House Hearing, 105TH Congress - Oversight Hearing On The Reintroduction of The Grizzly Bear in The Public Domain National Forests

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE REINTRODUCTION
OF THE GRIZZLY BEAR IN THE PUBLIC DO-

MAIN NATIONAL FORESTS
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JUNE 12, 1997WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 105-42
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

44-273 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO , Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada SAM FARR, California
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
BILL SIMMONS, Staff Director
ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held June 12, 1997 .................................................................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 1
Prepared statement ................................................................................... 2
Hill, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana . 3
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the State of Min-
nesota ............................................................................................................. 4
Statements of witnesses:
Benedetto, Kathleen, Communities for a Great Northwest, Billings, MT ... 55
Branch, Senator Ric, Idaho State Senate, Midvale, ID ................................. 39
Bugli, Shirley, Concerned About Grizzlies, Stevensville, MT ....................... 59
Carlson, Rita, BlueRibbon Coalition, Lewiston, ID ....................................... 57
Church, Phil, Resource Organization on Timber Supply, Lewiston, ID ...... 70
Fischer, Hank, Defenders of Wildlife, Missoula, MT ..................................... 71
France, Thomas, National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, Montana ........... 66
Kempthorne, Senator, prepared statement .................................................... 6
Mealey, Stephen, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID ............. 41
Morgenweck, Dr. Ralph, Director, Mountain Prairie Region, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO ................................................................ 8
Riley, Jim, Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Coeur dAlene,
ID ................................................................................................................... 67
Salwasser, Hal, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT ... 10
Strickler, Ted, Custer County Commissioner, Challis, ID ............................ 42
Additional material supplied:
Batt, Hon. Philip E., Governor, Idaho, prepared statement of ..................... 144
Briefing Paper ................................................................................................... 84
Calgary Herald edition ..................................................................................... 207
Concerned About Grizzlies, Hamilton, Montana, prepared statement of .... 175
Joint memorial .................................................................................................. 143
Outdoor Life edition ......................................................................................... 135
Public Opinions and Attitudes Toward Reintroducing Grizzly Bears to
the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area of Idaho and Montana ................ 96
Revised Draft, 5/20/96, Endangered Species Act, Rule 10(j) ......................... 89
Communications received:
Governors letter ............................................................................................... 141
Idaho delegation letter ..................................................................................... 85
Idaho Falls, Post Register, ............................................................................... 184
Letter to Hon. Bruce Babbitt from Members ................................................. 149
New York Times ............................................................................................... 187
Racicot, Hon. Marc, Governor, Montana, letter to John Weaver, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service ................................................................................. 183
(III)
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE REINTRODUC-
TION OF THE GRIZZLY BEAR IN THE PUB-
LIC DOMAIN NATIONAL FORESTS
THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH,
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ladies and gentlemen, the Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health will come to order. The Subcommittee
is meeting today to hear testimony on the reintroduction of the
grizzly bear in the public domain national forests.
Under Rule 4[g] of the Committee rules, any oral opening state-
ments at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the ranking mi-
nority member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses soon-
er and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other
members have statements, they can be included in the hearing
record under unanimous consent.
I want to welcome everyone to this hearing today and to offer a
special welcome to our witnesses. As everyone knows, I, along with
Governor Phil Batt, Senator Larry Craig, Senator Dirk Kemp-
thorne, and Congressman Mike Crapo, have gone on record as op-
posing the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitterroot
area of Idaho or anyplace in Idaho.
In addition to our opposition, I hold in my hand a Joint Memorial
passed by the Idaho State Legislature opposing the reintroduction
of the grizzly bear in Idaho. And without objection, I would like to
make sure that a copy of this memorial is entered into the record.
[Joint memorial follows:]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. With the Governor saying no, the State legis-
lature saying no, the entire Idaho congressional delegation saying
no, and the people of Idaho saying no, what part of no doesnt the
Department of Interior understand?
In a letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt dated May
15, 1997, as a unified congressional delegation we wrote to express
our concerns with the proposal and to try and obtain more informa-
tion. We have yet to receive answers to our questions, and our con-
(1)
2
cerns remain unresolved. That is in large part one of the reasons

why we are having this hearing today.
The opposition to the reintroduction of the grizzly bear originates
from a variety of places. The grizzly bear is known to be unpredict-
able and dangerous to people and livestock. Its Latin name says it
all: Ursus Arctos Horribilis. What is most disconcerting is that the
Department of Interior has not demonstrated an understanding nor
a willingness to allow State and counties the ability to properly
protect its citizens.
It is my belief that the issue of reintroduction of the grizzly bear
is an issue of local control, as well as one of States rights. It is an
issue of local control. And as we will hear today, the local people
do not want the grizzly bear foisted upon them by the Federal Gov-
ernment.
In my view, too many issues remain unresolved. If the Federal
Government places this lethal weapon into the public domain, who
is liable for livestock and property damage? Who is liable for per-
sonal injury and the potential loss of life? What about human life
and limb? Who will pay for all of this? How can you pay for a
human life or the life of a child?
Additionally, grizzly bears do not recognize boundaries and juris-
dictional lines. If a bear were to wander from the initial point of
introduction, will the new area become habitat and what effect will
that have?
More importantly though is the question that has been raised of
whether or not the proposed site of introduction, the Selway-Bitter-
root, is even suitable grizzly habitat. The concerns are many but
until we received fundamental answers to questions about the loss
of local control, about the protection of people and their property,
and about the role of the State, I will oppose the introduction at
every possible opportunity.
I question the wisdom of an effort to place a lethal weapon into
public domain forests when there remain habitat suitability ques-
tions and when there currently exists a thriving population of the
species just a couple of hundred miles to the southeast of the pro-
posed site.
This, coupled with the States vehement objections, should pro-
vide an easy answer to the question of whether the Administration
should proceed at all with this introduction. The Chairman now
recognizes Mr. Hill from Montana and without objection would wel-
come his statement. Thank you.
[Statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
I want to welcome everyone to this hearing today and offer a special welcome to
our witnesses. As everyone knows, I, along with Governor Phil Batt, Senator Larry
Craig, Senator Dirk Kempthorne, and Congressman Mike Crapo, have gone on
record as opposing the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitterroot
area of Idaho. In addition to our opposition, I hold in my hand a Joint Memorial
passed by the Idaho State Legislature opposing the reintroduction of the grizzly
bear in Idaho.
With the governor saying no, the State Legislature saying no, the entire Idaho
Congressional Delegation saying no, and the people of Idaho saying no, what part
of no does the Department of Interior not understand.
In a letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt dated May 15, 1997, as a
unified Congressional Delegation we wrote to express our concerns with the pro-
3
posal and to try and obtain more information. We have yet to receive answers to
our questions and our concerns remain unresolved.
The opposition to the reintroduction of the grizzly bear originates from a variety
of places. The grizzly bear is know to be unpredictable and dangerous to people, and
livestock. Its Latin name says it all: Ursus Arctos HORRIBlLIS. What is most dis-
concerting is that the Department of the Interior has not demonstrated and under-
standing nor a willingness to allow State and counties the ability to properly protect
citizens.
It is my belief that the issue of reintroduction of the grizzly bear is an issue of
local control as well as one of States rights. And as we will hear today, the local
people do not want the grizzly bear foisted upon them by the Federal Government.
In my view, too many issues remain unresolved. If the Federal Government places
this lethal weapon into the public domain, who is liable for livestock and property
damage? What about loss of human life and limb? Who will pay for all of this? Addi-
tionally, grizzly bears do not recognize boundaries and jurisdictional lines. If a bear
were to wander from the initial point of introduction, will the new area become
habitat and what effect will it have?
Most importantly, though, is the question that has been raised of whether or not
the proposed site of introduction, the Selway-Bitterroot, is even be suitable grizzly
habitat. The concerns are many, but until we receive fundamental answers to con-
cerns about the loss of local control, about the protection of people and their prop-
erty, and about the role of the State, I will oppose the reintroduction at every pos-
sible opportunity.
I question the wisdom of an effort to place a lethal weapon into public domain
forests when there remain habitat-suitability questions and when there currently
exists a thriving population of the species just a couple of hundred miles to the
southeast of the proposed site. This, coupled with the States vehement objections,
should provide an easy answer to the question of whether the Administration should
proceed with the reintroduction.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and good morning. I
want to thank the Chairman for holding this oversight hearing,
and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Grizzly introduction is
certainly a very important issue in the State of Montana, and like
other endangered species issues, it is proving to be quite controver-
sial.
I would also like to welcome the witnesses who are here today
and especially recognize those from Montana who are here today
to participate in the hearing. The truth that I am most interested
in today is how the Montanans feel about the reintroduction of the
grizzly and what is the reality of that reintroduction; not what
should happen in a perfect world but what will happen and how
will Montana be impacted.
As we go through this process, the most important thing to me
is public input and protecting the rights of individuals, industry,
sportsmen, and interest groups while being sensitive to the desire
of restoring grizzlies in the Selway-Bitterroot. I believe strongly
that if reintroduction actually does take place, the locals should be
involved in every aspect of grizzly bear reintroduction and manage-
ment, not just in an advisory capacity but as a group that has real
power to effect change and to set policy.
Unfortunately, I think history shows that in spite of good inten-
tions, the public is not the final decisionmaker, nor the chief man-
ager of species and habitat. Final decisions and plans are ulti-
mately made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service here in Wash-
ington, DC. I understand the Forest Service has met with impacted
communities and will continue to do so as the process goes forward,
4
and I appreciate the efforts being made to keep communities in-

volved in that process.
I strongly believe that if reintroduction takes place, the only way
it will be successful is if there is a consensus among impacted
groups. Although there have been assurances that there will be a
Citizen Management Committee to develop policy and work plans,
there is a great deal of skepticism on the part of most Montanans
on whether they really will have a final say on the management
responsibility.
So I look forward to the testimony today. Montana is a great
State with the most productive game population in the lower 48.
I believe Montana has shown that it is most qualified to manage
wildlife and resources, develop community-based plans, and ad-
dress the goals and desires of citizens, not the Federal Govern-
ment, and will fight for those rights. Thank you again for coming
today, and I look forward to hearing from all of you. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman from Montana, and the
Chair now recognizes the Minority member, Mr. Bruce Vento from
Minnesota.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Chenoweth. I
am pleased to be here today for a brief time. I will be coming and
going and I apologize for that because of my schedule but wanted
to at least weigh in with regards to an interest and concern about
the policies that are being advanced in regards to reintroduction of
the grizzly in the Rocky Mountain areas.
Obviously, this follows on a controversy with regards to the re-
introduction of the wolf, and I think there are some things that
the timber wolfand there have been some I think lessons learned
in that particular process. And it is interesting to note that many
of the participants are at the table in terms of the various groups,
both from the timber industry and from the conservation or envi-
ronmental groups, as well as State and local government, that, in
fact, Secretary Babbitt and Secretary of Agriculture Glickman and
others are attempting to try and draw together a consensus or at
least whatever consensus may exist with regards to the science and
with regards to the practical aspects and impacts of the grizzly
bear reintroduction in this area, which is, of course, and has been
or was a significant part of the ecosystem before greater settlement
occurred.
In fact, some of the documents historically that you read indicate
that there was a significant concentration of grizzly bear in the
area. Now, no one, obviously, is advancing the notion that that will
occur in the near future or in the far future I guess. But it is I
think a worthy effort. I hope that this hearing will provide some
information to the members and to the Committee and to Congress
so that if indeed any policies that are being advanced administra-
tively are to be addressed by the Congress or informally by mem-
bers that they can do so in an enlightened manner.
I would note, obviously, that there is tremendous emotional re-
sponse to any type of reintroduction of a major predator like the
5
grizzly or the timber wolf. Obviously, the response there I suppose

is somewhat predictable but I think has to be measured against the
science in terms of what is taking place in these areas, clearly in
areas like Yellowstone and other areas where they have extensive
visitation, a lot of human contact in terms of the park for recre-
ation and for other purposes.
They have been able to make adjustments to face up to the pres-
ence of the bear and their activities in that area. So I think that
it is likely that the same thing can occur in areas that are less in-
tensively used for visitation and recreation and where there is less
human contact. Obviously, that would take a good will on the part
and I think a fair approach with regards to the policies and the use
of the information. So I look forward to the hearing. I have no pre-
pared statement and will try to chime in as we go along. Thank
you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento. My colleague, Senator
Dirk Kempthorne, was unable to deliver testimony today due to an-
other commitment. But without objection, I would like to place his
entire statement in the record. Also, with the committees indul-
gence, I would like to read several comments from his statement
for the record.
Senator Kempthorne wrote in his testimony prepared June 12,
As an Idahoan, I have significant concerns about the continuing
Federal involvement in the management of the grizzly bear, a spe-
cies that many scientists believe is no longer threatened. And I am
particularly concerned about the Administrations plans to artifi-
cially introduce the grizzly into Idaho without the explicit permis-
sion of the people of this State.
As an Idahoan, I worry about what these dangerous predators
will do to the people of Idaho who happen to come in contact with
them. And as Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife, I
also take the broader view of the grizzly and its status under the
Endangered Species Act. I have seen very credible scientific evi-
dence that the grizzly has already been recovered.
In my mind, introduction of the grizzly raises a fundamental
question: how will we protect our citizens and their property from
this dangerous predator? We are constantly told that by following
certain safety tips, people can avoid grizzly bears or make encoun-
ters with them safe. We are also told that ranchers and other peo-
ple that use livestock must accept certain small losses for the com-
mon good.
I asked a reconstructive surgeon with more than 20 years expe-
rience with grizzly attacks about the most common bear maulings
he has encountered. And I am going to quote from a letter I re-
cently received from Dr. William Wennen on this issue.
The doctor wrote, Probably the most common bear mauling that
I have seen is that from a sow grizzly where the tourist/traveler/
hunter/ et cetera, somehow accidentally gets in between the mother
[sow] and a cub or two. The attack comes suddenly, usually without
warning, and the first time the individual realizes that he is in
trouble is when he is virtually face to face with a grizzly in full
charge. There is little, if any, time to react, and the injuries usually
follow a fairly consistent pattern. I am going to stop here, the
6
Senator wrote, because the injuries that Dr. Wennen describes are
gruesome beyond words.
Because of the very great danger that Idahoans would face if we
allow the introduction of grizzly bears into the State, I cannot sup-
port any plan unless it is supported by the people of the State. This
is not a small issue. No matter how much people in other States
may want to see grizzly bears in Idaho, Idahoans should have the
right to make that decision.
This isnt just an Idaho issue. The range of the grizzly when Eu-
ropean man came to North America included California. In fact,
the only grizzly bears you will find in California today are on the
State flag or possibly in captivity. I dont think that I have the
right as an Idahoan to insist that California accept introduction of
the grizzly to the central valley just because I think there is food
and habitat to support it there.
At a field hearing before my subcommittee in Casper, Wyoming,
I heard testimony from Terry Schramm of the Walton Ranch Com-
pany of Jackson, Wyoming, near the Idaho line. Terry testified that
Teton County is 97 percent federally owned, and that without a
grazing permit from the Forest Service, he doesnt have a viable
economic ranch operation. In cooperation with the Fish and Wild-
life Service, he determined that he is living with 11 grizzly bears
and 22 black bears on his 88,000 acre allotment.
And when he asked for the removal of one or two of the grizzly
bears that have become habitualized to preying on his calves, he
was given the cold shoulder by the Federal Government. The bot-
tom line is that States should have the right to make the decision
about predators like the grizzly bear. And by all measures, the bear
appears to have recovered and the species should be delisted.
Without objection, I would like to enter the Senators full testimony
in the record.
[Statement of Senator Kempthorne follows:]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF IDAHO
Good morning Chairman Chenoweth, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for hold-
ing this hearing on the introduction of grizzly bear into Idaho. As an Idahoan, I
have significant concerns about the continuing Federal involvement in the manage-
ment of the grizzly bear, a species that many scientists believe is no longer threat-
ened. I am particularly concerned about the Administrations plans to artificially in-
troduce the grizzly into Idaho without the explicit permission of the people of the
State.
As an Idahoan, I worry about what these dangerous predators will do to the peo-
ple of Idaho who happen to come in contact with them. As Chairman of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and
Wildlife, I also take the broader view of the grizzly and its status under the Endan-
gered Species Act. I have seen very credible scientific evidence that the grizzly has
already been recovered. However, the Federal Government does not appear to agree,
and seems to constantly revise their criteria for recovery.
In my mind, reintroduction of the grizzly raises a fundamental question: how will
we protect our citizens and their property from this dangerous predator? We are
constantly told that by following certain safety tips, people can avoid grizzly bears
or make encounters with them safe. We are also told that ranchers and other people
that use livestock must accept certain small losses for the common good. I question
both of these assumptions.
The instructions that hikers get before entering bear country include:
warnings to be aware;
dont surprise bears;
make plenty of noise;
7
camp in open areas away from streams with fish;
dont cook near where you sleep;
dont cook smelly foods;
dont sleep in cloths with food odors;
dont store food, lotions or dirty cloths near where you sleep;
bury garbage; and on and on.
But what do you do if you accidentally encounter a bear? The conventional wis-
dom is to stay calm, do not run, wave your arms, speak in a loud voice (I might
suggest PRAY in a loud voice), dont climb a tree unless you can get up 30 feet, and
so on. Apparently, what you should do if you are attacked is lie on your stomach
or curl up in a ball with your hands locked behind your neck, and hope that the
bear will stop soon. Thats not very reassuring.
I was curious about this advice, so I asked a reconstructive surgeon with more
than 20 years experience with grizzly attacks about the most common bear
maulings he has encountered. I am going to quote from a letter I recently received
from Dr. William W. Wennen on this issue.
[P]robably the most common bear mauling that I see is that from a sow grizzly,
where the traveler/tourist/hunter/et cetera, somehow accidentally gets in between
mother (sow) and a cub or two. The attack comes suddenly, usually without warning
and the first time the individual realizes that he is in trouble is when he is virtually
face-to-face with a grizzly in full charge. There is little if any time to react and the
injuries usually follow a fairly consistent pattern: . . .
I am going to stop here, because the injuries that Dr. Wennen describes are grue-
some beyond words. Believe me, something very bad happens to the unfortunate
person that suddenly, and usually without warning is attacked. I suppose the
odds of an attack are low, but tell that to the people who have to live with the inju-
ries . . . if they live.
Because of the very great danger that Idahoans would face if we allow the intro-
duction of grizzly bears into the State, I cannot support any plan unless it is sup-
ported by the people of the State. This is not a small issue. No matter how much
people in other States may want to see grizzly bears in Idaho, Idahoans should have
the right to make that decision.
Turn this question around for a minute. This isnt just an Idaho issue. The range
of the grizzly when European man came to North America included California. But,
the grizzly was wiped out in California, just like it was through most of its range.
In fact, the only grizzly bears you will find in California today are on the State flag
or possibly in captivity. I dont think that I have the right as an Idahoan to insist
that California accept introduction of the grizzly to the central valley just because
I think there is food and habitat to support it there.
At a field hearing before my Subcommittee in Casper, Wyoming, I heard testi-
mony from Terry Schramm of the Walton Ranch Company of Jackson, Wyoming
near the Idaho line. Terry testified that Teton County is 97 percent federally owned,
and that without a grazing permit from the Forest Service he doesnt have a viable
economic ranch operation. Terry has been forced to accept losses of cattle of between
2 and 3 percent as a cost of doing business. But, in just two years he lost 141 head
of calves, approximately 9 percent to all causes, including grizzly bears. In coopera-
tion with the Fish and Wildlife Service, he determined that he is living with 11 griz-
zly bears and 22 black bears on his 88,000 acre allotment.
When he asked for the removal of one or two of the grizzly bears that have be-
come habitualized to preying on his calves, he was given the cold shoulder by the
Federal Government. I asked Terry who has the authority for the removal of a nui-
sance bear. Terrys reply was: Ive been involved in this for 4 years, and I would
like to see the bear turned over to the States.
The bottom line is that States should have the right to make the decision about
predators like the grizzly bear. I have to ask, why cant the management of the
grizzly bear be turned over to State control. By all measures, the bear appears to
have recovered and the species should be delisted.
When the population biologists who specialize in the management of small popu-
lations ask the recovery question they turn to a statistical analysis called a popu-
lation viability analysis or PVA. Recently I discovered a PVA that had been done
for the grizzly bear.
Dr. Mark Boyce, previously of the University of Wyoming, and now at Stevens
Point, Wisconsin, calculated that a . . . conservative estimate of the probability of
persistence of the [Yellowstone area] grizzly bear population for 100 years [is] in ex-
cess of 99.2 percent. But because bears are relatively long-lived, Dr. Boyce recal-
culated the probability of the grizzly bear becoming extinct within the next 500
years at 96.1 percent. That is less than a 4 percent chance that this species will
8
become extinct considering all of the appropriate population parameters, and the
probability of natural disaster.
The other thing that interested me in Dr. Boyces PVA of the grizzly bear was
his desire to have existing data on habitat relationships worked into a PVA model.
Dr. Boyce stated that: We cannot evaluate the consequences of natural resource
management actions to grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains until such a habitat-
based PVA is completed. In response to this need, I have asked the Senate Appro-
priations Committee to provide $75,000 to finish the analysis. There is every reason
to believe the completed study will demonstrate that there is an extremely small
probability that the grizzly bear will become extinct in the next millennium.
Which brings me to my final point. There appears to be no good reason to con-
tinue with the Environmental Impact Statement on introduction of the grizzly bear
into the Selway-Bitterroot area. For that reason, I have asked the Senate Appro-
priations Committee to spend no more money on the EIS except to obtain public
comment on the existing draft.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement to you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now, I would like to call forward our first
panel, Dr. Ralph Morgenweck, Director, Mountain Prairie Region of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado, and
Hal Salwasser, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service in Mis-
soula, Montana. Gentlemen, before we get started, if you will rise
and raise your right hands so we can take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you and I now recognize our first wit-
ness, Dr. Ralph Morgenweck. Dr. Morgenweck, would you please
proceed?
STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH MORGENWECK, DIRECTOR, MOUN-

TAIN PRAIRIE REGION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
DENVER, COLORADO
Mr. MORGENWECK. Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair-
man, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Ralph Morgenweck,
Regional Director of the Fish and Wildlife Services Mountain Prai-
rie Region in Denver, and I thank you for the opportunity to be
here today to talk about the Services approach to reintroduction of
endangered and threatened species on Federal lands; in particular,
this discussion of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot Ecosystem in
central Idaho and western Montana.
And I would like to compliment the Chairman for this oppor-
tunity to continue the dialog about grizzly bears in the Bitterroot,
about grizzly bear biology, and about grizzly bear recovery. I think
this is an important part of the overall discussion about what hap-
pens to grizzly bears in the future.
One thing I need to inform the Committee of is that the testi-
mony that you have has been modified in one major way. I have
been informed that just today that the Department of Interior has
come to a conclusion and made a decision about the release of the
draft environmental impact statement and the selection of a pre-
ferred alternative. And I will pass that information on to you in the
course of my comments.
There are three additional points I would like to make in my
brief summation of my formal testimony. First, the reintroduction
of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem provides an unmatched
opportunity to ensure the continued survival of the grizzly bear
and to move toward eventual delisting of the species throughout
the lower 48 States.
9
The grizzly bear is a species that has been eliminated from about
98 percent of its historic range and today some 800 to 1,000 remain
in the lower 48 States. At the same time, because of the wilderness
designation of the Bitterroot Ecosystem, the impact on economic
development and other land use would be far less significant than
on other Federal lands.
Second, the draft environmental impact statement that the Inte-
rior Department just approved and is about to release is a culmina-
tion of a comprehensive process of scientific analysis and public
comment that began in 1975 with the listing of the grizzly bear,
proceeded through the preparation of the first recovery plan in
1982, the formation of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee in
1983 of which Idaho was a member, the evaluation of the Bitter-
root Ecosystem habitat which culminated in a 5-year study in 1991,
leading to the subsequent approval by the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Committee of the Bitterroot Ecosystem as a recovery zone.
It moved on then to the preparation of the recovery plan chapter
that was completed in 1996, and the scoping for the draft EIS
which included working with the Idaho Legislative Oversight Com-
mittee. And this process has taken more than two decades. Much
of this process is detailed in my formal testimony.
Clearly, it has been one of the most exhaustive such efforts that
my agency has undertaken. Hopefully, it ensures that whatever de-
cision is finally reached about the grizzly bear is based on the best
available science and takes fully into consideration the viewpoints
of everyone affected by the decision, including State and local gov-
ernments, businesses, conservation groups, and thousands of local
citizens, and the national public at large.
Third, the process is not yet completed. The draft EIS contains
four alternatives. The Interior Department has chosen a preferred
alternative and will publish the draft by the 1st of July. Congres-
sional members and their staff, as well as other key State, local,
and tribal participants will be fully briefed before the draft EIS is
released. The public will then have an opportunity to comment on
the draft.
Alternative one is the preferred alternative, and we believe it
contains a novel approach to ensuring continued participation by
local citizens in the reintroduction process. It proposes the creation
of a Citizen Management Committee tasked with management of
the grizzly bear populations recovery.
The idea for this committee was suggested by a diverse group of
Idaho timber owners, Idaho labor groups, the Intermountain Forest
Industry Association, Defenders of Wildlife, and the National Wild-
life Federation. In short, management for the Bitterroot grizzly
population would be delegated by the Interior Secretary to this cit-
izen group. The only stipulation would be that their decisions
would lead to the ultimate recovery of this population.
A 1995 survey conducted for IGBC showed that 62 percent of
local, 74 percent of regional, and 77 percent of national responses
were supportive of reintroducing grizzly bears into the Bitterroot.
But these views of the majority in no way depreciate the legitimate
concerns of others about the reintroduction, including issues of per-
sonal safety, and legality of the Citizen Management Committee.
10
And we believe this EIS process is the means by which this de-
bate should occur. We have addressed and continued to address
those concerns in the EIS process. In looking back over this proc-
ess, I believe that we have made strides in improving how the peo-
ple and their government can work together to find the solutions
to difficult conservation problems, and we look for more dialog on
this.
In closing, I would note that the Service has undertaken other
reintroductions of threatened and endangered species on Federal
land, including the gray wolf, the black-footed ferret, and the Cali-
fornia condor. As you know, these reintroductions were not without
controversy, and in each case the Service actively sought the in-
volvement of local communities. I am confident that a reintroduc-
tion of the grizzly bear to the Bitterroot would be successful and
that it would contribute greatly to the ultimate recovery and
delisting of the species. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[Statement of Mr. Morgenweck may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Dr. Morgenweck. Mr. Salwasser,
we welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HAL SALWASSER, REGIONAL FORESTER, USDA
FOREST SERVICE, MISSOULA, MONTANA
Mr. SALWASSER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for
this opportunity to discuss the reintroduction of endangered preda-
tors on Federal lands. The Forest Services multiple use manage-
ment responsibilities include the Endangered Species Act mandate
to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
on which they depend.
Coupled with our mandate from other statutes to provide for sus-
tained yields of many resource uses and to provide for diversity of
plants and animals, we manage Federal public land ecosystems for
a multitude of uses including the conservation of endangered spe-
cies.
Madam Chairman, about one-third of all species currently listed
as endangered or threatened in this country find their last and best
habitats on the national forests and grasslands. And we have suc-
cessfully protected and improved habitat for many of these species.
For example, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, grizzly bear, eastern
timber wolf, California condor, and Puerto Rican parrot have all
been or are being brought back from the brink of extinction
through Forest Service conservation actions. Through these recov-
ery efforts, we also preserve some of the cultural heritage of Amer-
ican Indian tribes.
As other lands and habitats come under increasing pressure to
provide home sites, food, and raw materials for people, public lands
become increasingly important places for the rare species or the
species at risk of extinction. Today, suitable habitat for the large
carnivores, the last pieces of Americas natural heritage of large
animals, is limited.
And road developments, developments for cities and towns, and
private land habitat losses constrain the distribution of these ani-
mals. Because these species and their habitats rarely conform to
lines on maps, the combined efforts of many agencies, organiza-
tions, and communities are needed to conserve these species.
11
The Forest Service, therefore, is only one of many cooperators

necessary to the survival of species at risk. We work closely with
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, who are the lead agencies in implementing the Endan-
gered Species Act. States are also partners, as well as the National
Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, tribes, and other Fed-
eral agencies.
In 1986, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee developed re-
covery guidelines to reduce human-caused mortality and to improve
habitat security. These guidelines are the main reason that grizzly
bears still exist in the lower 48 States and, in fact, thrive in two
of their ecosystems.
Concerns relating to grizzly bears center around four issues: pub-
lic safety, access restrictions, changes in economic opportunity, and
livestock depredation. I will briefly address each of these.
Public safety is the most significant concern in grizzly country.
We have found that the key to public safety in grizzly bear country
is education. For years, we have been working with local commu-
nities, the general public, and with outfitters and guides about liv-
ing and recreating safely in areas with grizzly bears. While encoun-
ters between grizzlies and humans do occur, these incidents are
rare. Education works.
Access to Federal lands is another major concern. To protect sen-
sitive public resources, we sometimes restrict access on roads into
certain areas. Sometimes restrictions are seasonal; for example,
closures to protect water quality or fisheries and reduce activities
that would cause erosion and sediment during rainy weather.
Seasonal restrictions also secure essential habitat for wildlife
such as protection of elk calving areas and grizzly spring range.
Sometimes the closures are permanent where roads are obliterated
to reduce administrative costs or environmental damage or to pro-
vide secure areas for wildlife.
Federal lands have many values including economic opportunity.
These values are in timber and grazing and a wide range of recre-
ation activities such as commercial outfitting and guiding services,
tourism, camping, picnicking, hiking, picking berries, hunting, fish-
ing, and watching and photographing wildlife.
In timber-producing areas where grizzly bears are present, con-
servation efforts have an effect on national forest timber produc-
tion. However, planning access and scheduling of sales does provide
for both grizzly bear recovery and some timber sales to go forward.
The quantity of timber available for harvest on national forests has
been most influenced by issues related to roadless areas, water
quality, and fisheries.
With large carnivores such as the grizzly bear, there is the po-
tential for livestock depredation. There are provisions within the
grizzly bear guidelines for rapid removal of animals that prey on
livestock. And in primary grizzly recovery habitats, livestock oper-
ations may be modifiedfor example, moving a sheep allotment
out of a recovery zonein order to reduce potential bear and live-
stock conflicts and still provide public land grazing.
To conclude, Madam Chairman, in recovery of any threatened or
endangered species, the Forest Service works together with other
Federal agencies, communities, States, tribes, organizations, and
12
individuals. We strive for the common goals of land stewardship

and sustainable resource uses.
I believe the best way to balance these potentially conflicting
goals is to work with communities of interestthat is, interests on
all sides of the issuesand with locally affected people in civil dis-
cussions to create areas of common agreement. To best serve the
people, we must work in an open, fair, and inclusive setting to
build community solutions on how to share the wealth and bounty
of our great public lands and resources. Madam Chairman, I would
be happy to answer any questions you or the Committee might
have.
[Statement of Mr. Salwasser may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank you, gentlemen, and the Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Montana for opening questions. Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I guess I would like to
start my questioning with Dr. Morgenweck. Just recently in the
press, and I think sometime in the last month or so, we had an in-
cident down in Red Lodge where a grizzly bear attacked a horse.
You are probably familiar with the incident.
Mr. MORGENWECK. I am.
Mr. HILL. And the woman who owned the horse got a .22 rifle
and shot at the bear in an effort to try to scare it away, and, by
golly, she shot it in the right place and she killed the bear. And
this bear was in the process of attacking her horse. In fact, it was
a prized horse. And she reported itappropriately reported it. An
investigation was conducted, and as I understand it, she has been
fined $1,600.
And, in addition to that, there was at least the potential for a
prison sentence for protecting her property. My question is that
under this reintroduction plan, would this citizens group have the
authority to provide for private property owners to protect their
property from grizzly bear attacks such as that?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Under the proposal in the alternative, it is
legal to defend ones life and the life of others in terms of killing
a bear. In terms of property damage, the proposal lays out a proc-
ess whereby nonlethal hazing could be used by a landowner if they
are having problems with livestock depredations.
Also the Citizen Management Committee would be asked to de-
velop a protocol for dealing with these kinds of situations. Under
the preferred alternative, if the management agencies have done
their best to capture the animal, to move it, or destroy it depending
on the circumstances, a permit could be issued to the landowner
that if they had further problems with the bear, the bear could be
taken. So we
Mr. HILL. But, I mean, in an instance where a personI mean,
the bear is in the process of attacking your livestock.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Right. The
Mr. HILL. The citizen wouldnt be empowered to act to protect
that livestock other than to go out there and wave their arms and
try to shoo the bear away. I mean, is that
Mr. MORGENWECK. Nonlethal hazing would be allowed. Yes, but
in a first instance, killing the bear would not be allowed.
Mr. HILL. I mean, you know, this management area has very
close proximity to a lot of citizens, a lot of people as I know you
13
know. In fact, I think that the management area goes right down
to Highway 93 or very close to Highway 93. There are a lot of peo-
ple there. There is a lot of livestock there. There are a lot of horses
there. I guess what I am asking is can any provision be made in
this management plan that would allow those property owners to
protect their property using lethal force or is that absolutely pro-
hibited?
Mr. MORGENWECK. That is a very difficult question because we
are trying to reach a balance between not being too precipitous in
terms of the use of lethal control and using it when called for. That
is one of the things that Mr. Salwasser mentioned about education
that I think we have learned with wolves, for example.
The first reaction by many ranchers was, We really need to be
able to kill wolves right off. However, we have found through our
process of working with individual ranchers that when they have
problems they have been willing to consider nonlethal controls,
nonlethal ways of dealing with wolves.
Obviously, there is a time when that may not work and the ani-
mals need to be taken. So I think this is a point of importance so
that in the course of reviewing the draft if other safeguards are
identified I think we would be happy to consider them.
Mr. HILL. Well, as you know, this area is a little bit different
than other areas where endangered species, particularly bears,
have been introduced because there are a lot of property owners
that areas are not in large landholdings anymore. There is a lot of
ranchette-type ownership. I mean, there are just a lot of livestock
there. One of the things I hear from the peoplethe residents of
that valley is this concern. And so that is why I have raised it with
you.
But, I mean, I think you would have to admit that nonlethal haz-
ing of a timber wolf and nonlethal hazing of a grizzly bear are two
different things. It takes a certain degree of courage to go after a
timber wolf. That takes a lot of courage to go out and haze a grizzly
bear. And there is serious concern in the valley if, in fact, you go
forward with regard to how this would impact private property,
particularly livestock.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Congressman Hill, the proposal would have
the release of the bears only north of the Salmon River, and we
would expect that given five animals or thereabouts, per year being
added, it would be many, many years before we were likely to have
enough bears to be spilling out in the other areas. Now
Mr. HILL. But I would caution you that when we reintroduced
timber wolves, I think you substantially misestimated the period of
time it was going to take to have full recovery but the impacts
would be how wide they ranged. I mean, I think you would admit
to that, wouldnt you?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I would admit that wolves are being more
successful in terms of reproduction than we predicted. On the other
hand, the level of problem we have had with livestock losses hasnt
been as bad as we thought it might. And a lot of that credit goes
to the individual landowners. We have been working with some
people who didnt like wolves very much and have become tolerant
of wolves. We have worked with them very well, and as a result
we find ourselves both from a biological standpoint and from a so-
14
cial standpoint, in a more positive place than we thought we might

be.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hill, we will return for another round of
questioning. Dr. Morgenweck, you announced today the issuance of
your draft environmental impact statement and the fact that you
have chosen alternative number 1 as the preferred alternative. Is
that correct?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that decision was announced today?
Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Did that have anything to do with these hear-
ings that are being held today?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I dont think so. Actually, we had planned to
have this document done last fall. It has been a long review process
including legal review and departmental review, until we simply
got to the review concluded.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are all the permits in place? For instance, the
document of decision or a decision of record from the State?
Mr. MORGENWECK. We have to remember that at this point we
are not ready to reintroduce grizzly bears. All that we are talking
about is a decision on the content and release of a draft environ-
mental impact statement, which means that once the draft is re-
leased, there is a lot of dialog, meetings, and public comment to
reach a decision as to which alternative should be pursued. So any
issues about permits related to a reintroduction would be some-
thing that would have to be dealt with in the future. And I might
add I apologize for the delay of the release of the EIS.
Dr. Servheen points out to me that under the preferred alter-
native, on private landsgetting back to Congressman Hills ques-
tionon private lands, bears involved in the act of taking livestock
would be allowed to be killed on those private lands and that bears
getting down into the Bitterroot Valley, in among people, would be
captured and moved back or removed lethally depending on the cir-
cumstances.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you remember the case of John Shuler in
Montana where two bears were in his sheep pens?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I am sorry. I dont remember the details.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And a grizzly bear charged him, and he killed
the bear on his own property. And the Fish and Wildlife Service
brought suit against him for illegally taking a grizzly bear?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Again, I think it is important to remember
that the management of bears in the populations that currently
exist are different or would be different than with the reintroduced
population. That is the point of having the experimental non-
essential designation in that we can custom cut the management
and the rules associated with how bears are treated for that par-
ticular area. That is one of the powerful incentives for reintroduc-
tion. The rules are set through a rulemaking process. That is the
flexibility that was given to us in 1982 when the Endangered Spe-
cies Act was amended.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, help me understand this. If a bear is de-
termined to be a bear that was reintroduced and it is charging a
person and that person is on his own property and that individual
15
protects his life by shooting the bear, that is OK. But if it is deter-
mined it was a native grizzly bear by chance, then he cannot pro-
tect himself. Right?
Mr. MORGENWECK. No. If we reintroduce the bears into the Bit-
terroot, for example, all the bears that are there would be consid-
ered products of reintroduction because you cant, obviously, tell
them apart unless they are marked. In the example you gave the
person was protecting his life, thus it would be legal for him to kill
the bear.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you dont see an inconsistency between
the bears in Idaho, if this reintroduction should proceed, and the
bear that Mr. Shuler encountered on his own property?
Mr. MORGENWECK. The inconsistency, perhaps, is that there are
different rules that would be applied in a reintroduced population.
Now, while I am not familiar with the specifics of Mr. Shulers situ-
ation, if a person is defending their life or the life of another per-
son, it is legal to kill the bear. Now, if Mr. Shuler was prosecuted,
there must have been some reason to suspect that the cir-
cumstances were other than that. But I just dont know the par-
ticulars of that situation.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you please submit for the Committee
your analysis of the case after you have read it?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. I would be happy to.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. And Mountain States Legal Founda-
tion is now defending Mr. Shuler
Mr. MORGENWECK. All right.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] in his appeal. We will go for an-
other round of questioning. Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you again, Madam Chairman. Dr. Morgenweck,
one of the situations that we have with I guess two of our bear re-
covery areasone is Bob Marshall and the other is the Mission
Mountainis that there is now an argument that in order for those
populations to be sustained, we have to link those two populations
so that bears can freely migrate between and interbreeding of
bears. Is there any likelihood that if bears are recovered in the Bit-
terroot-Selway that we are then going to be faced with that argu-
ment with regard to that bear population as well?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Throughout the whole process of developing
the new recovery plan that we approved in 1993, there has been
the question of do we have to have linkage zones between the var-
ious populations of bears, and that is an analysis that has been
going on.
In some situations we have looked at trying to find ways of
reaching agreements with private landowners to protect bear habi-
tat, that sort of thing. I believe that Dr. Servheen has been work-
ing with the county and some of these issues to try to find ways
of allowing bears to move within one of the ecosystems and be-
tween various parts of the ecosystem.
I dont know the answer to the linkage zone question other than
we have been evaluating it. There is an alternative in the EIS, al-
ternative four I believe it is to look at a linkage zone between the
Bitterroot and the Cabinet-Yaak so that question of linkage re-
mains. However, at this point, we have not felt the necessity to
have linkage zones between ecosystemssay between the Cabinet-
16
Yaak and the Bitterroot, between Yellowstone and the Northern

Continental Divide, for example.
Mr. HILL. So let me just be clear that I understand your answer,
your answer then is that that could happen? I mean, if we have
a reestablished bear population in this area that we could then
down the road be faced with this issue of linking this population
with Cabinet Mountains, for example, which would impact a sub-
stantial amount of private property. Is that correct?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I believe there are groups that would
make that argument. It is our position that it is not necessary.
Mr. HILL. But, I mean, that position could change. Right?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I suppose that is always possible, but I think
it is pretty doubtful. I think that biologically speaking we feel com-
fortable that the population could exist unto itself in the Bitter-
roots.
Mr. HILL. I mean, I just have to point out to you that, you know,
up in the Flathead Forest when we started a recovery plan for griz-
zly bears, the rules of the game changed since that period of time.
And citizens have great concern that we may have a very well-in-
tentioned effort now to involve citizens to write rules of the game
but that those rules might get changed and so there is some con-
cern about that.
But I will have some questions about that later. But there is a
possibility that we could be faced then with a later argument once
bears are recovered in this area that we then have to go to the next
step and link this population with another population?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I, frankly, think that if we are successful in
the Bitterroot, we reduce the argument that we have to have link-
age zones. One of the major reasons is that if we are successful in
the reintroduction in the Bitterroot, we will be adding about 25
percent to the occupied bear habitat in the country.
And if we get to, say, 280 bears or something like that ultimately
in 110 years or however long the estimate is, we would have added
20 to 30 percent to the total bear population of the lower 48. I
think that reduces rather than enhances the argument for linkage
zones because the bigger area we have, the more populations we
have, I think the stronger our arguments are that we dont have
to link them.
Mr. HILL. OK. Thank you. This population would be designated
as an experimental population. Does that designation remain with
this population of grizzly bears forever, or would that designation
later be changed or could it later be changed?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not aware under any circumstances that
it would be changed or could be changed but that it would remain.
Our objective would be to have it remain experimental nonessential
until the point of delisting.
Mr. HILL. OK. And with regard to the citizens group that would
be established to develop the management plan, would this citizen
group have all the authority of the Secretary? When the Secretary
gives them authority, do they have all the authority of the Sec-
retary?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not exactly sure what the formal mecha-
nism would be, whether there would be a delegation order to the
Citizen Management Committee, but the intention of our special
17
rule is that they be delegated management authority. The only

source of review is the Secretary because by law he has the ulti-
mate authority.
Mr. HILL. And he could take that authority back from them?
Mr. MORGENWECK. According to the rule, under certain cir-
cumstances, and those circumstances are very narrow. If the Sec-
retary was to make a finding that the decisions and actions by the
Citizen Management Committee are not in the best interests of
conservation of the bear or essentially that it is not leading to the
recovery of the bear, then the Secretary would have to make known
the specific concerns that he has and give the committee a 6-month
period of time to make whatever are the required changes in terms
of their decisions.
Mr. HILL. But all that orientation is toward recovery of the bear?
Mr. HILL. I mean, there is no other consideration for the other
balanced values that might exist there?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I think that one of the arguments that
we have to be aware of when we are making arguments about con-
servation of the bear is sometimes the conservation of a species
does involve the taking of the species. For example, we think that
taking depredating wolves is an action that can be found in favor
of the conservation of wolves. Because if depredating wolves were
not removed, the attitudes and the support for the wolves would
decrease.
So long-term, it is better and it is in the conservation interests
of the wolf to have those animals taken out. So I think we have
to remember that that argument is a powerful argument, and I
think you could make the same argument for depredating bears in
certain situations.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, doctor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes the ranking Minority
member, Mr. Hinchey, from New York whom I just asked if he
wanted the bears, and he said he was loaded for bear. So the Chair
would like to hear from the ranking member with his opening
statement.
Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman,
and good morning, gentlemen. It is very nice to see you. I appre-
ciate the announcement that you made today. It is a step forward
I think. It is an attempt to bring people in and to get their advice
and to try to improve this process by involving a broad array of
citizens, and I congratulate you for that initiative.
There is, of course, a great deal of concern on the part of people
in the areas where grizzly bears are proposed to be introduced.
Their concerns relate to issues of safety, obviouslysafety for
themselves, for members of their family, for people who work in the
area, or livestockthings of that nature. And I think that that is
to be expected, and it is a reasonable concern.
Our responsibilityparticularly yours I thinkis if it is possible
to do so to allay those fears. And so I would ask you, for example,
what experience have we had in parts of Idaho and elsewhere
where the grizzly bear currently resides in its present habitat? I
understand the Bitterroot Range, for example, is a place where we
have had some experience in that regard. Have people been
18
mauled? Have there been any deaths? Have there been any inju-
ries? What has been the experience with livestock in those areas
where the grizzly bear currently resides?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Thank you for the question. I think that
human safety is probably the number 1 concern. I think you are
right on there. It is an issue that we must absolutely be most care-
ful about. What we believe in terms of projecting is that when
assuming that we were reintroducing bears in the Bitterroot and
they reached 280 bears, which is approximately what we believe
full recovery would be there, we believe that the densities
Mr. HINCHEY. Excuse me, sir. Could you speak into that micro-
phone? I am having a hard time hearing you.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Thank you. Excuse me. At the point of full re-
covery in the Bitterroot, which we believe would hold about 280
bears at the time, we believe those densities would be similar to
areas outside of the national parks but still in bear country in the
Yellowstone area.
And, for example, within the Northern Continental Divide Eco-
system outside of Glacier National Park, there have been two bear
injuries since 1950. One was a mortality and one was an injury.
And the injury rate in the Yellowstone area but outside the park,
while it has been increasing over the last couple of decades because
there are more and more bears in the Yellowstone area, averages
about one injury per year. And outside the Yellowstone Park area,
in the last 156 years, there have been three grizzly bear inflicted
human mortalities. So bears are dangerous, but the rate of injury
is not high.
Now, I think the question is how can we deal with this situation,
whether it is one injury or five injuries or whatever? I think Dr.
Salwasser really raised the issue of eduction. The States and the
Forest Service and the Park Service have worked extensively with
the back country outfitters.
They have worked with the public working on such things as
camp sanitation, how to act when you are hiking in the country
where there are grizzly bears to minimize the possibility of getting
into trouble with a bear. They have worked extensively with sani-
tation of camps in the back country, garbage sanitation, working
with private ranchers to deal with dead livestock and cattle feed,
horse feed, that sort of thing.
I think that is one of the most important things that we can do
in advance of any release of grizzly bears. In the proposal, there
would be at least 1 year where issues of sanitation education are
focused on very, very heavily before the bears are reintroduced.
Mr. HINCHEY. So the experience has been that bears do injure
peopleexperience has been that these bears do, in fact, injure
people. I would be curious to knowmore than curiousI think it
is important informationI would like to know the circumstances
surrounding those injuries and the deaths that you mentioned.
What were people doing? What was happening in those particular
instances?
Mr. MORGENWECK. In the two instances that I mentioned outside
of Glacier Park, they were both hunting related I believe. In one
case, a hunter shot a bear that apparently he believed was a threat
to him, and the bear in turn then killed the hunter. In the other
19
case, it was a bird hunter, and the hunter shot the bear and the
bear mauled him but did not kill him.
So there are a variety of circumstances that the Chairman men-
tioned and other situations. Sometimes hikers may get caught be-
tween a sow and her cubs. Again, minimizing this is really, really
important and teaching people how to minimize it is absolutely es-
sential.
Mr. HINCHEY. I would agree completely that a lot of it has to do
with education, and that is very, very important. The citizens man-
agement initiative that you have described I think is a very inter-
esting experiment, and it demonstrates, of course, an opportunity
for an unusual collaboration between representatives of the govern-
ment and citizens at the local level.
How do you expect this thing to work? Will this be an advisory
board? How much power will they have? How much influence are
they going to exercise over decisions that will be made? Will their
recommendations be controlling? How do you see the citizens advi-
sory panel fitting into your initiatives and responsibilities and the
decisions that will flow from this?
Mr. MORGENWECK. First of all, the Citizen Management Com-
mittee is a brand new concept. We have never tried it before. It is
an attempt by our agency and the Department to make the ESA
more friendly to local people and to users of resources. We believe
that the management responsibility will be delegated to the Citizen
Management Committee, and they will be making the management
decisions.
The only oversight is the Secretarys review, and his review is
fairly narrow in our view. So I believe that the Citizen Manage-
ment Committee will be the decisionmakers, and it will be up to
the land managing agencies to appropriately carry out those actual
management actions.
Mr. HINCHEY. So as I understand it, the Citizen Management
Committee will be making the decisions. Their decisions will be
controlling subject to review by the Secretary?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Correct.
Mr. HINCHEY. And what happens if they make mistakes? What
happens if they go awry? What will occur there? Would it just be
that the Secretary will step in and take some action?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. If there are some serious mistakes made
where the Citizen Management Committee appears to be going in
a wrong direction as opposed to an isolated mistake that we all
make, the Secretary under the rule would have the responsibility
to inform the committee of what he believes is the problem and
give the Citizen Committee 6 months to fix that situation. Then if
those things are fixed, they continue on as before. If they would not
be fixed and the Secretary believed that it was serious enough, he
could take back the management responsibility.
Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair-
man.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. Dr. Morgenweck, I
wanted to followup on the line of questioning from my colleague
from New York. I am reading from Section 14 of the 10[j] revised
draft of May 20, 1996. Now, has that been changed or altered?
20
Mr. MORGENWECK. There have been modifications to it since that

time.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you produce one for me now?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I cant right now.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you have one with you?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I dont have one with me.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. What kind of modifications have
been made?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I am notOK. Dr. Servheen informs me that
item 14 remains the same.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Item 14 remains the same?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Right.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. With regards to item 14, it is pretty clear that
the committee does not really have the ability to do any more than
suggest policy because it reads if the Secretary determines through
his representativesthat could be you or any Fish and Wildlife
Service member or Fish and Wildlife Service agent out in the
fieldif they determine that the decisions of the committee are not
leading to the recovery of the grizzly bear within the experimental
area, then the Service shall solicit from the committee a determina-
tion whether the decision, the plan, or implementation of compo-
nents of the plan are leading to a recovery.
Then it goes on to say notwithstanding a determination by the
committee. So the committee makes a determination but notwith-
standing the determination by the committee that a decision is
leading to the recovery of the grizzly bearnotwithstanding, the
Secretary of the Interior may find that the decision is inadequate
for recovery and will assume management authority. It doesnt look
to me like the committee has much authority.
If, for instance, the Secretary says, You havent closed enough
roads. There is still some multiple use activity going on. You
havent managed for the prey base for the grizzly, or whatever,
then whatever may be out there that the agency may think of, and
if the committee deems that it is not the right thing to do, they
have no authority whatsoever. Isnt that correct?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I believe that the Citizen Management Com-
mittee has a great deal of authority to implement the recovery plan
for the bear, to develop the management plans and policies for that
population, to establish the protocols for reaction to human and
livestock safety issues, to refine the recovery goals, and to ulti-
mately determine whether or not the reintroduction is successful.
So I believe that they have a great deal of authority, though we
recognize that the Secretary has the ultimate statutory authority.
That was part of the reason that we put in the requirement for the
Secretary to communicate with the Citizen Management Com-
mittee; if the Secretary believes that there is some error in direc-
tion there is an opportunity to have a dialog and hopefully agree-
ment upon the part of the committee and the Secretary that some
course of action can be taken that clears up whatever the problem
is.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think it is pretty clear that the committee
has the ability to develop, implement, determine, but they dont
have the ability to make decisionsfinal decisions. And I am not
at all comfortable with this until they do.
21
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, Madam Chairman, I think that if there

are suggestions that you have or that anyone has, frankly, about
the Citizen Management Committee in terms of clarifying its au-
thorities, strengthening them within the ESA, we would be very
pleased to consider those and have a dialog with you and other
members about that point because it is a crucial point. It is abso-
lutely key to that alternative.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Has the Service thought about liability that
the Citizen Management Committee would be assuming in devel-
oping, implementing, determining, evaluating all of these things?
What if someone is killed or injured? They have put themselves in
a position of being personally liable.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I am not an attorney, Madam Chair-
man, but in discussions with our attorneys, our Solicitors Office
does not feel that the members of the Citizen Management Com-
mittee are going to be held personally liable. Obviously, the actions
that are going to be carried out are going to be carried out by the
agencies, i.e., removing a bear, et cetera. So I think that the liabil-
ity rests, where it always has, with the agencies.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Arent you under the doctrine of sovereign im-
munity? I mean, people can sue you if you give them your permis-
sion. Right?
Mr. MORGENWECK. They also can sue us for torts and also, of
course, under the ESA. So we do perhaps have some protections,
but we also believe that that is a point that if there needs to be
more legal discussion on, then perhaps that is a good point to dis-
cuss.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Dr. Morgenweck. I am very con-
cerned about the liability in the fact that I dont believe that the
government can extend immunity to members of this Citizens Man-
agement Committee. We are going to go for another round of ques-
tioning, but before we do that, you have just listed the bull trout
in Idaho. And the Governor had proposed to put together a State
plan. It wouldnt be a plan by a Citizen Management Committee,
it was a State plan under the direction of the Idaho Fish and
Game.
And that was ignored, and you went ahead and listed it even
though Secretary Babbitt had promised the Governor that they
would work it out so that the State can manage the bull trout,
which is a resident fish. If the Federal agency acted this way with
the Governor and the Director of Fish and Game, why do we have
any confidence that you would act any better with private citizens
making up a Citizen Management Committee?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, a two-part answer. First of all, I apolo-
gize. I am not that familiar with the details of the bull trout be-
cause bureaucratically it is in the lead of a different service region.
But one difference between whatever the conservation agreement
attempts were for bull trout and the case of grizzly bears, is the
bear management is in a regulation. So the agreements in a rule-
making as opposed to whatever agreements had been reached rel-
ative to the bull trout are much more explicit and much more bind-
ing.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think that the very word of the agency is in
question here because the Secretary himself promised our Governor
22
personally that the State could manage the bull trout. Then the
agency acted otherwise. So
Mr. MORGENWECK. I recognize that credibility is a crucial issue
for the Service in dealing with the Endangered Species Act and all
kinds of situations. One of the things that we are trying to do bet-
ter is to interact with local units of government and with the
States to do a better job in those communications.
Now, one of the things that we cant always control are lawsuits.
Many times what we want to do or our agreements are overturned
because someone sues. I believe in the case of the bull trout there
was a lawsuit, and I believe it was because of that lawsuit that the
new petition finding was dictated by the Court. And as a result, I
believe a proposal to list may well be in the offing.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And the suitthe case was what?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service
was sued on warranted but precluded petition finding of some time
back. The Fish and Wildlife was sued and I believe the Court or-
dered that a new finding be made, and I believe, the Court gave
the Fish and Wildlife Service a date for the new finding. Like I
said, I dont have the lead on that so I dont know all the details.
And if you wish, perhaps we could provide some details with dates
and all that that would be more helpful than my testimony.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. But for the record, the Court did not order the
Fish and Wildlife Service to list the species and manage it in Idaho
over and above the desires of the State?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, the Court ordered
Mrs. CHENOWETH. They asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to
complete their documentation on no significant finding?
Mr. MORGENWECK. No. The Fish and Wildlife Service can be peti-
tioned, as can the National Marine Fisheries Service, to list a spe-
cies. We made one finding which I believe was a finding that the
listing was warranted but it was precluded by other higher priority
species. I believe that was the finding. Then a lawsuit ensued after
to overturn that finding, and the Court ordered the Fish and Wild-
life Service to make a new finding on that petition based upon the
existing information at the time which I believe was up to 1994 or
1995something like that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York for further questioning.
Mr. HINCHEY. I have nothing further.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Mr. Vento, do you have questions?
Mr. VENTO. Yes, I do. As I understand the announcement this
morning, Director Morgenweck, is that the Administration is going
to pursue the citizens group as an advisory group or as a manage-
ment group of the grizzly reintroduction. Is that correct?
Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct. That is the preferred alter-
native for the EIS process.
Mr. VENTO. And so the Secretary willhe delegates this author-
ity administratively, in other words, within the context of the law,
but he still retains responsibility in the end. In other words, if they
go off the deep end, then he has to, obviously, intercede. Is that
correct?
23
Mr. VENTO. So you dont know. We havent tried this particular

method before or this particular model?
Mr. MORGENWECK. We never have and, in part, it was to the
credit of some members of the industrytimber industry and labor
groups in Idaho and the Intermountain Forestry Association and
National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlifewho built the
coalition and suggested this alternative. And it is to their credit
that they really reached out to bring together different views on
this and fashioned this alternative.
Mr. VENTO. So, I mean, the issue is that, for instance, in this
particular model, he is depending upon the Governors to make
some appointments from Idaho and Montana. Is that correct?
Mr. MORGENWECK. That is correct. Our proposal is that there
would be 15 members on the management committee. Seven of
those would be from Idaho with the Governor recommending per-
sons to the Secretary and the Secretary would then appoint them;
five from Montana; one from thenamed by the Department of Ag-
riculture; one from the Fish and Wildlife Service; and one from the
Nez Perce tribe.
Mr. VENTO. So what do you anticipate in terms of theirthey
would be meeting on a monthly basis? They would all be from
those regions?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Our intention is that the people be local, and
that they would be meeting pretty frequently early on to lay out
what needs to be done in terms of the education component, setting
the protocols for dealing with nuisance bears. So I would think that
early on the meetings would be quite frequent and probably quite
lively.
Mr. VENTO. The issue, of course, would be that the Secretary still
would be responsible for the administration of the species. Is that
correct?
Mr. VENTO. I mean, so he would, obviously, relyone of the
things pointed out is thatin this document that if there is a dis-
agreement between the Secretary and the citizens management
group that they would have 6 months to redo the proposal. That
seems to be an excessive amount of time, you know, considering the
immediacy of some of the problems when there are disagreements.
What was the basis for that? I mean, I dont anticipate that. I
would hope that there wouldnt be those types of disagreements,
but if there are, it seems to me that permitting something to go on
for 6 months on some minor points I guess, but if it is major
points, it would seem to be an excessive amount of time.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, Congressman Vento, this is one of those
situations where, well, we have never tried this before, and we felt
that 6 months would give people a reasonable amount of time to
try to work through it.
Certainly if it is a critical issue, I believe that we could deal with
it more quickly than that in terms of getting the input from the
Secretary and dealing with the issues with the Citizen Manage-
ment Committee. So I think that we could certainly accelerate
those key issues. Again, this is a proposal, and I think that anyone
who has ideas or comment about that very point
24
Mr. VENTO. Well, let me ask you another question because I dont
have much time. What do you expect the life of this particular citi-
zens management group? I mean, obviously, what is your anticipa-
tion in terms of reestablishing the grizzly bear in the Bitterroots
area between Montana and Idaho? How long will this group have
to be in existence? Is this for 5 years? Is this for a longer or shorter
period of time?
Mr. MORGENWECK. We believe that they would be in existence
until the point in which the bear is recovered in the Bitterroot be-
cause there would need to be management decisions made.
Mr. VENTO. Well, what does your modeling tell you with regards
to that, or is it not that accurate? If it is not that accurate
Mr. MORGENWECK. Fifty to one hundred plus years.
Mr. VENTO. Fifty to one hundred years and youd think thatbut
once the policies have become regularized in terms of understood,
then there wouldnt be any need for this particular group, would
there?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, there would still be a need to have the
group in case there were decisions to be made, but hopefully it
would become regular after, you know, a relatively short period of
time and so the frequency of meeting may diminish.
Mr. VENTO. You work very closely with the Montana counter-
parts in terms of Fish and Wildlife Service in Idaho, do you not,
in this instance?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes, we do.
Mr. VENTO. And so are they in concert with you? What would
their participationdo you expect that some of them might be ap-
pointed to such a formal panel?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. It would
Mr. VENTO. But these types of arrangements now take place in-
formally. They are collaborative, arent they?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. We certainly try to do that. There are
differences of opinions at times as well.
Mr. VENTO. Well, there are differences between the agencies and
departments. Someone has to make the decision, obviously, with
regards to these issues. The question of liability came up though.
Have you been recently sued because of a wildlife species that you
manage injuring an individual like buffalo in Yellowstone or some-
thing?
Mr. MORGENWECK. We have not.
Mr. VENTO. So, I mean, there are no cases like that in terms of
where individuals have been or recovered I guess in terms of puni-
tive damage in terms of a speciesI mean, taking on assumptions
of livestock depredation and so forth. Is there a plan in place to
deal with the livestock depredation? I know we have that with the
gray wolf, like all the timber wolves in Minnesota where they have
picked up the costs of that. From time to time, there has been con-
troversy about it. Is there a depredation provision for punitive loss
in terms of cattle or other types of loss that you anticipate would
be in place in this plan?
Mr. MORGENWECK. We would anticipate trying to create or have
created a private fund for reimbursing losses of livestock.
25
Mr. VENTO. Well, that would be one of the tasks of this citizens
management group that would look at that as an alternative if it
is necessary?
Mr. MORGENWECK. It could well be.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Vento, we will return for another round
of questions.
Mr. VENTO. Oh, we are on the 5-minute rule. Oh, OK. I didnt
know. Thanks.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Col-
orado, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr.
Morgenweckjust tell me if this has already been covered, Madam
Chair. I am sorry. I recently arrived. This may have been covered,
but the State of Idaho, as I understandrecently the legislature
adopted a resolution basically asking that these grizzly bears not
be reintroduced. Are you familiar with that resolution?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. I am aware of it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. What kind of consideration has your agency given
to that resolution?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, we certainly are aware of the positions
of the Governor and the legislature and other units of government
in terms of their opposition. And so we consider that very carefully.
We also are interested in understanding better the basis for the op-
position, and also we remain interested in the conservation of the
bear. Also we are interested in the public opinion surveys that have
been donethere have been two nowone in 1995 and one just re-
cently that indicate strong support among the public for
Mr. SCHAFFER. So is it your contention that the public opinion
surveys are still relevant in the face of a decision and a resolution
adopted by an elected legislature?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I believe they are relevant. How much weight
one puts on it one can argue about, but I think it is an indication
that there is not unanimous feelings among the populace that griz-
zly bear reintroduction is simply something that shouldnt be dis-
cussed.
Mr. SCHAFFER. No. There is no unanimous decision on this or
many decisions, but there is a majority opinion certainly as rep-
resented by the legislature which is thewhat as the Federal Gov-
ernmentat least the Constitution that I still believe in suggests
that we should defer to, as a matter of fact.
I guess the question I just want to get to is do you and your De-
partment intend to honor theyou mentioned the negotiations, the
discussions that are going on with the State. That seems to be pret-
ty definitive to me with respect to Idaho as one State. And I just
want to know whether you will abide by it or be persuaded by it
or whether you intend to ignore it?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Remembering now where we are in this
whole process, that we are talking about the release of a draft envi-
ronmental impact statement which then involves taking comment
from the public, from elected officials, all interested parties. Now,
what the ultimate decision will be relative to the four alternatives,
I dont know.
We are trying to emphasize is the dialog surrounding the EIS
where issues raised by the legislature are legitimately considered
26
issues raised by the stockmen, issues raised by the public in terms

of their human safety. All of those things have to be weighed, but
there is no formula for how one balances those things off. But
clearly those are important and legitimate concerns, and they are
concerns that we need to understand and listen to.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Can you tell me definitively whether your Depart-
ment intends to honor the stated sentiment of the Idaho legislature
in this House Joint Memorial Number 2 that they had passed and
forwarded to your office?
Mr. MORGENWECK. The only thing that I can say is I really dont
know because the EIS is the process of discussing the
alternative
Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me restate it if you really dont know. Do you
have any plans to honor it at the moment?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Again, I am sorry I cant give you the kind
of definitive answer you want because we are in the midst of a
process that will ultimately lead to that decision, but that decision
is sometime off. So I dont know the answer.
Mr. SCHAFFER. But the answer is that you dont have any plans
to honor this as you sit here before us today. Is that correct or am
I in error?
Mr. MORGENWECK. We consider that as important input into the
process of making that decision, but the decision has not been
made. So, therefore, I cant say that we are going to abide by that
resolution. That decision will be made sometime in the future after
much more discussion so I am sorry I just cant give you the sort
of definitive answer that I think you would like to have.
Mr. SCHAFFER. How much authority has the Department of the
Interior deferred to the Citizen Management Committee that is in-
volved in these listing issues and ultimately formulating the De-
partments response to the bear?
Mr. MORGENWECK. You mentioned listing. In listing
Mr. SCHAFFER. It is already listed I guess.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Right. That is correct.
Mr. SCHAFFER. In terms of the management authority, how much
authority has been delegated to them by your Department?
Mr. MORGENWECK. As I said earlier, one thing to keep in mind
is that this is the first time that we have ever had a proposal like
thisto have a Citizen Management Committee. We have, we be-
lieve, delegated to them the implementation of the recovery plan,
the development of management plans and policies for the manage-
ment of the reintroduced grizzlies, the development of the nec-
essary work plans for what should be done in directing the recov-
ery effort, and establishing how management should respond to the
livestock and human safety issues. They would also have the au-
thority to refine the recovery goalsthat is, the definition of how
many bears is enough to delist itand also to make the determina-
tion as to whether or not the reintroduction was successful.
Mr. SCHAFFER. We are out of time, and I dont want you to elabo-
rate anymore at this point. But could you submit for our record at
a later point of time the specific legislative authority or whatever
authority you cite in delegating that much authority to this man-
agement commission?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes.
27
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. The Chair recog-
nizes Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to stay on
this citizen thing just for a couple more minutes. Frankly, one of
the things I would like to just suggest is thatand I am not yet
endorsing the reintroduction of grizzlies I just want to make
clearbut if this does go forward, I really think you ought to think
about having legislative authority established for this citizens
group and what power they have and what their existence would
be.
And, frankly, I want to encourage you. To the extent that you are
creating a citizens group here, I think it ought to be encouraged.
And I am a strong advocate of local involvement and local control.
One of the concerns I have in this instance is that the collaborative
process that took place left a lot of people out.
It did involve some of the important interests there, but I think
hunters and motorized recreationists, local residents, agricultural
interests were kind of left out of the process. And so that makes
it a little more difficult I think to build consensus in the commu-
nity. And it is my sense the closer you get to where the grizzly
bears are, the greater the resistance is to the reintroduction.
And, Hal, I dont want you to be left out of all this. I notice that
you are sitting over there and nobody is asking you questions. Let
me ask you a few questions because whenever you have bears and
people, access and roads become an issue. Do you know approxi-
mately how many miles of roads exist in this area now?
Mr. SALWASSER. In miles of roads?
Mr. HILL. I am talking about logging roads public
Mr. SALWASSER. In the proposed recovery area
Mr. HILL. Yes.
Mr. SALWASSER. [continuing] Selway-Bitterroot?
Mr. HILL. Yes.
Mr. SALWASSER. Zero. It is wilderness.
Mr. HILL. Well, but we are going beyondthe recovery area is
going beyond just the wilderness area, and that is where you are
going to reintroduce them. But the anticipated recovery area
Mr. SALWASSER. If you get outside of that wilderness area, there
would be some roads. But I couldnt give you an estimate of how
many miles of roads would be in that area.
Mr. HILL. There is some Forest Service land that exists outside
the wilderness area
Mr. SALWASSER. Correct.
Mr. HILL. [continuing] of which there are currently roads, access
roads. You dont know how many miles of roads that constitutes?
Mr. SALWASSER. I dont have that information.
Mr. HILL. Could you provide that for us?
Mr. SALWASSER. I think we can. I think we probably have an
overlay and a data base from the Columbia project that we could
estimate the number of miles of roads in the larger area.
Mr. HILL. And in concert with that, now, obviously, road closure
is one of the tools that is used for the management of reintroduc-
tion of grizzly bears. If you could provide us some estimate of what
you think might be road closures in association with what might
28
be a recovery plan? I know since a recovery plan doesnt exist, it

is pretty hard for you to do. But if you could provide us some esti-
mates of that, that would be pretty valuable to us.
Mr. SALWASSER. Right now I can tell you that the plans for road
access management in the area outside the wilderness area would
be exactly what is in the forest plans as of this date.
Mr. HILL. And what does that call for for reduction of access or
motorized access?
Mr. SALWASSER. It would be variable by different areas and by
season of year, and I would have to give you the standards from
the individual forest plans to show you what that might be.
Mr. HILL. But you are saying at this point you dont think there
would be any change in that?
Mr. SALWASSER. My understanding of the information that is in
the proposed Citizen Management Committee approach is that the
standards that are in the current forest plans are judged to be ade-
quate for grizzly bear recovery.
Mr. HILL. So would it be your view then thatjust so that I am
clear on thisthat snowmobilers and four-wheelers and those mo-
torized groups, they will not see diminished access to the public
land areas that surround the wilderness as a consequence of this?
Mr. SALWASSER. Yes. There would be no change from what is in
the forest plans, and it wouldnt be a result of the nonessential pop-
ulation of grizzly bears unless the Citizen Management Committee
were to make a decision otherwise.
Mr. HILL. OK. And one of the things that occurs in grizzly areas
now is that there are restrictions on hunting, restrictions on camp-
ing, hiking based upon bear activity. Who would be making the de-
cisions if there were going to be restrictions on those kinds of uses
either in the wilderness area or outside the wilderness area under
this proposed alternative?
Mr. SALWASSER. My understanding is that the Citizen Manage-
ment Committee would be the one that would make the decisions
on changes and any of the provisions for what kinds of activities
are allowed at different seasons of the year.
Mr. HILL. But I am thinking morefor example, we will have an
incident of bear encounter so campground is closed; bear encounter,
hunting areas are closed down. Who would be making those deci-
sions?
Mr. SALWASSER. I would imagine for efficiency purposes that the
Citizen Management Committee would set up a set of criteria or
a framework for how those decisions would be made, but the day-
to-day implementation of them, the onsite decision would be in the
hands of the local Forest Service officials as long as they are con-
sistent with the guidelines and the framework set by the Citizen
Management Committee. We wouldnt have to convene the com-
mittee every time a bear encountered somebody in a campground.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Morgenweck, you have identified, I think at least
on a preliminary basis, 280 bears would be the recovered bear pop-
ulation. Is that correct?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes, approximately that. Again, we would
have tothe Citizen Management Committee would need to look
at that as time went on to judge
29
Mr. HILL. And then they could make that 250 or 200 or what-
ever. Why 280? What evidence do you have that 280 grizzly bears
lived in that vicinity at some point in time in the history? Where
did that number come from?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, it is based upon evaluations of habitat
that have occurred over the years in the Bitterroot and looking at
the quality of the food, the isolation, the factors related to grizzly
bear biology. It is an estimate that has been made by some of our
grizzly bear biologists.
Mr. HILL. So basically what you are saying is that you think the
area could sustain 280 bears so that is why you picked that num-
ber?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Correct.
Mr. HILL. There is some concern in that area that that number
is so large that it is going to increase the likelihood of encounters
with the residents and the recreationists in that area. Was that
taken into consideration in establishing that number?
Mr. MORGENWECK. The number was driven largely by biology
but
Mr. HILL. Not by economics, not by social factors, but simply by
biology?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Largely by biology. And, again, there are so
many factors that need to be considered as time goes on. That is
one of the reasons for having the Citizen Management Committee
have the authority to refine that number because if there are situa-
tions that are arising, they can adjust the number, as well as the
management, to deal with whatever problems come up.
Mr. HILL. Which is one of the concerns of the citizens there is
changing targetsis one of the concerns. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Dr. Morgenweck, you
testified that there were no lawsuits with regards to grizzly bear
attacks, and yet a ranger in Glacier National Park, Montana, is
suing the Federal Government because of emotional and physical
scars left from a grizzly rampage at a park campground in 1995.
A number of unreported bear encounters occurred shortly before
the ranger and friends had their tents ripped through and were at-
tacked by grizzly bears early in the morning. The attack left the
ranger with a number of disfiguring scars.
Furthermore, in August 1996, a man who was on a hiking trip
was killed by a grizzly bear in Alaska. The man and his friends
had taken all of the suggested precautions in going into known
bear country such as wearing bear bells and making noise while
they hiked through the brush. The attack was quick, and the man
was killed very rapidly.
I am reading to you from press accounts that indeed there are
more than the very rare instances of bears attacking humans. In
June 1996, an elderly man hiking a common ground trail in Glacier
National Park while taking a rest was attacked by a grizzly bear.
Park officials determined that the man had inadvertently invaded
the bears space and, therefore, did not need to be relocated or
killed.
Since 1990, there have been 17 grizzly bear maulings in Glacier
National Park. Hunting is not allowed in the park; but five
30
maulings in Yellowstone Park; also in British Columbia, Canada,

between 1963 and 1992 10 people have been fatally mauled on and
on.
An 18-year-old Montana boy while hunting with his family in
1996 was attacked by a bear in northern Montana. The bear took
a chunk out of his right torso, had his hand and wrist chewed up,
and tore out a big part of his leg, losing about 35 percent of his
leg.
In addition, the edition of the June 1996 Time Mirror Magazine
Outdoor Life has a full accounting of bear attacks. And so I think
that they are much more numerous and the issue of human fear
is much greater than I think your testimony reflected. For the
record, I would like to enter without objection this copy of the text
from the Outdoor Life edition, January 1996.
[Outdoor Life edition follows:]
Mr. MORGENWECK. Madam Chairman, could I respond?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.
Mr. MORGENWECK. First of all, when I spoke of lawsuits, I spoke
of lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think the per-
son you mentioned was a National Park Service employee. I am not
aware of any against the Fish and Wildlife Service in that regard.
I was not aware of the one against the Park Service that you men-
tioned.
Secondly, I think it is important to recognize your submission of
that article indicates there is no question, that bears do on occasion
attack and sometimes kill people. We are not saying that that
doesnt happen.
But I also think that we have to consider too when we talk about
the parks, both Glacier and National Parkboth Glacier and Yel-
lowstone National Park, that we are talking about places that re-
ceive 2 to 3 million visitors a year, and have a very high density
of bears.
I think with as few incidents as we have, that it does show that
education is important. It doesnt always eliminate every one of the
instances. When we look at the visitorship
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. You have answered my question.
In the time that I have, there are some other questions that I
wanted to ask you. When we have the State of Idaho sending a res-
olution to you saying they want no bears, and that was passed
unanimously in the Idaho legislature, when the entire Idaho Con-
gressional Delegation says no bears in Idaho, when the Governor
says no bears, the attorney general says no bears, and you consider
this as part of the dialog and part of the concerns.
Mr. Morgenweck, I think you are operating in an agency that is
entirely out of control, and I think there are some serious legal
questions here. I would ask that before you issue the draft EIS, I
think anyone who reviews that draft EIS ought to know how the
people of Idaho feel.
And I think a resolution from the legislature and indications that
are more than indicationsactual letters from the Governor, the
attorney general, and the congressional delegationshould also be
part of the environmental impact statement. Documentation such
as this normally is part of the environmental impact statement.
31
And, believe me, Dr. Morgenweck, these are not just ordinary con-
cerns to be put someplace in a poll and then reevaluated.
I have a number of other questions here for you. They are ques-
tions that the delegation asked you a long time ago, and I am
dreadfully concerned that you went ahead and issued your decision
today without even bothering to answer the questions that the en-
tire delegation asked you to answer for them. And so without tak-
ing up any more time by putting you through the questions, I am
asking you to answer these questions within 10 days. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I just
have a technical question, Dr. Morgenweck, about the advisory
committee and the decisionmaking process. Will these decisions be
made by majority? Will there be an attempt to reach consensus?
Have you worked that out as to how decisions will proceed from the
advisory committee?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I dont know that there is a specification as
to how they will make their decision. Let me turn to Dr. Servheen,
and he indicates that it is a consensus process.
Mr. HINCHEY. Consensus process. That is going to be a difficult
process I will be so bold as to predict at this particular moment.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Yes. You are absolutely correct. I have had
experiences for the last 4 years or so on another recovery program
that has a consensus process, and it is very difficult, but it is also
a very good opportunity to work through the issues.
Mr. HINCHEY. Well, it is a good opportunity to talk about things,
but I am not so sure that any decisions will ever be made. In any
case, it will be interesting to watch how this process unfolds. If I
may, Mr. Salwasser, just ask you, siryou may have answered
this, and I missed the answer to Mr. Hills questions a few mo-
ments ago, but I am interested in knowing the description of the
habitat area where this introduction is proposed to take place. Can
you just give us a general description of what it looks like?
Mr. SALWASSER. What it looks like? It is quite hilly. It is the cen-
tral Idaho wilderness areas that are known as the Selway-Bitter-
root with a portion of the Frank Church River of No Return area
in the south. It is a grand total of 3 plus million acres ranging from
some very high elevation, rocky areas down to the bottoms along
the Salmon-Clearwater forks of the Clearwater River drainage; lots
of conifers, lots of aspen, lots of open grassy areas.
Mr. HINCHEY. What kind of wildlife are there presently in that
area?
Mr. SALWASSER. Well, there are thousands of black bear.
Mr. HINCHEY. Thousands of black bear?
Mr. SALWASSER. That is correct. They harvest about 1,000 black
bear a year out of the area; thousands of elk, mule deer, white-tail
deer along the bottoms, cougar. There are now wolves in the area.
Mr. HINCHEY. Is this mostly wilderness?
Mr. SALWASSER. The recovery areathe introduction zone is en-
tirely wilderness.
Mr. HINCHEY. What portion of it is not wilderness and how
would you describe that portion?
Mr. SALWASSER. Just a second. OK. I needed to get a clarifica-
tion. The recovery area itself is all wilderness area, but the area
32
that the experimental population could be in includes some non-

wilderness areas that adjoin that, some of which are unroaded.
Mr. HINCHEY. Thanks. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman,
I just want to say that I think that we benefitedI particularly felt
that I benefited from the trip that you organized out to Idaho just
a week or so ago to see the forestry conditions.
I think that perhaps in the future you might consider taking
some members of the Committee out to this particular area. I think
it would be instructive for us, particularly those of us who live east
of the Mississippi River, to have an opportunity to see this par-
ticular range.
I live in New York. We have black bear. I have black bear right
near my house. I live in the woods. There are some woods in New
York contrary to what some people might believe, but there are
some woods in New York. I live in the woods, and there are black
bear near my home. We never feel particularly threatened by them.
They are rather docile creatures, frankly, but I can understand the
concerns of people about this particular issue.
But it is hard for some of us particularly in the East to grasp
the enormous size of areas in the western part of the country, and
it is instructive for us to have an opportunity to see them. So it
might be a good idea at some point perhaps, Madam Chairman, for
us to go out and take a look at it.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey, and it was an honor
to have you in our State 2 weeks ago, and Idahoans are grateful
that you would take the time to come out. And I certainly will work
on putting together a trip into this area so you can see the wilder-
ness. The Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer from Colorado.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman; a couple ques-
tions. One I would like to ask Mr. Morgenweck again. I want to go
back to the whole notion of the or the issue of the Idaho resolution.
I had a chance to go through your prepared comments while I was
sitting here, which I have lost all of a sudden. Oh, here it is.
The announcement that I missed and have read about since
about thehow many alternatives? Four alternatives it looks like
that you had considered, and I guess you announced you are going
to pursue this alternative number 1. And I would like you tothe
last time I asked you questions about the Idaho resolution, as well
as the opinions rendered by the delegation and the Governor, you
indicated that you would take those under consideration and con-
sider them.
I dont live in Idaho, but if I did live in Idaho, how would I inter-
prethow do you think the people in Idaho should interpret the
announcement today to move forward with alternative number 1
given the fact that these resolutions and letters had been given to
you far in advance of the decision? Does this decision suggest or
offer any indication that these opinions are being seriously consid-
ered?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I would hope that they would be interpreted
as an opportunity to talk more about the reasons for the strong ob-
jections by the delegation and by the members of the legislature.
We have met on two occasions; one, a group met with the Gov-
ernor, and we also met with the staff of the delegation of Idaho.
33
We met with the Idaho Association of Counties, and we met with

Mr. Mealey and his commission.
And they made their views quite clear, but also in that discus-
sion, I think that we discovered that there is more discussion to
have about why it is that the positions taken have been taken. I
think there are a lot of concerns that I think that we may be able
to allay, and I think given the importance of the Bitterroot in size
and what it can mean to grizzly bear recovery, that it is worth em-
barking on continuation of this process of going through the draft
EIS to have those kinds of discussions.
Mr. SCHAFFER. So is your announcement about alternative num-
ber 1 then just a temporary sort of thing, or there is more discus-
sion before you move forward with alternative number 1, or is this
a decision you have reached to actually move forward with reintro-
duction at this point?
Mr. MORGENWECK. No, we have not reached the decision to go
ahead with reintroduction. What we have decided is that for pur-
poses of the review of the draft environmental impact statement al-
ternative one is the alternative that the Department prefers. Now,
we will go through a long series of meetings, public meetings, pub-
lic comment, briefings, discussion that willat the end of that
whole process, result in a decision about which alternative to pur-
sue.
Mr. SCHAFFER. OK. You mentioned the term consensus, that de-
cisions will be made on consensus. What kind of consensus did you
have with the Idaho delegation, the State legislature, and the Gov-
ernor that led you to the determination you made this morning on
alternative number 1?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I think the positions of the delegation cur-
rently are pretty clear, but I think, Congressman Schaffer, one also
has to look back that this has been about a 22-year effort since
the
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, with respect to the consensus that you de-
scribed earlier and the resolution, the Governors statements, the
delegation statements, how were these folded into the consensus
building that led you to alternative number 1?
Mr. MORGENWECK. The consensus that we were talking about
operating under consensus was for the Citizen Management Com-
mittee. Clearly, as we have moved through this long process of dis-
cussing the Bitterroot, there have been times when the Idaho Fish
and Game appeared to be supportive of reintroducing
Mr. SCHAFFER. Just to be clear, so the consensus that you spoke
of is only relevant to the citizens committee, not to the alternatives
that your Department is planning to choose?
Mr. MORGENWECK. The specific question that was asked of me
dealt with the Citizen Management Committee. This processif
you are asking me the question will we have a consensus of the
Idaho legislature, the delegation, and the Governor, when we get
to the point of making the ultimate decision, I dont know. I hope
that we do, and I think we should try to move in that direction.
But in terms of was there a consensus that alternative one should
be the preferred alternative, the answer is no.
Mr. SCHAFFER. OK. Let me ask, you know, when the EPA and
other agencies in the Federal Government assess the impact that
34
a State may have or some particular activity would have on the en-
vironment and so on and public health, and I think of these new
air quality standards, which seem unrelated maybe at the moment,
that move from regulating PM10 and expanding that to PM2.5 in
a particular matter, we do a risk assessment as to the impact on
human health and human safety. Have you done any assessment
of the risk associated to human health and human safety with the
introduction of these bearshow many humans may die or how
many encounters you expect at the 280 level that you have estab-
lished?
Mr. MORGENWECK. We have done some work in that regard in
terms of comparing what we believe would be areas that would
have a similar density of bears when full recovery would be
reached in the Bitterroot. And we have also looked at the
visitorship. I think that during the course of discussion on the
draft, that is an area that we could do more work on and should
do more work on because as I understand it, human safety is the
number 1 concern on the part of the public in Idaho.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Oh, good. How many people will be affected
healthwise with alternative number 1? Is there a risk of death, risk
of injury, risk of encounter?
Mr. MORGENWECK. Based on our projections from other similar
circumstances, we recognize that human visitorship to this area
will increase with larger human population and that once bears are
recovered in 50 to 110 years, at about 280 bears we project less
than one injury per year and less than one grizzly bear induced
human mortality every few decades will occur.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Schaffer, thank you for your questions.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Vento.
Mr. VENTO. Thanks. Dr. Morgenweck, there was some discussion
I think on the lawsuit issue. What I was trying to get at was a dif-
ferent question I think than what the Subcommittee Chairwoman
was talking about, and that is, you know, if you can be held liable
for the regulation because you regulate something as a threat or
endangered species in the case there is thatI mean, in terms of
successful Court cases, I mean, I understand that Court cases
sometimes can blossom like the flowers in spring in terms of pos-
sible alternativesbut are you aware of any case where you were
in terms of the Fish and Wildlife Service in your region or outside
your region where they were, in fact, regulating a species as endan-
gered or threatened and, in fact, were held liable for thatthe
damage of it?
Mr. MORGENWECK. No, sir, I am not.
Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that is the important point. I mean, ob-
viously, if you are an employer working for the Forest Service or
for the Park Service, in this case an example came upI dont
knowI mean, if they didnt take reasonable cautions or there
wasnt signs up because there were bear in the area or someone
was put in a situation where they were at risk because they didnt
have adequate equipment or were told to do somethingthere are
all sorts of incidents that could arise, you know.
But, I mean, I think what really is they are playing around the
edges here in some of the questionsis whether just simply the
35
regulation, the reintroduction of the species, the management of an

endangered or threatened species, whether or not thatthere
would be some liability.
Now, many may think that because you regulate it, you know
I mean, we have had suits against the Food and Drug Administra-
tion because they regulate and put a product on the market that
their actions were, in other words, complicit with whoever the man-
ufacturer was, you know, of the product. But those suits have been
up unto this date I think have not been successful. I guess their
arguments are made along those lines.
With regards to the regional forester or supervisor, Mr.
Salwasser, the issue with regards to the roads are, obviously, all
outside the primary area but in the range I guess of what might
be the range for the grizzlies in this case. Is that correct?
Mr. SALWASSER. Correct, in the area
Mr. VENTO. And even some of these areas are roadless, but in
terms of road closure, you close roads for a variety of reasons
today, dont you?
Mr. SALWASSER. We do.
Mr. VENTO. I mean, sort of on a temporary basis because, well,
somebody might be hunting an area and dont want others driving
around berry picking or something. Is that correct?
Mr. SALWASSER. We work with the State wildlife agencies for
road closures during hunting season to protect some of the vulner-
able animals. We close roads in the spring to protect elk calving.
We close roads in the wet season to protect the
Mr. VENTO. Of course, some of them might just bewhere we
have road restoration if you had enough money sometimes I guess.
That is a real road closure.
Mr. SALWASSER. Right.
Mr. VENTO. And so there are some other bases for that, and I
think that you were mentioning that you thought that the manage-
ment of itdoes the Forest Servicebecause a large segment of
this is Forest Service wilderness or Forest Service landswhat
type of role do you take in terms of the management with the Fish
and Wildlife Service of some of the activities in the land. You, obvi-
ously, have a role in hunting, but you also work with the game and
fish departments of the various States.
Mr. SALWASSER. We work with the game and fish departments
in all of the States with regard to the habitat management, habitat
improvements, with managing our transportation access during the
hunting season. With the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal
agency, we work with them wherever there is an endangered spe-
cies or a proposed endangered species. We do consultation with
them to make sure that the projects dont jeopardize the species.
Mr. VENTO. Now, I understand that the citizen management is
not required. This would be sort of a try at something new, appar-
ently, therein other words, because you recognize, Dr.
Morgenweckapparently the policymakers recognize that there
were some shortfalls in terms of trying to deal in an informal way,
that you are trying to do something more formal. That is at least
what the recommendation is. Is that correct? But this would be a
pilot. This would be a trial at something. Is this correct?
36
Mr. VENTO. And so, obviously, trying to write this in law it would
provide less flexibility in all likelihood. I mean, that has been sort
of the pattern I guess when things like this have been tried to
write into law before they have been tried. We dont know that it
will work or not.
Mr. VENTO. And it may need reinforcement; maybe not. I guess
it is an effort to try to make things work out, and it sounds like
you have gained some support from groups in the area that look
at this as occurring and that want to have a greater voice or at
least participation. I guess the supposition is that if you share the
information, everybody has the information, that you will come to
decisions that people will be of a common mind. They sometimes
find that that doesnt always work out the way it is planned that
way.
One of the other features of this particular area, and I think it
is pretty relevant because this is sometimes compared to other
types of endangered or threatened species as sort of dictating what
will happen with the land use, in other words, in terms of timber
harvest or recreational use or other use, but the changes that have
to be made here are nil, arent they, in terms of this wilderness
area, in terms of how it is managed?
Because the habitat already is suitable, and so it has nothere
is no corollary with other endangered species that, for instance,
have really resulted in a dramatic change in terms of the land use
patterns and management of the land. In other words, it would be
very much consistent with the way it is already being managed. Is
that correct?
Mr. VENTO. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to actually
follow on with some of the questions Mr. Vento asked. The creation
of the citizens advisory grouppart of the motivation there at least
is to gain some public support for thissome confidence on the
part of the public that they are going to have a voice in the process
and that sort of thing. Is that correct?
Mr. HILL. And I want to go back to this whole issue of public
support. In spite of the fact that you have made the suggestion of
a citizens advisory group, to my knowledge, at least in Valley
County in Montana wherethe adjacent county hereyou dont
have the support at this point of any of the county commissioners
there, do you?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not aware whether or not we do. I dont
know.
Mr. HILL. I believe that you have, in fact, their strong opposition.
Any local legislators from that area, are you aware of whether any
of them are in support of moving forward with this plan?
Mr. MORGENWECK. I am not. Perhaps Mr. Salwasser is aware of
some of the local positions. Dr. Servheen informs me that they
have not seen the citizen management proposal either, and so that,
again
37
Mr. HILL. I guess I would ask this question. Do you see going
if you are unable to secure any local support of any local govern-
ment representatives, if you are unable to secure any support from
the State of Idahoby that, I mean the legislature, the Governor,
local political leadersif there is a lack of support by both the
Montana and Idaho Congressional Delegation, do you see going for-
ward with this even though you had that much opposition to this?
Mr. MORGENWECK. You mean at the end of this whole process?
Mr. HILL. Yes.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Someone will make that ultimate decision
that has a higher pay grade than me, but I think that we have a
responsibility to work with the local people, local units of govern-
ment, and do our very, very best to work with them to deal with
the concerns that they have.
Mr. HILL. And get their support?
Mr. MORGENWECK. And do our utmost to get their support.
Mr. HILL. I know, you know, that you are hedging some there.
I guess first of all, I want to reiterate we have a lot of contentious
polarization going on in Montana over public land management
issues and endangered species. And I am committed to the concept
of collaborative process. Again, my concern here is that the collabo-
rative effort may have been too narrow rather than broad based.
But aside from that, you know, I would really suggest that you
consider creating the citizens group and empower that group to ac-
tually make the decision of whether there is going to be reintroduc-
tion or not or at least to make a recommendation on which the Sec-
retary makes the decision on whether there is going to be reintro-
duction or not.
Because I believe there is still strongin spite of the public opin-
ion polls that you have citedyou know, you can ask questions and
you can series the questions, and we all know that public opinion
polls dont necessarily reflect what really public judgment is. But
there is strong resistance yetvery, very strong resistance and
concern about this. And some of it may be well founded, some of
it may not be.
But I would certainlyI mean, I would urge you to move forward
on the collaborative process and a consensus process. But I would
certainly urge you to employ that process on a broader base before
you make the decision whether you are going to have reintroduc-
tion or not. Mr. Salwasser and I have had some conversation about
that in the past, and I just want to urge you to do that.
I want to go back to the citizens group. Would you see this citi-
zens group decisions being subject to appeal by interest groups who
disagreed with the decisions that they made? And would that be
an appeal process that would likely be litigated or not?
Mr. MORGENWECK. One thing I have learned, Congressman Hill,
in dealing with the Endangered Species Act is virtually anything
we do can be litigated. So I would suspect that there could very
well be litigation on the question of the legality of the Citizen Man-
agement Committee and the responsibilities that are delegated.
Hopefully, if those are going to occur, they would occur early on in
the process.
Mr. HILL. Would that argue for us to pass some specific legisla-
tion with regard to that?
38
Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I am not a lawyer. I guess, you know,

Mr. Ventos point was that trying to craft legislation at this early
point in our experience with this sort of approach may well be lim-
iting rather than enhancing. So, I think that we ought to try this
in other words, go through the discussions.
Mr. HILL. But, in essence, what you are saying is you are going
to make a decision to reintroduce. Then you are going to create a
citizens advisory group to manage the reintroduction. I believe that
you really need to take a step back from that, and I dont believe
you are at the point where you have built enough consensus
around the decision of whether you are going to reintroduce the
grizzlies, and that you need to employ the collaborative process fur-
ther before you make that decision.
Mr. MORGENWECK. Right. Yes. And I am sorry. I apologize. I cer-
tainly did not miss your point, which is the Citizen Management
Committee if OK, if you are reintroducing, but how could citizens
have input and advice in advance of that final decision being made
and trying to develop a consensus there? I think that is good ad-
vice.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. For the record, I would
like to enter the letter from the Governor dated January 29, 1997;
also, the letter from the entire congressional delegation dated May
15, 1997.
[Governors letter may be found at end of hearing.]
[Idaho delegation letter may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just want to end this round of questioning
by asking Mr. Salwasser if there was a human in your forest who
was a known killer, known to maim and maul people, and that he
very likely was out or could be in an area where there was mul-
tiple-use activity where families were camping or picking berries or
hunters were in the area, wouldnt you do all you could to, ahead
of an injury, make sure that individual was captured?
Mr. SALWASSER. Well, we certainly would do that, Madam Chair-
man. We have also got a lot of animals out in the forests that are
known to kill human beings at higher rates than grizzly bears, and
we dont have the ability to go in and try to take them all out
cougars, rattlesnakes, bees, among them.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. But the grizzly bear is a pretty large and un-
predictable animal, and it used to be that when the entire congres-
sional delegation and when the Governor and the State legislature
all said no emphatically, it used to mean something. It used to
mean that an agency would redirect their resources, and those re-
sources are becoming scarcer and scarcer as we have to allocate re-
sources out and begin to prioritize in the Congress.
I think the American people have reason to be concerned about
the fact that money is being spent on something that the State
doesnt want, the Representatives dont want, the people dont
want, and there are other priorities the government should be in-
vesting in. One of those things is managing the health of our for-
ests. And I am very pleased with your candor, but I am very sad
about the attitude of moving ahead in spite of all of the govern-
mental authorities from the counties on up simply saying no.
39
I think you need to rethink that position, and you have gone
through a long and arduous session, both of you, especially you, Dr.
Morgenweck, and I thank you. I would like to ask your continued
patience and ask you to remain for the rest of the hearing so that
you might benefit from the testimony that will be presented. If that
is possible, we would certainly appreciate it. Thank you very much.
And I call the next panel of witnesses. Senator Ric Branch from
the Idaho State Senate, Midvale, Idaho; Steve Mealey, Director,
Idaho Department of Fish and Game representing the Governor;
Ted Strickler, Custer County Commissioner, Challis, Idaho. Gentle-
men, if you would take your seats at the witness table? Gentlemen,
as with the preceding panel, if you will all rise and raise your right
hand and take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you and I now recognize our witnesses
starting with Senator Branch.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RIC BRANCH, IDAHO STATE
SENATE, MIDVALE, IDAHO
Senator BRANCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
Committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify for you
today. My name is Ric Branch, and I serve on the Resources and
Environment Committee of the Idaho State Senate.
I also represent the fifth generation of my family to farm and
ranch at the foot of the west central mountains in Idaho. Two sets
of great grandparents have homesteaded within two miles of where
I presently live. My 6-year-old son, Ross, would be the sixth gen-
eration of my family to earn his livelihood in the same fashion as
his predecessors if he so desires.
There is a major threat that is jeopardizing my sons chances of
continuing our familys presence on the land. It is not the normal
threat you would associate with operating a farm or ranch such as
severe drought, flooding, blizzards, grasshopper infestations, or low
commodity prices. No, the number 1 threat to my sons future is
from foolish decisions being made by Federal agencies and over-
zealous Federal regulations.
A small minority of elitists in the West are seeking to lock people
out of our environment. Our national resources are now being man-
aged by professional litigants in Court instead of professionally
trained scientists and practitioners on the ground.
American families in rural America have for generations made
their living by practicing good stewardship of the environment and
by providing resources for humankind. These American families
are being displaced by a society that has been led to believe that
the only way to protect their environment is to lock people out. The
casualties of this kind of philosophy are the people closest to the
land, the very people who are best able to manage it.
On March 14 of this year, I was the floor sponsor in the Idaho
State Senate of House Joint Memorial 2, which states the Idaho
Legislatures full support of Governor Phil Batts request for imme-
diate suspension of the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Environmental Im-
pact Statement.
This joint memorial was a bipartisan effort and passed both
Houses on a voice vote with no dissenting debate. In our Senate,
40
there were absolutely no no votes. It came out 35 to zip. When I

moved for the adoption of House Joint Memorial 2, it was seconded
by the minority leader for the Democratic party, Marguerite
McLaughlin from northern Idaho.
She said that her favorite campground would have to be closed
if the grizzly bear was introduced into Idaho. I pointed out in de-
bate that a large Boy Scout camp is also located close to this recov-
ery area or in the recovery area.
Over time, a maximum acceptable ratio of bears to humans has
been established in Idaho. Reintroduction would disrupt this ratio
to the detriment of humans resulting in injury, death, and loss of
personal freedoms to the citizens of Idaho.
Montanans have experienced unnecessary loss of human life, un-
acceptable land use restrictions, and legal denial of the right to
protect private property. This reintroduction proposal would have
the same result in Idaho. The potential for conflict with campers,
hikers, and other users of the public lands is very real.
When Montanans discovered that their homes were in the
human-grizzly conflict zone, they asked if they were going to be
able to allow their kids to go fishing in the streams behind their
homes and not have to worry about them getting consumed by
bears.
Well, the recovery coordinator responded by saying, You might
have to modify a few of your childrens behaviors. They were told
to tie bells on their children when they were sent out to play so
that the bears would hear the bells and run the other way.
We must learn from our neighboring States of Montana and Wy-
oming regarding the difficulties and lack of good faith they have
encountered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana has
been forced to deal with a continually expanding recovery goal
which has nullified their efforts to manage the grizzly bear which
is a game species in that State. Wyoming has been forced to spend
$678,000 on their program with only $36,000 in reimbursements.
The so-called Roots proposal for reintroduction is contrary to the
existing Endangered Species Act. It was negotiated by a limited
number of special interests under duress and cannot be enforced.
I will continue to oppose any reintroduction program pretending to
offer State or local citizen management unsupported by statute.
The heart of this problem is Rule 10[j], Section 14, which takes
in the Citizen Management Committee. This is really not local con-
trol at all because it is all left up to the Interior Secretary at his
discretion whether the committee is going forward under his wish-
es. So this is totally unacceptable to the State of Idaho.
The grizzly bear should be removed from the Endangered Species
List and turned over to the States for management. The Grizzly
Bear Oversight Committee conducted hearings in Grangeville and
Sandpoint and Orofino, Idaho, in 1994. 95 percent of the citizens
were against any grizzly bear introduction under any conditions.
The people of the State of Idaho, the Governor, and both Houses
of the State Legislature agree that the proposal to introduce the
grizzly bear into the Selway-Bitterroot Mountains is unnecessary
and unworkable. Madam Chairman and members of the Com-
mittee, I ask that you see that common sense prevail in this issue
and that this proposal be stopped immediately. Thank you.
41
[Statement of Senator Branch may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator. The Chair recognizes Di-
rector Mealey, Director of Idaho Fish and Game.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MEALEY, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF

FISH AND GAME, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be here. I am
Steve Mealey, Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
It is a pleasure to be here today to present the State of Idahos po-
sition on reintroduction of grizzly bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem
of Idaho.
The Idaho Fish and Game Commission has long opposed reintro-
duction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho. My
purpose today is to present the broader position of the State of
Idaho. I have several written documents to support my testimony.
I represent specifically positions of Governor Batt, the State Leg-
islature, the Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho Congressional
Delegation, and the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and Depart-
ment. I have submitted formal comments for the record. They con-
tain four key messages.
Point number 1, Idahos Governor, legislature, county commis-
sioners, congressional delegation, Fish and Game Commission and
Department strongly oppose reintroduction of grizzly bears to the
Bitterroot Ecosystem.
As you have referred to earlier, Madam Chairman, in a January
29, 1997, letter to the Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, Gov-
ernor Phil Batt outlined the reasons why he is adamantly opposed
to the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Eco-
system. A copy of that letter is included with the testimony.
In his letter, Governor Batt questioned the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Services position that grizzlies in the Bitterroot Ecosystem are
necessary for the recovery and survival of grizzly bears in the lower
48 States. Governor Batt also expressed concerns for public safety,
social and economic effects on many rural Idaho communities, and
overall fiscal impacts to Idaho if grizzlies were reintroduced.
Point number 2, if grizzlies were to return to the Bitterroots,
then most Idahoans, in my opinion, would probably agree that the
best way would be as a nonessential experimental population
under the guidance of a Citizen Management Committee. However,
Idaho people have expressed through their elected or appointed
representatives strong opposition to their return through reintro-
duction. Simply put, people have agreed with the then but not
the if.
Point number 3, I have serious personal concerns about how data
were used in developing the likely preferred alternative. It is not
now any longer likely apparently so I now have serious personal
concerns about how data were used in developing the preferred al-
ternative for grizzly reintroduction.
Simply put, the Bitterroot grizzly bear evaluation area, referred
to as a BEA, that was assessed by Davis and Butterfield in 1991
as suitable for a viable population of grizzlies does not coincide
with the grizzly bear recovery area likely associated with the pre-
ferred alternative in the draft environmental impact statement.
42
In fact, there is no document I know of that can demonstrate

that the proposed grizzly bear recovery area is sufficient, and I
want to emphasize that word sufficient, for a viable or recovered
population. The grizzly bear recovery area, which has been pre-
viously referred to as the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church
River of No Return Wildernesses, includes a large area south of the
Salmon River that was not evaluated by Davis and Butterfield, and
it excludes an area nearly as large north of the Lochsa River that
was assessed by them.
Point number 4, should the decision be made to place grizzlies
in the Bitterroot, reintroduction would occur without the necessary
authority of a permit required by Idaho State law. I would not
issue the required permit.
And, Madam Chairman, if you would permit me some personal
reflections on this issue, they are included in my comments, but I
see I still have an amber light so I will read quickly. As I reflect
on this issue, I am reminded of a passage in Teddy Roosevelts
book, Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter.
Eastern people, he wrote in 1905, and especially eastern
sportsmen, need to keep steadily in mind the fact that the west-
erners who in the neighborhood of the forest preserves are the men
who, in the last resort, will determine whether or not these pre-
serves are to be permanent.
They cannot, in the long run, be kept as forest and game res-
ervations unless the settlers roundabout believe in them and heart-
ily support them; and the rights of these settlers must be carefully
safeguarded, and they must be shown that the movement is really
in their interest. The eastern sportsmen, Teddy said, who fails to
recognize these facts can do little but harm by continued advocacy
of preserves.
And for me the main relevance of this old message for todays
adapted management is to highlight the need for continuing under-
standing, acceptance, and support for actions by those directly af-
fected by such actions. The fundamental task for all of us in the
natural resources business is to make conservation work in a de-
mocracy.
When the Governor, the legislature, the congressional delegation
of Idaho, the county commissioners, the Fish and Game Commis-
sion all have grave reservations about the reintroduction of
grizzlies to the Bitterroot area, it is time for agency representatives
to pause, take a deep breath, and reexamine where they are head-
ed especially in terms of providing excellent public service. Not to
do so would seem to ignore Teddy Roosevelts wisdom and appear
arrogant relative to representative democracy. Thank you for the
chance to present Idahos position.
[Statement of Mr. Mealey may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mealey. The Chair now recog-
nizes Commissioner Ted Strickler from Custer County. Commis-
sioner?
STATEMENT OF TED STRICKLER, CUSTER COUNTY
COMMISSIONER, CHALLIS, IDAHO
Mr. STRICKLER. Madam Chairman, thank you for allowing me to
be here today. My name is Ted Strickler, and I am the Chairman
43
of the Board of County Commissioners of Custer County. I live in

central Idaho in and around the Frank Church Wilderness Area for
41 years. I have been a licensed outfitter and guide and have expe-
rience in timber and grazing industries, and I am currently a build-
ing contractor. Custer County is the gateway to the Frank Church
Wilderness Area, the largest wilderness designation in the lower 48
States.
Today, I represent all 44 counties of Idaho as a spokesman of the
Idaho Association of Counties and Custer County as a county di-
rectly affected by the introduction of grizzly bears. Custer County
and the Idaho Association of Counties are on record as opposing
the introduction of the grizzly bears into Idaho.
And as said before, the Governor of Idaho opposes, Idaho legisla-
ture opposes, Idaho Department of Fish and Game says no, Idaho
Association of County says no, Custer County says no, Idaho says
no. Elected officials are hopefully making their decisions as rep-
resentation of their public. As public officials, we are first con-
cerned and are bound by oath to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of our citizens and all other users.
The Frank Church Wilderness Area is possibly the only area of
its kind where people, and especially families with children, can
have a true wilderness experience without fear for their safety and
with the mental freedom to enjoy the total natural wilderness expe-
rience, a wilderness experience that includes camping and rec-
reational activities free from the threat of attack by wild animals
such as the unpredictable, easily provoked, bad attitude grizzly
bear.
With the reintroduction of the wolf, this has changed, as people
are now expressing fear of camping out. What will it be like under
the grizzly bear? There is much fear about this process, some about
the bear and some about the government actions against citizens.
Some consider this a type of environmental and emotional ter-
rorism.
The citizens of Custer County have presented their commis-
sioners with petitions, offered here as an exhibit, containing over
1,350 signatures, demanding us to do whatever is necessary to pro-
tect them and their property from the grizzly bear. What would you
do?
We are concerned about the economy of the State and county.
Idaho is approximately 67 percent public land. Custer County, the
size of the State of Connecticut, is 96 percent public land. The eco-
nomics of our county and State are heavily dependent upon public
land use for mining, timber, grazing, and recreation.
As such, we are already heavily impacted by the Endangered
Species Act. Because of the reintroduction efforts and the listing of
species in our area, grazing has been cut, logging curtailed, mining
is heavily regulated, and even recreation has been affected.
Decisions and regulations are being made by agencies without
good, supportable, science and are now suffocating the West. We
believe that the introduction of the grizzly bear in the Selway-Bit-
terroot, with the core areas of nonuse, restricted areas, and more
curtailment of public land use, may well be the lethal blow to what
remains of our ability to survive.
44
Tourism makes up less than 10 percent of the total economy of

Custer County, yet it is suggested as our salvation as other uses
are being diminished. Even if our economy could survive on a 90
percent cut, we do not believe tourism and grizzlies are compatible.
Past experience has shown through the Endangered Species Act
in reintroduction efforts that man has not been part of the equation
and has not been considered. We believe people in local economies
should have the number 1 priority in the equation for every issue
and Act.
We are also concerned about the lack of interaction and relation-
ships between our State and local governments and the Federal
Government and its agencies, especially Fish and Wildlife and Ma-
rine Fisheries, who are in charge of administering these Acts. It is
time to put man and the local economics in the equation.
It is time to give the highest consideration to the desires of the
people affected by the Act and consider their historical right to pro-
tection of their custom, culture, and pursuit of happiness as they
pursue lifes successes and the American dream. The people of
Idaho and the West are speaking outno grizzly bears. Please hear
them. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Strickler may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Commissioner. I am going to open
the line of questioning in this round, and I would like to begin with
Director Mealey. Can you give us your background, your edu-
cational background, and your occupational background?
Mr. MEALEY. Yes, maam, I would be glad to. Maybe I should
only share the appropriate parts which would be my education. I
have a Masters Degree in Wildlife, and my graduate work dealt
with grizzly bear food habits in Yellowstone. I worked as a grizzly
bear researcher for some years and then spent about 10 years as
either a wildlife biologist on the Shoshone Forest in Wyoming and
forest supervisor there where grizzly bears were our principal occu-
pation.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Can you
Mr. MEALEY. My Masters thesis dealt with the food habits of
grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. I did develop one of the
early evaluation processes for determining habitat quality for griz-
zly bears and published that many years ago, and it was relative
to the Whitefish Range in northern Montana.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you know if your publication was used as
part of the scientific background in this new draft EIS?
Mr. MEALEY. Yes, maam, it was. I am aware of that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Good. Have you reviewed the science of the
proposal to reintroduce the bear into the recovery area?
Mr. MEALEY. Yes, maam. Two weeks ago I met with all of the
Idaho Fish and Game Department people who had involvement in
the development of the EIS, and I spent a day with them reviewing
all of the data that they had generated, and I had a very good day
with them.
Those people included, as I already referred to, Bart Butterfield,
who in 1985 and then later, along with Dan Davis in 1991, pro-
vided the evaluation that was the basis for the conclusion to the
Bitterroot Technical Review Team that, in fact, a certain area
45
couldwas suitable for grizzly bears. I have a copy of that report

here.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Generally, what did you find as far as the
science that was presented in the proposal?
Mr. MEALEY. Well, basically, the report that Davis and
Butterfield did followed a process that CraigheadsJay Sumner
and John and Frank Craighead had published in the 1980s that
used satellite imagery to identify habitat components. I had prob-
lems with that, as a matter of fact, simply because it was very gen-
eral. It told you something. It was a very broad screen assessment
tool, and it had some shortcomings.
But for its purpose, it was probably adequate, and that was to
make some generalhelp draw some general conclusions about the
overall suitability on a very broad scale for a very large area. They
used that methodology, and, frankly, if I had been given the same
charge, I probably would have been forced to do something similar
because these are not easy problems to solve.
The area they assessed, however, was referred to as the grizzly
bear evaluation area, and it was an area that went up to the Mal-
lard Lark and essentially the divide between Kelly Creek and the
St. Joe Riveras you know, that country up northand then went
down to the Salmon River on the south. So it wentthat area then
was referred to as the grizzly bear evaluation area.
And they concluded generally that at that level of assessment
that the area could reasonably be assumed to be compatible or suit-
able for grizzlies and made that recommendation to the Bitterroot
Technical Review Team. And as Dr. Morgenweck already said, that
was the base work that sort of set things in motion toward where
we are today.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Have you read the proposed 10[j] rule?
Mr. MEALEY. Yes, maam, I have. And I dont think I answered
your question completely because I didnt say what I said in my
testimony, and that is that the area now referred to as the grizzly
bear recovery area proposed in the preferred alternative is not the
same as the area assessed by Davis and Butterfield, which led to
my conclusion that I know of no document that now says that the
area identified as the grizzly bear recovery area has actually been
assessed for its capability to produce grizzly bears.
An area north of the Lochsa area and Lochsa River that was as-
sessed by Davis and Butterfield has been excluded from that recov-
ery area, which is admittedly a pretty high quality area that is an
area of maritime climatic influence, quite wet, and has substantial
quality. That has been excluded from the recovery area, and a sub-
stantial area south of the Salmon River, which is actually influ-
enced by a continental climate, rather dry, has been included.
And I am not suggesting that the inferences could be made that
it is suitable, but there is simply no report that says so. So I want
to say, and I said this in the testimony, that the information that
is the underpinning of the conclusion that the area can have bears
does not apply to the recovery area.
Now, probably someoneif you presented that to someone who
wanted to make a statement defending the approach would say,
Well, the experimental area outside the recovery area could ac-
46
commodate them. It does include the area assessed by Butterfield

and Davis.
But the bottom line is that it is the recovery area that the rule
that you referred to says that will contain the recovered popu-
lation, not the experimental area. And sobecause I read the rule.
It says that all decisions for the Citizen Management
Committee
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Director Mealey
Mr. MEALEY. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] I want to clearly understand this.
Mr. MEALEY. Yes. I am sorry.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. There was an area described by Davis and
Butterfield as suitable
Mr. MEALEY. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] for relocation of grizzly bears?
Mr. MEALEY. That was referred to as the grizzly bear evaluation
area.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And this was excluded. This is not included
in
Mr. MEALEY. Well, it wasnt excluded, but what I was saying was
that the experimentalthat is, the grizzly bear recovery area that
we will see in the preferred alternative is not the same area as
that assessed by Davis and Butterfield. They are different.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you know why that happened?
Mr. MEALEY. No, maam.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. How did that happen?
Mr. MEALEY. Well, I could only speculate. I dont know the an-
swer though. The implication of this isand I only say this simply
from a documentation standpoint. From an EIS standpoint, one has
to say, Well, can the area that we are looking at here as a recov-
ery area actually accommodate a population?
Now, Dr. Morgenweck said perhaps 200 to 250 bears as a recov-
ered population. There is no document that can support any conclu-
sion about a recovered population. We simply dont have such a re-
port. You could only do it by inference. The report we have doesnt
cover that area. So it would be very difficult to assess the effects
of the alternatives. If I were doing the EIS, I would have a difficult
time doing that because the data we have doesnt cover the area
proposed for recovery.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Very interesting. Thank you. The Chair recog-
nizes Mr. Schaffer from Colorado.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Branch,
I was curious. You sat through the previous testimony of Dr.
Morgenweck with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
heard his comments regarding his intention to consider the opin-
ions of people in Idaho and so on. I just would like to get your reac-
tion to the confidence that you have at this point that Idaho will
be fully considered in the Fish and Wildlife Services actions at this
point on reintroducing these bears.
Senator BRANCH. Well, Madam Chairman, Congressman Schaf-
fer, I sat through that with utter disbelief. With, you know, the lit-
tle or no attention that has been paid to the State of Idaho or the
legislature, the Governor and our people, I mean, the surveys they
cited are real suspect in my opinion. And I just dont have a lot of
47
confidence, you know, in the ability of the Federal agencies to con-

sult and coordinate with our local governments. It seems as
though
Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me interrupt if I may just because I would
like to get some of this on the record. The Idaho legislature, I pre-
sume, considered public opinion when they voted for your resolu-
tion. Did they consider surveys and letters and so on before they
unanimously came to the conclusion that reintroducing the grizzly
bear in Idaho was a bad idea?
Senator BRANCH. Madam Chairman, Congressman Schaffer, I
guess if we thought, you know, politicians definitely know what is
in the wind and if we thought that the surveys were running the
other way, I am sure that there would have been some no votes.
But according to the surveys the Federal agencies are talking
about, I guess there will be a housecleaning in the Idaho State Leg-
islature next year.
But we received noI received no letters from constituents sup-
porting grizzly bear reintroduction, no phone calls protesting my
vote. You know, it was a fairly cut-and-dry issue. The minority sup-
portedthe minority party, the Democratic party, really supported
the resolution. And, you know, it is just utter disbelief the lack of
responsibility of the agencies toward our wishes.
Mr. SCHAFFER. From what appears here, every member of your
legislature, your Governor, every member of your Idaho delegation
is in opposition to the Fish and Wildlife Services proposal here. Do
you know of any elected officials in Idaho who supportwho rep-
resent the State or in a relevant capacity, for our purposes, who
support reintroduction of grizzly bears in Idaho?
Senator BRANCH. I can speak for the Senate. We had no no votes
in our voice vote on the resolution. There was a voice vote in the
House, and I can only think of maybe one House member out of
70 that would support grizzly bear reintroduction. I know of no
other official in the State of Idaho that supports it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me ask Director Mealey, you heard the num-
bers that werethe estimates that were given to the Committee
I cant recite themthey are on the record at this point, I pre-
sumeabout the numbers of bear encountersjust the risk assess-
ment and so on.
Do you have anything further to add about any estimates that
we should expect in Idaho if the Fish and Wildlife Service really
gets to their target of 280 bears, what kinds ofhow many encoun-
ters, the nature of them, and so on?
Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Schaffer, I can
only speculate about that, but I want to say that that question has
a whole lot to do about the suitability of the recovery area for
bears. If you try to put them where they dont want to be, they go
somewhere else.
And I will say that an area north of the Lochsa, which was high
quality habitat, would not be in that recovery area, which is where
they would have to be in the end. And there is a lot of dry country
that is included where they may not want to be. So if you stick
them there, they might go somewhere else where they could get in
trouble. I can only speculate about that.
48
Mr. SCHAFFER. Are you familiar with the case of John Shuler in
Montana? This is the person who entered the zone of imminent
danger when he was attacked by bears.
Mr. MEALEY. Generally I know about that.
Mr. SCHAFFER. According to the Department of the Interior, he
entered the zone of imminent danger when a bear came into his
yard. Knowing what you know about suitability of habitat and so
on and knowing also that the Department of Interior now says that
when you get near a bear that you are endangering it or harassing
it or provoking these bears, do you think it is a good idea to have
280 more bears in northern Idaho that would meet the definition
of being provoked according tothis is the Department of Interiors
definition of being provoked? Can that be healthy to bears, do you
think?
Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Schaffer, again,
the one thing you can say for certain is that the risk to humans
is greater with bears than without them. That said, there are
waysand I agree with earlier testimonythere are ways to mini-
mize bear-human conflicts.
One of the things I am proud of in my years over in Wyoming
is that we were able to do that, and there is a high bear density
there. So education can certainly be effective, and you can have
people and bears in the same place at the same time, but there is
elevated risk. There is no question about it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Madam Chairman, I would just point out again,
given the Department of the Interiors new definition of what con-
stitutes provoking bears, that anybody who is concerned about the
well being of bears needs to understand that we are inviting a
whole lot of provoking going on up in Idaho or anywhere else hu-
mans and bears encounter one another.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Schaffer, how does that definition read?
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, I can just tell you that generally what oc-
curred in the casethis is John Shuler who is actually from Mr.
Hills district over in Montanahad a grizzly bear in his yard or
on his property. He was fined $500 for killing the bear.
He went out in his own yard when he heard the noise and con-
fronted the bear. He believed his life was in danger. He shot it and
the Department of the Interior ruled that he cannot claim self-de-
fense because he was at fault for placing himself in the zone of im-
minent danger in his yard. And he appealed that.
The Administrative Law Judge who presided over thatwhere is
the wordsays thatcriminal laws permits the property owner to
enter any part of his or her property with a weapon even if the in-
truder is presentoh, that Shuler should have known that grizzly
bears were in his yard.
He should not have gone there. By doing so, he provoked the
bear. And the Interior Secretarys Appeals Board said thatoh,
since he was not afraid of being killed by the bear, that somehow
had some kind of involvement in determining the outcome of this.
But, essentially, here is a man attacked by a bear, shot it, and
is now fined by our government for provoking bears because he was
in the zone of imminent danger; and my point merely being that
with the numbers of encounters that the Department of the Inte-
rior suggests on one hand and then redefining what it means to
49
provoke bears on the other, that it is not just humans that will be
put in some kind of jeopardy, it is, in fact, bears that will endure
some kind of hardship by being provoked continuously.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. The Chair recog-
nizes Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Strickler, I have to
tell you I have great admiration for county commissioners. You
have I think the toughest job in the world, but there isnt anybody
I dont think that is more in tune with the opinion of the people
than county commissioners.
You live there every day. You deal with the issues that impact
their lives every day, and I admire your work. You are here rep-
resenting all 44 counties I think you said. So there is unanimity
in Idaho with regard to the county commissioners with regard to
the issue of reintroduction of grizzly bears. Is that correct?
Mr. STRICKLER. That is correct.
Mr. HILL. And I am curious. In the process of developing the
draft environmental impact statement, as well as the collaborative
effort that was done by the groups, were you at anytime ever in-
vited to participate in that collaborative process?
Mr. STRICKLER. They did have some hearings in some areas away
from us, and they were not necessarily the type ofit was kind of
like a hearingdo you want the grizzly bear type of thing. But the
county commissionersthe relationship between the Marine Fish-
eries particularly and Fish and Wildlife has been very nil. When
we asked them to come to our meeting so we can have a face-to-
face discussion about our concerns, they dont come.
Mr. HILL. So in other words, you invited them to come to your
meetings, and they declined to come. This is the Fish and Wildlife
Service that you are talking about?
Mr. STRICKLER. We have asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to
be there.
Mr. HILL. And you brought a petition of 1,350 signatures, did you
say?
Mr. STRICKLER. Yes, I do.
Mr. HILL. And that is from Custer County?
Mr. STRICKLER. Custer County.
Mr. HILL. And how many people live in Custer County?
Mr. STRICKLER. 4,500.
Mr. HILL. So this is close to a third of the people of Custer Coun-
ty took the time to sign a petition to bring here to the Congress
to express their opinion about grizzly reintroduction?
Mr. STRICKLER. That is correct. It was done in a short time.
There is a number of people in our county that is government em-
ployed. We have a pretty high population of government employ-
ment. Most of those refused to sign the petition for fear
Mr. HILL. Of reprisal?
Mr. STRICKLER. Of reprisal.
Mr. HILL. In the development of the environmental impact state-
ment, are you aware ofwas there any analysis done on the eco-
nomic impacts of Custer County? Are you aware of any?
Mr. STRICKLER. We have a model economic study that was done
by the University of Idaho for us. And as far as I know, that has
never been used by them. It is a very good study.
50
Mr. HILL. Thank you very much. Mr. Mealey, in your view, will
there be anyif grizzly bears are reintroduced, do you believe
well, let me back up by saying this. First of all, we dont manage
species anymore, we manage habitat now. And do you see changes
in the management of the habitat outside the wilderness areas if
grizzly bears are reintroduced?
Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Hill, that is not
clear to me, but again I can only answer these things by inference.
As I understand itand I dont say these things with any criticism
impliedI am kind of a Johnny-come-lately to this EIS so a lot of
it is new to mebut as I understand it, there is a 15.3 million acre
experimental population area that encompasses an area from
Coeur dAlene to Stanley, from Grangeville to Hamilton. That is a
big chunk of the world where a bear
Mr. HILL. And this isnt all wilderness?
Mr. MEALEY. No, not at all.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Excuse me, Mr. Hill. I wonder, Director
Mealey, if you might be able to show us on the map the area that
it encompasses.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. MEALEY. I will take a shot at thiskind of interpolate it one
after another, but the area referred to as the experimental popu-
lation area that I referred to as being about 15.3 million acres
would go roughly from Stanleyand I am circling it hereit would
be about this point on down, up to Coeur dAlene and from this far
over here.
That whole area would be an experimental population area. Now,
inside that is the recovery areais the area that would be referred
to as the grizzly bear recovery area, and that is limited only to the
Selway-Bitterroot and the Frank Church River of No Return Wil-
derness.
Again, I am interpolating here because these wildernesses are
not marked, but basically my left hand marks the Lochsa River on
the north, which is the northern boundary, down to the Selway-Bit-
terroot down to the bottom of the top of Bear Valley, which is es-
sentially the bottom end of the Frank Church River of No Return.
So this area of about 3.7 million acres would be the recovery area.
Now, that is an area where the population would actually be con-
tained.
Now, your question was, if I understood it, would there be im-
provements in habitat in any part of the area. I assume there
would be no improvements in habitat in the experimental area out-
side the recovery zone. And since the recovery zone is wilderness,
there wouldnt be any improvements there either.
Mr. HILL. So there would be no changes. In other words, if the
bears are reintroduced, it is your opinion at this point they would
not have to change the management of the habitat? In other words,
you wouldnt have to have changes in any forest management plan.
We wouldnt have any changes in timber harvest. We would have
no changes in road access. Your view is there would have to be no
changes in the management of the experimental area outside the
recovery area. Is that correct or not?
Mr. MEALEY. Well, again, this is only speculation, Congressman.
I cant think of a reason whysince you wouldnt be encouraging
51
bears in that experimental area, I cant understand why you would

do that.
Mr. HILL. But that experimental area would be range for the
bears. Is that correct?
Mr. MEALEY. Well, I think, as I understand it, this is a place
where bears would be accommodated but not necessarily encour-
aged. Now, it is not clear to me though when you look at the pro-
posed rule, if the Citizen Management Committee made some deci-
sions that related to bears in that experimental area and that was
litigated somehow, it is hard to say how that might come out.
I do know that in Item 14 in Section 10[j] it does allow the Sec-
retary to override the Citizen Management Committee or somehow
review their work if it doesnt appear to be consistent with recov-
ery, and this is complex stuff. I would assume, however, the recov-
ery goal for the population would be that as it states in the rule,
consistent with the capacity of the recovery area, not the experi-
mental area. And that is the area I said that we dont necessarily
have clear studies on.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Returning to Mr. Hills
question about would there be a change in management in the
areas that have traditionally been multiple-use areas, taking in
mind the fact that when the salmon was listed, there has been a
marked change in management with regards to potential impact on
salmon habitat in the streams which have impacted activities on
the land; taking that as a blueprint, would you feel it might be
more likely that in managing the habitat for the bear that we could
see a similar imposition of rules and regulations on multiple-use
activities?
Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, all I can do is extrapolate my
experience from the Shoshone Forest in Wyoming to what might
occur, and much of that country where we had grizzlies was wilder-
ness. And much of the impact on people who use that country,
frankly, were recreation users, outfitters and guides, in particular.
And the thing that was affecting bears there were killing females
with cubs. And what we did there in the wilderness was make it
easier for outfitters to operate and secure things that attracted
bears from their availability.
Now, there is no question but what the activities of people who
use that wilderness country have been modified. There are require-
ments to hang meat differently. There are requirements to sanitize
camp. So there is no question that in wilderness there are meas-
ures that are required to minimize conflicts.
I suspect that in this part of the world that people that conduct
floating businesses on the Selway could be affected. Outfitters in
the fall could be affected. And I would also guess that it would
modify their operations from what they are currently doing. Out-
side of wilderness, theoretically, if that is not an area where we are
encouraging populations but accommodating them, I cant see why
we would be necessarily improving populations outside.
Now, there may be some disagreement with folks that would
want to litigate that question, and that raises the question about
whether or not the Citizen Management Committee, in fact, would
be able to operate independently of the Secretary. That is not clear
52
to me. Section 10[j] would say, however, that the Secretary retains
at least oversight and review of their decisions.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Mealey, under number 11 of the 10[j] rule
it states that there is not sufficient information available to develop
a scientifically sound recovery goal. How important is it to have a
recovery goal? I know questions were asked of the Service trying
to establish what the goal was.
Mr. MEALEY. Yes. Madam Chairman, it is terribly important. I
think that everyone in this wildlife business knows that wildlife
management is about how many do you want and where do you
want them. And if you dont know how manyif you havent de-
cided how many you want, then any number is OK.
So as I read the rule that describes the role of the Citizen Man-
agement Committee, it says that all decisions must lead toward re-
covery. It must meet the goal, in other words. And, obviously, if
you dont have a goal, then you never know whether the Citizens
Management Committee is leading toward recovery.
So the first thing to do, of course, is to decide on a goalsome
number or some trend in habitat that is a substitute for it. That
was one of the first things we did in Yellowstone was agree on
some parameters. It wasnt necessarily a number, but it was some
characteristics that would help us.
I think the study is correct. It would be very difficult to do that.
I have already said twice now it is even harder I think than the
rule admits simply because we dont have a study yet to show the
real capabilitysuitability of the country actually described within
the wilderness boundary. The study we have included other areas
as I have shown.
So the first thing, of course, is to have a good, solid piece of infor-
mation that tells us what the real suitability is within the area de-
scribed by the wilderness boundaries for the Selway-Bitterroot and
the Frank Church River of No Return independent of the experi-
mental population area because by definition that is not necessary
for recovery. It is sufficient but not necessary. So that is the first
thing.
And once that is done, then you can draw some conclusions about
how many animals you could accommodate. It might be 50. It
might be 150. It might be 300. My sense it would be on the low
end, franklyjust my own judgment.
Once that is done then, then you can startthen and only then
would it be appropriate for the Citizen Management Committee to
begin to operate because then you would know whether or not what
they were doing was consistent with the goal.
For them to operate before you have a goal wouldnt be useful
because you would never know if they were doing anything con-
sistent with recovery. So there are some logic problems in this. But
you asked me a question how important is the goal? You cant start
without it.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mealey. I just have one more
question. Senator Branch, what is your main concern over the re-
introduction of the bear into Idaho as a Senator?
Senator BRANCH. Madam Chairman, you know, we have already
had the wolf recovery taking place contrary to our citizens wishes.
The best way I canthe best analogy I can think of isand there
53
is a Country Western songthe title is What Part of No Dont You

Understand? It is about someone going toa woman going to a
dance and a suitor keeping asking for a dance, and finally she says,
What part of no dont you understand?
I guess that is what the State legislature is saying to the Federal
Government. We dont wish to dance with the Federal agencies on
this one. We are going to create a lot more de facto wilderness in
areas, and we are going to tie up large tracts of land which are
going to create economic hardships in areas of our State.
It is justwe have already got enough predators. We have
coyotes. We have wolves, black bear, and we just dont need an-
other predatorcougar. Some of the depredation payments in our
State right now our Fish and Game director cant afford to make
those. We cant afford with our State budgetwe just cannot afford
any more programs like this dumped on us by the Fish and Wild-
life Service or the Forest Service. So it is just a matter of losing
our rights to use the land.
The land being locked up is my greatest concern and the coopera-
tion of the Federal agencies. I serve on a Resource Advisory Coun-
cil under the Secretary of the Interior, and we work on consensus.
We dont ever come to a consensus. We always come down to a vote
up or down by the various interest groups. And if that vote is
against the wishes of the Secretary of the Interior, he brings it
back to us and tells us what we have to change.
So I am afraid the Citizen Management Committee is just a
smoke screen. It is kind of a rubber stamp, if you will, to shield
some criticism off the Federal agencies, and I dont think it is
workable and it just leaves all the power in the control of the Sec-
retary of Interior. So that is my major concern, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Hill, do you have any
further questions?
Mr. HILL. I just have one. I want to go back to Mr. Mealey again
on this because in the Flathead Forest, which is about half wilder-
ness28 percent I think is roadless and 22 percent is multiple
useI guess 10 years or so ago they set a targeted bear population
for recovery. And current estimates are that we have met that
number. But if you ask the Fish and Wildlife Service, Have we re-
covered the bear population? they will say, Well, no, because we
havent recovered their habitat.
And so now we are faced with changes in the management of the
remainder of that forest outside of wilderness with road closures,
restrictions on access, restrictions on use to create more habitat
even though everybody would suggest we have met recovery of the
bear. I havent quite figure out yet how it is that we recovered the
bears without their habitat, but I guess that is what we did. And
I have a real concern about 280 bears being contained within that
wilderness area.
I guess what my concern is is do you see any risk here that if
we get to that area that thethe area where we have to manage
habitat is more than that wilderness area causing substantial
changes in terms of how we manage both the public and private
lands outside that area? Have you looked at that, or do you have
any assessment or any concerns about that?
54
Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Hill, I hope I did

express my concerns about that. I think that is a key question. The
rulemakes a clear statement that the recovery goal would be lim-
ited to the capacity of the area described by the Frank Church
River of No Return and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.
Now, we dont know what this is yet. To say that that is 280 as
far as I am concerned iswould not be appropriate. We simply
dont have any studies of that specific area to say what population
could be sustained by that area. So to say that at this point
wouldnt be appropriate.
Frankly, in this whole business of determining what is a recov-
ered or a viable population for grizzly bears, that has been some-
thing of biological and legal debate now for the better part of 25
years. Something more than 150 actual census population seems to
be on the threshold of recovery.
But I will say simply, and I will repeat it again, we have no doc-
ument that tells us what the capacity of the Frank Church River
of No Return and the Selway-Bitterroot is to support a population.
And until we have that, until we can have a thoughtful estimate
of what that population is, we cant conclude that the area, in fact,
could have a recovered population.
And, frankly, I wont speculate here, but I will say that if bear
habitat is limited to its drier componentsand there are some very
important components of all grizzly habitatone is that it has
meats in a spring period and fat in the fall. Fat usually comes from
whitebark pine. There were probably bears in this country because
of salmon in the streams earlier on, and whether or not elk and
deer can provide that in the spring is arguable.
My point is these are not easy questions, and the study that we
have does not relate to that specific area we now have in a pre-
ferred alternative. That needs to be done. Then you can answer the
question you asked or at least do it with an estimate to determine
what population it might be. And I already said it would probably
be on the lower range. I do not believe personallythis is only my
opinionit is only my professional judgmentit would be some-
thing substantially less than 250 bears. But we really need to do
some hard work on that.
Mr. HILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Mealey. I will yield back
the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Gentlemen, I want to
thank you very much for coming so far. And, Senator Branch, I
thought it was interesting that you noted the song about what part
of no dont you understand when a man approached or a young
man approached a girl about dancing. Can you imagine after she
said no what would happen to him if he drug her on the dance floor
and insisted on dancing with her anyway? Can you just imagine?
I thank you very, very much for your valuable testimony. We will
be submitting other questions to each of you in writing and would
appreciate your response between 10 days and 2 weeks if you dont
mind. Thank you very much.
This panel is dismissed, and the Chair now calls Shirley Bugli
with the Concerned About Grizzlies organization from Stevensville,
Montana; Rita Carlson from the BlueRibbon Coalition in Lewiston,
Idaho; Kathleen Benedetto, Communities for a Great Northwest in
55
Billings, Montana. Ladies, if you will take your place at the witness
table? As with the preceding panel, if you will all rise and raise
your right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. And I recognize Kathleen
Benedetto for your testimony. Kathleen?
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN BENEDETTO, COMMUNITIES FOR

A GREAT NORTHWEST, BILLINGS, MONTANA
Ms. BENEDETTO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman
Chenoweth, members of the Committee on Resources, thank you
for the opportunity to present the views of Communities for a
Great Northwest on the issue of grizzly bear reintroduction in the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area. Communities for a Great
Northwest is a nonprofit group dedicated to educating its members
and the public about the difficult choices we face in trying to pro-
vide for humankind while protecting the environment.
Today, I am speaking on behalf of Bruce Vincent, President of
Communities for a Great Northwest. Bruce would like to thank
Chairman Chenoweth for the opportunity to tell his story today
and extends his apologies for not being here in person.
My name is Kathy Benedetto, and I am a minerals exploration
geologist with 17 years of field experience in the western U.S. I
have worked closely with Bruce during the past 4 years on many
environmental issues. I also serve on the Executive Committee of
the Grassroots ESA Coalition.
Bruce Vincent lives in Libby, Montana, a small timber and min-
ing town in the Kootenai National Forest. His home is one-quarter
mile outside the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly recovery area in a zone iden-
tified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a human-grizzly con-
flict zone.
In 1988 at the request of the community and Congress, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service developed the first of its kind community
involvement team for the reintroduction of grizzly bears. Bruce is
a 9-year member of this team. As a result of Bruces experience and
the experience of other members of the organization, Communities
for a Great Northwest requests the following occur prior to making
a final decision on reintroduction of this experimental population.
Number 1, the legality of the local control concept should be test-
ed before, not after, the reintroduction debate. In our experience,
the local community has some limited advisory abilities but no real
authority and absolutely no control of their recovery program.
Second, we request that a socioeconomic evaluation be completed
on the impact of the proposed action. The study should be com-
pleted by a third party that is approved by representatives from
the local communities that will be impacted by this decision.
Third, that an accumulative effects analysis be completed. Re-
source providers are constantly reminded that no action is inde-
pendent of other actions when they propose development of com-
mercial projects both on public and private land.
We believe this proposal does constitute a significant action espe-
cially when we look at other issues impacting the Northwest such
as the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS, proposed listing of salm-
56
on, the listing of the bull trout, forest health issues, road closures,
and litigation over development projects.
There are two documentsthe grizzly bear compendium and the
grizzly bear recovery plan that state the single most important fac-
tor in the recovery of the grizzly bear is human acceptance of the
plan and the bear. In the 900 page grizzly bear compendium, three-
quarters of a page is devoted to the single most important factor,
and in the grizzly bear recovery plan, less than a dozen pages are
devoted to the single most important factor in the grizzly bear re-
covery. This is ludicrous.
The socioeconomic studies and a cumulative effect analysis are
necessary to evaluate the viability of this project as it relates to the
single most important factor in the grizzly bear recovery, and that
is the human element. If studies of potential impact are not com-
pleted and the public is not straightforwardly appraised of the find-
ings, the casualties of this mistake include trust between supposed
partners and ultimately the grizzly bear. This has happened in the
Kootenai.
In 1991, our community involvement team sent every resident of
our county a booklet updating them on the grizzly bear project.
That booklet flatly stated that the recovery of grizzly bears would
not have an adverse impact on timber management in the
Kootenai.
Six weeks later, a U.S. Forest Service monitoring report was re-
leased that claimed timber harvests had declined substantially and
was continuing to decline due in large part to the changing require-
ments for grizzly recovery. The Forest Service continues to claim
substantial impact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to
claim that there is no impact.
When our involvement team requested an economic analysis to
prove or disprove impacts, the team was told that there was not
enough money or personnel to complete the study. This brings us
to our fourth request. Resources set aside for this experimental
population be redirected and used to complete socioeconomic impact
census studies, et cetera, in areas with existing bear populations
such as the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly recovery area.
Number 5, we would like a guarantee people will be protected in
encounters with grizzly bears and not subject to the humiliation
suffered by John Shuler who was subject tothat he was subject
to. He was fined $5,000 for killing a grizzly bear in his yard that
had attacked his sheep and threatened his life.
In conclusion, while Communities for a Great Northwest appre-
ciate efforts to find local solutions to issues such as grizzly bear
protection and recoveries, those affected by the solutions have a
right to know the legality of the promises made, the potential im-
pacts of the solution on their lives and livelihoods, and the track
record of the agency with whom they are partnering. Thank you.
[Statement of Ms. Benedetto may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Ms. Benedetto. The Chair recog-
nizes Rita Carlson. Rita?
57
STATEMENT OF RITA CARLSON, BLUERIBBON COALITION,
LEWISTON, IDAHO
Ms. CARLSON. Chairman Chenoweth and members of the Com-
mittee on Resources, thank you for the opportunity to present the
views of the BlueRibbon Coalition on the issues of the grizzly bear
recovery. Mr. Clark Collins sends his regrets for not being here in
person, but as a member of his organization, the BlueRibbon Coali-
tion, it is my honor and privilege to read his statement as part of
this hearing on behalf of the recreationists.
The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national organization representing
over 500 member organizations and businesses. Through these or-
ganizations and our individual membership, they represent the in-
terests of over 750,000 back country recreationists.
While our primary constituency is motorized trail users, we have
many nonmotorized recreation members who realize the value of
working together on shared use trail management. We also work
very closely with our resource industries and other multiple-use in-
terests as evidenced by this presentation today of BlueRibbon Coa-
litions testimony by a timber interest person such as myself.
In the name of resource protection, many recreation user groups
are being systematically excluded from traditional use areas. Green
Advocacy Groups and preservation orientated land managers are
discriminating against first one user group and then the next.
One by one, each interest group is considered guilty unless prov-
en innocent and then locked out of one area after another. Through
administrative regulations and biased interpretation of environ-
mental protection laws, responsible recreational users are being de-
nied access to historically used areas.
The tool of choice in these attacks on back country recreationists
is often the Endangered Species Act. Our recreationists have seen
their access eliminated or threatened in the name of protecting
wolves, salmon, desert tortoises, bugs and most certainly grizzly
bears.
There has not been one single recorded incident between a griz-
zly bear and a motorized trail user that has resulted in the death
of a bear. Numerous incidents between hikers and photographers
have resulted in death or injury to humans involved and led to the
destruction of the offending bear.
And I repeat, there has not been one single recorded incident be-
tween a motorized back country trail user and a grizzly bear that
has resulted in the death of the bear. Yet, Federal agency land
management plans abound with proposed motorized access restric-
tions for the purpose of protecting the bear. Is something wrong
with this picture?
The truth is that the extreme antirecreation organizations are
using innocent animals in their quest for exclusive use of our back
country recreational areas. And it has become obvious by their ac-
tions that they will settle for nothing less than a total elimination
of first one recreation user group and then another. Back country
horsemen, mountain bikers, and even some hikers are realizing
that their access too is threatened.
Reintroduction of the grizzly bear is of concern to recreationists
nationwide. Even hikers have expressed their opposition to grizzly
reintroduction in Washington State. One of our member organiza-
58
tions, the Washington Back Country Horsemen, has expressed its

adamant opposition to grizzly reintroduction in areas they use.
The fact is that while motorized recreationists are often excluded
from grizzly recovery areas, it is the nonmotorized recreationists
who are most at risk and consequently pose the most risk for the
bear.
In our home State, Idaho, grizzly reintroduction is opposed, not
only by back country recreationists, but by our Governor in a Janu-
ary 29, 1997, letter to Secretary Babbitt, by our wildlife manage-
ment agency through a position statement approved by the Idaho
Fish and Game Commission in May of this year and through a
1997 joint memorial of the Idaho legislature adopted by nearly
unanimous consent.
I contacted Golden Linford of Rexburg, Idaho, Chairman of the
Idaho House of Representatives Committee on Resources and Con-
servation, for his personal perspective on this issue. Representative
Linford said, Sure, some folks fear the grizzly, but what we fear
most are the Federal bureaucrats.
Representative Linfords statement, What we fear most are the
Federal bureaucrats, says a lot about what is happening on these
wildlife issues. Resource users, State and local government offi-
cials, and recreationists care about our wildlife. We enjoy viewing
them on our recreational outings into the back country, and we are
willing to help protect them as we harvest our natural resources.
We are appalled by the unprincipled use of animals, helpless or
ferocious, endangered or not, as mere tools in a power play by
greedy extremists to control our public lands. The hatemongering
and the contrived user conflicts of these Green Advocacy Groups
must not be rewarded.
Secretary Babbitt, the Sierra Club, and Earthfirst do not rep-
resent the environmental conscious of this country. We shouldnt
call the Green Advocacy Groups environmentalists and passively
allow them to refer to us as antienvironmentalists. Neither should
the League of Conservation Voters Index be the litmus test for con-
gressional environmental responsibility.
Just who are the real environmentalists? Just who really cares
for our wildlife? Pushing to eliminate everyones impact on the en-
vironment but your own doesnt make you an environmentalist.
The Green Advocacy Groups and their allies in Congress and our
land management agencies are no longer for the environment. They
are just against everyone elses use of it.
Chairman Chenoweth and members of this Committee,
recreationists shouldnt be discriminated against by our land man-
agement agencies and treated like criminals. The cooperation and
volunteerism of our members should be recognized and rewarded.
On issues of environmental protection, we should be innocent un-
less proven guilty instead of the other way around. We can use our
natural resources wisely, share our back country recreation areas
with one another and wildlife, and preserve our natural resources
for the public instead of against the public. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Collins may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Ms. Carlson. And now
we would like to hear from Shirley Bugli, and you are with a citi-
zens group entitled, Concerned About Grizzlies?
59
Ms. BUGLI. That is right.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY BUGLI, CONCERNED ABOUT
GRIZZLIES, STEVENSVILLE, MONTANA
Ms. BUGLI. All right. Madam Chairman and members of the
Committee on Forests and Forest Health, thank you for the oppor-
tunity to appear before you today. My name is Shirley Bugli. I am
a lifelong, third generation resident of the Bitterroot Valley in
western Montana.
In appearing here today, I represent the citizens group, Con-
cerned About Grizzlies, which is supported by 19 member organi-
zations. I also represent the Montana Chapter of Women Involved
in Farm Economics, WIFE, and Grassroots for Multiple Use, a citi-
zens organization where I serve on the Board of Directors.
The grizzly bear is a valued native of Montana and is the official
animal of the State of Montana. The grizzly has existed in the
State throughout recorded history. With the establishment of live-
stock ranches and communities in Montana, the effective range of
the grizzly bear was generally restricted to the ranges of the North-
ern Rocky Mountains contiguous to the Continental Divide.
This situation worked well for both the bear and human settlers.
Occasional predations by the grizzly bear on domestic livestock
were quickly controlled and a carefully regulated hunting season
kept bear numbers at a level that maintained a viable breeding
population of bears without overly encroaching on their human
neighbors. The grizzly bear reintroduction program appears to be
aimed at curing problems that do not actually exist.
Concerned About Grizzlies supporters have two overriding things
in common. We live, work, recreate among, and depend heavily
upon the natural resources within and surrounding our Bitterroot
Valley, and we are all strongly opposed to the introduction of griz-
zly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot and the Frank Church River of
No Return Wildernesses.
To date, over 5,000 people in Ravalli County have signed peti-
tions and 28 groups have signed on as opposing the proposal to in-
troduce grizzlies into the Bitterroot Mountains. A telephone survey
designed by Dr. Raymond Karr, Ph.D. Forest-Sociology, was done
on September 9, 1995, in which 388 calls were completed in Ravalli
County.
One question was asked, Do you favor the placing of grizzly bear
in the Selway-Bitterroot Range? Yes, no, or undecided. An over-
whelming majority of 59 percent opposed the introduction of grizzly
bear. The ratio of pro and con surveyed was three-to-one against
the proposal.
Since the last census in 1990, the rate of population growth in
Ravalli County is 30.4 percent. Many homes are appearing in the
forested lands along the fringes of the national forest. Some are no
farther than three or four miles from the eastern boundary of the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.
Some of these new places are home to a few horses or cattle. Oth-
ers are content with a family dog or cat. These animals or pets so
close to the wilderness represent an attractive bait for a hungry
grizzly.
60
Dr. Stephen Arno, wildfire research scientist, has noted the

marked decline of whitebark pine that used to be common in the
higher elevations of the Selway-Bitterroot. Dr. Arnos research has
shown that there is just one significant band of whitebark pine re-
maining and that is located in the higher elevations along the Bit-
terroot front overlooking the valley.
Seeds from whitebark pine cones are a preferred food for bears.
Once this stand of whitebark pine is discovered by introduced
grizzlies, they are almost certain to return to that stand year after
year to feed. Denning on adjacent lower slopes will likely result in
hungry grizzlies descending to the populated Bitterroot Valley in
the spring when they emerge from their winter hibernation.
Taking into account the sharply increased population of the Bit-
terroot Valley and the expected patterns of grizzly behavior, the
conclusion is unescapable. More people and bears are going to be
forced together. Bear encounters can have a variety of outcomes,
but eventually a human is maimed or killed and a bear dies.
Bear predation on livestock will certainly increase bear-human
encounters. These encounters seldom have happy endings. The role
of the Federal Government in deliberately creating this situation is
highly questionable.
The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness is well used during the sum-
mer and fall seasons. In the late spring and early summer, the
Selway River is a popular float trip from Paradise to Selway Falls.
The numbers of people using the river are carefully limited by the
Forest Service to one party of no more than 16 persons per day.
However, during the recreation season, the river corridor is stead-
ily used by hikers, trail riders, and hunters as well as rafters.
The many different people that have become part of our group
have a wide variety of concerns about the grizzly. One of those con-
cerns is fear. The degree of risk is immaterial. The fact is that
some people are simply terrified of grizzly bears and will not risk
even the remotest chance of an encounter. Introduction of grizzly
bears into the Selway-Bitterroot will have the effect of closing an-
other area to those people.
As citizens, we are concerned about the cost of the grizzly bear
reintroduction program. In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
projected an estimated cost of the grizzly bear recovery program at
$26 million. In these days of budget reductions and belt tightening,
it seems frivolous to spend scarce Federal dollars on a totally un-
necessary activity.
In closing, I would assure you that we are not antigrizzly bear.
We hold a deep love and respect for the land and its inhabitants.
We are ranchers, farmers, guides, foresters, horsemen and women,
anglers, campers, and forest users. We believe that we have had a
part in assuring that our land has remained beautiful and fruitful.
We are also confident that the grizzly bear will do just fine if we
just let them alone and make sure the grizzly bear population
doesnt get out of hand as it is threatening to do around Yellow-
stone.
Thank you and I do have some maps of the wilderness that is
marked off, and you can see how very, very closely it comes to our
valley floor, and a petition of 3,500 signers here from the Bitterroot
61
Valley. There is another petition I didnt bring with me. Thank you
very much.
[Statement of Ms. Bugli may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, we will enter it into the
record.
[Map and petition may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Kathleen, you are a
strong supporter, arent you, of collaborative process to try to deal
with the conflicts in natural resource management?
Ms. BENEDETTO. Yes, I am. I think that it is a real opportunity
for people with differing perspectives to come together and to un-
derstand one another and work out solutions that are beneficial to
those local areas. What happens often in this collaborative process
is the local people can come together and craft a solution.
But it is difficult to get that solution implemented because people
outside of the local area, say, national environmental organiza-
tions, may not support the solution that local environmental orga-
nizations have entered into and often will file injunctions or law-
suits to prevent the solution from going forward.
And I also believe sometimes that it isif people do not share
the same principles for how to protect the environment, it often is
difficult to come to a consensus where people really understand
what they have discussed.
Mr. HILL. Sometimes you dont reach agreement. I mean
Ms. BENEDETTO. Yes. Sometimes you dont reach agreement.
Mr. HILL. In this instance, there is some collaborative effort went
forward. I have some concerns about whether that was a broad
based collaborative effort. You know, could you comment on that?
Would you agree with my concern or not or
Ms. BENEDETTO. Are you speaking about the group in Libby?
Mr. HILL. Yes. No. I am talking about here on the reintroduction
of grizzlies in the Selway-Bitterroot.
Ms. BENEDETTO. I cant address specifically what that particular
group has come up with and who was involved in that group. I am
not familiar with all of the players in that group. I think Rita may
be able to answer part of that a little bit better than I can.
Ms. CARLSON. I am not sure what group he is talking about.
Mr. HILL. I will come back to that because you have made some
specific recommendations or some general recommendations here.
One of the concerns that you have is that a citizens group could
be created. The local community could be enticed into supporting
this effort because the citizens group is created, and then either by
virtue of a change in mind of the Secretary or by virtue of a chal-
lenge to their authority by an outside group, they could end up
with no authority, and then we would end up with a top-down
management of this reintroduction. I mean, is that a summary
kind of what you
Ms. BENEDETTO. Yes. That is exactly right, and I think you can
look at other issues in other parts of the country and see where
that has clearly been the case. And I think the Quincy Library
Group is probably one of the most famous instances where that oc-
curred.
62
And this was a group ofand it was initiated by the local envi-
ronmentalists in town who recognized that the policies that they
were implementing and pushing forward were not working and was
having a very severe, adverse impact on the community of Quincy.
So the resource providers and the local environmental groups
came together, worked out a solution, and were unsuccessful at get-
ting it accepted because the national environmental organizations
filed injunctions or were strongly opposed to it. They have taken
their proposal to the State legislature, and it has now been intro-
duced into Congress. And, unfortunately, I dont remember the
number of the bill.
Mr. HILL. Following on on that, where should we go from here?
What should Congress do in your mind about this issue, the re-
introduction of grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
Areas? What do you think we ought to do now? What should our
next step be? What should the Forest Services next step be? What
should the Fish and Wildlife Services next step be in your opinion?
Ms. BENEDETTO. In my opinion, what I think would be most ap-
propriate is to take the resources that they are trying to spend on
this process and let us finish the studies that were initiated in
other areas where they have recovery programs going on.
And I think if we can finish those studies, we would have some
information and data that would either help support what they
want to do in the Selway-Bitterroot proposed recovery area, and
they would have the information so that they could make a better
decision.
I know that in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area there are out-
fitters up there who would like to have a real census ona thor-
ough census on how many bears are actually up there. What is the
population? So I think before we go and start all kinds of new
projects, we ought to finish the projects that we have already initi-
ated.
And, again, before going forward with this plan, I think you need
to do the socioeconomic studies and the cumulative effect studies.
And then you will have a more complete body of data to make an
appropriate decision on.
Mr. HILL. We dont have a socioeconomic study done on this?
Ms. BENEDETTO. No. And from what I understand, we do not
have a socioeconomic study done on the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly re-
introduction area.
Mr. HILL. If I might follow on with this, just this line at this
point is thatI mean, your experience is substantially driven by
the experience you have had up there in the Kootenai Forest
Ms. BENEDETTO. That is correct.
Mr. HILL. [continuing] where early on the suggestions of the com-
munity is that one set of circumstances would govern and then
what ended up happening is that the game changed, if you will.
Ms. BENEDETTO. The game changed.
Mr. HILL. And it had a substantial impact on recreationists. It
has had a substantiala great impact on the economy of those
communities?
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Kathleen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
63
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. I would like to ask Rita
Carlson, what effect do you believe that the introduction of the
grizzly bear will have on timber sales and other multiple uses in
your area?
Ms. CARLSON. Based on what has happened in Montana, even
though they claim that there would be no effectwe heard that
testimony earlier todayit did, in fact, have a big effect in the
Cabinet-Yaak area. And I see no reason for it to be any different
for us. And with the decline in timber sales that we have seen over
the last few years, I view this is just another ploy to yet limit our
access to timber supply and recreational areas as well.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So you did see a substantial change in man-
agement practices?
Ms. CARLSON. Yes, I did. Over in the Libby area they certainly
did.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And primarily those were in timber sales and
recreation?
Ms. CARLSON. That is true. In the Libby area, they told them
that to offset the degree or the lower numbers in timber sales that
they should look toward recreation, that tourism was their future.
And so they looked, and Libby is surrounded by large mountains
so they were going to put in a ski slope, but they couldnt because
the ideal mountain for the ski slope was right in the midst of the
grizzly bear recovery area. So that just didnt materialize at all.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Very interesting. Shirley, I wanted to ask you,
are there any other concerns that you have with the introduction
of the grizzly bear that you didnt make in your statement?
Ms. BUGLI. Yes. There is one statement I would like to make,
and I do think it is pertaining directly to this. I would like our De-
partment of Interior to stop funding all of these organizations that
are the environmental organizations that are using the funds to do
this. I feel it is our tax dollars that are coming back through the
massive amounts of funding that the Department of Interior gives
to the environmental groups.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you like to elaborate on that? Who are
they funding?
Ms. BUGLI. I had a list that came from a magazine that was
called, Ecologic, and it was publishedI am sorry I dont have it
with me. I do have access to it, and it was a list of 1995, and it
was funding the conservationNature Conservancy, the Wilder-
ness Society, Trout Unlimitedjust a number. I think that there
were $44 million on that list alone and probably one-third of the
list were the environmental organizations.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you mind supplying that information
for the Committee?
Ms. BUGLI. I will. I will have to wait until I get home to do it,
but I will do that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hill, do you have any other questions?
Mr. HILL. I do, yes, Madam Chairman. Shirley, you brought a pe-
tition with 3,500 people from Ravalli County?
Ms. BUGLI. Yes, I did. It is just one of the petitions.
Mr. HILL. Are you aware are there any members of the Ravalli
County Commission who support reintroduction of grizzlies?
64
Ms. BUGLI. I am sorry. I should know that answer, but I dont

believe so, but I am not real sure.
Mr. HILL. I am pretty sure that you are right. And legislators?
I see, for example, that on your Board of Directors Steve
Benedict
Ms. BUGLI. He doesnt support grizzly reintroduction.
Mr. HILL. He is the State Senator representing that area. And
you indicated that you represent I think 19 groups?
Ms. BUGLI. Nineteen groups.
Mr. HILL. Are you aware were any of those 19 groups asked to
participate in the collaborative process that initiated the reintro-
duction or the proposal to reintroduce grizzly bears in the Selway-
Bitterroot?
Ms. BUGLI. Not that I really am aware of. We have had several
meetings over grizzly bears, and when we stood up and voiced our
concerns, we were called radical people and not representative of
the Bitterroot Valley.
Mr. HILL. So your participation was limited to just appearance
at public meetings during the scoping process for the environ-
mental impact statement, but there was a community collaborative
process that went on, and you werent a participant or your groups
were not a participant of that collaborative process that you are
aware of?
Ms. BUGLI. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. HILL. And I guess that leads me to the next question. One
of the thingsand I think that, Kathleen, you made this point
is that the number 1 thing about making a reintroduction success-
ful is to have people accept bears.
Mr. HILL. Because that is necessary. It is the peoples encounter
with bears. People have to change how they behave in the forests,
how they use the forests, et cetera. Shirley, is it your sense, and
it is certainly my sense, that there is substantial public opposition
in Ravalli County to this reintroduction?
Ms. BUGLI. Very definitely.
Mr. HILL. And there are some who are suggesting that there are
public opinion polls that show 60 or 70 percent support. You have
done some polling I think that would conflict with that. Is that cor-
rect?
Ms. BUGLI. Well, in my statement, there were 388 people that
were polled randomly from the telephone directory, and it was a
three-to-one margin against and the simple statement of do you
support the grizzly bears being reintroducedyes, no, and unde-
cided.
Mr. HILL. So that wasnt a poll used to try to manipulate the re-
sults? It was a simple polling
Ms. BUGLI. No. It was just a simple poll.
Mr. HILL. And anecdotallyI mean, just in your knowledge of
the community that you live in, is it your opinion that two-thirds
of the people there support reintroduction of the grizzly bears?
Ms. BUGLI. Oh, I think it is a very, very small number of people
that would support it; in fact, so small that when they do testify
in support of it, they run out the door quickly.
65
Mr. HILL. And the opposition there is substantially based on fear.

Is that right? I mean, people are afraid of grizzly bears, arent
they?
Ms. BUGLI. Well, fear and economics.
Mr. HILL. And one of the reasons for that is that the valley that
you live in there is substantially still associated with timber. We
have I dont knowhow many log home manufacturing companies
are there there? I dont know if you know the answer to that, but
there are probably more in that valley than there is anywhere else
in America or anywhere else in the world.
Ms. BUGLI. Yes. I believe so and it is still a very strong agri-
culture area, although we are weakening. We are getting so many
people in there, but our valley is only 80 miles long and 20 miles
wide. And if anyone wants to look at the map, the boundaryyou
can see where the boundary comes right down into our area where
it will be the logical place for the bears to come.
Mr. HILL. And, I mean, the wildernessthe reintroduction area
isnt very far from residences?
Ms. BUGLI. Within a mile or two some places.
Mr. HILL. Right. And that is an area of rapidly growing popu-
lation. Isnt that correct?
Ms. BUGLI. That is right.
Mr. HILL. So the likelihood of encounters between bears and peo-
ple is substantial. And I found it interestingI was intwo weeks
ago in Cut Bank, and the Chairman doesnt know where Cut Bank
is, but you know where Cut Bank isand the people in Cut Bank,
Montana, are concerned about grizzly bears.
And you ask them why, and it is the grizzly bear is coming out
of the Bob Marshall and grizzly bears coming from Glacier Park.
I dont know how far that is, but I think it is about probably at
least 5060 miles. And they frequently have encounters with
bears. They have wide-ranging areas. They range out of the forests
and so it is understandable why you have that fear, and I under-
stand it as well.
Well, thank you, all of you. I really appreciate your traveling this
far to be here to represent Montana and Idaho citizens groups, and
it has been very informative. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you all very much for your very valu-
able testimony. And if you wish to supplement the record, you are
welcome to do it. The record will remain open for 2 weeks. Thank
you.
We call the next panel; Phil Church, Resource Organization on
Timber Supply from Lewiston, Idaho; Hank Fischer, Defenders of
Wildlife, Missoula, Montana; Jim Riley, Intermountain Forest In-
dustry Association, Coeur dAlene, Idaho; Tom France, National
Wildlife Federation, Missoula, Montana. As with the previous
panel, I wonder if you will all rise and raise your right hands
please?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. We will begin our testimony with Mr. France.
66
STATEMENT OF THOMAS FRANCE, NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FEDERATION, MISSOULA, MONTANA
Mr. FRANCE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Tom
France. I am with the National Wildlife Federation, and my office
is in Missoula, Montana. And while I am often accused of rep-
resenting one of those big green national organizations, our office
has been there for 15 years, and I have lived in Missoula for 25,
and gone to the University of Montana and graduated from law
school there in 1981.
So my national organization always accuses me of going local on
them so I am never quite sure where I am on these issues. And
I think that that is at least the beginning of the National Wildlife
Federations efforts in developing a citizen management proposal
for the grizzly bear reintroduction into the Selway-Bitterroot Wil-
derness.
Other members of the panel are going to talk about the origins
of our discussions with the timber industry about how we might ac-
complish grizzly bear reintroduction. I wanted to use my time
todayI have submitted written testimonybut to try and respond
to some of the concerns that we have heard from the panelists.
And I think it is appropriate that I do this because throughout
the three or 4 years that we have been working on the citizen man-
agement alternative with the Resource Organization on Timber
Supply and the Intermountain Forest Industry Association, we
have tried hard to listen to concerns.
We have tried hard to change the rule as we have heard others
make points that we thought had merit and doing a better job of
reflecting local concerns about the economy and local concerns
about recreation and local concerns about how we manage wildlife
species in the Northern Rockies.
I have heard several concerns today about Rule 14, the compo-
nent of the citizen management rule that we developed that deals
with how the Secretary of Interior might reclaim authority from
the Citizen Management Committee. And let me assure the Chair-
man that on both sides of the aisle, conservationists accuse us of
giving away the farm to citizen managers.
Others on the more conservative side, of course, are afraid that
Secretary Babbitt will swoop in immediately upon the Citizen Man-
agement Committee being appointed and take back the authority
and use it only from inside the Beltway in Washington, DC.
But certainly we constructed that part of the rule, recognizing
that under the Endangered Species Act, Secretary Babbitt or who-
ever might inhabit the Department of Interior legally has to retain
authority. But we also recognize that within the framework of the
Citizen Management Committee, we wanted to vest all of the rel-
evant decisionmaking authority locally, and we think we have set
up a rule that does that.
As we constructed itand here is what you might call our intent
in constructing itthe Secretary can only call back authority
where decisions arent leading to recovery. And we used recovery
in a programmatic sense. We did not use it to say that any specific
decision would be second-guessed by the Secretary but rather a se-
ries of decisions that were not or are not leading to the grizzly bear
populations in the Selway-Bitterroot prospering.
67
And, again, following on this theme of listening, we heard some

comments today that I think we will think long and hard about.
Perhaps we can strengthen that part of the rule, and as we go
through the EIS process, that is I think the kind of constructive di-
alog we want to have.
In response to concerns that we heard from the Bitterroot Valley
that it was a rapidly growing area, something we all recognize, we
changed our rule in midcourse to reflect the fact that the Bitter-
rootof all the areas adjacent to the national forest lands and wil-
derness areas that make up the Selway-Bitterroot and central
Idaho roadless and wilderness country, the Bitterroot does have the
densest population, and we recognize that conflicts there were real-
ly going to be irresolvable. There wasnt the space for grizzlies and
people.
So the rule that we constructed, and I believe it is reflected in
what the Department will release with the EIS, says that grizzly
bears wont be pile rated in the Bitterroot, that they will be moved
back up into the wilderness country.
And out of that experience, we also developed language where
other parts of the experimental population area where conflicts
were really irresolvable could be designated by the Citizen Manage-
ment Committee as areas where we simply dont want bears and
where bear occupancy and use will be discouraged.
And I bring that to the Committees attention as another place
where we tried to hear what the concerns were in a place where
we think if people pay attention to how this rule has evolved over
time, they will recognize that this can be an adaptive process, that
their input can have impact on how the decision is finally going to
look.
That leads me to a third point, and we have heard several ques-
tions for the Committee about the collaborative process that we set
up and whether we engaged with other responsible organizations,
and we did our best. But no one appointed us. We just got together
and said, Jeez, there is a big problem out here. How can we solve
it? We started small. We worked large.
We have, for the last year since we put out our draft of a rule,
tried to meet with everyone we can, and I want to assure that
Committee that that is still our commitment. We wish to exclude
no one from this process, and if there is a group in McCall or a
group in Lewiston or a group in Salmon, we are anxious to go down
and talk with them and see whether we cant build our partnership
with them.
So those are a few of the things we have done to address con-
cerns, and that is certainly the theme that we have tried to incor-
porate throughout our efforts on this issue. Thank you very much.
[Statement of Mr. France may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. France. And the Chair recog-
nizes Jim Riley from Intermountain Forest Industry Association,
Coeur dAlene. Mr. Riley?
STATEMENT OF JIM RILEY, INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, COEUR dALENE, IDAHO
Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth, and members of
the committee. I am Jim Riley. I am the Executive Vice President
68
of the Intermountain Forest Industry Association with head-

quarters in Coeur dAlene and also offices in Boise, Idaho, and Mis-
soula, Montana. Our association is privileged to represent the for-
est products businesses, the majority of them in both Idaho and
Montana, as well as the private forest owners in those two States.
With your permission, I will submit my full statement for the
record and just highlight a couple of elements of this which I think
are particularly relevant to todays conversation.
First, let me report that like so many others who have testified
today, our history with this proposal began with the recovery plan
that was advanced by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1993. And
our response in 1993 and 1994 to that plan was the same response
you have seen throughout the West as endangered species pro-
posals have been advanced upon communities and industries, and
that was of vigorous resistance.
We didnt believe it was necessary, appropriate, or workable, and
spent many hours trying to persuade the Fish and Wildlife Service
to withdraw their recovery proposal. We were not making much
progress with that, and in 1995 under the guidance of the late Seth
Diamond, who was our wildlife biologist out of Missoula, Montana,
with his expertise on both the ESA and on grizzly bear manage-
ment, persuaded our membership to take a fresh look at our ap-
proach to this issue and our way of addressing the recovery pro-
posal.
Under Seths direction, we began meetings with the other folks
who I am privileged to be with on this panel today to talk about
a more productive way than the high profile conflicts that have al-
ways characterized these issues for us to engage each other over
grizzly bear management.
And I want to assure everybody, those were not easy conversa-
tions, and they took many hours, and there was much contention
among the people at this table as we tried to work through what
has become known today as the citizens management proposal.
This proposal was born, from our organizations standpoint, not
just because of those conversations but because of our experience
throughout Idaho and Montana with what we see as failed grizzly
bear management policy. I began my career working with a saw-
mill in Dubois, Wyoming, which is closed today in part because of
the management constraints that grizzly bear management placed
on the timber supply in that area.
I worked in the Targhee National Forest where we tried to enter
into negotiations with grizzly bear advocacy groups to try to find
a waya formula to keep the sawmill, which is now closed there
today, in business. I have worked, Congressman Hill, at great
length in the Swan Valley trying to resolve the issue there of griz-
zly bear management and found the distressing situation where
citizens have worked with the Federal Government to ensure more
bears show up.
You would think that would free up constraints on other uses. It
only made those constraints more binding, not less binding and be-
cause of those experiences and those failed policies mademoti-
vated us to try to find something new, and that is what this pro-
posal was all about.
69
The citizens management concept, which you have before you, we

believe that that is not only the best way but the only way to bring
about sustainable bear populations in this area and to incorporate
the interest of local communities, not just override them. The pro-
posal that we have supported in concept includes three principal
parts that are extremely important, which I outline in my state-
ment.
And the first of which is that the Secretary of Interior fully dele-
gates management authority to the citizens. Second of which is
that the populations be classified as nonessential and experi-
mental. And the third of which is that the recovery zone be defined
in a manner which minimizes conflict, not seek to create conflict.
Now, having said that, I also want to echo Tom Frances view
that in putting this together and talking with folks in the commu-
nities about this, the collaborative process is very difficult. We are
private citizens. We have other things we work on. We began with
the people around this table and then have tried over the last 12
months to the best of our ability to talk to anybody who was inter-
ested in talking about this.
I know Seth made several trips to Ravalli County and other
places. I just want to underscore it was not our intention to exclude
anyone. It was our intention to include as many people as were in-
terested in the citizens sense about this.
Issues have arisen in our conversations and continue to arise
today which need further attention, and we support attention of
that. First, the question regarding the legal authority to create the
Citizen Management Committee that has been talked about in
many places. Section 14 has been raised. We would just say it is
a simple matter. This has to be a real delegation of authority. It
cannot be a sham committee for this proposal to continue to gain
our endorsement as the right way to proceed.
Second, our ongoing questions about the science of the bear and
what this area can sustain and not sustain in terms of bear popu-
lations. Those are also important questions that we think need a
response. And most importantly are the personal safety concerns
that have been raised over and repeatedly. Those need to be accom-
modated.
In conclusion, I would say that the IFIA has long advanced the
perspective that no single use of our forest lands ought to preclude
any other. And it is because of this point of view that we have come
to have these conversations about grizzly bears. I would also say
that we have promoted the concept of local decisionmaking by the
people affected by decisions as being the right way to solve re-
source management problems.
This proposal is consistent with that long-held view of ours, and
I would also say, and underscore, that I believe that it is fun-
damentally wrong for the Federal Government to impose a species,
particularly one that brings the personal safety concerns that the
grizzly bear does, upon citizens of any State without the acceptance
of those citizens.
It is because of that idea and the idea that it is fundamentally
right for the Federal Government to facilitate citizens management
of those species that this proposal has gained acceptance within
our association.
70
And so it is because of those very same concerns that have been

raised elsewhere that we find this to be a creative solution to that
problem. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and will look for-
ward to questions at the end of this panel. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Riley may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Riley. Mr. Church is recog-
nized from Resource Organization on Timber Supply.
STATEMENT OF PHIL CHURCH, RESOURCE ORGANIZATION ON

TIMBER SUPPLY, LEWISTON, IDAHO
Mr. CHURCH. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth
and Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to be able to testify
before you. I am Co-Chairman of ROOTS, Resource Organization
on Timber Supplycan you hear me OK?made up of organized
labor and industry entities. The group was formed to work on nat-
ural resource issues on the Clearwater National Forest and the
Nez Perce National Forest.
A brief history of what we went through so you can understand
why we promote the concept of the Citizen Management Com-
mittee. When we first started a little over 4 years ago, we went to
some meetings in Grangeville, Idaho, and those meetings were
hosted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Fish
and Game.
And it was at these meetings that, you know, we learned that
should a bear wander into this area, then without our proposal
then that bear would be listed under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act with full protection.
In addition, the original proposed area from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Fish and Game was about one-third of the
roaded front which would have locked us out of that area for any
harvestable timber, plus all the unroaded area, plus the proposed
wilderness area. So the original plan was a lot broader than it is
now.
We had a tremendous fear of loss of jobs, destruction of families,
and at that time we came away with a statement of not only no,
but hell no. We were not going to tolerate these actions. We were
going to fight it in any way we could.
We studied the issues, and we learned that, again, should a bear
wander in from the neighboring State of Montana, that bear will
be protected. Again, I want to reemphasize that point because then
we are locked out of that area regardless. There is no input. There
is no say. We are locked out of it.
We also learned by studying that there is more to the ESA than
simply Section 7. I firmly believe the Endangered Species Act is
broken and needs to be repaired. Based on our discussions, four
groups came together, and it wasnt limited to these four groups.
We sent out invitations to as many groups as we could; again,
anyone that would be willing to participate. Several groups said no.
Several groups said they would like to be kept informed of the situ-
ation. Those groups were ROOTS, Defenders of Wildlife, National
Defenders of Wildlife, and IFIAthe groups here before you.
Again, we had an open-door policy to participate, most of which,
again, simply wanted to be kept apprized of it.
71
Because of our labor and management background, we realized

simply saying no is not an option. Under the Endangered Species
Act, we looked for what was negotiable and what was not. The
whole purpose was to perform damage control, again remembering
our sisters and brothers and the loss of jobs, the destruction of fam-
ilies over the spotted owl issue. It was during that same period of
time. And how the grizzly bear and those issues have been handled
in Montana devastating whole communities. We recognized that
and wanted to minimize that damage to our areas.
I did want to add one other point. If that bear under the first
proposal would have been reintroduced, it would have been reintro-
duced into the very back yard of such cities as Elk City. Elk City
was part of the proposed area.
We came up with the concept utilizing a Citizen Management
Committee, and the bear would be reintroduced into the wilderness
of the Selway-Bitterroot as a nonessential experimental population.
The Citizen Management Committee is the way of the future.
The grizzly bear is a controversial issue by itself. But remove the
bear from that issue, from the equation, and put it in its place
bull trout or salmon. Citizens management has potential. The con-
cept of citizens management is visionary, and I ask you to see the
vision of the future. The Endangered Species Act is broken, and
without citizens management and other changes to the Endan-
gered Species Act, no one wins including the listed species.
In closing, the Citizen Management Committee is a win-win con-
cept that needs a chance. My membership does not want the bear,
but they do see the value of a Citizen Management Committee and
are willing to give that a chance. Thank you and I will be happy
to answer any questions.
[Statement of Mr. Church may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Church, and you saw a little
bit of flurry of activity up here. It is because they have called us
to a vote. We have a 15-minute vote on the flag bill which will be
interesting. But, Mr. Fischer, before we proceed with your testi-
mony, since Congressman Hill has left, I am going to run out too
so that we can resume the Committee just as quickly as possible.
So if I can ask your indulgence and recess the Committee tempo-
rarily, we will be back in just a moment. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The bill that we just voted on was a prohibi-
tion against desecration of the American flag, and so as you can
imagine that one passed by a wide majority. I would like to return
now to our activity and the business of the Committee and resume
testimony with Hank Fischer. It really is nice to see you again, Mr.
Fischer. We are going to have to quit meeting like this.
STATEMENT OF HANK FISCHER, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE,

MISSOULA, MONTANA
Mr. FISCHER. You had me nervous there for a second. Madam
Chairman, Congressman Hill, thank you very much for having me
here. I am Hank Fischer. I am the Northern Rockies Representa-
tive for Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders is a national nonprofit
wildlife conservation organization. I am in Missoula, Montana. Our
72
organization has approximately 200,000 members, many of them in

Montana and Idaho.
I have worked for Defenders for 20 years and have been in-
tensely involved in these endangered species issues, and most re-
cently very involved with the wolf restoration issue. I think plainly
wolf restoration will be viewed as an historic conservation achieve-
ment. While many people dont agree with it, the action is going
to influence the conservation of large predators all around the
world.
But I would be just as quick to add that while wolf restoration
in Yellowstone and central Idaho may be a historic achievement, it
is a less than perfect conservation model for three reasons.
First of all, it cost too much, second, it took too long; and third,
there are still too many people in the region who are upset that
it ever happened at all. It is that combination of factors that has
drawn our group together and made us try to seek a better way
to conserve endangered species, and that is what we will present
to you here today.
I have my prepared statement, which I will submit for the
record. I thought I would go over a few items that came up in testi-
mony today that might help elucidate this issue a bit more. First
of all, I wanted to talk a bit about the issue of public support for
Bitterroot grizzly restoration.
It is frequently asserted that there is no support for Bitterroot
grizzly restoration. Defenders of Wildlife, along with the National
Wildlife Federation, commissioned a poll that was conducted in
April of this year. We hired a firm called Responsive Management,
which is the leading market research firm in the United States on
fish and wildlife issues.
This organization has been hired frequently by the Montana De-
partment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Wyoming Gam and Fish De-
partment; Idaho Game and Fish Department. It is generally recog-
nized as the leading firm in the United States on wildlife polling.
And we will make sure that we get you a copy of the poll so that
you can see that for yourself.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.
Mr. FISCHER. But, Tom, maybe you could take away the map
there. There are a couple key points that I want to go over in this
poll that are important. First of all, onTom, could youthe order
of those isnt right. Could you put the first one up with the no con-
ditions? That is the one. The first sheet is the basic question of
support and opposition, with no conditions attached to it. It shows
46 percent support grizzly restoration, 35 percent oppose, 19 per-
cent have no opinion or did not know.
Now, I would be quick to point out to you that in my view, the
actual percentages are not that important. It is plain there are a
substantial number of people who support grizzly restoration, just
as there are also a substantial number of people who oppose it.
And we respect that opposition.
We know it is important to acknowledge the opposition. We know
it is out there, and we know we have to deal with it. That has real-
ly been the point of our work for the last couple of yearstrying
to develop a constructive way to deal with the opposition and re-
spond to their legitimate concerns.
73
The results of this poll that are really most important have to
do with when we tested the four primary conditions of our citizen
management alternative and how that influenced response. Can I
have the second one, Tom? The one on the floor I think. OK. And
what this one shows is that under the conditions that we have a
Citizen Management Committee, cost minimization, no land use re-
strictions, bear relocated from populated areas, we find that the
support goes up to 62 percent; opposition 30 percent; no opinion 8
percent.
And there is a final chart that shows in all three categoriespeo-
ple are opponents, supporters, and those who have no opinion
they all became more supportive of grizzly restoration when we in-
cluded the citizen management aspect to it. Most notably, people
who were uncertain went up the most, but even supporters and op-
ponents became more supportive when they learned about the cit-
izen management alternative.
And so my point here is very simple. We have gone to many
places, and I would like to talk to you more about that. We have
had extensive conversations with the Idaho legislature, especially
with the Grizzly Bear Oversight Committee that was appointed by
the Idaho legislature. We have talked with them. We have made
visits to many small towns in Montana and Idaho, and what we
find is when we talk to people and have the chance to explain this
citizen management alternative to them, they become more sup-
portive. We think it is an alternative that has a lot of promise to
gain broad support.
In closing, I find it a curious irony that we hear today many,
many stories about how the Endangered Species Act isnt working
for one reason or another, and yet people remain firmly resistant
to trying something new.
To me, that is the absolute reason why we need to try something
new because some of our current techniques are not working well.
And we must have the confidence to try new approaches to species
restoration if we are going to avoid continued polarization. Thank
you.
[Statement of Mr. Fischer may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Fischer, and we will open the
questioning with Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank all of you
members of the panel. I would just like to comment first of all I
encourage you in your process. I am, as was mentioned earlier, a
strong advocate of collaborative process. And I know that you folks
have invested a lot in a collaborative effort here. I have expressed
some concerns about that and I will in my questioning.
But I would certainly urge you to stay with this because no mat-
ter what the outcome hereI mean, I think that it is a construc-
tive process with collaborativeI would ask all of you to answer
this question, if you would. What is the value that we are after?
Why is it so important that grizzly bears be reintroduced in this
area at this time? What is that shared value? Start with you, Tom.
Mr. FRANCE. Well, I think we haveeach of the participants that
have worked on this have values that are similar but not identical.
Certainly for the National Wildlife Federation, our priority would
be in recovering the grizzly bear in the Selway-Bitterroot-Frank
74
Church area as part of the larger recovery effort to restore bears

in the lower 48.
Having said that, we recognize that that recovery can only occur
if we also createwe have got to create biological conditions where
that occurs. We have got to create a habitat base for that species,
but we also have to create a social contract about how we manage
a large predator like the grizzly bear. And we think that what we
have done in central Idaho with IFIA and with ROOTS and with
Defenders of Wildlife achieves both of those objectives.
It achieves the objective of establishing a grizzly bear population
in the largest piece of grizzly habitat we have left in the lower 48,
but it does it in a way that respects local communities and we
think will enhance local economies. And I conclude by saying we
have got a proposal here. We are certainly not sure where that is
going to go, but we are committed to the long-term. We recognize
that our job doesnt stop when a grizzly bear is released in Moose
Creek in the Selway, that there are a lot of things we have to work
on after that to make that vision a reality.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Riley?
Mr. RILEY. Congressman, I would respond to that with two
points, the first of which is that we have advanced the perspective
for many years that no single use of our forest lands needs to pre-
clude another, and that is because our industry has been on the
losing end of that preclusion equation, if you will, on lots of issues.
And if we are going to be true to that perspective, here is an
issue where it is very difficult for us to argue that our use of the
forest ought to preclude this other use of the forest, if you are with
me. So that perhaps is at the foundation of what we are talking
about.
More immediate and more importantly to many of our members
is the question of what would happen if we did nothing in this situ-
ation. What would happen to the timber supply in the Bitterroot
Valley if nothing was done at all and a bear showed up there
today. And I would tell you that the answer to that under the cur-
rent law, the Endangered Species Act, is because this is a listed
species.
It receives the full protections of the Endangered Species Act
that we have seen in the Swan Valley and in Yellowstone and
other places. And so this is as much, quite candidly, a defensive op-
portunity for us as it is a way to advance the overall objective of
what we see. So for those two reasons is what the value of this pro-
posal is as we see it.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Church?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Riley said most of what I would saydamage
control. Organized labor would look at it from the point of view. We
have seen what took place over in Washington State with the spot-
ted owl. Again, if that bear was to wander in, we know the bear
has wandered in from Montana; has not taken up residency yet.
If that bear was to take up residency, full protection under the
Endangered Species Act, Section 7, and we dont have a voice. This
hearing is a moot point. There is nothing that can happen. That
law isit is a different story then. Everything changes. And we are
trying to protect and minimize that damage.
Mr. HILL. Those doggone Montana bears, huh?
75
Mr. CHURCH. Sorry.

Mr. HILL. They used to beat them in football too. They cheer the
grizzlies on Saturdays down there in Ravalli County, and they
curse them the rest of the week. But, anyway
Mr. FISCHER. I guess I would say simply that any collaborative
effort depends on some convergence of interest. Our convergence is
clearly we would like to see bears restored to this area, and I
think, you know, these people want to make sure that it is done
in a way that doesnt significantly impact their interests. And I
think that is the convergence.
Mr. HILL. You know, but what I hear here is, you know, obvi-
ously, we want to restore themto restore more grizzlies. We want
to have more grizzlies in the 48, and we want to restore the oppor-
tunity to industry to be able to harvest timber. But the concerns
that were expressed mostly today about this was human contact,
the impact on people, just their everyday life, not jobs, although
there is some concern about jobsrecreation, but also just safety
of their children and sense of safety when they recreate. What
about that?
Mr. FISCHER. If I could speak to that, you know, our poll asked
that question directly, why were people opposed, and our poll
showed that too, that almost on a five-to-one basis the primary rea-
son people were afraid of thiswere opposed to it because of fear
of bears. It wasnt the issues that we think like cost and like land
use restrictions. Those were much lower.
It was the fear issue. And in some ways, that is good news be-
cause that is something that we can work on, although only to a
certain level. I mean, there is a certain fear of bears that I think
is similar to the fear some people have of flying on airplanes. And
you can tell people driving to the airport you are more likely to die,
and, jeez, I could regale you with all kinds of stories about how
gruesome it is to be in an airplane crash and all the stories of peo-
ple going down and all that. And it is. It is awful. It is terrible.
But at the same time, we are all going to get on an airplane
again. And in the same way, I think all of us are going to go to
Yellowstone Park again. All of us are going to visit Alaska again,
and I think in the future all of us are going to visit the Bitterroot,
but we are going to do it with care.
Mr. HILL. I just want to remind you when we start talking about
air and water quality issues and the environmental impacts and
risk to life, I want to remind you of the fact there is a risk in life.
And when you talk about bears, it is that way in all parts of life.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. France and Mr.
Fischer, my congratulations to you, Mr. Riley, Mr. Church, for ap-
proaching this issue in a manner that I hope we see other issues
with regards to local citizen management organizations being
formed and work through these to key problems. Certainly, the
Quincy Library Group proposal that was one of the first bills in
front of this Committee I think is a prime example of how citizens
and local interest groups can work together and achieve what ev-
eryone wants.
My biggest concern is now that the bill is out of committee, we
are seeing a lot of national attention paid to this by the national
76
environmental groups. And while agreements are made locally,

there is nothing that binds the same national group from moving
ahead and then opposing the issue and either filing suit or coming
in here and heavily lobbying against it.
I know because I asked Mr. Fischer this same question in Mon-
tana, and I remember his answer. You know, it is a free country,
and we cant bind people. And I understand that. But you can see
our concern that while we may agree locally, while we may even,
in essence, endorse this, there is no security in knowing that when
you speak for the National Wildlife Federation or Defenders of
Wildlife that when it reaches the implementation point that it is
going to move ahead. Is there anything, Mr. France or Mr. Fischer,
you can say that could give us any security about what you may
agree to on the field being carried forward?
Mr. FRANCE. Well, I would offer with one example, and I know
there are differing opinions on the wolf recovery program, but that
too was done under an experimental population rule. And we may
disagree about the specifics of that rule, but, nonetheless, it was
challenged. It was challenged by the Farm Bureau organizations in
Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. It was also challenged by the Na-
tional Audubon Society and some other conservation groups.
And I am privileged to represent National Wildlife and Defenders
of Wildlife and the Idaho Wildlife Federation in intervening in that
case and were there to see that that rule was an effort at com-
promise. It may not have succeeded as well as we liked, but that
middle course was where we wanted to be, and we backed that up
by going into Court against other conservation organizations.
And I think we have the same level of commitment, and that is
why I made my comment earlier that in many ways if this plan is
approved and we get the situation where some day we are putting
a bear out in Moose Creek, you know, that is not the end of the
story for the National Wildlife Federation.
That has to be viewed as the beginning because that is when the
success or failure of the citizen management approach starts to be
measured. And it is all theory until then, and if we are going to
make a proposal like this, we have to have a commitment to work-
ing through as the implementation occurs. And we are well aware
of that, and we will do our best.
Mr. FISCHER. If I could make one comment?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Sure.
Mr. FISCHER. What I would say is, you know, I appreciate your
kind words about our process, but at the same time it is very nec-
essary for us at some level to achieve some endorsement, some sup-
port for what we are doing. I think ityou know, you wonder what
makes these sort of processes grow and succeed. It is by having
people step forward and say this is the right thing to do and to
support them. And we need that kind of support, and we need that
from elected officials as well as from local citizens.
I think what makes this thing strong and such that it repels at-
tacks is by having this bridge across different interest groups. That
is a very strong insulation from attack, in my view. And I think
lawsuits rarely succeed where you have common interest joined
like that.
77
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. France, you indicated that you have a

legal background?
Mr. FRANCE. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And are you an attorney?
Mr. FRANCE. Yes, I am an attorney.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I asked a question earlier about the liability
that individuals might be incurring as members of the Citizen
Management Committee and even citizens like you who may have
helped organize this. The long arm of the law seems to be reaching
out in issues of personal liability cases, even piercing the corporate
veil. This concerns me and as I examine the agreement, I find
nothing that will indemnify or protect individuals or organizations
or even corporations and their stockholders. Have you done a legal
analysis on this?
Mr. FRANCE. As I said in my testimony, we keep listening and
we keep hearing concerns, that this is a new concern for me. And
I will take a look at that. Two months ago, Director Mealey raised
the concern about whether the Secretary even had the power to
delegate to the Citizen Management Committee.
And, obviously, we had made an initial cut on that years ago and
said, yes, under the experimental population provision of the ESA
that authority was there. But certainly Director Mealeys questions
have prompted us to take another look at that. And we hope to
form some sort of consensus with lawyers, both in the conservation
community and with the timber industry, and we will take a look
at that liability issue. And I would hope we could get something
to you soon on that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I really appreciate that, and I
would look forward to your response on that. Mr. Riley, welcome.
It is good to see you.
Mr. RILEY. It is always good to see you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. You have been involved in this issue from the
very, very beginning. You have seen a lot of things happen to the
timber industry in Idaho. As a result of the agreement, if every-
thing in the Citizen Management Committee agreement can go for-
ward, presuming that the introduction has taken place, has there
been anything that we have gained?
I know that we are in a defensive measure. What we are trying
to prevent is losing more. But in a good agreement, usually two
peopleboth sides really benefit and they gain. While the one side
is gaining a huge territory for an endangered species, what have
we gained?
Mr. RILEY. You know, we struggled with that very same question
internally many times, and I think that it is important to sort of
shift your perspective to understand our view on this from who
gains and who loses to dealing with the situation.
I mean, we could argue at great length as to who has that
ground today, you know, what is going onremember, this is a wil-
derness area where the core of the proposal is and outside of it is
part of the management areaand who ultimately has more con-
trol over, you know, or which interest does over what is going to
happen there under the status quo. When we talked about that, we
decided that that is sort of one of those endless conversations that
there is no win on.
78
We believe that under all likely possible courses of action that

could go forward from here, our interests would be better off if this
concept, as we envision it with some important legal questions
hereour interests would be better off than the other alternative
courses of action which are available. That is our assessment.
And while I am speaking to this, let me also respond to, if I can,
your first set of questions. There are some legal questions here
very specific ones about this proposal because make no doubt about
it, the Endangered Species Act was not put together to envision
citizens managing anything.
In fact, it was put together for the exact opposite purpose where
the Federal Government would sort of swoop in and take control
in these situations. So we are trying to do something with this law
that was not specifically intended by the people who drafted it.
Now, we do think that it is legal, but we also are very much
aware that there are people who have pledged without even having
seen the proposed rule from the Fish and Wildlife Service that they
are going to litigate this. On both sides of this issue, there are peo-
ple who have pledged that. So that is a highly important question.
And just as a general matter, I want to observe I have come be-
fore this Committee and testified numerous times on the need for
changes in our environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act
being one of them.
I mean, it is for exactly this reason because it is the notion that
what happens to make good environmental policy is the Federal
Government comes out and does things to citizens of the States like
our State rather than comes out and allows things to happen with
us is what has caused great resentment throughout Montana to-
ward the bear, toward the Federal Government, as well as our
State of Idaho, and as causing polarization in our communities
rather than people trying to work together as this small group of
us at this table are today to bring about solutions to problems rath-
er than endless fights over resource use.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Riley, you are regarded by many people
as one of the best professional governmental affairs operators not
only in Idaho but probably in the Nation, and I am not blowing
smoke. This is something that I have learned since I came back
here. It troubles me that when the Governor and the legislature
and the delegation and the county commissioners all say no how
we can move ahead with a program that cost taxpayers money.
And how do you feel about that personally, if you dont mind?
Mr. RILEY. Well, not just personally but professionally I would
tell you that it was my advice this morning and it remains my ad-
vice to the Fish and Wildlife Service that it is inappropriate for
them to force this upon the citizens of Idaho or Montana.
The core of this proposal is based on the fact that the citizens
of the State can work with the support of their Federal Govern-
ment to handle this situation. It is not something that is done to
them, but it is something that is done with them.
And I think that it isas I watched this morning in the con-
versation that ensued, it seems like people are now pulling apart
to a polarized conflict with what we have been trying to advance
as coming together. It has been my personal stance and our organi-
zations stance to work with all of the members of the delegations
79
involved here to try to get understanding and consensus as we

have in the local communities throughout both States as to why
this concept will work rather than forcing this upon anybody.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Mr. France, I want to return to
you for another question, and that question is if the agreement
were adjusted so that the citizens were satisfied that they were in-
demnified, the citizens on the committee, and if Mr. Riley and Mr.
Church were satisfied that moving ahead with a multiple-use con-
cept was drafted in the agreement, does it hold up in Court be-
cause can we agree to something that is contrary to a statutory au-
thority?
By that I mean ifin the agreement, they agreed to a multiple-
use concept, but yet the Endangered Species Act states you have
to manage critical habitat singularly. Can you agree to that which
is
Mr. FRANCE. I think the answer on a couple of those questions
is clear under the law. Where an experimental population is des-
ignateda nonessential experimental population is designated, the
Act expressly relieves the Secretary of designating critical habitat
and expressly commands him not to conduct Section 7 consulta-
tions for Federal actions.
So at least as far as the usual things that go with the Endan-
gered Species Act, the law itself is clear that once we use this non-
essential experimental designation, we do away with the regulatory
burdens of the Act, and we encourage flexibility and creativity.
Where the Act is less clear is it says to the Secretary go forth
and experiment, but as Mr. Riley correctly observes, it never oc-
curred to Congress in 1982 that somebody might consider it a good
experiment to delegate authority to a bunch of people in Montana
and Idaho to manage grizzly bears.
And so that question isthere are answers for it. They are prece-
dent in terms of other Federal statutes where delegations have oc-
curred, and that is the kind of law we are pulling together right
now, and I will be happy to make that available when we have it
in final form.
But we know we can get rid of a lot of the baggage or a lot of
the things that have caused friction with endangered species with
the designation. We want to take a closer look, and we want to do
it in concert with the Fish and Wildlife Service on this delegation
issue. We want to provide as much certainty.
I would add too that Jim is also right. We have heard from peo-
ple around the compass that feel threatened by this, that they will
sue us or sue the Secretary. And I think we will have a chance to
have the legal questions looked at in Court before we are deep into
the management of grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot. I think
we will get some firm answers from a Court. I am fairly confident
they will be in our favor.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have just one more question, and then I will
yield more time to Mr. Hill. The Davis and Butterfield report, Mr.
France, indicated that there was a certain area that was more suit-
able for the reintroduction or introduction of the grizzlies. And yet
an area that they did not study was set aside for that purpose. Do
you know why? What is the science behind it? What happened?
80
Mr. FRANCE. Well, I do know at least part of the answer, and

that is that the Fish and Wildlife Service listened to what we had
to say in terms of proposing this citizen management proposal. The
Services initial thought on reintroducing grizzly bears to Idaho
was the Selway-Bitterroot and the Clearwater country to the north
of the Lochsa. And that is what the initial studies looked at by way
of habitat capability.
When we proposed our rule in the summer of 1995, that caused
the Service to take a look at it. As Dr. Morgenweck noted this
morning, they have adopted it as a preferred alternative, and our
proposal called for keying recovery efforts into the Selway-Bitter-
rootFrank Church.
And so the study came in advance of that, and we just havent
squared up all the round pegs with the square holes yet. But the
Service basically responded to what we said by way of an appro-
priate area for initial reintroduction and for management empha-
sis.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just, Hank, would you
be willing to make the complete copy of that poll available to the
Committee, cross tabs and everything?
Mr. FISCHER. Absolutely.
Mr. HILL. I sure would like to look at it because it is important
to me. Thank you. The big concern I think that comes out, and it
is interesting that the poll revealed this as well, in Ravalli County
is this issue of fear. I mean, obviously, people there are concerned
about their childrens lives and livestock and those sorts of things.
What strategies are there in managing a grizzly bear population
that can be used to instill a certain amount of fear on the part of
grizzly bears to people? I mean, some things I have read would in-
dicate, for example, that without hunting, bears just dont have a
natural fear of people. Is that true in your view? Are there strate-
gies that can be used to
Mr. FISCHER. Yes. I mean, there are definitely strategies that we
can use. We are using them in other places, and, yes, we know a
lot about this right now. But I think the one thing, and, again, you
know, our poll showed this as well, is when we asked people, OK,
if we had a policy whereby bears that came into areas that were
designated no bear areas were removed promptly, would that allay
your fear? Yes, it very much seemed to allay their fears.
And, again, that is what we specifically have done for the Bitter-
root have been declare that private lands in the Bitterroot Valley
are places where bears wont be tolerated. So as soon as they show
upnow, we are not going to wait for them to cause problems. As
soon as they show up, we are going to capture them and take them
back to the wilderness.
We are not going to tolerate bears on private lands in the Bitter-
root Valley, and we thought that was the most effective way to di-
rectly address that, and we did that at Governor Racicots sugges-
tion. He was the one who suggested that we include that after he,
you know, went and visited with people in Ravalli County and
heard their concerns about safety too.
And I would be quick to say we remain open to other suggestions
for how to improve this. This Citizen Management Committee has
81
the ability to designate other areas that may be appropriate for,

you know, declaring offlimits to bears. I think as you have heard
from several panels, including Hal Salwasser and Steve Mealey,
education makes a huge difference in keeping people from having
problems with bears.
The big difference is that, you know, we tend to think of grizzly
bears, and we have this national park image. And that is the place
where you have millions of people who are not educated in the
backwoods going out and encountering bears, and that is where
problems do occur. In places that are wilderness areas, you tend to
have sophisticated users or you have people going in with outfitters
who are sophisticated users, and they know how to not get into
trouble with bears.
Mr. HILL. That is when the bears dont wander out of those areas
though. I mean, I agree with you. I have seen grizzly bears in the
Bob Marshall, and I am afraid of them. But I want to follow that
on because I agree with the comment Mr. Riley made. I think that
one of the critical elements here from my perspective is I think
that we have a problem down there in Ravalli County, and that we
have got a lot of work to do down there to turn around public opin-
ion if this is going to go forward.
I dont think that it would be fair to impose on the people of
Ravalli County this reintroduction without substantially stronger
support down there for them. And, you know, I certainly agree with
you thatand I want to encourage this process, but I just dont
think the process has gone far enough to deal with the issues with
regard to public opinion. I am hopeful that it doesnt go forward
at least reintroduction doesnt go forward until there is some pop-
ular support down there.
Tom, I have a couple questions for you. Because in your written
testimony, there are a couple statements that you made that are
a little inconsistent with some of the answers to questions that I
got earlier so I want to probe those a little bit if I could.
Mr. FRANCE. I certainly dont want to be inconsistent.
Mr. HILL. Well, you arent inconsistent, but your perspective on
this is a little different than others. One of them says how would
grizzly bear introduction affect current public land use, and I want
to read you the statement, and then I want to ask a question.
It says, The citizen management alternative assumes that cur-
rent public land management is adequate for grizzly reintroduc-
tion. As the reintroduced grizzly bear population expands, the Cit-
izen Management Committee will assess how bears are using the
experimental area and make decisions about their management.
And I asked some questions earlier about whether or not there
would be changes in the management of the public lands if grizzly
bears are reintroduced. And the answer that I got earlier was is
that, no, that wouldnt be the case because the only area we are
talking about is the reintroduction area, which would be the wil-
derness areas.
But your statement here would seem to indicate that the citizens
advisory group would have authority and would likely be making
changes in the management of the other public lands that adjoin
that area. Am I right or am I wrong?
82
Mr. FRANCE. I think you are right. The rule expressly states that
outside of the recovery area within the boundaries of the experi-
mental population area grizzly bears will be accommodated. And
how that accommodation takes place is the province of the Citizen
Management Committee. Mr. MealeyI read the rule to say that
no changes were necessary there, and that could be a right answer.
But I think when weand all of us at the table are the we that
I speak ofwhen we put that together, we certainly could conceive
of a scenario where a grizzly would move into the North Fork of
the Clearwater River, which is good bear habitat, where timber op-
erations could be managed in a way that didnt conflict with
grizzlies, and the committee would make some recommendations to
that extent, and life would go on. And we do know from other areas
where we have grizzlies that those kinds of accommodations can be
made.
I want to respond to your point about Ravalli County and its con-
cerns, and we have noted that Ravalli County is the fastest grow-
ing county in Montana. But two and three on the list are Flathead
and Gallatin Counties, and they have grizzly bear populations lit-
erally in their back yard, and both of those counties seem to have
been able to make accommodation for grizzly bears.
Mr. HILL. But those are existing populations, not reintroductions.
Mr. FRANCE. I understand but I am just saying that we have ex-
amples where we can have growing and even vibrant economies
and populations and a grizzly bear population which gives us hope
that this accommodation can work and work well.
The other example I give to you, Congressman, is the Flathead
common groundwork that IFIA and Defenders and National have
been doing in the Flathead where we have been trying to work to-
gether collaboratively to design timber harvests, to do bull trout
protection, to do road management in a way that builds a very
strong consensus across both commercial and recreational inter-
ests. And we have been very pleased with the success we have had.
Mr. HILL. And one of the reasons there is that you have a little
broader group for collaborative purposes than occurred here. And
I want toactually you made the comment that I want to ask a
second question about. This is a loaded question so get ready. You
talked about the citizen management group may develop reason-
able accommodations for long-term occupancy of private lands
where bears appear consistently.
Now, accommodation is an interesting word. In your view, does
that mean that private lands that adjoin this area which are now
bear habitat but dont have bears in them would be subject to what
those on our side occasionally refer to as regulatory taking? And if
so, would you support some provision here so that that accommoda-
tion would include some compensation to those private landowners
since right now they have no risk of grizzly bears beingimposing
them on the use of their land?
Mr. FRANCE. I think compensation is very much on the table. De-
fenders of Wildlife, of course, is the expert, as it were, in private
compensation funds with the terrific work they have done with the
wolf program. We very much see that as a solution that is there,
and I think Dr. Morgenweck said that citizen management could
83
look at that. We very much recognize that private lands is a situa-

tion that is one of accommodation. And we have seen
Mr. HILL. So when you say accommodation, you mean you are
going to accommodate the property owner here and not just the
bears?
Mr. FRANCE. Absolutely. You have to have a willing property
owner and a working relationship, or you are not going to have
bears. And as you well know, Congressman, with elk, with many,
many species, we work at the good will of the private landowner.
And it is an ongoing dialog. There are always going to be areas of
friction, but we that want to work with the publics wildlife have
to recognize those private concerns and those private rights.
Mr. FISCHER. I would interject that we are already working with
Plum Creek in the Lolo Pass area to talk with them about manage-
ment of their areas to seewe have been investigating how com-
patible their current land use is with grizzly recovery in that area
and seeing what they could do voluntarily to improve it for bear
recovery, and they are very receptive to that.
Mr. HILL. OK. Thank you all very much. Again, I want to thank
you for being here. I appreciate your input and your comments, and
I am looking forward to continuing to work with you to try to find
a way through all this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Church, I have some
more questions for you, but we have just gotten a notice that the
Speaker has called an emergency meeting in HC5, and we also
have another hearing. But I think we better meet with the Speak-
er, and so we are going to adjourn this long and drawn out hearing.
And I thank you very much for coming out.
We do have more questions, and I invite the members of the
Committee to submit questions to Mr. Simmons, and we will sub-
mit them to you and would appreciate your answer at your very
earliest convenience. And the record here in this Committee will be
held open. Again, if there is no further business, this Committee
is adjourned. Thank you.
[Calgary Herald edition follows:]
[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional materal submitted for the record follows.]
84
BRIEFING PAPER
SUMMARY
The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health will meet on Thursday, June 12,
1997 to hold an oversight hearing on the issue of the reintroduction of the grizzly
bear in the public domain National Forests.
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed reintroduction of the grizzly bear
to the Selway-Bitteroot Mountains of central Idaho and Western Montana. The his-
tory of the proposal dates back to 1982 when the Fish and Wildlife Service com-
pleted the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (GBRP). This plan was revised in 1993 by
the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.
The GBRP addressed six areas: (l) Northern Continental Divide centered around
Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness in northwestern Montana,
(2) Cabinet-Yaak also in northwestern Montana, (3) Selkirk in north Idaho and
northeastern Washington, (4) Yellowstone including lands surrounding Yellowstone
National Park, (5) North Cascades in northwestern Washington, and (6) Bitteroot
in central Idaho and western Montana.
In 1995 the Fish and Wildlife Service brought together the Interagency Grizzly
Bear Committee (IGBC) to begin the environmental impact statement (EIS) process.
IGBC members include specialists from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Serv-
ice, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, and the Nez Perce Tribe.
A public Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 9,
1995 to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to ob-
tain input from other agencies and the public on the scope of the issues to be ad-
dressed in the EIS. The IGBC agreed to delay the planned release of the draft EIS.
The 5,500-square mile evaluation area extends from the Salmon River north to
include the North Fork of the Clearwater River. Approximately 97 percent of this
area is public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The remainder is land
owned by woods products companies. About half of the area is located in the Selway-
Bitteroot and Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.
The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) can weigh up to 900 pounds and live up
to 20 years. The oldest grizzly bear captured in North America was a 35 year-old
female in the Cabinet Mountains of Montana. Grizzlies are omnivores that eat both
plants and animals. About 80 percent of their diet is vegetation and insects. Home
territory for a male grizzly can be as large as 300 square miles.
Opposition to the reintroduction of the grizzly bear to the Selway-Bitteroot Moun-
tains is unanimous from elected officials in Idaho. The governor, State legislature
and entire Idaho Congressional Delegation including Chairman Helen Chenoweth
have made formal statements opposing the grizzly bear being reintroduced into the
State and the associated EIS process. The Legislature of the State of Idaho passed
a resolution signed by Governor Phil Batt opposing reintroduction of the grizzly
bear.
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208

House Hearing, 105TH Congress - Oversight Hearing On The Reintroduction of The Grizzly Bear in The Public Domain National Forests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 105TH Congress - Oversight Hearing On The Reintroduction of The Grizzly Bear in The Public Domain National Forests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 105TH Congress - Oversight Hearing On The Reintroduction of The Grizzly Bear in The Public Domain National Forests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE REINTRODUCTION

OF THE GRIZZLY BEAR IN THE PUBLIC DO-

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

JUNE 12, 1997WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105-42

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997

cerns remain unresolved. That is in large part one of the reasons

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

and I appreciate the efforts being made to keep communities in-

grizzly or the timber wolf. Obviously, the response there I suppose

STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH MORGENWECK, DIRECTOR, MOUN-

The Forest Service, therefore, is only one of many cooperators

individuals. We strive for the common goals of land stewardship

cial standpoint, in a more positive place than we thought we might

Yaak and the Bitterroot, between Yellowstone and the Northern

rule is that they be delegated management authority. The only

Mr. MORGENWECK. There have been modifications to it since that

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, Madam Chairman, I think that if there

Mr. VENTO. So you dont know. We havent tried this particular

issues raised by the stockmen, issues raised by the public in terms

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

be a recovery plan? I know since a recovery plan doesnt exist, it

maulings in Yellowstone Park; also in British Columbia, Canada,

that the experimental population could be in includes some non-

We met with the Idaho Association of Counties, and we met with

regulation, the reintroduction of the species, the management of an

Mr. MORGENWECK. Well, I am not a lawyer. I guess, you know,

there were absolutely no no votes. It came out 35 to zip. When I

[Statement of Senator Branch may be found at end of hearing.]

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MEALEY, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF

In fact, there is no document I know of that can demonstrate

of the Board of County Commissioners of Custer County. I live in

Tourism makes up less than 10 percent of the total economy of

couldwas suitable for grizzly bears. I have a copy of that report

commodate them. It does include the area assessed by Butterfield

confidence, you know, in the ability of the Federal agencies to con-

bears in that experimental area, I cant understand why you would

is a Country Western songthe title is What Part of No Dont You

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, Congressman Hill, I hope I did

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN BENEDETTO, COMMUNITIES FOR

tions, the Washington Back Country Horsemen, has expressed its

Ms. BUGLI. That is right.

Dr. Stephen Arno, wildfire research scientist, has noted the

Ms. BUGLI. I am sorry. I should know that answer, but I dont

Mr. HILL. And the opposition there is substantially based on fear.

And, again, following on this theme of listening, we heard some

of the Intermountain Forest Industry Association with head-

The citizens management concept, which you have before you, we

And so it is because of those very same concerns that have been

STATEMENT OF PHIL CHURCH, RESOURCE ORGANIZATION ON

Because of our labor and management background, we realized

STATEMENT OF HANK FISCHER, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE,

organization has approximately 200,000 members, many of them in

Church area as part of the larger recovery effort to restore bears