I would like to thank you and your Committee for inviting the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) to provide testimony on the administration of the Federal Aid Programs by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Wildlife Management Institute appreciates your personal interest in resolving problems identified within the "Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act" (P-R Act) and the "Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act" (D-J Act).
WMI has had a long-term interest in both the P-R Act and the associated programs developed at the state level. We have been actively involved with the P-R Act since it was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1937, and we are vitally concerned that the P-R Act remain an integral part of wildlife conservation in the future. As you are aware, these Acts have been the cornerstone of the most successful conservation programs in North America. The on-the-ground success stories that can be attributed to these Acts are too numerous to recount, however, notable successes include the return of elk, white-tailed deer, wild turkey, pronghorn antelope, bison, giant Canada geese, and wood ducks to much of their historic range in America. Virtually none of these successes would have happened without the funds provided by this unique partnership among state and federal wildlife agencies, industry, hunters, anglers and conservationists.
We concur with those concerned about mismanagement or inappropriate use of funds available through the P-R Act, and generally we support any needed reforms to the current Act that would correct existing abuses. However, we are deeply concerned that changes in the current funding level would result in a serious reduction of Federal Aid staff. There is no evidence that large cuts in administrative funds are either justified or warranted, but they would seriously impact the delivery of program funds to the states. The proposed amount for program administration in H.R. 3671, the "Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000," would result in a 50 percent reduction in Fish and Wildlife Service staff currently delivering these programs to the states. We believe this reduction would seriously affect wildlife management, research and education programs across the country.
WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act should direct 4 percent of the annual funding for Administration of the Act. We believe a fixed percentage rather than a fixed amount provides for adequate fiscal controls while allowing program growth and needed flexibility. The 4 percent amount is based on the estimated expenditures by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the actual administration of the program, using the categories of Authorized Administrative Costs defined in Section 9 of H.R. 3671.
While WMI strongly supports federal oversight of the P-R Act program, we believe that oversight must be balanced against the goal of the founding legislation to create and improve state-level wildlife management, research and education programs. The legislative and implementation history of the P-R Act clearly indicates that activities undertaken as a result of this legislation and subsequent funding are state actions and not federal actions. Any language that alters this relationship should be avoided. We believe the appropriate role of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to review project eligibility, and determine if they are "substantial in character and design." Also, we believe the terms "evaluate, approve, disapprove and advise" found in Sections 9 (a) (4) and 9 (a) (12) of H.R. 3671 provide greater federal program oversight than currently exists. We recommend that these sections be replaced with, "Costs to review, evaluate and advise on project eligibility, and determinations that comprehensive fish and wildlife resource plans under section 6 (a) (1) and wildlife restoration projects under section 6 (a) (2) are substantial in character and design."
One problem with attempting to legislatively authorized specific program costs, is that new concepts and technologies needed to execute the program might be omitted. WMI believes that a complete prohibition of costs not specifically authorized in Section 9 (b) "Unauthorized Costs" of H.R. 3671 is shortsighted. We are not fully convinced that the current list of authorized costs identified in Section 9 is complete. We recommend that any legislative changes to the P-R Act develop a process to allow unanticipated, legitimate costs, that currently are not identified in H.R. 3671, be considered for future inclusion. The simplest way to achieve this is to provide for Congressional oversight in a manner similar to the way current re-programming requests are handled. WMI recommends that "unless approved by the authorizing Congressional Committee" be added to the end of this section of H.R. 3671.
WMI believes that the creation of an Assistant Director for a Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program should not be created by statute. The internal organization of an agency is a prerogative of the Executive Branch subject to Congressional review. This relationship should not be altered for this program. The head of the agency, in this case the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, is and should be responsible for implementing and executing the statutory requirements of the P-R Act. WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act exclude any and all references to an Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program.
WMI strongly supports providing funds to enhance hunter education and shooting range development. State hunter education programs continue to provide the necessary training and experience for our youth in safe handling and use of firearms, and in the ethics of hunting, land stewardship, and private property rights. Public shooting ranges provide safe places to discharge firearms, improve firearm safety and handling by the general public, and reduce conflicts between firearm owners and those who are often alarmed by the sights and sounds of firearms. The need for these important programs was identified in the 1971 and 1973 amendments to the P-R Act, however, we believe that a fixed percentage of funds from the P-A Act available each year will allow greater certainty for program development than having the program depend on whatever remains after other program expenses are met. Past program decisions clearly indicate that funding demands on agencies are so great that many important programs do not get funded unless they are prescribed in this manner. Unfortunately, as a result of these competing demands, the current national aggregate funding for hunter education programs only utilizes approximately 55 percent of the funding that was made available in the 1973 modification to the P-R Act. While the balance of these funds have been used for important wildlife programs, the need for investing in hunter education and shooting ranges has not been fulfilled. Societal changes dictate that these investments be made now. WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act should direct 2 percent of the annual funds to "Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants" rather than a fixed amount.
The now defunct Administrative Grants Program was similar to the "Multi-state Conservation Grant Program" described in Section 11 (a) of H.R. 3671 and was an extremely valuable program that has assisted states by developing a broad array of new information and management tools. In many cases these tools paved the way for integrating innovative management activities and projects into mainstream state wildlife management programs. However, the funding level currently contained in the H.R. 3671 is far below the actual need that exists for innovative program and information development. These funds should not be artificially capped, because the states have both direct and indirect control over the potential expenditure of these funds. WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act should direct 2 percent of the annul funds to a "Multi-state Conservation Grant Program" rather than a fixed amount.
In addition, many, if not most, of the projects funded by the now defunct "Administrative Grants Program" technically could not be described as "wildlife restoration projects," as defined in Section 11 (b) (2) of H.R. 3671. Examples include the numerous "human dimensions" and economic studies funded by these grants, as well as grants to support various technical symposia and data collection efforts. These projects did not directly "restore" any wildlife, but they did provide important information that aided wildlife restoration efforts.
WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act should authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider a broad array of projects for funding in support of wildlife restoration. Inserting the term "in support of" before "wildlife restoration projects" in Section 11 (b) (2) of H.R. 3671 would authorize a broad array of projects to be considered for funding. A similar insertion should be included in Title II, Section 201 (a) (2).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division both have obtained grants from the now defunct "Administrative Grants Program." The grants that were awarded to these agencies have supported projects such as the "National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation" and important bird-banding and harvest surveys, which clearly have benefitted a majority of states. WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act should expand the list of eligible grantees to include both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division [Section 11 (c) of H.R. 3671.]
The "Clarification" language found in Title I, Section 101, Section 11 (e) of H.R. 3671 and in Title II, Section 202, Section 14(3)(e) is inconsistent. WMI recommends that the language found in Title I be adopted.
WMI believe that the P-R Act could be enhanced by the creation of a "Sportsmen Trust Fund Advisory Council." The purpose of this proposed Council would be to enhance the broad partnership aspect of the Federal Aid Program; develop processes for stronger programmatic oversight and reviews, conflict resolution, and development of administrative budgets, policies and operational plans; and create a process for administering and implementing the "Multi-state Conservation Grant Program." We suggest that the Council be composed of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; State wildlife and fisheries management agencies; industries that manufacture goods that are taxed under this Act, or trade groups representing those industries; and non-governmental conservation/sportsmen organizations who have demonstrated a long term interest in advancing the purposes of this Act. Council members would be appointed by the Department of the Interior and would report on the health of the Program to Congress every five years.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting WMI to provide testimony on the administration of these important Federal Aid Programs. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggestions or if you would like to further discuss this important legislation.