Statement of Thomas Honecker and The Pittman-Robertson Working Group filed with the United States Senate Environment & Public Works' Fisheries, Wildlife and Drinking Water Subcommittee's Oversight Hearing on USFWS's Pittman-Robertson Act Program Management - July 19, 2000
A handful of USFWS regional bureaucrats have gone behind closed doors, without public or governmental scrutiny, to overturn 63 years of Service tradition. They have established and enforced a plan of discriminating against hunting field trialers and other hunting dog owners using threats bordering on extortion to achieve an end not in keeping with current law or established policy.
From the time that P-R first became law until only recently, field trialing and dog testing were accepted uses, traditional uses. Then, following a disastrous prescribed burn at the Green River State Wildlife Area by the Illinois DNR in 1992, the situation changed dramatically. A series of both related and unrelated events culminated in the USFWS forcing the cancellation of field trialing and dog testing in Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan. Today that attack continues in the Mid-west and elsewhere.
Our complete statement shows conclusively that trialing is intimately connected to hunting, that trialing supports training of dogs in a manner that assures conservation of game while hunting. It shows that all of the funding to support P-R grounds comes from taxes and fees paid by hunters, and that trialers are these same people. It also shows that, despite being a traditional use, trialing takes place on only a very small part of the available P-R grounds. Lastly, it shows that while habitat damage has been alleged to arise from trialing, none has actually been demonstrated or documented. We thus believe that action to prohibit trialing on P-R grounds has no basis, that trialing is not at all an incompatible use.
We are aware that some environmental groups and animal rights groups take issue with our sport. They take no less issue with the sport of hunting. We are also aware that in any multi-use situation, there will be inevitable conflicts between different groups of users. But hunters and trialers fund all P-R activities; should not their use of the land come first, and other, conflicting uses follow? And if only a small fraction of all P-R land is in fact used for trialing and testing, can't the balance suffice for other users?
We reiterate that trialers are both hunters and conservers of game. They are the very people who should benefit most from the foresight of Senator Pittman and Representative Robertson. Rather than being singled out among all users for exclusion from P-R grounds, trialers should be encouraged and supported by a statutory change that allocates P-R monies for the express purpose of purchasing and maintaining grounds specifically for our sport. All managers of P-R lands should also be provided express guidance confirming the compatible hunting-related nature of field trialing and dog testing on P-R lands, so that their activities properly support such uses.
This statement is filed on behalf Thomas Honecker, a private citizen, and the Pittman-Robertson Working Group, an ad hoc group of hunters and hunting dog owners who also field trial and dog test. The personal resume of Tom Honecker, a well respected U. S. sportsman, and a description of the P-R Working Group are attached to this statement. We feel that a well trained hunting dog is nearly as important to a hunter as marksmanship or firearm safety. Responsible, informed U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service management of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act is crucial to millions of hunting dog owners.
A handful of USFWS regional bureaucrats have gone behind closed doors, without public or governmental scrutiny, to overturn 63 years of Service tradition. They have established and enforced a plan of discriminating against hunting field trialers and other hunting dog owners using threats bordering on extortion to achieve an end not in keeping with current law or established policy.
I. Hunting Dog Field Trials and Tests
History Since man's first association with his best friend over 12,000 years ago, long before firearms or bows and arrows, hunting dogs were crucial to the survival of the human race.
Since the process of domestication began, selective breeding of over 4,000 generations or more has produced breeds that are specialists. By the time of the Romans, dogs were prized and bred for their abilities in aiding with the gathering of food through hunting. Some became trackers - the hounds, some developed the ability to find game and freeze in front of it - the pointers, and some developed the ability to retrieve game from land and water under difficult conditions - the retrieving breeds.
At the dawn of the last century, the casual hunter could train his family dog on the abundant grouse in any New England wood lot or the plentiful coveys of quail that inhabited the South. No period in the world's history has brought greater change than these last 100 years. The loss of habitat from the change in farming practices and the creeping urbanization has severely altered wildlife populations and dog training practices.
In the 1880's, field trails were in their infancy, both in the U.S. and in Europe. As with any endeavor requiring training, competition is important to identify the individual with the greatest talent or best training. Be it the fastest horse, the heavy weight champion, or the best hunting dog. An innovating, successful trainer's secrets are soon widely imitated. Significantly, pure bred dog breeding requires that the "alpha" expressers be identified and used as preferential producers, raising and maintaining the gene pool's level.
Field trials and tests identify the individual dogs that excel at hunting and retrieving:
· The keenest scenting ability and smartest game handling adaptability under difficult conditions. · The toughness and heart to crash through the thorniest thickets. · The ability to sit quietly in a duck blind and then swim repeatedly long distances through icy waters locating and retrieving dead and wounded waterfowl.
All of these attributes and the ability to absorb training, accept directions in the field and still be a "family dog" are what we seek.
Thirty years ago, a Mid-west hunting equipment supplier expanded into dog supplies using the slogan "Conserve Game, Use A Trained Dog." Patches carried the slogan and the diversification was a huge success. Less commercially, one of the U.S. dog testing groups states its purpose is "...to foster, promote, and improve hunting dog breeds; to conserve game by using well trained reliable hunting dogs before and after the shot." A study by the Iowa Game Commission indicated that dog-less hunters have a 66% greater loss of wounded pheasants than hunters with dogs. No ethical hunter would attempt to hunt waterfowl without a trained retriever. Well trained dogs are as important to the hunter as his/her gun.
Current Field Trials & Tests An individual hunter may train his dog alone or with a group. Most serious hunting dog owners eventually seek out organized dog trialing and testing events. Typically, weekend field trials or dog tests are held in the early spring and fall. Some are held on private land, many are held on public grounds. A trial may be formally organized by a regional or national organization or they may be informal trials conducted by a local club.
Trials and tests include pointing dog trials conducted, judged and viewed from horseback, and non-horseback events for beagles and pointing, flushing and retrieving breeds. Pen-raised game birds, such as pheasants or quail are usually placed on the course for dogs to point, flush, or retrieve. These birds may or may not be shot for retrieval. Retrievers are graded on marked and blind retrieves, trailing, quartering and flushing. All of the retriever programs require dogs to work on both land and water, in circumstances that simulate hunting conditions. Because today's hunting dogs are so highly trained and trainable, the trial requirement to find the "very best" often requires that dogs perform under conditions that exceed those of a normal hunting situation.
Hunting dog testing has become very popular in the last 30 years. Rather than competing per se, dogs' capabilities are judged against written standards. The physical grounds used for testing and field trials are identical. Different events have very different site and management requirements. Organized horseback trials require the largest sites; retriever events obviously require a body of water, a pond, lake or river. Championship competitions and tests draw larger entries and take longer to complete.
All these events offer opportunities to enjoy our dogs for the purpose for which they were developed nearly all year long, rather than the few months of the hunting season. With land becoming increasingly scarce and bird populations dwindling, these organized events take on an even more important role in developing our hunting dogs than they did in the past.
There are many national groups which sponsor or "license" field trials and dog tests. The three major U.S. dog registries, the Field Dog Stud Book, United Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club, are all involved in field events as well as recording hunting dog litters, pedigrees and field accomplishments. Other smaller, specialized hunting dog event groups include the Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America, North American Versatile Hunting Dog Association, National Shoot to Retrieve Association, North American Hunting Retriever Association and the National Bird Hunters Association. Each organization has its own rules, regulations and guidelines, but their goals are the same: a better trained hunting dog, an improved hunting experience.
An estimated 330,000 hunting dogs were trailed and tested in 1999 here in the U.S. Hunting dog events were held in every one of the fifty states. Additionally 100,000's more were trialed and tested across Canada, Mexico, Japan and in Europe.
Field Trials & Dog Tests are Family Events Dogs are entered and handled at these events by men, women and youngsters alike. In fact, entire families routinely make weekend outings, frequently traveling to neighboring states, to regularly attend field trials and tests. Many plan their annual vacations around important championships.
The trials and tests held by the various clubs across the country have the effect of offering families a nearly year-round opportunity to participate together in their favorite sporting activity. For many others, these events serve as an ideal gateway into the sport of small game hunting and hunting dogs by providing access to information and education that they might not otherwise have available. For many it provides the answers to the perennial questions, "where do I go to hunt and with whom."
For many others, it's their first opportunity to handle a hunting dog. Many clubs have informal woman handler awards and the junior handler programs are always very popular. The various testing programs' lowest achievement level also provides the ideal entry to hunting dog handling as an introduction to hunting itself. These events are the perfect complements to the very popular "Becoming an Outdoor Woman" program, adopted and promoted by every state's fish and game department.
It has become an increasing challenge for parents and mentors to find ways to involve young people in a quality outdoors experience on a regular basis. Too few youngsters today know the cherished tradition of a family going out together on the opening day of upland game or waterfowl hunting season or on snappy Thanksgiving morning just after dawn. The various hunting dog club events provide the opportunity and assistance for a youngster to train his or her first dog. There they learn respect for nature and the value of commitment and hard work.
A well trained hunting dog working on the talus slopes above the Snake River, in a Nebraska CRP section, in a New England hawthorn covert, in the Southern piney woods, or retrieving in a coastal Texas rice field or in the Sacramento River delta is a joy to behold. Such wonderful memories are all too few, but they all likely began with a young dog and his owner-trainer at a field trial or test on public lands, near his home.
II. The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
History "The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration program, (P-R) program might be described as the blue-collar worker among federal wildlife laws. It's not flashy like the Duck Stamp program, nor highfalutin like the Migratory Bird Treaties. It's apart from front office politics, and out in the hinterlands building new homes for wildlife, educating hunters and constructing public shooting ranges. More than any other, it's a statute constantly producing tangible results." " the best wildlife management scheme in the world"
Those are quotations from the USFWS's 50th Anniversary Report on the P-R Act in 1987. Much has changed in 13 years. Much needs serious examination today, but it's useful to review the Act's origins and it's major accomplishments.
The P-R claims a multitude of fathers, but many historians point to the federal refuge system's aggressive expansion by President Theodore Roosevelt as its true beginning. While much of that first refuge land was already federally owned, there was a general appreciation by leading conservationists that places to hunt would dwindle as habitat became scarce and that the refuge system should include purchased lands to serve both wildlife and hunting sportsmen.
Such a concept was popular with sportsmen and many politicians, but until the Federal Duck Stamp Act passed in 1934, there was no funding source for refuge land purchases. That same Congress contained the leaders who had the foresight and courage to address the states' needs for wildlife and recreational land acquisition, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. These men sponsored and managed legislation to redirect existing 10% federal firearms excise tax revenues, creating a funding source for state public land purchases and wildlife restoration expenses. The P-R Act was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937.
The genius of the P-R Act writers was that they attempted to keep the program from being a political football by assuring it a continuing revenue stream and insisted that trained wildlife biologists and law enforcement professionals manage the projects. The program's success is demonstrated by the numerous species that have rebuilt their populations and expanded their ranges far beyond what they were in the 1930's. Among them are the wild turkey, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, wood duck, beaver, black bear, giant Canada goose, American elk, desert bighorn sheep, bobcat, mountain lion, and several species of predatory birds.
The most dramatic changes are indicated here:
North American Elk: Wild Turkey Wood Duck
White-Tailed Deer
1920 100,000 scarce extinction feared hunting banned 500,000 or fewer
Today 500,000 2,000,000 most common breeding waterfowl 14million+.... Such a wildlife rebirth is a special credit to the "blue collar" USFWS field professionals and the American hunters who have supported their efforts.
Scope The P-R tax is now generally 11 percent on the price of long guns and ammunition and covers handguns(10%) and archery equipment as well. Federal funding pays for up to 75 percent of land purchase and wildlife restoration project costs, with the states putting up at least 25 percent. Congress in the early 1970's expanded the P-R revenue base to include handguns and archery equipment, and authorized states to spend up to half those revenues on hunter education and target ranges. In actual practice, some 9 percent of all P-R funds have been used for those purposes in recent years, training 700,000 new hunters in safety and marksmanship each year.
Since the program began, over $3.7 billion in Federal excise taxes have been matched by more than $1.2 billion million in State funds (chiefly from hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration. Of the money available to the states, more than 62 percent is used to buy, develop, maintain and operate wildlife management areas. Some 4 million acres have been purchased outright since the program began - enough to cover all of Connecticut and Rhode Island - and 40-50 million acres are managed for wildlife under agreements with other landowners.
Occasionally these purchases represent key parcels of land, yielding access to other adjoining properties. In many instances they represent a considerable part of a state game commission's total real estate, as in Virginia, where they constitute 58% of the state's wildlife management area acreage. Certainly, since the vast majority of purchases were made before serious land cost inflation, they represent purchases that couldn't be duplicated today.
About 26 percent of P-R funding to the states are used for surveys and research. Very few wildlife studies are done without P-R funding. In addition to the many game species, research is supported on non-game and endangered species such as the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, fox squirrel and various woodpeckers. One of the major, currently sponsored studies is a multi-state, multi-year effort to identify the reasons for the decline of the Virginia bobwhite quail over much of its historic range. The periodic "National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation" is also funded through P-R.
Although Pittman-Robertson is financed wholly by hunters and other firearm purchasers, its benefits cover a much larger number of people who never hunt but who do enjoy such pastimes as bird watching, nature photography, hiking, camping and picnicking. Almost all the lands purchased with P-R money are managed both for wildlife production and for other public uses. Recent estimates indicate about 70 percent of the people using these areas are not hunting, and in some areas the ratio may go as high as 95 percent.
Field Trials & Dog Tests In preparation for this hearing, the P-R Working Group conducted a survey of field trialers and dog testers to determine the degree to which they were also active licensed hunters and purchased P-R taxed equipment. Two groups were polled over the Internet, an AKC pointing breed message board and several retriever/versatile hunting dog groups. In addition, written questionnaires were mailed to a Michigan AFTCA trialer's group.
The survey yielded 296 valid responses. Of those responses, 97% indicated that they were also licensed hunters and routinely purchased P-R taxed hunting equipment. The other 3% were all females participating in dog testing, mostly. One indicated that she no longer hunted due to a shoulder injury, another that she gave up hunting after her father died. Most interesting was survey information volunteered about monies spent on hunting and dog sports. USFWS's 1996 survey of hunting dog owners indicated that hunters spent an average of $442 annually on their dogs. Our limited survey effort showed that trialers and testers spend at least ten times, if not twenty times that much on their sport.
Organized dog sports, field trialing, testing and informal training sessions, use very few of the P-R grounds. As was discussed earlier, ten times as much acreage receives P-R assistance to support management expense of non-owned land, 40-50 million acres, as lands purchased with P-R funds. The USFWS also appears to take different review approaches for these two different types of P-R areas, while claiming they are identical programmatically. Experience has shown that it frequently requires rigorous professional accounting efforts to unravel the respective P-R histories of these lands. the purpose of this discussion, no effort was made to distinguish between purchased P-R areas and those purely expense shared.
Only three P-R areas are permitted for trials and tests in New England with any frequency. Similarly, in the Mid-Atlantic area, New Jersey trialers primarily use one area, but have occasionally gained access to three others, Maryland trialers use three and Virginians four. New York and Pennsylvania appear to have no P-R field trial or dog testing areas
In USFWS's eight state Region 3, where field trialing is so contested by federal bureaucrats, the 24 primary and ancillary areas available for field trials and dog testing represent less than 1% of all P-R areas. Clearly, were there more public areas available for field trialing and dog testing, those very few identified here would not be so much in demand during the relatively short fall and spring seasons. Trials and dog tests are so popular that events scheduled at many of these areas are closed to additional entries within hours of their announcement. Larger numbers of novice hunters wishing to train their hunting dogs could be accommodated with more such events.
III. USFWS Bureaucrats Have Targeted All Dog Field Events For Elimination Anti-Field Trialing Time-Line For much of the 63 year life of the Pittman-Robertson Program, hunting and its associated past-time of hunting dog training coexisted and complemented one another, unchallenged. Field trialing and dog testing employ limited P-R resources and dog owners' opportunities to enjoy the fruits of their excise tax and license fee investments were unquestioned.
On April 9, 1992, in a classic case of bad timing, the Illinois DNR ignited a prescribed burn at the Green River State Wildlife Area during the permitted National German Shorthaired Pointer Association's National Championship. The burn area included the established Derby Championship course, destroyed the pheasants already released, and forced termination of the event.
In 1993 the Illinois Legislature, over IDNR's objections, passed S1550, declaring several State areas, including Lee County Conservation Area (Green River), priority horseback field trial areas, supporting the strong interest of the people of Illinois in this sport.
In December of 1995, in an effort to impose a regional standard for horseback field trials, USFWS Region 3 issued a "Draft Guidance for Secondary & Compatible Uses." Repeated references to the "Illinois situation" were made. This effort ended when state DNRs criticized the guidelines as an unnecessary intrusion into local wildlife management that would create more problems than they would solve.
In 1996, three other Illinois game management/recreational areas, Des Plaines, Moraine View and Hamilton County, purchased with state monies and available for retriever, beagle, spaniel and bird dog trials came to USFWS' attention. These areas had been traditionally supported through a P-R habitat development grant. The USFWS unilaterally conditioned Green River SWA and those sites out of the grant because horseback trialing occurred at them.
On Feb 23, 1998, years after first raising trials there as an issue, USFWS Region 3 formally opened their Green River SWA compatibility investigation with a team site visit. The investigation included the observation of a single horseback field trial held March 24th through the 26th..
In the late spring, Roger Holmes, then Director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife for the Minnesota DNR apparently requested an anti-field trial position statement from Bradley V. Johnson, Assistant Regional Director of Federal Aid for USFWS.
Mr. Johnson directed a letter, dated June 4, 1998 to Mr. Holmes, requiring that the Minnesota "Guidelines for Permitting Dog Trials on Wildlife Management Areas" be rescinded to avoid "follow up action that would lead to the termination of Federal Aid funding in Minnesota." His letter was based "on reading a document" with no discussions, site visits or reviews.
Four days later, on June 8, 1998, the Minnesota DNR used that letter as an excuse to prohibit the issuance of permits for dog trials on Federal aid acquired, developed, or managed wildlife management areas, thereby closing Minnesota P-R lands to all hunting dog events. Impacted groups included retriever and non-horseback field trialers and testers, as well as horseback bird dog trialers.
In October of the same year, USFWS released their Green River Review Report. The report concluded that management for horseback field trials interfered with the purpose for which the area had been acquired and determined that IDNR was not in compliance. The report threatened to withhold Illinois' $4.3 million Wildlife Restoration Funds if field trials were not discontinued and if Green River was not removed from the Illinois Wildlife Code as a designated horseback field trial site.
The following January, IDNR submitted a revised management plan for Green River WMA and on March 31, 1999 field trials ended at Green River.
In December of 1999, the Michigan DNR received verbal guidance from the USFWS that "use of P-R purchased lands for field trials will not be allowed ." Acting on this verbal guidance, MDNR denied permits for the 2000 season for Lapeer, Sharonville and Allegan State Game Areas, and Holly Recreation Area, all identified by USFWS as having been purchased with P-R funds. The USFWS also planned "a review of all . . . permitted field trail activities that occur on lands maintained with P-R funds". As in Minnesota, no distinction was made between horseback and other types of trials.
Subsequently in April 2000, USFWS Federal Aid staff wrote the Michigan DNR Division Chief that there had been a "miscommunication regarding field trial activities in Michigan" and permits could be conditionally let for the Fall trial season. The ongoing service review had also determined that there had been a "mistake" regarding two of the four areas closed to field trials. Holly and Sharonville, had not in fact been purchased with PR funds. USFWS's actions displaced a full calendar of Lapeer retriever trials as well as threatening two Allegan AFTCA events. The grounds' future use is uncertain.
This letter, coincidentally, arrived only one day before a long-scheduled meeting between individual field trialers, representatives of MDNR, USFWS, and staff of Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI). USFWS disclosed at this meeting that a Region 3 Federal Field Trial Work Group had been formed to develop a regional standard for all hunting dog events permitted in the Mid-west.
At this point we appear to have come full circle to 1995 with the discussion of a "one size fits all" regional guideline for field trials. Only now they are for all field events, not just horseback trials. And the states of Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan have lost access to traditional grounds. The state DNR representatives who predicted regional guidelines would cause more problems than they could solve appear to be prescient.
USFWS's Stated Field Trial Policy The preceding brief history traces the evolution of the USFWS policy from supporting to banning field trials for dogs. Current stated policy is that "field trials should be held only if they do not interfere with wildlife habitat or production or other activities . . . that are directly wildlife-related." States have been advised that: 1) field trials are not compatible with wildlife restoration and will not be permitted on P-R purchased lands; and 2) field trials may conflict with other uses or users and, if they do so, may not be permitted on P-R managed lands. Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have had P-R grounds closed to trialing. Indiana has been informed that it has a "field trialing problem." Reviews are underway in Missouri and Virginia, with Ohio, Wisconsin, Maryland and Delaware scheduled for 2001. Jon Parker, a Federal Aid Wildlife Biologist, has acted as spokesman for Region 3 on this issue, granting media interviews, and responding to inquiries from stakeholders and the general public. He articulated this anti-field trial position in his April 24, 2000 response to a series of questions posed by Mr. Ron E. Gulembo of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, when he wrote:
"We do not wish to restrict or prohibit activities which are related to hunting or dependent on wildlife on these lands. Our goal is to protect these areas as 'wildlife restoration' lands as specified in the Act. That means that any activity that compromises wildlife restoration must be managed to avoid that conflict. In that way we will preserve the aims of the Act and protect the interests of the overwhelming majority of hunters who do not participate in field trials and other folks who benefit from the wildlife resource."
The question of field trials on P-R lands is represented as essentially a question of compatibility and user conflict. But the Service's means of defining compatibility and resolving conflict is based on a series of assumptions that are both in error and decidedly anti-field trial. Invalid or unsubstantiated by solid evidence they have been used to interpret the Act and its application to the detriment of hunting dog events.
These assumptions reflect the change in focus and attitude that has occurred in the Service. There has been a gradual shift in the last several decades, greatly accelerated under the current administration, from a dedication to the conservation and restoration of wildlife as game, in support of our hunters and sportsmen. The focus now is on the preservation of wildlife and wild lands as an end in itself, apart from and preserved from human use. The shift in emphasis favoring passive, rather than active, recreational uses of our wild lands is pronounced, and this way of thinking is now dominant in the USFWS.
There is a persistent and systematic exclusion of the public from our public lands. The creation of de facto wilderness areas, whether established by executive order, the closure of roads (with or without a policy in place), along with other actions, has kept and will keep the people from the use and enjoyment of our public lands. A culture has developed within the USFWS which has shifted the focus of the Service away from the historically authorized uses of these lands to a narrow unofficial guideline that ignores traditional public use. Perhaps no where is that change better illustrated than the Green River State Wildlife Area.
Green River SWA Horseback field trialing at Green River State Wildlife Area, AKA Lee County Conservation Area, has received inordinate publicity and attention. It's reviewed here not because of stories it generated, but because the USFWS forced trialing shutdown there is the only one with a reasonable written record. It's therefore something of a proof case for USFWS's expressed anti-field trial logic and persuasiveness and the "New Paradigm" thinking that permeates the Service.
Green River is a very old P-R area. Some of the first P-R monies were used to purchase its initial holding in 1939. It was, until 1999, the only one of eighteen Illinois WMAs purchased with P-R funds to allow field trialing. Green River contains 2565 acres (1620 acres P-R purchased) and is 75 miles west of Chicago, Illinois. It is located in the 14th Illinois Congressional district, that area represented by House Speaker Dennis Hastert. All but 50 acres is available for hunting and a 15-mile equestrian trail is open for public use from May 1 to July 31.
Its size, central location, gently rolling terrain, relative remoteness from heavily traveled roads and general habitat made Green River a popular field trial site. Most Illinois sporting breed clubs scheduled events there as did national hunting dog organizations sponsoring various championships and "classics."
As the time-line suggests, field trialing at Green River has been controversial for a number of years. USFWS documents indicate that horseback field trials there have been a sore point with them "for at least 30 years." Why? What is the "Illinois situation" that USFWS alluded to in late 1995 in letters to other Mid-western state DNRs? Is there any truth to the rumor that appeared to spread from Region 3 headquarters that "field trialers had taken over Green River?"
The available written record indicates the most of the conflict dates from the 1992 prescribed burn, which disrupted the NGSPA Championship. Illinois field trialers over 40+ years, in cooperation with the state, had invested considerable time and money into Green River SWA, making it one of the Mid-west's featured trialing grounds. Adjoining land with a barn had been bought and transferred to state ownership. A club house had been erected with donated funds, food strips were planted, mowing was done, other improvements made. These efforts benefited trialers, but other users and wildlife benefited also. The field trial users had an interest in seeing the land managed professionally; that was only natural.
The damage done by the burn wasn't limited to killing pheasants or canceling a field trial; it destroyed the previously working relationship between the field trialing user community and the site's managers. Over the IDNR's objections, concerned trialers sponsored successful legislation to declare Green River SWA a horseback field trial area. Mutual mistrust of motives and veracity grew with the state's 1995 amendment to the Green River Pittman-Robertson habitat grant which appeared to promote non-game species over pheasant and bobwhite quail. Much of that mistrust was further abetted by the 1996 USFWS decision to arbitrarily cancel P-R habitat development monies for state owned horseback trialing grounds.
The October 27, 1998 USFWS Green River SWA Report recommending that the state of Illinois lose $4.3 million in annual P-R funding unless it cancelled field trialing at that location contains numerous findings and conclusions, few of which are supported by facts or analysis.
While environmental damage and wildlife disturbance by Green River trialers and trialing had been alleged, none was discovered during the federal investigators' six day visit to Illinois. Their report focuses almost entirely on possible recreational use conflicts and unsupported supposition as to what the site's state employees might otherwise be doing in the absence of field trialing.
The Report is replete with "may's, could have's and might's." The investigators spent three days at Green River SWA, observing what one concludes must have been their first field trial. Their observations include: dogs bark constantly; trialers have a lot of trailers, horses and dogs; trialers act clubby and aren't welcoming; the state staff spends too much time collecting camping fees, but didn't do it efficiently; there weren't proper signs crediting Federal Aid; an ATV-mounted bird planter rode across a single planted field, once; food was sold, and a sponsoring banner displayed.
Is this enough evidence of wrong-doing to threaten a sovereign state with loss of $4.3 million of its own taxpayers money and end a 40 year tradition of a timeless sport? Why did USFWS indicate this became a major issue with more than a thousand communications? Political correctness and bad judgement appear to be the likely answers. Much of the opposition cited by USFWS to Green River trialing was very clearly orchestrated by well organized environmental and animal rights activists. Was their substance to their concerns? The investigating team didn't find any that they could document. Why was Green River targeted? Poor personnel training and lax management control seem to be the keys.
The Report questions the qualifications of the Green River site manager and indicates that his staff hadn't sufficient information on the P-R Wildlife Restoration Program. This is one of the Report's few declarative statements that seems supportable. At the very least, the site manager and some of his staff could have been viewed as pro-field trialing by other users. They were hunting dog owners; they had horses, stables and kennels. Anecdotal stories suggest certain a lack of common sense and courtesy on the part of some staff and, perhaps, trialers. However, this is not a Federal Case; this is a case study for Good Management and Manners 101.
Unfortunately, Green River wasn't handled that way. Instead of allowing IDNR to make personnel changes and sit the stakeholders down for meaningful dialogue, USFWS forced the barn to be burnt down, hedgerows to be bulldozed and all trialing to be banned. The state of Illinois hopes a "blue ribbon" review panel will commute Green River's death sentence, but the same vocal groups that forced the that ill-considered action are again actively opposing any compromises.
USFWS's Erroneous Assumptions The USFWS today assumes that: 1) Field trialers are not hunters, and field trials are neither hunting related, nor dependent on wildlife or wildlife habitat; and 2) the Act is single purpose, for Wildlife Restoration, and field trials are not compatible with wildlife restoration, hunting or other user activities
The brief survey previously described shows that almost all trialers are hunters. They not only hunt, but also provide one of the more important tools to the hunter the well-bred, well-trained dog. Field trialers purchase hunting licenses and pay P-R taxes on the equipment they use in hunting, trialing and training as well. And they hunt over dogs proven to conserve game.
Field trials are specifically designed to hone the skills of dogs as hunting companions and as conservation tools. Hunting tests and trials, which simulate hunting situations, are used to evaluate the abilities of these dogs to the ends of successful work in the field and of the improved breeding of hunting dogs. The Service's own Manual acknowledges this is hunting related.
The term "wildlife-restoration project' can correctly be interpreted as the establishment of habitat. Field trials are wildlife HABITAT dependent. Hunting dogs must be trained, tested and trialed on the same terrain and conditions they will encounter in a true hunting situation. They must also be trained, tested and trialed on the same, or related, species of game birds they will encounter when hunting. Where better, or more appropriately, than on grounds purchased for hunting purposes with hunters' dollars?
The Service has interpreted the Act to be single purpose, not a multiple use, Act intended to benefit a wide array of purposes and users. The single purpose, according to USFWS, is to benefit wildlife resources, specifically wild birds and mammals. The wild birds and mammals referred to in the Act are game birds and animals, the restoration of which is to benefit hunters. Dog training and trialing is also of specific benefit to hunters, so the same single purpose is fostered.
The authors of the Act did acknowledge and allow for the beneficial fall out to non-game species and non-hunting users. It calls for the "provision of public use," neither defining nor restricting the public use of these lands. It grants the States a certain latitude in how these lands may be used, in that a state may develop a comprehensive management plan which includes "the . . . recreational enrichment of the people . . based on (the) desires and needs of the people . ." However, the hunter and dog trainer/trialer, not other users, is intended to have priority, since USFWS has acknowledged the 'user pay, user benefit' foundation of the program and considers hunting as a primary use, when another use may be perceived to be in conflict.
Field trials use a relatively small area of any given site where they are held, and very small percent of the total P-R areas available to the public. Trials are not incompatible with other uses, and can and do go on side by side with other uses all the time. But the Service has asserted that uses other than field trials MAY be impacted by trials, and so trials should be ousted or restricted from P-R lands on a regional basis.
Conclusions While the Service has asserted that trialing may be detrimental to habitat, wildlife and other users of P-R lands, they have failed to establish that such negative impacts actually occur. Their best documented case against field trialing, that at Green River SWA, is no case at all, but a series of petty complaints better handled in private conversation between the site manager and the disputing user groups. We have shown that field trials are compatible with the goals of P-R, are in fact a priority use in terms of the stated purposes of the Act.
Nonetheless, with no basis in actual field research, without any reference to published research, with the admission that there does not appear to be any relevant research, the Service asserts that field trials must cause some kind of environmental damage, and must interfere in some way with other users. This lack of careful analysis permeates the USFWS' position on field trials as a proper use for P-R funded lands. And this failure is accompanied by an apparent indecisiveness or uncertainty about how to resolve the user conflicts that may arise. They seem to waiver between site by site analysis and the imposition of a blanket regional or national policy as an appropriate solution or means of controlling, correcting, or preventing local problems or conflicts.
USFWS has suggested that the best approach is a site by site assessment of the effects of field trials on affected grounds, rather than relying on state personnel. The Green River Report demonstrates such federal "fly-ins" produce suspect results. Perhaps there is some private recognition that this approach is badly flawed as other ideas continue to surface. Without awaiting the benefit of the further state reviews, the Service has elected to revert to a 1995 failed policy. Region 3 has convened an eight state panel to produce "Guidelines" as a solution to a "problem" of their own definition. But the "problem" today has been expanded. The earlier proposed Guidelines covered only horseback trials, today they cover all dog events.
Objections to the 1995 "Guidelines" were that they included definitions too broad, or too narrow, to effectively determine local compatibility. They did not consider seasonal variation in habitat, scheduling to lessen or to mitigate conflicts, observable lack of impact from long term use, lack of conflict in most areas, long term traditional use, or effective local conflict resolution. These objections must apply as well today. Any set of guidelines which properly reflect the variations in environment, habitat, natural and cultural resources, and local user demand across a geographical area as large and varied as that from the Manitoba border to the Ohio River, must of necessity be so extensive as to be rendered unusable.
The question of compatibility or user conflict is one of balancing public demand for uses that are not necessarily competitive or mutually exclusive. Interference by one use with another, if it exists, is best determined and mitigated by the local land managers who understand local conditions, rather than through the imposition of a regional, or national blanket policy.
In USFWS Region 3, a handful of bureaucrats have gone behind closed doors, without public or governmental scrutiny, to overturn 63 years of Service tradition. They have established and enforced an as yet unauthorized policy, using threats bordering on extortion to achieve an end not in keeping with current law..
In Minnesota a state and a federal bureaucrat quietly agreed to ban trials. They did so by fiat, using a letter and a memorandum. Mr. Bradley has since admitted the letter to Minnesota was a "mistake", but he did not specify if the mistake was the extra legal enforcement of an unauthorized policy change, or merely putting that change in writing.
It appears to have been the latter, because the Service went on to try and enforce the same policy change in Michigan. But this time, nothing was put in writing. This led to "miscommunications", "mistakes", and enough shifts and reversals of policy to leave Michigan trialers wondering who and what they should believe.
The events in Michigan highlight the importance of the Green River case, because it is the only instance in which there exists an official, documented record of events which is available for public scrutiny. The USFWS investigation found no evidence of wildlife or habitat damage. A local training/personality problem may have existed. The federal cure for the problem was to totally ban field trialing, ending a 40 year tradition at that site and fracturing a valuable state-user wildlife support relationship.
Relief Requested Field trialers are hunters, hunting dog trainers, conservers of game. Rather than being singled out for exclusion from P-R grounds, they are the very people who should benefit most from the foresight of Senator Pittman and Representative Robertson. Those hunters who also actively participate in the training, testing and trialing of hunting dogs should be encouraged and supported.
The USFWS has proven that the interpretation and enforcement of the Pittman-Robertson Act, the Rules and Regulations, and the Federal Aid Manual, are subject to the whim or caprice of individual employees more willing to follow their own agenda than the original intent or the traditional interpretation of the law. The actions of the USFWS in Region 3 have made it very clear that the intent of the law must be unambiguously incorporated into the language of law.
There should be a statutory change that allocates P-R monies for the express purpose of purchasing grounds designed and maintained for the trialing, testing and training of hunting dogs. These directed apportionments could be patterned after the hunter education, hunter safety, and shooting range programs that are already such a successful part of the Act. Further, there should be a Congressional acknowledgment to guide managers controlling current P-R areas: hunting dog trialing and testing are primary uses for lands acquired and/or managed with P-R funds.
Tom Honecker
At the age of 52, Tom Honecker is a lifelong field trialer. Tom hunted and trialed in Hancock County, Ohio and surrounding areas that were bountiful with game in the fifties. Tom won his first bird dog field trial at the Killdeer Plains Wildlife Area at the age of eight. He was hooked for life.
Since his first victory, Tom has won approximately 50 amateur and open championships. One of his most distinguished wins was in 1998 when he owned, trained and handled CedarOak Kate to victory at The National Championship, the most prestigious pointing dog trial of the year. Tom was only the second amateur in 99 years to win this event. His enthusiasm for field trials isn't limited to competition as his many hours of work towards habitat improvement and conservation at Killdeer Plains and elsewhere demonstrates.
Tom's official sporting capacities include local Ohio and Mississippi field trial club officer/directorships. He is the current president of the International Pheasant Championship Club and longtime trustee and past president of the Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America, the oldest governing body for field trials. He is also a member of the Field Trial Handler of the Year Award Committee.
His most recent labor of love was the establishment of CedarOak Plantation, outside of Holly Springs, Mississippi in 1995. There at CedarOak Tom annually hosts a free Youth Field Trial, where youngsters from all over the Southeast get an opportunity to ride and handle hunting dogs. Endless hours of mowing, bushhogging, planning, studying and investment have their payoff as these youngsters, the future of field trialing, learn from the many veteran old timers Tom invites as his instructor/helpers.
Tom and his wife, Mary, have two children and three grandchildren. They divide their time between a farm outside Findlay, Ohio and CedarOak Plantation. Tom graduated from Ohio State University with a major in animal science. He is an independent businessman as the owner of K-T Equipment Rental, Inc. and a partner in several veterinary clinics.
Pittman-Robertson Working Group
The Pittman-Robertson Working Group is small group hunting dog owner volunteers concerned about USFWS hunting dog bans. The group was started in January 2000, in response to the Michigan field trial and dog testing ban. The group's membership represents a true cross-section of American sportsmen and women. They are all hunters. They own the four most popular pointing dogs, the two most popular retrieving breeds and beagles. The group's membership is constantly changing, reflecting changing circumstances and challenges. Either today, or in the recent past, the group has included an accountant, several teachers, a professor, a scientist, an engineer, a retired wildlife biologist, a veterinarian, actively practicing and retired attorneys, government workers, a financial systems analyst, a reporter, a federal affairs consultant, a machinist, a landscaper, a military officer and a sheet metal worker.
We feel it's only a small step beyond the banning hunting dog events, to the point when Government bureaucrats try to eliminate hunting on Pittman-Robertson grounds altogether. Our group cuts across sporting and hound breed lines, representing AKC, UKC, NSTRA and AFTCA trialers, riders and walkers, AKC, NAVHDA, NAHRA testers and just plain hunters. Some of the people involved include Illinois residents that saw Green River SWA taken from them. We have Minnesota and Michigan sportsmen concerned about the situations there. While our group well represents the Mid-west region, it includes sportsmen from both coasts concerned that the threat is spreading. Membership is open to all that wish to become active in protecting their hunting heritage. We may be reached by contacting Bob Kane at (540) 543-2312, though our dedicated Internet website at http://www.radiks.net/~swagle/dogowners_vs_usfws.html