Hearing of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee - Fish and Wildlife Service FY12 Budget Hearing

Statement

The Service's 2012 budget request is almost $1.7 billion, which is $48 million above 2010 enacted and $328 million above 2008 enacted.

The largest increase in the budget by far is for more federal land acquisition. This includes a $50 million increase in discretionary appropriations for a total of $140 million. In addition, the Service proposes to increase the price of the federal Duck Stamp which would generate $58 million and bring total funding to acquire new National Wildlife Refuge lands to nearly $200 million in 2012.

By contrast, the Service proposes to terminate the discretionary side of PILT's "little brother", the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, which is the only source of federal funds to counties to mitigate the acquisition of new Refuge lands.

Also included is a $6.3 million proposed reduction that would effectively close National Fish Hatcheries that mitigate federal water control projects by creating fisheries that generate $325 million in total economic benefits to States and local communities.

Although I'm not necessarily a proponent of balancing the federal budget on the backs of fishes, as you can see this subcommittee has some work to do to cut spending while filling in holes in the Service's budget that (1) are clear priorities of the American people and (2) serve to reinforce the important partnership role that State and local governments play in helping the Service to meet its mandates.

A year ago in my opening statement I acknowledged an organization that was and still is undergoing major reform in its approach to meeting its mandates. I'm referring to the Service's "Cooperative Landscape Conservation" initiative, perhaps the late Director Sam Hamilton's most important legacy.

Mr. Hamilton envisioned an agency organized around science-based adaptive management that transcends geopolitical and programmatic boundaries. If he wasn't a man before his time, he was certainly a man who felt it was the Service's time to reform.

History teaches us that change is met with resistance, and the more the change, the more the resistance. That is most certainly the case here, as it was under a previous Administration. As for me, I continue to have an open mind about what you're trying to do, and here's why: Endangered species issues impact nearly everything we do in Idaho, and, a certain Canis species notwithstanding, the Service's track record for recovering endangered species has been abysmal under the current business model. Moreover, ESA decisions made by the Service continue to make life exponentially more difficult for land users in the West and for other Interior bureaus tasked with managing lands. There has got to be a better way.

So, as I said last year, I will continue to support this organizational reform effort if it enables the Service together with the States to more quickly delist species, and to more effectively prevent listings.

At this point in the reform process, though, I still have many more questions than answers. I suspect that the Service is still working through its own questions and answers. In any case, I think you have a massive communications problem on your hands--not the least of which has been calling this initiative "climate change" for the past two years.

I hope your testimony today will shed some additional light on where the agency is trying to go and how it intends to get there. I have been looking forward to today's discussion and to a more specific briefing on the application of Cooperative Landscape Conservation to Idaho and surrounding areas in the near future.

Source