August 23, 2004

 

Statement of

 

Olin Sims, 4^th Generation Rancher, McFadden, Wyoming

 

 

and President, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts

 

 

Before the

 

 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

 

 

Subcommittee on Fish, Wildlife, and Water.

 

 

On

 

 

The Endangered Species Act

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thomas and members of the Committee, I am Olin Sims, a 4th generation rancher from McFadden, Wyoming.  Our family owns and operates a cow/calf operation in the southeastern part of Wyoming.  I am also the President of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts.  The Association represents Wyoming’s 34 Districts comprised of 170 elected officials; the Districts are local units of government, charged by state statute with the conservation of natural resources.

 

 

 

 

 

Today, I am representing Wyoming’s agriculture producers and would like to share some of agriculture’s perspectives on the Endangered Species Act and its impact on our industry, as well as changes necessary for the Act to benefit both wildlife and people, something the current law has failed to do. 

 

 

 

 

 

First, I want to emphasis that Wyoming’s agriculture producers are committed to a healthy environment, which includes species of all types.  My family is just one example of a family ranching operation that has invested a considerable amount of effort in improving our natural resource base not only for economic productivity, but also developing habitat for a diversity of wildlife species.

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to share with you a few impacts the Endangered Species Act has had on agriculture producers in the state of Wyoming.

 

 

 

 

 

In November of 1994 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued its final rule for the reintroduction of the gray wolf into Yellowstone National Park as a non-essential experimental population. One of the stated purposes of the introduction under this designation was to provide the USFWS with the management abilities and techniques to assure that historical uses of public and private lands would not be disrupted by the wolf recovery activities. Management Zones were identified in the Wolf Recovery Plan to minimize wolf-human and wolf-livestock conflicts. Wolves were to be released and managed in Zone I with adequate habitat components for wolf recovery and less than 20% subjectivity to livestock interaction. Zone II was designated as a buffer between wolves and human and livestock interaction and Zone III was defined as undesirable for wolf presence due to daily presence of human and livestock activity.[1]

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately,  data collected in 2003 determined that Wyoming has an estimated 76 to 88 Gray wolves in 8 packs living in Wyoming, outside of Yellowstone Park[2], clearly outside of the Zone I recovery area.  This does not include the wolf packs living within the Yellowstone National Park. With an average propagation rate of 22 percent per year[3], the unmanaged wolves are one of the most glaring examples of the Endangered Species Acts devastating economic impacts to the livestock industry.  Despite reassurances during the reintroduction process that wolves depredating on livestock would be controlled; the federal government has neglected to fulfill its commitment. Wolf sightings and wolf depredation to livestock have been confirmed by USFWS officials nearly half way across the State of Wyoming, clearly outside of the Zone I recovery area and definitely into the Zone III area defined as undesirable for wolf presence. 

 

 

 

 

 

Wolves have killed a very large number of livestock in many areas of the state.  This is not only an economic loss from the direct loss of livestock, but also an economic harm to the communities where these operations conduct their business.  Although there are claims that livestock losses are being compensated, this compensation only comes with a Fish & Wildlife “confirmed” wolf kill.  Meeting the agency’s “confirmed” kill can be next to impossible even if carcasses are available, many more carcasses cannot even be located. Subsequently, the losses reported from 1999 through 2002, of 295 sheep confirmed, 112 cattle, 34 herding dogs and two horses, are a gross underestimation of the actual loss. [4]

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to actual livestock losses, ranchers are reporting that the presence of wolves appear to be slowing the breeding cycle for cows and are interfering with their ability to manage their rangelands.  Wherever, there are wolves the cattle know and quickly vacate allotments and pastures.  In addition, with the increase of predator populations is a corresponding increase in cost of manpower.  Recently, the US Fish & Wildlife described the following in relation to a depredating wolf pack in neighboring Idaho “The herders are also bedding the sheep at camp so they can keep a close eye on things. The producer and staff are working overtime to keep wolves out of their bands.  We appreciate everything they are doing to try to keep wolves away from the sheep and mitigate loses.”[5] While it is nice that the Service is appreciative of these efforts, this level of intense management to keep your livestock from being preyed upon adds expenses to the bottom line when the original intent of the Wolf Recovery Plan was to minimize wolf-human and wolf-livestock conflicts.

 

 

 

 

 

The same ranching community that is attempting to cope with the rapidly increasing wolf populations, are simultaneously dealing with losses from Grizzly Bears. Grizzlies are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Grizzly occupies over 16,000 square miles in Wyoming, mainly in Yellowstone National Park and the Caribou-Targhee, Bridger-Teton, and Shoshone National Forests. In the past several years, grizzly bears have expanded their distribution into habitats on the periphery of the recovery zone that has not been used by them for several decades.[6] Clearly the grizzly bear has recovered but attempts to de-list are met with litigation threats.

 

 

 

 

 

Given that my family does not, YET, deal directly with the protected predatory animals, I contacted a fellow producer and he shared with me that in addition to the 8% loss in calf crop this year alone due to grizzly bears and the number of hours spent searching for carcasses and trying to get a confirmed kill, he and his family have also experienced huge changes in their lifestyle, changes that are difficult to place an economic value to.  He explained he no longer irrigates his hay meadows early in the morning or late in the day due to the presence of grizzly bears.  Also, attention to the work he is doing now is split between getting the job done and keeping out an eye for bears.  In fact, he explained that while at his ranch headquarters on the South Fork of the Shoshone River, he now must arm himself with a firearm for self protection when conducting nightly checks on pregnant heifers in the nearby corrals just 150 yards from his home due to the reoccurrence of either wolves or grizzly bears.[7] Consequently calving operations must be conducted in close quarters to the ranch buildings and no longer in the open ranch lands leading to additional labor and animal health costs associated with concentrating cattle in this manner.

 

 

 

 

 

LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LAND VALUES – Although some claim that the listing of a species causes minimal impact on private landowners and is an impact only for the federal agencies and federal actions, the “federal nexus” provisions do indeed cause the impact to private landowners, especially in a state such as Wyoming.  Therefore, the reiterated assurances, that the listing and subsequent critical habitat designations, only affect “federal lands” provides little assurances to Wyoming producers. Approximately 70 percent of Wyoming’s livestock producers depend on federal lands to operate.  Further, many have water that is licensed and permitted through the Bureau of Reclamation.  The “federal nexus” provisions also impact producers who may participate in any Farm Bill programs, serving as a disincentive to participate in conservation programs.

 

 

 

 

 

With the endangered listing of the Whooping Crane in 1967 and the subsequent listings of the Interior Least Tern, the Piping Plover and the Pallid Sturgeon from 1985 to 1990 respectively along the North Platte River, the states of Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming have been forced to develop a recovery plan to ensure the continuing existence of these species. Currently the US Department of Interior has released the draft environmental impact statement for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program to address the needs of these species for the next 13 years. All alternatives up for consideration will demand additional water from the North Platte River to provide adequate habitat for recovery, this in its self will demand additional water flows from the state of Wyoming on a river system that just meets the historic demands on a good hydrologic year now. The proposed alternatives will seek water from direct flow irrigators and irrigation storage facilities located in the upper basin area of the North Platte River in Wyoming. Ag producers with water right priority dates that pre-date the listing of these species will be severely impacted by the demand for additional water to satisfy the needs of theses listed species.[8] This will clearly devalue the irrigated lands and overall ranch unit values impacted by this additional demand on the North Platte River.

 

 

 

 

 

COST OF DEFENDING INDUSTRY AGAINST LAWSUITS – As a result of the constant barrage of petitions to list from special interest groups, the agriculture sector has found itself increasingly focused on defending against erroneous science.  Just one example of this, was the recent listing of the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse in southeastern Wyoming. The Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in 1998 based on a 1954 study. The USFWS designated over 31,000 acres of critical habitat along the front range area of northern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming limiting the abilities of private landowners as to the uses and management capabilities of these lands. According to Dr. Jay Lehr, of the Heartland Institute, this has cost landowners, developers and local governments an estimated $100 million only to have a new more scientifically in-depth study done in 2003 using DNA analysis by the Denver Museum of Natural History to conclude that the “Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse is genetically identical to a cousin considered common  enough not to need federal protection” writes Dr. Lehr.[9]  As a result, energies are focused on generating funds to participate in the collection of more comprehensive science, and unfortunately litigation and the credibility of the information used to list species has become suspect at best.

 

 

 

 

 

The USFWS denied approval of Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan due to concern of “litigation risk management” not on scientific validity. As a matter of fact 10 of the 11 scientists the USFWS had peer-review Wyoming’s Wolf Plan approved of the plan based on science. However, the USFWS denied the plan on the basis of litigation risk management, and nowhere in the Act do we find “litigation risk management” mentioned as a criteria for de-listing.   

 

 

 

 

 

This is a sad situation when a producer’s time and energies could be more effectively focused on land management activities to maintain and improve habitats.  More and more producers have become weary of these battles and the economic and human investment they require.  With little hope that the situation will change, many look to selling their lands.  This results, often times in the subdivision of lands for the highest return. Obviously, an unintended consequence of the Act and one that is extremely detrimental to the goal of maintaining wildlife habitat for all species. A report recently published by the University of Wyoming found that the private lands are extremely important to the big game animals of Wyoming.[10]

 

 

 

 

 

It is very obvious that the Endangered Species Act is being used for purposes other than species protection. The ESA has been used to advance special interest agendas to limit historic multiple uses of public lands. Livestock grazing of public lands in the West seems to be a specific target by special interest groups using the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act as a vehicle to achieve their goal without taking into consideration the ramifications this would have to the natural resources and the local economies.

 

 

 

 

 

NEEDED CHANGES TO THE ESA - On to the changes needed to the Endangered Species Act. There are a good number of issues that need to be addressed in the current Act to create a law that can reestablish trust and truly address species conservation in a less combative, litigation and regulatory driven approach.

 

 

 

 

In the time I have today, I would like to stress the need to ensure that decisions under the Endangered Species Act be based on sound and defensible science.  Under the current law, the use of “best scientific and commercial data available”, which often is little science lacking in peer review, results in poor decisions and a subsequent lack of confidence in the decision.  Logic tells you that if the first step in the process of protecting species is flawed and lacking in scientific defensibility then all other subsequent decisions will be questionable. It seems today that science is for sale to defend any decision to warrant a listing, but at the same time science is available to refute the listing, we’ve got to find a better way.

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to thank Wyoming’s Senator Thomas for recognizing this fact and introducing S.369 to amend the Endangered Species Act to improve the processes for listing, recovery planning, and delisting.  This bill would move the Act in a direction that would increase the level of confidence that the government is using an increased level of science in the process.

 

 

 

 

 

I do believe that it is in the best interest of all to address local issues at the local level, even thought the ESA is a federal Act, its application can have dramatic affects on local communities. It’s apparent that the use of the federal court system has been abused in the past when courts are sought out to gain the right ruling from the right court in ones opinion. I believe that if judicial review is needed on the merits of a listing of a species for protection, that decision needs to be heard by a federal court as close to the area affected by the listing as possible. 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the issue of increased science, I have attached to my written testimony an outline of seventeen changes needed in the Act and implementing regulations, which were adopted by the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, the Western Coalition of Conservation Districts comprised of 17 members states across the West and also the National Association of Conservation Districts representing 3000 conservation districts nation wide.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thomas, members of the Committee I would like to thank you for your attention to this very important issue and inviting me today to participate in this discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Information:

 

 

 

 

 

Olin D. Sims

 

 

HC 64 Box 106

 

 

McFadden, WY 82083

 

 

Phone: 307-378-2516

 

 

Cell: 307-760-5464

 

 

Email:  olinsims@union-tel.com

 

 

 

 

 

Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts

 

 

2304 E. 13^th Street

 

 

Cheyenne, WY 82001

 

 

Phone: 307-632-5716

 

 

Email: waocd@trib.com

 

 

Website: http://www.conservewy.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Endangered Species

 

 

 

 

 

 

Desired Outcomes:

 

• Scientific and ecosystem based endangered species protection decisions.

   

• Reauthorize the ESA to create accountability and review and limit the use of the Act as a vehicle to carry out special agendas rather than focus on species protection.

   

• Provide for locally driven and led species protection efforts that are adequately financed.

   

• The Act should include a financial commitment to address the affects on people and communities and their economic stability.

   

• Good faith efforts should, by default, provide safe harbor from regulatory enforcement actions.

   

• Increased recognition of human and species interdependence.

   

 

 

 

 

Conservation Districts’ Beliefs:

 

Human and species needs and existence should be recognized and balanced. Endangered species protection should be science-based, economically feasible and acceptable to the affected landowners and communities. Successful species protection should emphasize local involvement.

 

 

 

 

 

Congressional oversight and review of ESA effectiveness should be conducted to ensure an accountable and effective program.

 

 

 

 

 

Current Status:

 

The Endangered Species Act is counter productive to the goal of protecting species in many cases due to the following:

 

 

·         Fails to recognize that species and humans needs to coexists

 

 

·         Provisions of the act are often used by special interests to further political agendas rather than address true species concern.

 

 

·         There is a lack of scientifically valid, concise, peer reviewed data to list species

 

 

·         The ESA is single species focused and fails to recognize the importance of managing the ecosystem to maintain balance.

 

 

·         ESA program creates hurdles and disincentives for practicing conservation.

 

 

·         ESA fails to recognize and respect state and private property rights.

 

 

·         The ESA tends to create divisiveness rather than cohesiveness in the management of species and their habitat.

 

 

·         The regulatory and enforcement provisions of the ESA generate fear in landowners and managers.

 

 

·         The ESA is being used to supersede other local, state and federal natural resource management programs without congressional review and reauthorization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations:

 

• Western Coalition and NACD will pursue and obtain resources to provide incentives for landowners/managers to voluntarily provide protection of species and habitat.

   

• Increased local involvement, through conservation districts, in ESA listing, delisting, planning and recovery efforts by:

   

 

- Develop local capacity (i.e. financial and other resources) of Conservation Districts to increase technical capacities to gather data, prepare resource management/land use plans, create Habitat Conservation Plans, Candidate Conservation Agreements, etc.

 

 

- US Fish & Wildlife will acknowledge local Districts as political sub-divisions, pursuant to Section 4 of the ESA, which have specific statutory responsibilities to address species and habitat protection.

 

 

·         Amend ESA to require clear and convincing peer reviewed scientifically valid data to list species, and provide for compensation of resource economic and social impacts to provide for stable communities affected by species listings, and provide explicit safe  harbor for good faith efforts.