2023 Species Week

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week the Endangered Species Act turns 50. It is an act that was initially created to ensure the health of fish, wildlife, and vegetation and to protect species that are either threatened or endangered as defined by the act.

The fact is that the Endangered Species Act would and could work if it were implemented as intended--to recover actually threatened or endangered species. It has instead become a business in and of itself, with an entire economy built around endless studies, monitoring, fieldwork, and lawsuits. Bureaucrats spend their entire careers trying to prevent species from being delisted--as to keep them on the list ensures job security.

The Endangered Species Act has had profound impacts on my State of Wyoming by limiting economic development and restricting the implementation of reasonable and effective land, water, and resource management and use.

It doesn't have to be that way. Under the ESA, once the recovery goals for a species have been met, the species should be delisted. That, however, is not what happens. Instead, and regardless of the actual status of the species, it can take decades to delist a recovered species.

The Canadian gray wolves are a classic example. They were introduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 with a recovery goal for the greater Yellowstone area being 100 wolves. We met that goal in 2002.

It then took multiple lawsuits and 15 years to have them actually delisted, which finally happened in 2017, as ordered by the circuit court of appeals. The environmental groups fought against delisting, despite the fact that Wyoming's wolf management plan was approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service and has since proven successful in maintaining the wolf population well in excess of recovery goals.

The Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear is another example. The State of Wyoming has spent over $59 million on recovery and has an excellent management plan in place to ensure a recovered population will continue to be protected. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the grizzly population has exceeded recovery goals for the past 20 years.

Yet, again, environmental groups have been able to keep the grizzly bear listed through petitioning activist judges to intervene. The proliferation of bears in Wyoming is so great that they now pose a serious and deadly threat to people, livestock, and other wildlife in my State.

I am thankful to my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee for their support on H.R. 1245, my legislation to delist the Greater Yellowstone population of grizzly bears, and I look forward to passing it out of the House soon.

By continuing to spend limited resources on recovered populations of species, we are deflecting resources from where they should be focused. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In short, as implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and as enforced by activist courts, success is not in recovering a legitimately threatened or endangered species but in ensuring that a recovered species, no matter how robust in number, range, and health, is never delisted.

A related problem is the fact that critical habitat designations are not designed to protect a particular species but to encompass as much area as possible so that the Federal Government and environmental groups can control ever-expanding swaths of land and water. The incentives under the ESA are the exact opposite of what they would actually be if species recovery rather than control were the actual goal.

The ESA has largely become a mechanism by which environmental groups have weaponized the Federal Government and courts to impose restrictions on the use of private property and limit our ability to use our energy and water resources while also receiving massive Federal subsidies through sue and settle actions.

This 50th anniversary of the ESA should be a time to reevaluate and refocus efforts on what the act was originally intended to do. We cannot continue to allow activist courts or agency bureaucrats to block sound species management or infringe on property rights any longer. We must do better. We can do better, and I challenge this body to pursue ESA reform to focus on protecting our beautiful fisheries, wildlife, flora, and fauna.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source