Date: 1999-08-02
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this. legislation with the changes that have been made in terms of making this program available for the next two hunting seasons. I think that puts the kind of limitation on it that we can monitor and will make it a wellrun program. In game bird and wildlife management. some times our best efforts to restore wildlife populations can go awry and produce unintended consequences. and that seems to be the case with midcontinent light geese. No reasonable field biologist who has examined light geese census data disputes the fact that the population of light geese has shot up dramatically over the past decade to a point now where the birds are virtually eating themselves out of their arctic and subarctic nesting habitats. Our own management actions. including the establishment of protective areas and abundance of cereal grain crops. are partly to blame. but so is the natural wariness and reproductive capacity of this species. And so. we are left with the unfortunate reality that in one or anothereither through increased human harvest or natural mortalitypopulation of light geese will be culled in order to prevent widespread habitat deterioration. It is a regrettable circumstance which offers no simple. painless solutions. H.R. 2454 would authorize two emergency regulations proposed earlier this year by the Fish and Wildlife Service to increase the harvest of light geese in States within either the Mississippi and Central flyways. These regulations were broadly supported by a wide range of State and private wildlife and conservation organizations. including Ducks Unlimited and the National Audubon Society. These regulations were withdrawn earlier this year by the Fish and Wildlife Service after a Federal appeals court ruled that the Service needed to complete a full environmental impact statement (EIS) regarding the proposed emergency actions. I commend the Service for voluntary withdrawing their proposed regulations and for recognizing the need to develop a full EIS. and urge the Service to complete this EIS at the earliest possible date. I think it important to note for members that Congress is legislating in this matter solely because all other administrative options available to the Serviceunder NEPA or any other statutehad been exhausted. and that the only remedy remaining was a legislative fix. This is an important factor driving the need for this legislation. I do appreciate the helpful modifications made to the bill in the Resources Committee. Even improved. the bill does contain two troubling provisions of which I am still concerned. First. the bill would waive all procedural requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). and second. the bill authorizes the use of otherwise outlawed hunting practices. notably the use of electronic calling devices and unplugged shotguns. However. while I personally disagree with the Congress passing legislation to waive NEPA or to authorize the otherwise illegal hunting methods. and while I remain concemed that these regulations may be too broad. I realize that under the constraints of this specific emergency situation. such provisions may be warranted. if not necessary. Moreover. I am pleased that the Resources Committee amended the bill to include an expiration date of May 15. 2001. or earlier if the Service files its final EIS before that date. to limit the duration of this emergency action. And while I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service will act in good faith to complete the EIS at the earliest possible date. I also believe that a fixed expiration date is necessary to ensure that a temporary action does not inadvertently become permanent. I look forward to the Service completing its EIS. and I hope that this additional analysis will provide other alternatives to address the overabundance of light geese in a less indiscriminate manner and without requiring Congress to pass legislation.