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      

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.

   He told a story of one woman in Alaska, and he said this:

   Ginny looks through Alaska Magazine, where her attention is arrested by letters from the Lower 48. ``There was a time when man was justified in taking wildlife,'' she reads aloud, ``for then man's survival was at stake, but that time is long gone. .....'' She slaps the magazine down on the table. ``They don't understand,'' she says. .....''These people who write these letters are not even rational. They say we're out to kill everything. People in the Lower 48 do not understand Alaska. ..... They wonder how Alaskans get their mail, and what they do in the winter. They can't believe anything can grow here. They're amazed we can't buy any land. They think Indians are Eskimos. They know nothing about Alaska and yet they've been manipulating us for years. We thought Statehood would put an end to that. They don't understand trapping. They don't understand the harvesting of animals.''

   That is the type of comment I get when I go home. People in Alaska constantly tell me: Those people you work with in the Congress just don't understand us. They have asked me to stand up and try to explain to the Senate what the Alaska lifestyle is.

   That is hard for a lawyer, a person who has been here 30 years now, to continue to try to convince succeeding generations, those who have come after me, that Alaska is still that way. For the most part, Alaska is natural wilderness, and dispersed throughout that wilderness are some 700,000 people. The bulk of the people out of the cities live the Alaska lifestyle. They hunt for their food. They trap to obtain furs as well as food, but the furs give them a cash flow of income. That is supplemented by our own Alaska system of what we call a permanent fund dividend. Without the income they obtain from hunting, these people would not be able to survive.

   In this area, hunting is done by trapping. If you take away the traps, they will go back to shooting them. This bill does not ban guns. What it would do is go back to the day before traps were recognized as a scientific management concept, and animals will be shot. For every time there is a miss, it is much worse than one being caught and having a leg broken in a trap because that animal is wandering off forever.

   The wildlife managers have told us, if you are going to harvest these animals, the best way to do it is with these traps following the code of ethics that has been adopted by the trappers themselves, with the approval, by the way, of the wildlife managers.

   I can tell you without any question that I have urged every Member of the Senate by a personal letter to vote no on this amendment. This is not the way to change the concept of scientific management of the lands that we have set aside as wildlife refuges. It is not the way to change basically the Alaska lifestyle. Eighty-five percent or more of its impact is in our State. We would be devastated if this concept is adopted. I urge this amendment be defeated.

   I serve notice that I will ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment. When the time is appropriate, I will make that request.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator TORRICELLI. I listened carefully to the statement of my colleague from the State of Alaska. Having visited his State several times, I acknowledge they have an extraordinary situation that is unlike perhaps any other State across this Nation. I hope he will take into consideration what Senator TORRICELLI's amendment seeks to do is to really limit the use of this trap on national wildlife refuges.

   I am not sure exactly how one would define a refuge, but in my way of thinking, it is akin to a shelter. It is something that has really been designed by law to provide a special kind of protection that might not otherwise be available to wildlife. That is why Senator TORRICELLI's amendment, I believe, is so appropriate because it is limited to the wildlife refuge and, secondly, it makes exceptions.

   I understand what Senator STEVENS has said, that the subsistence exception would not cover commercial trapping on wildlife refuges, but I say to the Senator from Alaska, I think perhaps other forms of trapping should be used rather than this form.

   I know the Senator from New Jersey is going to take the floor again and make a part of the RECORD a letter which was received after the letter quoted by the Senator from Alaska. I have a copy of it, and I will read from it. It is a letter from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. It is written to the House sponsor of this legislation. It is very brief, and I will read it into the RECORD:

   Dear Mr. Farr:

   I am responding to your letter requesting the Department's position on your amendment relating to the use of certain kinds of traps on national wildlife refuges. The letter dated July 20, 1999, from Mr. John Rogers and the enclosed effect statement do not represent the position of the Department of the Interior. After careful consideration, I can advise you that your amendment--

   The Farr amendment--

   and the Torricelli amendment, which is identical, would not impact the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage refuges under the Organic Act of 1997. Accordingly, the Department does not take a position on your amendment.

   I say to those who are following this debate, the earlier reference to a letter of July 20 was superseded by a letter on July 23 from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior who said they will not take a position on the amendment and the Torricelli and Farr amendment do not in any way impact their ability to manage wildlife refuges.

   I also remind those following the debate of Senator TORRICELLI's statement that some 88 nations across the world have already banned this form of trap. Many people are critical of Senators from New Jersey and Illinois who try to make comment on the way people live in the West. My friend from Montana, Senator BURNS, occasionally calls me aside when I offer these amendments related to Montana and the West and speaks of his Midwestern friends who do not quite understand the lifestyle of the West. I will concede, by classic definition, I am from a sodbuster State. I may not understand all the things that are part of the lifestyle of the West, but I call the attention of those who are considering this amendment to statements made in the press in Western States about these steel-jawed leghold traps.

   Arizona, the Arizona Republic, February 7, 1993:

   Outlawing the barbaric, needlessly cruel steel trap--a device that tortures animals to death--should no longer be a matter of serious dispute.

   The Arizona Tribune, 1994:

   No need for extremists to exaggerate what happens to an animal when a trap's steel jaws slam shut on it. It's more than inhumane; it's heinous.

   Colorado, October 15, 1996, the Boulder Daily Camera:

   The trapper hides the equivalent of a land mine in wildlife habitat and ``harvests'' whatever has the rotten luck to step in it.

   From the Californian, October 8, 1998:

   Laying a trap that statistically is more likely to maim or kill an animal other than the one being hunted is wasteful, inhumane, and cruel.

   The Tucson Citizen 1993, Arizona:

   Steel-jaw traps are cruel devices that subject animals--sometimes family pets--to mutilation or slow and painful death. And they pose a threat to people who use public lands for recreation. ..... Steel-jaw traps have no place in a civilized world, particularly on public lands.

   Those were statements not from some bleeding heart eastern journals but from newspapers from the West--Arizona, Colorado, California--areas where I think they have even more familiarity with this than some Members of the Senate might themselves.

   I have a couple photographs to demonstrate how these traps are used. You can see from this photograph that the

[Page: S10670]  GPO's PDF

   Here is another photograph. It appears to be a fox trapped as well. There is evidence that many of the animals that are caught in these traps, in pain, in desperation chew off their own limbs to try to escape. Of course, as they hobble around the wilderness, they may not last long either.

   These are basically and fundamentally inhumane. For us to allow them in wildlife refuges, I think, is a serious mistake. The amendment by the Senator from New Jersey is a reasonable one. It allows exceptions for research, subsistence, which the Senator from Alaska has alluded to, conservation, and facility protection.

   When the Senator from Montana, Mr. BURNS, told the story of those in Montana who were trying to protect their flocks of sheep from coyotes that came out of the wildlife refuge, as I understand the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, there would be no prohibition against their setting these traps on their own property to protect their flock from these predatory animals. The Torricelli amendment alludes only to putting these traps in wildlife refuges. I think, frankly, that is a line that should be drawn and one that I support.

   As I have said, Secretary Bruce Babbitt has written to the Senate indicating the Torricelli amendment would have no adverse impact on the management of the Fish and Wildlife Service on refuges. The House has approved this amendment overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. Eighty-eight nations and a number of States have made it clear that this barbaric device has no place in wildlife management.

   I urge support for the Torricelli amendment and yield the floor.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by Senator TORRICELLI to the Interior Appropriations Act concerning leghold traps. This is a sensible and narrowly tailored amendment that will address the misuse of tax dollars to promote cruel, commercial trapping programs on the National Wildlife Refuge System.

   This amendment will prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to administer or promote the use of steel-jawed leghold traps or neck snares for commerce in fur or recreation on National Wildlife Refuges. Our amendment would not limit the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage our National Wildlife Refuges.

   I am proud to say that my State of California banned the use of steel-jawed leghold traps last year when voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative related to trapping. Californians recognized not only that these traps are inhumane, but also non-selective. In other words, these traps often result in the death of many animals that are not the targets of the traps.

   In its 1998 Environmental Document on trapping, the California Department of Fish and Game cited several state studies showing a high number of non-target species being caught. In Colusa County, 26 target muskrats and 19 non-target animals; in Tehema County, seven target coyotes and 85 non-target animals; in San Diego County, 42 target bobcats and 91 non-target species.

   Mr. President, these numbers are astonishing, and they demonstrate to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that these traps are abhorrent devices. Whether they are hunting dogs, family pets, bald eagles, deer, or other animals, there are countless untold victims of these traps. They have rightly been likened to ``land mines'' for wildlife, catching any animal that triggers them.

   It is shocking that these traps are allowed in our country at all, especially given that 88 nations throughout the world bar their use. But it is even more horrifying to think that American tax dollars go to administer trapping programs on our nation's wildlife refuges.

   I looked up the word ``refuge'' in the American College Dictionary. It defines refuge as (1) ``a place of shelter, protection, or safety,'', or (2) ``anything to which one has recourse for aid, relief or escape.''

   It is plainly contradictory to allow the commercial killing of wildlife on places called wildlife refuges. It is worse to allow the use of barbaric traps on refuges. And it is shocking to Americans to have their hard-earned dollars finance this hoax. The Torricelli amendment goes very far to be reasonable and accommodating.

   It does not bar trapping on refuges. It does not even bar steel traps or neck snares on refuges, since the amendment specifically allows these traps to be used for research, conservation, subsistence trapping, or facilities protection. It simply bars these devices for commerce or recreation.

   This amendment should be adopted overwhelmingly. It makes sense. The policy of allowing the financing of such programs is contradictory and wrong-headed. It should be no surprise that fully 83 percent of Americans oppose using steel traps on refuges. Just last month, the House passed an identical amendment by an overwhelming margin. The Department of the Interior has no problem with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Torricelli amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

   Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is basic in this institution, indeed in our Union, that each of us, as representatives of some States, have respect for the economy, the culture, and the traditions of other States.

   Indeed, this should not, and cannot, be a debate between Illinois and New Jersey against Montana and Alaska. Disproportionately, this would impact the great State of Alaska and several other Western States. Because of the gracious invitation of the Senator from Alaska, I have visited his State. I have been to Montana many times. I have enormous respect for their traditions and their cultures. It is because of that fact that this amendment was so carefully designed.

   Senator BURNS has appropriately talked about the problem of ranchers and farmers who lose livestock and need to protect their own properties. The Senator from Montana need not be concerned. The management of species protection of those lands is exempt from this amendment. Private lands are exempt from this amendment.

   There is no greater advocate of native peoples than Senator STEVENS. He appropriately has talked about the need for subsistence of people who live off the land. And while he has talked about the need to sell some of those species, to the extent that he is concerned about the need of people to trap for their own subsistence, he need not be concerned. That is exempt from this amendment.

   Maintenance of species, dealing with predatory animals, research are all exempt from this amendment. Private lands are all exempt from this amendment.

   We are talking about wildlife refuges set up by this Congress to protect species from two specific traps. The question was raised by the Senator from Montana whether or not it was accurate that 80 percent of the species caught in these traps are not the intended species. The life of the animal lost is wasted because these specific traps cannot distinguish between the fox or the mink or the coyote, whatever it is that is being hunted, and another animal. Indeed, 80 percent, upon further research, is not accurate. In 1989, a study by Tomsa and Forbes from the Fourth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control proceedings found that 11 nonintended animals were maimed or killed for every 1 that was being sought, 11 to 1.

   Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

   Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield.

   Mr. STEVENS. I have placed in the RECORD the statement prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service and a letter they sent to me on July 20. In there is a statement about which I want to ask the Senator, my good friend from New Jersey, a question. It says: As background, during the period 1992 to 1996, a total of 281 refuges conducted one or more trapping programs, a total of 487 programs. Eighty-five percent of the mammal trapping programs on refuges were conducted for wildlife and facilities management reasons--85 percent.

[Page: S10671]  GPO's PDF

   The Senator's amendment exempts all of the 85 percent. It affects only those who are not government, those who live on the land.

   I ask the Senator, what about the 85 percent of the trapping programs using the same traps that will continue to be

   conducted by Federal and State managers? They have the same effect as the Senator complains of concerning those that are private. Why should the Senator allow any trapping if he believes as he does? The Federal managers, State managers are not prohibited from conducting 85 percent of the trapping in the wildlife refuges. This only prohibits those of the people who live there, who reside there. Why would the Senator pick out those who earn money from trapping and say they cause more damage than the 85 percent of the trapping by Federal and State agencies?

   Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, the Senator from Alaska cites an interesting point, but it is one that has been done to accommodate people concerned about trapping. Senator BURNS has noted the problem of maintaining stocks, of protecting ranchers. We have kept the power on these lands to use these traps by government or private citizens or scientists or universities or trappers or anybody else, if it is to manage the stocks, if it is to deal with predatory animals or research.

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