Statement of
Elizabeth Estill
Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation, and Communications
United States Department of Agriculture
Before the
Committee on Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildife, and Oceans
Concerning
H.R. 1472 Don’t Feed the Bears
Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today
regarding H.R. 1472, the “Don’t Feed the Bears” Act. Accompanying me today is Jim Gladen, Director
of Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants for the National Forest
System.
H.R. 1472 “Don’t Feed the Bears” Act
H.R. 1472 would require the
adoption, where necessary, and enforcement of regulations to prohibit the
intentional feeding of bears on federal public lands in order to end the
hunting practice known as “bear baiting.”
The Administration opposes the bill.
Bear Baiting on National Forests
Historically, State fish and
wildlife agencies have maintained the primary responsibility for protection and
management of wildlife populations on National Forest System lands,
particularly with respect to hunting and fishing. This responsibility includes adoption of
State fish and wildlife laws and regulations affecting the taking of resident
game animals. The Forest Service enters
into a Memorandum of Understanding with each State in order to lay out a
framework for cooperation. These
agreements emphasize the traditional role of the States to administer State
hunting regulations such as season, harvest levels, and methods of harvest,
with respect to hunting of resident game on National Forest System lands. The
States issue regulations regarding hunting licenses, methods, seasons,
locations, and bag limits for resident game and have the primary responsibility
for enforcement of the state’s fish and wildlife laws and regulations on
National Forest System lands.
Federal land management
statutes acknowledge the States’ traditional role in managing fish and
wildlife. These include the National
Forest System Organic Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 480), the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 528), the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 1732), the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133 (d)(8)), and the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1732). Because
of consistent Congressional direction to defer fish and wildlife management to
the States, the Forest Service is generally reluctant to override State
regulations except where federal interests, such as the protection of forest
land, resources, and users, requires federal intervention.
An exception to this general
policy of deferring to the States, is the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3111-16) whereby Congress determined that federal
control should supersede that of the state, with federal control of fish and
wildlife subsistence in Alaska.
The practice of placing bait
(food or scent to attract wildlife) is a hunting activity subject to State laws
and regulations. State fish and wildlife
agencies that permit the baiting of black bear (Urus americanus) as a hunting activity on federal lands are:
In 1995, the Forest Service
published its policy on baiting for the purpose of hunting on National Forest
System lands. The policy retains the
longstanding reliance on State hunting regulations including state regulation
of baiting resident game. Where state
law and regulation permit baiting, the practice is permitted on National Forest
System lands unless the authorized officer determines on a site specific basis
that the practice conflicts with federal laws or regulations, or forest plan
direction, or would adversely affect other forest uses or users.
The 1995 policy clarifies the
Forest Service role with regard to regulation of baiting as a hunting method
that is authorized and regulated by the states.
It spells out the procedures to be used by the Forest Service when State
regulations conflict with Federal laws, regulations, and policies. It relies on existing relations with each
State and prevents the duplication of regulations by both levels of government
and provides for case-by-case safeguards where needed. It also provides a consistent federal
approach to baiting throughout the National Forest System. Although various States may annually vary
their policies, the Forest Service’s will remain consistent while ensuring
protection of Federal resources.
In the 1996 case of the Fund
for Animals, Inc. v. Thomas, 932 F. Supp. 368 (D.D.C. 1996), the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia upheld the Forest Service policy of
“leav[ing] the decision to prohibit baiting, or to allow but regulate it as a
‘hunting practice’ or technique, to the individual states in which a particular
national forest is situated.” Id. at
369. And as the Thomas court observed,
“[t]he common law has always regarded the power to regulate the taking of
animals ferae naturae to be vested in the states to the extent ‘their exercise
of that power may not be inconsistent with, or restrained by, the rights
conveyed to the Federal government by the
Constitution.’” Id. at 369-370 (quoting Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519
(1896)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit subsequently affirmed
the judgment of the District Court. See
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Thomas, 127 F.3d 80 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
Currently, in North America,
black bear populations – specifically mentioned in H.R. 1472 – are robust and
generally increasing. We believe that
H.R. 1472 would unnecessarily both preempt state authority over management of
resident wildlife populations and reduce the flexibility of state and local
wildlife managers to manage bears on federal lands.
Conclusion
That concludes my remarks, Mr.
Chairman, I would be happy to answer your questions.