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

87-804 PS 2003

H.R. 2057 and H.R. 2416

JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, 

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND 

FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

June 19, 2003

Serial No. 108-29

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 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

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 

(III)

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, 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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH 

SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman 

JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

An ́ıbal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on June 19, 2003 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

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

of Maryland, Prepared statement on H.R. 2057 and H.R. 2416 ............. 54 

Green, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin, Oral statement on H.R. 2057 ................................................... 3

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

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 35

Prepared statement on H.R. 2416 ........................................................... 37

McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 2057 ........................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 2416 ........................................................... 3 

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

Wisconsin, Prepared statement on H.R. 2057 ........................................... 5

Statement of Witnesses: 

Acord, Bobby R., Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture ..................................... 11

Prepared statement on H.R. 2057 ........................................................... 13

Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and 

Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .......... 43

Prepared statement on H.R. 2416 ........................................................... 44

Forster, Catherine A., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Society of Vertebrate 

Paleontology .................................................................................................. 45

Prepared statement on H.R. 2416 ........................................................... 47

George, Hon. Russell, Director, Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department 

of Natural Resources .................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement on H.R. 2057 ........................................................... 17

Groat, Charles G., Director, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the 

Interior ........................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement on H.R. 2057 ........................................................... 8

Lamb, Robert J., Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Policy, 

Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior ..................... 38

Prepared statement on H.R. 2416 ........................................................... 40

Taylor, Gary J., Legislative Director, International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies ................................................................................... 19

Prepared statement on H.R. 2057 ........................................................... 22

Vlamis, Ted J., Amateur Paleontologist ......................................................... 49

Prepared statement on H.R. 2416 ........................................................... 50

(1)

JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2057, 

TO PROVIDE FOR A MULTI-AGENCY 

COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE 

FURTHER RESEARCH REGARDING THE 

CAUSES OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE 

AND METHODS TO CONTROL THE FURTHER 

SPREAD OF THE DISEASE IN DEER AND 

ELK HERDS, TO MONITOR THE INCIDENCE 

OF THE DISEASE, TO SUPPORT STATE 

EFFORTS TO CONTROL THE DISEASE, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2416, TO 

PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON FEDERAL 

LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

Thursday, June 19, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife

and Oceans, joint with the 

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McInnis, Inslee, McGovern, Tom Udall, 

Mark Udall, Gilchrest, Green, Tancredo, Ryan, Rehberg, Kind, 

Renzi, Pearce, and McCollum. 

Mr. MCINNIS. It is getting toward the end of the week, which 

means that my patience is very short, which means that if you 

have a cellular phone, take my advice and turn it off. The same 

thing with pagers. 

Put them on vibrate or something else, but I don’t want our witnesses being rudely interrupted by somebody’s cell phone. So if you 

would follow that rule, I would appreciate that. This morning we 

are doing a joint hearing, and what I intend to do if the appropriate members show up at the time that their time slot arrives is 

to give 10 minutes to the Chairman, and the respective Chairman 

2

of the two subcommittees, and give 10 minutes to the respective 

Ranking Members. 

I also would allow either of those, or any of those four people to 

reserve the right to yield some of that time, as I intend to yield 

some to Mr. Green for some brief opening remarks. OK. We will go 

ahead and begin the hearing. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. MCINNIS. Today this joint Subcommittee hearing will take 

its second look in as many years at Federal, State, and local efforts 

to contain and ultimately eradicate chronic wasting disease. Just 

over a year ago, Mr. Gilchrest and I, pulled all the best and most 

knowledgeable minds into the same room to begin the process of 

developing an integrated and long term vision focused on protecting North America’s wild and captive deer and elk populations 

from this disease. 

I would also at this point in time like to leave my remarks, and 

just openly acknowledge my long time friend, and who I consider 

one of the leading experts in the country in regards to this particular problem, and that is Russell George, the Director of the 

State Wildlife for the State of Colorado. 

Russ, thank you. I know that you made the effort to come out 

there today and we appreciate your expertise and your assistance. 

Now, I am going to submit the rest of my statement for the record, 

and at this point in time yield to Mr. Green, if Mr. Green has some 

remarks that he would like to put in the record. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. McInnis follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 2057

Today this Joint Subcommittee hearing will take its second look in as many years 

at Federal, state and local efforts to contain and ultimately eradicate Chronic Wasting Disease. Just over a year ago, Mr. Gilchrest and I pulled all of the best and 

most knowledgeable minds into the same room to begin the process of developing 

an integrated and long-term vision focused on protecting North America’s wild and 

captive deer and elk populations from this disease. 

I think that there were three take home messages from that exhaustive and informative dialogue last year. The first was that our friends in the States are bestequipped to spearhead efforts to stem the spread of CWD, particularly when it 

comes to managing the disease in wild cervid populations. But that doesn’t mean 

there isn’t an important Federal role, which leads to the second policy staple that 

emerged from last year’s hearing. In order to effectively suppress the proliferation 

of CWD, Federal agriculture and wildlife agencies must pro-actively support the 

States by providing financial support and technical assistance in the research, management and surveillance of the disease. But in order to support the States in an 

effective manner, we discovered that the multitude of Federal agencies with a jurisdictional stake in this issue needed to more thoroughly coordinate and prioritize the 

various overlapping and redundant Federal activities. The need for a more unified 

Federal response was the third upshot of the hearing. With that understanding, last 

year I charged all of the relevant agencies to come up with an integrated game-plan 

so that the Federal-support structure is efficient, effective and responsive to the 

needs of our friends in the States. 

In the year since our hearing, results on the Federal side have been mixed. To 

its credit, the Departments of Agriculture and Interior have done an exemplary job 

of assisting the States in testing many thousands of deer and elk samples submitted 

for CWD screening. These Departments and their subordinate agencies have also 

done laudable work in bringing urgency and progress on the research front. 

Where progress has been less impressive is in formalizing and finalizing the interagency CWD game-plan that I demanded at last year’s hearing. After our hearing, 

3

a joint task force was convened by the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a Federal–State CWD road-map. And while 

that group formalized the broad outlines of an intergovernmental CWD program, 

Congress is still waiting for the implementation plan, and budget requests, that 

would give this program form, substance and meaning. My understanding is that 

the implementation report is essentially done, but awaiting approval somewhere in 

the administrative chain-of-command. I look forward to hearing from our government witnesses about the status of that report. 

So in the absence of that unified Federal game-plan, today we consider H.R. 2057. 

The bill, authored with the substantial input of my colleagues from Wisconsin Mr. 

Green and Ryan, creates a broad Federal framework to support State efforts to contain and eradicate CWD in both captive and wild deer and elk populations. Colleagues, I consider this bill a starting point in this discussion, and I look forward 

to working with all of our witnesses and other interested Members to refine the bill 

as needed to make sure that the Federal Government gets the maximum bang for 

its scarce buck as it supports State-led efforts to remove the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease to deer and elk populations around the country. 

Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 2416

The upsurge of public interest in paleontology has created an opportunity for paleontologists to share more of their research and findings with the general public. 

Learning of these findings and observing fossils in museums and educational institutions has become an introduction to Science for countless American students. Fossils are for everyone—children and adults, amateurs and professionals. From fossils 

we learn about the history of life, but much of the story is yet to be written. Fossils 

from public lands are an educational and scientific resource for our generation and 

those yet to come. 

Scientifically significant fossils on Federal lands belong to all the people of the 

United States. They should not be removed from the public domain, but preserved 

for the enjoyment and education of all Americans for all time. In my own district 

in Colorado there are several fossil sites and museums that support learning about 

paleontological sciences. The Wasatch and Green River Formations within the region have produced important fossilized resources which have been collected and 

studied by the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, the University of Colorado Museum in Boulder, The Smithsonian Institute and the Museum of Western 

Colorado. Vertebrate fossils have been identified, collected and studied and the area 

has been identified as one with a rich fossil record. 

Another site is the Cretaceous limestone site near Fort Hays just south of Pueblo, 

the Creede Formation, near Creed, Colorado, has plant and insect fossils. There are 

many plant fossils such as pine needles, cones, willow leaves, and many more located in road cuts along the Rio Grande. Most significant is the site of Dinosaur 

National Monument, which had 299,142 visitors last year. This museum is home to 

over 1500 dinosaur bones. Today, many ideas about dinosaurs are changing, and the 

fossils at Dinosaur National Monument continue to help us learn more about these 

fascinating prehistoric animals. The fossils that give the monument its name were 

discovered in 1909 by Earl Douglass. He was a paleontologist who worked for the 

Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. President Woodrow Wilson heard 

about the great dinosaur quarry that Douglass had started, and proclaimed the site 

as Dinosaur National Monument in 1915. Years later, the National Park Service 

began to develop the quarry as it is today. The rock layer containing the fossil bones 

forms one wall of the Quarry Visitor Center. On this wall, scientists have carefully 

chipped away the rock to uncover the bones and leave them in place. 

The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) will ensure that fossils 

from Federal lands will be used for the benefit of all the people of the United States 

by fostering the maximization of information that is gained from these fossils and 

by providing access to these fossils for researchers and the public. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much for 

yielding time for the courtesy of allowing me to sit on this 

4

Subcommittee for the day. And of course I appreciate the hearing 

itself on H.R. 2057. 

As I know this body is aware, chronic wasting disease is a significant and growing problem in a growing number of States from 

a wildlife management perspective, but also an economic perspective. 

In my home State of Wisconsin, which has received I think the 

most attention recently in terms of the chronic wasting disease 

challenge, we estimate that chronic wasting disease presents a one 

billion dollar economic impact. 

And a State the size of Wisconsin, you can imagine what that 

means potentially. It is critically important that we get our arms 

around this challenge. I am proud to join Congressman McInnis, 

Congressman Ryan, and others in introducing H.R. 2057. It creates a comprehensive Federal framework for assisting the States. 

The key points of this are, first, it is comprehensive, and I think 

that is critical. It seems to me that if we are going to tackle this 

challenge in the long run that we have to be comprehensive. 

We have to involve a wide range of agencies and institutions, institutions like APHIS, if we are going to succeed. There is no single 

silver bullet out there to this problem. Instead, we hope that by 

crossing agency lines, and by pulling the best minds in from agencies and institutions that we can develop the plan that will lick this 

problem in the long run. 

And the second key point to this legislation that I believe is so 

critical is about assistance to the States. Whether this legislation 

passes or even better, the Administration moves quickly enough to 

administer and implement the principles that are in this legislation, we have to do everything we possibly can to shift more resources out to the States. 

It is the States where this problem will truly be fought. They are 

on the front lines, and they are the ones who are dealing with this 

year around, and especially during hunting season. 

So I do believe that it is important that we do everything that 

we can to get the monies, including the monies that have already 

been appropriated, as quickly as possible out to the States for comprehensive plans so that we can make a very important difference. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for yielding time. I do appreciate 

it, and strongly support this legislation, and look forward to working with you to see that its principles are implemented. Thank you. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. Since none of the other members that 

are entitled to opening remarks are here, we are going to proceed 

directly to the witnesses. I would ask the witnesses that you keep 

your comments to 5 minutes. 

We have a vote that we expect to take place in about 50 minutes. 

I would like everyone to—I realize this, but I want to get our witnesses out. 

Mr. RYAN. I would just want to ask for unanimous consent to 

have my statement be included in the record. 

Mr. MCINNIS. There is no problem with that. Of course. Are there 

any objections or any unanimous consents? No? They are all in. 

Which also includes Mr. Ryan permission to sit where you are 

sitting, but we went ahead and granted that, too. So you are welcome to the Committee. At any rate, we want to get the witness 

5

statements in, and I want to leave plenty of time for the panel to 

ask these questions. I think that is where we are going to get the 

most out of this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Paul Ryan, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Wisconsin, on H.R. 2057

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to return to this Committee to share my 

concerns about Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), which affects my home state of 

Wisconsin and 11 other states. Last year, Wisconsin became the first state east of 

the Mississippi River to have confirmed cases of Chronic Wasting Disease. This discovery indicated that the disease was spreading, and that quick and thorough action 

was imperative. Since we last held a hearing on this issue in May 2002, six more 

states have reported discovering CWD in either their captive or wild herds. Obviously this is a problem that continues to grow and requires a serious response. 

CWD is a deadly disease that affects deer and elk by penetrating the brain with 

millions of microscopic holes, infecting the tonsils, spinal cord, and lymph nodes, 

and is always fatal. Unless this disease can be controlled soon, it could be damaging 

to Wisconsin’s deer hunting industry. Every year, sportsmen in the state spend over 

$2.3 billion and support 45,000 jobs throughout the state. It is vital to Wisconsin 

to preserve and support this industry by ensuring the good health of the deer. 

As an avid sportsman, I am deeply concerned about CWD and will continue to 

support the Federal and state CWD programs to contain and eradicate the disease. 

Over the past year, Wisconsin has worked hard to manage the spread of CWD. My 

colleague Mark Green and I joined our fellow hunters in Wisconsin for one of the 

four one-week hunting sessions held last summer and an extended hunting season 

in the fall. These hunts contributed to the 41,245 deer samples that have been analyzed. This is more testing than any other state has conducted. Of those samples, 

207 animals have tested positive for the fatal deer disease. Almost all of the infected 

deer—201—came from the 411-square mile eradication zone of Dane, Iowa, and 

Sauk counties, indicating good disease management. However, officials believe the 

disease may be far more widespread within that zone. 

The testing of these deer samples has provided information to hunters, farmers, 

and recreationalists who depend on the health of the deer herds. Wisconsin has used 

this information to calm the concerns of citizens who worried whether it was safe 

to hunt and eat the meat, whether cattle were at risk, or whether this disease could 

be passed on to humans. Wisconsin’s intensive testing effort consumed thousands 

of hours, involved 1,200 people, and has cost millions of dollars. 

I believe that the most effective role for the Federal Government is to support 

states like Wisconsin with the burdens of this effort by providing for surveillance, 

management, and research programs. Most of all, our backing of sound scientific research is critical to finding all of the necessary answers to the many unanswered 

questions surrounding CWD. If we are to manage this disease properly, if we are 

to calm citizens’ concerns, and if we are to ultimately end the spread of this disease, 

scientific research will show us the way. 

Our legislation, H.R. 2057, which is the result of a bipartisan collaboration between Mr. Green, Mr. McInnis, and myself and Wisconsin’s two U.S. Senators, establishes a strong alliance between the states and the Federal Government to combat CWD. This comprehensive approach will benefit the states by expanding the resources and support available within the Federal Government. 

In closing, I am more confident than ever that this disease can be controlled and 

eradicated. In just over a year, we have taken important strides towards managing 

CWD and learning about the disease. I will work to see that state and Federal agencies are provided the support they need to overcome obstacles in eradicating CWD. 

More resources should be dedicated towards testing, and extensive, collaborative research is especially needed to determine the cause of this problem. Lastly, we need 

to continue to manage the current problem while focusing efforts on discovering a 

live test, a vaccine, or a cure for the disease. 

Mr. MCINNIS. So I would call up the first witnesses on 

H.R. 2057. On panel one, we have Mr. Groat, who is the Director, 

U.S. Geological Survey. You have got name tags up there, and if 

you would take your place. 

6

Mr. Bobby Acord, and he is the Administrator of the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Services; Mr. George—Russ, I introduced 

you earlier—Director, Colorado Division of Wildlife; Mr. Taylor, 

Legislative Director, International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies; and I understand that Mr. Fisher, or Dr. Fisher, and Dr. 

Fisher, thank you, and he is with the Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study. 

And since we called them in that order, we will go ahead and 

begin in that order. Mr. Groat, you may proceed. You have 5 minutes. And by the way, thank you to all of the witnesses today for 

making this effort. 

I will tell you that Thursday is a very active day. I, for example, 

have Ways and Means going on right now. So the lack of presence 

of some of the members should not be indicative of their lack of interest. There is a lot of interest in this. This is very, very important. 

There will be lots of statements that will be entered in the 

record, and there will be lots of review of the comments that you 

make into the record by people not able to be present here today. 

Again, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in attending. 

And, Mr. Groat, with that, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CHIP GROAT, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL 

SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. GROAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to present 

the Department of Interior’s views on H.R. 2057. We so share your 

concern, both for the wildlife populations, the captive herds, as well 

as Mr. Green’s point for the economic impacts that this is having. 

At the outset the Department strongly supports the concepts embodied in H.R. 2057, particularly the recognition and the facilitation of the critical role that State Wildlife Management Agencies, 

universities, and non-governmental organizations, play. 

There may be a couple of instances in the legislation where the 

mechanisms that are called upon in the Department of the Interior 

are already in place, but we do strongly support the efforts to make 

the best use of those. 

We also recognize that there are varied roles for different Federal agencies, as well as State agencies, and those that are outlined 

for the Department of the Interior, and USGS in particular, are by 

and large appropriate as you have described them. 

We have already committed in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget the 

Administration’s requested $3.8 million for chronic wasting disease 

efforts within the USGS. That will allow us to expand one of the 

main contributions we make, and that has to do with research and 

technical assistance to partners dealing with the biological information and understanding of the disease itself. 

Within this appropriations year, the Park Service will continue 

to monitor and do surveillance on the disease in the parks and provide for chronic wasting disease response teams. Also, the national 

refuge system will be watched over by the Fish and Wildlife Service and they will do surveillance there. 

We are also working cooperatively with Colorado, Wisconsin, and 

other State and Fish and Wildlife Agencies, providing technical assistance manpower, and participating in collaborative research. 

7

For example, we recently initiated collaborative research studies 

with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin to enhance scientific knowledge about chronic 

wasting disease and the development of management strategies. 

Over the past year the department embarked on an aggressive 

program of research into the biology of chronic wasting disease, its 

host, and its avenues of transmission, clearly one of the least understood aspects of the disease. 

And as was pointed out, where there is a need for lots of people 

with good ideas to participate in trying to understand that. In addition, we and our partners are working to develop methods needed 

to identify diseased animals in the pre-clinical stages. 

During 2003, we have augmented our ongoing program of chronic 

wasting disease projects with over a million dollars in new research, and $300 thousand in new activities initiated in cooperation with the States. That brings our total commitment to $2.7 million for this year. 

The recent addition of detection of chronic wasting disease in free 

ranging deer in additional States points to the need for continued 

Federal, State, and tribal coordination to manage the disease. I 

want to speak now specifically very quickly to the provisions of 

H.R. 2057, which relate to instructions to the Secretary of the 

Interior. 

It directs the Secretary of the Interior through the USGS to use 

existing authorities to establish and maintain a national data base 

for chronic wasting disease related information, which is to include 

surveillance and monitoring data for both wild and captive herds. 

We agree that information is an extremely important part of the 

program, and through our national biological information infrastructure, the USGS has recently implemented a prototype wildlife 

disease information network to develop a chronic wasting disease 

national data repository for scientific, technical and geospacial 

information. 

However, in terms of the data base suggested by this legislation, 

we believe that it should be developed in close coordination with 

the Department of Agriculture, and that we provide a national prospective by working cooperatively with them on providing this 

capability. 

Under the provisions of H.R. 2057, we are also, the USGS, is 

charged with using existing authorities in a chronic wasting disease surveillance and monitoring program in cooperation with the 

State and tribal agencies, and also in cooperation with the Department of the Interior. 

We really strongly believe that the surveillance and monitoring 

program is an extremely important component of any national 

strategy, particularly as it relates to wild herds in our area of 

responsibility. 

I am pleased to report, Mr. Chairman, that on May 1 of this year 

that the USGS released a report called Surveillance Strategies for 

Detecting Chronic Wasting Disease in Free Ranging Deer and Elk. 

This 41-page document is a culmination of a 3 day workshop that 

involved several agencies and many disciplines, and it was held at 

our wildlife health center in Madison, Wisconsin. This is the first 

of its kind, and it provides one of the kinds of tools that you 

8

envision in your legislation. It allows States and others to deal 

with it effectively. 

We also note that in Section 103 that it directs the Secretary to 

allocate funds directly to State and tribal wildlife agencies for the 

purpose of developing and implementing management strategies, 

and as you pointed out, the States are where the action is, and this 

is where the need is for the resources. 

Our only concern there, Mr. Chairman, is that the grant program 

that is authorized appears somewhat duplicative of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s State wildlife grants, and that mechanism is in 

place, and doesn’t necessarily fit within the USGS mission. 

And finally Section 104 directs the Secretary to expand and accelerate research through the USGS regarding detection, genetic 

resistance, tissue studies, and environmental studies of chronic 

wasting disease. We believe the Department’s role in providing 

basic and applied research is extremely important and share the 

opinion expressed earlier that this is a multifaceted effort which 

many organizations, and many universities, have to be involved. 

We can never be too short on good ideas and good approaches, 

and as we only have one institution dealing with cancer, we don’t 

need only one institution dealing with this. So hopefully our involvement, and Agriculture’s involvement, and many universities, 

will bring that to a successful conclusion. Our understandings will 

be advanced. 

So in conclusion we fully support the concepts in H.R. 2057. We 

are eager to work with you and the Department of Agriculture, and 

with the States, in achieving the goal of understanding and eliminating this important disease, and we will do everything that we 

can to be supportive of that effort. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I submit my formal 

testimony for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Groat follows:]

Statement of Charles G. Groat, Director, U.S. Geological Survey,

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2057

Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees, I am Chip Groat, Director of 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). I thank you for the opportunity to provide the 

Department of the Interior’s (Department) views on H.R. 2057, the ‘‘Chronic Wasting Disease Support for States Act of 2003.’’

The Department shares your concern regarding the impact of Chronic Wasting 

Disease (CWD) on captive and free-ranging deer and elk and on the economies of 

states and local communities. Increased surveillance and awareness have resulted 

in the identification of this disease in free-ranging deer or elk populations in eight 

states. The detection of this disease in additional states increases the urgency of 

finding effective means of control. 

At the outset, I want to say that the Department strongly supports the concepts 

embodied in H.R. 2057, particularly the recognition and facilitation of the critical 

role state wildlife management agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in limiting the distribution and occurrence of CWD. However, 

we note that several of its provisions direct the Secretary to carry out programs 

which appear, at least in part, duplicative of ongoing efforts within the Department. 

Moreover, the new funding required for implementation must compete with other 

priorities in the context of the President’s Budget. 

Recent Departmental Accomplishments 

The Department manages roughly one in every five acres of land in the United 

States and has a variety of stewardship responsibilities for natural resources on 

these lands Through the National Park Service (Park Service), the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife Service), the Bureau of Land Management 

9

(BLM), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department provides assistance 

to, cooperates with and, in some cases, co-manages wildlife with states to ensure 

healthy, viable wildlife populations. 

While the Department recognizes that the states possess primary responsibility 

for management of resident fish and wildlife within their borders, to successfully 

combat CWD we must employ an approach that recognizes the varied roles of 

Federal and state agencies In this vein, the Department conducts basic and applied 

research into the biology and management of this disease, provides wildlife-related 

laboratory services, and offers technical advice and assistance to our partners We 

recognize that we must also work closely with private landowners and incorporate 

their needs into surveillance strategies and outbreak responses. 

In an effort be good neighbors, proper land stewards, and to provide assistance 

to the states, the Administration requested a total of $3.8 million in their Fiscal 

Year 2004 budget request for CWD efforts If funded at the requested level, USGS 

will expand research and deliver technical assistance and pertinent biological information about the disease to both Federal and state agencies The Park Service will 

continue monitoring and surveillance and will establish a CWD Response Team, 

modeled after the highly successful exotic plant management teams, to continue and 

expand on its ability to respond quickly and professionally to CWD issues in units 

of the National Park System The Fish and Wildlife Service will use requested funding to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and to develop surveillance and disease contingency plans for the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS). 

As a further example of our commitment to cooperation with states on this issue, 

the Department is working with Colorado, Wisconsin, and other state fish and wildlife agencies, providing technical assistance, manpower, and participating in collaborative research studies For instance, USGS recently initiated collaborative research 

studies with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of 

Wisconsin to enhance scientific knowledge about CWD and to assist in the development of management strategies During the fall 2002 big game hunting season, volunteers from the Fish and Wildlife Service contributed over 440 hours of assistance 

to the State of Colorado by gathering data from hunter harvested deer and elk. As 

a result of positive cases of CWD in one elk and two deer in Wind Cave National 

Park, the National Park Service is stepping-up CWD surveillance and planning efforts with the State of South Dakota on an elk management plan. 

Over the past year, the Department has embarked on an aggressive program of 

research into the biology of CWD, its hosts, and avenues of transmission In addition, USGS and its partners are working to develop the methods needed to identify 

diseased animals at pre-clinical stages During fiscal year (FY) 2003 alone, USGS is 

augmenting its ongoing program of CWD-related projects with over $1.0 million in 

new research and over $300,000 in new activities initiated in cooperation with 

states This brings the total Fiscal Year 2003 USGS commitment to its CWD program to $2.7 million. 

In testimony before this Committee last May, I reported that Rocky Mountain National Park was the only unit of the National Park System (NPS) that was known 

to have elk and deer infected with the disease, and that Wind Cave National Park 

in South Dakota was at high risk of the disease As noted above, increased surveillance led to the detection of CWD in deer and elk at Wind Cave National Park CWD 

also threatens other NPS units—including Dinosaur National Monument in northwestern Colorado and Agate Fossil Beds and ScottsBluff National Monuments in 

western Nebraska—due to proximity to wild deer and elk herds where CWD has 

been detected or in nearby facilities for captive rearing of deer and elk. 

Based on samples taken in Rocky Mountain National Park, the prevalence of infection for deer is calculated at about 5 to 6 percent, the same for animals surrounding the park. The prevalence of the disease in elk adjacent to the park was 

estimated by the State of Colorado to be between 1 and 4 percent and is likely similar within the park. The park is continuing tactical management activities for CWD, 

and is continuing collaborative efforts on research and joint strategy development 

with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). In addition, the park is removing 

deer and elk with clinical signs of the disease, as well as deer that test positive for 

CWD using tonsillar biopsy. The Park Service has also entered into an agreement 

with Colorado State University to fund a Chronic Wasting Disease Coordinator to 

assist high risk parks in planning, sample collection and diagnostics, management, 

and research of CWD over a 2-year period. 

Finally, the Department has also worked in conjunction with the Department of 

Agriculture, as well as universities, state wildlife management agencies, and agricultural agencies, to develop a coordinated management approach to addressing 

10

CWD. This approach, released in June 2002, includes, among other things, surveillance, diagnostic, and research action items. 

The recent detection of CWD in free-ranging deer in additional states points to 

the need for continued Federal, state, and tribal coordination in efforts to manage 

this disease. H.R. 2057 attempts to addresses this need by directing the Department, through the USGS, to undertake work on several fronts that are important 

to limiting the distribution and occurrence of CWD. I am proud to inform the Committee that we have already initiated work on several of these important initiatives. 

Departmental Views on H.R. 2057

Section 101(a) of H.R. 2057 directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), 

through the USGS and using existing authorities, to establish and maintain a national database for CWD-related information, and to include surveillance and monitoring data for both wild and captive animal populations that is collected by Federal 

agencies, foreign governments, Indian tribes, and state agencies that receive assistance under the proposal. This database would be made available to government 

agencies attempting to manage and control CWD, universities and other public and 

private institutions conducting research on CWD, and cooperating international 

wildlife authorities. 

The Department supports the development of a national database, because the 

need for sharing information is critical to making informed, science-based, management decisions. This database will take full advantage of our existing capabilities 

in biology, mapping, and scientific database development. Maintaining CWD-related 

data on both wild and captive populations will facilitate integrated analyses and 

allow practical ‘‘lessons learned’’ in diagnosis, surveillance, and control to be shared 

rapidly among a wide range of users. In fact, through its National Biological Information Infrastructure, the USGS has recently implemented a prototype Wildlife 

Disease Information Network to develop a CWD national data repository for scientific, technical, and geospatial information. Contributed CWD data will be collected through state and Federal agencies, tribes, and other sources. However, in 

terms of the database suggested by this legislation, we believe that it should be developed in coordination with Department of Agriculture, which has oversight responsibility for captive cervids. 

Under the provisions found in section 102 of H.R. 2057, USGS is charged with 

developing, using existing authorities, a national CWD surveillance and monitoring 

program in cooperation with state and tribal agencies and in coordination with the 

Department of Agriculture. The Department is also to provide financial and technical assistance to states and tribes to implement the program for wild herds of deer 

and elk. 

The Department views this program as an important component of a national 

strategy to identify the rate of CWD infection in wild herds, the geographic extent 

of its spread, and potential reservoirs of infection and mechanisms promoting the 

spread of CWD. In fact, on May 1, 2003, the USGS released a report called ‘‘Surveillance Strategies for Detecting CWD in Free–Ranging Deer and Elk.’’ The 41-page 

document is the culmination of a 3-day interdisciplinary, interagency workshop held 

at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin. This document 

is the first tool of its kind, and it provides general guidance on the development and 

conduct of scientifically sound surveillance programs to detect CWD in free-ranging 

populations of both deer and elk. 

The Department’s extensive scientific resources provide us with the ability to synthesize data from multiple sources and conduct local, regional, and national analyses, as needed. As you can see, we believe that the Department’s role in providing 

technical assistance and coordinating surveillance and monitoring efforts is both appropriate and essential. 

Section 103 directs the Secretary to allocate funds directly to state and tribal 

wildlife agencies for the purpose of developing and implementing CWD management 

strategies. The criteria provided for the allocation of funds address the need to 

prioritize this financial support based on the relative rate of incidence, state and 

tribal financial commitment to CWD programs, integration of state or tribal agency 

policies related to CWD management, and the need to respond rapidly to disease 

outbreaks in new areas of infection. The grant program authorized by this section 

appears duplicative of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s state wildlife grants, and the 

administration of these grants does not fit within the USGS’s mission. 

Finally, section 104 directs the Secretary to expand and accelerate research, 

through USGS, regarding detection, genetic resistance, tissue studies, and environmental studies of CWD. We believe that the Department’s role in providing basic 

and applied research is both appropriate and essential to understanding and managing this disease. 

11

Conclusion 

The Department’s traditional stewardship role and cooperative relationship with 

states and other partners make it ideally situated to facilitate development of a coordinated strategy to combat CWD. We fully support the concepts advanced by 

H.R. 2057—recognition of state roles and responsibilities in the management of 

resident wildlife populations; the Department’s scientific and technical expertise and 

ability to coordinate across an array of interested partners—and pledge to work 

with the Committee to ensure that our resources and authorities are used in the 

most efficient manner in addressing CWD in free-ranging cervids. 

Mr. Chairmen, this concludes my written statement and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you might have. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Groat, and I again reemphasize 

the comments you made about—and as Mr. Green made earlier— and that is the emphasis on the States and their lead. They are 

the people who have their hands on every day of the week. So I 

appreciate your comments. 

Mr. Acord, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BOBBY ACORD, ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL 

AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. ACORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today 

regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s views on 

H.R. 2057, a bill to provide for multi-agency cooperative efforts to 

combat chronic wasting disease. 

I would like to start off my testimony with a quick announcement. The USDA recently made $4 million available to assist State 

Wildlife Agencies in addressing CWD. We are happy to announce 

that we have just approved Colorado’s surveillance plan for CWD 

in wild populations. 

And following the funding formula that we developed in conjunction with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we are right now working to transfer $218,750to the States so 

that they can begin that work. And I know that Russ will appreciate that. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Acord, we can grant unanimous consent for 

you to sit up here, too, if you would like. Thank you. We appreciate 

that. 

Mr. ACORD. As you know, CWD is a transmissible spongiform 

encephalopathy or TSE of deer and elk, in the same family of disease as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, and scrapie. 

it was just about a year ago I think that Dr. Jim Butler updated 

you on our efforts to manage CWD in deer and elk. Many things 

have moved forward since 2002, and I would like to take a moment 

to discuss some of these with you. 

To ensure a coordinated and cooperative approach in assisting 

States, a task force, including USDA and the Department of the 

Interior, along with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Departments 

of Agriculture, Universities, drafted a national management plan 

for assisting States, Federal Agencies, and tribes, in managing 

CWD in wild and captive cervids. 

The plan was shared with Congress, I think, in June of last year. 

With input from the industry and States, the USDA is developing 

12

a national voluntary herd certification program to eliminate CWD 

from farm cervids. 

Although initially aimed at farmed elk, the program will not include susceptible farmed deer species as well. We are planning for 

an implementation to occur by the end of this year.In addition, 

USDA continues to pay for all laboratory costs associated with 

CWD in testing the farm cervid population. 

Positive and exposed farm cervids are eligible for indemnity, and 

USDA also pays the cost for depopulation and disposal. The USDA 

has also moved ahead in assisting States to deal with the wildlife 

aspect of the disease. In 2003, USDA received $14.8 million for 

CWD in captive and wildlife, or in free-ranging populations. 

As I mentioned earlier, we are providing $4 million of this to the 

States, and a detailed breakout of how the $14.8 million was spent 

is available for your review. As a matter of fact, I believe that we 

have shared it with you already. 

USDA has also paid laboratory costs for hunter surveillance testing from the 2002 and 2003 hunting season for all States submitting approved surveillance plans. In addition our wildlife services 

program is working closely with several states, including Colorado, 

Illinois, Wisconsin, and others, to assist them in their surveillance 

of monitoring the wild population. 

Our personnel have assisted in harvesting deer for test samples 

and have also guided landowners in the removal of deer from their 

property. Testing has also been an important issue related to CWD, 

and with the increased testing for CWD, laboratory capacity has 

been an issue. 

We realize that increased testing capacity was necessary and expanded the number of laboratories that we would be able to use to 

run the IHC or the Immunohistochemistry assay for CWD. We now 

have 26 laboratories that can run the IHC test. The estimated capacity is now at a quarter-of-a-million samples, more than adequate to meet the current demand. 

This past year has also seen progress on the development of new 

tests. Our center for veterinary biologics recently approved two new 

diagnostic kits, one for use on elk, mule deer, and pot-tail deer, and 

another has been approved for mule deer and white-tailed deer. 

These tests run on a system that allows multiple samples to be 

processed at once. Until further data can be obtained on their effectiveness, IHC still remains the international recognized standard, 

or the gold standard, for this particular kind of testing. 

Research continues to be an important part of our activity here. 

We continue to work with the Agriculture Research Service, the 

Cooperative State Research Service, as well as our national wildlife 

research center, is doing a number of pieces of research on this. 

As you can see, USDA has been moving steadily forward on its 

program to combat CWD. However, we feel that even though 2057 

has good intent, much of what is required in the bill is already 

being done. 

For example, the bill requires that Federal facilities be upgraded 

to facilitate the processing of samples from surveillance and monitoring. As stated earlier, we have the capacity to run 250,000 samples now. 

13

The bill also requires that an official data base for CWD reside 

with DOI, including information on the farm cervid population. 

Under the Animal Health Protection Act, the USDA has the lead, 

or is the lead department for livestock diseases. We do not believe 

that a data base for livestock should reside at the Department of 

Interior. 

CWD is an important issue to USDA. There is a lot of work being 

done and it will continue. And with our working together with our 

Federal and State counterparts, we can get a handle on this disease. 

And I would also just conclude by saying that I think that we 

have had a wonderful working relationship with the State Fish and 

Wildlife agencies, particularly with the International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, that has provided a lot of leadership on 

this issue. 

We look forward to continuing that good work. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. That concludes my remarks and my statement will be 

submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acord follows:]

Statement of Bobby R. Acord, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2057

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

to speak with you on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) about 

H.R. 2057, a bill to provide for a multi-agency cooperative effort to combat chronic 

wasting disease (CWD). 

CWD is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) of deer and elk, in the 

same family of diseases as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie. It 

has been diagnosed in farmed elk and deer herds in eight States; known positive 

or exposed herds remain only in Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. CWD has also 

been identified in free-ranging deer and elk in areas of Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The origin and mode 

of transmission of CWD are unknown. 

It was just about a year ago that Dr. Jim Butler updated you on our efforts to 

manage CWD in deer and elk. Many things have moved forward since 2002, and 

I’d like to take a moment to discuss some of these with you. 

First and foremost is the management plan for CWD. To ensure a coordinated and 

cooperative Federal approach to assisting States, a task force including USDA and 

the Department of the Interior (DOI), along with universities and State wildlife 

management and agriculture agencies, drafted a national management plan for assisting States, Federal Agencies, and tribes in managing CWD in wild and captive 

cervids. The plan was shared with Congress in June 2002. The plan’s components 

include action items for surveillance, diagnostics, and research, among other things. 

With input from industry and States, USDA is developing a voluntary national 

herd certification program to eliminate CWD from farmed cervids. Although initially 

aimed at farmed elk, the program will now include susceptible farmed deer species. 

Rulemaking must be completed before the plan is implemented and we expect publication of the proposal shortly. We are planning for implementation to occur by the 

end of this year. In addition, USDA continues to pay for all laboratory costs associated with CWD testing in the farmed cervid population. Positive and exposed 

farmed cervid herds are eligible for indemnity. USDA also pays the costs of depopulation and disposal. Our goal is nothing less than eradication of the disease in the 

farmed cervid population. 

USDA has also moved ahead in assisting the States to deal with the wildlife aspect of the disease. In Fiscal Year 2003, USDA received $14.8 million for CWD in 

captive and wildlife herds. USDA recently made $4 million of that available to assist 

State wildlife agencies in addressing CWD. Funding is being distributed according 

to a formula developed in conjunction with the International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies. Under this formula, States are classified according to tiers. Tier 

1 States, which have known occurrences of CWD in free-ranging cervids as of 

March 1, 2003, are eligible for the highest sums. States falling in the Tier 2 and 

14

3 are eligible for lower amounts. A detailed breakout of the $14.8 million is available for your review. 

USDA has also paid laboratory costs for hunter surveillance testing from the 

2002–03 hunting season for all States submitting approved surveillance plans. 

In addition, our Wildlife Services program is working closely with several States, 

including Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin, to assist them in the surveillance and 

monitoring of deer in the wild population. Our personnel have assisted in the harvesting of deer for test samples, and have also guided landowners on the removal 

of deer from their property. 

Testing has also been an important issue related to CWD. With the increased 

testing for CWD, laboratory capacity has been an issue. USDA realized that an increased testing capacity was necessary and expanded the number of laboratories 

that would be able to run the immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay for CWD. We now 

have 26 laboratories that can run the IHC test; the estimated capacity is now a 

quarter of a million samples, more than adequate to meet current demand. 

Official diagnosis of CWD continues to be performed exclusively by Federal and 

State regulatory agency laboratories and this remains the current USDA policy. 

With ever-increasing international trade, it is essential that we can guarantee the 

integrity of our diagnostic laboratory network in the United States. A ‘‘false positive’’ for any disease, not just CWD, could result in unnecessary public concern and 

costly regulatory action. And in the case of a disease like bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy, a false positive could be devastating, costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars in unnecessary domestic and international market disruption from 

which it could take years to recover. 

This past year has also seen progress in the development of new tests. Our Center 

for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) recently approved two new diagnostic test kits: one 

for use on elk, mule deer, and white-tail deer and another kit that has been approved for mule deer and white-tailed deer. These new tests run on an ELISA system, which allows more samples to be processed at once. Until further data can be 

obtained on their effectiveness, IHC remains the internationally recognized method 

of choice. CVB officials are also reviewing a number of other test kits and have 

placed a high priority on the evaluation of CWD test kits. 

Research into the area of CWD has continued as well. Our National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) is researching the possibility of vaccines for CWD. NWRC 

is also continuing to research ways to identify improved barriers and repellents to 

keep wild deer and elk separated from captive cervids and other livestock. This research is being conducted to control bovine tuberculosis, but much of the information will apply to CWD. NWRC also plans to examine new decontamination methods 

for CWD-affected facilities 

The Agriculture Research Service has also undertaken several projects, including 

assessing the interspecies transmission of TSEs among livestock species and cervids, 

assessing herbivore susceptibility to TSE, and identifying and developing new methods for detecting prion protein molecules in the environment and feedstuffs. 

The Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service is also continuing to support research projects through both competitive and formula-funded 

programs to determine the causes and methods of control for CWD. In Fiscal 

Year 2002 the National Research Initiative Competitive Grant Program awarded 

$250,000 to Case Western Reserve University to understand how CWD causes disease and is transmitted between animals. The University of Wisconsin has dedicated resources from its CSREES-supported Agricultural Experiment Station to the 

management of white-tailed deer, with a special emphasis on CWD. The National 

Research Initiative once again requested proposals related to CWD in fiscal year 03, 

and at this time staff is currently reviewing proposals. 

As you can see, USDA has been moving steadily forward on its program to combat 

CWD. However, we feel that even though H.R. 2057 has good intent, much of what 

is required in the bill is already being done. The bill, if passed, requires that USDOI 

and USDA conduct certain activities regarding CWD. The USDOI activities include 

a national database for wild and captive cervid information, surveillance and monitoring programs in wild populations, money for State programs, and the expansion 

of USGS research. In total, the bill authorizes $17.5 million for USDOI activities. 

The USDA activities include the development of a surveillance and monitoring 

program, and the expansion of diagnostic testing capability and ARS and CSREES 

activities. In total, the bill authorizes $9.5 million for USDA activities. The bill also 

requires USDA and USDOI to enter joint rulemaking when promulgating rules to 

implement the Act. 

Again, we agree with the intent of the bill, which is to establish a program to 

combat CWD. However, many aspects of the program are already in place at USDA. 

15

In addition, the bill does not take into account changes that have been made to the 

USDA program in the past year. 

For example, the bill requires that Federal facilities be upgraded to facilitate the 

timely processing of samples from the surveillance and monitoring. As stated earlier, we currently have the capacity to run 250,000 samples and USDA is working 

to expand testing capacity for all TSEs, which would also benefit CWD. We should 

also point out that because the States have not submitted as many wild cervid samples as APHIS had anticipated, $500,000 that was allocated for testing is being used 

to set up cooperative agreements with Tribal Nations. 

The bill also requires that the official database for CWD reside with DOI, including information on the farmed cervid population. Under the Animal Health Protection Act, USDA is the lead Department in livestock diseases. We do not believe that 

a database for livestock, such as farmed cervids, should reside with another Department, especially since we must be conscious of the privacy concerns of producers. 

In addition, we are currently working with industry on an animal identification program for livestock; both the North American Deer Farmers Association and the 

North American Elk Breeders Association have been a part of that process. We are 

concerned about the impact that this provision may have on a livestock animal identification program. 

CWD is an important issue to USDA. There is a lot of work being done and it 

will continue as we implement our herd certification program and expand our testing capabilities. By continuing to work together with our Federal and State counterparts, we can get a handle on this disease. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Acord. 

Mr. George, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL GEORGE, DIRECTOR,

STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Committees. I am Russell George, Director of the Colorado Division 

of Wildlife. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to 

talk about the potential for increased Federal assistance to the 

States to manage chronic wasting disease. 

I appreciate the support and leadership of Congress on this subject of chronic wasting disease, and as you can imagine, it is of utmost importance to us in the State of Colorado. We are uniquely 

positioned to take advantage of any Federal grants or other assistance relative to managing and studying the disease. 

Thus far our State agencies have invested heavily in tackling the 

challenge of CWD, and we have done so largely with State funds, 

especially using revenues that we receive from the sale of hunting 

licenses. So we can welcome and can use increased Federal financial support. 

This is why I especially applaud Chairman McInnis’ bill for two 

particular reasons. One is that it provides significant new funds for 

State wildlife managers, and second, it asserts the primacy of the 

States in policymaking authority with regard to wildlife management, both in general terms and specifically with respect to chronic 

wasting disease. 

We have been concerned with the second point of State primacy 

and wildlife management has often been overlooked by some Federal agencies. States that have had outbreaks of chronic wasting 

disease, such as Colorado and Wisconsin, have aggressively responded to the threats that it poses to wildlife, both free roaming 

and captive. 

16

States should continue to remain at the forefront of preventing 

or responding to chronic wasting disease. What States like Colorado really need from the Federal Government are additional resources, and not new programs or institutions. The needs of the 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and Colorado State University, are extensive and beyond 

the ability of the State to fully fund. 

Federal assistance is crucial at this time. The knowledge that we 

have gained and the programs that we have initiated in Colorado 

are often used as a model for other States who are just starting to 

respond to chronic wasting disease issues. 

The innovative and aggressive approach that Colorado has taken 

allows other States to save their scarce funds and limited personnel 

time by enabling them to focus on initiatives, technologies, and approaches that we have demonstrated already to be effective. 

Let me take a moment to highlight specifically actions taken by 

Colorado over the past 2 years in response to the spread of chronic 

wasting disease. First and foremost, we have coordinated with local 

governing authorities and private landowners to reduce deer populations in areas of especially high prevalence. 

Secondly, we have significantly redirected existing funding and 

personnel to chronic wasting disease control efforts, and the numbers themselves are important for me to share with you.Two years 

ago, we were investing around $700,000 in the work that we were 

doing on chronic wasting disease. 

This year’s budget will be nearly $4 million. So in 2 years, going on to the third year, we would have jumped from $700,000 to near 

$4 million. This is hunter paid license fees and revenues that the 

State of Colorado is investing in this issue. There is no question 

that we take chronic wasting disease as a most serious threat. By the way, $4 million is about 4 percent of our budget to invest 

in one issue, one disease, and this takes away from all the other 

things that we are called upon to do as the State’s wildlife managers. 

Increased coordination and cooperation between agriculture public health, and environment, public State university, and the Division of Wildlife, we have learned in Colorado how to overcome our 

historical and jurisdictional institutional barriers among these entities. 

We think that having overcome these barriers is a model that the 

Federal agencies can follow. We believe that since we have done it 

that the Federal agencies can overcome those traditional barriers 

as well. 

We have created eight new positions in the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife devoted solely to chronic wasting disease. We have a field 

coordinator for culling activities, a State-wide wildlife disease coordinator, staff veterinarian, four lab technicians, and a lab supervisor, for new wildlife health unit.Again, all using hunting license 

fee revenues. 

Eight new people may not sound much, but when you understand that there have been no new FDEs created anywhere in 

State government in Colorado for a number of years, you can see 

that the State also generally recognizes the importance of the work 

that the Division of Wildlife is doing. 

17

In the few moments I have left, let me focus upon what we would 

like you to help us do. First of all, we need to upgrade certified 

labs. We think that $3-1/2 million of Federal funds will help us to 

do that, particularly to build a new diagnostic lab at Colorado State 

University that can be shared by the Division of Wildlife, the Department of Agriculture, and the University Veterinary Diagnostic 

Laboratory. 

We would expect to find $4 million to upgrade disposal processes 

at four sampling/testing facilities. The key to dealing with chronic 

wasting disease, wherever it is, is to test sufficiently to know everywhere it is, and to what degree it exists. 

So the more testing that we can do across every State, the more 

we can know about that. Colorado jumped from 5,000 tests statewide a year ago, to 27,000 tests this past year. We intend to step 

that up again to as much as 40,000 tests. 

And the other thing that has happened is that we have moved 

getting the timing for the results from 6 months down to 2 weeks. 

For us to provide good customer service and good science, we needed to know exactly and quickly whether the animals were positive 

or negative. 

Research. There is no question that we need more research. We 

would ask for $2 million for research on therapeutics, live animal 

diagnostics, environmental detection, field diagnostics, genetic resistance, and enhanced rapid laboratory tests. 

Surveillance monitoring and management of wild deer and elk 

needs to occur, and surveillance monitoring and management of 

captive deer and elk must also occur. Some of this can be done together and some of it must be done separately. So we like to focus 

on both. 

Finally, education and outreach. You all know the importance of 

telling the public everything that we know and telling them as 

quickly as we know it what there is to learn from this. 

The public cares a great deal about TSEs, and our responsibility 

is to be as accurate and as open about that as we can, and that 

takes time and resources to do it. My time is up. Let me just say 

again that we support the International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies on the position that they, and where they have 

helped us. 

We support the comments from Wisconsin. The main thing I 

want to say is that we are dealing with a disease here. Time matters. The sooner we get on this, learn what we can about it, the 

sooner the opportunity we can get our arms around it, contain it, 

and maybe eventually eliminate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have used the time. My formal 

statements will be offered for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:]

Statement of Russell George, Director, Division of Wildlife,

Colorado Department of Natural Resources, on H.R. 2057

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Russell George, Director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to share 

my thoughts about the potential for increased Federal assistance to States attempting to manage Chronic Wasting Disease, commonly referred to as CWD. I appreciate 

the support and leadership of Congress on the subject of CWD, an issue of considerable importance to the State of Colorado. 

18

Colorado is uniquely positioned to take advantage of any Federal grants or other 

assistance relative to managing and studying this disease. Thus far, our state agencies have invested heavily in tackling the challenge of CWD and we have done so 

largely with state funds, especially revenues derived from the sale of hunting licenses. Therefore, we welcome increased Federal financial support. 

That is why I especially applaud Chairman McInnis’ bill. It provides significant 

new funds for state wildlife managers and it asserts the primacy of the States in 

policy-making authority with regard to wildlife management, both in general terms 

and specifically with respect to CWD. We have been concerned that this point has 

been overlooked too often by some Federal agencies. 

States that have had outbreaks of CWD, like Colorado and Wisconsin, have aggressively responded to the threats it poses to wildlife, both free-roaming and captive. States should continue to remain at the forefront of preventing or responding 

to chronic wasting disease. What states like Colorado really need from the Federal 

Government are additional resources, not new programs or institutions. 

The needs of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDOA) and Colorado State University (CSU) are extensive and beyond the 

ability of the state to fully fund. Federal assistance is crucial at this time. The 

knowledge that we have gained and the programs we have initiated in Colorado are 

often used as a model for other states just starting to respond to CWD issues. The 

innovative and aggressive approach that Colorado has taken allows other states to 

save scare funds and limited personnel time by enabling them to focus on initiatives, technologies and approaches that we have demonstrated to be effective. 

I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the actions taken by Colorado 

over the past two years in response to the spread of CWD. We have: 

• Coordinated with local governing authorities and private landowners to reduce 

deer populations in areas of especially high prevalence. 

• Significantly redirected existing funding and personnel to CWD control efforts. 

• Increased coordination and cooperation between the CDOA, Colorado’s Department of Public Health and the Environment, CSU and the Division of Wildlife 

on CWD issues. 

• Created 8 new positions devoted to CWD within the Division of Wildlife (a field 

coordinator for culling activities, a statewide wildlife disease coordinator, a staff 

veterinarian, 4 lab technicians and a lab supervisor for a new wildlife health 

unit—all using hunting license fee revenues). 

In addition, we joined with CSU and CDOA, to implement an extensive CWD surveillance and testing program for wild elk and deer. Members of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and volunteers from several Federal agencies, conservation organizations and the general public also provided significant assistance. With 

this cooperation, we were able to offer statewide testing of hunter-killed deer and 

elk while validating a new rapid test that provided results in hours instead of 

months and allowed for large-volume testing. As a direct result of our experience, 

we understand that the new test is now being considered by the USDA and Canada 

for screening large numbers of cattle for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). 

With this integrated effort, we succeeded in testing more than 27,000 wild deer 

and elk for CWD with most results available within two weeks of receipt of the sample. The CDOA and the Division of Wildlife continue to coordinate, develop, and 

adopt comprehensive regulations that govern the importation, intrastate transportation and surveillance of captive deer and elk. As you can see, we already have 

in place programs to monitor and manage CWD. 

Despite the unprecedented actions taken by Colorado and other states, it is clear 

much more work remains to be done. What we need most are additional financial 

resources with few strings attached. Federal funding for this work is a wise investment. We already have a proven track record of success. 

In concert with CDOA and CSU, Colorado has identified several initiatives and 

program that are in need of additional support. Those needs include: 

Upgrading Certified Labs 

$3.5 million to initiate the planning and construction of a new diagnostic lab on 

the CSU campus in Fort Collins that has the potential to share laboratory space 

and equipment and co-house staff from the CDOW, the CDOA and the University 

Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, a CWD-certified testing laboratory. A proposed 

program plan (that currently includes CSU and CDOA in one new building) has already been approved by the CSU Board of Governors and awaits funding to proceed. 

$4 million to upgrade disposal processes at four CWD sampling/testing facilities—

in Grand Junction, Craig, Fort Collins and Rocky Ford. I would like to emphasize 

that these upgrades will be necessary if regulations under consideration by Region 

8 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are imposed. The regulations 

19

would govern our CWD labs’ waste streams and our methods of carcass disposal. 

We urge the EPA to proceed slowly and cautiously, and only after consulting with 

external third party prion disease experts, other Federal agencies and all potentially 

affected states (including their wildlife, public health and agriculture agencies). 

Research 

$2 million for research on therapeutics, live animal diagnostics, environmental detection, field diagnostics, genetic resistance and enhanced rapid laboratory tests. $5 million to relocate and upgrade our live animal research facility. The existing 

facility is located on property that is under a lease that will expire soon and is not 

likely to be renewed by the property owner. This project will provide several Colorado institutions the capability to continue a strong tradition of collaborative animal 

research. 

Surveillance, Monitoring and Management of Wild Deer and Elk 

Colorado needs assistance with our annual expenses directly related to CWD operations (expanded surveillance, testing, reporting, culling, carcass disposal, etc.). Expenditures are estimated to be about $3 million in the coming state fiscal year. 

Surveillance, Monitoring and Management of Captive Deer and Elk Herds 

We estimate Colorado would require $150,000 for detecting, measuring and monitoring incidence of CWD in captive Colorado herds. We also anticipate needing as 

much as $1 million for reducing the incidence of CWD in captive herds (depopulation, indemnification, and carcass disposal). 

Education and Outreach 

Finally, states like Colorado need money for the development of brochures, fact 

sheets, videos, training clinics, website enhancement, etc. for agency staff, hunters, 

veterinarians, meat processors, taxidermists, conservation groups and the general 

public. 

As I conclude, I feel it is important to note that the Colorado Division of Wildlife 

anticipates spending an estimated $3 million on chronic wasting disease-related actions in our upcoming fiscal year which begins on July 1, 2003. To enable us to accomplish this, our state legislature authorized us to use funds from our dwindling 

reserve balance. We are doing so in addition to diligently reprioritizing existing resources, at the expense of other programs, for CWD work. 

H.R. 2057 would authorize programs that could help Colorado, and many other 

states, meet the significant challenges presented by CWD. My state has been at the 

forefront of efforts to understand and control CWD in the wild. We have made tremendous progress in those efforts, but we are at the point that Federal assistance 

is urgently needed to help us, and a growing number of other states, respond to 

CWD. 

In summary, I would like to emphasize that there are many opportunities for the 

Federal Government to assist States in CWD management and research. I urge congressional support for legislation and funding that will allow Colorado’s needs to be 

met. I also urge you to consider the most streamlined and efficient mechanisms for 

making such funding available, including grant programs already well-established. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and 

your distinguished colleagues. Colorado’s deer and elk are among our state’s most 

treasured natural resources. Your efforts to help us protect this valued resource are 

greatly appreciated. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. George. 

Mr. Taylor, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GARY L. TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

AGENCIES, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JOHN FISHER, SOUTHEAST COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE DISEASE STUDY 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

share with you the Association’s perspectives on the management 

of chronic wasting disease. Also for permitting Dr. Fisher, who 

chairs the Association’s Fish and Wildlife Health Committee, to 

join us at the witness table. 

20

As you know, all 50 State Fish and Wildlife Agencies are members of the Association. The Association looks forward to continuing 

to work with you, and in particular to provide the State and Federal agencies with the fiscal resources that they need to manage 

this disease. 

Further, we continue to urge that decisions with respect to the 

management of this disease be well grounded in science. And finally we see the need for even more comprehensive Federal agency 

cooperation and coordination to effectively manage this disease. 

Let me start by commending Chairman McInnis, Congressman 

Kind, Congressman Ryan, Congressman Green, and others, in particular for your diligence in ensuring that a coordinated Federal 

and State effort is directed at this issue. What is most needed are 

adequate Congressional appropriations to the Federal agencies for 

both their efforts and to pass through to the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, State universities, and State Departments of Agriculture, to manage chronic wasting disease. 

The Association looks forward to working with you to increase 

appropriations for these purposes. As Bobby Acord shared with you 

about the national plan, under his chairmanship, and that of Steve 

Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they 

quickly recognized the need for adding State Fish and Wildlife 

Agency representatives to the Federal Task Force. 

That was expeditiously done and six working groups, comprised 

of Federal, State, and university representatives, ultimately drafted a national plan that the task force released to the public in June 

of 2002. 

The plan proposes goals and serves as a blueprint for future activities to identify the extent of the disease and management actions needed to eliminate or prevent its spread.Let me commend 

Chairman McInnis and others for acting as a catalyst to get this 

done; Bobby Acord and Steve Williams, for their patience and vigilance in overseeing it, and all of the task force participants for 

their dedication and diligence in completing the plan. 

Subsequently an implementation documentation for this plan 

was produced in October of 2002 by a team of three State Fish and 

Wildlife Agency representatives, four USDA, and four USDI representatives working with input from a myriad of wildlife management and animal health professionals from across the Nation. 

The implementation document steps down the goals in the national plan to action items, and it assigns agency responsibilities, 

and identifies time lines and budgets for each of the six categories 

of diagnostics, disease management, communications, research, 

surveillance, and information dissemination. 

The implementation plan represents what we believe is the best 

and most current thinking with respect to what is necessary to successfully manage this disease. The budget recommendations in the 

plan were thoughtfully constructed under the constraint of reasonable and realistic. They are not pie in the sky requests. 

As Bobby also indicated, in April of this year, APHIS made available $4 million to the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies for surveillance and management of chronic wasting disease. As he indicated, 

collectively with APHIS, we arrived at a formula that established 

three tiers of States. 

21

And while one could argue the need for more money in one tier 

versus the other, we felt that this was equitable, and it advanced 

our knowledge of presence absence of this disease, which is one of 

the most critical pieces of information we need, and it assisted the 

States with the tremendous costs of managing this disease. 

The solution of getting more funds to States with chronic wasting 

disease and free-ranging cervids, of course, is to grow the appropriated dollars. Let me just now reflect a little bit on the need for 

engaging yet other Federal agencies, and in particular the Food 

and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, in a more coordinated effort to manage chronic wasting 

disease based on sound science. 

In November of last year, and then again more formally in May 

of this year, FDA proposed guidance for the rendering industry regarding the use and material from deer and elk in animal feed. 

Unfortunately, this draft guidance as currently written hinders 

animal health and wildlife management agency efforts to identify 

new areas where the disease occurs and it simultaneously increases, rather than decreases, the likelihood of chronic wasting 

disease positive carcasses entering the non-ruminant animal food 

chain. 

The Association believes that the draft guidance is an overreaction and simply cannot be supported with good science. In addition to the inaccurate message, we are concerned about recommendations in the draft guidance that would trigger a recall of 

feed or feed ingredients containing material from a CWD positive 

animal. 

This actually hinders our ability to find new areas where the disease occurs, because it promotes avoidance of chronic wasting disease testing, thereby increasing the chances for the disease to go 

undetected, and positive animals to enter the animal feed system. 

Early detection offers greater opportunities to eliminate the disease, and early detect depends on the cooperation of hunters, meat 

processors, taxidermists, and renders. Unfortunately, the draft 

guidance we believe perpetuates a highly undesirable situation 

that inhibits this cooperation. 

Finally, we would like to express our concerns about some draft 

recommendations that EPA has been working on in their Region 8 

office that could likewise seriously impede our ability to detect and 

manage the disease in wild and captive cervids. 

The proposal would require certain standards and permits for 

treatment of waste water from lab facilities handling animals, or 

samples from animals, with the disease. Labs wishing to continue 

or initiate work with chronic wasting disease would incur huge 

costs to come into compliance, or would have to cease their efforts. 

Once again, we believe that this proposal is not science-based, 

and would seriously affect the cooperation of hunters, meat processors, taxidermists, and renders, thereby impeding our ability to 

detect the disease in a new area. 

Finally on the issue of funding, Mr. Chairman, we all agree that 

more is needed, and we are committed to working with Congress 

to make that happen. With respect to expeditiously getting money 

to the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, let me suggest that you 

look to agencies that already have existing mechanisms and 

22

machineries for granting money to the State Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. 

All of our agencies have a cooperative agreement with APHIS for 

that purpose, and in the Department of the Interior, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has a longstanding office machinery and process 

for annually granting funds from several different programs to the 

State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

We think that there is great utility in using these existing grant 

mechanisms. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and we look forward 

to working with you to effectively address solutions to this problem. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]

Statement of Gary J. Taylor, Legislative Director,

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, on H.R. 2057

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share with you the Association’s 

perspectives on H.R. 2057 and the status of management of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in general. I am Gary Taylor, Legislative Director of the Association, 

and accompanying me today is Dr. John Fischer, Director of the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, and Chair of the Association’s Fish and Wildlife 

Health Committee. All 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are members of the Association. The Association looks forward to continuing to work with you in particular 

to provide the state and Federal agencies with the fiscal resources that they need 

to manage this disease. Further, we continue to urge that decisions with respect to 

management of this disease be well grounded in science. And, finally, we see the 

need for even more comprehensive (than just USDA and USDI) Federal agency cooperation and coordination to effectively manage this disease. 

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was founded in 1902 

as a quasi-governmental organization of 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. 

While we are not convinced of the need for further authorizing legislation, the Association wishes to commend Chairman McInnis, Congressman Kind, Congressman 

Ryan and others in particular for their diligence in ensuring that a coordinated 

Federal-state effort is directed at this issue. What is most needed are adequate Congressional appropriations to the Federal agencies involved for both their efforts and 

to pass through to the state fish and wildlife agencies, state universities and state 

agriculture departments, to manage CWD. The Association looks forward to working 

with you to increase appropriations for these purposes. 

Let me summarize where we are in management of this disease by reflecting on 

the good progress that has been made over the last year. Just a little over a year 

ago, as a result of a hearing before these same two subcommittees, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior convened a Federal task 

force to coordinate CWD management. Under the chairmanship of Bobby Acord, Administrator, APHIS, and Steve Williams, Director, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, they 

quickly recognized the need for and utility of adding state fish and wildlife agency 

representatives to the Task Force. That was expeditiously done and 6 working 

groups each comprised of Federal, state and university representatives, ultimately 

drafted the national plan that the Task Force released to the public (‘‘A Plan for 

Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Wildlife and Captive Cervids’’) on June 26, 2002. The plan proposes goals 

and actions and serves as a blueprint for future activities to identify the extent of 

the disease and management actions needed to eliminate it or prevent its spread. 

Let me commend Chairman McInnis and others for acting as a catalyst to get this 

done, Bob Acord and Steve Williams for their patience and vigilance in overseeing 

it, and all participants for their dedication and diligence in completing the plan. 

Subsequently, an Implementation Document for said plan was produced on 

October 11, 2002 by a team of 3 State fish and wildlife agency representatives, 4 

USDA, and 4 USDI representatives working with input from a myriad of wildlife 

management and animal health professionals from across the nation. The Implementation Document steps down the goals in the national plan to action items, 

23

assigns agency responsibilities, and identifies timelines and budgets for each of 6 

categories of diagnostics, disease management, communications, research, surveillance, and information dissemination. This Implementation Plan effort chaired by 

Bruce Morrison, NE Game and Parks Commission, represents what we believe is 

the best and most current thinking with respect to what is necessary to successfully 

manage this disease. The budget recommendations were thoughtfully constructed 

under the constraint of ‘‘reasonable and realistic’’—they are not ‘‘pie in the sky’’ re- quests. These budget recommendations are the basis for the Association’s appropriations request that we have asked each of our State Directors to encourage their 

members of Congress to support. In April 2003, APHIS made available $4 Million in Fiscal Year 2003 appropriated 

funds to the State fish and wildlife agencies for surveillance and management of 

CWD. In designing the protocol for distribution of the funds, APHIS engaged Dr. 

John Fischer, Dr. Tom Thorne (WY Game and Fish Department) and myself to ensure an appropriate and effective process. Collectively with APHIS we arrived at a 

formula that established 3 tiers of States: Tier 1 includes states with known occurrence of CWD in free ranging cervids; Tier 2 includes states adjacent to Tier 1 states 

or states with known CWD occurrence in farmed or captive cervids; and Tier 3 includes all other states. While one could argue the need for more money in one tier 

versus the other, we felt this was equitable, advanced our knowledge of presence/

absence of the disease which is one of the most critical pieces of information we 

need, and assisted with the tremendous cost of managing the disease. The solution 

to getting more funds to states with CWD in free-ranging cervids, of course, is to 

grow the appropriated dollars, a goal to which we are all committed. Many thanks 

to Bob Acord and his staff at APHIS for both making these funds available and for 

enlisting the State fish and wildlife agencies in designing an equitable protocol that 

will expeditiously get money to them through a cooperative agreement. 

Let me now reflect a little bit on the need for engaging yet other Federal 

agencies—in particular the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental 

Protection Agency—in a more coordinated effort to manage CWD based on sound 

science. Attention to all Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE) has increased dramatically in the last year, not just because of CWD, but most recently 

due to the diagnosis of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in a domestic cow 

in Canada. Unfortunately there is a great deal of misinformation and anxiety among 

the general public that may be eliciting ill—founded proposals from these Federal 

agencies. 

In November 2002, and then again more formally in May 2003, FDA proposed 

guidance for the rendering industry regarding the ‘‘Use of Material from Deer and 

Elk in Animal Feed’’. Unfortunately, this draft guidance, as currently written, 

hinders animal health and wildlife management agency efforts to identify new areas 

where CWD occurs and it simultaneously increases, rather than decreases, the likelihood of CWD positive carcasses entering the non-ruminant animal food chain. 

The Association believes the draft guidance is an overreaction and simply cannot 

be supported with good science. CWD is not BSE. BSE is known to be a food-borne 

disease and consumption of material containing BSE—contaminated tissues is the 

only known natural mode of transmission of BSE. For this reason, the use of materials derived from any ruminant, including cattle, sheep, deer and elk, cannot be 

fed to ruminant animals according to 21CFR589.2000. By contrast, CWD is known 

to be transmitted laterally from affected deer and elk to susceptible deer and elk; 

and there is no evidence CWD is a food borne disease transmissible to non-ruminant 

animals. 

In addition to the inaccurate message it portrays, the Association is most concerned about the recommendation in the FDA draft guidance that would trigger a 

recall of feed or feed ingredients containing material from a CWD positive animal. 

This actually hinders our ability to find new areas where CWD occurs because it 

promotes avoidance of CWD testing, thereby increasing the chances for CWD to go 

undetected and for positive animals to enter the animal feed system. Experience has 

demonstrated that current CWD surveillance techniques can detect the disease in 

a new area while at relatively low prevalence but it takes higher prevalence before 

discovery if detection is delayed. Early detection offers greater opportunities to 

eliminate the disease and early detection depends on the cooperation of hunters, 

meat processors, taxidermists and renderers. This cooperation was severely impacted by FDA’s action in November 2002, and the draft guidance will perpetuate 

this highly undesirable situation. 

Finally, the Association is concerned about some draft recommendations that the 

USEPA has been working on in their Region 8 Office that could likewise seriously 

impede our ability to detect and manage CWD in wild and captive cervids. The 

Region 8 proposal would require certain standards and permits for treatment of 

24

wastewater from laboratory facilities handling animals or samples from animals 

with CWD. Labs wishing to continue or initiate work with CWD would incur huge 

costs to come into compliance or would have to cease their efforts related to CWD. 

Should this come to fruition, the Association is concerned that the next application 

of these standards and permit requirements would be to meat processors, taxidermists, and rendering plants. Once again, the Association believes this proposal 

is not science-based and seeks to impose a standard of ‘‘no risk’’ as opposed to acceptable ‘‘low risk’’. Action of this type would seriously affect the cooperation of 

hunters, meat processors, taxidermists and renderers and thereby impede our ability to detect the disease in a new area. Furthermore, these same standards do not 

now, nor is EPA proposing that they apply to scrapie, another TSE that has been 

around for centuries, and for several decades in the United States. While EPA has 

slowed-down the internal process leading to agency endorsement of these recommendations pending further discussion with the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, State Departments of Agriculture, and State Departments of Environmental 

Quality, we remain concerned that ultimately a regulation would be promulgated 

that is poorly grounded in science. 

Both the FDA and EPA proposals compel the need for greater communication and 

coordination among all of the Federal and state agencies involved in managing 

CWD. We would strongly encourage Bob Acord and Steve Williams to convene the 

Federal task force and invite FDA and EPA to participate in a forthright discussion 

of anticipated agency actions on CWD. 

On the issue of funding, Mr. Chairman, we all agree that more is needed, and 

the Association is committed to working with you and Congress to make that happen. With respect to expeditiously getting money to the state fish and wildlife agencies, we will work with any Federal agency, but let me suggest the utility of using 

an agency that has an existing mechanism for getting grant money to the State fish 

and wildlife agencies as the most effective mechanism. As I indicated, USDA–

APHIS has or is executing cooperative agreements for granting CWD dollars to the 

State fish and wildlife agencies. In the Department of the Interior, the USFWS has 

a long-standing office, machinery and process for annually granting funds from several programs to state fish and wildlife agencies. It seems to us that using these 

existing grant mechanisms would be the most expeditious way to deliver funds to 

the State fish and wildlife agencies. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Association looks forward to working with you 

to improve our capability to manage this disease. We sincerely appreciate your support in the past, and I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, and once again I thank the panel for 

their testimony. Now what I would like to do—and I will begin the 

process—is to allow the Committee to ask questions and have an 

exchange here for the time that we have remaining. 

I am only going to ask one question in order to transfer that time 

to my colleagues, but Mr. George, and Mr. Taylor, I am specifically 

interested—obviously the Administration is supportive of working 

directly with the States, and my sense is that the best thing we 

can do is kind of exclusively provide direct financial assistance, and 

Mr. George, as you very well stated in your comments, and as you 

and I have discussed in numerous conversations. 

In rewriting my legislation, to make a straightforward grant and 

aid program, who would—each of you, if you would just give me 

your suggestion, what agency would be the best agency to administer that grant type of program? Mr. George and Mr. Taylor, 

please. 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the Colorado Division of Wildlife, I would say it would be the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. We have a number of ongoing programs. I would 

venture to say that the relationship between Colorado and the region Fish and Wildlife Agency has never been better. 

We would welcome the opportunity to add another program. We 

believe that the relationship is such that we could step in quickly, 

25

file the applications, get the money out and on the ground in the 

front line of the battle. So that would work for us. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I certainly concur with Director George’s assessment of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In Interior, for Agriculture 

appropriated dollars, I would strongly suggest that it continue to 

be APHIS, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I have no questions. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Acord, I think you 

have heard over and over again that the critical issue that we have 

is doing what is necessary to get resources out obviously to the 

States. 

You delivered some very good news to our Chairman about where 

things are at with the State of Colorado. Can you tell me from the 

money in last year’s Omnibus Bill how much of that money is slated to go this year to the State of Wisconsin? 

Mr. ACORD. Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Green, I think there is—we do 

not yet have from the State of Wisconsin their request under the 

surveillance plan that we had talked about, and the plans that the 

States were going to submit by July 1. 

We hear from them that they are clearly going to meet the July 

1 deadline and will have a request. I believe in total that they will 

wind up with somewhere in the neighborhood of a half-a-million 

dollars. 

Mr. GREEN. But the request has not been made yet? 

Mr. ACORD. The request has not been made. We have already 

provided some assistance, but the request has not yet been made 

at this point. 

Mr. GREEN. But we should get it by July 1st. OK. Can you tell 

me what the turnaround time is then from the time that you get 

such a request to processing it, and getting money out? 

Mr. ACORD. Well, we are trying to process the request as we get 

them, and while the deadline is July 1, as we have seen in the case 

of Colorado, we had their plan already, and we acted on that based 

on what we saw in the plan. 

We believe that it will be a matter of just a few weeks before we 

could turn that around, and I think certainly for the Tier One 

States, which is the category that Wisconsin fits into, we would 

move quickly I think on those States to get it done. 

Mr. GREEN. Great. And finally, Mr. George, you began to talk 

about it. As policymakers here, again, what is it that we can do to 

be most effective in assisting States like Colorado in fighting this 

problem? 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you. I would like to recognize that the States 

are on the front line, and that I think that those States who are 

involved have already shown an ability and a capacity to deal with 

this disease but for resources. 

So what we are suggesting is to help us pay the costs. Right now 

we are moving other resources around, and we are not doing things 

that we would otherwise do or should do in managing wildlife because we are using our resources to focus on this very important 

task. 

26

But we need help with those resources. And we would ask that 

you do it in a way that gets it to us quickly and without a lot of 

strings attached. Time matters and money matters, and I think if 

we do this with a good and strong partnership between the States 

and the Federal agencies that we might actually have a chance to 

get ahead of this disease before it really gets unmanageable. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Udall. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by 

thanking you for holding the hearing and for the important leadership that you have demonstrated on this issue, a great concern to 

Coloradans. I want to thank you for the good work on your bill, and 

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor to your important legislation. 

I also want to welcome my good friend, Russ George. It is always 

great to have you here in Washington, although it is a long trip, 

and Colorado in many ways is closer to our hearts. But it is great 

to have you here and to see the leadership that you are providing 

on this important issue. 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. You talked about the educational efforts that 

we have to put forward. What would be included in those efforts, 

and what have you found already in Colorado when it has come to 

the hunting community and the general public in their response to 

this situation? 

Mr. GEORGE. One of the concerns that we have with education 

is that there is a lot of confusion among the media, and therefore, 

probably in the general public, about the differences amount the 

different types of TSEs. 

They are different, and it is a matter of science, and it is not always the science that is brought forward to educate the public. So 

that what the public hears causes them to worry about human 

health concerns, and that breeds a level of fear that then distorts 

the way that we react to the disease. 

So what we need to do is first of all remember that we are dealing with science, and science means specific fact, and we need to 

know as much about that as we can, but we need to communicate 

that to everyone who is interested so that that is the first information that they hear, that it is accurate, and then they can form 

opinions about how does it affect them and their lives. 

So it just needs to be managed in such a way that we can communicate at all levels to all the public who would care. So many 

programs from all levels of government. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Russ, you talked about the science that is unfolding right now. Have we gained any additional insights over the 

last year or year-and-a-half that you could share with the 

Committee? 

Mr. GEORGE. There is a lot of activity throughout the country. 

USDA is engaged in a number of research projects with USGS, and 

several States. One new bit of information, and I would defer to Dr. 

Fisher on the science of this, but because of the number of samples 

that we were able to take this year, and these were all classified 

according to location, and type of animal, and gender of animal, so 

that we could then process that data. 

27

And we have actually learned that there may be something to 

gender differences in this disease which we had not seen before. 

That is new and we don’t know quite where that goes. But that is 

just an example of what can happen if we can step up the numbers 

of tests available all across infected areas, and then be able to process that data. 

So that is why time is important. As I said, this year we are 

going to double once again the data points that we are going to object, and that should help teach us more about the disease. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. If I might direct this question to the entire 

panel, including you, Russ. There has been some sensitive discussions about captive versus wild game, and whether CWD is more 

apt to be discovered in a captive game situation or in the wild. Is 

there any additional thoughts or perspectives on that question at 

this point? 

Mr. GEORGE. Let me begin, and then others can follow. Of 

course, the disease knows no difference among captive or wild, and 

that is the key, and that is what we have tried to do in Colorado, 

is to let that be the target, and not the jurisdictional differences, 

and not the economic differences. 

And what we have accomplished in Colorado is that now the Colorado Department of Education, of Agriculture, excuse me, and the 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, maybe for the first time in history 

have joint regulations on the issue, so that we are both going the 

same direction at the same time. 

We are sharing each other’s jurisdiction so that when we make 

decisions about chronic wasting disease that we have considered 

what does this do to the captive population, and what does this 

mean to the wild population. I think that is a good model. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Is there anybody else on the panel who would 

like to comment? 

Mr. ACORD. I would certain echo what Russ has said. I think that 

one of the benefits, if there is ever a benefit to something like this, 

is the closer working relationship that the Departments of Agriculture and Departments of Natural Resources have fostered in an 

effort to combat this disease, and I think that has been key to a 

lot of the success. 

It keeps resources used efficiently, and I think it causes everybody to work in a common spirit, and we have not always seen 

that. So I certainly agree with everything that Russ has said. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. I want to thank the panel and thank the 

Chairman, and I would just note, Chairman McInnis, that the bill 

has also been assigned to the Ag Committee, and I am on the Ag 

Committee and would like to work with you over there in any way 

that I can to help. Thank you. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for including 

us in this hearing as well. Mr. Taylor, I wanted to ask you about 

the rendering regulations from FDA and EPA. Can you just quickly 

summarize how they are harmful toward testing and advancing the 

rendering concept? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I will try to do it quickly, Congressman. With respect to the rendering proposal, the concern that we principally 

28

have is the threat of recall for feed or products that would be manufactured from carcasses submitted to renderers, and we experienced in the last—our States experienced in the last hunting season several rendering facilities who refused to take deer or elk simply because they were concerned that if a recall—that if an animal 

subsequently was diagnosed as positive with chronic wasting disease that it could affect them by compelling them to recall products 

that went through their plant, and that came into contact with that 

infected animal. 

So first of all, it discourages the sportsmen from having their 

animals tested, because rendering facilities are saying that if an 

animal comes in that you have submitted the head for testing, we 

won’t take it. On the other hand, if you bring us an animal in with 

the head attached, that’s fine, or if you bring us an animal in with 

documentation that you have taken it to a taxidermist, but that it 

is not being tested for CWD— Mr. RYAN. There is a disincentive attached to it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So it would discourage testing, and as I said, early 

detection is predicated on the cooperation of everybody, and we 

have the same concern about the proposal that EPA is considering 

because it again would impede our ability to detect the prevalence 

of the disease because if laboratory facilities detecting it can’t 

measure up to the no risk standards that it would impose, then we 

have fewer places where it can be detected. 

Also, quite honestly, if they are going to apply this standard to 

laboratories, then we are concerned that next they are going to 

start applying it to butchering facilities, the taxidermists, and to 

rendering plants. Then you are going to see a lot of those go out 

of business, and it is just going to snowball. 

Mr. RYAN. Well, in Wisconsin, the rendering industry is willing 

to take deer carcasses, and they are willing to dedicate separate facilities to process those carcasses, and not to put the food or the 

rendered material back in the food chain, but use it for fuel to burn 

in power plants. 

So there is a concept that has been advanced. It means that we 

don’t have to put carcasses in landfills. You don’t have the lecithin 

issues that arise with that. So the industry is coming up with novel 

ideas on how to handle these things, and get some use out of it 

without even having the threat of putting it into a food chain 

where you would have that problem. 

It sounds like EPA and the FDA need to be brought in the loop 

on the task force. Then that brings me to you, Mr. Acord. Have you 

considered bringing the EPA and the FDA in on the joint task force 

so that they can come on board with the whole strategy here? 

Mr. ACORD. Yes, we have. As a matter of fact the FDA has been 

added to that task force. We have had a number of discussions 

with the FDA about this issue. We have also had meetings with the 

EPA about it, and we will soon add the EPA to this effort. 

Mr. RYAN. When was the FDA added? 

Mr. ACORD. Well, we brought them into the discussions. We have 

not had a formal meeting of the task force recently and so there 

has been no formal on paper addition if you will, but if we have 

another meeting anytime soon, they will be included. 

Mr. RYAN. You will bring the FDA and EPA in on the meeting? 

29

Mr. ACORD. Yes. 

Mr. RYAN. OK. And will this be, I hope, one of your agenda items 

that you are going to discuss on how to make the rendering option 

a workable option? 

Mr. ACORD. That is certainly an issue that we have to work with. 

Mr. RYAN. I see that I still have a little bit of time. I just wanted 

to ask, that you said in your testimony that you developed a new 

test. Can you give us a few little details on that? 

Mr. ACORD. Well, we approved one that was developed by private 

industry, and it is simply a rapid test that the industry can use, 

and it is available for purchase. 

Mr. RYAN. And what is the turnaround time on that particular 

test? 

Mr. ACORD. I think the turnaround time is somewhere in the 

neighborhood of 6 hours, I believe, or something like that. 

Mr. RYAN. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCINNIS. I welcome the Ranking Member, Mr. Inslee. Mr. 

Inslee, you may proceed. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I am sorry that I missed your earlier testimony. You may have covered this, but could you give me just a 

description on either of the bills under consideration what percentages or coverage there may be for testing of game farm animals 

transferred interstate? 

And whether that would occur, and if so, on what percentages; 

and if not, what yo think we should be thinking of as far as routine 

screening of interstate game farm animals, which at least appear 

to me to be a considerable vector for transmission. 

And that is an open question to any of the gentlemen, and if you 

can help me with that. 

Mr. ACORD. Well, one of the things that we are undertaking on 

at least the farm cervid side is a herd certification program, where 

we will have herds that will be registered. 

The animals will be identified, and we will run testing over a period of time to determine if there is any disease that exists in those 

herds, and if there are, then we will dispose of them and pay the 

owners an indemnity for those animals that are taken. 

Over a period of time then, we can begin to certify those herds 

as free of chronic wasting disease, provided that there is no new 

introductions of animals or anything like that. I would think that 

perhaps for game farms or those kinds of animals that a similar 

system could be adopted for that. 

Mr. INSLEE. Now, what you just described, is that taking place 

without passage of this legislation? 

Mr. ACORD. Yes. Yes. Under the Animal Health Protection Act, 

we have rather broad authority to deal with those kinds of issues. 

Mr. INSLEE. So at the moment if a game farm in Colorado wants 

to ship 20 deer to a deer farm in Texas, is there any mandatory 

inspection process in that transfer now? 

Mr. ACORD. No, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. INSLEE. Is there any contemplated by the Service, at least 

without new legislation? 

Mr. ACORD. There is none contemplated by—well, one of the 

things that we are contemplating is requiring some testing when 

animals are moved between States, but that is an issue that is still 

30

to be worked out with the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and 

State Departments of Agriculture. 

Mr. INSLEE. And would either of these bills affect that issue? 

Mr. ACORD. I don’t believe so, sir, or at least not from the perspective of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. INSLEE. Now, it appears to me, and again I am just a lay 

person, but that this is a considerable vector for transmission of 

fairly contagious disease. Should we have a system for at least 

some percentage of testing of interstate conveyance of these game 

farm animals; and if so, what should we expect in that regard? 

Mr. ACORD. Well, I personally believe that we should have—and 

a number of States have enacted restrictions, or put regulations in 

place, to prohibit the movement of farm cervids, or the 

translocation of wild cervids from one State to the other. 

And frankly I think that it is a needed addition. I think that it 

can be done under existing authority I guess is my view. At least 

we could in the Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes? Russ. 

Mr. GEORGE. May I just add a point here that let’s not forget the 

underlying assumption. Remember that there is no live test today, 

and so you cannot order testing in advance of movement. It is always after the fact. The only time we know an animal was infected 

is after that animal is dead and tested. 

So the only thing you could do under today’s science is as Mr. 

Acord has indicated, you look backward over time so that we have 

a 5-year certification period. That is imposed in a number of States. 

Colorado started it, and we reached 5 years ago this past May. 

I think that North Dakota has already reached 5 years. So what 

that does is look at the history of what is happening in that herd. 

Five years is scientifically founded, that we have not found animals 

who have lived longer than 5 years once having been infected. 

Mr. INSLEE. So should we consider a prohibition of interstate 

transfer if you had a 5 year experience in your herd, and should 

that be a Federal obligation rather than a State one? And is this 

a national issue that should require a Federal rule in this regard? 

Mr. GEORGE. The States are doing that. The States can control 

importation and exportation. Colorado has already established a 

rule that unless there is 60 months of certification that there will 

be no importation. 

Mr. INSLEE. How many States have similar prohibitions? Does 

anybody know? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Virtually all of them, Congressman. I mean, every 

State has very restrictive regulations relative not only to the import-export of live cervids, but the interstate movement of live 

cervids as a response to the need to manage this disease. 

And many States in fact outright prohibit the importation of live 

cervids for any purpose into their State, and let me acknowledge 

that while there is a lot that we don’t know about this disease, we 

do know that greatly restricting the movement of live cervids is an 

effective way to contain it. And so the States have acted proactively 

to try and address that. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

31

Mr. MCINNIS. I noticed that Mr. McGovern is in the audience, 

and if you would like to, Mr. McGovern, you are welcome to sit at 

the dais while you are awaiting your bill. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. I’m fine. 

Mr. MCINNIS. All right. Mr. Renzi. 

[No response.] 

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Udall. Tom. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How many cervids 

nationwide are currently carrying chronic wasting disease according to the best estimates, and I guess I am directing this to Mr. 

Groat and Mr. Acord, but anybody else can chip in here. 

Mr. ACORD. I don’t think you can put a number with that, sir. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. There is no number that can be put on that at 

all? 

Mr. ACORD. I don’t believe that we have that kind of a number 

in either farmed animals or in the wild. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. How many States—does everybody agree with 

that, all the panelists? Nobody is willing to put a number on the 

table? 

Mr. GEORGE. Let me enlarge on that, Mr. Udall, why that is so. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Russ. 

Mr. GEORGE. Because there is no way to test a live animal to 

know. There is just simply no way to know, unless the animal happens to be in the later stages, where you see the clinical symptoms. 

You have no way of knowing other than what type of overall 

screening you can do, which is the point of having as many tests 

of hunter-killed animals each year as you can get, and test those, 

and know where those animals were taken, and then you found the 

negatives and the positives. 

For example, in Colorado, just to use some numbers, we know 

that we have 300,000 live elk, wild elk. In our Statewide sampling, 

we found something less than 1 percent in some parts of the State, 

but not everywhere. 

So that is as close as we could get to an answer to your question. 

And we do the same thing for deer. We know that we have 500,000 

wild deer in some places of the State, and we found somewhere 

around 1 percent infectivity. But there is no other way to know 

that. 

And we don’t know every State that has it. The only way we 

know is when some captive or wild cervid has died and been tested, 

and been found positive. On then do you know that it is there in 

some number. Not every State has tested and so we don’t know all 

the States. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. But what I am trying to get at is has anybody 

looked at, let’s say, a herd in a particular area, and from the testing that you have done been able to extrapolate in a statistical 

way, or in an epidemiological way, to say that in this particular 

area we are talking about certain percentages. 

So based on that, you can look at Statewide numbers or something, the estimates that I am talking about. We have not been 

able to do that, I guess? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, the Colorado and Wyoming experience has 

the most time in it. We have been aware of the existence of the disease in Northeast Colorado, Southeast Wyoming, for 20 to 30 years. 

32

And both States have invested time and resources in trying to get 

to the very question that you are asking. 

And we can. We can show you drawings that say, all right, we 

think—here is the center and here as it spreads from that center 

what the prevalence rate is. But it can only be done by successive 

years of testing of any given number of samples. You cannot from 

that geographical area say anything about any other area of the 

United States. 

Mr. GROAT. And I would support that. I think that the infection 

rates in studied areas is something that we are getting a handle 

on, but the extrapolation of it is either cannot be done or has not 

been done. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. And do we know from this testing and observation that has gone in the last 20 or 30 years how many States are 

affected and which States are at highest risk? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, again, unless a State has tested its own population, you don’t know. So the only way we know is when either 

a captive or wild cervid has for whatever reason died, or been 

killed, and then tested and found positive. That is the only way you 

know. 

But there isn’t any way to predict it, because—well, wild movements are somewhat known, and so you can at least imagine that 

if you have it in one area, could the migration patterns take it to 

another. But across the country there is not any way to know that. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. What factors have contributed to the increasingly rapid spread of CWD over the last 5 years in both captive and 

wild populations? Is this primarily due to transport, in terms of 

human transport, or is it more due to natural migration? What are 

your thoughts on that, any of you? 

Mr. ACORD. I don’t think—again, I think the thing that you demonstrate by all the questions it has been asking is the importance 

of research to this particular disease and what we know, and what 

we don’t know, and we don’t have enough information to put forth 

answers to these kind of questions. 

At this point, it is really speculation, and there are a lot of theories about how this has happened, but I don’t think that there are 

any real facts associated with it that I am aware of. I can tell you 

that right now there are eight States that have had cases of chronic wasting disease. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. What are those States? 

Mr. ACORD. Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, and I thank the panel. I yield back 

to the Chairman. 

Mr. MCINNIS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I believe it was 

Mr. George who in the last hearing we had on this made the statement that unfortunately there is a lot more that we don’t know 

about the disease than there is that we do know about the disease, 

and that is the importance of this research. 

A lot of your questions were very meritorious, but we don’t have 

answers for them. Mr. Kind. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the panelists for your testimony. This is the second hearing that we have 

had on this very important issue of CWD, and Mr. George, I have 

33

had a couple of conversations with you already, and we have always been very impressed with the aggressive stance that you have 

taken there in Colorado in light of the history of the disease in that 

area, too. 

Obviously there is a lot more education going on here on Capital 

Hill about the disease, and the effect that it is having, not only on 

quality of life issues, but economic issues in our respective States 

that are directly affected. 

Obviously the State of Wisconsin has come into play in a big sort 

of way over the last couple of years, and we have been trying to 

move aggressively on that front, too. And I am glad to see my 

friend, Mark Green, here and the whole Wisconsin delegation 

working hard to try to find the best answer on how to deal with 

this. 

The southern part of my Congressional District is ground zero for 

the outbreak of CWD. We probably had the most extensive testing 

of deer in the white-tail herd in the history of our Nation over the 

last deer-hunting season. 

All 72 counties had submitted test samples to find out whether 

it spread outside the containment zone that has been established 

in Wisconsin, and fortunately it has not to date, which is good 

news. But there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. 

And I am sure that it has been mentioned in the panel earlier, 

but I think it needs reiterating, that we need to be cautious in regards to the hype surrounding this disease. I mean, the World 

Health Organization has indicated that there is no known transmission of CWD to any humans that is documented, or any known 

transmission to any livestock that has been documented, which is 

good news. 

But I agree with Mr. McInnis that with the legislation that he 

has introduced and that I am co-sponsoring with him, and I have 

comparable legislation, but the long term answer to this is research, research, research. We need to get the research in place, 

and we need to get the answers so that we know how best to react. 

So that we know the pathology of this disease, and how it is contracted and transmitted, and whether we can ultimately say to the 

American people that humans are safe, that other livestock are 

safe, and that is why it is so important that we work together in 

trying to move this bipartisan legislation and get the research in 

place. 

I have introduced a couple of bills myself. I think the main difference between mine and Mr. McInnis’ legislation is that I have 

tried to avoid the jurisdictional conflict that was created in the last 

session with the Agriculture Committee, and some reluctance by 

some of the members there on the Committee to delve into this 

issue and have hearings, and to try and move the legislation as it 

effects USDA and APHIS jurisdiction, and Mr. Acord in particular. 

But last year we saw in Wisconsin about a 15 percent decline in 

hunters because of the misinformation that is in the field right 

now. So part of the legislation that we are calling for is public outreach and education campaign, so that we do a better job with the 

hunting community, and the families, and the spouses of hunters, 

who are very reluctant to leg people go out, let their spouses go out 

in the field and take the deer and bring it home. 

34

So there is a lot of work that needs to be done. We formed a task 

force as part of the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus to further 

educate our colleagues, and to further provide focus on this very 

important issue. 

And obviously when you get a 15 percent decline in hunter participation in a State like Wisconsin, where we approximate a million hunters in the field during the deer season, that has a tremendous economic effect on all of our communities. So there is a lot at 

play with this. 

Mr. Groat, I am glad to see you, because I know that USGS has 

been doing some very important work on it. I had a chance to visit 

your lab in Madison, and be brought up to speed on the type of research that is taking place there, the development of a live diagnostic test. 

Maybe I can ask you in regards to your assessment in the state 

of research, and more importantly the coordination of the research 

that is being done between the Federal agencies, and State, and 

universities, that are dealing with some form of paleon research 

right now, and if there is room for improvement in regards to the 

coordination and collaboration in this research field. 

Mr. GROAT. Thank you for the kind words, Mr. Kind. I would like 

to feel that we are involved in the heart of the research, and feel 

that the multifaceted aspect of the problem itself calls for lots of 

people to pay attention to it, and I think that one thing that scientists have a tendency to do is that when they have the resources. 

whether they be university scientists, or government scientists, is 

to attack the problem. 

And one thing they do by their natural selves is to associate with 

each other, and coordinate, and interact, and we have had a couple 

of workshops recently with multiple agencies and university participation that demonstrate that that is happening. 

And I think that it is also particularly important to attack that 

side of it, not only for the reasons that are outlined here today, but 

the fact that we don’t understand some pretty fundamental things 

about CWD itself amongst the wild and farm populations, but with 

a growing concern that the public has about the interaction between wild life diseases and human diseases, the civets and SARS, 

and the monkey pox, and so forth. 

There is this increased concern about wild life disease and its 

human interactions, and in this case where we don’t have any demonstrated becomes even more important that we do demonstrate 

that we do understand this, and that aspect of CWD needs a lot 

of attention as well. 

So in sum I think the research community is energized, and I 

think that there are lots of strong participants, and I think that as 

the resources flow that we will get further along the way, and I 

don’t think there will be any problem in getting interaction and coordination among those institutions. 

Mr. KIND. All right. And thank you, and let me just commend 

Mr. McInnis again for your interest and your leadership on this 

issue, and thank you all for your input, and obviously it is an ongoing working relationship that we have developed, and so I look forward to working with you and the rest of our colleagues here to try 

to move some of this important legislation and get it in place so 

35

that we can finally find the answers that we are all craving for out 

there in the field. Thank you again for coming. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Kind. I also want to thank the 

Committee. We have had a lot of bipartisan communication and 

support in trying to do whatever we can do to assist those of you 

out there in the field that are on the front lines of this. 

I want to thank each member of the panel. Mr. Acord, I appreciate the grant of the State of Colorado. I am sure that Russ will 

buy you lunch as a result of that. He is a kind guy. Mr. Groat, Mr. 

Taylor, and Mr. Fisher, all of you, thank you again very much for 

making your appearance today. The panel will be dismissed. 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GROAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCINNIS. All right. We will go ahead and bring up our panel 

on 2416, our colleague, Mr. McGovern, Dr. Forster, Mr. Lamb, and 

Ms. Estill. Members, if you could take your conversations out in 

the hallway, we are trying to get this other panel put on before we 

have a vote, which could come at any moment. 

I want to thank our panel, our second panel today, and I appreciate you coming in on this bill, H.R. 2416. I appreciate the time 

that you are going to spend with us in the next few minutes. 

I will tell the panel that as you know from the previous panel— there goes the vote. So what we are going to attempt to do here 

is we will go first to Mr. McGovern, and we will go ahead and 

waive any opening statements if that is all right with Mr. Inslee, 

and we will go straight to you for your opening statements, and 

then we will try and get a couple of the panel in. 

We will have to leave here in about 8 minutes, maybe 9. Mr. 

McGovern, and thank you for coming. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I want to thank you, Chairman McInnis, and I also want to thank 

Chairman Gilchrest for your support of this bill. I also want to 

thank the professional and amateur paleontologists, including Ted 

Vlamis, who you will hear from shortly, for helping to push this 

issue forward, and for his thoughtful guidance in drafting this legislation. 

I am also grateful to our friends at the Department of Interior 

who have been very helpful, and Chairman McInnis, I also want 

to single out Amy Brown of the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee staff for the tireless work that she has done on this bill. 

She is a credit to you and this entire Committee, and so I appreciate that. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before this 

joint Subcommittee today on H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. 

Like most people, I have always been and continue to be fascinated with dinosaurs and natural history, and with the evolving 

awareness of our planet’s history. As both a conservationist and a 

former member of the House Resources Committee, I am 

committed to promoting fossil research and preserving our natural 

heritage for future generations. 

36

In that spirit, many of my colleagues and I on both sides of the 

aisle have introduced legislation again in this session of Congress 

to protect the irreplaceable and historically significant resources 

that are found on public land. 

Neither the rarity of these fossils, nor the growing problem of 

theft and vandalism of these resources should be estimated. Far 

less than 1 percent of all organisms that have ever lived become 

fossils, and these fossils provide clues that help us solve the mysteries of life on earth. 

They are one of the few ways we can study evolutionary patterns 

and environmental change. These fossils are an educational and 

scientific research tool for not only our generation, but for generations to come. 

Simply stated, fossils teach us about the history of life on earth, 

and it is unlikely that history will ever be fully written without the 

most complete fossil record possible. Protecting that fossil record is 

precisely why this legislation is so urgently needed. 

As we sit here today the most significant threat to vertebrae fossil resources, like dinosaurs, is the illegal collection of specimens 

from Federal lands. The commercial value of America’s fossils has 

spawned an international black market trade that is exploding. 

The sale of fossils has become a highly profitable industry that 

has led to the theft of fossils from both public and private land. 

The National Park Service conducted a service-wide study in 1999 

that revealed an alarming 721 documented incidents of fossil theft 

or vandalism between 1995 and 1998. 

A study commissioned by the Forest Service produced even more 

shocking results. The Forest Service found no less than one-third 

of paleontological sites surveyed in the Oglala National Grassland 

in Nebraska showed evidence of unauthorized collecting. 

These are public resources on public lands, and they belong to all 

of us, and we must not allow them to disappear into the hands of 

unscrupulous dealers and black-marketeers. Unfortunately, as illegal fossil collection has flourished, we have failed to develop a 

clear, consistent, and unified policy that gives Federal land managers the authority to properly protect these resources. 

The Paleontological Preservation Resources Act is the product of 

bipartisan Congressional collaboration, which has included numerous Federal agencies, respected members of the professional and 

amateur paleontologists community, and distinguished research 

scientists, including many from Massachusetts, most notably the 

Peabody Museum at Harvard University. 

It begins by identifying the fundamental and intrinsic value of 

these public resources. The bill provides still penalties for crimes 

involving the theft and vandalism of fossils of national significance, 

in order to deter the illegal collection of these resources on public 

lands. 

It is important to note that the bill seeks only to penalize those 

who seek to profit illegally from these public resources. It does not 

place any new restrictions on amateur collectors, who by and large 

respect the value of these fossils. And furthermore the bill requires 

that all such fossils taken from Federal lands be curated at museums or suitable depositories. 

37

Lastly, this bill standardizes the excavation permitting practices 

on public land to ensure that fossils are not needlessly damaged. 

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the Paleontological Resources 

Preservation Act represents the best chance we have to guard our 

shared history on this planet from being stolen us any further, and 

to protect the legacy for future generations. 

And last for those of us who have kids, and I have a 5 year old 

boy who loves Jurassic Park almost as much as I do, there is a special reason for us to move forward on this bill. I mean, for my son, 

if he can’t have the real thing, the bones are the second best thing 

to be able to have. 

And if you have ever seen the face of a kid at a museum, or at 

The Smithsonian, in looking at a dinosaur skeleton, the wonderment and the fascination in their eyes, you can begin to understand how vitally important this bill is. 

And it is within our grasp to solve this problem. The other body 

in the last session passed this legislation unanimously, and I hope 

that we can do the same here today and move this to the President’s desk, and I thank you very much for this hearing and for 

all of your support. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGovern follows:]

Statement of The Honorable James P. McGovern, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Massachusetts, on H.R. 2416

I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before this Joint Subcommittee Hearing today on H.R. 2416, The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. Like most 

people, I have always been and continue to be fascinated with dinosaurs, with natural history and with the evolving awareness of our planet’s history. As both a conservationist and a former member of the House Resources Committee, I am committed to promoting fossil research and preserving our natural heritage for future 

generations. 

In that spirit, many colleagues and I—on both sides of the aisle—have introduced 

legislation again in this session of Congress to protect the irreplaceable and historically significant resources that are found on public land. Neither the rarity of these 

fossils nor the growing problem of theft and vandalism of these resources should be 

underestimated. 

Far less than 1% of all organisms that have ever lived become fossils. These fossils provide clues that help us solve the mysteries of life on earth. They are one of 

the few ways we can study evolutionary patterns and environmental change. These 

fossils are an educational and scientific research tool for not only for our generation 

but for generations to come. Simply stated, fossils teach us about the history of life 

on earth. And, it is unlikely that that history will ever be fully written without the 

most complete fossil record possible. 

Protecting that fossil record is precisely why this legislation is so urgently needed. 

As we sit here today, the most significant threat to vertebrate fossil resources like 

dinosaurs is the illegal collection of specimens from Federal lands. The commercial 

value of America’s fossils has spawned an international black-market trade that is 

exploding. The sale of fossils has become a highly profitable industry that has led 

to the theft of fossils from both public and private land. The National Park Service 

conducted a service wide study in 1999 that revealed an alarming 721 documented 

incidents of fossil theft or vandalism between 1995 and 1998. A study commissioned 

by the Forest Service produced even more shocking results. The Forest Service 

found no less than one-third of paleontological sites surveyed in the Oglala National 

Grassland in Nebraska showed evidence of unauthorized collecting. 

These are public resources on public lands. They belong to all of us, and we must 

not allow them to disappear into the hands of unscrupulous dealers and black marketers. 

Unfortunately, as illegal fossil collection has flourished, we have failed until to develop a clear, consistent and unified policy that gives Federal land managers the 

authority to properly protect these resources. The Paleontological Preservation 

Resources Act is the product of bi-partisan congressional collaboration which has 

included numerous Federal agencies, respected members of the professional and 

38

amateur paleontologist community and distinguished research scientists, including 

many from Massachusetts. It begins by identifying the fundamental and intrinsic 

value of these public resources. The bill provides stiff penalties for crimes involving 

the theft and vandalism of Fossils of National Significance (FONS) in order to deter 

the illegal collection of these resources on public lands. It is important to note that 

the bill seeks only to penalize those who seek to profit illegally from these public 

resources. It does not place any new restrictions on amateur collectors who by and 

large respect the value of these fossils. Furthermore, the bill requires that all such 

fossils taken from Federal lands be curated at museums or suitable depositories. 

Lastly, this bill standardizes the excavation permitting practices on public land to 

ensure that fossils are not needlessly damaged. 

I am convinced that the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act represents the 

best chance we have to guard our shared history on this planet from being stolen 

from us any further, and to protect that legacy for future generations to enjoy. 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I find your comments 

interesting, that if your son can’t have the real thing that he had 

to get the bones. So if something happens to you, we will remember 

that, and we will remember that he gets your bones. 

Panel, I am sorry to do this to you, but we are going to have to 

recess. It will probably be about 20 minutes. We will get back here 

as soon as we can, and so if you will be patient, we will return. 

The panel is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MCINNIS. The Committee will come to order. I would ask 

anyone with a cell phone to please turn it off, or just put it on the 

vibrate mode. And before we recessed, we had just heard from Mr. 

McGovern, and now we will go to the panel, and we will begin with 

Mr. Lamb. Mr. Lamb, and the panel, you will have 5 minutes each, 

and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LAMB, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE 

SECRETARY OF POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. LAMB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. I will abbreviate my remarks in the interest of time. I want 

to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department. 

We strongly support the intent of the Paleontological Resources 

Preservation Act. We support its purposes, and we wish to work 

with the Committee as we have been doing to continue to perfect 

this legislation, which we think is vitally important. 

I am subbing for our Deputy Assistant Secretary, who has 

worked hardest and longest on this, and in talking to our paleontology staff in the last 2 days, I have discovered that this is a work 

in progress, some 25 years in the making. 

The Department has long sought this legislation, and I think 

there is rising support for it. There certainly is a need. H.R. 2416 

adopts the recommendations contained in a report submitted to the 

Congress at its request in 2000, called The Fossils on Federal and 

Indian Lands Report, the so-called Interagency Fossil Report. 

The report identified a significant problem. The lack of unified 

policies and standards for the management of fossils on Federal 

lands was resulting in the deterioration and the loss of fossils. 

During the preparation of that report there was significant public 

involvement, and there was strong support for three principles. 

39

First, that the majority of people who commented knew that fossils 

on Federal lands were an essential part of America’s heritage. 

Secondly, the public recommended that vertebrae fossils continue 

to be protected as rare and within the ownership of the Federal 

Government. And, third, they supported the involvement of amateurs in the science and enjoyment of fossils, including the availability of most plant and invertebrated fossils for casual collections 

on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Forest Service. 

Public interest in fossils has grown rapidly as we heard this 

morning, and with this interest the commercial value of fossils has 

also increased. The unfortunate consequences is that there has 

been a loss of fossils from Federal lands through insensitive and at 

times criminal acts, including theft and vandalism, and from the 

United States itself through the international trafficking of these 

resources. 

These factors reduce scientific and public access to fossils and destroy the contextual information that is so critical to interpreting 

them. H.R. 2416 provides a unified Federal policy to ensure that 

scientifically significant fossils on certain Federal lands are inventoried, monitored, protected, and curated consistently, while accommodating the Agency’s distinct missions. 

The provisions of this bill do not apply to private lands, nor do 

they apply to Indian lands that are held in trust. The bill provides 

a unified approach for Federal agencies, and enhances overall management of fossils on Federal lands, and approves the collaboration 

and cooperation that exists between agencies, scientists, and the 

public that we serve. 

Today, vertebrated fossils located on Federal lands may only be 

collected with a permit for scientific and educational purposes. 

H.R. 2416 would codify this policy and standardize the permitting 

requirements among the various Federal agencies, thus assisting 

the public. 

It would ensure that these fossils are retained as public property 

and curated in suitable repositories for current and future generations. H.R. 2416 also provides one important exception to the permitting requirement. It allows for casual collection of certain paleontological resources for personal scientific educational and recreational uses. 

This is a very important provision, which would authorize the 

Secretary to allow the public to casually collect common 

invertebrated and plant fossils without permit on certain Federal 

lands. 

In other words, under this bill visitors to BLM lands who enjoy 

paleontology could continue to collect and keep for their personal 

use a wide variety of common plant and invertebrate fossils. 

The casual collection of such fossils can be an important component for the public’s enjoyment of Federal lands, and is generally 

consistent with scientific and educational goals. We have included 

an amendment at the end of my testimony to clarify this and other 

small provisions of the bill. 

This would provide the secretary in the amendment through regulation the ability to define the amount and kind of fossils to be 

casually collected. H.R. 2416 would also codify the land 

40

management agency’s existing prohibition on commercial fossil collecting from Federal lands. 

It also would provide additional protection by prohibiting the excavation, damaged, transport or sale, of paleontological resources 

located on Federal lands. Penalties for these acts would be set by 

classification following fine and imprisonment penalties imposed 

under Federal law. 

H.R. 2416 would also provide the Secretary with the flexibility 

to keep an inventory and monitor exposed fossils based onsite specific geology and the paleontology of management units. 

It would balance the need for public access to fossils with the recognition that the unlimited disclosure of certain information about 

particularly significant fossils can lead to theft and vandalism of 

these fossils, and it would mirror similar provisions in the National 

Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998. 

We have included several amendments as I mentioned for the 

Committee’s consideration. We look forward to working with the 

Committee on these changes to ensure the bill achieves the purposes of this act. 

As the price of fossils rise, the Federal Land Managing Agencies 

will be under increased pressure to both protect scientifically significant fossil resources, and to assure their appropriate availability to the general public. We commend the Committee for its 

consideration of 2416, and we look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamb follows:]

Statement of Robert J. Lamb, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of 

Policy, Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 2416

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. The 

Department supports the purpose of H.R. 2416 to protect paleontological resources 

on Federal lands but would like to work with the Committee on amendments consistent with those provided at the end of this testimony. 

H.R. 2416 adopts the recommendation of a report submitted to Congress in May 

2000, titled ‘‘Fossils on Federal and Indian Lands’’ (the Interagency Fossil Report). 

Concerned about the lack of unified policies and standards for the management of 

fossils on Federal lands and the resulting deterioration and loss of fossils, Congress 

directed the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the National Park 

Service, the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Geological Survey to develop a report assessing the need for a unified Federal management policy. During development of the report, three major themes emerged from the public comments received. 

First, a majority of people who commented viewed fossils on Federal lands as part 

of America’s heritage. Second, they recommended that vertebrate fossils continue to 

be protected as rare and within the ownership of the Federal Government. Third, 

they supported the involvement of amateurs in the science and enjoyment of fossils, 

including the availability of most plant and invertebrate fossils for casual collection 

on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. To 

meet these and other goals, the report recommends the establishment of a framework for fossil management, analogous to the Archeological Resources Protection 

Act of 1979 (ARPA). 

Fossils are non-renewable and often fragile resources which, with the exception 

of microfossils and those that make up commercially developed minerals, such as 

coal, are relatively rare and have significant scientific, educational and recreational 

values. Federal lands, the majority of which are in the drier western part of the 

United States, contain a rich array of plant, invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. For 

more than a century, Federal agencies have managed fossils from their lands within 

their unique missions. These agencies have protected all vertebrate fossils from 

Federal lands, requiring permits for their excavation and removal, with the stipulation that the resources remain in Federal ownership in perpetuity. 

41

In recent years, public interest in fossils has grown rapidly, and with this interest, the commercial value of fossils also has increased. The unfortunate consequence 

has been a loss of fossils from Federal lands, through insensitive and criminal acts, 

including theft and vandalism, and from the United States itself through international trafficking. These factors reduce scientific and public access to fossils and 

destroy the contextual information critical for interpreting the fossils. 

H.R. 2416 should provide a unified Federal policy to ensure that scientifically significant fossils on certain Federal lands are inventoried, monitored, protected, and 

curated consistently, while accommodating the agencies’ distinct missions. The provisions in this bill do not apply to Indian lands or private lands. As we understand 

it, the bill, in large measure, reflects the current practice of agencies in the management of fossils on Federal land. Streamlining the practices of the various land management agencies into a unified approach will enhance overall management of fossils on Federal lands by reducing public confusion and improving collaboration and 

cooperation among agencies, scientists, and the public. 

Under the agencies’ existing regulations and policies, vertebrate fossils located on 

Federal lands may only be collected with a permit for scientific and educational purposes. H.R. 2416 would codify this collection policy and standardize the permitting 

requirements among the various agencies, as recommended in the Interagency Fossil Report. It would ensure that these fossils are retained as public property and 

curated in suitable repositories for current and future generations of scientists and 

the public to study and enjoy. Scientists use the information from specimens in repository collections to build on our understanding of the history of life and the physical environment on Earth. Millions of visitors enjoy the displays offered by public 

repositories of the most spectacular and educational fossils, many originating from 

Federal lands. 

One exception to the permitting requirements under H.R. 2416 is for casual collection of certain paleontological resources for personal, scientific, educational and 

recreational uses. This important provision would authorize the Secretary to allow 

the public to casually collect common invertebrate and plant fossils without a permit 

on certain Federal lands. In other words, under this bill, visitors to BLM lands who 

enjoy paleontology as a hobby could continue to collect and keep for their personal 

use a wide variety of common plant and invertebrate fossils. The casual collection 

of such fossils can be an important component of the public’s enjoyment of some 

Federal lands and is generally consistent with scientific and educational goals. We 

have included an amendment at the end of this testimony to clarify this provision. 

H.R. 2416 would codify the land managing agencies’ existing prohibition on commercial fossil collecting from Federal lands. By prohibiting such collecting, this legislation ensures that vertebrate fossils on Federal lands, a rich part of America’s heritage, remain in public hands, that they are not bought or sold, and that the 

Federal Government does not have to use taxpayer funds to purchase fossils found 

on lands that it owns. 

H.R. 2416 would provide additional protection by prohibiting the excavation, 

damage, transport or sale of paleontological resources located on Federal lands. 

Criminal penalties for these acts would be set by classification, following fine and 

imprisonment penalties imposed under Federal law. 

Keeping an appropriate inventory and monitoring are crucial components of fossil 

management. H.R. 2416 would provide the Secretary with the flexibility to keep an 

inventory and monitor exposed fossils based on the site-specific geology and paleontology of management units. The exposure of fossils by erosion varies, based on the 

type of rock in which they are found and local climate. Some fossils remain exposed 

at the surface for decades or centuries, while others weather away soon after exposure depending on the nature of their preservation. 

H.R. 2416 would balance the need for public access to fossils with the recognition 

that unlimited disclosure of certain information about particularly significant fossils 

can lead to the theft or vandalism of those fossils. In the National Parks Omnibus 

Management Act of 1998, Congress authorized the National Park Service to withhold information about the nature and specific location of paleontological resources 

in park units unless certain criteria were met. H.R. 2416 would extend this same 

authority to the other Federal land managing agencies. 

At the end of this testimony, we have included several amendments for the Committee’s consideration. We look forward to working with the Committee on these 

and other changes to ensure that this bill achieves the purposes of this Act. 

As the prices of fossils rise, the Federal land managing agencies will be under increasing pressure to both protect scientifically significant fossil resources and ensure 

their appropriate availability to the general public. H.R. 2416 would create a single 

legislative framework for paleontological resource management that will facilitate 

sharing of resources, personnel and partnership opportunities across agency lines. 

42

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the Committee may have. 

Proposed Amendments for H.R. 2416

On p. 3, line 2, strike ‘‘of a reasonable amount’’. On p. 3, line 4, after ‘‘resources’’ insert ‘‘,as determined by the Secretary and in 

an amount determined by the Secretary to be reasonable,’’. On p. 4, line 19, strike (7) and renumber accordingly. —creates ambiguity with regard to vertebrates and is addressed in amendment on p. 3, line 4. 

On p. 4, line 23, strike (8) and renumber accordingly. —creates ambiguity and is addressed in amendment on p. 3, line 4. 

On p. 5, line 3, insert new (9): 

‘‘(9) QUALIFIED APPLICANT.—The term ‘‘qualified applicant’’ means a person 

who demonstrates relevant scientific training and scientific field experience; who is 

formally associated with a reputable scientific or educational institution or Federal, 

tribal, or state agency; and who has any other qualifications determined necessary 

by the Secretary.’’ On p. 3, line 16, after ‘‘means lands’’ insert ‘‘controlled or’’. —clarifies the bill’s inclusion of all lands (except Indian lands) managed by 

the Departments. 

On p. 6, line 13, after ‘‘Federal lands’’ insert ‘‘controlled or’’. 

—clarifies generally where casual collecting may be allowed 

On p. 8, line 5, after ‘‘of’’ insert ‘‘a’’. 

On p. 8, line 15, after ‘‘permit’’ insert ‘‘issued under this Act’’. 

—ensures that the permit referenced is the permit established under this 

Act 

On p. 8, line 19, after ‘‘Acts;’’ insert ‘‘Criminal’’

—clarifies that Section 9 addresses criminal penalties, in contrast with Section 10 which addresses civil penalties 

On p. 11, line 5, after ‘‘involved.’’, insert ‘‘, as determined by the Secretary.’’. 

On p. 11, line 22, strike entire subsection (b), insert: 

‘‘(b) PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW; COLLECTION OF UNPAID ASSESSMENTS.-

(1) JUDICIAL REVIEW—Any person against whom an order is issued assessing 

a penalty under subsection (a) may file a petition for judicial review of the order 

in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in the district 

in which the violation is alleged to have occurred within the 30-day period beginning on the date the order making the assessment was issued. The Secretary shall 

promptly file in such court a certified copy of the record on which the order was 

issued. The court shall hear the action on the record made before the Secretary and 

shall sustain the action if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 

(2) FAILURE TO PAY—If any person fails to pay a penalty under this section 

within thirty (30) days-

(A) after the order making the assessment has become final and the person has not filed a petition for judicial review of the order in accordance 

with paragraph (1); or 

(B) after a court in an action brought in paragraph (1) has entered a final 

judgment upholding the assessment of the penalty, 

the Secretary may request the Attorney General to institute a civil action in a 

district court of the United States for any district in which the person is found, resides, or transacts business, to collect the penalty (plus interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of the final order or the date of the final judgment, as 

the case may be). The district court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide any 

such action. In such action, the validity, amount, and appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to review. Any person who fails to pay on a timely basis 

the amount of an assessment of a civil penalty as described in the first sentence 

of this paragraph shall be required to pay, in addition to such amount and interest, 

attorneys fees and costs for collection proceedings. 

—is the standard enforcement provision found in other laws including the 

Clean Water Act 

On p. 13, line 18, strike ‘‘may be subject to forfeiture...involved in the violation.’’

insert 

‘‘shall be subject to civil forfeiture, or upon conviction, to criminal forfeiture. All 

provisions of law relating to the seizure, forfeiture, and condemnation of property 

for a violation of this Act, the disposition of such property or the proceeds from the 

sale thereof, and remission or mitigation of such forfeiture, as well as the procedural 

43

provisions of Chapter 46 to Title 18, United States Code, shall apply to the seizures 

and forfeitures incurred or alleged to have been incurred under the provisions of 

this Act.’’. 

—makes a distinction between civil forfeiture and ensures that criminal forfeiture only could occur upon conviction 

—makes clear that the protections of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act 

(CAFRA), an act to provide a more just and uniform procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, would apply 

On p. 14, after line 3, insert new (c): 

‘‘(c) TRANSFER OF SEIZED RESOURCES.—The Secretary is authorized to 

transfer ownership or administration of seized paleontological resources to Federal 

or non–Federal educational institutions to be used for scientific or educational purposes.’’

—allows the establishment of partnerships with schools and other entities 

to transfer seized resources (for example, some resources that are recovered with no record of their context may have lost value to a museum, 

but may still have educational value) 

On p. 14, line 8, strike ‘‘withheld . . . the responsible Secretary’’, insert: 

—exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code 

and any other law, unless the Secretary’’. 

—clarifies the existing provision and more closely follows other exemption 

language 

On p.15, line 22, strike ‘‘public’’ insert ‘‘Federal’’. 

On p. 15, line 20, after ‘‘time’’ insert ‘‘under’’. 

On p. 15, line 23, strike ‘‘amateur’’ insert ‘‘casual’’. 

Mr. RENZI [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lamb. 

Ms. Estill. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. ESTILL. Thank you again very much for the opportunity for 

the opportunity to present USDA’s position on this very important 

piece of legislation that will help us not only recognize paleontological resources as a real opportunity for the public to learn more 

about ecosystems and early life on earth, but will also help us protect those into the future. 

The Department supports the purpose of this bill, but we would 

like to continue to work with the Committee on some aspects of it. 

H.R. 2416 directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources 

using scientific principles. 

It recognizes the non-renewable nature of fossils, and defines paleontological resources as fossilized remains preserved in or on the 

earth’s crust. This distinguishes paleontological resources from archeological resources covered under the Archeological Resource Protection Act, and culture items, covered under the Natural Historic 

Preservation Act, and Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and Mineral Resources. 

An important aspect of this bill is its formal recognition that casual collection of invertebrate and plant fossils for recreational, noncommercial, use is a valid public activity on National Forest system 

lands, unless there is some other overriding land use designation. 

if enacted this bill would establish collection provisions for paleontological resources, including permitting requirements for scientific and educational purposes, as well as recreational collection 

of rocks and minerals for personal use. 

44

Currently there is a very complex mix of laws, regulations, and 

guidelines that have created significant jurisprudential challenges. 

We support penalties that are consistent with recent amendments 

to the Federal sentencing guidelines of the U.S. Sentencing Commission for increased penalties for cultural heritage resources. 

H.R. 2416 also provides that the proceeds arising from civil and 

criminal penalties established under the bill may be available for 

payment to those who provided information in investigations that 

might lead to civil violations or criminal convictions for which the 

penalties were assessed. 

However, the currently worded language in Section 11 provides 

a maximum reward amount that we believe would ineffective in 

most cases. We believe that the appropriate reward amount to be 

offered or paid for assistance in investigations would be best determined by the agency and the prosecutor based on the significance 

of the case and the assistance provided or needed. 

In addition to the recommendations that I just mentioned, we 

would like to work with the Subcommittee to make several minor 

technical improvements. This concludes my testimony, and I have 

submitted my full testimony for the record, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[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. 2416

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Elizabeth Estill, 

Deputy Chief for Programs, Legislation, and Communications, USDA Forest Service 

I would like to present the Department’s views on H.R. 2416 -- the Paleontological 

Resources Preservation Act. 

H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act recognizes that paleontological resources, especially vertebrate fossils, are heritage resources which provide opportunities for the public to learn more about ancient ecosystems and the development of life. The Forest Service, as steward of these heritage resources is committed to their protection while providing opportunities for research, education, and 

recreation. The Department supports the purpose of this bill, but would like to work 

with the Subcommittee on some aspects. 

H.R. 2416 directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to manage and protect paleontological resources using scientific principles. The bill 

recognizes the non- renewable nature of fossils and defines paleontological resources 

as fossilized remains preserved in or on the Earth’s crust. This distinguishes these 

resources from archeological resources, covered under the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA); cultural items, covered under the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA); and mineral resources. 

An important aspect of this bill is its formal recognition that casual collection of 

invertebrate and plant fossils for recreational non-commercial use is a valid public 

activity on National Forest System lands unless there is an overriding land-use designation. If enacted, the bill would establish collection provisions for paleontological 

resources including permitting requirements for scientific and educational purposes 

as well as recreational collection of rocks and minerals for personal use. Currently, 

there is a complex mix of laws, regulations and guidelines that have created significant jurisprudential challenges. We support penalties that are consistent with recent amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines of the U.S. Sentencing Commission for increased penalties for cultural heritage resources. 

H.R. 2416 also provides that the proceeds arising from civil and criminal penalties established under the bill may be available for payment to those who provided 

information in investigations that lead to the civil violations or criminal convictions 

for which the penalties were assessed. However, the current reward language in 

Section 11 provides a maximum reward amount that we believe will be ineffective 

in most cases. We believe that the appropriate reward amount to be offered or paid 

45

for assistance in investigations is best determined by the agency and prosecutor 

based on the significance of the case and assistance provided or needed. 

In addition to the recommendations just mentioned we would like to work with 

the Subcommittee to make several minor technical improvements. 

This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. 

Dr. Forster. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CATHERINE A. FORSTER, MEMBER AT 

LARGE, SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY 

Ms. FORSTER. I am extremely pleased to be here to talk to you 

about his bill today as a professional paleontologist. This bill has 

tremendous support among the paleontology community, both professional and amateur, and also great support among the public. 

It is endorsed by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, which 

is an organization that contains over 2,000 professional and amateur paleontologists, and by the American Association of Museums, 

which represents 11,500 individuals, and they belong to 3,100 institutions. 

Vertebrate fossils, which are the remains of animals with backbones, are being illegally collected and vandalized on Federal lands 

at ever-increasing rates. For example, between 1995 and 1998 the 

National Park Service documented 721 incidents of paleontological 

resource theft or vandalism in National Parks alone. 

Although it is already illegal to collect fossils on Federal lands, 

the current penalties are so low, and the market value for fossils 

so high that current law offers little deterrent to fossil thieves. 

For example, a man who had been stealing fossils from a National Park over a number of years, when he was finally caught, 

was fined only $50. This gap between resource value and penalty 

has grown so large that it is well worth of taking the risk of illegally collecting fossils on Federal land. 

This is making it increasingly difficult for local land managers to 

police their paleontological resources. We really need to put some 

teeth into penalizing fossil theft and this bill will help do that. 

Fossils on Federal lands should be collected, but they need to be 

collected legally by experienced people. There are three reasons for 

this. First of all, fossils must be properly collected to maximize the 

preservation of the fossil itself. Fossils are always complex, and 

they are very often fragile. 

Specimens collected improperly usually come out of the ground in 

irreparable pieces and missing crucial parts, their scientific value 

greatly compromised. And while the fossil itself contains a wealth 

of information, the rock in which the fossil is found provides additional data, such as clues to the ancient environment and climate 

in which the animal lived, the age of the fossil, the attending plant 

life, and its precise geographic location. 

This crucial contextual data must be carefully collected along 

with the fossil, and often requires a collaboration of other professionals, such as geologists and paleonal botanists. Therefore, even 

if an illegally collected fossil is recovered, it is likely to be in less 

than optimal condition, and half of its scientific value is loss without proper contextual data. 

46

Number 2, once properly collected, the fossils must be deposited 

in a museum or university collection where it will be cared for and 

held in perpetuity in the public trust. In such collections, the fossil 

is available for scientific study and for public exhibition, or for use 

in educational programs. 

Illegally collected fossils end up in private hands, and they are 

sold commercially to the highest bidder, and many are exported 

from this country illegally. None of these fossils end up in the public trust and none of them contribute to our understanding of past 

life. 

And importantly, number 3, fossils are historical objects that inform us about past life on earth. When collected by professionals 

and deposited in a public institution for safekeeping, they become 

widely available for study. The fossil bones themselves can teach 

us what the animal looked like when it was alive, the speed it ran, 

how quickly it grew, what it might have eaten, and which other 

animals it was most closely related to. 

Even fossils that have been in collections for over 100 years are 

still revealing new information to us. This is because as time goes 

on new techniques and new technologies are developed that can 

help us glean additional information from these specimens. 

So it is not good enough just to look at a fossil once. It must be 

kept in the public trust so that years from now, or generations 

from now, they are still available for study. And this is not just esoteric information for the edification of a few paleontologists. 

You all know from reading newspapers every day that information on fossils in past life shows up in the news very, very often. 

For instance, over the last few years there have been many, many 

articles documenting the evolution of modern birds from small 

meat eating dinosaurs, and this is something that the public is extremely interested in hearing about. 

They are fascinated by dinosaurs and other remains of past life, 

and fossils, especially dinosaurs, serve as an entre in science for 

thousands of Americans, possibly millions of Americans, especially 

for children. 

And I know that it had this effect on me. When I was a little 

girl, I was absolutely awe-inspired by the triceratops skeleton at 

the Science Museum of Minnesota, and it is one of the reasons that 

I ended up becoming a paleontologists. That specimen also is collected on Federal land. 

The more fossils that end up in the public trust, the more information we paleontologists have regarding past life, and the better 

we can inform the public about this. So fossils on Federal land are 

part of our heritage, and they are also part of a global heritage of 

the history of life on our planet. 

And as Americans, I think we have a responsibility to protect 

these historical treasures that we have. They are on Federal land 

and they belong to all of the American people, and I think they 

should remain that way. So we need Bill 2416 to help ensure that 

these fossils are kept in the public trust for the good of us all. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Forster follows:]

47

Statement of Catherine Ann Forster, Associate Professor,

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, on H.R. 2416

I am very honored to testify in support of H.R. 2416, The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. This bill has been endorsed by the Society of Vertebrate 

Paleontology, an organization of more than 2000 professional and amateur paleontologists and by the American Association of Museums, which counts in its membership 11,500 individual museum professionals and volunteers, 3100 institutions, and 

1700 corporate members. 

A heightened public interest in dinosaurs and other extinct life forms has given 

paleontologists an unprecedented opportunity to share with the public the excitement of recent advances in this fascinating science that records the history of life 

on our planet. Dinosaurs and fossils have become the window through which many 

young children get their first introduction to science, oftentimes inspiring a life-long 

interest or career in science. The fossil record is our only way of learning about the 

history of past life on our planet, and it is important for all Americans to have the 

opportunity to learn from this record. For this reason I’m pleased to see that 

H.R. 2416 calls for the establishment of a program to increase public awareness 

about the significance of paleontological resources on Federal lands. As we confront 

important public policy issues including global climate change and the extinction of 

countless species of animals and plants, the fossil record provides a critical historical basis to help guide our decisions. 

While it is gratifying that the public has become more interested in the history 

of life on our planet, and while paleontologists have become increasingly eager to 

share this knowledge, heightened visibility has also led to the increased commercialization of fossils. This has led to a black market trade in fossils from foreign 

countries (in violation of export laws) and to the theft of fossils from public and private lands in the United States. 

I would like to share a little bit of information with you about how paleontological 

research is done and why this legislation is essential to ensuring maximal public 

benefit from this research. 

Many kinds of fossils, including those of most vertebrates (backboned animals), 

are rare for several reasons. Many organisms are not readily preserved as fossils 

because they do not have hard parts. Only rather unusual sedimentary rock environments preserve soft parts long enough to become fossilized. Also, organisms can 

only be preserved where sediments accumulate at a fairly high rate. Most organic 

remains are not buried fast enough to contribute to the fossil record. Vertebrate fossils are much less common than invertebrate and plant fossils. Although we are fortunate to have some exceptions, spectacular deposits of diverse and complete organisms are rare over the history of the earth. The majority of fossil vertebrate species 

are extremely rare or are represented by a single unique specimen. For these reasons the chances of any vertebrate becoming a fossil are very small. Thus, individual vertebrate fossils are extremely valuable as bearers of information about the 

past. Furthermore, fossils of extinct groups are not renewable. More fossils will be 

discovered and collected, but always from a finite supply. More than 99% of all life 

forms that have ever lived on Earth are already extinct and are only potentially 

known by fossils. 

Fossils themselves cannot tell the full story of life on Earth and they must be supplemented with contextual data. The rocks in which the fossils are found provide 

information about ancient environments and climates, the age of the fossils, position 

in a historical sequence, and their paleogeographic location. Fossil assemblages can 

also provide information about ecological interactions and communities. 

A fossil collected without this information has lost much of its value, and we know 

little more than that this animal lived and died. In contrast, when contextual data 

are collected and studied, we begin to understand how the animal lived and its place 

in the balance of nature. As paleontologists and geologists learn more ways to interpret ancient environments and ecological communities from fossil assemblages in 

their original context, this information becomes more and more valuable and important. These contextual data allow us to bring these animals to life for tens of millions of visitors to our museums, to the many young children who have hands-on 

experience with original specimens, and to the American public. 

Our understanding of evolutionary processes and the tree of life comes primarily 

from comparing the skeletons from different animals to each other. In order to do 

this researchers must be able to compare new specimens with those previously unearthed. Oftentimes a new analysis many years later shows our earlier understanding was incomplete or mistaken. For example, when Dr. John Ostrom was 

doing research on Deinonychus, a dinosaur similar to the Velociraptor popularized 

in Jurassic Park, he found that a specimen thought to be a carnivorous dinosaur 

48

was actually the rare early bird Archaeopteryx. Ostrom’s research was critical in establishing the link between dinosaurs and birds that became a proudly recited fact 

for every young dinosaur aficionado. Only when specimens are properly collected 

and permanently preserved in public institutions can researchers access these specimens in order to make these comparisons. And when these comparisons and interpretations are made education and the general public greatly benefit by having access to this new interpretive knowledge through media reports, books, and the Internet. 

In a poll taken in 1991 of America’s major museums, more than 49% of the 1.8 

million specimens of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates in their collections were 

from public lands. Of the overall total, amateurs had donated more than 100,000 

specimens to museums and significantly less than 1 % of the specimens came from 

commercial collectors (Stucky and Ware, 1991). 

H.R. 2416 does not change any current aspect of access to fossils on public lands 

on the part of amateurs, educators, or professional scientists. It does codify current 

land management authority and practice into uniform guidelines. This will help paleontologists to ensure that they are complying with the law when doing research 

on Federal lands. It also will help increase the awareness of the cooperative spirit 

of amateurs and professionals and provides for stronger penalties for those who 

would destroy or permanently remove valuable fossils from our public heritage. 

We urgently need stronger penalties for theft and destruction of fossils from public lands. Sadly, some of the most egregious cases of theft and vandalism have occurred on Federal lands belonging to all Americans. 

The rapidly increasing commercial value of fossils has created a situation where 

the limited penalties that exist are not sufficient to deter illegal collecting. In the 

Report ‘‘Fossils on Federal and Indian Lands’’ it was noted that ‘‘the fines currently 

imposed on fossil thieves are usually low compared to the lost resources. For example, one man who had stolen fossils from a national park over a period of years was 

fined a total of $50.’’ (Babbitt, 2000 p. 29) 

In many cases the theft of fossils is so widespread and occurs so rapidly that we 

do not even know what is being lost. In a study commissioned by the Forest Service, 

it was found that almost one-third of the paleontological sites surveyed in the Oglala National Grassland showed evidence of unauthorized collecting. In 1999, the 

National Park Service identified 721 documented incidents of paleontological resource theft or vandalism, many involving many specimens, in the national parks 

between 1995 and 1998. (Babbitt, 2000 p. 28) 

The increased commercial market for fossils worldwide has sometimes led to distortion of the fossil record. In some cases fossils have been altered in order to inflate 

their commercial value. And we have lost significant specimens from further scientific investigation and exhibit, making it harder for people to see and examine for 

themselves the authentic objects in our museums. It is critical that scientifically significant fossils from Federal lands, i.e. that portion of the fossil record that belongs 

to the American people, remain in the public domain so that everyone—children and 

adults, amateur and professional paleontologists—may benefit from this irreplaceable resource. 

I would like to conclude by telling you about one example of the kind of cooperation, which exists between Federal agencies, amateur paleontologists and professional paleontologists. Figure 1 shows a Tyrannosaurus rex that was found on 

Federal land by amateur paleontologist Kathy Wankel. She reported this find to dinosaur paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State 

University, Bozeman. The MOR was able to collect this fossil and the contextual 

data and to learn much more about this animal known to all schoolchildren. Dr. 

Horner is currently in the fifth year of a field study in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Montana. To date eight Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons have been discovered. The field study is yielding valuable information about 

this most famous of the dinosaurs and the environment in which it lived. The work 

of the Museum of the Rockies has made it possible for the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, to collect one of these specimens. Thus, our 

National Museum will be able to display an actual specimen of this celebrated 

American dinosaur for the first time. The passage of H.R. 2416 will foster more and 

more opportunities like this and inspire the long-term preservation of these priceless national resources. 

References: 

Babbitt, B. 2000. Report of the Secretary of the Interior: Fossils on Federal and 

Indian Lands 

Stucky, R.K., and S. Ware. 1991. Questionnaire concerning fossil collecting on 

Federal Lands. DMNH, Denver. 

49

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Dr. Forster, for your testimony. 

I now recognize Mr. Vlamis for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TED J. VLAMIS, AMATEUR PALEONTOLOGIST 

Mr. VLAMIS. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

here today. I am in favor of H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. One of the most gratifying things for me 

as an amateur paleontologist has been the opportunity to collaborate with professional scientists, to learn from them, and to make 

my own small contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge. 

H.R. 2416 puts no new restrictions on amateur paleontologists 

like me. We can continue to collect for personal use common plant 

and invertebrate fossils on multi-use lands without a permit, and 

our colleagues who are amateur rock and mineral collectors will 

benefit from the provisions of Section 14. 

H.R. 2416 impacts neither private lands nor existing private collections. The PRPA has been endorsed by both the Western Interior 

Paleontological Society, an organization of over 300 amateur paleontologists, and by the Dry Dredgers, the Cincinnati area amateur 

group. 

Because of my personal interest in Paleontology, and the nexus 

between paleontology and public policy, I have studied the problems of illegal collection and theft of fossils from Federal lands for 

the past several years. 

I would like to share with you a couple of case histories that illustrate what is happening to this valuable public resource, beginning with the story of three allosaurus specimens, and this would 

be what allosaurus is, a large meat-eating dinosaur from the Jurassic period. 

In 1991 the BLM discovered an illegal commercial collection taking place on Federal land. They contacted the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University at Bozeman, and asked them to 

collect the specimen and hold it in the public trust. 

As a result of this the most complete Allosaurus ever found, 

which this commercial collector intended to sell to a private collector overseas, has now been saved for all the people of the United 

States. 

The commercial collector who had attempted to steal this fossil 

and the information that it tells us was never prosecuted. Unfortunately, the American people were much less fortunate in the case 

of another Allosaurus find illegally collected from BLM land near 

Fremont Junction, Utah. 

The collector was not prosecuted because of the lapse of the statute of limitations. The commercial fossil dealer, who purchased the 

Allosaurus for $90,000 and sold it to a Japanese collector for 

$400,000 plead guilty to the receipt of stolen property and was sentenced to 1 year probation. His company was fined $50,000. 

A profit of $260,000 is not an effective deterrent. We must have 

stronger penalties and specific laws protecting fossils on Federal 

lands to deter this type of illegal activity and this Allosaurus remains in Japan today and has not been able to be recovered for the 

people of the United States. 

50

A paleontological area near Grand Junction, Colorado, is the first 

management area specifically protected by the Bureau of Land 

Management solely because of fossils. During a trip there, I was 

able to learn much about the important research that is being done 

at that site. 

Unfortunately, I also witnessed the damage that is occurring 

there because of theft and vandalism. Here in Figure 2, this kind 

of gray area that you see here is all that remains of what was once 

a largely intact Allosarus vertebrae. 

The remainder of the vertebrae, which protruded from this rock, 

has been hacked away by people illegally harvesting this.Here in 

Figure 3, we see the gray here is part of what was once a major 

portion of an Allosaurus skeleton, and over the years people have 

just lopped off pieces of it to take home and put on their mantles, 

or sell to people, or whatever, but most of it has disappeared. 

And here you can see a depression in the rock, and this is from 

Dinosaur Hill, which is near the paleontological area. There was 

once a deplodicus femur there, but somebody has carted that away. 

The paleontological community is strongly in favor of laws protecting fossils on public lands and of prohibiting their collection for 

commercial use. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology collaborated with the Paleontology Society several years ago and issued 

a joint statement regarding fossils on public lands, which is consistent with 2416. 

Together these two societies represent several thousand individuals, including more than 90 percent of the professional paleontologists, and a very large proportion of amateur paleontologists. 

Similar, the American people support the type of stewardship of 

fossils on Federal lands that is embodied in H.R. 2416. In a survey, 85.3 percent agreed with the statement that, quote, fossils of 

animals with backbones are part of our national heritage and 

should be protected in much the same way that archeological remains are not protected. 

And 88 percent agree, quote, that if laws are created to restrict 

the collection of fossils on public lands, the only people who should 

be allowed to collect them are people with appropriate skills for 

doing so, and with a permit for that purpose. All the fossils that 

they find should go into museums and universities prepared to protect them. 

These are exactly the principles that we see in H.R. 2426. So the 

amateur and professional paleontological communities, and the 

general public, need the information from fossils found on Federal 

lands, and they want these fossils to be protected by theft and vandalism so that this part of our natural heritage is preserved as a 

national treasure for all Americans. 

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify here. I 

have entered further remarks in the written record, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vlamis follows:]

Statement of Ted J. Vlamis, Amateur Paleontologist, on H.R. 2416

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. I am an amateur paleontologist, and have 

seen firsthand how the increased public interest in paleontology has motivated 

many Americans to make an avocation of the fascinating field of study. 

51

One of the most gratifying things for me has been the opportunity to collaborate 

with professional scientists—to learn from them, and to make my own small contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge. I have had the pleasure in 

participating in fieldwork with the Dinamation International Society, the 

Universidad Autonoma de Me ́xico, the Shuler Museum of Paleontology at Southern 

Methodist University, and the Ft. Worth Museum of Nature and History. I have 

been an active member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, including serving 

as a member of its Government Affairs Committee since 1996 and as Affiliated Societies Liaison from 1997–2002. By having amateurs like me serve in significant positions, the SVP has ensured that it reflects the interests of both professional and 

amateur paleontologists. 

H.R. 2416 puts no new restrictions on amateur paleontologists like me. We can 

continue to collect for personal use common plant and invertebrate fossils on multiuse lands without a permit. And our colleagues who are amateur rock and mineral 

collectors will benefit from the provisions of Section 14, which recognizes that casual 

collecting of rocks and minerals for personal use is a valid use of National Forest 

System lands. H.R. 2416 impacts neither private lands nor existing private collections. The PRPA has been endorsed by both the Western Interior Paleontological Society, an organization of over 300 amateur paleontologists, and by the Dry Dredgers, 

a Cincinnati area amateur group. 

Because of my personal interest in paleontology, and the nexus between paleontology and public policy I have studied the problems of illegal collection and theft 

of fossils from Federal lands for the past several years. I’d like to share with you 

a couple case histories that illustrate what is happening to this valuable public resource. I’m going to begin with the story of three Allosaurus specimens. Allosaurus 

was a large carnivorous dinosaur of the Jurassic period (fig. 1). 

In 1991, the BLM discovered an illegal commercial collection taking place on 

Federal land. The BLM contacted the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University—Bozeman and asked them to collect the specimen and hold it in the public 

trust. As a result of this, the most complete Allosaurus ever found, which this commercial collector intended to sell to a private collector overseas, now has been saved 

for all the people of the United States. As a result of careful analysis of injuries 

sustained by this dinosaur and preserved in the bones, this particular specimen has 

yielded a treasure trove of information about how Allosaurus lived. The commercial 

collector, who had attempted to steal this fossil and the information it tells us, was 

never prosecuted. 

Unfortunately, the American people were much less fortunate in the case of another Allosaurus find. This Allosaurus was illegally collected from BLM land near 

Fremont Junction, Utah. The collector was not prosecuted because the lapse of the 

statute of limitations. Last year the commercial fossil dealer, who purchased the 

Allosaurus for $90,000 and sold it to a Japanese collector for $400,000, plead guilty 

to receipt of stolen property and was sentenced to 1 year probation. His company 

was fined $50,000. A profit of $260,000 is not a deterrent. We simply must have 

stronger penalties and have specific laws protecting fossils on Federal lands in order 

to deter this type of illegal activity. 

The Fruita Paleontological Area near Grand Junction, Colorado became the first 

management area specially protected by the Bureau of Land Management solely because of fossils in 1976. Specimens from this area include Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, 

Camarasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Dryosaurus, and Stegosaurus. It has also yielded numerous microvertebrate and invertebrate remains and has facilitated reconstruction 

of the ecological community in which these animals lived. During a trip to the 

Fruita Paleontological Area I was able to learn much about the important research 

being done there. Unfortunately, I also witnessed the damage that is occurring there 

because of theft and vandalism. 

Figure 2 shows the remains of what was once a largely intact allosaur vertebrae. 

The entire portion of the vertebrae that was protruding from the surrounding matrix has been sheared off. 

Figure 3 shows what was probably once a major portion of an allosaur skeleton. 

We will never know what scientific information this specimen would have yielded. 

In Figure 4 we see the imprint showing where a Diplodocus femur was stolen 

from Dinosaur Hill, a quarry just a short distance from the FPA. 

The paleontological community is strongly in favor of laws protecting fossils on 

public lands, and of prohibiting their collection for commercial use. Several years 

ago, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) added a Statement of Ethics to 

its bylaws to help the society and its members handle ethical issues such as those 

raised by increasing commercialization. I summarized the SVP Ethics Statement 

and a subsequent Joint Position Statement by the Paleontological Society as follows: 

‘‘The SVP Ethics Statement contains several principles that are particularly noteVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Sep 12, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87804.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
52

worthy for their public policy implications. It begins by recognizing that vertebrate 

fossils are usually unique or rare, and that they are part of our natural heritage. 

The Ethics Statement assigns to vertebrate paleontologists the responsibility of ensuring that pertinent detailed contextual data are recorded when vertebrate fossils 

are collected and notes that collection and preparation should be done by properly 

trained personnel. The importance of proper curation and the assurance of access 

for future researchers are recognized by the Ethics Statements’ provision that scientifically significant vertebrate specimens should be curated and accessioned in institutions charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific 

study and education. The Ethics Statement further recognizes the responsibility of 

paleontologists to expeditiously disseminate information to other paleontologists and 

to the general public. Perhaps the most important part of the SVP Ethics Statement 

from a public policy perspective is the conclusion that ‘‘The barter, sale, or purchase 

of scientifically significant vertebrate fossils is not condoned unless it brings them 

into, or keeps them within, a public trust’’ (SVP, 1994). 

In order to ensure that the SVP’s public policy recommendations and initiatives 

regarding fossils on Federal lands were also reflective of the wider paleontological 

community, the SVP initiated a dialogue with the Paleontological Society. Together 

these two scientific societies include several thousand individuals, representing 

more than 90% of professional paleontologists and a very large proportion of amateur paleontologists. This dialogue culminated in 1999 when the two societies issued 

the joint position statement Paleontological Resources on U.S. Public Lands. The 

PS–SVP joint statement advocates public policy which, like the SVP Ethics Statement, recognizes that fossils are part of our scientific and natural heritage. It goes 

on to find that fossils on public lands belong to all the people of the United States 

and that, as such, they need special protection, and should not be collected for commercial purposes. The joint statement concludes that the two societies strongly support actions which ‘‘protect fossils on public lands as finite natural resources; encourage responsible stewardship of fossils for educational, recreational, and scientific purposes; promote legitimate access to, and responsible enjoyment of, paleontological resources on public lands by the public and amateur paleontologists for 

personal use, and by the professional paleontological community, including professional paleontologists from outside the U.S.; and bring fossils from public lands into 

public institutions where they are available for purposes of education and scientific 

research’’ (PS and SVP, 1999).’’ (Summary from Vlamis, 2001) The Society of 

Vertebrate Paleontology has endorsed The Paleontological Resources Preservation 

Act. 

Similarly the American people support the type of stewardship of fossils on 

Federal lands which is embodied in H.R. 2416. MKTG, INC., a market research 

firm that has conducted over 10,000 studies since its founding in 1979, conducted 

a survey of American public opinion regarding fossils. This survey of 300 American 

adults analyzed public responses both to a hypothetical situation involving the discovery of a fossil, and to a series of more general questions pertaining to fossils. A 

random calling program was utilized which gave every telephone in the U.S. the 

same probability of being called. The survey results have an accuracy rate of +/- 7%. 

The findings of this survey are detailed in Vlamis (2001). 

Several key points that demonstrate public support for the principles embodied 

in H.R. 2416. When the hypothetical find is assumed to have been made on public 

land 86.6 percent agree with the statement that ‘‘The fossil is part of our heritage, 

it belongs to everyone in the United States’’, 80.0 percent with the statement that 

‘‘There should be a law against my selling the fossil’’, 81.0 percent with the statement that ‘‘There should be a law against my taking the fossil out of the United 

States’’, and 81.0 percent disagree with the statement that ‘‘The fossil is mine, finders keepers’’. The consistency of responses when asked in a variety of different ways 

is striking. 

In the second part of the survey, 85.3 percent agreed with the statement that that 

‘‘Fossils of animals with backbones are part of our national heritage and should be 

protected in much the same way that archeological remains (human artifacts) are 

now protected’’; and, 88.0 percent agreed that ‘‘If laws are created to restrict the collection of fossils on public lands, the only people who should be allowed to collect 

them are people with appropriate skills for doing so and with a permit for that purpose. All the fossils that they find should go into museums and universities prepared to protect them’’ (Vlamis, 2001). The American people want our natural heritage preserved as a national treasure. 

The amateur and professional paleontological communities and the general public 

need the information from fossils found on Federal lands and they want these fossils 

to be protected from theft and vandalism. 

References: 

53

Paleontological Society and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 1999. Joint Position Statement by The Paleontological Society and The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology on Paleontological Resources on U.S. Public Lands 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 1994. Bylaws, Article 9

Vlamis, T.J., 2001, in Proceedings of the 6th Fossil Resource Conference Santucci, 

V.L. and McClelland, L. (eds) Geologic Resources Division Technical Report NPS/

NRGRD/GRDTR–01/01 September 2001

APPENDIX 1

SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY BY–LAW ON ETHICS

ARTICLE 9. STATEMENT OF ETHICS. 

Several goals for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology follow from its mission 

statement (Constitution Article 1): to discover, conserve, and protect vertebrate fossils and to foster the scientific, educational, and personal appreciation and understanding of them by amateur, student and professional paleontologists, as well as 

the general public. Fossil vertebrates are usually unique or rare, nonrenewable scientific and educational resources that, along with their accompanying contextual 

data, constitute part of our natural heritage. They provide data by which the history 

of vertebrate life on earth may be reconstructed and are one of the primary means 

of studying evolutionary patterns and processes a s well as environmental change. 

It is the responsibility of vertebrate paleontologists to strive to ensure that 

vertebrate fossils are collected in a professional manner, which includes the detailed 

recording of pertinent contextual data (e.g. geographic, stratigraphic, 

sedimentologic, taphonomic). 

It is the responsibility of vertebrate paleontologists to assist government agencies 

in the development of management policies and regulations pertinent to the collection of vertebrate fossils, and to comply with those policies and regulations during 

and after collection. Necessary permits on all lands administered by Federal, state, 

and local governments, whether domestic or foreign, must be obtained from the appropriate agency(ies) before fossil vertebrates are collected. Collecting fossils on private lands must only be done with the landowner’s consent. 

Fossil vertebrate specimens should be prepared by, or under the supervision of, 

trained personnel. 

Scientifically significant fossil vertebrate specimens, along with ancillary data, 

should be curated and accessioned in the collections of repositories charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific study and education (e.g. accredited museums, universities, colleges, and other educational institutions). 

Information about vertebrate fossils and their accompanying data should be disseminated expeditiously to both scientific community and interested general public. 

The barter, sale, or purchase of scientifically significant vertebrate fossils is not 

condoned unless it brings them into, or keeps them within, a public trust. Any other 

trade or commerce in scientifically significant vertebrate fossils is inconsistent with 

the foregoing, in that it deprives both the public and professionals of important 

specimens, which are part of our natural heritage. 

APPENDIX 2

JOINT POSITION STATEMENT BY THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY AND THE SOCIETY OF

VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON U.S. PUBLIC LANDS

The Paleontological Society and The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology are committed to increasing scientific knowledge, educational benefits, and appreciation of 

the natural world based on fossils—for everyone—child or adult, the general public, 

or amateur or professional paleontologists. Fossils are an invaluable part of our scientific and natural heritage. They yield detailed information about the history of life 

and of our planet, and provide lessons for the modern world and our future. 

Many important fossil localities occur on U.S. public lands and belong to all people of the United States, including future generations. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The Paleontological Society therefore support the development of 

policies and practices that can be used by different Federal agencies to regulate the 

collection of fossils on U.S. public lands in an appropriate, clear and consistent 

manner. 

Many fossils are common (for example, many non-vertebrate fossils) and should 

be allowed to be collected—in a responsible way—by any amateur or professional 

paleontologist, thus allowing them to experience and benefit from the excitement of 

discovery, recovery, identification and study. In particular, because of the benefits 

54

that derive from increased public appreciation of fossils, it is important that the participation of amateurs in paleontology is not discouraged by Federal policies and 

practices. 

Other fossils are rare (for example, many vertebrate fossils and some nonvertebrate fossils), and require special protection, especially from destruction by 

vandalism or commercial exploitation. In particular, because of the dangers of overexploitation and the potential loss of irreplaceable scientific information, commercial 

collecting of fossil vertebrates on public lands should be prohibited, as in current 

regulations and policies. The commercial collecting of other paleontological resources 

on U.S. public lands should be strictly regulated by permit through the appropriate 

land management agencies. Regulations and polices regarding the collection of paleontological resources from U.S. public lands should be strictly enforced. 

In this context, the Council of The Paleontological Society and the Executive Committee of The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology strongly support actions that: 

(i) protect fossils on public lands as finite natural resources, 

(ii) encourage responsible stewardship of fossils for educational, recreational, and scientific purposes, 

(iii) promote legitimate access to, and responsible enjoyment of, paleontological resources on public lands by the public and amateur paleontologists for personal use, and by the professional paleontological community, including professional paleontologists from outside the U.S.; 

and bring fossils from public lands into public institutions where they 

are available for purposes of education and scientific research. 

The following attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files. • TJV Firgue 1. Allosaurus was a large carnivorous dinosaur of the Jurassic period. • TJV Figure 2. Shows the remains of what was once a largely intact allosaur 

vertebrae. The entire portion of the vertebrae that was protruding from the surrounding matrix has been sheared off. 

• Figure 3 shows what was probably once a major portion of an allosaur skeleton. 

We will never know what scientific information this specimen would have yielded. 

• TJV Figure 4. The imprint showing where a Diplodocus femur was stolen from 

Dinosaur Hill, a quarry just a short distance from the Fruita Paleontological 

Area near Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Mr. Vlamis, for your 

testimony. 

I have a statement from the Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman, which needs to be put into the record, and without objection. 

And hearing none, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gilchrest follows:]

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

on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, on H.R. 2057 and 

H.R. 2416: 

Good morning, I am pleased to join with my colleague Scott McInnis in conducting 

this Joint Hearing on H.R. 2057, the Chronic Wasting Disease Support for the 

States Act and H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. 

First identified in Colorado in 1967, Chronic Wasting Disease or CWD is a progressive, fatal and degenerative illness that has spread to both wild and captive 

herds of white-tailed deer, mule deer and rocky mountain elk. While the Centers 

for Disease Control have said that: ‘‘there is no evidence that CWD has been transmitted to humans under natural conditions’’, there are still huge gaps in our knowledge base. For instance, we need to know what is the exact cause of this disease, 

how it is transmitted to other animals and what is the incubation period in cervids. 

H.R. 2057 is a comprehensive proposal that builds upon the efforts of the Department of Agriculture who has established a CWD surveillance, depopulation and indemnity program for affected farmed elk populations and has provided a $4 million 

dollar grant to the 22 affected states. While these are positive steps, additional research, control, monitoring and money to combat this dreaded illness is essential. 

These are the fundamental goals of this legislation and I compliment the Chairman 

of the Forests Subcommittee for his tireless leadership on this issue. 

As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2416, I believe it is long overdue that we establish a comprehensive national policy for preserving paleontological resources on 

55

Federal lands. In 1999, the National Park Service identified hundreds of documented cases involving theft or vandalism of prehistoric fossils. 

While this legislation will not prohibit casual collecting on Federal lands where 

allowed, it will ensure that these invaluable artifacts are not destroyed. The bones 

of an Allosaurus, Stegosaurus or Tyrannosaurus must be protected, preserved and 

managed for the benefit of future generations. They should be displayed in places 

like the American Museum of Natural History, the Dinosaur National Monument 

and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and not stashed away 

in a private collection, listed on Ebay or sold on the black market. 

I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Jim McGovern for 

proposing the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act and I look forward to 

hearing from our distinguished witnesses on these two important pieces of legislation. 

Mr. RENZI. We are going to move to questions and I would remind members that we have a 5 minute time limit on questions, 

and I want to recognize first of all the co-sponsor of the bill from 

the great State of Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you. Since I am the author of the 

bill, I don’t need to be convinced, but you have convinced me again 

why this is a good idea. I want to say, Mr. Lamb, and Ms. Estill, 

that I appreciate your comments and also the suggested amendments to the bill, and I am just looking at them very quickly, and 

most of them seem pretty reasonable to me. 

So I look forward to working with you and this Committee in trying to make sure that when this bill is reported out of here is as 

effective as it possibly can, and it is not weakened, and we are all 

committed to a stronger bill here. 

Dr. Forster, thank you very much for your testimony, and for all 

of your work in this area, and to my friend, Mr. Vlamis. I want to 

thank you. He and Pat Leejee with the Museum of the Rockies 

were actually the first people that came into my office and kind of 

talked to me about this issue, and I want to also thank you for continuing to bring to me models of T-Rex teeth and other things that 

I can give to my son. 

But I just wanted to make one point, and then I will yield back 

my time. And I think that all of you kind of mentioned it, but there 

is a big business in shelling these fossils and these dinosaur bones, 

and I think that a lot of people don’t quite appreciate that. 

A number of people have said to me, well, what is the big deal. 

Well, there is a big deal, and you have mentioned a couple of cases 

where people have kind of stolen what should be public property, 

and made huge profits, and one of the things that we are trying 

to do is to stop that, and to make sure that these things are forever 

in the public domain, where scientists, and geologists, and people 

who study this stuff, and even kids, can have an opportunity to 

view these things. 

So again I thank you all for being here, and your testimony, and 

I look forward to working with all of you. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I now 

recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, who has personally 

wrestled an allosaurus in many of his days, Stevan Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the bill 

and appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts bringing it. My 

questions come kind of from the other direction. If there are 

tremendous profits to be made, and I know that there are, what 

56

is to keep the scientific community from occasionally slipping something out the back? 

Do you have any safeguards in the bill for that? And, Dr. Forster, 

I would direct that to you. 

Ms. FORSTER. Well, I don’t know if there are any safeguards in 

the bill for that, but I know that in our society, the Society of 

Vertebrate Paleontology, we have a very strong ethics statement 

that goes along with joining the society, to which almost every professional paleontologist belongs. 

And it is absolutely unethical to be selling fossils if you are a 

professional paleontologist. This is completely wrong. And of course 

I am sure that occasionally it happens, but I don’t know if there 

are any safeguards in the bill. 

But we try to police our own, and it is considered extremely unethical to do something like that. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. I do recognize that it would be considered that way, but people being what they are, unless you have the 

only group of people that are morally bound to every ethical standard that they aspire to. 

Ms. ESTILL. But the bill does require a permit for scientific collections, and agencies would monitor those permits, and so we feel 

like there is some safeguard. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, and just in extending my comment, we 

have got a lot of museums in my district, and when I go into the 

basements of museums, I am not too frankly impressed by the 

tracking mechanisms that are in place. I see things scattered in 

boxes, boxes piled on boxes, and boxes broken up, and things falling on the floor. 

And I wonder when we talk about the potential for our museums 

to safeguard these treasures why we would even continue collecting 

it at some point when we have so many samples that are being 

trapped in basements, and not being taken care of. 

That is I would say that this treasure should be left where it is 

at some point. Is there a response to—how do we track this once 

it gets into the museum system, because even though the paleontologists may have this ethical standard, you have got these boxes 

that are unkept and probably uninventoried, and through inventory are not checked regularly. 

And so then you have janitors and things that have access to 

those, and I worry about these things. 

Ms. FORSTER. I think it is probably a legitimate worry in some 

places. There are many museums that are not like that at all, 

where specimens are prepared as they come in, and there aren’t 

jackets and boxes laying around. Every specimen has its place, and 

they know exactly where every specimen is. 

So I am not sure exactly which museum you are talking about, 

but it sounds like it can be a problem. It is potentially a problem, 

but again if it is part of the bill that the museum has to care for 

these specimens and track these specimens, I would hope that the 

museums would come up to snuff on that as well, because it is in 

their best interests to do so. 

And certainly as a paleontologist, I know where all of my fossils 

are that I collect, and I would hope that whatever museum you are 

talking about would come up to snuff as well. One of the problems 

57

of course for a lot of museums lack of funds to prepare fossils, although again museums that I know of are very good at keeping 

track of what they have got in their collections, even if they are in 

a box or are still in a jacket, they know what they have got, and 

they know it is in that jacket. 

Mr. VLAMIS. Mr. Pearce, I might add that the provisions to the 

bill do provide for the revocation of the permit if someone violates 

the bill, and so that would certainly be a very strong sanction that 

would happen to any scientist who was selling things out the back 

door as you expressed in your concern. 

Mr. PEARCE. I guess in extending that, my question is that there 

is no actual monitoring of the permit holders and even the amateurs, or in other words, there is no oversight. We get the permit, 

but then we depend on the human element to not be attracted by 

the $400,000 sales price that is essentially all profit, and that to 

me worries me that we have no technique to see what is taken by 

the permit holders, be they professional or amateur. 

And then we have no technique to monitor through the stream 

of progress what is going on, and so at some point I would say 

without careful safeguards, I would rather see them stay in the 

ground or on the ground, and they have been preserved for centuries there. 

And I would just leave that as an open question if someone 

wants to deal with it. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. I want to recognize another 

gentleman from New Mexico, the land of enchantment, Mr. Udall. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. I very much appreciate my colleague from 

Massachusetts, who has taken a great interest in this, and in 

working with Chairman McInnis to see that we do something about 

this. 

Both my colleagues here from the west, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. 

Renzi, are very aware that the Federal lands within our congressional districts also contain Indian sacred sites, and I want to ask 

about that, because I think that is a crucial issue here when we 

start talking about fossil collections, and Indian sacred sites, and 

I guess the first thing I want to ask is what effect, if any, does fossil collection have on Indian sacred sites on non-Indian Federal 

land, and then the second part of this is that Section 5 of this Act 

would direct the Secretary to develop an inventory and monitoring 

plans for paleontological resources in accordance with laws, regulations, and policies. 

Would it be helpful if this bill also required that plans be developed in accordance with Executive Order 13007 dealing with sacred 

sites? That is the President’s Executive Order on sacred sites, and 

then any of the panelists can comment on that. 

Mr. LAMB. There is a specific provision in the bill with regard to 

sacred sites on Federal lands. I would welcome the opportunity to 

do a little research with regard to the Executive Order, and its 

interplay with this act, rather than just speaking 

extemporaneously about it. 

We are very concerned about protection of such sites, and are active in trying to protect them. By having a system—essentially it 

58

goes also to Mr. Pearce’s question. We are currently permitting the 

excavation of sites to technically qualified individuals and organizations. 

What this bill does is provide a more uniformed structure for 

that. There is very little consistent Federal law with regard to this 

entire area. We are using our organic statutes across 4 or 5 different agencies. I look, for example, of the definition of paleontological resource, and we have five different definitions. 

The public is confused about what its role is, and how it can participate. I recall when Secretary Hodel became Secretary of the 

Interior, and we were testifying before an appropriations committee, and this topic came up in the ’80’s. 

And he said that he was very concerned about the responsibilities that the Department had, and its ability to enforce, and protect these resources, and he had given the matter considerable 

thought, and the only way in which to do it is to provide a much 

greater role for the public, a much greater public participation, a 

greater involvement with volunteers. 

And working with organizations like these professional societies 

can really enhance our ability to protect these resources. Since that 

time of his testimony, I might point out that the number of volunteers in the Department of Interior across the board has increased 

some 180 percent. 

We now have 200,000 volunteers working with our employees, 

some three times the number of volunteers that we have actual 

employees. One of the things that this bill will do will encourage 

more partnerships with these professional organizations to meet 

some of these responsibilities. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Any other panelists have any comments on 

that? Let me just in the couple of moments that I have left just 

emphasize that when we are dealing with Indian sacred sites—I 

mean, a lot of people think of these as this may be something that 

is old, and there is not an ongoing activity. 

And I just spent time on one of my pueblos where the pueblos 

were showing me a couple of what they would consider sacred sites 

that dealt with collecting small specimens of rock that they used 

to paint when they do their dances, which is a continuing, on-going 

think, and a part of their religious activities. 

There was another place that they showed me where they collected a particular type of rock, and if it was in coloring in their 

pottery, which is also an ongoing activity. And so when I was out 

there at the time and saw this, they actually pointed out a couple 

of times as we were looking at these rocks that there were fossils 

mixed in with some of this. 

So I don’t think it is an insurmountable issue at all, but I think 

it is just one that we all need to be very sensitive to, and I know 

that both the gentlemen from the west here are very aware, because they have Indian reservations and Indian sacred sites in 

their congressional districts. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. I certainly will, but I don’t have any time. But 

I am sure that this generous Chairman here will give you time. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, the bill specifically states that nothing in 

this Act shall be construed to affect any lands other than Federal 

59

lands, or affect the lawful recovery, collection, or sale of paleontological resources from lands other than Federal lands. 

So if the gentleman wants to work on language that—I don’t 

know if that addresses his issue or concern, or whether he wants 

more restrictions, or—

Mr. VLAMIS. I think I could offer some insight into this. If you 

look at the definition of paleontological resource in the bill, it specifically exempts fossils which are identified as archeological objects under 16 USC 470. 

So those would be protected already by existing law, where you 

have got a fossil that is part of a sacred Indian site. It would be 

covered and protected under ARPA, 16 USC 470. And this bill was 

also written specifically not to conflict with sites that are covered 

by NAGFRA (phonetic). So I believe what you would find is that 

this offers additional coverage, and in no way detract from the existing protection, which is already there. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. I think the issue here, the bill exempts BIA 

lands, is that correct, from the sponsors? And what I am talking 

about is sacred sites on other Federal land, BLM and Forest Service land. 

Mr. VLAMIS. Yes, and I am not an attorney, but my understanding is that those would be protected under the Archeological 

Resources Protection Act, 16 USC 470, and so there is not a need 

to protect them under this Act, because they are already protected. 

Mr. RENZI. Would the gentleman yield also? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Sure. 

Mr. RENZI. I may be missing my friend’s point, but I think the 

gentleman is trying to also protect the ability of the Native Americans to harvest the stones, or the rocks that are used in coloring, 

and not so much to protect the fossils themselves. And it really—

am I right my friend? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Yes. 

Mr. RENZI. OK. So I know that you are talking about protecting 

the fossils, but the gentleman is talking about protecting the colored rocks, OK? And that really leads to the question that I am 

going to get into if the gentleman is completed. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Let me just say that what I am worried about 

is protecting the religious activities. It is very much a part of Native American communities in my district, and I think in yours, 

and in Mr. Pearce’s, and maybe some of the other members that 

are on this Committee. 

Mr. RENZI. I agree with the gentleman. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. And with reference, I think that some cross-reference or something to the Indian Religious Freedom Act may do 

that. 

Mr. RENZI. The Chair would recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only one question, and that is would you please tell me what the penalties are 

in a E Class felony? 

Mr. LAMB. I am not an expert on the exact penalties. They have 

been worked with the Department of Justice, in terms that they 

would be commensurate with other Federal statutes. I can get that 

60

information for you, sir, but the language is directly from the Justice Department to put them on a comparable standing. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes. If you could, I would appreciate that information. That is all that I haves, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo. I am going to dove-tail on 

Mr. Udall’s questions, and I had a couple of prepared questions 

that really fit into his line of questioning. 

And particularly Dr. Forster, if you wouldn’t mind. I know that 

there was some discussions about other lands other than Federal 

lands, and I think that Mr. McGovern has done a wonderful job as 

far as articulating the fact that we are dealing specifically with 

Federal lands right now. 

Is the idea though that we would eventually look at maybe expanding this to the Bureau of Reclamation lands, or DoD lands, or 

obviously we have other areas where fossils are also going to be 

found. 

Ms. FORSTER. I think that I am going to refer that to my colleague, Mr. Vlamis, here. 

Mr. VLAMIS. I think that is something that might want to be 

looked at down the road. For example, there are some very important paleontological sites which are located on Army Corps of Engineer’s land that are also very accessible, offering the potential of 

illegal collecting. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. 

Mr. VLAMIS. So that might be a wise future thing to look at. 

Mr. LAMB. With regard to the Department of the Interior, this 

bill would extend provisions to the Bureau of Reclamation since it 

is one of our Interior— Mr. RENZI. It would cover lands currently under management by 

the Bureau of Reclamation? 

Mr. LAMB. Yes, it would. 

Mr. RENZI. OK. Mr. Lamb, that leads into my second question 

then, is that Mr. Udall specifically was looking at the ideas that 

a possibility could exist where Native Americans could be looking 

at going out and finding sacred stones. 

We in the west very much are in the business of land exchange, 

where we see Federal lands, Bureau of Reclamation lands, and we 

exchange them for private lands. Does the legislation at all obstruct or hinder our ability to exchange those lands? 

Mr. LAMB. As part of those exchanges, there is usually an inventory of the resources of that land, and if there is a significant, scientifically significant, scientifically significant portion of the land 

that holds immense value, I know from personal experience on exchanges that this becomes a subject matter of the exchange itself, 

and how that will be protected and what type of arrangements 

must be made to protect it. 

Mr. RENZI. Would we treat it similarly to archeological sites as 

we now treat it during land exchange? 

Mr. LAMB. I believe so. 

Mr. RENZI. You imagine so? 

Mr. LAMB. In fact, the entire intent of this bill is to treat paleontology much like we treat archeology on Federal lands. That is really the intent of it, in terms of all of the general provisions, is to 

bring paleontology up to the same standards that we have had in 

61

place very effectively for 25 years, in terms of archeological resources. 

Mr. RENZI. OK. Thank you, sir. With that, I want to thank all 

the witnesses on our second panel for your insights, and your expertise, and also the members for their questions. The members 

have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask that 

you please respond to them in writing. 

The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these responses. If there is no further business before this Subcommittee, 

I would like to adjourn for 5 minutes, and then reconvene with the 

Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health for our additional bills. 

The Subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ