Oversight Hearing Titled: "Understanding the Consequences of Experimental Populations Under the Endangered Species Act"

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans

2025-03-04

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This congressional hearing examines the consequences of experimental populations of wolves and grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), with a focus on the financial and operational impacts on ranchers in the Western United States. Panelists include ranchers from Arizona, Washington, and Colorado who detail how predator reintroduction has led to livestock losses, diminished grazing access, and significant indirect costs such as reduced cattle weights and mental stress. Witnesses argue that current depredation compensation programs are inadequate, often failing to cover indirect losses or require excessive proof of attacks. The hearing highlights the role of ESA Section 10J as both a conservation tool and a mechanism of regulatory overreach, with concerns about shifting goals, inconsistent enforcement, and insufficient local input. Key policy questions raised include the adequacy of compensation, the need for clearer management and accountability, and the potential for the ESA to be used in ways that undermine rural livelihoods. Testimony underscores the importance of balancing species recovery with the needs of rural communities and calls for improved coordination, transparent processes, and on-the-ground responsiveness from federal agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Participants

Transcript

to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on understanding the consequences of experimental populations under the Endangered Species Act. Under Committee Rule 4F, any oral opening statements at the hearing are limited to the chairman and the ranking member. I therefore ask you now to consent that all other members' misstatements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3-0. Without objection, so ordered. I ask that the following members be allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing. The gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman from Wyoming, Ms. Hagerman. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crank. gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hurd, gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse, gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane, gentleman from Montana, Mr. Downing, the gentleman from Michigan, Ms. Dingell. Without objection, so ordered. That was a list, wasn't it? I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good morning, everyone, and thank you very much. I'm welcoming the witnesses, several who have come from beautiful stretches in Arizona, Washington State, and Colorado to be here with us. Thank you for appearing before the committee to discuss the consequences of experimental populations under the Endangered Species Act. I'd like to ask our audience to take a moment and imagine life as a rancher. You wake up before dawn, pull on a pair of well-worn leather boots, and head out with a cup of coffee just as the sun begins to peek over the mountains in the distance. Before going to check the fences, you drive your children to the bus stop miles away, asking them to wait in the truck. Wolves have been spotted in the area recently, and you don't want to risk their safety. Out in a nearby pasture, you find the remains of a dead calf, just pieces of the carcass left behind.

Before you can get on the phone to call a fishing game, you find another carcass. The loss is not just painful to witness, but expensive to your operation. For most of you, this gruesome scene may be fuel for nightmares, but for ranchers in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and other states, into which apex predators have been introduced as experimental populations, this nightmare is a reality. And this reality is the consequences of a weaponized 10 process that ignores crucial local stakeholder input in favor of appeasing radical environmental groups. To be clear, the 10 experimental population exception is foundationally a conservation tool meant to ease the ESA's regulatory burden, creating non-essential experimental populations, affords the US Fish and Wildlife Service and landowners greater flexibility in species management, including removal of problem animals that pose a danger to humans, livestock, and pets. Yet rather than to use the 10 process appropriately, as an exception to the ESA, Fish and Wildlife Service has exploited the rules to introduce populations of apex predators like grizzly bears and wolves into areas unprepared, unable, and unwilling to support them. And by ignoring local input before and after the introduction of experimental populations, Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed animals like bears and wolves to wreak havoc on unsuspecting families working tirelessly to make a living off their own land. A grizzly bear, for example, consumes as much as 30 to 40 pounds of food per day when bulking up for the winter. Similarly, a single wolf eats up to 20 pounds of meat in one sitting. Some wolves, hunting alone or in packs, slaughter easy-to-kill livestock for food. Others seem to kill family pets and livestock just for amusement. Others still threaten children playing innocently in their yards. This depredation takes a great emotional and physical and financial toll on hardworking American ranching families. Families grieve their pets and fear leaving their homes, not knowing whether a predatory animal lurks around the corner.

Rather than tend to their herds and collect eggs, ranchers document evidence of attacks, haul bodies of dead livestock, and wash blood from chicken coops. Instead of selling their cattle for profit, ranching families wake up with their income literally having been gobbled up overnight. Even just the presence of an experimental apex predator results in financial hardship. One study from the University of Montana revealed that an average calves on ranches that experienced at least one wolf predation weigh 20 pounds less than calves on ranches without a wolf presence. This 3.5% decrease in weight means that these animals fetch much lower prices when sold. Moving forward, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service must seek to local input that highlights not only valid concerns about depredation, but also solutions that make species recovery more palatable and effective. For example, rather than mass-attract movement of experimental predator populations, Fish and Wildlife Service can make GPS collar data available to ranchers who will use this data to protect themselves and their animals.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.