Statement of the Honorable Dan Sullivan on S.659, the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act, Subcommittee on Fisheries Water, and Wildlife: March 17, 2015

__________________________________________________________________

Good morning and thank you for being here to discuss legislation I sponsored, S.659, the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015.

This legislation represents years of hard work by the sporting community, and I am appreciative of the efforts that have gone into crafting what is a collection of bills that have demonstrated broad-based bipartisan support, including some that enjoy the support of the Obama Administration.

I am hopeful that in this Congress, we will be able to take this effort across the finish line, because doing so means more opportunities for America’s sporting community and more dollars for wildlife conservation.

Specifically, S. 659, would:

·        Codify an existing exemption that would exclude the EPA from regulating lead fishing tackle and ammunition;

·        Provide the states greater ability to use Pittman Robertson funding for shooting ranges on public lands;

·        Allow the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits to 41 hunters, including two Alaskans, so that they can import their legally taken polar bear trophies from Canada;

·        Ensure farmers are not cited for illegal baiting when hunting birds from their farm fields;

·        Allow the lawful possession of firearms at water resource development projects;

·        Reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act;

·        Reauthorize the five Multinational Species Conservation Funds; and

·        Extend Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act Interest Payments

This morning, I know we’re going to hear criticisms regarding the polar bear and lead ammunition provisions. However, the facts are simple.

This legislation simply codifies an existing exemption regarding the regulation of lead tackle and ammunition, and in no way restricts the ability fish and wildlife agencies, both on the state and federal level, from restricting their usage if there is compelling scientific reasons to do so.

Further, there are detractors here today who are opposed to allowing for the importation of 41 polar bear trophies from Canada and refer to the language as a “loophole.”  But, the intent of Section 4 couldn’t be clearer-- to allow only those 41 hunters with a legally taken polar bear trophy, taken prior to the 2008 ESA listing, to bring those trophies into the U.S.  This section reflects drafting changes requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Administration now supports this portion of the bill.

Those who legally hunted and harvested these polar bears fully complied with all U.S. and Canadian laws in place at the time.  In many instances, these hunts were planned for years as savings were set-aside to book a once in a lifetime experience.

Most importantly, I want to stress that the prohibition on bringing these trophies into the U.S. is not providing any conservation value to polar bear populations.  In fact, if we allow these trophies to be imported, we can raise much needed funds for conservation activities for the polar bear population.

I hope we won’t let these few differences detract from the bipartisan nature of this legislation, which represents the furtherance of the American System of Conservation Funding, which has funded fish and wildlife conservation for the past 76 years. The hunting and fishing licenses purchased by sportsmen, coupled with excise taxes on the equipment sportsmen buy, fund state efforts to manage fish and wildlife that benefit an array of species, and continue to enhance our nation’s sporting heritage. There are always going to be those who don’t think we should kill animals. But, there is no denying that the greatest source of conservation funding comes from the sporting community themselves.

Finally, this bill includes important conservation reauthorizations like the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and Multinational Species Conservation Funds, which provide matching grants to organizations, governments, and landowners for projects. Both programs leverage non-federal dollars at a ratio that far exceeds a 1-1 match. With our federal deficit now over $18 trillion, it’s important that we adequately justify why Congress should continue to appropriate a small, but symbolically important, amount of taxpayer money to these programs. I hope our witnesses today will help us tell that story. 

Thank you again for being here this morning and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.