THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

This has been endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, hunting groups, and sportsmen. The States of California, Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts have already passed statewide ballot initiatives banning these specific traps. Florida, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have legislative or administrative bans. Eighty-

[Page: S10667]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join the House of Representatives and the various States and impose this narrow prohibition on these two specific traps for these narrow recreational purposes and on these Federal lands. It is a modest request for what is an egregious problem.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

   Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this amendment. I think it sets a bad precedent because I think it is bad politics.

   I just came back from my State, as most of us did, and talked to my agricultural producers. We have a predator problem in Montana.

   Let me tell you about a conversation I had with a good friend in Glasgow, MT. They are sheep producers. They run from the Fort Peck Reservoir south towards Circle, MT. That is McCone Valley and Roosevelt County. They have trapped and killed 90 coyotes on their ranch, and they are still run over with them.

   This lies along the CMR Wildlife Refuge in Montana along the Missouri River. Those sheep are smart enough to stay in that refuge. The only time we can get them is when they come out. They lose about 300 lambs a day. I don't know how many people can sustain that much loss.

   But this particular trap is sort of needed, whether it be in the use of predator control , whether it be used on the refuge, or on BLM or private land.

   I said yesterday that on one of the amendments one of these days this body is going to be hit by a large bolt of common sense. Then I don't know what is going to happen. We will not know how to deal with things here.

   But I will tell you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposes this amendment. They are the ones who manage the refuge systems.

   The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies that represents the 50 fish and wildlife agencies and conservation groups--which includes the Izaak Walton League of America--all oppose this amendment. They oppose it for the simple reason that we get a little loose with definitions.

   I think the point is that nobody likes to see the suffering and catching the wrong animal in the wrong trap. I would question the 80 to 90 percent wrong animal figure. I would question that because no trapper I know, whether they did it as a sportsman for recreation, whether they did it to prevent predation on livestock, or whether they did it for a living, worth his salt, who knows how to trap, has figures similar to this. There is none that I know.

   And we have quite a few of them in my State.

   So I ask we oppose and defeat this amendment. It is taking away some of those tools that do not meet the definition. We say, if States OK it for recreation, then define recreation. We know it has a habit of spilling over into areas where, if we cannot use these traps to prevent predation, then we are again put at the mercy of predators, of which we have many.

   Businesses cannot sustain those losses. Maybe no one cares whether businesses sustain themselves or not. Let's face it; they have human faces, too, in this situation. So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Montana. I want the Senate to know this amendment would seriously harm a vital sector of the rural Alaskan economy. It would injure greatly those who follow the Alaskan way of life.

   We are very much involved with this amendment. What it seeks to do is end trapping in the Federal wildlife refuges. There are some exceptions in the Senator's amendment for research, conservation, facilities protection, and subsistence.

   Let me point out this chart I have. There are 77 million acres of wildlife refuge in our State; 85 percent of all the wildlife refuge in the country is in Alaska.

   The amendment seeks to absolutely discard the concepts of sound game management principles. As the Senator from Montana stated, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which represent State fish and game managers throughout the country, have opposed the amendment because it limits the ability to manage wildlife populations scientifically. The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote me a letter on July 20 explaining the Service's opposition to the House amendment in detail. This is a very serious thing. I am disturbed when my colleague talks about recreational trapping.

   The Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that the core of its mission is wildlife management. In its letter to me, the Fish and Wildlife Service stated that:

   ..... a prohibition of specific animal restraint devices is not in the best interest of sound wildlife management.

   The Department of Fish and Game of my State of Alaska also stated this amendment hinders the ability of wildlife managers to do their job. It said:

   We have consistently supported trapping as an important tool in managing the national wildlife refuge system.

   I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation,

   Juneau, AK, July 22, 1999.
Hon. TED STEVENS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: I am writing to express my concern over house approved language amending the FY2000 Interior Appropriation Bill (HR2466) that restricts the use of leghold traps and neck snares on National Wildlife Refuges. I understand similar language may be introduced soon on the senate floor. If that language is introduced, I encourage you to vote no and to remove the house passed language in conference committee.

   Commercial, recreational, subsistence, and nuisance animal trapping have never been classified in regulation as separate uses because pelts are acquired, traded, or sold and enter commerce through all of these uses. Therefore, it is meaningless to separate commercial and recreational activities from other types of trapping for purposes of managing the refuge system.

   Trapping on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska is important to our department because the activity helps us track furbearer populations in areas not often frequented by members of the public, especially during winter when weather can have severe impacts on animal populations. We have consistently supported trapping as an important tool in managing the National Wildlife Refuge system and the Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1996 recognizes the importance of that tool.

   Eighty-five percent of all lands in the National Wildlife Refuge system are in Alaska. The opportunity to trap and snare furbearers on these lands is essential to our rural culture and the lifestyle of families living in remote villages. Many people in these areas have seasonal incomes, and trapping plays a critical role in supplementing that income with cash obtained from a local resource when jobs are nonexistent. If trapping and snaring are prohibited on these refuges, the impact would be disastrous economically, as well as culturally, to the people of Alaska.

   Thank you for your support.

   Sincerely,

   Wayne Regelin,
Director.

--

   DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

   FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

   Washington, DC, July 20, 1999.
Hon. TED STEVENS
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

   DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, the House of Representatives recently adopted an amendment by Congressman Sam Farr to the Interior Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2466) concerning trapping on National Wildlife Refuges. We anticipate that this issue may arise during Senate consideration.

   The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposes this amendment. We believe national legislation directing a prohibition of specific animal restraint devices is not in the best interest of sound wildlife management. The enclosed statement explains our opposition to this amendment.

   We would be happy to respond to any questions or provide any further information that may be helpful as you consider this matter.

   Identical letters have been sent to the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate; the Honorable

[Page: S10668]  GPO's PDF

   Sincerely,

   John Rogers,
Director.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, these agencies agree wildlife managers rely upon commercial trappers to control invasive and nuisance species, as well as normal predators. In Alaska, Federal and State wildlife managers rely on these trappers to control predators in order to maintain healthy moose and caribou herds, for instance. Moose and caribou are major subsistence species, and a ban on this trapping would harm subsistence hunters by creating more competition for subsistence resources.

   Another example is the Aleutian-Canada goose. This species was listed under the Endangered Species Act after foxes were introduced on the Aleutian Islands. At first, the refuge managers tried to poison the foxes until EPA banned the poison. Then they hired local trappers to save the goose, and trappers have successfully controlled the fox population, restoring the Aleutian-Canada goose.

   Our Alaska Department of Fish and Game relies upon data from trappers to track remote populations, where the agency cannot afford to have biologists, through this area that is one-fifth the size of the United States. I know proponents of the amendment argue that more humane methods are available. But the trouble is the methods cost 10 times as much and will not work, and we do not have the people to pursue those methods. A $2 snare trap works much better than a $30 conibear trap that freezes in the snow. A trapper can vary the size, location, tension, bait, scent, screening, and seasonal timing of a trap to target specific animals.

   These unfortunate concepts that have been mentioned by the Senator of the birds that have been trapped--no one seeks that. I do not believe that is a normal result of trapping, particularly in our very wild country.

   The amendment purports to contain a subsistence exemption. I want to explain that a little bit to the Senate. In 1980, the Congress specifically allowed those who reside in the area of wildlife refuges in Alaska to use refuge lands for subsistence hunting. Most of the trappers in our States are, in fact, subsistence hunters.

   Many Native Alaskans trap for subsistence and they generate cash income from the pelts they take. This permits trapping only for subsistence, but not for the commercial side of that operation. These people are not in trapping for recreation. They are trapping not only for the food they obtain but also for the cash they derive from the trapping activities. That cash is one of the main sources of income for people who live in the rural area of Alaska.

   In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which added 53 million acres, in one act of Congress, to the wildlife refuge system, the National Wildlife System, on lands within our State. Among the new Federal lands added by that act were the Innoko, Kanuti, and Koyukuk; almost 9 million acres of land, the size of New Hampshire and Connecticut together. Congress specifically recognized the furbearer resources of those refuges when it passed that act which we call ANILCA.

   This amendment will essentially repeal the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act concept of permitting trapping by prohibiting the harvesting of resources in a way that currently is recognized by law. In Alaska, licensed trappers earn about $7 million annually, mostly from marten, lynx, and beaver. It may not sound like a lot of money to Members of Congress, but

   within these refuges in our State lies the most poor census district in the country; that is, the Wade Hampton District in the Yukon Delta Refuge. That stretches over 22 million acres. It's the largest refuge in the United States and the largest of the 16 refuges in Alaska. It is, I would say to my friend from New Jersey, four times the size of New Jersey.

   The refuge contains 42 Native Alaska villages and tens of thousands of people, mostly Natives. Like many others in Alaska, most of these people rely on subsistence lifestyle, which includes commercial trapping, as I have said.

   I have received letters from a number of villages on or near refuges, including Ruby, Mountain Village, and Quinhagak. They point out to me that trapping keeps predators in check so the other game animals on which they rely will flourish. They also point out how the only nongovernment jobs available in the winter are trapping jobs and they would rather trap and sell the fur than sit idle and collect welfare checks. As a matter of fact, we in Congress have mandated they do just that; they go to work.

   When we passed the welfare reform we required these people to go to work. Now this amendment would outlaw the only jobs that are available for these people in this very remote area of Alaska.

   The amendment also makes a value judgment about the way these Alaskans have lived for generations. This bothers me greatly. For decades, in many cases centuries, our Alaskan Native people have lived off the land. They have been joined by a great many non-Alaskan people, by the way. The Federal law guarantees both non-Natives as well as Natives the right to a subsistence lifestyle, and to trap within these areas if they reside in the area of the refuge. When others tell Alaskan hunters, trappers, and fishermen how to manage our resources, they are literally telling them how to live their lives.

   We have a great deal of respect and admiration for our wildlife, probably more than any I know. This includes trappers who, incidentally, have a very strict code of ethics. I want to have that printed in the RECORD. I am not sure many people realize these trappers have come together and put up, even before this issue arose, an ethics code.

   That code encourages trappers to act humanely, to concentrate on areas with overabundant population, and to share information that they obtained with the wildlife managers. In other words, each one of them is a volunteer on a wildlife refuge to assist in the scientific management of the areas that are set aside in our State.

   I ask unanimous consent that the code of ethics be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Code of Ethics--A Trapper's Responsibility

   1. Respect the other trapper's ``grounds''--particularly brushed, maintained traplines with a history of use.

   2. Check traps regularly.

   3. Promote trapping methods that will reduce the possibility of catching nontarget animals.

   4. Obtain landowners' permission before trapping on private property.

   5. Know and use proper releasing and killing methods.

   6. Develop set location methods to prevent losses.

   7. Trap in the most humane way possible.

   8. Dispose of animal carcasses properly.

   9. Concentrate trapping in areas where animals are overabundant for the supporting habitat.

   10. Promptly report the presence of diseased animals to wildlife authorities.

   11. Assist landowners who are having problems with predators and other furbearers that have become a nuisance.

   12. Support and help train new trappers in trapping ethics, methods and means, conservation, fur handling, and marketing.

   13. Obey all trapping regulations, and support strict enforcement by reporting violations.

   14. Support and promote sound furbearer management.

   The Code of Ethics is reprinted from the Alaska Trappers Manual. The manual was created in a joint effort by the Alaska Trappers Association and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to respect the needs of these wildlife managers and the traditional lifestyle of our Western States, as well as to respect the basic concepts of the Alaska lifestyle.

   Let me add just a few statistics before I close.

   Our State has 365 million acres. As I said, we are one-fifth the size of all the lands of the United States. These 16

[Page: S10669]  GPO's PDF

   Congress specifically recognized the need for this type of harvesting of resources in the 1980 act. We believe the impact of this amendment, if adopted, would deny our Alaskan people the protection that was assured by Congress at the time this vast acreage was set aside as wildlife refuge areas.

   I want to quote from a book written by a friend, John McPhee. Some people may recognize John. He wrote a book, called ``Coming Into The Country,'' about Alaska. It was a book that received acclaim from all sides of issues pertaining to Alaska, those who agree with us as well as Alaskans who basically agree with John McPhee and his outlook.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents