[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      HOW MANY WOLVES ARE ENOUGH?
              EXAMINING THE NEED TO DELIST THE GRAY WOLF

=======================================================================

                        OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

              Friday, May 3, 2024 in Sandstone, Minnesota

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-117

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-588 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                     

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY


                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                       CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
                      JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
                   JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

Robert J. Wittman, VA                Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL                   Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA                      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              ----------                                
                                
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Friday, May 3, 2024..............................     1

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     2

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     4

Statement of Witnesses:

    Green, Hon. Steve, State Senator, Minnesota State Senate, St. 
      Paul, Minnesota............................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
    Nelson, Hon. Nathan, State Representative, Minnesota State 
      House of Representatives, St. Paul, Minnesota..............     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Roberts, Nathan, Associate Professor for Conservation and 
      Wildlife Management, College of the Ozarks, Point Lookout, 
      Missouri...................................................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Williams, John, Wolf Committee Co-Chair, Oregon Cattleman's 
      Association, Enterprise, Oregon............................    14
        Prepared statement of....................................    15
        Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........    18
    Hammill, Jim, President, Iron Range Consulting & Services 
      Inc., Crystal Falls, Michigan..............................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    30

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Bentz

        State of Oregon, Letter to the Committee.................    43

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        Resolution No. 0402202404, Hubbard County, Minnesota.....    45

        Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan Farm Bureaus, Letter 
          to the Committee.......................................    46
                                     


 
  OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON HOW MANY WOLVES ARE ENOUGH? EXAMINING THE
                      NEED TO DELIST THE GRAY WOLF

                              ----------                              


                          Friday, May 3, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

             Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                          Sandstone, Minnesota

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., 
Central Time, North Pine Government Center, 1602 Highway 23 
North, Sandstone, Minnesota, Hon. Cliff Bentz [Chairman of the 
Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bentz and Hageman.
    Also present: Representatives Fischbach, Tiffany, Stauber, 
and Maloy.

    Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and 
Fisheries will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome our witnesses, 
Members, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing. The 
Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on a hearing 
entitled, ``How Many Wolves Are Enough? Examining the Need to 
Delist the Gray Wolf.''
    By way of introduction, I am Cliff Bentz, the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. I also 
represent the 2nd District of Oregon, a district far bigger 
than all states east of the Mississippi. But I digress.
    I am grateful to be joined today by five of my colleagues. 
I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Minnesota and 
the gentleman from Minnesota, Mrs. Fischbach and Mr. Stauber; 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany; as well as the 
gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. Maloy, be allowed to participate in 
today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Since this is a congressional hearing, we are going to 
begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. I now recognize a group of 
students from the Harvest Christian School in Sandstone, 
Minnesota, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise.
    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 
America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
    Thank you so much.
    Before I give my opening statement, I want to explain how 
we ended up here today. Some months ago, some wolves in Oregon 
attacked a group of about 300 heifers, younger mother cows, in 
the southern part of my state, ran them through fences that 
enclosed them and ran them dozens if not hundreds of miles in 
through the forest and scattered them widely.
    This was just one event among many that are occurring in 
Oregon. So, it seemed to me, and I spoke with the Committee 
staff about this, and everybody agreed, we needed to have a 
hearing on the wolf. We then debated where to have the hearing. 
Fortunately, in Oregon, we don't have as many wolves as you 
guys do here. You guys have thousands of wolves; we have 
hundreds. So, it seemed to me that the proper place to hold the 
hearing was a place just like this, where people and wolves are 
forced to cohabitate, and their numbers are in the thousands, 
because, of course, the value of this hearing is going to be on 
its messaging ability. That is why I am happy that people are 
watching back in Oregon online as I speak, and I am happy that 
we will have this opportunity to raise the challenge that the 
wolf presents nationwide in today's hearing.
    We are joined today, and I want to have each one of the 
Members up here not give a lengthy speech. We don't have time 
for that, but to at least explain where they are from and who 
they are. We will start here with Congresswoman Fischbach.
    Mrs. Fischbach. I am Michelle Fischbach, and I represent 
the western half of Minnesota, so I border Canada, North 
Dakota, and South Dakota. And I am happy to be here today 
because obviously we share this issue in the western part of 
the state also. Thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. Harriet Hageman, and I represent the state of 
Wyoming. My involvement with the wolves was representing a 
variety of organizations over a 15-year period in Wyoming from 
2002 until 2017 when we were finally successful at delisting 
the gray wolf in Wyoming through a variety of lawsuits. So, I 
have been fighting this battle for well over two decades.
    Mr. Stauber. I am Congressman Stauber, representing this 
great 8th District of Minnesota, and I am so happy to be here. 
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tiffany. Congressman Tom Tiffany. I am straight east of 
here in Wisconsin. I cover the northern part of Wisconsin in 
the 7th Congressional District. Great issue for us to be 
hearing. And I see a few Wisconsinites here. Good to see you, 
and people from throughout the upper Midwest joining us for 
this, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Maloy. Celeste Maloy. I represent the 2nd District in 
Utah. I am also the newest Member of Congress, but my 
background is in agriculture. I have my FFA bracelet on, and I 
have spent my career working in natural resources policy, 
natural resources management, so I am really excited to be 
here.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Notwithstanding Teddy Roosevelt's statement that, ``The 
wolf is a beast of waste and destruction,'' the wolf is here to 
stay. So, this hearing is not about eradicating the gray wolf, 
but the wolf is not going to be reintroduced in every place 
where it used to be such as Manhattan Island, Southern 
California, Denver, Seattle, Baltimore, for example. Why? 
Because those areas are now filled with people, and there is no 
longer habitat or prey for the wolf. And, of course, no one 
wants to put their children at risk, as is the case, as we 
heard this morning, in Minnesota.
    So, the burden of returning the nature to ``balance'' will 
not fall on those living in the hills of L.A. Or in the 
concrete canyons of New York. Instead, the cost and the risks 
of harboring an apex predator will fall upon those of us who 
live in rural America. But this does not mean that we who live 
in rural areas must silently accept the urban imposition of 
this very real cost of the wolf, no. We do not have to accept 
this any more than the law requires.
    What I am saying is we do not have to accept any more 
wolves than the absolute minimum necessary to meet the 
requirements of the Endangered Species Act, and we need to be 
able to control the population of wolves so that minimum number 
is not exceeded. To do this, we must know how many wolves the 
ESA requires, and in my mind, the answer is enough to maintain 
its survival as a species and no more.
    Secondly, we must have the wolf removed from the ESA's list 
of endangered creatures. Why? Because if they are on the list, 
their numbers cannot be controlled. I am extremely happy to 
mention that just 2 days ago the bill to remove the wolf from 
the endangered species list passed across the Floor of the 
House and is on its way to the Senate. Yes.
    Given that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has found 
that the wolf is no longer endangered, the only surprise in the 
process of passing the bill was the number of Democrats voting 
against it: 201 Democrats, all but 4 brave souls, voted to keep 
the wolf listed. Just 4 out of 205 Democrats voted to delist. 
This is amazing, because unless the wolf is delisted, rural 
Americans cannot legally act to protect our communities, 
wildlife, children, and livestock from the horror of being 
attacked and torn apart by a wolf. Why anyone would vote for a 
continued needless destruction of vast numbers of deer, elk, 
and moose, not to mention the livelihoods of hundreds of 
farmers and ranchers is beyond me.
    As we will hear from witnesses today, unmanaged wolf 
populations have a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers 
and other wildlife species, and the communities that depend 
upon them. The fact is that wolves are apex predators who rely 
on killing other animals to survive, whether they are a 
farmer's cattle or wild moose living out in the forests of 
Minnesota.
    The management of wolf populations is the only logical path 
forward that can strike a balance between maintaining a healthy 
population and protecting the way of life of so many of our 
constituents. The good news is that states have already proven 
to be capable wildlife managers. States, not the Federal 
Government. This was confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 2 months ago when they denied petitions to list gray 
wolves in the Western United States and relist them in the 
Northern Rockies ecosystem, an area where wolves have been 
delisted for over 10 years.
    The Service stated that wolves ``are not at risk of 
extinction in the Western United States now or in the 
foreseeable future.'' The Service also stated that wolves in 
the Western United States have a healthy abundance, retain 
genetic diversity and the ability to respond to high mortality 
events, and maintain adaptive capacity.
    Instead of sitting on our lands and allowing the issues 
associated with an unmanaged wolf population to grow, we, as 
Members of Congress, must continue to act to ensure the voices 
of our constituents are heard and that we do everything we can 
to delist the gray wolf. The action on the House Floor this 
week was one step in the right direction, and I believe this 
hearing today will continue that path forward.

    I will now recognize Mr. Stauber for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
for coming to Minnesota's 8th Congressional District and 
convening this field hearing.
    As we will learn this morning, the growing wolf population 
and the inability to properly manage its species, due largely 
to its listing status under the Endangered Species Act, is 
affecting our way of life here in Minnesota. It is an 
incredibly important issue facing my constituents, and I really 
appreciate the attention you and the entire Subcommittee are 
giving to it.
    I also want to thank all my colleagues for traveling here 
to Minnesota and joining us today. You all come from very 
different districts around the country and thus provide 
important perspectives on the wolf management.
    Over the past several months, I have traveled across my 
district to hold listening sessions and attend grassroots 
assemblies focused on the impact of Minnesota's growing wolf 
population, like those organized by the Hunters for Hunters 
organization that has been at the forefront of this issue and 
really making a big difference.
    What I have heard from my constituents is clear: The gray 
wolf has been recovered, but that is not just something we are 
hearing anecdotally. We have the data and the science to back 
it up. When the gray wolf was listed as threatened in Minnesota 
under the Endangered Species Act in 1978, a recovery goal of 
1,250 to 1,400 wolves was set.
    Today, according to data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, we 
have over 2,700 wolves in Minnesota. That is about half of the 
total wolves in the entire Lower 48. By official estimates, 
half of the wolves in this country are here in Minnesota, and 
their population is twice as high as our wildlife managers' 
goal set at the species listing.
    That said, as I have traveled across the district, it is 
clear that this 2,700 wolf count number is an undercount. There 
are likely hundreds if not thousands more. We should celebrate 
that. The gray wolf is a success story of the ESA. Species were 
never meant to be listed under the ESA indefinitely, but that 
is the reality today. Since the ESA's enactment over five 
decades ago, only 2 to 3 percent of species ever listed have 
made it off the list.
    The ESA has been weaponized by radical activist groups that 
don't want to follow the science, the science that proves the 
gray wolf has recovered and should be delisted. And that is not 
just an opinion myself and my colleagues on this panel hold; it 
is something that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed 
with under multiple administrations. The Obama, Trump, and 
Biden administrations have all agreed and have all taken steps 
to delist the gray wolf, but each of these efforts have been 
blocked by activist judges in cases brought by activist groups.
    Earlier this week, as mentioned earlier, the House of 
Representatives passed the Trust the Science Act, a bill that I 
was proud to help lead, that directs the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to reinstate the 2020 delisting rule. This passed with 
bipartisan support. It now heads to the Senate where it will be 
up to our U.S. Senators to act, and I call on both Senators 
Klobuchar and Smith to follow the science and push for a vote 
on this legislation on the Senate Floor.
    I am eager to hear from our witnesses this morning who will 
share just how important this legislation and proper wolf 
management is to communities across Minnesota and the entire 
United States.
    Before I yield, I do want to acknowledge two witnesses that 
were invited to testify but declined the Subcommittee's 
invitation. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources Sarah Strommen was invited to testify, but she 
refused to do so. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was also 
invited to testify; they, too, declined our invitation. I think 
their absence, unfortunately, speaks volumes.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for coming to the great state 
of Minnesota and convening this hearing, and I look forward to 
our conversations. I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Stauber.
    One thing before I introduce our witnesses, I would like 
everyone to recognize the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries 
Subcommittee, of which I chair, staff for all of their hard 
work putting this together. Can you give them a round of 
applause, please?
    Thank you. I will now introduce our witnesses: Senator 
Steve Green of Minnesota's Senate from Fosston, Minnesota; 
Representative Nathan Nelson of the Minnesota House of 
Representatives from Hinckley, Minnesota. And I want to thank 
you for the tour you gave us of your farm this morning, it was 
superb, and thank you so much for taking that time and effort; 
Dr. Nathan Roberts, associate professor for conservation and 
wildlife management from the College of Ozarks in Point 
Lookout, Missouri; Mr. John Williams, co-chair of the Wolf 
Committee with the Oregon Cattlemen's Association in 
Enterprise, Oregon; Mr. Jim Hammill, president of Iron Range 
Consulting and Services in Crystal Falls, Michigan.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you 
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record. We use timing 
lights. When you begin, the light will turn green; when you 
have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn yellow; and, at 
the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask 
you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all 
witnesses to testify before Member questioning.
    I now recognize Senator Green. Senator, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes, and we understand you have to leave almost 
immediately to go back and vote.
    So, don't be surprised, everyone, if he gives a statement 
and then runs out the door.
    Mr. Green. Yes, I am not abandoning you.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE GREEN, STATE SENATOR, MINNESOTA 
               STATE SENATE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

    Mr. Green. Chairman Bentz and Committee members, I want to 
thank you so much for coming here. This is a big issue for us. 
Most of my statement was already testified by our good 
Congressman, so that will make mine a little shorter. But I 
will say that I have been working on this issue since I was 
elected in 2013. It is not a new issue for us. And the 
devastation of the wolves in my district and to the east and 
north, this goes back as far as I can remember into the 1970s, 
where our livestock producers were losing their calves and, 
even at that time, too, having problems with the government 
agencies trying to get them under control.
    And, in 2013, the same number that you are looking at now, 
this 2,700, is what the agency was claiming. We didn't believe 
it then. We were having higher numbers given to us then, and 
now when we see how much the population has grown again, and I 
want to thank these people behind me for being here, because 
they are a big part of how this came into the open. The Hunters 
for Hunters and the people that have their video cameras up, 
their game cameras up, have shown us that the wolves are 
everywhere, and the deer are disappearing, and it is noticeable 
now. So, I really appreciate the fact that this is coming to 
light.
    First of all, the wolves, they will go after the easiest 
prey, and right now our deer population is down, and now they 
are coming more and more after the cattle. And, as their food 
source declines, now we are seeing them coming after our 
domestic animals. And what is next? We fear for our children 
out here. And the wolves are no longer afraid of us. You can 
drive right by them on the road and they will stand right 
there, so there is no fear of humans.
    The other issue that I want to talk about before my time 
runs out is the issue with the Indigenous people and the wolf 
being sacred. I don't deny that there are some people that do 
hold that, but the vast majority of us do not. I am a member of 
White Earth Nation. We rely a great deal on deer and other game 
animals for our food source.
    And, if you talk to certain people that like to talk on the 
news, they will tell you a different story. But, if you get 
down and you talk to the people that don't want to be on the 
news that, I don't want to say fear the camera but have no 
desire to be in front of a camera or have their face out there, 
they will tell you a completely different story, that this is 
very important to them. And the deer population for us and also 
the smaller game population is very, very important. So, you 
won't hear the same things if you are out talking to regular 
people that you do talking to those that are constantly in the 
news, and I hope you take that into account.
    Most of the rest of my testimony has already been said 
here, so I am not going to continue down that path. I do want 
to thank you, because part of my testimony was to ask you to 
move your bills forward apart from the Fish and Wildlife and to 
get these bills through Congress, that we can deal with the 
issues we have in Minnesota. And we still will have a fight in 
Minnesota, but you will ease a lot of our concerns by getting 
these bills through. I appreciate that very much, and thank you 
for hearing me out.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Steve Green, State Senator, Minnesota 
                              State Senate

    Chairman Bentz, and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding 
this hearing. The overpopulation of wolves in Minnesota is having 
devastating effects.

    US Fish and Wildlife has determined the adequate numbers for a 
healthy wolf population to be 1,251 to 1,400. Currently the DNR count 
is estimated to be 2,700. Roughly double. People living in Northern 
Minnesota believe this count to be significantly higher.

    Livestock producers have been dealing with these predators for 
years. As they have continued to increase in numbers the devastation 
has spread. The deer population is diminished. And as these and other 
prey decrease, domestic pets are now the targeted food source for these 
predators.

    The circumstances that existed when wolves were listed as 
endangered are no longer relevant. The claims that managing wolves will 
decimate their numbers are not supported by the facts. We need only 
look to states that have management plans to validate this.

    The other argument that Indigenous people are all against wolf 
management is false. I am a member of the White Earth Nation. I have 
lived on the reservation most of my life. There are some that oppose 
delisting. But those that rely on deer and other game as a source food 
do not. They are my family, friends, and neighbors. Their voices are 
seldom heard. However, if you take the time get to know them, they will 
tell you they are concerned when deer populations are low.

    If the Fish and Wildlife agency will not act, we are hoping the 
Legislature will act. There is more at stake than the ones already 
stated. We have all heard reports of wolves in yards killing pets. How 
long before it is a child? Reaction to that will be too late. We 
already see wolves no longer fear man. We have an opportunity to be 
proactive. Every day we wait increases the danger. School will soon be 
out; kids and adults will be out more. We must act.

    I am asking the committee to bring these concerns to DC. This 
should not be a complicated issue. Delisting the wolf will bring many 
benefits, and few if any negative ones.

    Thank you for allowing me to voice these concerns.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I now recognize Representative Nelson for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. NATHAN NELSON, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, 
 MINNESOTA STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

    Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for this 
opportunity to testify. And, for those that were able to come 
out to the farm this morning and tour it and just see firsthand 
where our farm has experienced livestock depredation, thank you 
for that, and being able to share my story. And my story is 
much the same as many of the farms in our area. There are times 
that we can find the results of the loss, and we are able to 
turn in a claim, and it is a hard thing to deal with, but we 
are thankful that there are claims available and that is there. 
And one of the things that is important is to continue to be 
able to have these funds available for when we do have the 
loss.
    Our farm, it was in early 1990s, wolves were reintroduced 
in our area, and it was shortly thereafter we started seeing 
the behavior of our livestock change. And it wasn't much longer 
after that that we started experiencing loss. And, 
unfortunately, one of the things with loss, if you can't find 
any remains of an animal of our livestock, we are not able file 
a claim to do anything with that.
    So, it wasn't really until the early 2000s that we actually 
had a claim that was payable and to really be able to 
investigate. And, since then, we have lost somewhere around 40 
animals, calves and cows both, on our farm. Many of them that 
we have lost we can't account for them, but I am quite 
confident that they have been lost to wolf depredation.
    And my neighbors are much the same stories. And while much 
of my testimony is going to be about livestock, one of the 
things in our area, as you have driven in here, there is a lot 
of forested area. It is a great area for recreation. And I 
think one of the things that has really brought this story to 
the highlight has been the sportsmen that have really gotten on 
board. They have been sharing their pictures from their game 
camera. They have been sharing their stories of the declining 
deer population. And, yes, there may be several factors to 
that, but I believe that wolves are a big part of that story.
    When the wolves have been listed, they have gone back and 
forth on being delisted by several different methods, but most 
of it is agency action. And, on the endangered species list, 
unfortunately, it feels like it is the Hotel California; you 
can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.
    The story of the wolves is something that should be 
celebrated. The recovery has happened, I believe there is a 
sustainable population, and now we are to a point where I truly 
believe that we need to have management of a species. When 
there are natural resources, all of it must be managed 
properly, whether it is our forestry, iron, whatever wildlife, 
all of it. And the timber wolves are one of those, the gray 
wolf.
    And, as the management changes, unfortunately, we are not 
going to be able to increase the number to be able to just be 
able to go out in the wilderness and see them. I rarely see a 
wolf on my farm, maybe five, six times a year, and I am outside 
a lot, and I live in the heart of gray wolf territory. And it 
is rare to see them. But, at the same time, we are not going to 
be able to just, like a zoo, be able to go out and see these 
animals, but yet they are a part of our ecosystem, and they do 
need to be managed.
    I thank you for being here today and being able to hear 
this story. I have countless stories of constituents of mine, 
as a state representative, that have reached out to me and 
shared their stories, their heartbreaking loss, wolves coming 
in right up around their house, taking their pets. It is an 
issue that is continuing to grow, and I think, without further 
action, they are going to become more and more brazen, and 
there will be more and more conflict.
    And I truly believe that we do need to have management and 
that we should celebrate the success of the endangered species 
plan and the Act or what has taken place and be able to remove 
them and move to management. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Hon. Nathan Nelson, State Representative, 
            District 11b, Minnesota House of Representatives

Wolves in Minnesota:

    Wolves have been a part of Minnesota's ecosystem since its founding 
as a state, and their existence extends long before the state's 
creation. Throughout Minnesota's history, the wolf population has 
varied, and has been relatively stable over the last three decades.

    In recent history, the territory of Minnesota wolves has been 
concentrated in the northern third of the state, with expansion south 
and west becoming increasingly common. For the farming and ranching 
communities, this expansion has created an increased number of 
interactions with humans and livestock, necessitating a greater need 
for management of the wolf for both safety and economic reasons.

    According to the most recent Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources Wolf Population Update conducted in 2023, the state estimated 
that the 2022-2023 mid-winter wolf population was 2,919 wolves. This 
number is significantly higher than the minimum number of wolves needed 
for the population to be determined healthy, which is 1,600 wolves 
within the state.

    Although historically believed to be sensitive to higher human 
population density, recent data from 1988-2018 indicates that the 
modern wolf population has developed an increased tolerance to humans 
and roadways.

    This increased tolerance has also led to more negative 
interactions, making it harder to mitigate the risk to livestock and 
pets. As wolves become more comfortable with humans, they have learned 
to change their behavior, making them effective livestock predators 
regardless of human population density.
Wolf Affects to Farmers and Ranchers:

    As a cattle producer myself, I can attest to the impact of wolves 
on my family's farm. We raise cattle at the intersection of forested 
and agricultural lands, where wolf habitat meets directly with prime 
grazing lands for livestock coupled with quality ground for row crops 
to grow feed. This habitat dynamic puts increased pressure on my 
cattle, and I have personally dealt with wolf kills for nearly two 
decades. The loss of cattle is difficult to bear and creates a 
significant monetary loss for my farm. This firsthand experience has 
convinced me of the need for more options when it comes to managing 
wolves in Minnesota.

    As the wolf population and territory has increased and expanded, 
this has caused serious management issues for my farm, with annual 
losses to wolf depredation becoming a normal occurrence. Beyond the 
economic repercussions of these losses, there also comes a 
psychological and emotional toll. Wolf killings on livestock can be 
devastating events, and the only recourse is through Minnesota's wolf 
depredation compensation program. In addition, verified wolf kills may 
also warrant the services of a certified trapper from the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Services (APHIS).

    Both programs are used extensively in Minnesota, with a need for 
more investment at both the state and federal levels. As a livestock 
producer, I would prefer having the tools in place to properly manage 
the wolf population on the front end, creating less of a need for 
recourse after an incident with my livestock. In addition, not all 
incidents are able to be recorded, leaving producers like me with no 
recourse at all. When producers like me are unable to prove and record 
loss of livestock to wolves, it puts us in a difficult position, 
knowing that we will no longer receive any compensation for the 
investment we have made into our livestock operations while also 
realizing that the predator which caused the harm will not be properly 
managed and left to act again.

    Although wolves play a role in the ecosystem of Minnesota, there is 
a need for management of these animals that goes well beyond the 
current tools available to the citizens of Minnesota and the Federal 
and State governments.
The Need for More Management Tools

    According to data published by the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources, 142 wolves were trapped and euthanized by USDA APHIS 
trappers. This number is higher than all other states combined, 
highlighting how concentrated wolf populations have become.

    The volume of wolf interactions with livestock is driving this 
statistic and speaks to the need for wolf management to return to the 
states. As wolves are currently federally protected, Minnesotans are 
left with no ability to properly manage the wolf population, forcing 
corrective action after negative situations have occurred.

    I encourage lawmakers to consider this data in their deliberations 
and would point out that allowing states to manage their own wolf 
populations does create a detriment to wolves. It simply allows for 
professionals in the wildlife biology and agricultural industries to 
properly control these populations for the benefit of humans, wildlife, 
and domesticated livestock.

    In these deliberations, lawmakers should take care to include the 
appropriate industry, government, and academic partners to ensure the 
necessary options are available to manage wolves.

    These options could include the use of traps and snares, the re-
creation of a hunting and trapping season, and more investment in 
calculating and tracking wolf populations and territories. 
Additionally, resources created at the state level in Minnesota also 
highlight a healthy investment in attempting to mitigate wolf 
interactions. The state of Minnesota currently has the Wolf-Livestock 
Conflict Prevention Grant program, helping producers to receive funding 
to help mitigate wolf interactions on their farms. This is an example 
of attempting to alleviate the issue before a negative situation 
arises.

    The more data that is available will allow Minnesotans the ability 
to have a true understanding of the scope of wolves in our state and 
guide our leaders in their ability to provide the appropriate resources 
to maintain a healthy and properly managed wolf population.

    In the current situation, where wolves are not allowed to be 
managed except in specific instances, we are left in a reactionary 
state, unable to handle the situation that individuals like me are 
experiencing every day in our communities.
Conclusion:

    Across the state of Minnesota, citizens are discussing the role 
wolves play in our ecological process. Although wolves are an important 
predator species, wildlife biology requires balance to maintain quality 
habitat and healthy populations of a variety of species.

    In the farming and ranching community, the consistent concern wolf 
interactions create with livestock creates a great deal of emotional 
and economic stress, putting livestock producers in a no-win situation 
with no end in sight.

    I encourage the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, 
and Fisheries to continue engaging in this very important topic and 
would ask that Congress pass legislation removing the federal 
protections wolves currently receive to allow states to play their part 
in managing this predatory species.

    Without proper management options, the wolf population in Minnesota 
and across the country will only continue to grow to unmanageable 
levels, creating more harm to livestock producers and the communities 
within the wolf range.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Nelson.
    I now recognize Dr. Roberts for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF NATHAN ROBERTS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR FOR 
 CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, COLLEGE OF THE OZARKS, 
                    POINT LOOKOUT, MISSOURI

    Dr. Roberts. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and thank you, 
Committee members, for the opportunity to be here today to 
speak about wolf recovery.
    A year ago, I testified that the gray wolf has recovered 
and should be removed from the Endangered Species Act. I still 
stand by that statement today. The wolf has recovered in the 
United States. The established recovery plan for the Great 
Lakes region set clear, numeric goals to serve as criteria for 
determining successful recovery. Those criteria have been 
exceeded every year since at least 1994, with an estimated 
4,000 to 5,000 individuals in this region alone.
    Again, I note that every wolf on the landscape in the Great 
Lakes region today was born long after recovery goals were met. 
Some argue that states will eradicate wolves if state 
management authority is returned. Some jurisdictions may 
continue state or tribal-level protections, while others may 
allow for some regulated take.
    While states may vary on how large the population should 
be, they all plan for and set policies to have sustainable and 
secure populations. Some states would likely reduce populations 
to achieve management goals, but no states are suggesting a 
dire desire to remove wolves altogether. In fact, all states 
with wolves have a stated goal of maintaining a population that 
ensures the long-term viability of wolves.
    It is critical to recognize there is a fundamental 
difference between desiring no wolves at all versus 
scientifically and responsibly managing wolves to establish 
population goals, which in some cases may mean less wolves. 
Many states, based on their respective wolf management plans, 
may have the need to have fewer wolves than current numbers, 
but that does not mean they desire to eradicate the species.
    Some argue the number of wolves taken in recent years in 
areas or times when wolves are not listed is alarming. Hunting 
of any species causes short-term decline in the population as 
individuals are removed. The actual number of animals removed 
is not the important metric to consider. Rather, the population 
trajectory viewed on an annual basis is more informative when 
considering the long-term viability of a population. In other 
words, what we really want to know is if the population is 
increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable from year to year.
    Jurisdictions use a variety of techniques and methods to 
estimate population trajectory of wolves. State fish and 
wildlife agencies have successfully managed countless species 
this way over the past century, from waterfowl to upland birds, 
deer, and elk. Monitoring programs allow for evaluating 
population responses to management actions and changes. These 
methods are well established and supported by peer-reviewed 
literature. We could be confident the wolf population is at 
least as large as estimates suggest because jurisdictions are 
using scientifically sound methods to produce these estimates. 
Similarly, we could be confident that the potential impacts of 
management actions can be evaluated and adapted as needed.
    Wolves are resilient. Peer-reviewed scientific information 
can give us insight as to what level of take is sustainable. 
Published scientific work has found that take rates up to 29 
percent resulted in no decrease in annual population 
trajectory. The distribution of wolves further contributes to 
this resiliency, as wolves are represented by several meta 
populations that collectively compose the overall population. 
In the unlikely event that a meta population were to experience 
severe population declines, these could be mitigated by the 
other sub populations.
    The Department of the Interior appropriately recognizes 
resiliency in their final rule published in 2020. Some have 
concern that wolves are not found throughout their historic 
range. Wolves are restored in the Great Lakes and Rocky 
Mountain regions. However, it is true they are not found 
throughout their complete historic range. This does not mean 
the species is threatened. There are enough wolves in these 
established populations to ensure that wolves will remain in 
the United States.
    Most species are not bound throughout their historic range. 
Elk and black bear, for example, are still absent for much of 
their historic range. However, elk and bears, like wolves, are 
still secure. States can restore native species in the absence 
of ESA protections. There are active programs in several states 
to restore elk and ruffed grouse even though these species are 
not federally listed.
    Failing to recognize that wolves are recovered undermines 
the intention of the ESA. The Act was intended to provide 
temporary protection and funding until a species met 
established recovery goals, at which time states are to regain 
management authority through delisting. Gray wolves are 
recovered in the United States. The science is clear: The 
species is recovered, secure, and recovery goals have been met 
many times over. States have the ability, and an undeniable 
track record of species management and recovery, to manage the 
species effectively and sustainably for the benefit of the 
public they serve. Wolves are restored. Now it is time to 
restore management to the states. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Roberts follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Nathan M. Roberts, PhD, Associate Professor for 
      Conservation and Wildlife Management, College of the Ozarks

    Members of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries:

    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to speak about wolf 
management. A year ago, I testified in this committee that the gray 
wolf in the United States is recovered, no longer in danger of 
extinction, and should be removed from the Endangered Species Act of 
1973 (ESA). I stand by this statement still today. The wolf is 
recovered in the United States. The established recovery plan in Great 
Lakes region set clear numeric goals to serve as criteria for 
determining successful recovery. These goals have been exceeded every 
year since at least 1994, approaching three decades now, with an 
estimated 4,000-5,000 individuals in this region alone. Again, I note 
that, given the natural life span of wolves, every wolf on the 
landscape in the Great Lakes region was born long after recovery goals 
were met.

    Some argue that states will eradicate wolves if management 
authority is returned to state jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions may 
continue state or tribal level protections while others may allow some 
regulated take. However, every state with wolves has a goal of 
sustaining a wolf population within their borders. While states may 
vary on how large the population should be, they all plan for, and set 
policies, to have a sustainable and secure population. The agencies 
charged with managing wolves in these jurisdictions will be accountable 
to the public they serve. Similarly, elected bodies that wade into wolf 
management will also be accountable to their respective electorates. 
While some states will reduce populations to achieve population goals, 
no states are suggesting they desire to remove populations altogether. 
In fact, all states with wolves have a stated goal of maintaining a 
population that ensures the long-term viability of wolves within their 
state. It is critical to recognize that there is a difference between 
scientifically and responsibly managing wolves to established 
population goals which may mean less wolves on the landscape and 
desiring no wolves at all. Many states, based on their wolf management 
plans, may have the need to have fewer wolves than current numbers, but 
that does not mean they desire to eradicate the species.

    Some argue that the number of wolves taken in recent years, in 
areas or times when wolves are not listed, is alarming. Hunting of any 
species causes a short-term decline in the population as individuals 
are removed. The actual number of animals removed, or percentage of the 
population removed, is not the important metric to consider. Rather, 
the population trajectory, viewed on an annual basis, is more 
informative when considering the long-term viability of a population. 
In other words, what we really want to know is if the population is 
increasing, declining, or remaining stable from year to year. 
Jurisdictions use a variety of techniques and methods to estimate the 
geographic range and population trajectory of wolves. State fish and 
wildlife agencies have successfully managed countless species this way 
over the past century from waterfowl to upland birds, deer, and elk. 
These methods are well established and supported by peer-reviewed 
literature. It is impossible to know the absolute number of any 
species, including humans, but estimates yielded from scientifically-
sound methods are reliable and allow for monitoring of the species. 
These monitoring programs allow for evaluating population responses to 
management actions and changes. We can be confident that the wolf 
population is at least as large as estimates suggest because 
jurisdictions are using scientifically sound, defensible methods to 
produce these population estimates. Similarly, we can be confident that 
the potential impacts of management actions, or changes to management 
programs, can be evaluated and adapted as needed.

    Wolves are resilient. Peer-reviewed, scientific information can 
give us insight to what level of take is sustainable. Adams et al. 
(2008) is a published scientific work that found that harvest, or 
hunting take, rates up to 29% result in no decreases in annual 
population trajectory. The distribution of wolves further contributes 
to this resiliency as wolves in the contiguous United States are 
represented by several meta-populations that collectively compose the 
overall population. Multiple established meta-populations help ensure 
that the overall population is robust and resilient to unforeseen 
events. In the unlikely event that a meta-population were to experience 
severe population declines, the impact on the overall population can be 
mitigated by the other subpopulations. Indeed, the Department of 
Interior appropriately recognized this resiliency in their final rule 
published in 2020.

    Some have concern that wolves are not found throughout their 
historic range. Wolves are restored in the Great Lakes and Rocky 
Mountain regions. However, it is true that they are not found 
throughout their complete historic range. This does not mean that the 
species is threatened. There are enough wolves in these established 
populations to ensure that wolves will remain in the United States. 
Most species are not found throughout their historic range. Elk and 
black bears, for example, are still absent from much of their historic 
range. They, like wolves, are still secure. States can restore native 
species in the absence of ESA protections. There are active programs in 
several states to restore elk and ruffed grouse--even though these 
species are not federally listed.

    Failing to recognize that wolves are recovered undermines the 
intention of the ESA. The Act was intended to provide temporary 
protection and funding until a species met established recovery goals; 
at which time the states are to regain management authority following 
delisting. By not delisting wolves, even after they have far exceeded 
recovery goals, the integrity of the ESA is compromised. Funding, and 
other resources are encumbered for wolves, a recovered species, that 
could otherwise be dedicated to species in true need of assistance. 
Disregarding scientifically based recovery goals further 
disincentivizes jurisdictions from pursuing endangered species recovery 
or embarking on partnerships to restore species that are imperiled. 
Public support for imperiled species conservation erodes when citizens 
see abundant species classified as `endangered' despite ample data, and 
scientific consensus, that suggest otherwise. The public, especially 
those that live in the core of wolf range, experience both the 
positive, and negative impacts of wolves. The public were assured in 
the recovery plan that wolves would be delisted once they were 
recovered. These citizens were further told the clear criteria used to 
determine if wolves have been recovered. However, after meeting these 
criteria for almost thirty years, the public are still waiting to see 
wolves delisted. We have a population that has been recovered for 
almost three decades and is at least an order of magnitude above 
established and agreed recovery goals, yet is still listed. 
Unfortunately, the result is that science is devalued, partnerships are 
avoided, the public is disillusioned, and conservation suffers.

    Gray wolves are recovered in the United States. The science is 
clear; this species is recovered, secure, and recovery goals have been 
met many times over. States have the ability, and an undeniable track 
record of species management and recovery, to effectively and 
sustainably manage this species for the benefit of the public they 
serve. This is why the federal government, and so many states, have 
appropriately supported delisting again and again. It is time to delist 
wolves.

Citation:

ADAMS, L.G., STEPHENSON, R.O., DALE, B.W., AHGOOK, R.T. and DEMMA, D.J. 
(2008), Population Dynamics and Harvest Characteristics of Wolves in 
the Central Brooks Range, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs, 170: 1-25. 
https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-012

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Roberts.
    I now recognize Mr. John Williams for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JOHN WILLIAMS, WOLF COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR, OREGON 
          CATTLEMAN'S ASSOCIATION, ENTERPRISE, OREGON

    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Chairman and Representatives.
    With wolves expanding to many areas of Oregon, livestock 
producers need relief from the economic devastation and the 
emotional stress they are enduring as wolves impact nearly 
every aspect of their operation. We need to be able to have the 
ability to protect ourselves, our families, and our private 
property, including our livestock, from wolves. Ranchers are at 
risk of losing their ranches, their way of life, their homes, 
and their income. The production losses due to the presence of 
wolves, which is much larger than the dead and injured animals, 
all lead to a significant emotional stress to the ranching 
community.
    To be able to do this, wolves must be removed from the 
Endangered Species Act. In Oregon, the wolf was removed from 
the Oregon ESA in 2015 because the wolf population had met the 
required criteria, and the expansion of the wolf across much of 
the state has created a robust wolf population. The eastern 
quarter of the state is also federally delisted as well. It 
gives us hope that the rest of our ranchers can gain access to 
wolf management that includes removal of problem wolves when 
attacks on livestock become chronic.
    Ranchers living in the three quarters of the state west of 
the arbitrary line of Highway 395, 78, and 95 are living under 
the wolves being protected under the ESA. They have no way of 
defending themselves against a wolf attack. Even if a rancher 
sees a wolf attacking his cattle, he cannot harm the wolf. 
Wolves kill livestock as a normal action of their lives. They 
kill to eat. They kill to train their young, and they sport 
kill. Ranchers many times only find one in eight of the 
carcasses, as identified by the Oakleaf study from Idaho.
    In the process of killing, the wolves traumatize the cattle 
that are involved in the event. The normal hunting method of a 
wolf includes running down their prey. Sometimes a cow will not 
run but turn and fight to defend their young, or they must 
fight because their herd is cornered. Either way, as multiple 
events occur, most if not all of the herd becomes traumatized.
    The effect of the losses to the producer both increases the 
producer's direct costs of doing business and reduce the 
revenue received. The list of the costs include depredations, 
reduced weaning weights, weight loss of cows, conception rate 
reductions, and management costs. First four are lost income to 
the producer because of the reduced cattle performance or 
physical loss of the animals.
    The last item, management costs, encompasses a large group 
of issues that cause increased cost of operation. Management 
issues can be broken down into the cost of implementing 
nonlethal activities to attempt to mitigate the impact of the 
wolf's presence: management costs due to the implementation of 
government regulations and management plans, increased cost of 
livestock handling, increased cost through injury and death of 
the livestock, and the loss of range access because the wolf's 
presence in given places makes it unwise to run livestock in 
that specific area.
    To put some of the context of these losses for ranchers 
taken from a paper I wrote in 2010, for a rancher with 400 head 
of cattle, the presence of wolves creates a reduced conception 
rate of about 10 percent, which costs the rancher $134 a head; 
reduced weaning weight, $46; depredation, $50; reduced cow 
weight, $57; and increased management costs, $93, all for a 
total of $380 per head to each and every cow that is impacted 
by wolves.
    To add to this, this adds up to $152,000 for a 400-head 
operation. The losses are just not economic; they are also 
emotional and social. Management costs related to the expected 
nonlethal are both time and money. The time issue becomes 
critical as ranchers work to protect their herds, losing family 
time and time away from their normal ranching activities. 
Ranchers feel abandoned when wolves have to be managed under 
the Federal ESA. Wolves cannot be harmed in any way even though 
they are tearing their animals apart.
    To state the obvious, wolves are controversial. Wolf 
management occurs in three arenas: economic, social, and 
political. Ranchers and hunters are the only ones economically 
impacted directly by the economic costs. Unfortunately, wolf 
management and wolf policy is mostly impacted by the social 
arena, and the decisions are made in the political arena.
    Ranchers need to be able to have control over their lives, 
their ranches, and their livestock. To accomplish this, we must 
remove the wolves from the Endangered Species Act. Evidence to 
support this can be seen in the rapid expansion of wolves into 
new areas like California and western Oregon and increase in 
numbers of the wolves throughout their occupied range. Wolves 
don't need the protection of the single species management of 
the Endangered Species Act.
    Thank you for the opportunity for ranchers to explain their 
impacts.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
 Prepared Statement of John Williams, Oregon Cattleman's Association, 
                        Wolf Committee Co-Chair

    As a cattle rancher in my younger days I learned the cattle 
industry from the ground up. As an Oregon State University Extension 
Agent for over 31 years, including over 10 years of studying the impact 
of the presence of wolves on livestock I have learn how devastating the 
reintroduction of wolves to the western landscape is to ranchers and 
their communities. In 1996 Mack Birkmaier, local rancher and past 
president of the Oregon Cattleman's Association came into my office and 
told me that an issue was coming that would hit the livestock industry 
like no other issue in his lifetime . . . The wolf . . . and he wanted 
the university to engage in research before they came to be able to 
scientifically show how disruptive they would be.

    I joined a group of researchers from Oregon State University, the 
Agricultural Research Service and University of Idaho in a long-term 
research project looking at the impacts of the presence of wolves on 
cattle. Four peer reviewed publication have been published and several 
non-peer reviewed but ground truthed papers were written. A shortened 
version of two of those papers are included in the supplementary 
information for this hearing. A bibliography of those documents is 
included at the end of this testimony.

    In my retirement I took on the co-chair of the wolf committee for 
the Oregon Cattleman's Association and continue to work to improve the 
management of the wolves and to influence the decision making 
surrounding wolves as it is truly devastating the cattle industry 
across the west. In areas where the wolf is protected by the Federal 
Endangered Species Act, wolves attack livestock with impunity and the 
rancher has no recourse. Some wolves have killed dozens of livestock 
and cannot be harmed.

    My Experience with the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population 
Segment is that even though we need the wolves removed from the Federal 
ESA through administrative means, the court system will relist them 
every time until there is congressional action that delists them. Thank 
you for the opportunity to present the following oral testimony.

                                 *****

    I am John Williams, rancher from NE Oregon and I am here today 
representing the Oregon Cattleman's Association as the co-chair of wolf 
committee.

    With the wolves expanding to many areas of Oregon, livestock 
producers need relief from the economic devastation and the emotional 
stress they are enduring as wolves' impact nearly every aspect of their 
operation.

    We need to be able to have the ability to protect ourselves, our 
families and our private property, including our livestock, from 
wolves. Ranchers are at risk of losing their ranches, their way of 
life, their homes and their incomes. The production losses due to the 
presence of wolves, which are much larger than the dead and injured 
animals all leads to significant emotional stress to the ranching 
community.

    To be able to do this, wolves must be removed from the Endangered 
Species Act. In Oregon, the wolf was removed from the Oregon ESA in 
2015 because the wolf population had met the required criteria and the 
expansion of the wolf across much of the state has creating a robust 
wolf population. The eastern \1/4\ of the state is federally delisted 
as well. It gives us hope that the rest of our ranchers can gain access 
to wolf management that includes removal of problem wolves when attacks 
on livestock become chronic. Ranchers living in the \3/4\ of the state 
west of the arbitrary line of Hwy 395/78/95 are living under wolves 
being protected under the federal ESA. They have no way of defending 
themselves against a wolf attack, even if a rancher sees a wolf 
attacking his cattle, he cannot harm the wolf.

    Wolves kill livestock as a normal action of their lives. They kill 
to eat, they kill to train their young and they sport kill. Ranchers, 
many times, only find 1 in 8 of the carcasses as identified in the 
Oakleaf study from Idaho. In the process of killing, the wolves 
traumatize the cattle that are involved in the event. The normal 
hunting method of a wolf includes running down their prey. Sometimes a 
cow will not run, but turn and fight to defend their young or must 
fight when the herd is cornered. Either way as multiple events occur, 
most if not all, of the herd becomes traumatized.

    The Effect of the losses to the producer both increase the 
producer's direct costs of doing business and reduces the revenue 
received. The list of costs includes: depredations, reduced weaning 
weight of calves, weight loss by cows, conception rate reductions and 
management costs. The first four are lost income to the producer 
because of reduced cattle performance or physical loss of the animals. 
The last item, management costs, encompasses a large group of issues 
that cause increased cost of operation. Management issues can be broken 
down into costs of implementing non-lethal activities to attempt to 
mitigate the impact of the wolf's presence; management costs due to 
implementation of government regulations and management plans; 
increased costs of livestock handling; increased costs through injury 
and death of livestock; and the loss of range access because the wolfs' 
presence in given places makes it unwise, to run livestock in that 
specific area of range.

    To put some context to these losses for a rancher, taken from a 
paper I wrote in 2010 . . . For a rancher with 400 head of cattle, the 
presence of wolves creates a reduced conception rate of about 10%, 
which costs a rancher $134.00 per head; Reduced weaning weight, $46.00; 
Depredations $50.00; reduced cow weight, $57.00 AND increased 
management costs $93.00, this all totals up to $380.00 per head for 
each and every cow impacted by the wolves. That adds up to $152,000 for 
a rancher running 400 head.

    The losses are not just economic, they are also emotional and 
social. Management costs relating to the expected non-lethal are both 
time and money. The time issue becomes critical as ranchers work to 
protect their herds, losing family time and time away from their normal 
ranching activities.

    Ranchers feel abandoned when wolves have to be managed under the 
Federal ESA. Wolves cannot be harmed in any way, even though they are 
tearing our livestock to pieces.

    To state the obvious, wolves are controversial. Wolf management 
occurs in three arenas, Economic, Social and Political. Ranchers and 
hunters are the only ones economically impacted directly by the 
economic costs. Unfortunately wolf management and wolf policy is most 
impacted by the social arena and the decisions are made in the 
political arena.

    Ranchers need to be able to have some control over their lives, 
their ranches and their livestock. To accomplish this, we must remove 
the wolves from the endangered species act. Evidence to support this 
can be seen in the rapid expansion of wolves into new areas like 
California and western Oregon and increase in numbers of wolves 
throughout their occupied range. Wolves don't need the protection of 
the single species management of the Endangered Species Act.

    Thank you for the opportunity for ranchers to explain the impacts 
of the presence of wolves on our lives.

Publications:

P.E. Clark, D.E. Johnson, L.L. Larson, et al. 2017. Effects of Wolf 
Presence on Daily Travel Distance of Range Cattle. Journal of Rangeland 
Ecology & Management 70 (2017) 657-665. 8pp.

Williams, J., D.E. Johnson, P.E. Clark, et al. 2017. Wolves--A Primer 
for Ranchers. E.M. 9142. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Or. 12 pp. 
Peer reviewed numbered Extension Methods publication. (Truncated 
version in supporting materials)

P.E. Clark, J. Chigbrow, D.E. Johnson, et al. Predicting Spatial Risk 
of Wolf-Cattle Encounters and Depredation. Rangeland Ecology & 
Management. Volume 73, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 30-52.

Cooke, R.F., B.I. Cappellozza, M.M. Reis, et al. 2013. Impact of 
previously exposure to wolves on temperament and physiological 
responses of beef cattle following a simulated wolf encounter. BEEF107-
Special report.

Williams, J. 2010. Estimates of Economic Losses to Stock Growers due to 
the Presence of Wolves in North Eastern Oregon. OSU Extension Service. 
Enterprise, OR (not peer reviewed, extensive ground truthing). 
(Truncated version in supporting materials)

Other relevant papers:

Oakleaf, J., C. Mack, and D. Murry. 2003. Effects of Wolves on 
Livestock Calf Survival and Movement in Central Idaho. Journal of 
Wildlife Management 67(2):299-306

Tanaka, J.A., Neil R. Rimbey, L. Allen Torell, et al. 2007. Grazing 
Distribution: The Quest for the Silver Bullet. Rangelands 29(4):38-46. 
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/1551-
501X(2007)29%5B38%3AGDTQFT%5D2.0.CO%3B2

    Steele J., Rashford B., Foulke T., et al. Wolf (Canis lupus) 
Predation Impacts on livestock Production: Direct Effects, Indirect 
Effects, and Implications for Compensation Ratios. 2013. Journal of 
Rangeland Ecology & Management 66: 539-544.

                                 ______
                                 
The following document was submitted as a supplement to Mr. 
Williams' testimony.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               ------                                



    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
    I now recognize Mr. Hammill for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF JIM HAMMILL, PRESIDENT, IRON RANGE CONSULTING & 
             SERVICES INC., CRYSTAL FALLS, MICHIGAN

    Mr. Hammill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members.
    I would like to share some thoughts about wolf recovery in 
Michigan. I am here today representing 50,000 members of the 
Safari Club International and the Safari Club Foundation, which 
is a 501(c)(3) organization that annually spends over $4 
million to promote science-based wildlife conservation 
worldwide, including that of threatened and endangered species.
    By any measure, wolves in the Great Lakes states of 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have recovered. Numbers 
necessary for recovery of gray wolves, as described in both the 
Federal and the state recovery plans, have been met and 
exceeded in Michigan since 1994. When the Endangered Species 
Act was signed in 1973, few if any of us would have given wolf 
recovery in this region much of a chance to succeed. However, 
we were wrong.
    Due to the legal protections provided by the Endangered 
Species Act and, most importantly, the will of the people of 
the Midwest, gray wolves have now occupied most of the range 
suitable for the species. I am here to speak about my 
experience with wolves in the upper peninsula of Michigan, an 
area of roughly 16,500 square miles.
    In the most recent 10 years, the Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan midwinter wolf population has been documented to be 
between 620 and 700 animals. Today, as pups are born, that 
number is probably double. There are probably 1,400 wolves on 
the landscape at the upper peninsula as we sit here today.
    Michigan wolves' primary diet is whitetail deer. Studies 
have indicated that deer represent roughly half of their annual 
food intake. The remainder of their diet is beavers, snowshoe 
hare, moose, and other small mammals. Wolves are opportunistic 
predators and normally will consume any food source available 
to them.
    In Michigan, as in many other states, wolves exist in the 
proximity of agriculture. Livestock are often preyed upon. 
Currently, livestock producers in Michigan are compensated for 
losses that can be verified. Ninety verified cattle depredation 
events have occurred in the last 10 years in Michigan. In our 
state, many of us believe wolves are also responsible for many 
unverified livestock disappearances.
    Wolves are territorial predators with packs that vigorously 
defend a home range, an area that in Michigan is about 80 
square miles per family group. Nearly all of Michigan's Upper 
Peninsula land base is now within the bounds of a defended wolf 
territory. Our current average pack size is about five animals. 
However, there are packs of wolves in Michigan that number 12, 
which is very large.
    A special category of loss that we need to think about is 
wolf depredation and injuries to pets, particularly dogs. In 
Michigan, 111 dogs have been verified to have been killed by 
wolves and another 49 dogs have been injured by wolves. These 
numbers should be viewed as minimums, since many dogs in wolf 
range have disappeared and injuries are often not reported.
    No owner compensation is offered for loss of dogs. As we 
all know, these animals are in so many ways family members. 
When pets are killed by wolves, wolves themselves and the 
people standing in the way of practical solutions to these 
depredations quickly gain new enemies from which there is no 
recovery.
    The societal culture of the Upper Peninsula values 
whitetail deer highly. Our people are second- and third-
generation descendants of Western European and Scandinavian 
immigrants. Our second homes typically are camps. They are used 
for outdoor pursuits but primarily for deer hunting.
    The plummeting of deer numbers since the mid-1990s has 
negatively affected this important cultural value in the Upper 
Peninsula. Most of the blame for deer declines can be explained 
by habitat deficiencies; however, wolves are being singled out 
as the factor draining the wolf population. This has led to 
increasing nonsupport for wolves and an increase in illegal 
killing of wolves. Today, 60 percent of radio-collared wolves 
in Michigan die at the hands of man.
    There is an aspect of our current situation that 
particularly concerns me. Since their re-establishment, wolves 
have not been subject to any regulated or widespread removals 
by man. As an apex predator, wolves typically exhibit 
fearlessness. Wolves have no natural enemies. Nothing kills 
wolves except man.
    This has been a period of protection offered by the 
Endangered Species Act, and generally, in the absence of human 
persecution, I believe this has led to an increase in the 
number of bold wolf incidents, bold wolf incidents. I repeat 
that because I think it is very, very important, and that is 
close encounters between humans and wolves. Nothing good can 
come of these interactions. Eventually, if a person is injured, 
or worse, by wolves, all of the protections and values that 
wolves currently have will be lost.
    The success story of recovery may be replaced by old 
prejudice and a public will to exterminate wolves. Remember, at 
one time in the past----
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Hammill, I am going to have to ask you to 
wind down.
    Mr. Hammill. Yes. At one time in the past, wolves were 
eradicated on this landscape by far fewer people than live here 
now. Our wolves in the Midwest are within one day's drive, one 
gas tank full in your car of 20 million people. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hammill follows:]
     Prepared Statement of James H. Hammill, President, Iron Range 
                       Consulting & Services Inc.

    Mr. Chairman, Members, I'd like to share some thoughts about wolf 
recovery in Michigan. I'm here today representing 50,000 members of 
Safari Club International, and Safari Club Foundation, a 501(c)3 
organization that annually spends over four million dollars to promote 
science-based wildlife conservation worldwide.

    By any measure, wolves in the Great Lakes States of Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan have recovered.

    Recovery of gray wolves as described by both federal and state 
recovery plans has been met and exceeded in Michigan since 1994.

    When the Endangered Species Act was signed in 1973, few, if any of 
us, would have given wolf recovery in this region much of a chance to 
succeed. However, we were wrong. Due to the legal protections provided 
by the Endangered Species Act and the will of the people of the 
Midwest, gray wolves have now occupied most of the range suitable for 
the species. I'm here to speak about my experience with wolves in the 
Upper Peninsula of Michigan, an area of roughly 16,500 square miles.

    In the most recent 10 years, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan mid-
winter wolf population has been documented to be 620-700 animals. This 
has been a leveling off of wolf numbers since its rapid increase from 
just three known animals in 1988. Each year with the birth of pups, 
this population easily doubles. However, because of high mortality, 
especially among pups, and natural mortality and dispersal of adults, 
the Michigan population returns to mid-winter numbers that have 
recently been recorded.

    Michigan wolves' primary diet is whitetail deer. Studies have 
indicated deer represent roughly one-half of their annual food intake. 
The remainder of their diet is beaver, snowshoe hare, moose, and other 
small mammals. Wolves are opportunistic predators and normally will 
consume any food source available to them. In Michigan, as in many 
other states, wolves exist in the proximity to agriculture. Livestock 
are often preyed upon. Currently, livestock producers are compensated 
for losses that can be verified. Ninety verified cattle depredation 
events have occurred in the past 10 years in Michigan (2014-2023). In 
our state many of us believe wolves may also be responsible for some 
unverified livestock disappearance.

    Wolves are territorial predators, with packs that vigorously defend 
a home range, an area that averages about 80 square miles in Michigan. 
Nearly all of Michigan's Upper Peninsula land base is now within the 
bounds of a defended territory. Our current average pack size is about 
five wolves. However, there are packs with as many as a dozen wolves in 
Michigan. Wolves are particularly sensitive to other canids within 
their territories. For example, coyotes that share territories with 
wolves are in constant danger.

    A special category of loss due to wolf depredation is the killing 
and injuries of pets, particularly dogs. In Michigan, 111 dogs have 
been verified to have been killed by wolves and 49 dogs have been 
injured by wolves. These numbers should be viewed as minimums, since 
many dogs in wolf range have disappeared and injuries often are not 
reported. No owner compensation is offered for the loss of dogs. These 
animals are in so many ways ``family members''. When pets are killed by 
wolves, wolves themselves, and the people standing in the way of 
practical solutions to these depredations, quickly gain new enemies 
from which there is no recovery.

    The societal culture of Michigan's Upper Peninsula values whitetail 
deer highly. Our people are second and third generation descendants of 
western European and Scandinavian immigrants. Our ``second homes'', 
typically, are camps, used for many outdoor pursuits, but primarily for 
deer hunting. The plummeting of deer numbers since the mid-1990s has 
negatively affected this important cultural value. Most of the blame 
for deer declines can be explained by habitat deficiencies. However, 
wolves are being singled out as ``the'' factor draining the deer 
population. This has led to increasing non-support for wolves and an 
increase in illegal killing of wolves. Today, 60% of radio collared 
wolves die at the hands of man.

    There's an aspect of our current situation that particularly 
concerns me. Since their re-establishment, wolves have not been subject 
to any regulated and widespread removals by man. As an apex predator, 
wolves typically exhibit fearlessness. Wolves have no natural 
``enemies''. Nothing kills wolves, except man. This has been a period 
of protection offered by the Endangered Species Act, and generally in 
absence of human persecution. I believe this has led to an increase in 
the number of bold wolf incidents; that is, close encounters between 
humans and wolves. Nothing good can come of these interactions. 
Eventually if a person is injured or worse by wolves, all of the 
protections and values that wolves bring to the Northwoods may be 
threatened. All of the efforts to re-establish wolves may be lost. The 
success story of recovery may be replaced by old prejudice and a public 
will to exterminate wolves.

    To many people in Michigan, the promises of the Endangered Species 
Act have been broken, and a breach of trust has occurred. The 
legislation appears to be an effective listing mechanism, but a failure 
at de-listing. Recovery goals, long since exceeded, are inadequate to 
prevent litigation that keeps wolves listed and does not allow State's 
natural resources agencies to protect and manage wolves.

    All state agencies are committed to sustainable wildlife 
management, including predators. It is ironic that the law intended to 
recover endangered wildlife (Endangered Species Act) is now setting the 
stage for the public to turn against this iconic species. The failure 
of Endangered Species Act to delist wolves is not because of a failure 
of the public to embrace wolves, or because of some negative aspect of 
the wolves themselves. This is a failure of clear intent of the 
legislation and the continued allowance of glaring misinterpretation of 
intent by the justice system.

    I offer the following as a partial solution to the dilemma that we 
find ourselves in:

     The Endangered Species Act needs to be recrafted and 
            ``hardened'' against language that has been successful at 
            exploiting and reinterpreting original Legislative intent 
            for the recovery of a species.

     The Endangered Species Act needs to more effectively 
            address and provide flexibility in cases of dangerous 
            human-wolf conflict (i.e., bold wolves). This conflict was 
            not foreseen when the Act was initiated.

     State management of wildlife resources in North America 
            has been a resounding success for nearly 100 years. As a 
            wildlife biologist that has been involved in wolf recovery 
            efforts, I believe that sustainability of the gray wolf 
            population in all of the United States should be the 
            authority of state wildlife agencies.

     Where current criteria have been met for delisting, 
            management of wolves should immediately be a state 
            function, subject to oversight by the US Fish and Wildlife 
            Service for a determined period of time.

    Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Hammill.

    I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.
    I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of questions 
each. I recognize Mr. Stauber for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Witnesses, thanks for your testimony. Greatly appreciated.
    Representative Nelson, I want to begin by thanking you for 
the tour of your family's farm that you provided for me and my 
colleagues this morning, and for taking the time to share how 
the growing wolf population has affected you and your family as 
farmers and ranchers, in particular your wife's very heartfelt 
story this morning about the wolves near your children.
    You and your family have been farming and raising cattle 
for quite some time now. Can you please talk about how you have 
dealt with the wolf over time, and were you facing the same 
challenges today that you were 20 years ago?
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Congressman Stauber. And with the 
challenges of the wolves, it really has grown a little bit over 
the 20 years. The population has continued to increase some, 
and in recent estimates of the population by the state of 
Minnesota and the Fish and Wildlife, it has really showed a 
stable population of around 2,700 wolves. That is what the 
estimate is showing.
    I do believe that number is probably higher, because the 
area of that estimate of the wolf population, it is not the 
entire state. And the goal is statewide. And in the recovery 
effort, the population has grown. So, over the last 20 to 25 
years, we have had more wolf depredation issues. And, as one of 
the other witness says, oftentimes, we find one out of seven or 
one out of eight. Oftentimes, we have a calf missing, and a cow 
was looking for a baby, and it is not there.
    And, just in the interest of time, we were on your farm 
today, and you had said there were Federal trappers just north 
of your farm, is that correct, right now?
    Mr. Nelson. Yes. About 6 miles away, there is another ranch 
that they have been on. And this spring, to my knowledge, they 
have taken eight wolves off of this ranch. I think there were 
two calves and a cow that were killed there.
    And basically, any direction you go from my farm, you can 
find this very similar story.
    Mr. Stauber. And would you agree that the population has 
grown more aggressive and more comfortable around cattle and 
humans?
    Mr. Nelson. Yes, I would. I have stories. About 2 years 
ago, there was a neighbor that was riding her horse through the 
woods. Something startled the horse. She was bucked off, and 
the horse ran back to the ranch. She had to walk out of the 
woods herself. I believe she was 17 at the time, and there was 
a wolf trailing her the whole way back.
    Fortunately, she was not harmed in that incident. She was a 
little bit hurt from getting bucked off the horse, but we are 
seeing more and more stories. We are hearing more and more of 
this, wolves coming right up to and through the yards into 
homes. I have had them come between my barn and my house.
    Mr. Stauber. And your wife testified this morning that when 
your children were younger, the wolf tracks were right up to 
your back deck.
    Thank you very much.
    In my time remaining, Mr. Hammill, can you speak a little 
bit about how the ESA is supposed to work? And what is supposed 
to happen once a listed species recovers?
    Mr. Hammill. Once numerical population goals have been met 
according to the Endangered Species Act, the animal should 
qualify for removal from the list. Unfortunately, very few 
animals are ever removed. The Endangered Species Act is an 
excellent vehicle for listing species, but it has serious 
defects for delisting species. And the holes in that Act are 
often depredated upon by those people who want to keep species 
in the Act.
    Mr. Stauber. And my last question. What would you say is 
the main reason why the ESA isn't being carried out the proper 
way?
    Mr. Hammill. Because I think the Act itself, the wording of 
the Act itself is subject to too much interpretation, and that 
has, of course, been successful at judicial levels to keep 
animals from being delisted. It is unfortunate.
    Mr. Stauber. In my last 15 seconds, I have hunted my entire 
life 45 minutes north of Duluth. My father has been there. He 
is 91. Last November was his 60th straight year at the firearms 
deer opener. Tonight and every night we could go to the back 
deck of the hunting shack and howl, and the wolves would howl 
back.
    Just this past week, my brother and my father were heading 
into the shack road, and just a couple hundred yards away, my 
91-year-old father says to my brother, ``Jamie, look at the 
deer.'' He said, ``Dad, that is a wolf.''
    They are around today. There are Federal trappers just 
north of the city of Duluth.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    Before we go to the next witness, the police have notified 
us that there are three cars blocking their ability to move 
their police cars, so to avoid getting towed, or worse, whoever 
has a Toyota RAV4 with a license plate 296, don't know that for 
sure. If you have a Toyota RAV4, go move it. If you have a gray 
Ram Pickup, please move it. If you have a gray 4-door CRV, 
please move it, or the police will move it for you, and that 
would be very sad.
    Let's now move to Ms. Hageman for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    We have heard from our Democrat colleagues in Washington 
that states will hunt wolves to extinction if they are 
delisted. We know from experience in my home state of Wyoming, 
however, that that is not the case, as the wolves have been 
delisted since 2017, and we have maintained and protected a 
healthy population while at the same time they are subject to a 
regulated hunt. And, in the vast majority of my state, they are 
actually designated as predators, meaning that they can be shot 
at any time.
    Dr. Roberts, given your experience as a wildlife manager, 
do you believe that states in the Great Lakes region would be 
just as successful in managing the wolves post-delisting?
    Dr. Roberts. Absolutely. I believe they have the competency 
to be able to manage wolves and to do so in a sustainable way. 
I think it is likely that they would manage for less wolves or 
some states may opt for that, but I am certain that they will 
be able to manage to retain some wolves on their landscape.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, I spent quite a bit of time in preparing 
for this hearing today reviewing your Minnesota Wolf Management 
Plan, dated 2023 to 2032, put out by the Department of Natural 
Resources. And if you go to page 9, it actually states that 
although this plan was developed in response to Federal action, 
the 2001 plan, which was the predecessor to this, has guided 
wolf management through multiple ESA listing and delisting 
decisions.
    In other words, it is the state of Minnesota that manages 
wolves right now, and I think a lot of people don't realize 
that it is the states that are primarily responsible for 
managing our wildlife.
    In reviewing this plan, one of the things that shocked me 
was that I learned that the Federal Government, the Fish and 
Wildlife Services' recovery goals for the wolf in Minnesota was 
1,200 to 1,400 wolves by 2001. But current estimates of the 
population show that there are more than double that number in 
the state of Minnesota. And, as has been testified today, it is 
probably much higher than that.
    And that number has stabilized over the last several 
decades. In other words, the wolf population in Minnesota is 
stabilized.
    So, as I have read this plan, I think one of the things 
that struck me, especially in light of the fact that this and 
its predecessor are how wolves are managed in Minnesota, I kind 
of see why there is the problem. And I think that the problem 
stems from the way that wolves are viewed.
    One of the things that struck me is that there is an awful 
lot of discussion in this report or this plan about how we are 
going to incorporate diverse views. We are going to make sure 
that everybody has a seat at the table. We are going to make 
sure that we are doing an awful lot of talking.
    We care a lot about diverse human values, and we talk a lot 
about diversity in here, but the things that I don't see is 
there is very little data. There is very little science. There 
is very little metrics by which we can determine whether wolf 
management is actually being effective or not.
    There is almost no discussion whatsoever as to the impact 
on our other wildlife, on livestock. I turn to page 8 of this 
report, and it says, ``This is the vision for wolves, and this 
is how we are going to determine wolf conservation.'' It says 
they are going to look at the best available ecological, 
social, and cultural knowledge to inform wolf conservation.
    I don't know. I would like science. I would like data. I 
would like to know about resilience. I would like to know the 
numbers. I would like to know the history of wolf recovery and 
management. I would like to know how they are balancing the 
wildlife needs and protecting the prey and making sure that we 
are also protecting our livestock industry.
    There is an awful lot of information in here, but actually, 
there is not a lot of information in here. I wouldn't even call 
this a wolf management plan. I would call it we are going to 
protect wolves at the cost and expense of everything else plan. 
And everybody in Minnesota is suffering as a result of this.
    And even when they talk about the attitudes, they will talk 
about the impact on the hunters and on livestock, but then they 
really focus on what everybody else wants, and that everybody 
else are typically the people who are not directly impacted by 
the decisions that are made.
    Mr. Nelson, I would like to go to you. You have given us 
some good information today about the impact that this has had 
on you and your other farmers and ranchers.
    Coming from Wyoming, again, I grew up on a ranch. I know 
what it is like to want to protect our livestock. I know what 
it is like pulling a calf at 2 o'clock in the morning and the 
effort and work that goes into putting together a breeding 
program.
    And what is so frustrating to me is when people say that 
that is essentially a cost of having this kind of an apex 
predator in your state, and it really shouldn't be because part 
of wildlife management needs to be a balance. We have to 
balance everything. We know we have a stable population, and we 
need to move forward with delisting.
    But can you elaborate on some of the helpful tools that 
would be available to you if the wolves were delisted in 
Minnesota?
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you for that question.
    Right now, there is nothing we can do unless a wolf is 
attacking a human. So, either myself or my family, that is the 
only thing that can happen.
    And right now the wolves are getting more and more brazen, 
and I believe there needs to be a healthy fear. And I think 
that needs to come both from humans and from wolves and right 
now that doesn't exist.
    I think it can be there, and we can maintain populations 
and maintain goals and, at the same time, be able to put a 
respect on both ways. I don't think there is a respect from 
either species, for each other right now.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Tiffany for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I want to congratulate the Vikings on 
drafting a quarterback here in the last couple weeks. We do 
that every 15 years over in Wisconsin.
    Mr. Stauber. Next, next.
    Mr. Tiffany. It is very disappointing that Commissioner 
Strommen is not here today. We see the same thing over in 
Wisconsin where the leadership of our wildlife agencies are not 
showing up for these hearings to listen to the people who truly 
are sportsmen in our states.
    Before I get into the questions at hand here, I do want to 
ask Dr. Roberts, you work at a university. We have seen what is 
going on around the country at various universities that are 
grabbing headlines these days. What is happening at your 
university?
    Dr. Roberts. Thank you for asking, Congressman.
    Israel is in our minds and in our prayers at College of the 
Ozarks. We recently hosted a convocation on the plight of 
Israel for our students and for our community.
    Our board of trustees recently passed unanimously a 
resolution in support of Israel and, most importantly, calling 
for continued prayer for the nation of Israel and her citizens.
    Mr. Tiffany. Dr. Roberts, is it correct in your background, 
you have worked for the Federal Government? Is that correct?
    Dr. Roberts. Yes, sir, I have.
    Mr. Tiffany. And is it correct that you worked in Alaska 
for the Fish and Wildlife Service?
    Dr. Roberts. Yes. I worked in Alaska for the National 
Wildlife Refuge system for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    Mr. Tiffany. And, Dr. Roberts, haven't you worked in the 
state of Wisconsin on wildlife issues also?
    Dr. Roberts. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Tiffany. And now you are teaching down at the College 
of the Ozarks. Is that accurate?
    Dr. Roberts. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Talk a little bit about the information you 
gave us in a hearing in regards to you can go up to 29 percent 
of take and still not endanger a species. I think that is at 
the core of what we are discussing here. To make sure that we 
are making a sound, scientific decision in passing a bill like 
we did this week.
    Could you elaborate a little bit more about that?
    Dr. Roberts. Sure. For most species, there is a surplus 
that can be taken in a sustainable way. And, for wolves, like 
many other species, we have a good idea of what that is. There 
are published studies that can help guide that. There are 
published studies that indicate that somewhere around 30 
percent of the population could be taken in a sustainable way.
    In other words, you could remove 30 percent of the 
population one year, and next year have just as many animals.
    Mr. Tiffany. Also, I think it was 26 wildlife biologists a 
decade ago when we had delisting. I was in the State 
Legislature at the time in Wisconsin, and they wrote in their 
letter, and I don't know if you were a signatory to that 
letter, but there were 26 wildlife biologists that said you are 
going to endanger the Endangered Species Act if you do not 
allow a delisting to happen when a species should be delisted.
    Could you elaborate on that a little bit?
    Dr. Roberts. Absolutely. The Endangered Species Act has the 
potential to tie the hands of agencies and limit what tools 
that they can use. And that might be appropriate on a short-
term to provide some limited protection, but when animals are 
listed indefinitely, despite ample evidence to suggest that 
they should not be on the list, I believe that agencies and 
jurisdictions are going to be very hesitant to want to engage 
in endangered species management in the future. They don't want 
another wolf situation.
    So, if there are species that are truly imperiled, I 
believe that legislatures and agencies are going to be hesitant 
to do that because they don't want another wolf situation.
    Mr. Tiffany. And is it the case that we actually have some 
species that numbers may be suffering, when we are wasting time 
with like the Fish and Wildlife Service on a species that 
should be delisted, they could be putting it towards other more 
worthy efforts? Is that accurate?
    Dr. Roberts. Yes, absolutely. I just saw that the Service 
is spending in excess of I believe it is $3 million to develop 
a recovery plan for a species that is recovered. I would argue 
that that money could be better spent on species that need to 
be recovered and not species that are recovered.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just say I 
have the statement of administration policy that the Biden 
administration put out. We call it the veto message that they 
put out in regards to this bill. They have backtracked on veto 
messages in the past over this session of Congress.
    I would urge you to contact your United States Senators 
here in the upper Great Lakes, here at a critical time in 2024, 
and make this a prominent issue for all of them.
    It is us that sets the policy. Let's see if they are 
willing to stand up for their states, or are they going to 
stand up for the Biden administration. They have a choice. Do 
they stand up for Minnesota, for Wisconsin, for Michigan, or do 
they stand with the Biden administration? They should make that 
choice this year, and you should help them be able to make that 
choice.
    I am going to close with this. This is intentional in 
regards to rural America. As my colleague, Representative 
Hageman, has said a few times on the Floor of both Committee 
rooms and the House of Representatives, this is a war on rural 
America, and you should understand it as such. That is what is 
going on here. And you need to protect your livelihoods at this 
point from an administration that is at war with you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. So, at considerable risk to maintaining control 
of this hearing, I am going to recognize Mr. Stauber for 30 
seconds.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your 
indulgence.
    Representative Tiffany, in December 2023, I happened to be 
in your great state of Wisconsin, and I had the evening off. 
Could you tell me where in Wisconsin your National Hockey 
League team is located?
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank goodness.
    All right. I recognize Ms. Fischbach for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Fischbach. How do I follow that?
    No, sincerely, though, I want to thank the Chair for 
allowing me to participate today because I am not actually on 
the Committee, so I appreciate being waived on for today.
    And I do want to thank Representative Stauber and 
Representative Hageman for your work on this because you are 
diligently and hard at work in trying to solve this issue 
because it is a huge issue.
    And, Representative Nelson, thank you for the tour this 
morning. We really appreciate it. And I know that Mr. Stauber 
had mentioned it. If you want to expand at all about what your 
wife said this morning because it was so meaningful.
    Because we have been out in the field, and we have seen the 
tracks. But I think that what she said, because I feel like the 
story of the gray wolf is really the story of the failure of 
the Federal Government. And who pays the price are the 
ranchers, the farmers, and the families.
    So, if you have anything you want to add that she had said 
this morning, it was pretty incredible.
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Congresswoman Fischbach. I can't 
repeat it the same way and give it the same emphasis that she 
can. I think only a mother can do that.
    But, as a dad, as a father, the concern for our children 
and family, I mean, our children are the greatest gift we have, 
and to be able to protect them and raise them in this great 
nation is a wonderful experience.
    And it is amazing to hear the wolves howl at night, but it 
is another thing when those same tracks, when you see their 
tracks, where they were and where they have been, and realize 
that we are fortunate that we are not a statistic.
    We continue to hear that, while there has not been a wolf 
attack on humans or, if they do, it ends up being a nuance, 
well, it is only in this situation or that.
    My wife had asked one of our Senators one time when we were 
out in Washington, DC, with the Minnesota Farm Bureau. She 
said, why does my child have to be the first one? Fortunately, 
we have never had that situation, but why would we need to be 
the first one before an action is taken?
    And this is an opportunity that we can lead on this and be 
able to take management of it. And, again, I bring back that we 
can have respect between both species. Wolves can respect 
humans. Humans can respect wolves. That can happen both ways, 
and I think, with a proper plan, that does happen.
    And I thank you for the question.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you very much.
    I will just add what really was meaningful, she talked 
about the kids out in the front yard. And you had mentioned 
that you had tracks just between the house and the barn, which 
is not very far.
    So, I just thought it was very meaningful because it is not 
just about the livestock. It is about safety, children's safety 
when the kids are little.
    But I did want to just ask, Representative Nelson, we did 
talk a little bit about compensation this morning, and you also 
talked about how Minnesota has moved some of those funds, and 
they certainly don't have enough in that.
    So, maybe just talking a little bit, because I have heard 
it from some of the folks in my area about how it is just darn 
near impossible to even qualify for it because you have to have 
it.
    So, just maybe a little bit about what the state is doing 
on there and what is going on with the money there.
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you for the question.
    And the wolf depredation fund and then the elk damage fund, 
they are separate pots, but they are the same.
    And up in the northwest corner of the state, there are elk 
that are feeding on the hay bales. They are destroying fences, 
and there is an effort to rebuild the population to expand 
that.
    And the elk damage is a little easier to see. You can see 
when they have come into the hay yard and eaten hay. There is 
evidence left behind of that.
    With the wolves, that is a little bit harder to always 
quantify when you are missing something. You have to have proof 
of that, and that could be a challenge to prove.
    But, at the same time our funds there usually are not 
enough. I think, right now, the claims payable in 2024 are 
$148,000, and I believe there are $175,000 in that count total. 
We have a long ways left of 2024.
    Ms. Fischbach. Yes, and just how difficult it is to prove 
that.
    And I will just say I really appreciate the experts because 
they know what is going on. But in the end, I am not an expert, 
but I don't need to be an expert to know that this has to be 
dealt with, that we are in real trouble here, and we need to 
deal with this.
    I appreciate everyone being here today, and we will 
continue the fight. Mr. Tiffany mentioned rural Minnesota, 
rural areas, rural America, but it is about making sure that 
farmers, ranchers, and families can continue to do their work 
and not be afraid every day of the gray wolves.
    So, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your indulgence.
    Mr. Bentz. I now recognize Ms. Maloy for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me be here 
and be part of this.
    I just want to take a second at the beginning to thank 
everybody who is sitting behind that table for being here.
    Just very quickly, I used to think Congress was a really 
distant and unresponsive entity and mostly useless. Now I am 
part of it. But the tipping point for me was a field hearing of 
the House Natural Resources Committee in southern Utah, and I 
saw them show up and listen to people just like you and me 
talking about Bureau of Land Management issues in Utah. And I 
thought this is how representative government is supposed to 
work.
    So, I am really excited that you are all here, that you are 
participating, that you are seeing your government show up and 
respond to your needs. And I am excited to be on this side of 
the table now, being part of that, because it is what we are 
supposed to do.
    I like that everybody keeps talking about the fact that the 
recovery of the wolf should be celebrated, and I want to take 
some of my time and just make sure we are all understanding why 
the recovery of the wolf is not being celebrated. We have 
talked about the science. We have talked about the politics. I 
want to make sure we put a nice bow on that for everybody who 
is here, who was willing to show up and participate and is 
listening.
    It is unfortunate, but we have seen time and time again 
that it is the nature of the Federal Government not to want to 
give up control. So, when we give the Federal Government 
temporary control over something, it never ends up being 
temporary. And the Endangered Species Act is a really good 
example of this.
    We have the numbers. We have experts who have sat here and 
talked to us about the numbers. We know that the wolf is 
thriving. You all know that there are wolves here. You live 
here. You hear them. You have seen the impacts.
    What we are working on here isn't actually recovery of the 
species anymore. It is who gets to make the decisions.
    The Federal Government doesn't relinquish control easily, 
and even in this case, they have tried several times to 
relinquish control. And then a group comes in that would be 
irrelevant if the wolves get delisted, and they sue, and a 
court says the Federal Government has to keep managing wolves.
    So, I think everybody here has agreed that we have the 
numbers. Everyone has agreed that we have met the criteria. The 
only thing we are still disagreeing about is who gets to make 
these decisions.
    And, unfortunately, it is a well-established pattern that, 
when the Federal Government is managing a resource, be it 
wolves or land or minerals, local voices get drowned out.
    One of the reasons it is so important that you all are here 
today is that local voices are being heard. I think the locals 
should be helping make these decisions, and that is why having 
states manage the species is so important. That is why 
delisting is so important.
    So, I have taken up most of my own time now, which used to 
drive me crazy with Members of Congress, but I do have some 
questions.
    Representative Nelson, I was going to ask you about what 
your wife said this morning, but now you have been asked that 
several times.
    But you have talked about mutual respect between humans and 
wolves. I think we have the same problem right now between the 
Federal Government and the State Government. There is just not 
that level of mutual respect where the Federal Government is 
acknowledging that the states can manage these species.
    And you represent the state. Would you just like to speak 
to that really quickly?
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you. And I have long believed that local 
control is best. And, yes, we do need to have a structure and a 
framework, but I think local control is really the best because 
it is the people that live and breathe and live in an area that 
really know what is best.
    Now, there may be some guidelines that they need to follow, 
but I think whether it is our townships, our counties, our 
states, I think there is always a tendency for the next level 
up to be the ones that really want to control and really have 
the authority.
    And really what is happening is the boots on the ground. 
The control of what is happening, the management is largely 
done through state agencies and local biologists and things 
like that while the control of the issue is generally out of 
DC. And that is a problem that we see.
    There can be a structure, but yet I think much more of the 
decisions really need to be lower down the ladder.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
    Mr. Williams, you are here from Oregon, a very different 
state, very far away. Are you confident that the state of 
Oregon could manage wolves in Oregon without the Federal 
Government telling them how to do it?
    Mr. Williams. Yes. The eastern corridor is managed by 
Oregon now, and the wolves are expanding way too fast, and it 
is completely delisted in our part of the state.
    Ms. Maloy. OK.
    I am down to 20 seconds, so Dr. Roberts, Mr. Hammill, just 
quickly. Are you confident that the states could manage this 
better than the Federal Government is doing?
    Dr. Roberts. Absolutely.
    Mr. Hammill. Oh, definitely.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I thank the witnesses 
for being here.
    The question that I am going to ask Representative Nelson 
first is, the hearing is labeled, ``How many wolves are 
enough,'' and, more to the point, who should decide. And the 
issue at the ESA level would be the number of wolves necessary 
to keep wolves going as a species. That would be a much smaller 
number than you have here.
    You have a much larger, 5,000 wolves. Who is supposed to 
make the decision about who should have how many wolves? What 
is that standard that we are looking for?
    I heard you on the farm say you are seeking some sort of a 
balance so that you don't see your deer population plummet. 
Obviously, too many wolves. But how one adjusts it and who 
makes that decision is of great interest to me, to all of us.
    Is it your thought that this is one of those things where 
you get around the table with a bunch of folks that think 
otherwise and sort it out that way? Or is there some better way 
of establishing that standard?
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chair.
    I think really the best way to make decisions is looking at 
science. And, as Congresswoman Hageman said, in the plan, there 
really appears to be a lack of science on our decision making 
and that is concerning.
    I am a fan of having diversity in our wildlife. It is 
important. Yet, we need to have science. We need to follow the 
science. How many times have we heard in the last 4 years, to 
follow the science? Yet, unfortunately, we are not seeing that 
in our plans that are coming forward.
    We are seeing species recover, but yet, we are not 
following the science. To get it started, we are but then we 
are not following through.
    Mr. Bentz. Dr. Roberts, once you get to 5,000 wolves, how 
in the world do you reduce the number? I know there are 60,000 
plus wolves in Canada, so they say, and that they are allowed 
to be hunted in all but 2 percent of Canada. Yet, they are not, 
at this point, able to slow down the increase in the number of 
wolves.
    So, if you have 5,000 wolves in this state, what are you 
going to do? This is not like eastern Oregon where I grew up on 
a ranch where you could see for miles, nothing, sagebrush. Here 
you can see 100 feet.
    How do you get rid of these wolves? And assuming 
politically it is acceptable, how do you do it?
    Dr. Roberts. Well, in reducing a population, I like to 
imagine landing a plane. You could take a plane from a high 
altitude and bring it down to land. You could do that very 
steeply, or you can gradually reduce the population.
    And the way to do either is going to be through hunting 
programs, through state management, through hunting programs. 
So, states would use monitoring data. They would set quotas and 
regulations to achieve those management goals, which would 
likely be removing a significant number of animals.
    Mr. Bentz. I hate to keep hopping around, but the time is 
short.
    Mr. Williams, there was a suggestion by one of my Democrat 
colleagues, actually the Ranking Member on the Floor of the 
House 3 days ago that a wolf is hardly different than a pet. I 
actually stood up and said, ``You, obviously, don't know the 
difference between a wolf and schnauzer.'' He gave me a chance 
to use the word ``schnauzer'' on the Floor of the House. The 
point, though, is they seem to think that way.
    That is not true, is it, Mr. Williams? Tell us about it. 
You can avoid too many graphic details, but is a wolf the same 
when it comes to killing animals as your household pet?
    Mr. Williams. Absolutely not. A wolf is somewhere around 
100 pounds. The wolves that we are dealing with, they kill. 
That is what they do. They are very good at it. They do not 
kill their animals and then eat them. They just start eating 
them, and they keep eating them until they get to something 
vital and then the animal dies. It is among the most horrific 
deaths you can have.
    They also pack hunt, or they individually hunt. So, if an 
individual gets beaten by a cow, he will bring a friend back, 
and they will win eventually.
    They also traumatize those animals that they leave alive, 
the rest of the herd. And the production losses in those kinds 
of situations, those kinds of families is extreme.
    And I could go on, but in no way is a 110-pound wolf that 
is a born killer anything close to a pet.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes, I think the phrase I was using was 
``natural born killer.'' And people can make fun of that, but 
it is the truth.
    We are out of time now, and I want to say to everybody 
here, thank you so much for being here.
    And also I have learned, as all of us have up here, that 
these hearings are only as good as our ability to get them out 
to the rest of the nation. So, if you want to share what we did 
today, then go to naturalresources.house.gov. Look under 
hearings, and you will find the video of this hearing.
    Share it so that the type of testimony that we heard today, 
although it was wonderful for those of us who are present, it 
would be more wonderful if a couple million people actually 
heard about it. So, please share it.
    I want to thank everybody again for being here. I thank the 
witnesses for their testimony and the Members for their 
questions. The members of the Committee may have some 
additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to 
respond to these in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time on Wednesday, May 8. The hearing record will be held open 
for 10 business days for those responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Central Time, the Subcommittee 
was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Bentz

                            STATE OF OREGON

Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Subject: Federal Delisting of Grey Wolves

    We are writing to express our support for the delisting of the grey 
wolf (Canis lupus) in America, echoing sentiments shared by many who 
have witnessed the remarkable recovery of this iconic species since its 
initial listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973.

    Since the enactment of the ESA, wolves have experienced a 
remarkable resurgence, expanding exponentially in numbers and range 
across the United States. This resurgence is a testament to the 
effectiveness of the ESA in providing crucial protections and fostering 
the recovery of imperiled species. The successful reintroduction of an 
experimental population into Yellowstone National Park and Central 
Idaho in the mid-1990s marked a turning point, leading to a resurgence 
that has seen wolves reclaim territory in adjoining states and even 
establish stable populations in Oregon and Washington. The wolf 
populations in California and Nevada have also been dispersing.

    The states empowered by the ESA and guided by their respective wolf 
management plans, have played a pivotal role in safeguarding and 
managing wolf populations. Oregon and Washington have demonstrated 
exemplary commitment to wolf conservation and management, despite 
three-fourths of their states being under ESA jurisdiction. Both states 
have implemented robust management and protection measures, leading to 
the stabilization of wolf populations, and prompting efforts to delist 
wolves as endangered species.

    On November 9th, 2015, Oregon voted to the delist wolves in Oregon 
thus marking a significant milestone in recognizing the success of 
state-led conservation efforts. Subsequent legislative actions 
regarding that decision were made and was affirmed by the Oregon State 
Legislature and Oregon State Governor in HB 4040 (2016) which 
underscored the commitment of the state to assume greater 
responsibility for the management and protection of wolves.

    It is evident that the ESA has fulfilled its mandate in 
facilitating the recovery of the grey wolf, paving the way for 
successful state-led conservation efforts. Now with stable wolf 
populations and comprehensive management plans in place, it is time to 
transition authority and responsibility for wolf management solely to 
the states. By delisting the grey wolf we can acknowledge the 
achievements of both the ESA and state conservation efforts while 
ensuring the continued conservation and sustainable management of this 
iconic species.

    Considering these developments, I urge you to consider the 
overwhelming evidence supporting the delisting of the grey wolf and to 
prioritize the transfer of authority to state agencies for the 
management and protection of this species. We must recognize the 
recovery of the grey wolf population in the lower 48 otherwise Federal 
ESA recovery loses its legitimacy.

            Respectfully,

        Bobby Levy                    Tim Knopp
        House District 58             Senate District 27

        Bill Hansell                  Boomer Wright
        Senate District 29            House District 9

        David Brock Smith             Court Boice
        Senate District 1             House District 1

        Lynn Findley                  Jeff Helfrich
        Senate District 30            House District 52
        Mark Owens                    Rick Lewis
        House District 60             House District 18

        Cyrus Javadi                  Christine Goodwin
        House District 32             House District 4

        Emily McIntire                Virgle Osborne
        House District 56             House District 2

        Anna Scharf                   Ed Diehl
        House District 23             House District 17

        E. Werner Reschke             Dwayne Yunker
        House District 55             House District 3

        Christina Witham              Vicki Breese-Iverson
        Baker County Commissioner     House District 5

        Bruce Nichols                 Shane Alderson
        Baker County Commissioner     Baker County Commissioner

        Todd Nash                     Dan Dorran
        Wallowa County Commissioner   Umatilla County Commissioner

        Susan Roberts                 John Shafer
        Wallowa County Commissioner   Umatilla County Commissioner

        John Hillock                  Cindy Timmons
        Wallowa County Commissioner   Umatilla County Commissioner

        Paul Anderes                  Derrick DeGroot
        Union County Commissioner     Klamath County Commissioner

        Matt Scarfo                   Patti Adair
        Union County Commissioner     Deschutes County Commissioner

        Donna Beverage                John Rowell
        Union County Commissioner     Grant County Commissioner

        Roy Drago Jr.
        Morrow County Commissioner

                                 ______
                                 
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber

                       RESOLUTION OF COUNTY BOARD

                       HUBBARD COUNTY, MINNESOTA

     Commissioner Christenson moved the adoption of the following 
                              resolution:

                       RESOLUTION NO. 0402202404

WHEREAS, the gray wolf was protected under the Endangered Species Act, 
16 U.S.C. 1531 of 1973 and the USFWS developed a Great Lakes Region 
recovery plan in 1978 and revised in 1992; and

WHEREAS, removing a species from the list of endangered and threatened 
species requires an examination of the same factors, such that the 
conditions that led to a species being listed no longer threaten its 
existence. Notably, even though the ESA requires recovery plans for 
listed species, which must contain ``objective, measurable criteria 
which, when met, would result in a determination . . . that the species 
be removed from the list,''; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to MN Statute 97B.646, MN DNR approved a ten-year 
wolf management plan in 2023, and the wolf management plan identifies 
DNR responses based on wolf population levels and trends, and current 
estimated wolf population levels are in the expanding range; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Hubbard County board supports 
community member's requests and ask that the MN DNR follow the wolf 
management plan and consider additional public engagement and wolf 
management actions to address depredation or other public concerns. 
Hubbard County board also requests that the MN DNR coordinate with 
other states in the Great Lakes Recovery region to appeal to the USFWS 
to determine that the Gray Wolf has been restored to a significant 
portion of its historic range and that states have sufficient plans in 
place to prevent future threats to the gray wolfs existence.

Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion for the adoption of the 
Resolution and. it was declared adopted upon the following vote:

Ayes:       5                    Nays:       0      

STATE OF MINNESOTA )

                           ) ss.

County of Hubbard       )

                                     Office of the County Administrator

I, Jeff Cadwell, Hubbard County Administrator, certify the above is a 
full, true, and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the 
Hubbard County Board of Commissioners at its regular meeting on April 
2, 2024.

                                                           Jeff Cadwell
                                           Hubbard County Administrator

                                 ______
                                 
                                                    May 3, 2024    

Representative Cliff Bentz
2nd District, Oregon
Chairman
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Chairman Bentz:

    The Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan Farm Bureaus, collectively 
representing over 290,000 members, want to thank the House Committee on 
Natural Resources subcommittee for holding a field hearing on wolf 
populations. The three states are home to an estimated 4,200 wolves and 
request federal delisting of the Great Lakes Wolf and returning 
management to the states.

    The Great Lakes wolf should be the definitive conservation success 
story. After federal protections were established, the wolf population 
in Minnesota began to increase and expand its range. Recently, the 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Wolf Population Update 
conducted in 2023 estimated that the 2022-2023 mid-winter wolf 
population was 2,919 wolves. In the mid to late 1970s, this expansion 
led to wolves naturally recolonizing northwest Wisconsin and the first 
breeding pack was confirmed in Douglas County in 1978.

    While initial population growth was slow, by the mid-1990s, 
Wisconsin's wolf population began to increase and expand steadily. 
Wolves in the Western Great Lakes region surpassed federal recovery 
goals in the winter of 1999-2000, when Wisconsin and Michigan had a 
combined total of 100 wolves for five consecutive years, and the 
population in Minnesota continued to grow. This growth has now expanded 
past the minimum levels determined for a healthy wolf population, and 
in particular in Minnesota, where a healthy population is determined to 
be at 1,600 wolves statewide. Michigan's population has also surpassed 
the initial goal of 200 animals for five consecutive years as initially 
outlined in the state's management plan. Surveying from 2022 reported a 
minimum estimated population of 631 wolves, with the highest densities 
in the Western Upper Peninsula.

    Wolves in each state would not have been able to thrive if it 
weren't for the support of the residents and farmers in each state. A 
survey by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources found that over 
60% of those living in wolf habitat support wolf populations on the 
landscape but also support state management.

    Unfortunately, wolf management has become a difficult situation 
because of judicial rulings that often take place thousands of miles 
from the affected landscape. The end result has left farmers unable to 
protect their herds beyond installing non-lethal conflict mitigation 
measures that merely push the problem wolves to the next farm down the 
road. This leaves farmers feeling helpless to protect their livelihood 
and less likely to support the continuation of predators on the 
landscape and non-lethal mitigation efforts.

    The Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan Farm Bureaus support 
returning wolf management to the states. It's time to celebrate wolves 
for the conservation success story they are and end the judicial back 
and forth. Each state has proven the ability to appropriately manage 
wolves and we hope Congress will finally act to ensure farmers can 
defend their herds.

            Sincerely,

        Brad Olson, President         Dan Glessing, President
        Wisconsin Farm Bureau 
        Federation                    Minnesota Farm Bureau

        Carl Bednarski, President
        Michigan Farm Bureau

                                 [all]