U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–727PDF 2012

THE SCIENCE OF HOW HUNTING 

ASSISTS SPECIES CONSERVATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND 

OVERSIGHT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012 

Serial No. 112–90 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

HON. PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Paul D. Tonko, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Witnesses: 

The Hon. Daniel Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Dr. Al Maki, Chairman, Conservation Committee, Safari Club International 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

Dr. Stuart Pimm, Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

Mr. Nick Wiley, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Discussion 43 

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Hon. Daniel Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................ 55 

Dr. Al Maki, Chairman, Conservation Committee, Safari Club International .. 59 

Mr. Nick Wiley, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 62 

(1) 

THE SCIENCE OF HOW HUNTING 

ASSISTS SPECIES CONSERVATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:23 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Broun 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman BROUN. The Subcommittee on Investigations and 

Oversight will come to order. Good afternoon. I welcome everyone 

to today’s hearing entitled, ’’The Science of How Hunting Assists 

Species Conservation and Management.’’ You will find in front of 

you packages containing our witness panel’s written testimony, 

their biographies, and truth in testimony disclosures. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

As a hunter who was first introduced to the sport by my dad 

when I was six years old, I am personally aware of the positive impacts of managed hunting in America as well as overseas. I have 

been involved in hunting for about 60 years, and I am a life member #17 in the Safari Club International, the world’s largest pro 

hunting conservation organization. 

However, there may be some who are not aware of the positive 

impacts and how science of hunting assists species conservation 

and management. Today’s hearing is part of my effort to ensure 

that legal hunting is properly recognized for its positive impacts on 

domestic as well as international animal populations, as well as 

conservation in general. 

We have several witnesses that are testifying today who can 

speak firsthand of the positive impact of hunting and the science 

behind it. Represented today by its Director, Dan Ashe, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly highlighted the positive 

impacts of hunting. 

Also testifying today is the Executive Director of the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Nick Wiley. One of his responsibilities is management of legal harvest of American alligators, a species that was listed as endangered from 1967 to 1987. 

It only took 20 years for an incredibly successful managed harvesting program to end the endangered status of the American alligator. Similar efforts overseas are ongoing for other species as a 

representative from Safari Club International will testify today. 

Legal hunts use scientific studies to determine the proper 

amount and type of hunting to be permitted for each species. In 

some cases, hunting may be used to address an overpopulation of 

one species that is harming other species or the environment as a 

whole due to overcrowding. 

In an urban environment, like Washington, DC, the overpopulation of deer in places like Rock Creek Park is apparent to anyone 

who drives on the Rock Creek Parkway. The only real threat to 

these deer are automobiles. Less visible reminders are the lack of 

young shrub and tree growth due to the deer being desperate for 

food. 

Hunting generates significant revenues through taxes on hunting 

equipment, duck stamps, and other hunting permits. The Duck 

Stamp Program alone is approaching $1 billion in total funds for 

conservation management, land acquisitions, and for research. This 

research includes extensive studies of animal populations, threats 

to their survival, and species survival rates. All of this research 

helps to ensure that society has a solid understanding of how best 

to manage its species to its highest sustainable level. Hunters also 

spend money throughout the economy, through airfare, lodging, 

and food. This means jobs for Americans. 
11 

However, I am disappointed that some in our society are opposed 

to any legal hunting, even in the face of its apparent widespread 

benefits. A recent 60 Minutes story highlighted the positive benefits 

of American game ranches that have invested significant amount 

of resources of their own, not taxpayer dollars but of their own, to 

boost populations of the scimitar-horned Oryx, the addax, and the 

dama gazelle, all endangered species or extinct in their native habitats. These game ranchers rely on the hunting of a limited number 

of the older animals to fund their operations and investments in 

the growth of their stocks. Several of these ranches have even been 

able to export a portion of their stock to reintroduce them into the 

wild, using policies that rely upon these captive animals. 

Yet as a result of litigation, hunters must now go through a 

needless paperwork process and jungle in order to spend their own 

money on a legal hunt. 

Ultimately, chasing paperwork doesn’t benefit anyone or any animal. In fact, paperwork delays and diverts needed funds away from 

the very species that need them. One person interviewed in the 60 

Minutes piece stated that she would rather see a species become 

extinct than see it hunted. This, unfortunately, in some groups is 

a too-pervasive policy or idea. If this doesn’t highlight the irrationality of some of these people, I don’t know what else does. 

Our witnesses today understand the importance of hunting, and 

I look forward to hearing their testimony. I do have some concerns 

about how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service handles the permit 

applications for the importation of legal hunts and trophies. For example, paperwork delays related to the importation threaten the 

viability of a hunting plan for black rhinoceros that is backed by 

the Conservation on International Trade and Endangered Species, 

CITES, as well as groups such as the World Wildlife Fund. 

I am also interested in learning what Director Ashe thinks of the 

requirement for individual taking permits for legal hunts of endangered species on American game ranches. Would it be better from 

a regulatory or wildlife conservation perspective if individual permits were replaced by an alternative system? 

Finally, what can we do as a society to continue to build upon 

the tradition of hunters being the greatest advocate for species conservation and management? Their critical role in conserving and 

managing species cannot be ignored. Hunters, fishermen, farmers, 

and foresters are the Nation’s true conservationists, and we need 

to support hunting for a reasonable and rationale conservation program. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Broun follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN PAUL C. BROUN

As a hunter who was first introduced to the sport by my father when I was six 

years old, I am personally aware of the positive impacts of managed hunts in America and overseas. I have been involved in hunting for almost 60 years and I am Life 

Member #17 in the Safari Club. However, there may be some who are not aware 

of these positive impacts and how the science of hunting assists species conservation 

and management. Today’s hearing is part of my effort to ensure that legal hunting 

is properly recognized for its positive impacts upon domestic and international animal populations, as well as conservation in general. 

We have several witnesses testifying today who can speak first hand of the positive impact of hunting and the science behind it. Represented today by its Director, 
12 

Dan Ashe, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly highlighted the positive 

impacts of hunting. Also testifying today is the Executive Director of the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Nick Wiley. One of his responsibilities 

is management of legal harvest of American alligators, a species that was listed as 

endangered from 1967 to 1987. It only took 20 years for an incredibly successful 

mananged harvesting program to end the endangered status of the American alligator. Similar efforts overseas are ongoing for other species, as a representative 

from the Safari Club will testify. 

Legal hunts use scientific studies to determine the proper amount and type of 

hunting to be permitted for each species. In some cases, hunting may be used to 

address an overpopulation of one species that is harming other species or the environment as a whole due to overcrowding. In an urban environment like Washington, 

DC, the overpopulation of deer in places like Rock Creek Park is apparent to anyone 

who drives on Rock Creek Parkway. The only real threat to these deer is automobiles. Less visible reminders are the lack of young shrub and tree growth due 

to deer desperate for food. 

Hunting generates significant revenues through taxes on hunting equipment, 

duck stamps, and other hunting permits. The duck stamp program alone is approaching $1 billion in total funds for conservation management, land acquisitions, 

and research. This research includes extensive studies of animal populations, 

threats to their suvival, and species survival rates. All of this research helps ensure 

that society has a solid understanding of how best to manage a species to its highest 

sustainable level. Hunters also spend money throughout the economy through airfare, lodging, and food. This means jobs for Americans. 

However, I am disappointed that some in our society are opposed to any legal 

hunting, even in the face of its apparent widespread benefits. A recent 60 Minutes 

story highlighted the positive benefits of American game ranches that have invested 

significant resources of their own to boost populations of the scimitar-horned Oryx, 

the addax, and the dama gazelle—all endangered species or extinct in their native 

habitats. These game ranches rely on the hunting of a limited number of the older 

animals to fund their operations and investments in the growth of their stocks. Several of these ranches have even been able to export a portion of their stock to reintroduce them into the wild using policies that rely upon these captive animals. 

Yet as a result of litigation, hunters must now go through a needless paperwork 

process in order to spend their own money on a legal hunt. 

Ultimately, chasing paperwork doesn’t benefit anyone or any animal. In fact, paperwork delays divert needed funds away from the very species that need them. One 

person interviewed in the 60 Minutes piece stated that she would rather see a species become extinct than see it hunted. If this doesn’t highlight the irrationality of 

some, I don’t know what does. 

Our witnesses today understand the importance of hunting, and I look forward 

to hearing their testimony. I do have some concerns about how the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service handles permit applications for the importation of legal hunts. For 

example, paperwork delays related to importations threaten the viability of a hunting plan for rhinoceros that is backed by the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species as well as groups such as the World Wildlife Fund. I am also 

interested in learning what Director Ashe thinks of the requirement for individual 

taking permits for legal hunts of endangered species on Americn game ranches. 

Would it be better from a regulatory and wildlife conservation perspective if individual permits were replaced by an alternative system? Finally, what can we do as 

a society to continue to build upon the tradition of hunters being the greatest advocates for species conservation and management? Their critical role in conserving and 

managing species cannot be ignored. 

Chairman BROUN. Now I yield to my good friend from New York, 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, for his opening statement. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are here this afternoon 

to discuss an important and challenging goal; wildlife management. 

Our history, our rich history, is entwined with the image of the 

frontier. Early settlers were amazed at the wealth of resources they 

encountered here, first on the East Coast and then as they moved 

west. Resources appeared to be endless. Fish-filled rivers and lakes 

and bays, acres of forests filled with timber and an abundant wildlife of all sorts. Hunting, trapping, and fishing for sustenance, 

trade, and sport defined the lifestyle of many early Americans. 
13 

The wildlife management policies we have in place today were 

adopted as a result of some tragic losses of a number of species due 

to excesses in these practices. It turned out that our hunting, fishing, and trapping, coupled with habitat destruction exceeded animals’ ability to reproduce. Populations collapsed, and a number of 

species were driven to extinction. 

This was not only tragic for the lost species, but the loss of these 

populations deprived people of food sources and livelihoods. Today, 

we indeed know better. Science and experience have taught us that 

we need to balance our desire to hunt and fish and our need for 

land, water, timber, and mineral resources with the needs of the 

animals and plants that share this planet with us. 

The Endangered Species Act, the Lacey Act, the Migratory Bird 

Treaty, our system of wildlife refuges and national parks, all of 

these play an essential role in maintaining that balance. There is 

no question that hunting, when matched with effective management and informed by solid biological advice, can play a role in sustaining some species. In the United States, we have competent 

agencies at both the federal and State levels and some of the best 

scientists in the world. 

As a result, the United States has been a leader in demonstrating to the world how the hunting community can work with 

and be supported by public servants to successfully protect species 

in the wild. 

Sadly, these conditions do not exist in large areas of the world. 

Many of the world’s most desirable trophy species reside in lands 

that lack effective governance and a wealthy domestic hunting population. These countries do not have a sufficiently robust domestic 

biological science infrastructure to guide what would be sound 

management. 

In addition, cultural traditions that establish the use of body 

parts for their perceived medicinal effects or place high value on 

artifacts crafted from animals fuel strong concentives to overexploit 

populations. In these places the role of hunting, which may take 

the form of poaching, may be destructive rather than constructive. 

It takes solid science and a partnership between effective government and the hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation communities 

to maintain the wild areas of this country and the wild animals 

that inhabit them. 

The Endangered Species Act is an important statutory structure 

to guide management decisions for those species that are attractive 

to hunters. There is no evidence that the ESA is failing in its purposes. Even when faced with something as unusual as hunting 

ranches that exist off an African hunting experience in the wilds 

of New Mexico or Texas, the law is flexible enough to work. I know 

there have been some complaints that the FWS in the face of a 

court decision should not require licenses of facilities that offer 

hunts of the scimitar-horned Oryx, the addax, or the dama gazelle. 

However, the cost of getting the captive-bred wildlife permit and 

the annual taking license work out to just $140 a year over a fiveyear period. If a ranch is charging thousands of dollars to hunt just 

one of these animals, and they are, a fee of less than $150 a year 

to be in that business does not seem overly burdensome. It seems 

to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been doing a good job. 
14 

State agencies, so far as I am aware, have also been doing a good 

job in species management. The scientific community has rallied to 

support management efforts and guide species recovery plans, and 

the members of the hunting community on balance have been responsible stewards of America’s wildlife. 

Let me close by offering my personal view that the duck stamp 

fee should be increased. I know that Director Ashe will speak to 

this, but the fee has not gone up in over 20 years. This stamp is 

widely supported in the hunting and recreation community and 

provides dedicated funds to support these activities. The terminology, dedicated fund, is something that we need to pay strict attention to, and to raise it to $25 after being at $15 for a generation 

seems like a reasonable step, if, in fact, the dedication of those fees 

is truly that, to provide FWS with the resources dedicated to protect the wetlands that our wild fowl need for forage and breeding. 

We were granted an amazing biological inheritance with the foresight of dedication of leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Lacey, 

and Aldo Leopold. They realized that to maintain some of our pioneer spirit, our sense of wild, open spaces, and connection to this 

land we needed to protect and revere the living resources we share 

it with. The Wildlife and Land Management laws that guide Federal and State Government policy ensure that we act as good stewards of this inheritance so that it will be passed along to generations to come. 

I thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee 

this afternoon. I thank you, Mr. Chair, and would highlight that 

I am including a letter from the Humane Society with my given 

statement as part of this proceeding. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER PAUL D. TONKO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are here this afternoon to discuss an important and challenging goal—wildlife 

management. Our history is entwined with the image of the frontier. Early settlers 

were amazed at the wealth of resources they encountered here. First on the East 

Coast and then as they moved west, resources appeared to be endless—fish-filled 

rivers, lakes and bays; acres of forests filled with timber; abundant wildlife of all 

sorts. Hunting, trapping, and fishing for susistence, trade, and sport defined the lifestyle of many early Americans. 

The wildlife management policies we have in place today were adopted as a result 

of some tragic losses of a number of species due to excesses in these practices. It 

turned out that our rate of hunting, fishing, and trapping, coupled with habitat destruction, exceeded animals’ ability to reproduce. Populations collapsed and a number of species were driven to extinction. This was not only tragic for the lost species. 

The loss of these populations deprived people of food sources and livelihoods. Today, 

we know better. 

Science and experience have taught us that we need to balance our desire to hunt 

and fish and our need for land, water, timber, and mineral resources with the needs 

of the animals and plants that share this planet with us. The Endangered Species 

Act, the Lacey Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty, our system of wildlife refuges and 

national parks—all of these—play an essential role in maintaining that balance. 

There is no question that hunting, when matched with effective management and 

informed by solid biological advice, can play a role in sustaining some species. In 

the United States, we have competent agencies at the federal and State levels, and 

some of the best scientists in the world. As a result, the United States has been 

a leader in demonstrating to the world how the hunting community can work with, 

and be supported by, public servants to successfully protect species in the wild. 
15 

Sadly, these conditions do not exist in large areas of the world. Many of the 

world’s most desirable trophy species reside in lands that lack effective governance 

and a wealthy domestic hunting population. These countries do not have a sufficiently robust domestic biological science infrastructure to guide sound management. In addition, cultural traditions that established the use of body parts for their 

perceived medicinal effects or placed high value on artifacts crafted from animals 

fuel strong incentives to overexploit populations. In these places, the role of hunting—which may take the form of poaching—may be destructive rather than constructive. 

It takes solid science and a partnership between effective government and the 

hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation communities to maintain the wild areas of 

this country and the wild animals that inhabit them. The Endangered Species Act 

is an important statutory structure to guide management decisions for those species 

that are attractive to hunters. There is no evidence that the ESA is failing in its 

purposes. Even when faced with something as unusual as hunting ranches that 

exist to offer an African hunting experience in the wilds of New Mexico or Texas, 

the law is flexible enough to work. 

I know there have been some complaints that the FWS, in the face of a court decision, should not require licenses of facilities that offer hunts of the Scimitar-horned 

Oryx, the adax, or the dama gazelle. However, the costs of getting the Captive-bred 

Wildlife permit and the annual taking license work out to just $140 a year over a 

five-year period. If a ranch is charging thousands of dollars to hunt just one of these 

animals—and they are—a fee of less than $150 a year to be in that business does 

not seem overly burdensome. 

It seems to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been doing a good job. State 

agencies, so far as I am aware, have also been doing a good job in species management. The scientific community has rallied to support management efforts and guide 

species recovery plans. And the members of the hunting community, on balance, 

have been responsible stewards of America’s wildlife. 

Let me close by offering my personal view that the Duck Stamp fee should be increased. I know that Director Ashe will speak to this, but the fee has not gone up 

in over 20 years. The stamp is widely supported in the hunting and recreation community and provides dedicated funds to support these activities. And to raise it to 

$25 after being at $15 for a generation seems like a reasonable step to provide FWS 

with resources dedicated to protect the wetlands that our wildfowl need for forage 

and breeding. 

We were granted an amazing biological inheritance through the foresight and 

dedication of leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Lacey, and Aldo Leopold. They 

realized that to maintain some of our pioneer spirit, our sense of wild open spaces 

and connection to this land, we needed to protect and revere the living resources 

we share it with. The wildlife and land management laws that guide Federal and 

State Government policy ensure that we act as good stewards of this inheritance 

so that it will be passed along tho the next generation. 

I thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee this afternoon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. If there are Members 

who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point. 

I would like to make one statement. I don’t think there is a 

hunter in this Nation that believes that poaching is hunting. It is 

lawlessness, and it should be prosecuted to the greatest degree, 

whether it is in this country or other way. So please don’t confuse 

hunting and poaching because you are talking about two different 

things. I don’t think you are a hunter, are you, Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. I am not. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Well, we in the hunting community do 

not equate hunting and poaching because they are two totally different things. 

Mr. TONKO. And I am not a poacher, though. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Well, that is right. 

Mr. TONKO. So here we are. 

Chairman BROUN. I think poachers ought to be put in jail. 
16 

Okay. At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. The 

first is the Honorable Daniel Ashe, the Director of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Dr. Al Maki, the Chairman of the Conservation Committee of Safari Club International, Dr. Stuart Pimm, a 

Professor in the Nicholas School of Environment at Duke University, and Mr. Nick Wiley, the Executive Director of the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission. I welcome all of you all 

here today. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each, after which Members of the Committee will have 

five minutes each to ask their questions. Your written testimony 

will be included in the record of this hearing. 

It is the practice of the Subcommittee on Investigations and 

Oversight to receive testimony under oath. Do any of you have an 

objection to taking an oath? Please shake your head one side or another, say no, or something. Let me know what you are—okay. 

Let the record reflect that all the witnesses shook their head 

from side to side indicating that they have no objection to taking 

an oath, and so let the record reflect that fact. 

Now, you also may be represented by counsel. Do any of you 

have counsel here today? Again, please give me an indication so I 

can—— 

Okay. Dr. Maki has counsel from Safari Club. Anybody else? 

Okay. Nobody? Please, Dr. Pimm, I don’t see your head moving one 

way or the other. Okay. The other three—let the record reflect— 

sir? Okay. Very good. Okay. I just missed that. 

We will let the record reflect that Dr. Maki has counsel and the 

other three do not. 

And if all of you would stand, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that all of 

our witnesses have taken the oath. 

Now I would like to recognize our first witness, Director Ashe. 

You have five minutes, sir. If you could, please, keep it to five minutes, though the Ranking Member and I took a little bit of time 

over, we always give each other a little bit of leeway with that. We 

would like for you all to please try to stay within your five minutes 

if you can. Director Ashe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL ASHE, DIRECTOR, 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Chairman Broun and Ranking Member 

Tonko and other Members of the Subcommittee. It is a great opportunity to testify today on the role of hunting in conservation and 

management of wildlife resources. I, too, have to admit a bias on 

this subject. I am a lifelong hunter, a shooter, and an angler. I 

grew up in Georgia, hunting squirrels, quail, dove, rabbits, although I have dabbled a little bit with big game and turkey. My 

real passion has been bird hunting, particularly waterfowl. Some of 

my most treasured memories involve early mornings afield, and we 

talk much these days about the importance of connections to the 
17 

outdoors, and successful hunting demands a connection to the outdoors. 

Certainly understanding the quarry is a basic prerequisite, but 

one has to also understand the consequence of weather and adeptly 

adjust to the curveballs and changeups that Mother Nature throws 

at you. There are certainly other recreational pursuits that instill 

similarly deep connections to the outdoors, but few, if any, produce 

the legacy of commitment and the sense of stewardship that hunting does. 

Can hunting serve a positive role in wildlife management? Absolutely it does, and the examples abound, particularly, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned in the control and management of overabundant populations like we have with deer in Rock Creek Park. 

But the overwhelming contribution of hunting to conservation is 

really the sense of personal responsibility that it engenders. Hunters become conservationists. They become members, volunteers, 

and leaders in great organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Wild Turkey Federation, Boone and Crockett Club, Safari Club International, and many, many others. And they ensure that their donated time and resources go to on-the-ground conservation. Hunters were among the original conservationists, and today the Nation’s sportsmen and women through their passion for the outdoors 

and their commitment to ensuring a future for fish and wildlife 

populations are the foundation of our current commitments to protecting and sustainably managing these resources for all Americans 

to enjoy. 

For more than a century, hunters and anglers have worked tirelessly to ensure an abundance of game and the enforcement of 

wildlife laws to protect wildlife populations. They consistently supported funding these efforts through license fees and excise taxes 

on the equipment that they take and use in the field. The sporting 

community continues to dedicate their time, wisdom, and energy to 

conservation working side by side with a diversity of stakeholders. 

My written statement discusses the historic role of hunters and 

anglers and wildlife conservation and management and the great 

accomplishments we have made together over the past century. I 

am proud of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s legacy in this regard and our contributions to providing hunting and angling opportunities to Americans. 

The Federal Duck Stamp, and the National Wildlife Refuge System, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, and other service-led programs are key contributors to providing Americans with quality 

hunting opportunities based on healthy wildlife populations. Our 

relationship with our State counterparts is a model of American 

federalism, and I am proud to be here today with a good friend and 

colleague, Nick Wiley, from Florida. 

If we are going to conserve this great legacy we need an engaged 

and active Congress, and I appreciate your leadership in holding 

this hearing today. We need a reauthorized Farm Bill with the 

strongest possible conservation title. We need a price increase for 

the Federal Duck Stamp, which every major waterfowl conservation organization is supporting. We need reauthorization of key 

statutes like the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and 
18 

funding levels that will support robust habitat conservation. We 

need stronger science capacity within resource agencies like the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and as your hearing title correctly 

indicates, a core strength of wildlife management and hunting as 

a component of wildlife management is its basis in science. Investing in this capacity is an investment in the future of hunting, and 

beyond game in the bag and rich memories of days afield, these investments pay large dividends for the American economy. 

Our 2006 National Survey of hunting and fishing identified that hunters and anglers spent $120 billion pursuing their passion, an 

amount equal to what Americans spend on all spectator sports, casinos, motion pictures, golf courses, country clubs, amusement 

parks, and arcades combined. The tradition of hunting is interwoven in the fabric of conservation in America. If we have a strong 

hunting tradition, we will have strong support for conservation. 

Mr. Chairman, my deepest gratitude to you for holding this hearing. I look forward to and anticipate your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Director. I appreciate your testimony. 

Now I recognize our second witness today, Dr. Maki. You have 

five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. AL MAKI, CHAIRMAN, 

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, 

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL 

Dr. MAKI. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the invitation to testify here today. My name is Dr. Al 

Maki, and I appear before you as a member of the Executive Committee of Safari Club International and Chairman of the SCI Conservation Committee, and lastly as a representative of America’s 15 

million hunters. 

SCI is a non-profit organization with approximately 52,000 members worldwide. SCI’s missions are the conservation of wildlife, protection of the hunter, and education of the public concerning hunting and its use as a conservation tool. I am a wildlife biologist by 

trade and a hunter and conservationist by trade. I applaud this 

Committee’s decision to hold a hearing on a much maligned and 

often misunderstood topic, the essential role that hunting plays in 

the conservation of wildlife, both domestically and internationally. 

As key examples, my Safari Club International Conservation 

Committee currently stewards over 60 individual conservation 

projects all over the world. In the last five months we have contributed over $240,000 to conservation research alone. Also, since 1937, 

the Pittman-Robertson Act has resulted in over $2 billion of funds 

going directly into budgets for research and conservation-related 

programs, which has allowed several game species such as whitetailed deer, elk, antelope, bison, turkeys, and many others to expand beyond ranges beyond where they are found prior to the implementation of this act, which is fully funded by American sportsmen. 

This North American model of hunter-based conservation is indisputably the most successful model, promoting wildlife conservation worldwide bar none. The roots of this model involve such 

names as Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, George Grinnell, who collectively established the framework we have seen work so successfully time and again. Over 100 years ago, Roosevelt wrote, and I 

quote, ‘‘In a civilized and cultivated country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent 

people to protest against all hunting and consider sportsmen as enemies of wildlife are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine 

sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping the 

larger and more valuable wild creatures from total extermination.’’ 

Since then, the hunting community has taken those words to 

heart and followed through with action. Unfortunately, our own 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service understands the role of hunters in 

conservation but often refuses to embrace it. Again and again, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has ignored the role of the American 

hunter and instead has chosen to employ the Endangered Species 

Act to prevent or inhibit the use of hunting as a conservation tool 

rather than to encourage it. The saga of the three antelope species 
28 

as related by our Chairman earlier this afternoon is a key example. 

Despite the successes by the private ranching of these animals, the 

anti-hunting community refused to acknowledge the role that hunting was playing in these species’ recovery and threatened to sue 

the Fish and Wildlife Service if it didn’t list the three species as 

endangered based on their plight in Africa. 

Despite the arguments offered by SCI and other groups against 

the inclusion of the captive populations, the Fish and Wildlife listed both native and U.S. populations as endangered. As a consequence, the value and numbers of these animals has dropped 

substantially due to uncertain and owners’ paperwork, ranchers 

can no longer be certain that the ownership of these animals will 

pay for itself. The simple truth is that by listing these species as 

endangered, Fish and Wildlife Service has undermined rather than 

benefited the conservation of these animals. 

In addition to domestic conservation measures, hunting also 

plays a vital role in international conservation. When a U.S. hunter 

travels to another country to hunt, he or she brings money into the 

local economy. The hunting activity generates multiple jobs for the 

local people, as does the handling and shipping of the processed 

hunting trophy. Hunting gives wildlife value that is not realized in 

the absence of hunting, and it also creates incentives to discourage, 

if not outlaw, poaching of that animal. Key species that would be 

substantial beneficiaries of cooperative conservation-based ESA interpretation include the black rhino, Suleiman markhor leopard. 

As of today the Fish and Wildlife Service still has not decided 

whether to approve vital conservation programs for these species 

despite the fact that they have had all the independent scientific 

data necessary to make these decisions for several years. 

When it comes to endangered species, the Fish and Wildlife Service has drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. Despite acknowledging 

the benefits that hunting and importation can bring to endangered 

species, the Service has relied on the ESA to resolutely refuse to 

allow hunters to play a role in the conservation of foreign species. 

This arbitrary misuse of ESA authority must end. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify on this important issue and ask the Committee to use its authority to recognize the role that hunting plays in species conservation to make 

certain that ESA is administered in a way that acknowledges and 

facilitates the role of hunting as a conservation tool. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Maki follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Chairman BROUN. Dr. Maki, thank you for your testimony, and 

I applaud the work that you and the Safari Club are doing towards 

true conservation efforts. 

Dr. Pimm, you are recognized for five minutes, and take off. 

STATEMENT OF DR. STUART PIMM, PROFESSOR, 

NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 

DUKE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. PIMM. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you 

for this opportunity to talk about this extraordinarily important 

subject. I am Stuart Pimm. I hold the Doris Duke Chair of Conservation at Duke University. Until recently, I was Extraordinary 

Professor at the Conservation Ecology Research Unit in South Africa. 

I do not need to repeat what my colleagues here have said and 

what you as Chair so well summarized. We Americans benefit 

enormously from hunting, from the large areas, protected, duck 

hunters protect wetlands, recreational fishermen are passionate advocates for our rivers. At the quite personal level, all three organizations on either side of me, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Safari 

Club International, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, have aided my research group and my students. 

The issue at hand is to do with the Endangered Species Act and 

the conservation of endangered species. I think it is appropriate to 

ask whether the act has been successful. It has been extraordinarily successful. Our Nation’s bird, the bald eagle, is now in 

every State. The Hawaiian State bird, the Nene, whooping cranes, 

black-footed ferrets, gray whales, many other species are back from 

the very edge of extinction because of environmental protections. 

Recovery is the ultimate goal of the act, and analyses show that 

the great majority of the species once listed are moving back towards recovery at the rate at which we scientists expect, if not 

overnight as some critics might hope. 

The issue of endangered species and hunting, however, is complex. Nothing illustrates this better than two East African neighbors, Kenya and Tanzania. Kenya bans all hunting. Tanzania devotes more of its country to hunting than it does national parks. 

That hunting includes lions, and lions are IUCN Red List species. 

Whether they are managed well is a matter of considerable debate. 

It is not always easy to find out. 

Well, does hunting harm endangered species? The answer has to 

be yes. I do know the difference between poaching and hunting. 

Poaching clearly does, but alas, many species that are poached are 

also hunted legally. 

Now, as a Congressional Research Service report that I quote in 

my written testimony makes clear, the fact that ivory and lion bone 

and lion blood get into the marketplace legally or illegally creates 

a whole manner of ills, not least of which is terrorism. There is a 

very severe problem in Africa and elsewhere because of this intermingling of illegal wildlife trade. It is very hard for nations of the 

world to do something to protect elephants when there are occasional legal sales of ivory. 
35 

These are difficult and very complex issues. The situation for tigers illustrates this. There are more tigers in captivity, including 

in breeding facilities, than in the wild, but the market for tiger 

parts creates a massive problem for countries like India that try to 

manage their tigers. 

So, yes, the trade, legal and otherwise, of animal parts, particularly of endangered species, can create a substantial amount of difficulties. I think the issue becomes can the Endangered Species Act 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service handle these complexities. My 

feeling is that there is a simple checklist of actions that we want 

to ensure those who have endangered species on their property can 

check off. Will those captive animals be returned to the wild eventually? Is there a recovery plan that can use and integrate the captive animals? Has sufficient attention been given to their breeding 

and to their genetics? Are the hunting ranches members of internationally recognized organizations and maintain the databases? 

Does the enthusiasm for hunting for species in captivity extend to 

supporting efforts to protect them in the wild? 

My experience of the Endangered Species Act is that it handles 

these complexities well. I entirely agree that we in the conservation 

community and hunters share a common sense of purpose in our 

stewardship for the natural environment. I think these hearings, 

which I thank you for holding, give us an opportunity to initiate 

a very important dialogue. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pimm follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Doctor. Appreciate your testimony. 

Now, Mr. Wiley, tell us about alligators. You are recognized for 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. NICK WILEY, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA FISH 

AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman Broun, Ranking 

Member Tonko, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate 

this opportunity to testify. My remarks today will be from the viewpoint of State fish and wildlife agencies. 

State fish and wildlife agencies have primary responsibility for 

managing the wildlife that reside within the States. We have 

shared responsibilities with federal agencies for migratory wildlife 

that cross State and international boundaries or reside on federal 

lands. State fish and wildlife agencies enjoy a longstanding and 

highly successful partnership with the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service in providing scientifically managed, sustainable 

hunting for our citizens across the Nation. 

Hunting is clearly an enduring feature of American history, culture, and heritage. Any person who cares about wildlife, whether 

they hunt or not, should be thankful to America’s hunters for the 

generous and steadfast support they have provided for wildlife conservation since the early 1900s. The record is abundantly clear that 

hunters have been the first and foremost paying advocates for wildlife conservation and science-based management. They contribute 

hundreds of millions of dollars each year through excise taxes on 

firearms, ammunition and archery equipment, license and permit 

fees, and donations to conservation organizations. This ‘‘hunter 

conservationist’’ system is fundamental to the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation and a major reason game species 

are thriving in every State today. 

Since the early 1900s, State agencies have utilized funding from 

hunters to invest heavily in the scientific management of wildlife, 

employing highly trained, professional wildlife biologists. Also, universities and federal agencies and conservation organizations contribute greatly to the wildlife science utilized by State agencies. All 

of this technical expertise provides a powerful scientific foundation 

for wildlife management. As a result, population dynamics and 

habitat requirements of hunted wildlife species are generally well 

studied. This information, in concert with science-based data collection, analyses and monitoring, sustains our very successful hunting 

and conservation programs. 

Game management has been defined as the art and science of 

applying the principles of wildlife management to achieve a balance 

between the needs of people and the needs of wildlife. The fact that 

populations of game species annually produce a harvestable surplus is the basis for the biological theory underpinning the capacity 

for hunting. This harvestable surplus depends on how well a species of game survives and reproduces, in addition to the availability 

and condition of its habitat. Professional biologists apply various 

tools to collect the scientific data that defines this harvestable surplus and also ensures that game populations continue to thrive. 
40 

These tools include surveys that assess animal populations and annual harvest rates, studies where animals are marked with radio 

collars or leg bands, and direct surveys of hunters. In the hands 

of professional wildlife biologists, these tools can measure size and 

trends in populations, reproductive success, mortality factors, harvest levels, and hunting pressure. In a key piece, hunters frequently play a role in supplying this information and generally are 

enthusiastic about helping provide the data needed to ensure species conservation and the sustainability of hunting. This is another 

important way that hunters support wildlife conservation and contribute to its success. 

After analyzing the biological and social information, agency biologists develop recommendations for the structure of hunting opportunities such as season dates, bag limits, or quotas. In most 

States, recommendations are presented to a governing body, often 

a commission or a legislature. These decision-making bodies absolutely rely on the fact that recommendations from agencies are 

based on sound science as they also thoughtfully consider input 

from the public in establishing hunting regulations. 

I would like to wrap up by echoing remarks from Chairman 

Broun. We have a great success story in Florida that illustrates the 

inextricable links between hunting, science, and wildlife conservation. In 1967, the American alligator was listed as an endangered 

species because of unregulated market hunting. Today alligators 

are abundant throughout Florida, providing plentiful hunting opportunities. This remarkable recovery is largely due to the effective 

and exemplary science-based regulation and management. Public 

hunting of alligators has been allowed in Florida since 1988, and 

total harvests average now more than 20,000 per year. License and 

permit fees paid by alligator hunters provide the funding base for 

the science and management that insures alligator harvests are 

sustainable. 

Moreover, Florida’s economy benefits by more than $14 million 

annually as a result of alligator hunting and associated industry. 

This example illustrates how management decisions about hunting are driven by reliable science and as a result, are effective and 

well supported by the public. Looking forward, I am confident that 

hunters will continue to be the strongest advocates for sciencebased wildlife management, habitat conservation, and sound public 

policy. And in doing so, they will continue to ensure our wildlife resources are robust, public access to wildlife is guaranteed, and future generations of Americans will enjoy a rich legacy of hunting 

across all 50 States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiley follows:] 
41 
42 
43 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Wiley. I appreciate your testimony and the great job you all are doing in Florida. Not only managing alligators but all your wildlife species down there since, particularly since we are in a neighboring State and a great friend of 

mine, Dr. Tom Rainey, was chairman of the Fresh Water Fish and 

Game Commission down there, so I am very familiar with the great 

job you all are doing down there, and I appreciate it. Ms. Adams, 

who is on this Committee, wanted to come and greet you and introduce you, and unfortunately, she was detained in another hearing 

that she had to go to, so I express my greeting from Ms. Adams 

to you. I thank you for being here. 

I want to thank you all for your testimony. Remind Members 

that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair 

at this point will open the first round of questions. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes. 

Director Ashe, a portion of the Fish and Wildlife Service budget 

is devoted to science. What portion of that is related to the science 

of how hunting impacts species management and conservation? 

Does any of this funding come from licensing, stamps, permits, excise taxes, the Pittman Ramage Funds, Wallet Bro Funds, et 

cetera? 

And if so, how much? Are these funds used to support federal scientists, federal grants, state scientists, or State efforts, and how 

does the funding break down by category? 

Do you need me to repeat the questions so you can write them 

down? 

Mr. ASHE. First of all, none of our science funding comes from 

excise taxes, license fees, duck stamps. All of the funding, all of the 

license or all of the excise taxes that we collect go back to the 

States absent, I think, 1.8 percent in administrative costs that the 

legislation allows us to take, and all of the proceeds from the duck 

stamp go to conservation minus two percent for administration. 

How much we spend on science in the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

we don’t manage that as a separate category in the budget. We do 

have a growing scientific program within the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, which is about $30 million. That doesn’t represent what we 

do in the context of science. We do much broader work than that, 

but that is the specific budget that we manage for science, and it 

is our highest priority to grow our capacity in science, and we are 

involved in an active endeavor to do that jointly with our State and 

other partners by designing a national and international network 

of landscape conservation cooperatives. 

And so that is our highest priority in the context of a very challenging fiscal climate. Again, I don’t track how much of that is directed precisely to management of hunting and fishing, but most 

of that would reside within our national wildlife refuge system, 

where 327 of our refuges are open to hunting, 271 are open to fishing, and most of the direct scientific investigation that we would 

be doing pertaining to hunting or fishing would be in relation to 

those activities. 

Chairman BROUN. Then a lot of it goes to the States, and they 

do scientific studies, too. 

Mr. ASHE. Nearly, well, about $700 million this year we provide 

to the States through the Wildlife and Support Fish Restoration 
44 

Program. Those are the excise taxes on hunting and fishing and 

motor boat fuel sales tax, and that money goes to the States, and 

they support significant amounts of research, but those priorities 

are set at the State level. 

Chairman BROUN. If you can get us any data about how much 

the States spend out of those funds, it could be very helpful. 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. 

Chairman BROUN. And I appreciate you supplying that to the 

Committee. 

Mr. ASHE. Absolutely. 

Chairman BROUN. Then, Director Ashe, do the permitting delays 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service harm species conservation 

and management? 

Mr. ASHE. I don’t believe, I mean, I don’t believe that the—I 

don’t believe that they do. I mean, permitting delays is an 

unspecific—I will refer maybe to Dr. Maki’s—— 

Chairman BROUN. I am fixing to ask him next. 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. Statement. I mean—— 

Chairman BROUN. I just would like a quick answer—— 

Mr. ASHE. Yeah. 

Chairman BROUN [continuing]. Because my time is about out. 

Mr. ASHE. All right. No, I don’t. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Dr. Maki, can you answer that question? 

Dr. MAKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have examples. I tried 

to mention a couple. Certainly the species conservation would be 

benefited if we had facilitated a permitting process. The ESA provides for some very onerous steps that must be jumped through 

and in order to achieve those, they represent a significant impediment at times for some of the species that we deal with. 

For example, the Suleiman markhor is one of the better examples we have in the country of Pakistan. The Tourgar Conservancy 

is the range of these animals occur. We have survey data consistently developed for that species indicating a robust population that 

would easily sustain an off-take annually. 

However, we have been unable to convince Fish and Wildlife 

Service to issue those permits, and, as a result, the Suleiman 

markhor is missing out on potential conservation funds that would 

be benefited from the hunting of these species. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Dr. Maki. I have personally experienced this. In fact, I was working in Pakistan on some wildlife 

management issues with Suleiman markhor as well as the urials 

in Pakistan early on when the hunting was just beginning to be 

put in place. And it was Fish and Wildlife Service, and permitting 

problems actually stopped those hunting programs and actually the 

species was greatly harmed by the permitting process. 

My time is up. I now recognize Mr. Tonko for five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thanks, Mr. Chair. 

Perhaps to begin, Director Ashe, do you have anything you want 

to respond to in terms of Dr. Maki’s comment? 

Mr. ASHE. I would say that when we made the determinations 

for import or export under the Endangered Species Act, the basic 

decision standard that we have to meet is does the—will the activity support enhancement of the survival of the species in the wild. 
45 

And so if we deny a permit, it is because we don’t see benefit for 

the species in the wild, and I realize that people will differ in their 

judgment about what benefits the species. 

You know, Dr. Maki referred before to onerous permit requirements for the three antelope species. I have the permit here with 

me. It is six pages. Two of the six pages are the instructions for 

the application, and he referred to it as an uncertain process. Well, 

our regulation went into effect on May 18. We have received 97 

permits for captive-breed wildlife facilities. We have issued 77 permits in that period of time. 

And so I would say it is neither onerous nor uncertain. If the— 

and we have denied no permits during that period of time. So I 

would actually say that the permit process is quite friendly and 

quite predicable for the applicants if they apply. It is our hope that 

we can get them a permit. That is our objective. 

Mr. TONKO. All right. Thank you very much. 

The takings of in the Commerce and Endangered Species can 

only be justified under the law if it can be demonstrated that such 

activities are supporting survival of the species in the wild. 

What programs would you share with us that the FWS runs are 

there to ensure that the canned hunting on ranches in the southwest actually fulfill the purposes of this act? 

Mr. ASHE. The ranches in the southwest are providing a benefit 

to the survival of the species by maintaining a genetically diverse 

breeding population. Several of these are species that have been extirpated from the wild, so they do not exist in the wild, and so we 

are dependent upon captive propagations. 

So they are providing a benefit. Are they essential to the conservation of the species? I think we believe not essential because 

we also have a very robust population that exists within the zoological community, but they are providing a benefit, and so we believe 

that the activities are appropriately regulated under the Endangered Species Act. We did try to exempt them from the permitting 

requirements. We were challenged legally. We lost, so what we are 

trying to do is provide the minimal opportunity necessary for them 

to comply with the law and conduct the commercial operation 

which they are conducting. 

Mr. TONKO. And Dr. Pimm, if I might ask you, should the steps 

in this process, any of them be strengthened, or should there be 

clearer standards for these specific branches? 

Dr. PIMM. I think Mr. Ashe has explained the situation really 

rather well. The ventures do benefit; they benefit by maintaining 

the genetic diversity, and there is a process that seems to me to 

be scientifically credible that leads to the right kind of decisions 

being made. It is, you know, you want to have animals, you want 

to have animals that are genetically diverse, you want to make 

sure that there will be introduction programs, and all of that requires a lot of very careful science. And my experience has been 

that the Service has the people to make a very reasonable assessment of those rather complicated issues. 

Yes, I am a scientist. I love the idea of being given the opportunity to tell you we need more science. 

Mr. TONKO. And also, well, I see I only have seconds left. I will 

yield back and catch you on the next round. 
46 

Chairman BROUN. I will be glad to give you a little leeway if you 

want a few more seconds. 

Mr. TONKO. Are we going to do another round? 

Chairman BROUN. Well, I don’t know. We will see. Go ahead, and 

I will give you another little bit if you—— 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. 

Chairman BROUN [continuing]. Want to ask one more question. 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. Dr. Pimm, what happens to endangered species when there is insufficient funding for programs or low pay for 

government officials and an uncertain legal environment? 

Dr. PIMM. I mean, the sad thing is that endangered species go 

extinct, and I think we lose at a variety of levels. We lose at an 

economic level because many endangered species generate huge 

amounts of economic activity. Currently the whaling industry now 

is worth a lot more than the whaling industry was, you know, 

when we hunted them. The whaling industry now is people going 

out and photographing them. 

I also think, at a personal level as a Christian, that I have the 

role as a steward. I think stewardship is an ethical issue, and 

therefore, when species become extinct, I think that is a challenge 

to us and our society. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am from—I grew up in Illinois. I did a lot of hunting also and 

primarily squirrel, pheasant, rabbit, and this is a little bit off topic 

but since I have you here, I am interested in the deer population 

in Illinois and in Indiana because I now represent Indiana, and as 

you probably know, there—it is a general impression that there are 

a lot more auto accidents related to the deer population in certain 

areas of our country, and I would interested to see how, Mr. Ashe, 

you work with State, the State officials to see what we can do 

about that, because my impression is is that—and I have been told 

there are more deer in Illinois now than there was in the 1800s. 

Obviously more food and things like that. 

Can you touch on that maybe about what we can do about that? 

Because there is a significant economic impact of having an overpopulation of white-tail deer in Illinois and Indiana. 

Mr. ASHE. We do work with our State counterparts, and I would 

maybe suggest you ask Nick Wiley to respond as well, but I think 

that responsible wildlife management is the key to dealing with 

that, and here—I am a resident in Maryland here, and we have a 

similar problem with overabundant deer populations, and especially in suburban, urban areas that is a very challenging issue to 

deal with. But it can be dealt with effectively where our State partners are expert in designing suburban and urban-based hunting 

opportunities but also other management techniques to reduce deer 

populations. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Wiley. 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. That is an issue that is challenging many 

States, and we are having to get more creative, but it really—the 

solutions that are working in most States are—start with working 

with the local community and kind of developing a plan that they 
47 

can accept and implement, and many times they quickly realize 

hunting is the best tool to apply, but you have to do it carefully 

using methods such as archery and things like that are more compatible with an urban environment. 

So and also you look at the land surrounding the community. If 

you can increase your quotas and increase your harvest pressure 

in those areas, sometimes that can help as well. So definitely by 

working with those communities to get their buy-in and support is 

a key. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. Dr. Maki, as it relates to that, as you 

probably know, I mean, even since I was a kid in the ’70s, we have 

a declining number of young people interested in hunting, and that 

I think is probably contributing somewhat to the problem I just addressed. Is there anything we can do out there to help with that? 

Dr. MAKI. Thank you. Well, certainly hunter retention, hunter 

recruitment is one of the bigger issues the Safari Club is working 

with. The education of the young, bringing them onto safe gun handling, exposing them to the outdoors is one of the initiatives that 

we have launched through many of our education programs and 

outreach efforts in our, through our chapter network throughout 

each of the individual States. 

Mr. BUCSHON. And also, Dr. Maki, Dr. Pimm’s testimony advocates for several conditions to hunting captive endangered species, 

specifically the reintroduction of some captive animals into the 

wild, the development of a recovery plan for reintroduction, termination of the need to hunt captive species versus sanctuaries and 

zoos, attention to genetics and breeding concerns, and finally, efforts to protect species in the wild. 

Do you have any comments as it relates to those criteria? 

Dr. MAKI. Yeah. All good points and ones that haven’t gone by 

us at all. Certainly the examples with the three antelope that are 

consistent to this hearing is a good example. Those captive populations in Texas served as reintroduction stock back into their natural ranges in several North African countries. So it does, indeed, 

serve the purpose of reintroduction. We have recognized for some 

time now that the breeding and genetics issue not only in captive 

wildlife but in true wild populations is a big issue, and we have instituted now an international genetic sampling program where we 

encourage our hunters to take both blood and tissue samples of the 

animals, and it is our hope eventually we will develop a genetic 

bank where we can keep track of the stocks around the world. This 

program is administered currently through Texas A&M, and we 

have literally thousands of samples being cataloged in that program. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. 

Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for five minutes. I don’t know 

if you are a hunter or not. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You are going to find out. 

Chairman BROUN. Okay. Well, good. You are recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I appreciate you calling this hearing. 

Dr. Pimm, it seems that a productive partnership can develop between scientists, government officials, and hunters. Could you 
48 

speak a little bit about the science involved? What does the science 

do? What role does it play in that sort of a partnership? 

Dr. PIMM. I think within the 25 years, 30 years that the Society 

for Conservation Biology, which is my professional organization, 

has existed, that we have come to develop a whole variety of very 

sophisticated skills. They involve analysis of satellite imagery to 

work out where the habitats are, understanding population dynamics, what kind of harvests we can have, a very full understanding 

of the quite tricky genetic issues that we, Dr. Maki and I have both 

mentioned. 

And there is, I think, a very strong interconnection between all 

of the organizations represented on the table here of this sort of 

feedback between the science and the management, as I alluded to 

earlier. All three of these organizations are funding, indirectly or 

directly, the work that my research group does. I have former students who work for the Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service. I 

think it is a good interchange of ideas. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, good. That sort of gives me a scope of what 

is involved. It is a pretty big effort. 

Dr. PIMM. It’s broad. I think it’s broad, and it is, as we have seen 

from the really extraordinary successes of the Endangered Species 

Act, what—how very effective it can be. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. At least for the large animals. 

Dr. PIMM. At least the large animals. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Wiley, I have a question I have had in my 

mind for years. Natural predation in the wild selects the weaker 

members of a species. Does hunting play that same role, or does 

it sort of randomly select members of a species? If you could answer, if you address that. 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. It is a common assumption. It is not always 

the case that even natural predation selects the weaker ones, but 

just—hunting is less about that. Hunters are more selective, and 

some hunters are out there for the experience and just want to 

take game home. Some hunters are more after a trophy of the species. So I would say the hunting approach is much less about selecting of a weaker species. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Dr. Pimm, you have talked a little bit about 

this. What does it take to introduce or reintroduce a species into 

the wild? I mean, that is—for one thing, the species disappeared 

because of a lot of different reasons, some of them having to do 

with habitat. So a lot has to be done I would think to introduce it, 

reintroduce a species successfully. Is that correct? 

Dr. PIMM. That is indeed correct, and many species have disappeared from the wild because they have been overhunted, 

poached. Let us be clear. Usually. So there has to be the right 

amount of habitat, there has to be some means of controlling the 

hunting, whether it was legal or illegal, the animals need to be as 

genetically diverse as we can because most introduced populations 

are small. So we want to make sure that there is as full a representative, representation of the genetic variability. 

All of those are issues that we did not well understand 25, 30 

years ago, and I think we understand very, very much better now. 

In my role as a professor in South Africa, we looked at several hundred introductions of antelope that took place over the last 60 
49 

years. Most of them have been successful by paying attention to 

these kinds of issues. 

So a proper effective collaboration between hunters and those 

who hunt in game parks and the scientific community and the 

game management authorities of different countries can, indeed, be 

extremely successful. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. Thank you. Mr. Ashe, how can a U.S. 

agency further species protection goals in the countries where 

poaching may be legal and be consistent with our other foreign policy objectives in a country? 

Mr. ASHE. Many of those countries present great challenges for 

us where we have difficulty placing people because of security concerns. Congo is a recent example where we have been working for 

years on great ape conservation and now is a country that is very 

difficult to travel in, maintain a presence in, and many of those 

places were dependent upon our NGO partners who have, you 

know, a greater capability to travel in and work in those areas. So 

partnership becomes much more important. Law enforcement becomes a key ingredient in those cases, effectively equipping and 

training local law enforcement. 

And most recently what we have been focusing on is finding 

ways to provide security for the families of law enforcement personnel who are killed in the line of duty, because many of them are 

because they are dealing with heavily armed opponents in the battle. And so one of the emerging ingredients is our ability to provide 

security to their families in the event that they are killed in that 

line of duty. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. We will get a second round of questions, and I now recognize myself for five minutes. 

Dr. Pimm, I want to be blatantly clear. I don’t have a question. 

I have got a comment. Poaching and hunting are two totally separate, different things, and please do not confuse the two in—— 

Mr. PIMM. Mr. Chairman, I did make that clear. 

Chairman BROUN. Well, I know, but I just want to make that 

clear to anybody who looks at this record and the testimony that 

hunting and poaching are two totally separate issues, and poaching 

needs to be dealt from a law enforcement perspective. 

Director Ashe, why is the Fish and Wildlife Service not acted on 

the black rhino permit discussed in Dr. Maki’s testimony, despite 

having all the necessary documents to make a decision for four 

years now? 

Mr. ASHE. Mr. Chairman, I believe we do not believe we have the 

necessary information. Black rhinos are among the most endangered animals in the world, and so the standard of evidence is high 

in that case. I am not intimately familiar with those two incidents. 

We do have two trophies, I believe, for which applications have 

been pending, I think for two years within the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, but I would be happy to get you more information. 

Chairman BROUN. Please do, if you would, get us the information 

and get the individuals involved in the information so that they 

can do this, because I believe it is absolutely vital that you make 

a decision and do it quickly so that those funds can be made available for the conservation of this very precarious situation with the 
50 

black rhino. I have seen some black rhino in Africa, and they need 

to be supported, and hunters are going to support them and keep 

them viable and issuing that permit is absolutely critical. 

What is the Administration’s position on importation of trophies 

legally collected overseas? And what about those trophies that were 

legally collected prior to the species being declared endangered? 

Mr. ASHE. Across the board, I mean, there are, well, there are 

pre-act trophies, which, of course, can be moved without restriction. 

Animals that were taken prior to their—trophies that were taken 

prior to a listing generally are not exempted, so they have to, they 

still have to follow the importation requirements. I think—but our 

record is very good on trophy importation. On the average we clear 

99 percent of all trophies that are requested for clearance are 99 

percent are cleared. 

So in my experience 99 percent is an A plus, and so that doesn’t 

mean that in certain cases we have problems. It doesn’t mean that 

we can’t do better. We strive to do better all the time, but I think 

our record is very, very good at providing support that is necessary 

for a vibrant trophy importation and exportation industry. 

Chairman BROUN. I am not sure I would agree with your data 

nor would I agree with your grade point there, Director. My own 

experiences from being with Safari Club International for many 

years and being their advocate up here in Washington, the data 

that I have is not according to yours. 

Dr. Maki, would you like to comment about that? 

Dr. MAKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, of course, there are 

a number of species, examples that don’t quite fit the example of 

expeditious permitting that we heard. One of the more egregious 

examples is the polar bear situation, where the listing of polar 

bears did occur in the middle of the year, the middle of the calendar year; however, over 40 hunters had been in the field during 

that winter, and due to the permitting process you have to take 

your polar bear, then return and apply to the Fish and Wildlife 

Service for the import permit. 

Well, during that wait period while they were waiting for their 

permits to be processed, the Act was enabled that put the polar 

bear on the ESA listing, prohibiting from importing at all, and 

those bears that were legally taken when the season was open, before the regulations, are now snagged in the bureaucratic tape here 

because a permit for their import will not be issued. 

Chairman BROUN. In my few seconds left, I thank you, Dr. Maki. 

I think it is blatantly unfair to a hunter who goes and collects the 

trophy, spends his money, his time, and his energy and efforts, and 

those funds can be utilized in a management program, to be denied 

an import permit when those trophies were taken in a very legal 

way with due conscience and try to do so and to come back retroactively and deny them a permit. I think it is blatantly unfair. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. Tonko, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The question, Dr. Pimm, that was earlier posed by our colleague 

from California concerning the reintroduction of a species into the 

wild, would hunting ranches play a meaningful role in that process? 
51 

Dr. PIMM. That is a question that has a set of conditions. I mean, 

theoretically the answer can be yes. It can even be an emphatic 

yes, but it is not just a matter of numbers. The fact that you may 

have a thousand or 10,000 animals in captivity doesn’t immediately 

mean that you are better off. Those animals—the purpose of the 

Act is recovery, recovery in the wild. 

So what is going to happen to those animals? Are they going to 

be put back into the wild, and if they are going to be put back into 

the wild, amongst other things, there has to be a plan for that, 

there has to be a place for that, and we need to have some understanding of what the genetics of those captive animals are. 

So at one end you have got really wonderful programs where people have been keeping an eye on the genetics of the species, we 

have what is called a stud book so we know who, you know, who 

your parents are, your grandparents, but unfortunately, at the 

other end there are some nightmare situations, and I am not in 

any sense trying to say that I don’t know the difference between 

poachers and hunters, but there is a continuum where you have 

some captive populations, tigers are a fairly obvious example, 

where those animals are never going to contribute anything to the 

wild. On the other well-run programs and Dr. Maki has talked 

about the criteria for those as well, where those programs could, 

indeed, be very beneficial. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Director Ashe, you made a strong case 

for raising the price of the duck stamps. This program is a model 

of how hunter support can be turned to the broad advantage of the 

public, which obviously benefits directly and indirectly for the wetlands protections the program has created. And it has been wildly 

successful, and I would like you to explain, if you would, please, to 

emphasize this point how long it has been since the stamps have 

increased and the consequences for the success of the program are 

being stuck at that funding level. 

So if you could develop your thoughts, please. 

Mr. ASHE. 1991, is the last time that the duck stamp price was 

increased. It was raised from $7.50, kind of stepwise, up to $15, 

and the—right now the purchase price of the duck stamp, which 

was begun in 1934, is the lowest it has been; the purchase value 

of the duck stamp is the lowest it has been in the history of the 

stamp. 

And so—and now we are faced with this economic situation 

where agricultural land values are skyrocketing, and of course, the 

key breeding area for waterfowl is in the American prairies, in the 

Dakotas and western Minnesota. And so we are competing with a 

booming of farm economy for that same real estate. 

So we are proposing to increase the duck stamp. Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich have cosponsored legislation in the 

Senate that would provide the Secretary of the Interior with authority working through the Migratory Bird Commission to set the 

price of the duck stamp, and we support that legislation, as do all 

the major conservation and waterfowl organizations. 

So it is time. We have a sense of urgency and crisis now with 

our migratory waterfowl resource, and we strongly support efforts 

by Congress to increase the price. 
52 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Any comments concerning the duck 

stamp from any of our other witnesses? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir, if I may. I think this is a great example of 

how hunters have always led and always been willing to step up 

to the plate and pay for conservation, and Director Ashe just mentioned the support for this, and I think that is a great indication 

and illustrates that hunters have always been there when they 

were needed. 

Mr. TONKO. In terms of the projected or recommended increase, 

are you comfortable with that, Mr. Wiley, or should it be something 

other than what is being presented? 

Mr. WILEY. We are comfortable with that because they have done 

the analysis and looked at the economic variables, and so we are 

comfortable with following that lead. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman BROUN. Mrs. Adams just arrived, and so, Mrs. Adams, 

you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your patience. We were in judiciary markup, so it took a little while. 

Mr. Wiley, I just have a question for you. I want to ask you about 

the black panther. I understand the Florida has successfully kept 

the population and its food supply up, but some are still pushing 

to make it endangered. What are your thoughts on this, and how 

would this affect Florida? 

Mr. WILEY. We actually have the Florida panther in southwest 

Florida, and it actually is endangered now, and it is a management 

challenge we share with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We have 

been working for quite a while now to work for recovery of that 

population, and actually it is, I call it a success story. We have 

come from about 30 animals up to as many as 160 now that are 

adults. 

But it does bring with it plenty of challenges, and we are working with the communities down there that are concerned about 

panthers in their backyard, we are working with the hunting community to make sure—we have a long tradition of showing that 

hunting is compatible with panther recovery, but we are continuing 

to work on that, and that is something that is a big issue for the 

State of Florida. 

Thank you for asking. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. I rushed in, and it is the Florida panther. Sorry. It has been a busy day between floors and buildings. 

Dr. Maki, how can the value of hunting be better communicated 

to society as a whole? 

Dr. MAKI. Thank you for the question. It is an interesting topic 

and one that I wrestle with almost on a daily basis. It is an issue 

that we need to make more connection with the public to make 

that understanding better or simply grasp across the general population. Hunters, indeed, the data are indisputable. The model has 

been in place now, the North America Conservation Model of 

hunter-based conservation. It is very effective. It is a matter of getting over the credibility gap on one side; how can you call yourself 

a hunter for shooting animals and yet be a conservationist? 

And the reality is once you enter into that debate, you realize 

that the hunters are, indeed, providing the largest source of con-
53 

servation funding. Getting an education program under way, focusing on that point, protection of hunter rights, and education of the 

public is one of the big priorities that Fish—that we have here in 

our SCI programs and our American Wilderness Leadership School 

that we conduct annually. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, and Mr. Wiley, I want to ask you another question, and I want to tell you that I have been home and 

seen some of the footage of a panther in I guess a tree not far from 

some homes, so I know there are some wandering around down in 

Florida. I have seen them out in the wild, so to speak. 

The American alligator is a success story of a formerly endangered species now off the endangered species list. Please comment 

upon the conditions suggested by Dr. Pimm in his testimony for 

hunts of endangered species. Would these conditions have prevented or slowed the restoration of the American alligator? 

Mr. WILEY. That is a great question. We probably didn’t have a 

scenario that would really test that very well in Florida because it 

was, you know, the alligator population recovered so fast we were 

having them in everyone’s backyard swimming pools, we were having to move them. So we were in a stage. 

When we got into a hunting scenario, we were behind the curve 

already, and we are still working to keep up with population. 

So I would say that if we would have gone into this highly regulatory, highly restrictive, it would have slowed things down, and 

looking back, we probably didn’t move fast enough with opening up 

harvest programs. 

So it is a great case study to look at and learn from. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. As someone who used to be a law enforcement officer and was called to catch an alligator one time, I 

can relate to that. 

With that I yield back. 

Chairman BROUN. Thank you, Mrs. Adams. 

It has been a very interesting panel discussion, and thank you 

all for your testimony, your witness today, and answering Members’ questions. 

Members may have other questions for all of you all. By the way, 

you all is plural for all you all in southern if you don’t know. [I am 

sure Dr. Pimm from South Africa may not know that, but you all— 

there may be some more questions.] We would appreciate you all 

answering those questions in writing and getting those back as expeditiously as possible. I know I have got a whole bunch more 

questions for you all, all you all, and the record will remain open 

for two additional weeks for comments from Members. 

I thank you all for being here. The witnesses are excused, and 

the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
54 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
55 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

RESPONSES FROM HON, DANIEL ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Æ