Wildlife United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resou.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation : oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on the effectiveness of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and projects th online

. (page 5 of 11)
Online LibraryWildlife United States. Congress. House. Committee on ResouNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation : oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on the effectiveness of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and projects th → online text (page 5 of 11)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


representing an organization called Citizens Rights Over Wolves
Now or CROWN.

And my reason for being here is to question the use of Federal
tax moneys on the part of the National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion to support the red wolf program in eastern North Carolina.
The use of our tax moneys to support such an unpopular program
illustrates how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launders money
through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to lobby them-
selves and the American public. The use of our money to advocate
such an unpopular program is wrong.

Our elected officials in North Carolina are strongly opposed to
the red wolf program. This is clearly indicated by the bill intro-
duced by Senators Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth last year. The
bill would have defunded the red wolf program. It was narrowly de-
feated by two votes, but it serves to illustrate just how unpopular
the red wolf program is and how the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation is using our tax dollars to support unwanted programs.

Our North Carolina General Assembly has enacted a law which
would allow landowners who reasonably believe that the wolves are
killing their livestock or threatening them to kill these wolves or
trap them. I will explain more on this in a few minutes. This is
going to come up, we predict, in the Supreme Court as a State's-
over-Federal rights issue.

This Fish and Wildlife Foundation has thus far given some
$75,000 to this red wolf program in North Carolina, and this
money could have very well been used by the North Carolina Wild-
life Resources Commission for some more worthwhile projects.

Several years ago when the first planeload of these red wolves
came into Raleigh-Durham International Airport, I was the only
press person that came out to meet these wolves. I was 100 percent
in favor of this project. I thought it was the greatest thing since
sliced bread, and I have since done about a 180-degree turn on this
matter.

As I learned more about it and the fact that these wolves are not
indeed wolves at all but hybrid coyotes and that they are being put
into an area in eastern North Carolina where they never did roam
in the first place, I turned against this program.

There are other reasons for this too. The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission is very concerned about the introduction of
red wolves in our State because of numerous things. Primarily,



31

they were concerned because they felt the wolves would leave the
National Wildlife Refuges where the Fish and Wildlife Service was
releasing them.

The Commission felt that when the wolves left the Alligator
River National Wildlife Refuge, they would soon range up through
the Roanoke River delta and into the wild turkey population that
we are working very hard to restore there. And I think most every-
one knows that coyotes and red wolves — I wonder who can tell the
difference — are not very compatible with wild turkey populations.

Because of these concerns, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed
to classify the new red wolves as experimental and nonessential in
a five-county area that was in close proximity to the Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge. They also made a verbal agreement, and,
unfortunately, this was not in writing, with the Wildlife Commis-
sion to the effect that if the red wolves wandered off the refuge
where they had been introduced, they could be shot on sight as ver-
min. Coyotes are legal to be killed in North Carolina at anytime,
anywhere. They are considered vermin.

And, frankly, you can't tell the difference. Even the biologists
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that work with the red
wolves in North Carolina can't tell the difference unless they get
their hands on them. So how are our hunters expected to know the
difference?

I have asked the U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh, North Caro-
lina, to tell us how the hunters are supposed to know. The only an-
swer they will give me, "We will handle each case on an individual
basis." And, frankly, this scares the hell out of our hunters in
North Carolina.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated numerous times, and
they put this in writing, that if a red wolf was accidentally killed
incidental to a legal activity, then the person who had taken the
animal was not to be charged with any crime. That doesn't work.

A fellow by the name of James Johnson in eastern North Caro-
lina accidentally killed a red wolf He thought it was a coyote. The
biologist in charge with the Fish and Wildlife Service went down,
took a look at it, said, "Yes, it is a red wolf. You have done nothing
wrong, Mr. Johnson."

A few weeks later, the Fish and Wildlife Service game wardens
came around and tried to indict Mr. Johnson for this. Luckily, the
U.S. Attorney refused to prosecute it because Johnson was told in
writing and verbally that he had done nothing wrong. This was not
because the Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement officers didn't
try.

The law that passed in North Carolina outlawing essentially the
red wolf was done over the objections of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Jim Pulliam, who was the Regional Director in Atlanta,
came up and did his best to convince the House Agriculture Com-
mittee that they should not pass any law that would allow citizens
in these affected counties to kill the red wolves.

He levied a very thinly veiled threat at our legislators that if
they passed such a law, then the Federal funding under Pittman-
Robertson moneys would be cut off to the State of North Carolina.
This didn't go over too well with our State legislators in North
Carolina. As a matter of fact, one of the legislators made the state-



32

ment to Mr. Pulliam, *Tou can take your Federal moneys and stick
them where the sun doesn't shine, Mr. Pulliam."

Some of the farms that have agreed to let the wolves roam on
their lands have backed out of these programs in there. And, inci-
dentally, I hear the word Weyerhaeuser come up in these hearings
right much. It is notable that Weyerhaeuser, which is a large land-
owner in eastern North Carolina, has refused to let the wolves go
onto their land.

A recent article in the "Scientific American" magazine points out
very clearly that these are not wolves at all.

Mr. Saxton. Mr. Bonner, I hate to do this, but we are going to
have to go and vote, and we have a markup right after this. So I
am going to have to ask you to conclude here in the next few sec-
onds if you would please.

Mr. Bonner. All right, sir. There are currently four counties in
eastern North Carolina who have requested that they be added to
this list, and they are currently under State law. In North Caro-
lina, it is legal to kill these wolves. The Federal Government tells
us, no, it is not.

This is a project that is being funded by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation. If they are saying that they use good science,
I suggest they take a look at the genetics of the red wolf and where
this animal once did roam because they did not roam in eastern
North Carolina.

[Statement of Mr. Bonner may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, and I hope you understand
our situation here. Mrs. Chenoweth would like to take one minute
to

Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
add one statement, and that was that this member did not say ever
that the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was a radical, envi-
ronmental organization as was stated by Mr. MacColl. This mem-
ber does not take kindly to having the testimony mischaracterized.
And I do think that the Foundation does many good things.

However, I think that it is incredibly important that those of you
who help fund this organization see where the problems are. It is
as difficult for us to bring them out as it is for you to hear them.
But I ask for your cooperation so that we can see the best of this
Foundation move forward.

And the partnership that you spoke about in your testimonies
were impressive, and this is the route that we would like to see it
go and continue. But I think that it is our obligation to bring these
problems forward.

And, furthermore, I do want to say with regards to Max Peter-
son's comment about the rangeland bill, Mr. Little, cattlemen who
graze on the public lands are the only land user who pay an enor-
mous fee to use the public land. Isn't that correct?

Mr. Little. That is correct.

Mrs. Chenoweth. All other users don't have to pay. Right?

Mr. Little. That is correct.

Mrs. Chenoweth. Right. Thank you.

Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth, and I would just like
to say to all of you thank you very much. We collectively appreciate
the roles that you are playing as individuals, as well as your firms



33

in partnering with the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This is an ex-
tremely important set of activities that you are involved in.

And while questions are raised from time to time about some ac-
tivities of some of the associates of the larger organization, we
overall greatly appreciate what you are doing. Thank you very
much. Sorry we have to leave you. I would love to be able to chat
with you. We will be submitting some questions in writing for you
to answer, and thank you all very much for being here.

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]



34



STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND
OCEANS OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE, OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE
OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION



May 16, 1996



Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present our views
on the effectiveness of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation.

In a nutshell, the Foundation is doing an outstanding job.

It has pioneered the concept of public-private partnerships for
conservation, a common-sense approach that is now recognized as,
far-and-away, the most effective and cost-efficient means of
managing and enhancing our fish and wildlife resources. By
bringing its expertise, the flexibility it enjoys as a private
entity, and its fund-raising abilities to the table, the
Foundation has the tools and credibility to foster partnerships
in a wide variety of circumstances, including those where the
participants might be skeptical of, or even hostile towards, such
an effort by a governmental agency.

Some examples of this include:

o The Malpai Borderlands Group demonstrates how to manage
rangelands in this area of Arizona and New Mexico for
cattle, hunting and biological diversity. This effort
is led by ranchers;



35



o cooperative demonstration projects in Wyoming and Utah
bring together landowners, big game and livestock
interests, and Federal and State land managers to
develop multiple use land management strategies; and

o grants to the TREE Foundation in Maine are bringing
together the major timber companies and conservation
groups in a voluntary effort to protect wildlife
resources on the privately-owned lands in northern
Maine.

The Foundation is also able to provide financial assistance to
the Fish and Wildlife Service for a variety of projects for which
we, for various reasons, are unable to allocate appropriated
funds. As explained in Mr. Eno's testimony, the Foundation's
ability to attract $2.60 for every dollar in direct
appropriations means that appropriations to the Foundation are a
conservation bargain.

Some of this assistance is small, aimed at very narrow needs,
while in other cases it has been very large. Examples include:

o $15,000 from the Foundation and outside sources to
support a census and study of interaction between
walrus and both hunters and tourists in Alaska;



36



o $9,572,2000 raised from outside sources to assist the
Service with land acquisition along the Mississippi
River floodplain in the aftermath of the 1993 floods;

along with numerous grants to aid in the recovery of the grizzly
bear, black-footed ferret, whooping crane and other species.

The Foundation is also matching a generous private donation
towards construction of a state-of-the-art environmental
education center at the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge in
Philadelphia. In the current budget climate, this simply would
not have happened without the Foundation.

The Foundation is also able to provide funds for non-Federal
projects directly related to Service activities, including nearly
$3 million for Natural Communities Conservation Program plans in
Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties in California, an
additional $1,018,000 for land acquisition in support of the NCCP
in San Diego, $100,000 for completion of a multi-species Habitat
Conservation Plan in Kern County, California.

Another particularly productive effort has been assisting in the
Service's Partners for Wildlife program, which provides advice
and in some cases minor construction services to private
landowners seeking to protect or restore wetlands on their
property. We have seen an overwhelmingly positive response from



37



landowners throughout the country towards this voluntary
partnership effort. The Foundation's assistance has included:

o a grant to the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association to
permit trained volunteers from the Association to
locate suitable areas for restoration and make the
agreements with the landowners, freeing Service
personnel from these more routine activities;

o grants to Ducks Unlimited in the Central Valley of
California to expand their "Valley Care" initiative
which encourages rice farmers to manage their lands in
ways most conducive to waterfowl and shorebird use; and

o a grant to the Delta Wildlife Foundation in

Mississippi, for encouraging local farmers to flood
their fields in winter, and training them to be hunting
and fishing guides on their own land as a means of
supplementing their agricultural income.

The Foundation has also been very active in promoting the
conservation of fisheries and neotropical migratory birds.

Neotropical migratory birds — known to the general public as
songbirds, such as bluebirds and robins — are in trouble, for
reasons not fully understood, but which include loss of wintering



38



habitat in Central America, because of the diverse needs of
these species, the traditionap. conservation methods of protecting
specific tracts of land will hot work. Through the Partners in
Flight program, initiated by the Foundation in 1990 and in which
the Service is an active participant, private landowners
throughout the United States are encouraged to take steps to make
their land better habitat for these birds. The response has been
overwhelmingly positive.

In addition, the Foundation is making grants in Central America
and Mexico to give local peoples there a stake in conservation of
these species and their habitat, and to provide training in
wildlife and habitat management.

The Foundation's efforts at conserving our fisheries resources
have ranged from assisting various local groups to restore salmon
habitat in the Pacific Northwest, to a grant of $225,000 to a
local group working to restore the Henry's Fork of the Snake
River in Idaho, to $240,000 grant to a Kenai River sportfishing
group working with landowners to restore degraded habitat along
this river in Alaska. Nor are fishermen forgotten - the
Foundation has been assisting groups which hold fishing events
for the disabled.

As illustrated by these examples, we believe the Foundation is
functioning extremely well and as Congress originally envisioned.



39



The grant program complements the priorities of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and in many cases, provides benefits which
could not be obtained by appropriating a like amount to the
Service or any other governmental agency. This is true both
because of the Foundation's ability to leverage this money
through fundraising, and because as a private entity the
Foundation may be welcomed where the Federal government is not.

We do not have any recommendations for changes to the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation Act at this time. We simply urge
your continued support for the Foundation and ask for your help
in securing the funding requested in the President's fiscal year
1997 budget, which includes $6 million through the Fish and
Wildlife Service.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.



40



TESTIMONY OF AMOS S. ENO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE

REGARDING THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
MAY 16, 1996

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Amos S. Eno. I am the
executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and I appreciate the opportunity
to testify before the Subcommittee today.

First, I would like to thank you for holding this oversight hearing. As you know, the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization created by
Congress in 1984, and dedicated to the conservation of namral resources— fish, wildlife, plants,
and their habitat. Congress created the Foimdation to pioneer the idea of conserving the nation's
resources through pannerships and to provide an interface to the private sector. Our function is
to promote proactive, private, voluntary solutions to environmental problems as an alternative to
the regulatory, litigious, and highly politicized quagmire that characterizes so many environmental
issues.

Among our goals are species habitat protection, environmental education, natural resource
management, habitat and ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration, and leadership training for
conservation professionals. We meet these goals by forging partnerships between the public and
private sectors and by supporting conservation activities that pinpoint and solve the root causes
of environmental problems. Increasingly, the Foimdation is pioneering programs designed to solve
natural resource problems through significant private sector and particularly corporate America's
participation.

The Foundation provides for enhanced management of the nation's fish and wildlife
resources through a competitive grants program. This program has been designed to create
partnerships among federal agencies, state and local imits of government, and the private sector.
Funds appropriated to the Foundation serve as seed money to support this grants program. Unless
specifically directed, all federal funds go directly to support these on the ground partnerships for
conservation. The Foundation raises its operating costs privately.

We appreciate the fact that Congress is under pressure to reduce spending. The Foundation
has played a key role in providing for sound management of our nation's fish and wildlife
resources during a time of declining budgets.

First, through the leveraging feature of our challenge grants program, we return over $2
in nonfederal funds for every federal dollar invested through the Foundation. Our authorizing
statute required the Foundation to match federal iunds on a 1 to 1 aggregate basis. However, we
have adopted an internal policy of generally requiring a 2 to 1 match— to make those federal funds
go further. In fact, over our ten years and 1,330 grants the Foundation has made, we have
averaged leveraging $2.60 of nonfederal funds for every federal appropriated dollar.

Second, by working with nonfederal partners, we help develop better solutions to
environmental issues. These partnerships produce more cost effective, creative, and practical
solutions. Furthermore, these partnerships develop management solutions which become self
enforcing and require less oversight/enforcement.



41



Some of the key advantages of the kind of partnerships NFWF promotes include:

• locally derived solutions to local issues

• private voluntary solutions as alternative to command and control regulations

• encouraging potential adversaries to work together

• reducing litigation and advocacy

• more cost-effective decisions because responsibility is put in the hands of people making
decisions rather than remote "bureaucrats"

• finding common solutions to problems

NFWF serves as a model and testing laboratory for reform of the federal government. We
help agencies learn how to engage in cooperative resource management partnerships with the
private sector, and we help the private sector enlist the cooperation of government to address
natural resource issues in a manner that eliminates uimecessary and expensive regulatory burdens.
We have the ability to put together partnerships that bridge traditional interests. Quite frankly, we
bring people together to forge proactive cooperative solutions and avoid government command
and control regulation.

We head off potential problems, such as endangered species conflicts, that pose expensive
problems for this Subcommittee, the stretched federal budget, and the private sector by working
up-front with local communities and agencies to improve fish and wildlife management. The
Foundation helps the agencies take practical steps to lessen or avoid these problems, establish an
atmosphere of cooperation rather than antagonism between the agencies and the local community,
and provide a series of positive examples that can be emulated throughout the country. For
example, the Foundation played the critical role in shaping the Kamer Blue Butterfly HCP, which
ended the timbering moratorium throughout much of the "northern tier."

None of the core funds appropriated to the Foundation go to the administration of the
Foundation. None of our federal funds are used for lobbying. In fact, the Foundation does not
lobby. We do not allow grant recipients to use federal funds or even privately generated matching
funds for lobbying. Through the rigorous matching requirements, the grant program is designed
to discourage lobbying by recipients. Let me emphasize: none of our funds or the leveraged
matching fiinds are used by grantees to lobby or litigate.

If the proponent of an otherwise highly meritorious project is unable to provide the
minimum necessary cost-share, the Foundation will work with the project proponent to identify
and solicit corporate, foundation, or other sponsors for the project in question. If necessary, we
work with potential grantees to improve the quality of their grant proposal. We act quickly and
responsively, not being hampered by an agency's far-flung bureaucratic organization and
procedures, which often require multiple signatures on many pieces of paper before anything
meaningful can happen.

The Foundation actively seeks on-the-ground partners for fish and wildlife conservation.
All potential grants are subject to a peer review process, involving state and federal agency staff,
academics, commodity and environmental interests, corporate America, and other recognized
experts. The review process examines the project's technical merit, the degree of interest in the
local community, the variety of partners who are willing to participate, and the amount of
nonfederal cost-share that is proposed.



42



The Foundation requires strict financial reporting by grantees, and we ourselves are subject
to an annual audit. In addition to our own audits, NFWF is also routinely audited by our federal
partners. In 1993, the Foundation underwent an audit by the Inspector General of the Interior
Department, which we passed with flying colors.

To adequately address the resource challenges facing fish and wildlife, federal agencies
need creative solutions and the development of new partnerships with state agencies and the
private sector. This is exactly what the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation can deliver.

The Foundation is in the partnership business. We have had partnerships with
sixteen federal agencies. But that is just the start. We have worked with over 67 state and local
agencies, 375 private organizations, and 50 universities. We have worked in all fifty
states.

Perhaps most importantly, we create voluntary, cooperative partnerships that defuse
tension, break through vested interests and solve rather than inflame difficult issues. Most
partnerships are local. We invest in private sector solutions and empower local communities to
implement their own strategies. We create bridges where bridgeheads do not exist. In Arizona and
New Mexico, we have worked to form a consensus between public lands grazing ranchers and


1 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11

Online LibraryWildlife United States. Congress. House. Committee on ResouNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation : oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on the effectiveness of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and projects th → online text (page 5 of 11)