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      

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.

   What is interesting about Senator STEVENS' points is, to identify the extent of what this amendment does in order to minimize the impact on ranchers, on the economy, on hunting, we are taking what in essence, by the Senator's own statement, is only 15 percent of all the activity with these traps, recognizing these traps only represent 10 or 15 percent of all trapping activity. We are dealing with 10 percent of 10 percent of trapping activity and then only on Federal wildlife lands.

   Now, if the Senator from Alaska wants to offer an amendment to ban these traps on all lands and by everybody and for all purposes, I can assure the Senator from Alaska, he will have my vote. I have narrowly constructed this because I do not want to impact native peoples who are on subsistence. I do not want to interfere with predatory animals. I do not want to interfere with the management of these lands by the Government. My main purpose is to try to prohibit this for recreational purposes, only with these two traps, or other purposes where it is not necessary to protect ranchers or other legitimate objectives.

   I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

   Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has used the statistics for all trapping on Federal wildlife refuges in order to try to eliminate those who use them for income, those who use them to pursue a lifestyle. I say to my friend, does he think that is fair?

   The wildlife managers use these traps. The statistics the Senator has cover all the programs on all of the wildlife refuges mainly, 85 percent, conducted by managers. But the Senator presumes that the damage is done by the 15 percent. Does the Senator think it is fair to say: Let's stop these people from using these traps because they harm the animals that they trap? What about the 85 percent? They catch birds. They catch foxes that eat their legs off. They catch other animals other than the targeted species. But in terms of fairness, the Senator's amendment prohibits those who live by trapping.

   Trapping is a management tool. I defend the 85 percent. I don't oppose it. It is a management tool.

   I wonder if the Senator knows that trapping of species such as red fox and racoons has saved the Hawaiian coot and duck and goose. They have saved some of the indigenous species that live in these refuges from the predators they trap.

   The predators they trap have a value. Those skins are sold for cash. I just ask the Senator, in fairness now, why should we say those people who use traps for a living do all this damage? It is not fair, in my opinion.

   Mr. TORRICELLI. First, let me repeat my offer. If the Senator would like, for the sake of fairness, to abandon this, not only by the managers of the land and recreational, but also commercial people, I would be the first to vote for his amendment. This has been narrowly construed only for commercial purposes as an accommodation to the Senator from Alaska.

   Now, I believe that, as you know, overwhelmingly, trappers are not using these two traps. Overwhelmingly, they are using alternate kinds of technology that are not inhumane, are recognized internationally, and by most other States.

   If, indeed, by further banning these, we can encourage others to use these traps, I would be the first to do it. It is simply my belief that people who are in this for cash business, they are trapping for furs, getting cash for their furs, we have a right to ask them to spend the extra money to get different traps that either kill the animal outright or catch it alive and unhurt so it can be released and the wrong species are not caught. I think we can put that extra burden on a person who is trapping for cash dollars to buy the different trap. The subsistence people, who are eating the game they are trapping, are exempt from this, as the Senator knows--particularly native peoples who may not be able to afford to do so, or it is in their tradition to do so. They are exempt.

   So we are dealing with a minority of a minority, only on wildlife refuge lands. I think that is fair; it is narrowly construed, and mostly to accommodate the Senator from Alaska. The Senator was probably unaware of this or he would not have put the earlier statement in the RECORD, but after the letters the Senator submitted for the RECORD, Secretary Babbitt wrote to me as he did to Congressman FARR, making clear that ``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.''

   I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD.

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

   THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,

   Washington, July 26, 1999.
Hon. ROBERT G. TORRICELLI,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR TORRICELLI: I am responding to your request for 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 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.

   Sincerely,
BRUCE BABBITT.

   Mr. STEVENS. I have the highest regard for the Secretary of the Interior as a Secretary of the Interior. I don't accept him, however, as a wildlife manager. I have put in the RECORD a letter from the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, a professional who has put over 30 years of his life into the management of wildlife refuges, and he stands by his position. The letter that I have read to you was written after the Secretary of the Interior made his statement as a political figure, and the wildlife managers stand by their position. They stand by their position that these traps are the best scientific way to manage wildlife on Federal refuges.

   I really believe the Senator misinterprets my position. I want to make sure we understand each other. I support the use of these traps for wildlife management purposes, and I support the use of them for those who want to trap for income. But I say to my friend, in terms of the two types of traps that he would ban, those are traps that have been specifically approved by the wildlife managers. They are now opposed on a political level; I admit that. But what does the Senate want to do in terms of wildlife refuges? Manage for political purposes, or manage the system as the scientifically trained managers tell us is the best way to manage them?

   We defend the fish and wildlife managers and the safe fish and game commissioners. I say to my good friend, I accept the fact that he is defending the political judgment of my good friend, the Secretary of the Interior. I disagree with that, and I hope the Senate does also.

[Page: S10672]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. TORRICELLI. As the Senator knows, I have respect for him for his extraordinary advocacy in all interests of Alaska. We simply have a difference of judgment on what is a relatively narrow matter. You have pointed out that one-fifth of Alaska is in a Federal wildlife refuge. That means in four-fifths of Alaska you can use any trap you want, any way you want, for any purpose you want. But on those lands set up as refuges--20 percent of your State--in those few lands where, by political judgment, this institution in previous years decided it wanted wildlife to have a refuge, it is basic to the concept of a refuge that we try to use, at least for the killing of animals, a technology that is understood and accepted to be relatively humane in those lands and only for these narrow purposes.

   For all the concerns that you legitimately bring and Senator BURNS brings about the destruction of livestock, or culture, people who live on subsistence, they are free to do what they want, even in the refuge. If we cannot make this narrow exception here, with a letter from the Secretary of the Interior making clear the position of his Department, something endorsed by the House of Representatives, by my party and 89 members of your party, by every other industrialized nation in the world, and we alone are doing this, all I am asking--and it is overwhelmingly in the United States--if you want to use a leghold trap, though it is inhumane and rejected by the rest of the world and most of the Nation, you are free to do so under my amendment. For all these purposes, I ask that, in those few narrow lands, these two specific traps be banned for these few narrow purposes. That is our fundamental disagreement. But that is our only disagreement on that narrow point. I wanted to clarify that.

   Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, I say to my friend, I have this map again to show to the Senate. Isn't it

   interesting that, however, the Senator's amendment affects 52 native villages in that one area, the Yukon Delta Refuge. The Senator says I can use the other four-fifths of the land of the United States. These people have no access at all. They are the lowest income people in the United States. The effect of the Senator's amendment would limit them, even under subsistence, to obtaining no more than $10,000.

   I don't know if he understands that, but Federal law already limits subsistence use when it is totally for subsistence, without a commercial protection, to $10,000, in terms of barter concepts. But these people can't go to these lands that are in yellow. Those are the other lands that are not affected. The lands affected are the lands in which they live.

   Congress, in 1980, gave them the right to continue their lifestyle in order that they might continue to live. They live on fish and game resources, and they sell both to obtain cash income, very limited amounts, on an individual basis. The total, altogether, is $7 million. But the total out there is something like 70,000 people. When you look at it, you are saying, oh, yes, you can use traps, just go to downtown Anchorage now and get one of those newfangled traps, the ones that the environmental people say are safe and humane, but you can't use the one that the scientific managers say are the most effective, not only to carry out the business of obtaining their food and their cash income, but to pursue our own objectives of limiting predators so we can protect other wildlife.

   I have a whole list of wildlife that have been protected by these people who are subsistence hunters, who catch or trap these animals and sell the furs, but they do protect the migratory birds that come into this vast area. The areas were not set aside to protect the animals being snared. They were set aside to protect migratory waterfowl. These are not wildlife refuges to protect the red fox, or anything else. They are for migratory waterfowl. You are telling them that they cannot use these traps. As our volunteer agents, by the way, they are doing the job that it would take a thousand paid officials to do.

   They are trapping the predators and selling their skins.

   Mr. TORRICELLI. So our colleagues are clear on this narrow difference that we represent, two things have been said that deserve further attention.

   One, if the trapping is to deal with a predator --and indeed this is part of the management of the refuge--my amendment does not affect them. They can trap.

   Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator want a permit every time they do it and have the managers say this is for management purposes only?

   Mr. TORRICELLI. Allow me to finish.

   If it is a predator and it is for management of the species, they are free to use any trap they want.

   Second, it was appropriately pointed out if they are in the business of getting furs, they are in that cash business. My amendment would impact them. However, if they are using these traps for subsistence for their own consumption, as the Senator knows, they are also exempt from my amendment.

   There is a great deal of debate on this floor for a great number of people who have no relationship to my amendment.

   We are dealing with two traps, one kind of land, narrowly defined, with six exemptions. We are dealing with a fraction of a fraction of the hunting that is going on, which will still leave the United States as the only developed nation in the world that is allowing the traps to be overwhelmingly used. If we cannot take the narrow stand for the wildlife refuge, my guess is we can take no stand at all.

   I yield the floor and I thank the Senator from Alaska for what has been an enlightening discussion.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I heard this morning a brilliant statement by the Senator from Hawaii to our Alaska Federation of Natives forum being conducted now.

   One of the things he stated I want to repeat to the Senator from New Jersey: Subsistence is not about eating. The Senator's amendment presumes subsistence means going out and obtaining food.

   Subsistence is a way of life. Subsistence is the ability to hunt, fish, trade, or barter what they get for cash in order to live. It is more than just obtaining an animal. The Senator's amendment says one can continue to trap for subsistence and I believe he means for food. He says once they sell the pelt, they are into commercial activities.

   Our State fish and wildlife service recognizes that trapping for subsistence is a legitimate activity. As a matter of fact, the exception in the Federal law is for subsistence hunters. They can trap in pursuing their subsistence lifestyle.

   To think they could not then sell those animals, sell the pelts, or to put them in a position where they could only do so for wildlife management purposes--which is the effect of the Senator's amendment--offends us. The people who rely on a subsistence lifestyle hunt, fish, and trap. They consume some of the fish, they consume the animals, and they sell or use the remainder of what they catch--both mammals and fish--for their native arts and crafts.

   They also carry out the purposes of wildlife management because they are, in fact, trapping the predators that would destroy the migratory waterfowl--the foxes that eat the eggs, the other predators that eat the birds. The area was set aside to protect the migratory waterfowl.

   The Senator is saying they cannot use traps on these wildlife refuges that were set aside to protect migratory waterfowl because these traps catch some birds. The predators they catch considerably outnumber the impact of the traps on migratory waterfowl. The Senator says they can do it if it is for wildlife management purposes. There is no agent setting traps because these people are setting traps. In effect, they carry out the purposes of the management scheme by trapping the way the managers tell them to trap. They are using the traps that have been approved by the Federal and State system.

   Along comes this amendment. It makes the judgment that two of those traps are inhumane and should not be used by these people. It doesn't ban the fish and wildlife managers from using them. It doesn't ban anyone from using them. It bans the 15 percent of the people who use these traps. I don't intend to support banning anyone from using them as long as the fish and wildlife managers say this is scientifically the best way to deal with both the predator

[Page: S10673]  GPO's PDF

   These 52 native villages, I think the Senator knows, can only be reached by air in the wintertime. For the most part they are on rivers. During the summertime, visitors can travel to the villages but during the winter trapping period, the only way to get to and from there is by air. Diesel costs $3 to $5 a gallon. And now the Senator would say they can't sell those pelts? They can still catch the animals and eat them but they can't sell them?

   Those people are out there trapping simply for plain trapping purposes. That is their cash income. They are from one of the larger villages, but they have a trapline. They have a permit. They are supervised by somebody. They get approval of where they will set the traps. They get approval of the type of traps they will use. That is what the wildlife management system brought to them. They live with that. They made up the code of ethics as required by the Federal managers; they live by that. Why should the Congress of the United States tell them they cannot carry out a lifestyle that the scientific manager says is the correct way to manage those resources?

   I think those who live in the East have the luxury of saying do something else. Go to the store and get another trap. That is not the case. Most of the traps are very old. They are maintained by our people. Many of them were made by them. The idea of saying they can continue trapping but go down to the store--there is not a Sears, Roebuck store nearby. You can't get the needed traps by mail order.

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