follow world standards and reflect national policies. 

I have long opposed the baiting of bears for considerable lists of 

reasons. Given today’s human population, the chopped-up and reduced habitat, and the vocal objections of other users of bears, in 

my view baiting is no longer an acceptable form of bear management. It may have been once. 

Hunting over bait, sitting in a tree and shooting an unsuspecting 

animal is not a sporting form of hunting, whereas fair-chase hunting is far more ethical and more satisfying. Baiting and sitting in 

a tree is unfair to bears, since they look at ground level for their 

enemies and danger. 

Baiting bears causes extreme disfavor and contempt within large 

segments of our nonhunting citizens. This often becomes harmful 

to our heritage of hunting and to wildlife management, and I see 

tremendous problems down the line if we keep creating more 

antihunters out of nonhunters. 

Baiting pulls bears from their normal range and may pull bears 

to sites where they are vulnerable to attack by other bears, other 

81

species, parasites, and diseases. Michigan, for example, now has a 

terrible livestock TB infection which probably came from the bearand deer-baiting stations that is costing that State millions of dollars. 

Now, I can’t prove that. But one thing that did happen 3 years 

before that outbreak happened, I warned the DNR in Michigan 

that they were liable to cause a major infection that could get into 

livestock. They ignored it. They have got it now. Baiting causes 

bears and other species, from insects and shrews, to congregate, 

creating unnatural food chains, interactions, fights and predation. 

Baiting changes each bear’s relationship with other bears and with 

other species. 

And often after the baiting, it can go on for a very long time in 

a detrimental way. The Burlington Northern Railroad grain spill in 

Montana near Glacier Park is a good example, with bears being 

lost even yet, 15 years later. They come to feed on the tracks and 

they get hit by a train. We had three of them killed just in the last 

few weeks, three grizzly bears. 

Baiting bears habituates bears to people, no matter how careful 

we may be, and bear-people conflicts follow. Feeding bears and bait 

stations runs counter to our massive effort to teach the public not 

to feed the bears. Baiting may cause a dangerous setup for noninvolved third parties traveling through the same area. That was 

mentioned by someone else today. 

Baiting and shooting at bears may teach bears to avoid that area 

and to avoid certain foods or travel corridors, which has a subsequent loss of habitat and food. Some of the bears in northern latitudes sleep for up to 7 months; 2 or 3 of the feeding months are, 

in fact, poor for food gathering, leaving the bears only 2 or 3 

months to grow and to get fat. 

Bears therefore are tremendously focused on foods and feeding 

and on problem-solving relative to getting lots of food. They can eat 

up to 100 pounds per day. They can gain up to 6 pounds a day. 

As a result, bears are particularly vulnerable to learning bad habits based on food seeking. 

They forget their natural ecofits where the food is more reliable. 

It took the Yellow Stone grizzly bears several generations to learn 

how to live again in Yellow Stone after the garbage dumps closed. 

The argument that baiting bears by hunters is a necessary management tool in my view is not true at all. Hunters following fairchase and sportsmen’s guidelines are successful. Stalking bears on 

oak ridges and meadows adds greatly to the hunting and gathering 

traditions of local people. 

There is also a problem where the grizzly bears occur with the 

black bear and causes a loss of grizzlies from mistaken identity. We 

must also remember that to many Native Americans and First Nation people in Canada, bears are culturally very important. This is 

so often left out of their viewpoint. In management research and 

hunting, we should show far more respect for bears than we do. 

The foods developed by the native peoples of the Americas feed 

over 60 percent of the people on Earth today. The native people always were quick to say we learned about these foods from the 

bears. It is time for Congress to show greater fairness and respect 

82

for the bears. And in my view 1472 is a great step in the right direction. 

I would like to add two points. One is that the baiting, basically 

from the bear’s point of view—and I figure after my 44 years I can 

speak for the bears to a degree—it is a dirty trick on the bears. 

They are not prepared for dealing with something like that. Their 

enemies are at ground level. 

I also would like to defend the kids in all of this. Kids are really 

smart. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that. Kids nowadays are smarter than we ever were, than any 20 of us were put 

together. Kids are exposed to so much information now, they know 

what is going on. When you tell them opposing viewpoints like we 

have many, many State and Federal agencies saying don’t feed the 

bears, don’t feed the bears, don’t feed the bears; then we have got 

other people with the same agencies saying, feed the bears, feed 

the bears, feed the bears. Kids aren’t dumb. They know what is 

going on. And they don’t get mad and fight with you, they walk 

away and they turn off and leave you with a big mess. 

But we got to be more sensitive I think to the bears and to the 

kids in all of this. We are not doing it properly. There is a lot to 

be done. Don’t forget the kids. Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Jonkel. You come from a beautiful and magnificent part of the world. I spent a little time in the 

Bitterroot Mountains and I would go to Missoula once a month for 

supplies. Precious place. 

[The prepared statement of Charles Jonkel follows:]

Statement of Dr. Charles Jonkel, Co–Founder and President,

Great Bear Foundation, on H.R. 1472

My name is Dr. Charles Jonkel, President of and Scientific Advisor to the Great 

Bear Foundation. I live at 830 Evans Ave., Missoula, MT 59801. I was a co-founder 

of the GBF 20 years ago; I have been conducting research on bears and bear management, and educating and communicating about bears for 44 years, one month, 

and 12 days as of June 12, 2003. 

I have a Wildlife Tech degree, and a MSc in Wildlife Biology, both from the University of Montana, and a PhD from the University of British Columbia, in Zoology, 

with a wildlife emphasis. I did research on the age of sexual maturity and delayed 

implantation, in the pine marten, for my MSc work. My PhD research was on the 

ecology and biology of black bears in the spruce/fir forests of Western Montana. 

Following my 5 years of research on black bears, I was for 8 years a Research 

Scientist with the Canadian Wildlife Service, studying polar bears. I then returned 

to the University of Montana to conduct 5 years of research on grizzly bears outside 

of the national parks. 

I am a dedicated sportsman/hunter, but I do not hunt bears. For me, it would be 

like hunting ‘‘family’’. The GBF is not against hunting, but our main focus is to help 

bears and to preserve/protect the habitat of all eight bear species of the world. Our 

highest priority is teaching, learning, and communicating about bears, primarily in 

elementary schools, field courses, in the Bear News (a quarterly newspaper), and 

in children’s book and video reviews. We serve teachers, students, and the general 

public. 

Through GBF, I develop ‘‘position statements’’, or ‘‘white papers,’’ on certain research and management topics, help to change regulations and management, or create new laws, all keyed to helping bears. 

We monitor agency actions, management plans, and law enforcement, and comment on needed corrections, occasionally joining in legal pressures to facilitate needed change. Our positions are generally broader than local concerns: they include 

data from all eight species of bears, follow world standards, and reflect national 

policies. 

I have long opposed the baiting of bears for a considerable list of reasons, both 

direct and indirect: 

83

1. The baiting of bears was long an acceptable form of hunting, but given today’s 

human populations, the chopped-up and reduced habitat, the vocal objections of 

other ‘‘users’’ of bears, and the high-tech hunting techniques now common, baiting 

is no longer an acceptable form of bear management. Times have changed. 

2. Hunting over bait, sitting in a tree and shooting an unsuspecting animal, is 

not a sporting form of hunting, whereas ‘‘fair chase’’ hunting (though often unsuccessful) is a far more ethical and more satisfying form of hunting. Baiting and sitting in a tree is unfair to bears, since they look at ground level for their enemies 

and danger. 

3. Baiting bears causes extreme disfavor and contempt within large segments of 

our non-hunting citizens, changing them from non-hunters into anti-hunters, which 

often becomes harmful to our hunting heritage, and to wildlife management. 

4. Baiting ‘‘pulls’’ bears from their normal range, from their routines and how 

they use their habitats. The bears then are more vulnerable to a wide variety of 

ecological, travel, security, and other dangers. 

5. Baiting in some areas pulls bears to a ‘‘low food’’ habitat where they do not 

have other and convenient feeding options. 

6. Baiting may pull bears to sites where they are vulnerable to attack by other 

bears, other species, parasites, and diseases. Michigan for example, now has a terrible livestock tuberculosis infection which came from the deer, and probably from 

the bear/deer baiting stations. 

7. Baiting causes bears and other species, from insects and shrews to moose, to 

congregate, creating unnatural food chains and interactions, fights, and predation. 

8. Baiting changes each bear’s relationship toward other bears, other species, including subtle changes hard to recognize or evaluate. Such changes may be detrimental long after the baiting incident or may build through a chain of experiences. 

The Burlington Northern Railroad ‘‘grain spills’’ are a good example, with bears 

being lost even yet, 15 years later. They come to feed on the tracks and get hit by 

trains. 

9. Baiting bears habituates the bears to people and/or human odors, to humans 

as ‘‘company’’, and to food associations, no matter how careful we may be. Bear/people conflicts may follow. 

10. Baiting bears makes bears more vulnerable to dangers by relating their experiences to similar circumstances, areas, or even products. They may approach odors, 

or avoid areas similar to where they had a ‘‘bad experience’’ such as roads. 

11. Baiting bears changes their behaviors to other bears, but also to people. Somehow, bears consider us ‘‘another bear species’’; they ‘‘use’’ bear behavior on us. We 

should learn how to ‘‘talk bear’’, to reduce conflict. But bears also may become 

habituated to people, or to our foods, bringing them too close, and often into direct 

conflict with us. 

12. Wildlife agencies spend great amounts of money teaching people not to have 

attractants around, not to feed bears, not to let bears get into bird feeders, dog food, 

garbage, compost, stored grain, and etc. For some of the same agencies to SUPPORT 

feeding (baiting), and even to give hunters dog food and pastry for ‘‘bear bait’’, and 

to encourage bait stations, runs counter to our massive effort to teach the public 

NOT to feed the bears. 

13. The baiting of bears automatically creates a situation where a hunter approaches bear food, which can lead to a dangerous situation, since bears will defend 

‘‘their’’ food. 

14. The baiting of bears may cause a dangerous ‘‘set up’’ for a not-involved, third 

party traveling through the same area. 

15. Baiting and shooting at bears in prime habitat may teach some bears to avoid 

that area, or certain foods, travel corridors, and anything similar, with a subsequent 

loss of habitat and food. 

Some bears sleep for up to seven months in northern latitudes. That means they 

have only five months to get all of their food for the year. Two to three of those 

‘‘feeding’’ months are in fact poor food-gathering periods, leaving the bears only 2 

to 3 months to grow and to get fat. Bears, therefore, are tremendously focused on 

foods and feeding. That also means that bears are constantly exploring and ‘‘problem solving’’ relative to getting lots of food (they can eat up to 100 pounds per day, 

and gain up to 6 pounds per day). As a result bears are particularly vulnerable to 

learning bad habits, based on food-seeking. 

The argument is often made that the baiting of bears by hunters is a necessary 

management ‘‘tool’’ to control bear numbers. This has not been true at all in places 

like Montana and Colorado, and more recently in Oregon and Washington. Our forests are tremendously thick, yet our hunters, following ‘‘fair chase’’ and ‘‘sportsman’’ 

guidelines, are successful. It would seem that in most areas stalking bears on oak 

ridges, meadows, river banks, or wherever, would add greatly to the hunting/gathVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:30 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87680.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
84

ering traditions of local people. Matching skill and wit with these remarkable bear 

species should be the ultimate hunter challenge, it would seem to me. Certainly 

problem bears are a management challenge, but to me, they are also a symptom 

of inadequate bear management, not a fault of the bears. Where grizzlies occur with 

black bears, baiting may cause the loss of grizzlies from mistaken identity. 

In all of this, we must also remember that for many Native Americans/First Nation Canadians, the bears are culturally very important, sometimes even in the religious sense. In management, but also in research and hunting, we should show far 

more respect for the bears, how we live with them, how we hunt and manage them, 

but also how we honor them, and their roles relative to people. Foods developed by 

the Native Peoples of the Americas feed over 60% of the people on Earth today, and 

the Native People always are quick to say ‘‘we learned about those foods from the 

bears.’’ It is time for our Congress, our agencies, to show greater fairness, and greater respect, for bears. H.R. 1472, in my view, is a giant step in the right direction. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Wayne Pacelle. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am representing 

the Humane Society of the United States, the Nation’s largest 

animal protection group. We have 7.3 million members in the U.S., 

1 of every 40 Americans. And we want to in particular thank 

Representative Gallegly for his leadership on this issue. We are 

grateful. We support his legislation wholeheartedly. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to make three main points. The first 

point is that Mr. Gallegly’s bill establishes interagency and intraagency consistency in dealing with policies related to the feeding of 

bears on Federal lands. 

We have heard this mentioned earlier. Every year, baiters set 

out thousands of food piles on Federal lands, principally national 

forests, in the 9 States that allow baiting. Bait piles do consist of 

hundreds of pounds of human food scraps, rotting fruits and meats, 

even the carcasses of other animals. 

Hunting guides prefer baiting, because it virtually guarantees 

that a fee-paying client will have an opportunity to shoot a bear. 

One hunting Web site says, in a normal season we go through 10 

tons of pastries and about 8 tons of meat, boasts one hunting guide 

on his Web site again. Some guides use walk-in baits,s where they 

take an old mule or an old horse, pack the animal with a bunch 

of food, and then shoot the animal and leave the rotting carcass to 

add to the bait site. 

Most wildlife professionals realize that this is outrageous behavior. Tom Beck, who is a lifelong hunter and a bear biologist with 

the Colorado Division of Wildlife notes, quote, in Outdoor Life, a 

hunting magazine: ‘‘I firmly believe that baiting creates nuisance 

bears.’’ this is Beck speaking. ‘‘black bears are naturally wary, instinctively avoiding close contact with humans. But large amounts 

of tasty feed easily obtained defeats this wariness. By baiting we 

create lazy bears who have been rewarded, not punished, for overcoming their fear of humans,’’ end quote. 

In 2003, Michael Soukup for the Park Service wrote, quote, 

‘‘Human feeding of bears, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is a 

significant management problem wherever it occurs, and is an activity that the National Park Service works hard to prevent in 

units of the system.’’ 

85

Partly in response to the Park Service’s work in this arena, the 

mantra, ‘‘Don’t feed the bears’’ has become one of the most widely 

accepted precepts in modern wildlife management. Human-fed 

bears are more likely to approach people, to raid campgrounds, and 

to break into cars and cabins. And because bears are large and 

powerful, the animals can obviously pose a threat to people. 

Because of access to human food, bears at Yosemite National 

Park, according to the Web site, become aggressive and cause extensive damage to motor vehicles, trailers, tents, ice chests, and 

other camping equipment while searching for human food, unquote. Bears cost $630,000 worth in property damage in 1998 in Yosemite alone. Yosemite officials note, quote, ‘‘Allowing a bear to obtain 

human food even once often results in the bear becoming aggressive about obtaining food in the future.’’ 

This is what Dr. Jonkel is talking about. Once bears learn bad 

habits, they remember them. The Park Service has noted that baiting in adjacent national forests causes problems for bears in national parks. 

Just prior to Oregon banning bear baiting in 1994, Charles 

Odegaard, the regional director of the northwest region of the Park 

Service, wrote to the Forest Service, quote: ‘‘the practice of baiting 

on adjacent national forests has a direct negative impact on Crater 

Lake National Park. Sometimes the park boundary is almost 

ringed with bear baiting stations. Bears are wide-ranging animals. 

Stations placed within a few feet of the park boundary on a consistent and regular basis are inevitably an attractant that lures 

bears from the park. Experienced park field personnel believe the 

park bear population is on the decline,‘‘ unquote. 

He added, quote, ‘‘Biologically there is no difference between a 

bait station and a dump. Bait stations habituate bears to humangenerated food, contributing to the potential for conflicts between 

bears and people in the park.’’ 

Consistent with these views— 

Mr. GILCHREST. Who said that, Mr. Pacelle? 

Mr. PACELLE. This is Charles Odegaard of the National Park 

Service. He was the regional director in the Pacific Northwest region of the National Park Service, which covers Crater Lake 

National Park which is in southern Oregon. 

The Park Service has a regulation against feeding. We already 

heard that Fish and Wildlife has also an antibaiting regulation. 

Here is the interesting part. The Forest Service and the BLM, 

along with almost every State fish and game agency, have expressed the same views as the folks at the Park Service and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service about the perils of people feeding bears. 

Mr. Gallegly had some of those posters blown up. The one that 

is lower you can’t see, is the publications of the Forest Service, the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the New Mexico Department of Fish and Game. It is called ‘‘Be Bear Aware.’’ it is the one 

that is being placed on the device there. It says, bears that are attracted to human food sources may cause property damage and injure people. Again, look at the forest service logo. It says ‘‘A fed 

bear is a dead bear.’’ it concludes, in the corner on the left-hand 

side, ‘‘Most conflicts between humans and black bears arise as a result of human-supplied foods.’’ 

86

All four of the major Federal land management agencies have endorsed the ‘‘Leave No Trace’’ public awareness campaign, which 

warns that people should, quote, ‘‘never feed wild animals.’’ it 

doesn’t have an asterisk that says, ‘‘if you are doing it as a guide 

or an outfitter you are allowed to feed animals.’’ it says, feeding 

wildlife damages their health, alters natural behaviors, and exposes them to predators and other dangers. 

Mr. PACELLE. Allowing bear baiting is inconsistent with these 

declarations. There is just no two ways about it. It makes no sense 

to think that providing food to bears is wrong, except if the feeding 

is associated with hunting. If it is wrong to set out food to lure 

bears for picture taking or just to watch bears, surely it is also 

wrong to lure bears with jelly donuts and rotting animal carcasses 

for the purpose of shooting them. Representative Gallegly pointed 

this out in his questions to the Forest Service. 

I do want to note before I move to the second point, the Forest 

Service has a history of criticizing this practice. In my testimony 

that I will just leave in the record, of course, in the northern regions and intermountain regions, which covers the three western 

interior bear-baiting states of Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, the Forest Service came out against baiting and said it was a dangerous 

practice that was harming wildlife. 

The second major point is that baiting is not needed as a management tool. Capable hunters do not need to hunt bears with bait. 

We have heard baiting is banned in the vast majority of States 

with bear hunting. In Pennsylvania, there are 2,000 bears killed in 

a 3-day hunting season with no bait, no dogs. Montana hunters 

take in excess of 1,000 bears a year. They do not use bait or dogs. 

The groups represented today that you will hear from next, the 

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and the Safari Club, they came out 

against measures in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington to ban bear 

baiting. They said the populations would explode if you banned 

baiting and hounding. They said there is no way to manage the 

population. After voters approved these measures by wide margins, 

the bear kills in the States did not decrease and the number of 

hunting licenses for bears shot through the roof. 

Several years after voters approved the initiative to limit bear 

hunting practices in Colorado, the Colorado Division of Wildlife 

wrote, ‘‘the passage of the 1992 initiative has had no detectable adverse impact on bear hunting or bear management in Colorado. It 

has clearly shown that the black bear population can be efficiently 

and effectively managed without recourse to bait, hounds, or a 

spring season. Hunters have learned to effectively hunt and harvest bears without using these methods, and the Colorado Division 

of Wildlife has seen a significant increase in revenue resulting from 

increased interest in bear hunting.’’ 

Please look at my testimony. The number of bear tags after the 

bear baiting ban went into effect in Washington went from 13,000 

to 38,000. In Oregon, it went from 18,000 to 41,000. In Colorado, 

it went from 3,800 bear licenses sold to more than 14,000. What 

happened was that more hunters chose to participate because they 

no longer felt at a competitive disadvantage with other hunters 

who used unfair methods. 

87

And I do want to say quickly baiting advocates fail to note the 

role of bait stations in increasing the reproductive success of bears 

who visit bait stations. Mammals’ reproductive rates are tied to 

their nutritional fitness. Bears self-regulate quite well. Dr. Jonkel 

has done a lot of the pioneering research on this. When you put out 

tons of food for them, they are going to be fit, they are going to reproduce more, and, ultimately, it is a self-defeating exercise. Yes, 

it is a more efficient hunting technique, you can kill more of them 

more efficiently, but you are recruiting more animals into the population. 

Finally, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government 

has a compelling interest in halting baiting. Opponents of 

H.R. 1472 say that the measure is an attack on States rights. It 

is important to note that the States will continue to control bear 

hunting. The States will determine whether bears are hunted or 

not, where hunting is permitted, what bag limits are, what the season lengths are, the closer zones, allowed weapons. The States will 

set goals for annual take, et cetera. 

The Federal Government has established policies. Mr. Gallegly 

noted we have a Federal Airborne Hunting Act that limits use of 

aircraft in hunting animals. We have a Federal baiting regulation 

on migratory birds. 

My final point, Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, you have been 

generous in allowing me to speak, opponents of H.R. 1472 cannot 

logically argue that baiting is entirely a hunting issue. It is also 

an issue of feeding, and the feeding issue is precisely why we are 

here and why this legislation was introduced. The Federal Government has a clear and compelling interest in taking control of the 

human feeding of bears for the safety of forest users and employees, for the protection of public and private property destroyed by 

habituated bears, and for the protection of bears labeled as nuisance animals and then killed. 

To illustrate the point, let’s say the Forest Service— 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Pacelle, I will assure you that we will read 

your testimony in its entirety. 

Mr. PACELLE. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. You also have great passion for this issue, and 

we clearly have felt your point. I appreciate your dedication to this 

issue. You have brought us a great deal of information, and we will 

continue to pursue that as time goes by. Thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]

Statement of Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President, Communications and 

Government Affairs, The Humane Society of the United States, on 

H.R. 1472 and H.R. 1006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify in support of both 

H.R. 1472, the ‘‘Don’t Feed the Bears Act,’’ and H.R. 1006, the ‘‘Captive Wildlife 

Safety Act.’’ My name is Wayne Pacelle, and I serve as senior vice president for communications and government affairs for The Humane Society of the United States 

(HSUS), the nation’s largest animal protection group with 7.3 million members and 

constituents. One of every 40 Americans is a direct supporter of The HSUS. The 

HSUS urges the enactment of both bills, and we are very grateful to Representatives Elton Gallegly (R–CA) and James Moran (D–VA) for introducing H.R. 1472 

88

and Representatives Buck McKeon (R–CA) and George Miller (D–CA) for introducing H.R. 1006. 

H.R. 1472 directs the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to adopt anti-feeding regulations similar to those promulgated by 

the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Exceptions are provided in ‘‘extraordinary cases when the Secretary concerned determines 

that bear feeding is required for the welfare of the bear, preservation of public safety, or authorized wildlife research.’’

This legislation establishes interagency and intra-agency consistency with respect 

to human feeding of bears. The USFS and the BLM publish an array of materials 

that identify the problems associated with human feeding of bears, yet the agencies 

allow bear baiting in states that permit the activity (Attachment A). H.R. 1472 provides Congressional authorization for these agencies to square their emphatic and 

unequivocal declarations about the problems of people feeding bears with their onthe-ground management practices. 

Baiting is an unpopular and increasingly discredited method of bear hunting. 

States that have banned baiting have not experienced any wildlife management 

problems stemming from the prohibitions; actually, bear hunting participation has 

increased after states adopted the baiting bans. Baiting is a practice unpopular with 

Americans, including hunters, largely because it runs against norms of fairness and 

sportsmanship and against the widely recognized wildlife management principle 

that it is dangerous to make human foods available to bears. Most people believe 

that it is unfair and unsporting to lure a bear with food and shoot the animal while 

he or she is gorging on food. 

Every year, bear baiters set out thousands of food piles on Federal lands, principally national forests, in the nine states that allow bear baiting on public lands. 

Bait piles can consist of hundreds of pounds of human food scraps, rotting fruits and 

meats, and even carcasses of other animals. Hunting guides prefer baiting because 

it virtually guarantees their fee-paying clients an opportunity to shoot a bear. ‘‘In 

a normal season we will go through 10 tons of pastries and about 8 tons of meat,’’ 

boasts one hunting guide on his web site. (Attachment B) Some guides even will 

burn honey to attract their targets from miles around. Others use ‘‘walk-in’’ baits, 

in which they load up an old horse or mule with food, walk the animal into a forest, 

shoot him, and then add the carcass to the bait pile. 

Baiting takes unfair advantage of the survival strategies and life cycle of the 

black bear. In the fall, bears feed for up to 15 hours a day—a phase known as 

hyperphagia—in order to build fat reserves for a long period of dormancy. Baiting 

exploits their need to feed almost constantly by providing a ready source of food. 

In some states, the bait can be set out a few weeks before the actual hunting season 

starts. 

Baiting in the spring also exploits the bear’s unusual life cycle. Bears that emerge 

from their dens in the spring are hungry because they haven’t eaten since the late 

fall, and berries and other favored foods often don’t ripen or develop until the late 

spring or early summer. 

Opponents of H.R. 1472 have argued that the measure is an attack on states’ 

rights to set wildlife policy. It is important to note, however, that the states will 

continue to exercise control over bear hunting. The states will determine whether 

bears are hunted or not and, if hunting is permitted, will determine the bag limits, 

season lengths, closure zones, and allowed weapons. The states will set goals for annual take and will set license fees and the number of licenses sold. They can also 

allow bear baiting on private and state lands since H.R. 1472 applies only to 

Federal lands. 

Most states have already outlawed baiting, either by administrative rule, legislation, or ballot initiative. Of the 27 states that allow bear hunting, only 10 allow baiting, and one of those states, Arkansas, allows baiting only on private lands. In 

Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, there are no BLM 

lands, and USFS lands constitute a small percentage of the total land area that 

bears inhabit in these states. In Utah, only bowhunters are allowed to use bait, and 

in 2001, there were only three recorded bear kills over bait, according to the state 

Division of Wildlife Resources (personal communication with Craig McLaughlin, 3/

15/03). 

Capable hunters do not need to bait bears to hunt the animals with success. Baiting is banned in states with various forest types, including in the extremely dense 

forests of western Oregon and Washington. In Pennsylvania, hunters kill 2,000 

bears annually in a three-day hunt, and in Montana hunters take in excess of 1,000 

bears annually. Baiting and the use of dogs are prohibited in these states. 

The groups represented here today in opposition to H.R. 1472—primarily the Safari Club International (SCI) and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)—argue that 

89

a ban on baiting will decrease the annual bear kill and allow for a rise in the bear 

population, resulting in an increase in conflicts between people and bears. But their 

theory has not proved accurate. We can simply look at the data in the states that 

have most recently banned bear baiting—Colorado, Oregon, and Washington—to 

test the theory. In these states, hunters learned to stalk bears without bait or dogs, 

and the annual bear kills match or exceed the kill totals that hunters amassed before voters banned baiting. (Attachment C) 

Several years after voters approved the initiative to limit bear hunting practices, 

the Colorado Division of Wildlife wrote, ‘‘The passage of the 1992 initiative has had 

no detectable adverse effects on bear hunting or bear management in Colorado. It 

has shown clearly that a black bear population can be efficiently and effectively 

managed without recourse to bait, hounds, or a spring season. Hunters have learned 

to effectively hunt and harvest bears without using these methods and the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife has seen a significant increase in revenue resulting from increased interest in bear hunting.’’ (emphasis in original) (Attachment D) Oregon and 

Washington had similar experiences. 

Hunters in these states now purchase far more bear hunting licenses than they 

did before the voters outlawed baiting. In 1996, the last year baiting was allowed 

in Washington, there were 12,868 bear tag purchasers. In 2000, four years after the 

initiative passed, 37,484 bear tags were purchased—a three-fold increase (Attachment C). In Oregon, 18,412 tags were sold in 1994, the last year of baiting, and by 

2000, tag sales had more than doubled to 41,060 (Attachment C). In Colorado, in 

1991, the last year of baiting, there were 3,852 bear hunters, and by 2000, there 

was a nearly four-fold increase in tag sales to 14,207. (Attachment C) It is apparent 

that more hunters chose to participate because they no longer felt at a competitive 

disadvantage with other hunters who used unfair methods. 

If baiting advocates were correct in arguing that the activity is needed to control 

bear populations, it would stand to reason that the states with the densest populations of people and bears would most need baiting. But the very states with the 

greatest potential for conflict between bears and people—including California, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington—outlaw bear baiting. The 

densely packed states of Florida and New Jersey not only forbid baiting, but they 

ban all bear hunting. 

Bear baiting advocates fail to note the role that their bait stations play in increasing the reproductive success of bears who visit bait stations. Thousands of bait piles 

not only habituate bears to human food sources, but they provide massive supplemental feed for the animals. As mentioned earlier, one bear baiting guide reports 

that he alone leaves 18 tons of food in the woods per year for bears. It is a well 

established principle that supplementally fed populations of mammals enjoy greater 

reproductive success and juvenile survivorship. Bears who build major fat reserves 

thanks to bait stations are more likely to produce cubs and add to the total bear 

population. Baiting is, therefore, self-defeating if the goal is population reduction. 

Some baiting advocates argue that the practice is self-correcting because baited 

bears are shot and eliminated from the population. This line of argument is severely 

flawed. Bait piles are often set out for months at a time, and replenished with food 

stuffs as they are depleted by bears and other animals who feed at the stations. 

Hunters do not stay continuously at their bait sites, and leave them unattended 

most of the time. Consequently, most bears that visit the bait site are neither observed nor shot. The bears that feed at the bait station and are not shot become 

‘‘nuisance’’ animals. 

There has been a change in attitude among most hunters and wildlife policy makers in states that have banned baiting. For example, the Colorado Division of Wildlife noted, ‘‘While the [Colorado Wildlife] Commission opposed the initiative prior to 

and during the campaign, the results of its passage have brought about a definite 

change in attitude. There is no sentiment in the Colorado Wildlife Commission in 

favor of altering the present parameters of Colorado bear hunting. Colorado has 

learned that bears can be effectively managed without the use of bait or hounds and 

without a spring season.’’ (Attachment D) 

Public attitude surveys conducted within the last decade in states that allow bear 

baiting—Idaho, Maine, Utah, and Wyoming—all reveal widespread public opposition 

(including among hunters) to bear baiting, even if policy makers have not yet recognized or embraced the public’s view. (Attachment E) In addition, major newspapers 

in many of these states—including the Anchorage Daily News, the Wyoming Eagle–

Tribune, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Duluth News Tribune—have expressed 

their support for bear baiting bans. (Attachment F) 

I want to highlight results from one of the most recent public attitude surveys. 

A 2002 study, conducted by researchers from Utah State University, examined Utah 

stakeholders’ attitudes toward selected cougar and black bear management pracVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:30 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87680.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
90

tices. The survey reveals widespread opposition to baiting among all groups surveyed. It shows that 22% of hunters support baiting, while 64% oppose it. Among 

anglers, 11% support baiting, while 78% oppose it. Among non-consumptive users, 

6% support baiting, while 83% oppose it. The survey reveals that only 16% of rural 

residents approve of baiting, while 71% disapprove. Among urban residents, 11% approve of baiting, and 77% disapprove. Among men, 16% of Utahns approve of baiting, while 79% disapprove of the activity. For women, only 9% approve, while 84% 

disapprove (Attachment G). 

Most wildlife professionals recognize that human feeding of bears, including baiting, contributes to conflicts between people and bears. Tom Beck, a lifelong hunter 

and bear biologist with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, notes, ‘‘I firmly believe 

that baiting creates ‘‘nuisance’’ bears. Black bears are naturally wary, instinctively 

avoiding close contact with humans. But large amount of tasty food, easily obtained, 

defeats this wariness. By baiting, we create lazy bears who have been rewarded, not 

punished, for overcoming their fear of humans.’’ (Attachment H) 

In April 2003, Michael Soukup, associate director for National Resource Stewardship and Science with the NPS, wrote, ‘‘Human feeding of bears, whether deliberate 

or inadvertent, is a significant management problem wherever it occurs and is an 

activity that the National Park Service works very hard to prevent in units of the 

National Park System.’’ (Attachment I) 

Partly in response to the Park Service’s work in this area, the mantra ‘‘Don’t Feed 

the Bears’’ has become one of the most widely accepted precepts in modern wildlife 

management. Human-fed bears are more likely to approach people, to raid campgrounds, and to break into cars and cabins. Because bears are large and powerful, 

the animals can pose a threat to people if they have lost their innate fear of humans. 

Because of access to human food, for example, bears at Yosemite National Park 

‘‘become aggressive and cause extensive damage to motor vehicles, trailers, tents, 

ice chests, and other camping equipment while searching for human food,’’ according 

to park authorities. Bears caused over $630,000 in property damage in 1998 in Yosemite. 

On its web site, Yosemite officials note, ‘‘Allowing a bear to obtain human food 

even once often results in the bear becoming aggressive about obtaining food in the 

future.’’ Officials at Yellowstone National Park admonish, ‘‘Never leave food or garbage unattended.’’ (Attachment J) Glacier National Park authorities warn, ‘‘Human 

foods are one of the chief culprits in the creation of problem bears.’’ (Attachment 

K) 

The NPS has noted that baiting in adjacent national forests causes problems for 

bears in national parks. Just prior to the voter-approved ban on baiting in Oregon 

in 1994, Charles Odegaard, the Regional Director of the Pacific Northwest Region 

of the NPS, wrote the following to the Forest Service: ‘‘The practice of bear baiting 

[on adjacent national forests] has a direct negative impact on Crater Lake National 

Park. At some times the park boundary is almost ringed with bear baiting stations. 

Bears are wide-ranging animals. Stations placed within a few feet of the park 

boundary on a consistent and regular basis are inevitably an attractant that lures 

bears from the park. Experienced park field personnel believe that the park bear 

population is on the decline.’’ (Attachment L) 

Mr. ODEGAARD ADDED. ‘‘Biologically, there is no difference between a bait station 

and a dump. Bait stations habituate bears to human-generated food, contributing 

to the potential for conflicts between bears and people in the park.’’

Consistent with these views, the NPS has a regulation barring the feeding of any 

wildlife, including bears. (Attachment M) There is a similar rule administered by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and it reads, ‘‘The unauthorized distribution of 

bait and the hunting over bait is prohibited on national wildlife refuge areas.’’ (Attachment N) 

The USFS and the BLM, along with most state fish and wildlife agencies, have 

expressed the same views as their colleagues at the NPS and FWS on the practice 

of people feeding bears. A publication of the USFS, the Arizona Game & Fish Department, and the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish entitled ‘‘Be Bear 

Aware’’ declares, ‘‘Bears that are attracted to human food sources may cause property damage and injure people.’’ (Attachment A) The publication continues, ‘‘A fed 

bear is a dead bear,’’ and concludes, ‘‘Most conflicts between humans and black 

bears arise as the result of human supplied foods.’’

The four major Federal land management agencies have endorsed the ‘‘Leave No 

Trace’’ public awareness campaign, which warns that people should ‘‘never feed wild 

animals.’’ (Attachment O). The campaign materials say, ‘‘Feeding wildlife damages 

their health, alters natural behaviors, and exposes them to predators and other 

91

dangers.’’ In the same publications, Federal agencies address waste disposal in the 

woods saying, ‘‘Pack out all trash and garbage, including leftover food.’’

Allowing bear baiting is inconsistent with these declarations. It just makes no 

sense to think that providing food to bears is wrong, except if the feeding is associated with hunting. If it is wrong to set out food to lure bears for picture-taking, or 

just to watch the bears, surely it is also wrong to lure bears with jelly doughnuts 

and rotting animal carcasses for the purpose of shooting them. 

Baiting proponents argue that baiters engage in selective killing that protects females and their nursing cubs. Bear biologists from six western states disputed this 

argument in a paper that was published in the 1995 Proceedings of the Western 

Black Bear Workshop. They wrote: ‘‘The conclusion of most biologists is that it is 

quite difficult to accurately determine nursing status on free-ranging black bears, 

even when a bear is in a tree on at a bait. The appearance of nursing females in 

the kill each spring supports this notion. During the last year of spring bear hunting in Colorado, the number of nursing female black bears checked was within three 

of the number predicted based on breeding rate of females and total female kill. In 

other words, there was no selection even with regulations prohibiting the taking of 

nursing females.’’ (Attachment P) Data from the Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game also do not support the argument that hunters are more selective in their 

kills over bait. (personal communication with John Beecham, 6/6/03). If the goal is 

to protect nursing cubs, the most effective policy response is to outlaw any bear 

hunting in the spring, when the shooting of a lactating female will invariably doom 

her cubs. 

The idea of halting bear baiting is hardly a notion that most USFS forest supervisors would find alien or unworkable. In fact, Federal forest supervisors in bear 

baiting states have a history of opposing the practice and making their views known 

to the states. In November 1990, Stan Tixier, regional forester for the Intermountain Region of the USFS, which covers Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming—the only 

western states in the conterminous United States that still allow baiting—noted in 

a letter to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission that the Northern and Intermountain Regions of the USFS ‘‘oppose the continuation of bear baiting as a sport 

hunting practice.’’ (Attachment Q) 

Tixier cited concerns that baiting is publicly unpopular, contributes to conflicts between people and wildlife, and amounts to littering in the woods. He added, ‘‘We 

feel it is important that hunting be conducted in a manner that reflects well on 

hunter conduct. The use of salt as an attractant to draw elk and other game 

animals is illegal for ethical reasons. The Forest Service believes that these same 

standards should apply to all game species, including the black bear.’’

In April 1991, in a letter to the director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, William Burbridge of the USFS wrote, ‘‘the Forest Supervisors [of national 

forests] in Utah asked me to pass on to the Division and the Utah Wildlife Board 

their opposition to the continuation of bear baiting for sport hunting in Utah.’’ (Attachment R) 

Despite the support for a ban on baiting among on-the-ground forest supervisors 

who witnessed the deleterious impacts of baiting, political leaders at the USFS 

adopted a policy that leaves bear baiting decisions on national forests to the states. 

It is important to note that the USFS, in adopting this policy, never stated that 

baiting was in any way necessary for management purposes, nor even an appropriate use of Forest Service lands. Although the process by which the USFS enacted 

the baiting policy was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit in Fund for Animals v. Thomas, the court never addressed the 

merits of bear baiting, nor the wisdom of the USFS’s decision to allow bear baiting 

on USFS’s lands. 

Given that USFS administrators have decided to take no action to halt baiting 

on national forests—even in light of emphatic past declarations from key field personnel that baiting is inconsistent with agency standards and even though the agency continues to publish materials warning visitors that it is dangerous to set out 

any food for bears—it is appropriate that the Congress now instruct the agency, and 

the BLM, to adopt policies to ban any human feeding of bears. The argument for 

the ban on bear feeding is only buttressed by the fact that the public considers the 

practice of baiting bears to be so unsporting and unfair. 

The Federal Government has established policies to limit inhumane and 

unsporting hunting practices where it determines it has a compelling interest. In 

1971, Congress adopted the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, forbidding the shooting 

of animals for sport from aircraft. The Federal Government also adopted a regulation banning the baiting of migratory birds, and that prohibition has been in place 

for decades. 

92

The massive and all but unrestricted feeding of bears on Federal lands by baiters 

creates a compelling Federal interest. Opponents of H.R. 1472 cannot logically 

argue that baiting is entirely a ‘‘hunting’’ issue; it is also an issue of feeding, and 

the feeding issue is precisely the component of bear baiting that has triggered the 

introduction of H.R. 1472. The Federal Government has a clear and compelling interest in taking control of the human feeding of bears—for the safety of the forest 

users and employees, for the protection of public and private property destroyed by 

habituated bears, and for the protection of bears labeled as nuisance animals and 

then killed. 

To illustrate the point, consider the hypothetical of a state that did not forbid the 

shooting of bears from off-road vehicles. If the USFS felt that use of off-road vehicles 

was generally a bad practice because of its aesthetic effect on the landscape, its impact in uprooting plants and causing soil erosion and run-off, and its role in diminishing the quality of the recreational experience for other forest users, would the 

agency be obligated to defer to the states and make an exception for shooting of 

bears from off-road vehicles because hunting was an element of the recreational exercise? I think not, and I am confident even the USFS would agree if it were presented with a similar circumstance. In this case, the dumping of food in the woods 

is inconsistent with agency declarations and warrants a prohibition on the activity, 

even if it happens in this case to be associated with an activity generally controlled 

by the states. 

Finally, in terms of a compelling Federal interest, I want to emphasize why consistency on the bear feeding issue on Federal lands truly matters. The situation 

mentioned earlier, where managers at Crater Lake National Park identified major 

problems with bear baiting stations set up just over the line in adjoining national 

forests, could play out in Yellowstone, Grand Teton or other park service units that 

border national forests or BLM lands in bear baiting states. If it is a problem to 

feed bears on one side of the park boundary, it is also a problem to feed bears a 

few feet away, on the other side of the divide. Bears do not know boundaries; consequently, bears fed in a national forest may become a nuisance in a national park, 

damaging property and threatening people. And bears principally living in a park 

may be lured out of the park by bait sites and killed in considerable numbers by 

commercial baiters, diminishing the experience of park visitors who hoped to see a 

bear. Common sense and consistency demand Federal action to bring USFS and 

BLM policy in line with that of NPS and FWS. I urge your support for H.R. 1472. 

I’d now like to turn my attention to H.R. 1006, the ‘‘Captive Wildlife Safety Act.’’ 

For every tiger roaming free in the forests of Asia, another languishes in grim confinement in a backyard cage somewhere in America. The world’s largest cat, a powerful and solitary predator that numbered around 100,000 at the turn of the century, is now a highly endangered species on the brink of extinction. Its fragmented 

populations number somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 animals in the wild. In the 

United States, roughly the same number are thought to be held in private hands, 

along with perhaps 3,000 lions, cougars, and other big cats. 

These magnificent carnivores—particularly easy-to-breed tigers—have become one 

of the nation’s hottest new exotic pets, animal status symbols, advertising gimmicks, 

and roadside attractions. They are imprisoned in tiny wire mesh cages, tethered or 

chained in basements and barns, displayed outside gas stations and convenience 

stores to attract customers, used as guard animals by drug dealers, and held in 

squalid, unaccredited roadside zoos. Astonishingly, they are also carted around to 

schools and shopping malls for photo ops and petting opportunities. 

Genetically programmed to range over 100 miles a day, swim rivers, and bring 

down prey twice their size, tigers are hard-wired to attack and kill. They may appear to be tame and friendly, but the reality of recent attacks—many on children—

reinforces their omnipresent danger to their owners and anyone who comes into 

close contact. 

In the past five years, at least nine people have been mauled to death by tigers, 

scores have been attacked, and many have suffered grievous injuries. Twice as 

many people die each year from dog bites but with 50 million dogs, the threat from 

tigers is proportionately far greater. A new study finds that tigers are between 360 

and 720 times more likely to be involved in a fatal attack than a pit bull or other 

domestic canine. Consider these incidents: 

• Six weeks ago on March 31, a Hennepin, Illinois man was killed by two tigers 

as he moved them between cages on his property. One of the cats had previously mauled a seven-year-old girl, causing extensive injuries. 

• Two days later at a roadside zoo in Adair, Oklahoma, a tiger reached through 

a small slot in the cage and ripped off the arm of a woman keeper standing 

outside. She bled to death. 

93

• Last September in Santa Cruz County, California, a young 200-pound Bengal 

tiger exhibited in a grade school classroom by a company called Zoo To You attacked a 6-year-old boy, severely injuring the youngster and traumatizing his 

classmates. It took 55 staples to close the boy’s head wounds. • In Texas, thought to hold perhaps half of the nation’s backyard tigers, a string 

of attacks over the past four years underscores the threat to youngsters. A 10-

year-old girl helping her stepfather groom the animal died after a tiger clamped 

her head in its jaws. A four-year-old girl’s arm was torn off, and a three-yearold boy posing for a photograph inside the cage was fatally savaged by his 

grandfather’s pet. 

A study on tiger attacks to be published in the journal Zoo Biology documents incidents in 19 states (Ark., Calif., Colo., Fla., Idaho, Ill., Ind., Kan., Mass., Minn., 

Miss., Neb., Nev., N.D., N.M., Ohio, Okla., S.D. and Tex.) between 1998 and 2001. 

(Attachment S) Most fatalities and serious injuries occurred either in private backyard menageries or in small roadside zoos that are not accredited by the American 

Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA). 

It also outlines in chilling detail the unpredictability of these alpha-predators and 

their threat to humans, particularly children. ‘‘Despite the appearance among some 

trained animals of pseudo-domestication, [they] retain their predatory instincts and 

neural-visceral reflexes and they can inflict serious wounds using their teeth or 

claws suddenly and without forewarning. 

‘‘A child’s smaller body size increases the potential for serious or lethal injury. 

Size also appears to influence the attack response of tigers. Large cats instinctively 

strike the neck and shoulder of prey to disable them, resulting in serious 

craniofacial and cervical spinal injuries. The small size of children [and their movements] may help to trigger the attack response . . . making human children particularly stimulating as prey.’’

The threat to humans is reiterated by the United States Department of Agriculture, which calls big cats ‘‘dangerous animals’’ whose care and handling should 

be confined to professionals. (Attachment T) ‘‘Because of these animals’ potential to 

kill or severely injure’’. an untrained person should not keep them as pets,’’ the 

USDA states. That unequivocal position is also supported by The American Veterinary Medical Association, the AZA, and all reputable animal welfare organizations. 

The rapid rise in the popularity of pet tigers is a stunning cultural phenomenon. 

In the hands of untrained exotic pet fanciers, roadside zoo owners, and even celebrities like Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson who got rid of their pet tigers because 

they were too difficult to manage, tigers are not only a danger to people. They are 

also victims. 

Tigers kept as pets or held in roadside zoos suffer from abuse, ignorance, poor 

diet, lack of veterinary care, inadequate enclosures, and painful physical ailments 

from random inbreeding. A few lucky ones end up in accredited sanctuaries. Most 

are dumped into pseudo-shelters that operate like puppy mills. They breed the big 

cats to churn out cubs for sale on the Internet or at exotic animal auctions. They 

cost as little as $300—the price of a pure-bred puppy. These are a few of the consequences: 

• In April 2003, 90 tiger carcasses including 58 cubs, along with 11 live tigers 

and other animals, were discovered at an unaccredited facility called Tiger Rescue in Riverside County, Calif. Two of the cats were euthanized and the owner 

has been charged with 16 animal cruelty felonies based on the condition of the 

live animals found on his property. An investigation continues into why he had 

90 dead tigers in a freezer. 

• Federal authorities in March prosecuted a 16-member, 8-state ring of roadside 

zoo owners, taxidermists, and animal black marketeers that had purchased, 

shot, and butchered dozens of tigers and other big cats. By selling mounted 

heads, skins, meat, bones, and blood to trophy collectors, butchers and the 

Asian medicine trade, they turned a live tiger worth a few hundred dollars into 

body parts that were sold for up to $10,000—making the cats literally worth 

more dead than alive. 

• Also in April, San Antonio police were forced to shoot and kill a lioness that 

escaped from an accredited sanctuary after vandals opened her cage. She had 

been rescued from a decrepit roadside zoo in Iowa closed down after other big 

cats had starved to death or had been killed and eaten by cage mates. The 

USDA reported that a male Bengal tiger fed on turkey carcasses died after 

splintered bones punctured its intestines. It had no drinking water to flush the 

bones through its system and in its agony, had chewed its metal water bowl 

to pieces. 

The current mania for exotic pet bragging rights is spurred in part by their easy 

availability and low cost. Tigers breed readily even in the worst conditions of 

94

captivity, but they aren’t tabbies. As they grow and become increasingly hard to 

handle, their novelty quickly wears off. The difficulties of caring for these apex-predators quickly compounds the cruelties they suffer beyond the cramped squalor many 

exist in, and the widespread ignorance of their physical, behavioral, and nutritional 

needs. 

For example, tigers need up to 60 pounds of red meat a week, and feeding them 

a healthy diet is expensive. Many owners substitute cheaper poultry parts like 

chicken backs and necks which don’t provide vital vitamins and minerals. The result 

can be severe malnourishment and painful ailments like metabolic bone disease that 

causes their legs to break. Veterinary care for these big cats is difficult, and often 

impossible, to obtain. 

Many tigers end up being dumped on local animal shelters that are ill-equipped 

to care for them. Humane officers reports a catalogue of misery suffered by the 

animals—from untreatable ailments requiring euthanasia, to cats mutilated and 

crippled by ignorant owners who tried to declaw their pets with garden shears. 

Owners often insist they are ‘‘saving an endangered species,’’ but that is a false 

argument. Their so-called ‘‘generic’’ tiger pets, the result of random mating in backyard cages and roadside zoos, are genetically inferior hybrids that cannot be used 

in the programs conducted by accredited zoos. In a word, they are inbred mutts—

magnificent alley cats, if you will—but worthless for use in the AZA’s Tiger Species 

Survival Plan that manages close to 300 tigers in its North American computermatched breeding program. 

The growing public safety threat, the widespread abuse of these animals, and the 

patchwork of state and local exotic animal laws underscore the need for Federal action. Twelve states (Alaska, Calif., Colo., Ga., Hi., Mass., N.H., N.M., Tenn., Utah, 

Vt., and Wyo.,) prohibit the private possession of exotic animals. Seven states 

(Conn., Fla., Ill., Md., Mich., Nev., Va.,) have a partial ban. Fifteen states (Ariz., 

Del., Ind., Maine, Miss., Mont., N.J., N.Y., N.D., Okla., Ore., Pa., R.I., S.D. and 

Tex.,) require a license or permit to possess them. 

However, enforcement is spotty, loopholes are wide, and local ordinances are a 

regulatory mish-mash. USDA does not regulate private ownership of these animals. 

From the squalid backyard menagerie to the seedy roadside zoo to the illegal black 

market in tiger parts, it’s time for Congress to step in and complement the efforts 

of the states by banning interstate movement of big cats for the pet trade. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Next on the panel, since my glasses do not work 

anymore, Mr. Haleen, National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. HALEEN,

NATIONAL BEAR HUNTING TASK FORCE 

Mr. HALEEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Steve Haleen, appearing to testify in opposition to H.R. 1472. I am 

the past President of the Michigan Bear Hunters Association and 

have been hunting black bears for over 25 years and represent the 

National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force. We appreciate this opportunity to be here today. With me are two members of the task 

force, Rick Posig, President of Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, 

and Rob Sexton, Vice President of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. 

The task force represents 17 organizations across the United 

States. One of the unique aspects of this task force is that more 

than half of these members are hound hunting organizations, myself included, which means that I prefer to hunt bears with hounds 

rather than to still hunt over bait. 

In normal circumstances, bait hunters and houndsmen are, for 

lack of a better term, friendly rivals, each one preferring their own 

method of hunting. Yet today we have put aside our rivalry and 

present a unified front of bear hunters in opposition to H.R. 1472. 

In fact, four task force members, Arkansas, California, North Carolina and Virginia Bear Hunters Associations, are houndsmen organizations from States where bait is not even allowed. 

95

You might ask why would all of these hound hunting organizations rally to support still hunting over bait? Because they understand this bill is only one part of a bigger picture. Backers of this 

bill, the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, PETA, and the Animal Protection Institute have provided 

Members of Congress with arguments criticizing bait hunting. 

What they haven’t divulged to you is that they make similar arguments about every method of bear hunting that exists. They don’t 

just oppose bait hunting or bow hunting or spring hunting, they oppose all hunting of bears. 

We have defended ourselves in the courts of California, on the 

ballots of Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and 

Washington, and in countless state legislatures and in Federal 

courts. The arguments of the anti-hunter radicals are all over the 

board: Dogs are cruel. Baiting is unsporting. It is unfair in the 

spring. Black bears look too much like grizzly bears. Hunting is unsafe. 

In the end, there is one common theme: These groups do not like 

any kind of hunting. Dog organizations join this task force in opposition to H.R. 1472 because they know if this bill becomes law 

some other form of anti-hunting bill will be the next target. The 

antis will not be satisfied until all hunting is banned. 

For example, in Minnesota where hound hunting is not permitted, these same groups are arguing now just as strongly as they 

are against baiting to prevent hound hunting in the State of Minnesota. So, from a hunter’s perspective, bait and hound hunting 

alike, we believe that H.R. 1472 is one step in an attempt to end 

all traditional bear hunting in this country. 

The second issue is wildlife management. There are many reasons why State wildlife managers permit certain hunting methods: 

effectiveness, selection, safety, terrain, culture, just to name a few. 

In Michigan, the Natural Resources Commission and the Department of Natural Resources have concluded that the proposed ban, 

H.R. 1472, would cause a significant decline in the State’s annual 

bear harvesting—the estimate is 10 to 30 percent—and that under 

a sustained decline annually would result in a significant increase 

in the bear population, particularly in the western UP where there 

are large tracts of Federal land. That increase would result in increased human and bear conflict, conflicts that Maryland and New 

Jersey are now facing in two States where bear hunting is not 

allowed. 

The ban would also not accomplish what the slogans suggest: Do 

not feed the bears. For you see that in the State of Michigan and 

in many other States it is also legal to bait deer on Federal lands. 

There are 50 deer hunters to every bear hunter in Michigan. They 

hunt at the same time that bear hunters do. They are feeding the 

bears much more than what the bear hunters are so the ban would 

not accomplish what they are trying to accomplish. What it would 

accomplish is preventing bear hunters from still hunting over bait. 

The last point I want to make has to do with States rights. Some 

States have decided to ban the practice of still hunting over bait. 

Other States have decided to allow it. In 1996 when these same 

groups came to the State of Michigan and asked the voters in the 

State of Michigan to ban the use of bait hunting and ban the use 

96

of hound hunting, by a two-to-one margin these voters decided 

there was no need to stop either one of these forms of hunting. Furthermore by a nine-to-one margin, nine out of ten voters said that 

these kinds of decisions should be left in the hands of the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources and the Michigan Natural Resources Commission. 

I will conclude by saying there is no reason to believe that the 

voters in the State of Michigan have changed their minds. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haleen follows:]

Statement of Steve Haleen, National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force,

on H.R. 1472

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Steve Haleen, appealing to 

testify in opposition to H.R. 1472. I am past President of the Michigan Bear Hunters Association and represent the National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force. We 

appreciate the opportunity to be here today and with me are two other members 

of the task force, Rick Posig, President of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association 

and Rob Sexton, Vice President of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. 

The task force represents 17 organizations across the United States. A complete 

list is included with my written testimony. One of the unique aspects of this task 

force is that more than half of its members are hound-hunting organizations. Myself 

included, that means we prefer to hunt bears with dogs rather than use bait. 

In normal circumstances, bait hunters and houndsmen are, for lack of a better 

term, rivals, each one believing their method of hunting is the ‘‘right’’ way of doing 

so. Yet today, we have put aside our rivalry and present a unified front of bear 

hunters in opposition to H.R. 1472. Four task force members, the Arkansas, California, North Carolina and Virginia Bear Hunters Associations, are houndsmen organizations from states where bait is not even allowed. Why would all these hound 

hunting organizations rally to support bait hunting? Because they understand that 

this bill is only one part of a bigger picture. You see, black bear hunters have been 

fighting for the right to exist for nearly twenty years. 

Backers of this bill, the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, PETA and the Animal Protection Institute, have provided members of Congress with arguments criticizing bait hunting. What they have not divulged to you 

is that they make similar arguments about every method of bear hunting that exists. You see, they don’t just oppose bait hunting or hunting with dogs or bow hunting or spring hunting of bears . . . they oppose all hunting of bears. That’s made 

things rough for bear hunters over the past two decades. 

We have defended ourselves in the courts of California, on the ballot in Colorado, 

Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington, in countless state legislatures 

and in Federal court. The arguments of the anti-hunting radicals are all over the 

board: dogs are cruel; bait is unsporting; it’s unfair in the spring; black bears look 

too much like grizzly bears; hunting is unsafe. 

In the end, there is one common theme. These groups just don’t like hunting—

any kind of hunting. The dog organizations joined this task force in opposition to 

H.R. 1472 because they know if this bill becomes law, some other form of bear 

hunting will become the next target. The antis won’t be satisfied until all hunting 

is banned. 

In Minnesota for instance, the use of dogs is prohibited, while bait is permitted. 

These same animal rights extremists are speaking out against dogs in St. Paul just 

as vigorously as they have lobbied you here on bait. 

These issues are being fought and debated in each state. In my home state of 

Michigan, the voters rejected a ban on baiting by a 2–1 margin in 1996. In 

Wisconsin, my colleague here has successfully defended the use of dogs in the state 

legislature several times. That is what makes the United States great. The people 

in Arkansas can do things one way, while the folks in Alaska do it another. Unless 

there is some overriding issue, such as endangered species or the species are migratory, he Federal Government has stayed out of resident wildlife management and 

that’s the way it should remain. 

There are many reasons why state wildlife managers permit certain hunting 

methods. Effectiveness, selection, safety, terrain, and culture, just to name a few. 

I would hope that I don’t have to come here to tell you why bait hunting is good. 

97

I would hope that our opponents would have to show you why it is bad enough for 

you to pre-empt state management authority, and I know they can’t do that. 

There is no evidence that baiting habituates bears to people. The picture of bait 

hunting they have painted for you does not come from experience. Bait hunting is 

challenging. Bears don’t grow old and heavily populate the states like they do, by 

being easy prey. They are smart and elusive. Today we are seeing bears in more 

states and in greater numbers than anytime in the last 100 years. That is causing 

some of the debate. Folks in New Jersey and Maryland are having to decide what 

to do with an exploding bear population. You see, they don’t have a hunting season 

and people are having run-ins with bears. 

In Michigan, we believe that the use of bait and dogs provide the most effective 

means of controlling bears, while providing a source of recreation for thousands of 

our citizens. 

This bill is an unfair, unwarranted attack on bear hunters and state wildlife authority and I ask the members of the Subcommittee to defeat it. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. William P. Horn, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, DIRECTOR,

FEDERAL AFFAIRS, U.S. SPORTSMEN’S ALLIANCE 

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and register our very strong opposition to 

H.R. 1472. 

This bill is an absolutely unnecessary and dangerous measure. It 

constitutes an unwarranted assault on the long-established distribution of authority between the State and the Federal Government regarding the regulation of the taking of resident fish and 

wildlife. 

For over two centuries control over resident fish and wildlife has 

been vested in the States, and Congress has repeatedly in a wide 

variety of statutes—most notably and recently with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997—reiterated very 

expressly that the taking of resident species of fish and wildlife, 

even on Federal land, remains a State prerogative. 

Now, of course, this relationship that has existed since the founding of our Republic, grounded in the Federalism between the Feds 

and the States, of course is quite distinct from other areas where 

Congress has asserted Federal preemption from the very beginning. Two noteworthy examples would be Federal preemption of 

regulation of airspace through the Federal Aviation Administration 

or preemption of regulation of the use of the airwaves as regulated 

by the Federal Communications Commission. Those are areas 

where Congress said from the outset we will have Federal primacy 

and preemption, very, very different from the 200-year history that 

has existed vis-a-vis the regulation of wildlife. 

Clearly, the Federal Government does have certain preemptive 

powers regarding wildlife, powers that it has used very judiciously 

and sparingly over the last century. Primary examples are the 

1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act to govern the conservation and 

taking of migratory birds. Another example is the Endangered 

Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, both enacted 

over 30 years ago. 

No significant legislation providing for Federal preemption of 

State wildlife authority has been enacted in decades. It is clear 

that Congress has exercised its preemptive authority infrequently 

and only in extraordinary circumstances either involving wildlife 

98

on the verge of extinction or endangerment or for migratory species 

that move over State boundaries, such as ducks and geese, or for 

species that exist and migrate outside of traditional boundaries, 

such as whales and dolphins and other marine mammals. 

In very sharp and marked contrast, black bears are abundant 

and nonmigratory. They do not fit the bill for any of the prior circumstances where Congress has seen fit to exercise its preemptive 

authority. Based on that precedent, based on the facts, 

uncontroverted facts, there is absolutely nothing that justifies Federal preemption in the case of black bears or hunting techniques 

for such black bears. We submit that passage of H.R. 1472 would 

represent an unprecedented break with a century of judicious wildlife policy and thrust Congress directly into proscribing highly specific forms of hunting and fishing. 

If Congress determines that this particular specific practice justifies the exercise of its extraordinary and unique preemptive authorities, what other specific fishing, hunting or trapping activities 

will be the subject of the next preemptive act? Baiting of fish 

through the use of chum is a very common practice for fishing for 

migratory striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay or for fishing for migratory bluefish off the coast of New Jersey. If some find this practice unethical or unsporting, and there are many in the animal 

rights community who find all forms of fishing are unethical and 

unsporting, should Federal legislation prohibit this form of angling 

in navigable Federal waters? We would submit not. 

This bill will so lower the threshold for Federal preemption that 

virtually any form of controversial fishing, hunting or trapping activity will be subject to direct congressional intervention; and we 

are persuaded that is a Pandora’s box that this Congress shouldn’t 

open. 

Let me close with a couple of other observations. 

Picking up on Steve’s prior comments, I hope the Committee or 

the Subcommittee took note of Mr. Pacelle’s comments in which he 

opened up with an attack on baiting; and we noticed that throughout the conversation and the testimony that we end up hearing references to baiting, the use of dogs, and spring seasons beginning 

to be used almost interchangeably. Make no mistake many of the 

opponents of this bill—or the proponents of this bill are as adamantly opposed to these other forms of State-sanctioned activity as 

they are of baiting; and I would fully expect if Congress passes this 

measure we will see someone persuaded to introduce a bill to outlaw the use of dogs in bear hunting, as is now provided in eight 

States, including Virginia and West Virginia, if someone finds 

these particular activities to be repugnant to their sense of aesthetics and ethics. 

We believe it is absolutely necessary for Congress to retain the 

judicious use of its preemptive authority that has typified its activities in the Federal wildlife field for over a century and not pass 

this bill and confine its focus to those areas of migratory species 

where it has determined that preemption is warranted. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Horn. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]

99

Statement of William P. Horn, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, on H.R. 1472

Mr. Chairman. My name is William P. Horn, Federal Affairs Director and Washington Counsel for the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and express our strong opposition to H.R. 1472. The Alliance is a national non-profit entity committed to protecting our heritage of hunting, angling and 

trapping. It represents over 1.2 million sportsmen and women through its members 

and affiliated organizations. We are also pleased to be coordinating the efforts of the 

Natural Bear Hunting Defense Task Force. 

H.R. 1472 is an absolutely unnecessary and dangerous measure that would preempt the authority of state fish and wildlife authorities to regulate the taking of 

highly abundant black bears. Specifically, the bill would mandate new Federal regulations to prohibit the authorized use of bait and the related hunting of black bears 

on all Federal lands notwithstanding state law, regulations, or practices to the contrary. As such the bill constitutes an unwarranted assault on the long established 

distribution of authority between the states and the Federal Government regarding 

the regulation of resident fish and wildlife. 

Beginning with the rise of our states in the 1600 and 1700’s, control over fish and 

wildlife resources has been vested in those states. Express recognition of state primacy in this field first occurred in the 1800’s and Congress has continually determined that regulation of the taking of resident species of fish and wildlife, even on 

Federal land, remains a state prerogative (e.g., National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, P.L. 105–57, Oct. 9, 1997: Section 8 (a) ‘‘Nothing in this Act 

shall be construed as affecting the authority, responsibility of the several States to 

manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations in any area of the [Refuge] System.’’). 

The Constitution does vest the Federal Government with preemptive power but 

in the realm of wildlife law this authority has been used judiciously and sparingly. 

The first significant Federal preemptive act was the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

to govern the conservation and taking of migratory birds. However, even in the case 

of migratory birds, the Federal Government sets a framework for hunting and 

leaves the specifics to be implemented by the individual states fish and wildlife authorities. Other examples of preemption are the Endangered Species Act and the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act both enacted 30 years ago. No significant legislation 

providing for Federal preemption of state wildlife authority has been enacted in decades. 

It is clear that Congress has exercised this authority infrequently and only in extraordinary circumstances involving wildlife on the verge of extinction or for migratory species that move across state boundaries (i.e, ducks) or that exist outside of 

traditional state boundaries (i.e., whales, dolphins). 

Nine states authorize the use of bait in the taking of black bears: Alaska, Idaho, 

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Fish 

and wildlife authorities in these states have made a considered professional judgement that this method of taking is a legitimate means of hunting abundant black 

bears. Of course, other states have come to a different conclusion and are free to 

do so in under our 214 year old system of Federalism. We should add too that those 

who disapprove of the use of bait are also completely free to exercise their rights 

and approach or petition the authorities in these nine states to change their rules. 

Black bears are abundant and non-migratory. Populations are growing and in 

many areas the animals are a nuisance, and sometimes a hazard, to people. Most 

states with black bears have hunting seasons designed to keep bear populations in 

check to minimize or reduce nuisances and hazards. And in nine cases, states have 

decided that the use of bait is an important tool to be employed in pursuit of these 

goals. 

Absolutely nothing justifies Federal preemption in the case of black bears or hunting techniques for such bears. Black bear populations number in the hundreds of 

thousands in the nine states that authorize the use of bait. Populations in other 

states are as high if not higher. This is a not a species in any trouble. In addition, 

these animals are also highly resident spending virtually all of their lives in defined 

territories. Black bears are not moving among the states in flocks or herds necessitating a direct Federal management role. 

Passage of this bill would represent an unprecedented break with a century of judicious wildlife policy and thrust Congress directly into proscribing, or prescribing, 

highly specific forms of hunting or fishing. If Congress determines that this highly 

specific practice justifies the exercise of its constitutional Property Clause power, 

what other specific fishing, hunting, or trapping activities will be the subject of the 

next preemptive act? ‘‘Baiting’’ of fish through the use of chum is a common practice 

for migratory striped bass in Chesapeake Bay, for migratory bluefish off the New 

100

Jersey coast and for migratory Spanish mackerel off Florida. If some find this practice unethical or unsporting, should Federal legislation prohibit these forms of angling? Wisconsin routinely allows the use of bait for hunting whitetail deer; should 

Wisconsin hunters anticipate preemptive Federal law to ban this practice? Passage 

of H.R. 1472 will so lower the threshold for Federal preemption of state regulation 

of fish and resident wildlife that virtually no form of state sanctioned fishing, hunting, or trapping activity will be exempt from direct Congressional meddling. The 

Sportsmen’s Alliance is persuaded that neither the Subcommittee nor Congress will 

want to open this Pandora’s Box. 

The anti-hunting zealots and animal rights radicals behind this legislation will 

not rest until all forms of hunting, fishing, and trapping are totally prohibited. Obviously they cannot achieve their radical agenda at once and have adopted a different 

more stealthy tactic—target more controversial and less popular practices one by 

one. That is clearly the purpose of H.R. 1472 and we strongly urge the Subcommittee to simply stop this unwarranted and dangerous bill and to not advance 

the animal rights agenda. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance 

looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to stop this dangerous measure. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We have a vote. We have to leave in 5 minutes. 

We will have members without objection who are here or have left 

to come up with questions which we would like to submit to the 

record and submit to the panel. 

I yield now to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Chairman, I neglected to introduce the wildlife biologist, Dr. Dwayne Etter, from the State of Michigan. He is 

the biologist—the bear management specialist adjutant professor at 

the University of Michigan. He has a statement I would like to 

enter into the record. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, and we will continue our conversation with the gentleman as we pursue the legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Etter follows:]

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

LANSING

JUNE 10, 2003

The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Room H2–187, Ford House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Gilchrest:

SUBJECT: Written Testimony, ‘‘Don’t Feed the Bears Act of 2003 (H.R. 1472)

Introduction 

The residents of Michigan have long lived with and hunted black bear. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is mandated to manage this valuable 

and important Michigan resource. If enacted, the proposed ‘‘Don’t Feed the Bears 

Act of 2003 (H.R. 1472)’’ would severely limit the ability of the MDNR to meet this 

mandate. 

Black Bear Social Issues in Michigan 

The black bear is an integral part of forested ecosystems in Michigan; however, 

public concerns require that the MDNR manage the number of bear in the state at 

a socially acceptable level. In the absence of hunting, Michigan’s bear population 

would be expected to increase at a rate of approximately 15–20 percent per year. 

101

Approximately one million people and an estimated 16,000 black bear live in close 

proximity in the northern two-thirds of Michigan. Bear are expanding their range 

also into the highly populated areas of southern Michigan. This, in conjunction with 

the large influx of people living and vacationing in northern Michigan, increases incidents of human-bear encounters. Bears sometimes become a nuisance by searching 

for food in garbage cans and at bird feeders. Bears also can cause damage to buildings and crops and sometimes kill pets and livestock. On rare occasions, bears injure people. Regulating the size of the bear population can reduce the likelihood of 

negative bear-human interactions. 

Bear Research in Michigan 

The MDNR has a long commitment to research the biology of the black bear, its 

population dynamics, and habitat requirements. One of the pioneer black bear research projects in the country began in the Upper Peninsula (UP) in the early 

1950s, at which time methods of live trapping and handling black bear were developed. In more recent years, radio-telemetry projects have allowed researchers to 

track black bear movements and assess the effects of human activity on bear behavior in Michigan. Using bait to attract bears into traps is the most effective way to 

capture bears for research purposes. In the 1990s, this technique was used extensively by MDNR and United States Forest Service (USFS) biologists on the Huron–

Manistee National Forest (HMNF) to capture and radio-collar bears. This project is 

outlined in Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) R9–04–MU–92–007 between the 

MDNR and HMNF–USFS. Information from this project is used extensively for 

management of bears in the northern Lower Peninsula (NLP). Inability to bait and 

capture bears on Federal lands would limit severely the effectiveness of future bear 

research projects under this MOU. 

Michigan biologists have used bear baiting as a population trend estimator for the 

past 15–20 years. Baits (usually consisting of one- to two-pound packs of bacon and 

cans of sardines) are suspended from trees six to eight feet above the ground to ensure that only bears can take baits. Survey routes are established systematically to 

assure that all bears in a given survey area have a chance to be recorded. Baits 

are checked one to two weeks later, and those taken by bears are recorded. By comparing the number of baits taken by bears among years, biologists are able to 

project trends in bear population size. However, projecting trends requires multiple 

years of replicating the same survey routes. Existing survey routes in Michigan’s 

UP and NLP include bait sites located on Federal lands. Eliminating these bait sites 

from future surveys would make comparisons with past surveys impractical. In 

areas where Federal lands make up a significant portion of available bear habitat, 

eliminating bait sites on Federal lands would render this survey technique useless. 

Advances in genetic technology provide an additional tool for estimating bear population size in Michigan. The MDNR and Michigan State University are currently 

conducting a research project to estimate bear population size in the NLP using 

baited hair snares to collect genetic material from bears. As described above, baited 

hair snares are placed systematically on private, state, and Federal lands to ensure 

potential sampling of all bears within the region. This research is being conducted 

in cooperation with the USFS and Tribal biologists from the region. Year one of this 

project shows promise for its future use to estimate bear populations; however, the 

inability to bait bears on Federal lands will likely limit its usefulness in most areas 

of Michigan. 

Problem Bears 

The MDNR strives to minimize conflicts between bears and people. In 2001, the 

‘‘Black Bear Work Group’’ developed the ‘‘Michigan Problem Bear Policy and Management Guidelines’’ outlining specific procedures for managing human-bear conflicts. Social intolerance of bears and their behavior sometimes warrants the need 

to capture and relocate problem bears. 

The MDNR began documenting bear complaints on a statewide basis in 1991. 

From 1991 to 2002, over 3,000 bear complaints were documented. In response, bear 

traps were set on approximately 800 occasions resulting in over 350 problem bears 

being captured. Additionally, the MDNR cooperates with the USFS to trap problem 

bears on Federal lands in Michigan. The most effective means for capturing nuisance bears is in a baited trap. 

Critics contend that baiting habituates bears to human foods thus increasing nuisance bear activity. It is unclear whether baiting increases or decreases nuisance 

bear activity. Bears that are attracted to hunter’s baits and are not harvested may 

be more likely to seek out other human sources of food. However, bears that are 

already adapted to using human foods are more likely to be harvested over bait. 

102

It is unclear whether baiting increases the likelihood of bears attacking people. 

However, reported bear attacks are extremely rare in Michigan, and the last reported human fatality from a bear was recorded in 1978. The MDNR personnel tend 

hundreds of bear baits annually for research purposes. No bear attacks have been 

reported in association with this activity. 

Bear Hunting in Michigan 

Regulated bait hunting helps to maintain precision in the number of bears harvested annually because it provides consistency in bear hunter success rates. (From 

1996 to 2002, bear hunter success rates in Michigan ranged from 23 to 27 percent.) 

Each winter, biologists use population models in conjunction with indexes derived 

from bear bait surveys to estimate the bear population in Michigan. Biologists then 

use average hunter success rates from previous seasons to determine the number 

of permits required to achieve the desired harvest in the upcoming season. Using 

this technique, the actual number of bears harvested has fluctuated less than 6 percent from the desired harvest since 1998. Over the past decade, the annual number 

of bear harvested in Michigan has been adjusted annually to allow the population 

to increase at a rate of 2–3 percent per year. To achieve this, the bear harvest in 

Michigan has increased approximately 5–15 percent each of the last eight years. 

Bear baiting has always been a legal harvest method in Michigan, and it is integral to the management of the species. In 2002, approximately 83 percent of Michigan hunters relied on baiting to attract bears to their hunting area. An additional 

7 percent of hunters used a combination of bait and dogs to locate a bear. In 1985, 

a formal baiting season was established in Michigan; since then, baiting to attract 

bears has been highly regulated. It is illegal for any person or their authorized representatives to establish or tend more than three bait stations per hunter. No metal 

containers, plastic, wood, glass, fabric cloth, tires, or paper may be used at a bait 

station. Bait can only be placed on the ground. As required by state law, any containers used to transport bait to the baiting site must be removed and disposed of 

properly. If using grains, the hunter is limited to no more than two gallons, and 

the bait must be made inaccessible to deer and elk. For the 2003 bear hunting season, the baiting period is limited to five weeks (August 19 to September 25) in the 

Lower Peninsula (LP) and 10 weeks (August 10 to October 26) in the UP. 

Approximately 14 percent of land open to bear hunting in Michigan is Federally 

owned. Additionally, 22 percent of the land base in the western end of the UP 

(Amasa, Baraga, and Bergland Bear Management Units) is in Federal ownership. 

In 2002, these three units combined for approximately 48 percent of the state’s total 

bear harvest. Furthermore, 45 percent of Michigan’s bear hunters hunted on public 

lands, and an additional 19 percent hunted on both public and private lands in 

2002. Clearly, the elimination of baiting for bear on Federally owned lands in Michigan would affect a significant decline in the state’s annual bear harvest. 

The harvest of black bears in Michigan is managed in ten bear management units 

(BMU). The BMUs help to distribute the bear harvest throughout the entire subsection, rather than allowing hunters to target animals in only optimal habitats. 

Baiting is an effective method for attracting bears that exist in less than optimal 

habitats and at lower densities. The BMUs also help to assure that biological information obtained from harvested bears is representative of the entire subsection population. Since 1990, a ‘‘quota’’ system has been used to limit the number of hunters 

in each BMU each year. 

Contrary to the belief of many non-bear hunters, harvesting a bear over bait is 

not easy (e.g., bear hunter success rates in Michigan average approximately 25 percent). Bears have a keen sense of smell and hearing and generally are wary of humans, so bait hunters must be skillful and patient to harvest a bear. Hunters can 

place baits at close range for more effective shots thus resulting in less wounded 

animals. Additionally, hunters using bait can be selective and thus avoid shooting 

young bears or mothers with cubs. (Harvesting a cub bear or mother with cubs is 

illegal in Michigan). 

Hunting bears with bait is a legal and important method of harvesting bears in 

one-third of the states that have bear hunting (9 of 27 states) and in 8 of 11 Canadian provinces. States and provinces that do not allow bait for hunting bears tend 

to: 1) have habitat conducive to spot and stalk hunting (e.g., Montana and Colorado); or 2) have a large pool of hunters (e.g., New York and Pennsylvania); or 3) 

have climates that are conducive for bears to den late in the year, so they can be 

hunted during deer and elk seasons (e.g., Oregon and Washington). Ideal bear habitat in Michigan consists of densely wooded lowland conifers where visibility is severely limited. For the past three years, the bear hunter pool in Michigan has been 

approximately 50,000 hunters. This is less than one-half of the number of bear 

hunters in several states that do not allow bait hunting (e.g., approximately 120,000 

103

people hunted bear in Pennsylvania in 2002). Most bears in Michigan are already 

in dens by the time deer season begins in mid–November. Michigan had a bear season that overlapped gun deer season until 1990. This season was closed due to the 

concerns that many bears were being taken when they were in the den, a method 

considered unsporting to most hunters. 

In Michigan, it is legal to bait deer and most furbearers (e.g., coyotes, foxes, etc.) 

for the purpose of hunting or trapping. Enforcement of changes to bear baiting laws 

on Federal lands might be confounded by the difficulty of discerning bear baiting 

from baiting for other species. Furthermore, changes to bear baiting laws on Federal 

lands could influence also the MDNR’s ability to manage other wildlife species. 

Baiting/Feeding and Bear Ecology 

Bears are omnivorous and opportunistic feeders, taking the easiest and best foods 

available. Bears prefer foods with high protein and fat content. They show preference for specific foods, but not necessarily bait. Hard and soft mast (nuts and berries) are important natural foods, and bears are known to move long distances to 

obtain them. In years of abundant natural foods, harvest of bears over bait is known 

to decrease. This suggests that if given the opportunity, bears prefer natural foods 

to bait. 

Critics of bear baiting suggest that bears with access to bait have increased reproduction resulting in an increased number of bears. Research conducted in Michigan 

indicates higher productivity for females from the LP compared to those from the 

UP even though the baiting period on the UP is twice as long as it is in the LP. 

This suggests that factors other than bear baiting are influencing reproduction in 

Michigan bears. Furthermore, the argument that bear populations increase because 

of baiting fails to consider the increased mortality of bears that feed at bait sites. 

State’s Rights to Manage Wildlife Resources 

The Federal Government manages harvest methods used to take migratory 

species (such as waterfowl) because these species frequently cross state and international boundaries. The management of resident animals (such as bears) has long 

been left to individual states. Research in Michigan and neighboring states indicates 

that the vast majority of bears that are born in Michigan live their entire lives within the boundaries of the state. Baiting is an important tool for managing this valuable and important Michigan resource. 

In 1996, voters in Michigan overwhelmingly defeated a proposal to ban bait and 

hound hunting for bears. Furthermore, voters overwhelmingly supported a proposal 

granting the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game (including bear), and required that the NRC use ‘‘principles 

of sound scientific management’’ in making decisions concerning the taking of bear 

and other wildlife. 

Summary 

Proposed H.R. 1472 would reduce the annual bear harvest in Michigan. As bears 

become more numerous and expand their range into areas that are more densely 

populated by humans, many would likely be killed in bear-vehicle collisions or shot 

as nuisance animals. The bear population could eventually reach a ‘‘biological carrying capacity’’ where natural mechanisms such as cannibalism, starvation, and 

emigration would regulate population growth. However, these natural population 

control mechanisms are viewed as a waste of the resource by many Michigan constituents. Furthermore, the number of bears that can be supported biologically in 

Michigan likely exceeds the number that is socially tolerable. Furthermore, proposed H.R. 1472 would significantly influence the MDNR’s ability to conduct 

present and future bear research and to estimate bear population levels in the state. 

This would erode the ability of the MDNR to manage the bear resource in a sound, 

scientific manner as mandated by the constituents of Michigan.

104

SINCERELY,

DWAYNE R. ETTER, PH.D. 

WILDLIFE RESEARCH BIOLOGIST

WILDLIFE DIVISION

517–373–1263

[NOTE: An attachment to Mr. Etter’s letter entitled ‘‘2003 

Michigan Bear Hunting Guide’’ has been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand there 

will be 5 votes, so, obviously, we won’t be coming back afterwards. 

It is good to see my old friend, Ron Marlenee. We used to fight 

a lot of battles side by side; and normally we were on the same 

side, if I recall history correctly. I also heard that you were introduced as the sheriff of Montana, the de facto sheriff; is that correct? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Probably not the sheriff but the gunslinger. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If you were the sheriff in Montana, bear baiting 

is illegal in Montana, if you caught someone in Montana bear baiting, would you arrest them? 

Mr. MARLENEE. There would be no choice. You adhere to the 

laws, just like you would adhere to the laws of littering, et cetera. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And I know you to be a good, law-abiding citizen. 

I appreciate that. 

Mr. Haleen, I have to take a little exception with a couple of 

things that you mentioned. You talked about the genesis of this 

bill; and you said this organization, this organization, this organization as the one that is sponsoring this bill. You mentioned PETA 

in that list. Let me just remind you that I have never met—I have 

heard about PETA, but to my knowledge there has never been a 

PETA person in my office. 

Let’s set the record clear from the get-go. Elton Gallegly is the 

sponsor of this bill. If there are others who support it who historically may not be aligned with me on other issues, I welcome their 

support, but for the credibility of the witness I think it is important 

that we set the record straight on that issue who the sponsor of the 

bill is. 

Mr. Horn, you had a lot to say about States rights and so on and 

so forth. You check my voting record over 17 years you will find 

that I have been a very strong proponent of States rights in almost 

every issue. The issue of—and, of course, reasonable minds can differ from time to time as it may be the case on this bill. But on the 

Airborne Hunting Act, would you say that you would be opposed 

to that? You think that was a wrong decision for Congress to be 

involved in that? 

Mr. HORN. Congress has asserted preemptive authority over regulation of the airspace from the beginning of the aviation industry 

and concluded for a variety of reasons, including public safety and 

105

other ethical issues, that it was going to determine to ban airborne 

hunting; and that was done over 30 years ago. I noted in reality 

I think the last major statute passed that had preemptive effect on 

the States was the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, and 

Congress has been extraordinarily sparing in the use of its preemptive authority in the intervening three decades. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I think that it would be obvious that my record 

would be supporting that thesis. The issue is that 41 of 50 States 

in this Nation oppose bear baiting as a method of hunting bear; 

and as Mr. Marlenee from his home State—his own home State, 

one of the most beautiful places on the face of the earth, outlaws 

bear baiting—Ron, you mentioned that this procedure, that they 

never use any more than is absolutely necessary; and to quote 

you—correct me if I am wrong—this is a stinky, messy job, to bait 

bear; and they use absolutely no more than is necessary. How 

much is necessary? 

Mr. MARLENEE. We are told by the specialist—and I would refer 

this to the Michigan Department of—the biologists. But in from 

Minnesota we get the word from the management specialists they 

use from 5 to 10 pounds. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. That is fine. 

Again, this timing situation is making this very difficult because 

we have 5 votes pending on the floor, and I would like to have 

more time, but that isn’t going to happen. One of the things that 

seems to be somewhat of a contradiction, you mentioned that the 

bait has to be biodegradable and it has to be removed. Why would 

it have to be biodegradable if it has to be removed? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Could I refer to Dr. Etter? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, if he could give me a quick answer. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Being a professor, I don’t know. 

Dr. ETTER. I can speak on behalf of Michigan only. In Michigan, 

you do not have to remove the bait at the end of the bear baiting 

season. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. In other words, you can let it sit there and rot. 

Dr. ETTER. In most cases, it would be removed by bears or other 

animals in the area, including fish or martin, cats, bobcats. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But in Michigan it is OK to just leave it there? 

Mr. MARLENEE. How much would you use? 

Dr. ETTER. In Michigan, it is OK to leave it there. Most hunters 

do not use more than 5 to 10 gallons of bait. For research purposes 

I can attract bears with as little as one pound of bait. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. There is a difference in 5 to 10 gallons and 5 to 

10 pounds, about eight times. 

I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I apologize to the witnesses for the voting schedule, but we probably won’t be done voting for another hour or more. 

We will take all of your thoughts into consideration. Thank you 

very much. 

I have to ask unanimous consent that a statement by George 

Miller be submitted into the record. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

106

Statement of The Honorable George Miller, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 1006

Members of the Committee and witnesses, I want to state my strong support for 

H.R. 1006, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. 

As many of you know, I introduced similar legislation last year and worked with 

Rep. McKeon on this year’s proposal. 

This bipartisan bill represents a firm commitment to protect the safety of the 

American public and to protect the welfare of wild animals that are increasingly 

being maintained as pets. 

Our bill identifies and provides a solution to a growing national problem that 

must be addressed. 

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act would amend the Lacey Act and bar the interstate and foreign commerce of dangerous exotics, including lions, tigers, leopards, 

cheetahs, and cougars, for use as pets. 

The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species; 

rather, it would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets. 

The legislation specifically exempts zoos, circuses, and others that are currently 

regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the provisions of the Animal 

Welfare Act. Instead, the bill is specifically aimed at the unregulated and untrained 

individuals who are maintaining these wild animals as exotic pets. 

According to best estimates, there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the 

United States. There are perhaps more tigers in captivity than there are tigers in 

their native habitats throughout the range in Asia. 

While some tigers are held in zoological institutions, most of the animals are pets, 

kept in cages behind someone’s home in a state that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals. 

And it’s not just tigers: there is widespread private ownership of other dangerous 

animals, including lions, cougars, and cheetahs. At a time when almost anything 

can be bought on the Internet, it is not surprising that the animals can all be purchased through the more than 1,000 web sites that promote private ownership of 

wild animals. 

Problems arise because most owners are ignorant of a wild animal’s needs. Local 

veterinarians, sanctuaries, animal shelters, and local governments are ill equipped 

to meet the challenge of providing proper care. 

People living near these animals are also in real danger. 

There is a laundry list of incidents of dangerous exotics seriously injuring and 

killing people. 

In Loxahatchee, Florida, a 58-year-old woman was bitten in the head by a 750-

pound pet Siberian–Bengal tiger mix. 

In Lexington, Texas, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather’s pet tiger. 

There is also the possibility that captive wildlife can become vectors for exotic diseases as is the case with the recent monkeypox outbreak and the link between civet 

cats and SARS. 

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need 

for comprehensive Federal legislation to regulate what animals can be kept as pets. 

A wide range of groups and institutions oppose the private ownership of carnivores. The U.S. Department of Agriculture states, ‘‘Large wild and exotic cats such 

as lions, tigers, cougars and leopards are dangerous animals...Because of these 

animals’ potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to family, 

friends, neighbors, and the general public.’’

The American Veterinary Medical Association also ‘‘strongly opposes the keeping 

of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic 

of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.’’

This bill is just one part of the solution to help protect people and exotic animals. 

States will continue to play a major role. 

I hope to see a continued grassroots effort directed at the state and local government level, to increase the number of states and counties that ban private ownership of dangerous exotic animals. 

Already, 12 states ban private possession of large exotic animals, while 7 states 

have partial bans. 

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of Zoos and 

Aquariums, The Humane Society of the United States, The Fund for Animals, and 

the International Fund for Animal Welfare. 

I want to thank the actress Tippi Hedron for raising awareness of this issue on 

Capitol Hill. 

107

Tippi operates an animal sanctuary, and often has the sad and expensive task of 

rescuing these animals after their owners realize the lion or tiger is a safety risk 

and cannot be properly cared for. 

I also wanted to take a moment to state my support for the ‘‘Do Not Feed the 

Bears Act.’’

I applaud Rep. Gilchrest and Rep. Gallegly for bringing the issue of bear baiting 

on public lands before this Committee for discussion. 

In closing, I am grateful that Chairman Gilchrest has scheduled a hearing on the 

Captive Wildlife Safety Act and I hope that this legislation will move through the 

legislative process quickly. 

Mr. GILCHREST. And testimony by the International Fund for 

Animal Welfare and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, 

National Rifle Association, State of Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources and the Michigan House of Representatives, and 

the United Sportsmen’s Alliance. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Gentlemen, thank you. Have a safe trip home. 

[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The information submitted for the record follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by Cindy Milburn, Director, Animals in 

Crisis and Distress, International Fund for Animal Welfare 

My name is Cindy Milburn and I am the Director of the Animals in Crisis and 

Distress Program for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). IFAW is 

a non-profit organization with over two million supporters around the world. Our 

global headquarters is in Massachusetts, and we have offices in Australia, China, 

Japan, Russia, Germany, France, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada, 

India, Belgium, Kenya, South Africa, Mexico, and in Washington, D.C. 

IFAW’s mission is to work to improve the welfare of wild and domestic animals 

throughout the world by reducing commercial exploitation of animals, protecting 

wildlife habitats, and assisting animals in distress. IFAW seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation 

policies that advance the well being of both animals and people. 

I am pleased to submit this statement for the official hearing record in support 

of H.R. 1006, the ‘‘Captive Wildlife Safety Act’’ and want to commend Representatives McKeon, Miller and the forty other co-sponsors for their support of this much 

needed legislation. 

Humans have kept pets, or companion animals, for centuries. While the majority 

of pets are domesticated animals such as cats and dogs, there are a rising number 

of ‘‘exotic’’ animals that were either removed from the wild, often illegally, or bred 

in captivity from wild animals. The worldwide exotic pet trade—the buying and selling of exotic animals as pets—is a major component of the global trade in wildlife. 

This global industry is second only to the international trade in arms and narcotics. 

The exotic pet trade threatens the survival of many species worldwide while undermining international conservation efforts. IFAW has been very active in public educational programs regarding amphibians and reptiles as exotic pets. We are all too 

familiar with cruelty and safety problems associated with the exotic pet trade. 

H.R. 1006 focuses on captive wildlife and amends the Lacey Act to bar the interstate and foreign commerce of dangerous exotics cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars and cougars. While not prohibiting the private ownership of 

these animals as pets, the bill is intended to halt the trade in these animals as pets. 

As you are aware, the ‘‘pet farm’’ industry has flourished in recent years and in just 

5 minutes on the internet you will discover hundreds of web sites specializing in 

the sale and promotion of lions and leopards and cheetahs as domestic pets. We 

hope that H.R. 1006 will severely curtail this trade in exotic cats. 

Keeping large exotic cats as pets is dangerous not only to the pet owners but to 

the communities where they are raised or maintained. Authorities shot and killed 

three African lions after they terrified the community of Quitman, Arkansas in 

2002. Last October police killed a Bengal tiger that escaped from a roadside truck 

stop in Bloomington, Indiana and in Texas a three year old boy was killed by his 

stepfather’s pet tiger. These are just of few recent examples of why captive wildlife 

should not be raised or kept as pets. 

108

We at IFAW know from our experiences in the field that exotic pets are subjected 

to inhumane treatment and cruel living conditions. Large cats such as lions and 

cheetahs are born to run free, not be locked up in some small cage. Because the 

vast majority of exotic pet owners have neither the training to handle and care for 

these animals or the space to keep them, they are all too often abused and abandoned. Wildlife such as tigers and lions should stay in the wild and not abused as 

pets. 

We are also concerned about the proliferation of pseudo ‘‘sanctuaries’’ which claim 

to breed large cats in order to conserve the species. These captive bred animals 

would never be able to be released into the wild and are essentially inbred specimens of a lower DNA stock than wild cats. The discovery on April 24th of this year 

of dozens of corpses of young and adult tigers and other big cats in freezers at a 

nonprofit ‘‘sanctuary’’ called Tiger Rescue in Riverside, California is the latest example of unfortunate and tragic incidents spawned by a growing desire to own and exploit dangerous wild animals for pleasure or profit. 

Public safety and cruelty are the two major reasons why twelve states have 

banned the possession of large exotic animals and seven states have adopted partial 

bans. Because these state laws go further than H.R. 1006 in eliminating exotic 

wildlife as pets, IFAW strongly supports the provision of the bill that ensures that 

state law will not be pre-empted or superseded. 

While IFAW supports the inclusion of large cats in the definition of ‘‘prohibited 

wildlife species’’ we are disappointed that similarly dangerous wildlife such as bears, 

alligators and crocodiles are not included, especially when bears were included in 

last year’s version of the bill (H.R. 5226). While we appreciate the political realities 

of the situation, IFAW urges the Subcommittee to expand the list of prohibited 

species to include bears and other carnivorous wildlife. 

With respect to enforcement, IFAW requests the Subcommittee to make sure that 

the Fish and Wildlife Service has adequate resources to enforce the provisions of 

the legislation. We are very aware of the fiscal restraints of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s enforcement program and we hope that the Service will make every effort 

to use cooperative law enforcement agreements with state and local authorities to 

help enforce the law. 

Lastly, IFAW has concerns about the welfare and disposition of the animals covered by this bill that are currently pets. We expect that large cats that are currently 

maintained as pets will be abandoned by pet owners that can no longer transport 

their pets when they change their residence to another state. We are very concerned 

about the ability of state and local authorities, zoos and other exempted entities to 

absorb these animals into their facilities. We know, for example, that many of the 

more than 5,000 tigers in captivity are kept as pets and we should expect that some 

of these will be abandoned. While IFAW will commit resources to assist in relocation 

efforts we remained concerned that the ‘‘system’’ will not be able to absorb these 

exotic pets. We ask the Subcommittee to monitor this situation closely and consider 

adding a provision to the bill that would require the Fish and Wildlife Service after 

one year to report back to the Subcommittee on the impacts of the legislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments in support of H.R. 1006. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Christopher Cox, Executive 

Director, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association, follows:]

JUNE 9, 2003

The Honorable Richard Pombo 

Chairman 

House Resources Committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Pombo:

As the leading voice for millions of American gun-owners and hunters, the 

National Rifle Association wishes to advise you of our opposition to H.R. 1472, the 

‘‘Don’t Feed the Bears Act of 2003.’’ This legislation would prohibit the use of bait 

in bear hunting on all Federal lands. 

Although H.R. 1472 addresses one method of bear hunting, the real issue here 

is about who manages resident wildlife. H.R. 1472 opens the door to Federal preemption of the rights of the fifty states to manage resident wildlife, including 

109

establishing the means and methods of hunting in a safe and ethical manner. The 

NRA is unalterably opposed to such Federal infringement. 

Congress has passed legislation giving the Federal Government management authority over certain categories of wildlife which it felt required a national focus: migratory birds, marine mammals, and endangered and threatened species. At no time 

in its history has Congress selected an individual species for Federal management. 

H.R. 1472 sets this unwise precedent. 

This legislation is being advocated by organizations opposed to all methods of 

hunting, not just the use of bait in bear hunting. Nothing could better achieve their 

goal of ending hunting in the United States than a bill that Federalizes wildlife 

management. Rather than having to promote their views in each of the fifty states, 

the anti-hunting community is seeking to have Congress preempt the field. 

Those states that allow the use of bait in hunting do so because they have concluded that it is a humane method of hunting, that it meets the ethical standard 

of ‘‘fair chase,’’ and that it is a necessary tool for management of their bear populations. H.R. 1472 places Congress in the position of being a wildlife biologist, making decisions for states on how certain wildlife populations must be managed. If 

Congress were to adopt this legislation, it would be placing itself in the position of 

having to address every issue pertaining to wildlife management, not just one method of bear hunting. 

Mr. Chairman, the NRA strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 1472 because of its 

attempt to preempt the authority of the states to manage resident wildlife. Thank 

you for your consideration of our views on this important issue.

SINCERELY,

CHRISTOPHER COX

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

NRA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

cc: Members of the House Resources Committee 

[A letter submitted for the record by the Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources on H.R. 1472 follows:]

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

101 S. WEBSTER STREET

BOX 7921

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707–7921

TELEPHONE: (608) 266–2621

FAX: (608) 267–3579

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

The Honorable David Obey 

2314 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515

Subject: Bear Baiting on Federal Lands

Dear Representative Obey:

During the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations process, Congressman James Moran 

unsuccessfully attempted to attach a rider to the Department of Interior Appropriations bill prohibiting the use of bait for bear hunting on Federal lands. It is our understanding that he may make a similar attempt in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget. 

We request your assistance to discourage this action. 

At the national level, we recognize that hunting bears over bait is controversial. 

However, as a policy issue it should be addressed separate from the budget process, 

as a stand alone bill. 

110

States authority to control placement of bait on Federal lands has been decided 

in U.S. District Court and upheld in U.S. Court of Appeals. In 1995 and 1997 court 

cases regarding Wyoming and eight other states decided that the states have the 

responsibility of regulating bear baiting as a hunting practice, including on Federal 

lands. Congress and case law has long upheld that managing resident species of 

wildlife is a state’s right. 

Hunting bears with bait is a legal and important method of harvesting bears in 

one-third of the states which have bear hunting (9 of 27 states). These states are 

generally in the north, including the Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin 

and Michigan as well as Alaska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Wyoming and 

Utah. Eight of 11 Canadian provinces allow hunting bears with use of bait. This 

geographic distribution follows bear biology. Bear are hunted in the early fall, because as early as October bears are starting to become lethargic and moving towards hibernation. Mountain states, or states with more moderate temperatures 

have other options. In mountain states using binoculars to scan mountainsides can 

be an effective means of locating bears. This is not an option in the Great Lake 

states especially before leaf fall, when bears are active. 

Bears in West Coast states or more southerly states remain active later into the 

fall, into and through the other big game seasons for elk and deer. Many bears are 

taken incidental to other hunting. In Wisconsin or other Great Lakes States this 

again is not an option. Bears are mainly denned up by gun deer season. (Wisconsin 

once had a bear season which overlapped gun deer season, however, it was ceased 

due to the perception that many bears were being taken when either very lethargic, 

or actually in the den.) 

Another method used by one state, Pennsylvania, is a short 3-day season, with 

many hunters. Pennsylvania is a populous state, and is able to put 100,000 hunters 

in the woods for those 3 days, and take about as many bears as Wisconsin does. 

Wisconsin has less than half as many bear hunters, and needs to maintain a good 

harvest to manage the bear population at goal. 

Baiting for bears in Wisconsin is also highly regulated, both on Federal lands and 

elsewhere. All bait must be biodegradable, and no honey bones, fish, meat, solid 

animal fat or parts of animal carcasses are allowed. The volume is limited to 10 gallons. No paper, packaging or other litter is allowed. Baiting must cease at the end 

of season in early October. Baits may not be placed near trails, roads, or campsites 

used by the public. It has been common practice for bear hunters to cover the bait 

so that smaller animals cannot access it. This practice has recently been made law 

in Wisconsin, with the discovery of bovine tuberculosis in deer in Michigan and 

chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin deer, the Department intends to prevent deer 

from close contact over bait. Disease spread within in a bear population has not 

been documented to be associated with bait. 

If you have questions or would like addition information, please contact Tom 

Hauge, Director, DNR Bureau of Wildlife Management at 608–266–2193 or 

tom.hauge@dnr.state.wi.us.

SINCERELY,

SCOTT HASSETT

SECRETARY

cc: Wisconsin Congressional Delegation 

Steve Oestricher, Wisconsin Conservation Congress 

Rich Posig, Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association 

111

[A letter submitted for the record by the United Sportsmen’s 

Alliance. follows:]


87680.007
112

[A letter submitted for the record by the Michigan House of 

Representatives follows:]


87680.008
113


87680.009
114

[A letter submitted for the record by Thomas L. Albert, Vice 

President, Government Relations, Feld Entertainment, follows:]


87680.010
115


87680.011
116


87680.012
117

Æ


87680.013