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


                    IMPROVING ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES 
                     FOR HUNTING, FISHING, AND OUTDOOR.
                        RECREATION ON AMERICA'S
                             FEDERAL LANDS

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

                        OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

               Monday, May 13, 2024 in Hayward, Wisconsin

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-119

                               __________

       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                    
55-687 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 FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                               ---------
                               
                                CONTENTS

                                ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Monday, May 13, 2024.............................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2

Statement of Witnesses:

    Stafsholt, Hon. Rob, State Senator, New Richmond, Wisconsin..     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Schienebeck, Henry, Executive Director, Great Lakes Timber 
      Professionals Association, Rhinelander, Wisconsin..........     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10

    Hilgemann, Luke, Executive Director, International Order of 
      T. Roosevelt, Madison, Wisconsin...........................    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    13

    Dougherty, Tom, President, Voyageur Country Houseboat 
      Operators Association, International Falls, Minnesota......    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    16

    Taylor, Duane, Director of Safe and Responsible Use Programs, 
      Motorcycle Industry Council, Specialty Vehicle Institute of 
      America, Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    30



 
   OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON IMPROVING ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
  HUNTING, FISHING, AND OUTDOOR RECREATION ON AMERICA'S FEDERAL LANDS

                              ----------                              


                          Monday, May 13, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                           Hayward, Wisconsin

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. CDT, at 
The Steakhouse and Lodge, 15860 T Bone Lane, Hayward, 
Wisconsin, Hon. Tom Tiffany [Chairman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Tiffany and Stauber.
    Also present: Representative Collins.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order. I would like to welcome everybody to an official 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands oversight field hearing entitled 
``Improving Access and Opportunities for Hunting, Fishing, and 
Outdoor Recreation on America's Federal Lands.''
    My name is Tom Tiffany, and I represent Wisconsin's 7th 
Congressional District. I also serve as the Chairman of the 
Federal Lands Subcommittee for the House Committee on Natural 
Resources.
    I am thankful to be joined today by two of my colleagues 
from the Natural Resources Committee. Just to my right, 
Representative Pete Stauber represents Minnesota's 8th 
Congressional District and serves as the Chairman of the Energy 
and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. Representative Mike Collins 
represents Georgia's 10th Congressional District and serves as 
the Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations.
    The Subcommittee is gathered here today to hold an official 
hearing examining barriers that sportsmen and women face to 
accessing our Federal lands and common-sense solutions that 
promote greater hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation 
opportunities. I can truly think of no better place to discuss 
such an important topic than northern Wisconsin, which is 
surrounded by pristine lakes, trails, and forestland.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind everybody about the 
rules of decorum for official congressional proceedings. I ask 
that there not be any kind of disruption regarding the 
testimony given here today. It is important that we respect the 
rules of the Committee and of the House, and to allow the 
Members and the public to hear our proceedings.
    I would like to welcome a couple of special guests that we 
have here today. First of all, Chequamegon-Nicolet Supervisor 
Jenn Youngblood is here. Jenn, if you would raise your hand, 
please. Thank you very much, Jenn, for joining us today. We 
really appreciate it.
    Also from the State Legislature, Representative Chanz Green 
is here. Representative Green, it is good to have you joining 
us today.
    And with that, Representative Green, if you would lead us 
in the Pledge of Allegiance, we would really appreciate it.
    All. 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.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Green.
    Finally, I would like to address a few housekeeping items. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess 
of the Subcommittee at any time.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia, 
Mr. Collins, be allowed to participate in today's hearing from 
the dais.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. I want to begin by thanking the people of 
Hayward for hosting us here today, including the local 
superintendent of schools. Thank you so much for joining us 
today.
    It is my privilege to welcome my colleagues from the 
Natural Resources Committee to the Badger State, a place that I 
am blessed to call home and honored to represent in Congress.
    Today's hearing is focused on ways we can improve access 
and opportunities for sportsmen and women on America's Federal 
lands--hunting, fishing, trapping, shooting, and we talked 
about berry picking earlier also--and many other forms of 
outdoor recreation are engrained in our American culture and 
heritage.
    Here in Wisconsin, we have some of the greatest places to 
recreate in the country. There are over 6.6 million acres of 
land open for recreation in Wisconsin, along with over 15,000 
lakes and 84,000 miles of rivers. The lands and waters provide 
excellent habitat for a wide variety of fish and wildlife, 
which is why Wisconsin is ranked among the top 10 states in the 
country for hunting and fishing participation.
    I know firsthand how critical access and proper management 
of our public lands is for small businesses and local gateway 
communities. For over 20 years, my wife and I owned and 
operated Wilderness Cruises, a riverboat excursion business in 
Wisconsin's beautiful North Woods.
    Sadly, the public lands access that sustains the lifeblood 
of our communities is under attack. Public lands in Wisconsin 
and across the nation are under threat from extreme 
preservationists that want to lock up lands, limit access, 
prevent responsible management, close roads and trails, and 
shut down many of the activities Americans love participating 
in on our public lands.
    Since taking office, President Biden has been using tools 
like the Antiquities Act to lock up lands in pursuit of his 
radical 30x30 agenda, which has set a goal to preserve 30 
percent of the land and water in the United States by 2030. For 
hunters and sportsmen, this radical agenda is unfolding in a 
death by a thousand cuts.
    One prominent example of this is the Biden administration's 
attempts to ban lead ammunition and tackle in Fish and Wildlife 
Service refuges. Radical environmentalists have also weaponized 
laws like the Endangered Species Act to prevent the delisting 
of recovered species like the gray wolf, an issue that we are 
all too familiar with in Wisconsin. And these are just the 
threats to access that have been grabbing national headlines.
    A lesser-known but still important threat to access is the 
closure and decommissioning of roads and trails. Since 1991, 
the Forest Service has decommissioned an average of 2,000 miles 
of roads per year. Many of these road closures correlate with a 
decline in the local forest products industry. Wisconsin has 
historically been a leader in forest management and responsible 
timber harvesting.
    In addition to important economic benefits, forest 
management is a critically important tool for maintaining 
forest health, supporting wildlife populations, and providing 
outdoor recreation areas and opportunities. A vibrant forest 
products industry also ensures that forest roads are well 
maintained so all Americans can readily access their public 
lands, regardless of physical ability. Maintaining and 
increasing motorized access is not only vital to both public 
access and enjoyment but also instrumental in better managing 
our Federal lands.
    Wisconsin has unfortunately seen far too many of these road 
closures. Just this morning, my colleagues and I visited a 
Forest Service road that has been closed indefinitely. There 
are many similar closures throughout the Chequamegon-Nicolet. I 
am committed to finding solutions to increase access here in 
Wisconsin, including making sure these roads stay open.
    Why does this matter? A lack of access to our public lands 
is commonly cited as one of the primary reasons why sportsmen 
and women stop hunting. The more difficult we make it to enjoy 
these lands, the more we risk participation of the next 
generation of sportsmen and sportswomen.
    The Natural Resources Committee has traveled to Wisconsin 
today not only to highlight these issues but to continue our 
fight against the radical Biden agenda. This year, we have 
advanced innovative, common-sense, and bipartisan solutions 
that will help restore access to our public lands for hunting, 
fishing, and outdoor recreation. Last month, the House passed 
the EXPLORE Act, a comprehensive outdoor recreation package 
that cuts red tape for small recreation businesses, improves 
access to Federal lands, and creates new opportunities for 
hunting, fishing, shooting, and other forms of outdoor 
recreation.
    And just a few short weeks ago, the House passed the Trust 
the Science Act and the Protecting Access for Hunters and 
Anglers Act. These two bills would delist the gray wolf from 
the Endangered Species List and permanently protect the use of 
lead ammunition for hunters and anglers.
    These pieces of legislation will improve the management of 
our Federal lands to leave them in better condition for future 
generations. They are good pieces of legislation for Wisconsin 
and good for the nation.
    I would like to thank everybody for joining us here today 
so we can continue our discussion on this important topic. I 
would especially like to thank our esteemed panel of witnesses 
for providing their expert insights that we are about to hear 
on this important topic.
    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

    By the way, I would like to thank local law enforcement for 
joining us today. Thank you very much for being here. We 
appreciate that very much. And we also want to thank our hosts 
here at the Steakhouse for opening up their facility for us 
today. Thank you very much.
    We are going to move on to our panel of witnesses. Let me 
remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you must limit 
your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire statement 
will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, press the ``on'' button on the 
microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light 
will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please wrap up your statement.
    I would now like to recognize our first witness, the 
Honorable Rob Stafsholt, Wisconsin State Senator for the 10th 
Senate District, and a very capable guide here in our tour this 
morning.
    State Senator Stafsholt, you have 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB STAFSHOLT, STATE SENATOR, NEW 
                      RICHMOND, WISCONSIN

    Mr. Stafsholt. Good afternoon. I would like to start by 
thanking the Chair and the Committee for coming here today. In 
your roles as Federal representatives, you face many issues 
from all areas of our great country as well as from an array of 
places around the world that require your attention. So, thank 
you very much for taking the time and the hassle of 
arrangements to be here today. I really do appreciate it.
    A little background on me first. Although it is true that I 
am before you today as a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, 
and in my role there I am the Chair of the Senate Committee on 
Sporting Heritage and Financial Institutions, perhaps that is 
not my most applicable trait for the hearing today. What is 
more relevant in today's discussion is that I am a lifelong fan 
of our national forests. My father began hunting in the 
Chequamegon National Forest in the early 1960s, so by my 
arrival some years later, multiple trips to the Chequamegon 
National Forest were a normal occurrence in my family 
activities each year.
    My love of the Chequamegon began with hunting, but during 
college years I made spending cash by getting the required 
permit from the Forestry Office and harvesting balsam boughs to 
sell to the people who make Christmas trees and other holiday 
decorations. A few years after that, as a husband and a father, 
I started bringing my own family to the Chequamegon to share 
and enjoy the beauty it had to offer on hiking trips, going 
boating, taking pictures, berry and mushroom harvesting, 
believe it or not, ATV riding, wilderness exploring, and many 
other activities, all which involved getting off the main roads 
and seeing what was really out there in our national forest.
    In my early twenties, I managed to purchase a chunk of land 
with an old single-wide trailer house on it, a rough bunkhouse, 
and an outhouse, within the borders of the national forest. I 
still have that property today, although I now have a small 
cabin there with more modern facilities, and I go there as much 
as my schedule permits, maybe even more than it permits if you 
would ask my staff.
    My point is the conservation of, and the appreciation of, 
the Chequamegon National Forest is in the backbone of who I am. 
Over all these years, one of the things that I believe 
threatens the Chequamegon National Forest the most is a slow 
but determined reduction in access to the forest, which slowly 
reduces the number of people who come here. My greatest concern 
is that with the continued loss of access to the Chequamegon 
National Forest there will be a loss of use of the forest, 
which then slowly leads us to a reduction of the percentage of 
the general public who appreciates our National Forest.
    If any of you on the Committee have been in politics very 
long, you probably have figured out that we begin to question 
why we preserve things and fund things if not many people care 
about them.
    We need to re-open closed access roads and make sure people 
continue to cherish our forests and not just consider them to 
be flyover areas.
    Some time ago, the forest established the Travel Use Map. 
The Travel Use Map is flawed in the fact that it did not catch 
all of the access roads that already existed in the forest at 
that time, some of which had, or still have, Federal forest 
road numbers on them. It is a big task to map it all, no doubt. 
The problem is, when roads did not make it on the map they were 
deemed unauthorized roads. I have called in or attended 
meetings and brought certain roads to their attention, only to 
be told, ``Someone must have put that in there illegally and it 
can't be used.''
    That simply is not the case. Almost all roads were made 
with a bulldozer for the sole purpose of a forestry logging 
job. Regardless, those roads are now closed.
    Lately there has been a significant increase in logging in 
the Chequamegon Forest due to some court cases and policy 
decisions, and that is great. Logging is fundamental in the 
health of our national forests. It revitalizes the forest with 
new growth that creates better habitat for a vast array of 
wildlife that live here. Logging also helps prevent mass forest 
fires that would sweep through and be detrimental to the forest 
and private property as well, and logging definitely generates 
revenue for our forestry to use in the maintenance of this 
great public land. But it is also important to local economies 
that rely on those jobs and support service revenues.
    However, there is an issue with the logging contract, or 
the policy if you will, on how we manage the roads that are 
required to be able to be completed on a logging job. Currently 
it is my understanding from discussions with local loggers that 
are out there doing the work, that they are required to berm 
these roads off at the end of a logging project. Now I can 
understand if this area was riddled with roads everywhere, and 
adding all the new roads would really make a forest an area of 
roads with some woodland in between them. But the truth is they 
are massive tracts of land, most not square in shape, that are 
often 5 miles by 7 miles in size, between major fire lanes.
    We should also consider the cost of putting in these roads 
to the taxpayers who fund the forest. We do not write out 
checks for road development or improvement on these logging 
roads, but the loggers who bid these jobs take that into 
account on how they bid their job. I believe that if we are 
paying for these roads to be built that we should be able to 
use them to access these massive tracts of land after the 
logging job is over.
    Even more egregious to me is that when we have logging 
roads that are on the Travel Use Map, and have been in 
existence for decades and decades, and been used by the public 
the entire time, and these roads are used, or at least 
partially used, to get back to log a new logging job, these 
roads are sometimes bermed off at the end of the logging 
operation at that site. I have asked the loggers, ``That road 
has been here for 30 years. Just because you used the first 
mile of it to get to the logging site, why are you berming it 
now that you are done?'' And the response that I get----
    Mr. Tiffany. Senator Stafsholt, we have reached the end of 
your time, if you could wrap up your testimony.
    Mr. Stafsholt. Sure. The response I get is that because it 
was used as part of a logging contract, it must be bermed up.
    I just want to reiterate my thanks for the Committee coming 
here, and emphasis how important these access roads are.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stafsholt follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Senator Rob Stafsholt,
                     Wisconsin 10th Senate District

    Good afternoon. I would like to start by thanking the Chair and the 
Committee for coming here today. In your roles as federal 
representatives, you face many issues from all areas of our great 
country as well as from an array of places around the world that 
require your attention, so thank you so much for taking the time and 
the hassle of arrangements to be here today. I really do appreciate it.
    A little background on me first, although it is true that I am 
before you today as a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, and in my 
role there, I am the Chair of the Senate Committee on Sporting Heritage 
& Financial Institutions. Perhaps that is not my most applicable trait 
for the hearing today. What is more relevant in today's discussion is 
that I am a life-long fan of our National Forests. My father began 
hunting in the Chequamegon National Forest in the early 1960s, so by my 
arrival some years later, multiple trips to the Chequamegon Forest were 
a normal occurrence in my family activities each year. My love of the 
Chequamegon began with hunting, but during college years, I made 
spending cash by getting the required permit from the Forestry office 
and harvesting balsam boughs to sell to people making Christmas wreaths 
and other decorations. A few years later as a husband and a father, I 
started bringing my own family to the Chequamegon Forest to share and 
enjoy the beauty it had to offer on hiking trips, going boating, 
picture taking, berry and mushroom harvesting, ATV riding, wilderness 
exploring, and many other activities, all of which involved getting off 
the main roads and seeing what was really out there in the National 
Forest. In my early 20s, I managed to purchase a chunk of land with an 
old, single-wide trailer house, a rough bunkhouse, and an outhouse on 
it within the borders of the Forest. I still have that property today, 
although I now have a small cabin there with more modern facilities and 
I go there as much as my schedule permits, maybe even more than it 
permits! My point is, the conservation of, and an appreciation of the 
Chequamegon National Forest is in the backbone of who I am.
    Over all these years, one of the things that I believe threatens 
the Chequamegon National Forest the most is a slow but determined 
reduction in access to the Forest, which slowly reduces the number of 
people who come here. My greatest concern is that with a continued loss 
of access of the Chequamegon National Forest, there will be a loss of 
use of the Forest, which slowly leads us to a reduction of the 
percentage of the general public that appreciates our National Forests. 
If any of you have been in politics very long, you probably have 
figured out we begin to question why we preserve things if not very 
many people care. We need to reopen closed access roads and make sure 
people continue to cherish our Forests and not just consider them to be 
``fly-over areas''.
    Some time ago, the Forest established the Travel Use Map. The 
Travel Use Map is flawed in the fact that it did not catch all the 
access roads that already existed in the Forest, some of which had or 
still have Federal Forest Road numbers on them. It is a big task to map 
it all, no doubt. The problem is, when access roads did not make it on 
the map, they are deemed ``unauthorized roads''. I have called in or 
attended meetings and brought certain roads to their attention, only to 
be told ``Someone must have put that in there illegally and it can't be 
used''. That simply is not the case. Almost all roads were made with a 
bulldozer for the purpose of a Forestry logging job. Regardless, those 
roads are now closed.
    Lately, there has been a significant increase in logging in the 
Chequamegon Forest due to some court cases and policy decisions, and 
that is great. Logging is fundamental in the health of our National 
Forest. It revitalizes the forest with new growth that creates better 
habitat for our vast array of wildlife that live here. Logging also 
helps prevent mass forest fires that would sweep through and be 
detrimental to the Forest and private property as well. And logging 
definitely generates revenue for our Forestry to use in the maintenance 
of this great public land, but it is also important to local economies 
that rely on those jobs and support service revenues. However, there is 
an issue with the logging contract term, or the policy, if you will, on 
how we manage the roads that are required to be able to complete a 
logging job. Currently, it is my understanding from my discussions with 
the loggers themselves that are out there doing the work that they are 
required to berm these roads off at the end of the logging project. 
Now, I can understand if this area was riddled with roads everywhere 
and adding all the new roads would really make the Forest an area of 
roads with some woodland in between them here and there, but the truth 
is, these are massive tracts of land, most not square in shape, that 
are often 5 miles by 7 miles in size between fire lanes. We should also 
consider the cost of putting in these roads to the taxpayers who fund 
the Forest. We do not write out checks for road development or 
improvement on these logging roads, but the loggers who bid these jobs 
take that into account on how high their bid is. I believe that if we 
are paying for these roads to be built that we should be able to use 
them to access these massive tracts of public land after the log job is 
over.
    Even more egregious to me is when we have logging roads that are on 
the Travel Use Map and have been in existence for decades and decades, 
and been used by the public the entire time, and those roads are used, 
or at least partially used, to get back to a log job, those roads are 
sometimes bermed off at the end of the logging operation at that site. 
I have asked the loggers, ``That road has been here for 30 years. Just 
because you used the first mile of it to get to the logging site, why 
are you berming it now that you are done?'' The response I got was, ``I 
know, and I don't want to, but it is required in my logging contract.'' 
I believe, and I hope I am right, that this is simply an oversight in 
the Forest's logging management and not an intentional method to 
conveniently reduce access to our National Forest.
    Lastly, you may wonder why all these ``two-track'' logging roads 
that are almost all dead ends are so important. That's a great question 
and deserves an answer. There are a few main reasons I would like to 
highlight. When these roads are not used by the public, they grow in 
with vegetation and are no longer passable with motor vehicles or 
equipment. In the unfortunate event that we do get a wildfire, our 
firefighting teams will not be able to use these roads to get ahead of 
the fire faster. We also have a wide array of users of the Forest. As 
officials entrusted to do what is best for the general public, we 
should seek to reduce user conflicts. Bow hunters use these two-track 
roads to get off main fire lanes to access hunting areas, but also so 
vehicles are not parked out where log trucks would have to navigate 
around them. With a little rain at the right time, we usually get a 
pretty good berry crop out in the Forest, and both local residents and 
tourists will tell you some of the best berry picking is at the far end 
of these logging roads where there is usually a primitive cul-de-sac 
that the log trucks used to turn around. If the public can't use these 
roads, they can't get there to pick the berries and enjoy our resource. 
Trout fishermen/women use these two-track trails to get to the middle 
of these land tracts to get to fishing holes that are not accessible 
when they are closed. Bear hunting is a very popular sport in the 
Chequamegon National Forest and is often done in groups. I have talked 
to many of these groups over the years, and almost all of them would 
prefer to be on two-track roads with their bait sites and not out on 
main fire lanes. Although gun deer hunters in the Chequamegon are in a 
definite decline in their numbers, in previous times of higher hunter 
numbers, these access roads were almost required just to allow people 
to spread out and get away from each other in order to have some 
solitude to experience. Bough cutters, like I mentioned I was back in 
the day, use these roads to get to new areas to cut boughs, ensuring we 
don't overharvest along all the main fire lanes. Bird hunters use these 
two-tracks to hunt on, and you might think they would be better off if 
the road was closed so they could walk it without interruption, but 
after a few years without vehicle access, the grow up and the bird 
don't use those areas anymore. So in a nutshell, we need all these 
access roads to allow user groups access to the resources and elbow 
room away from others.
    Again, I really want to thank all of you for coming here today and 
listening to me talk about how important access roads are in the 
Chequamegon Forest historically, in today's use, and for the future 
appreciation of the Forest by the general public, because they can get 
to the remote areas and enjoy it!

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Senator Stafsholt.
    I now recognize Mr. Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director 
of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association. Mr. 
Schienebeck, you have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HENRY SCHIENEBECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES 
    TIMBER PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION, RHINELANDER, WISCONSIN

    Mr. Schienebeck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee 
members, for the opportunity to appear before you today. My 
name is Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director of Great Lakes 
Timber Professionals Association. I am also a member of the 
Federal Forest Resource Coalition Policy Committee and 
Legislative Chair for the American Loggers Council.
    Most U.S. Forest Service roads in the Lake States region 
were built to provide access for timber harvest, which remains 
a major economic driver for the Lake States and the United 
States. In addition, most recreational opportunities such as 
snowmobiling, off-road vehicle trails, hunting, and fishing 
access are possible because of roads built for forest 
management.
    According to the 1986 Chequamegon National Forest plan, the 
forest transportation system consisted of over 2,000 miles of 
forest system roads, 231 miles of state and county Forest 
Service highways, and 3,600 miles of low-standard roads, mostly 
primitive, two-track dirt roads that required high-clearance 
vehicles to traverse, which were not included in the roads 
inventory used for the 1986 plan.
    With inclusion of the 3,600 miles of uninventoried roads, 
the average total road density for the Chequamegon Forest was 
estimated at 3.5 miles per square mile of forest in 1986. 
Current access restrictions on the Chequamegon-Nicolet are 
based on a 2004 Forest Plan, which calls for a target forest-
wide road density of 3 miles per square mile of forest, a 
reduction from the forest-wide Chequamegon-Nicolet plan road 
density of 3.9 miles per square mile of forest in the 1986 
plan.
    In general, the road closures have been focused on non-
motorized areas, low-density areas, wolfpack areas, and areas 
where roads were causing negative environmental impacts. In 
November 2004, the Forest Service released its final rule for 
Motorized Recreation in National Forests and Grasslands, which 
began limiting access for recreational motor vehicles, 
including all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and 
off-road vehicles such as 4x4 trucks or jeeps.
    In 2008, the 2008 Travel Management Rule began a more 
intensive push to further reduce recreational motorized vehicle 
use access to national forestlands. With a flat or declining 
road budget, the Forest Service adopted a new transportation 
policy, Roads Analysis, with the objective of reducing the 
number of roads needing costly repair and maintenance. 
Beginning in 2000, the Roads Analysis is required for all 
project-level management decisions, including all forest-wide 
analysis of higher-standard roads.
    The final EIS for the Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest Plan 
states that, ``Achieving the road density upper limits set for 
the forests will require targeted road closures and 
obliterations to gradually reduce the number of roads traveled 
by public motorized vehicles. Road closures and other 
obliterations will focus on lower-standard roads.'' Basically, 
Maintenance Level 2 and higher standard roads are unaffected.
    In examination of the Forest Plan, what appears to be 
happening is that Congress' failure to fully fund the Forest 
Service roads program has given the agency cause to have to 
place restrictions on roads having a significant investment in 
them to be used for future management activities. However, a 
person must question why there is so much time and money being 
spent to block the use of Level 2 roads built by the forest 
industry for logging operations, which, in turn, provides 
recreational opportunities until they are no longer passable 
because of natural regeneration.
    The reality is that Congress' lack of funding is not only 
delaying needed forest management, but misdirecting scarce 
resources by forcing the Forest Service to spend money closing 
roads when it should be expanding access for taxpayers. 
Recreation and healthy forests go hand in hand. For these to 
occur it is essential that the access roads on the landscape 
currently in place be made available for use by taxpayers.
    Increased timber harvest focusing on economically viable 
timber sales that meet the needs of local industry can generate 
revenue which could be used for repair of existing roads while 
benefiting wildlife habitat and recreation. In the short to 
medium term, however, Congress should prioritize funding used 
for road maintenance and repair to provide not only access to 
timber but provide hunters, anglers, outdoor recreationalists, 
and first responders like firefighters and search and rescue, 
greater access.
    Thank you for your leadership on these forest issues, and I 
would be happy to take any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schienebeck follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director, Great 
                 Lakes Timber Professionals Association

    Chairman Tiffany, and Committee members,

    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name 
is Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director of the Great Lakes Timber 
Professionals Association (GLTPA). GLTPA is a Michigan/Wisconsin 
organization representing 1,000 members with a mission of ``Enhancing 
Multiple Use Forests for Future Generations.'' I am also a member of 
the Federal Forest Resource Coalition Policy Committee and Legislative 
Chair for the American Loggers Council.
    The national forest road system has several maintenance levels, all 
of which are designed to provide access to the forest for multiple use 
purposes. Most USFS roads in the Lake States Regions were built to 
provide access for timber harvest, which remains a major economic 
driver for the Lakes States and the United States. In addition, most 
recreational opportunities such as snowmobiling, off-road vehicle 
trails, hunting and fishing access are possible because of roads built 
for forest management.
    According to the 1986 Chequamegon National Forest Plan the Forest 
Transportation system consisted of over 2,200 miles of Forest System 
Roads with an additional 231 miles of state and county Forest Service 
highways. In addition, a more comprehensive inventory showed that there 
were an additional 3,600 miles of low standard roads, mostly primitive 
two-track dirt roads that require a high clearance vehicle to 
traverse--which were not included in the roads inventory used for the 
1986 Plan. With the inclusion of the 3,600 miles of uninventoried 
roads, the average Total Road Density for the Chequamegon Forest was 
estimated at 3.5 mi/sq. mile of forest in 1986.
    Total Road Density measures the total miles of all open or closed 
roads per square mile of National Forest Land. This includes roads 
under jurisdiction of the FS as well as those managed by the state, 
county, and local governments, and other federal authorities.
    Current access restrictions on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National 
Forest (CNNF) are based on the 2004 Forest Plan which calls for a 
target forest wide road density of 3.0 mi/sq mile of forest, a 
reduction from the forest wide CNNF road density of 3.9 mi/sq mile of 
forest in the 1986 Forest Plan. In general, the road closures have been 
focused on non-motorized areas, low road density areas, wolf pack 
areas, and areas where roads were causing negative environmental 
impacts.
    In November 2004 the USFS released its final rule for Motorized 
Recreation in National Forest and Grasslands which began limiting 
access for recreational motor vehicles including Off Highway Vehicles, 
(OHVs), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles (OHMs) and 
off-road vehicles (ORVs), such as 4-by-4 trucks or Jeeps. In 2008 the 
``Travel Management Rule'' began a more intensive push to further 
reduce recreational motorized vehicle use access to national forest 
lands.
    For the last three decades or more, the USFS has been consistently 
underfunded to meet its needs for Capital Improvements, Maintenance, 
and Roads (CMRD). The Forest Service estimates the current road 
maintenance backlog at $5.3 billion. One significant budget decrease 
came during the 2013 ``Sequester'' which was supposed to be a 2.5% 
decrease across the board for all discretionary spending programs. 
Instead, it wound up being a 13% budget cut in the CMRD by the Obama 
administration from which the USFS has still not recovered. With flat 
or declining road budgets, the FS adopted a new transportation policy 
(Roads Analysis) with the objective of reducing the number of roads 
needing costly repair and maintenance. Beginning in 2000, the Roads 
Analysis is required for all project level management decisions 
including all forest wide analysis of higher standard roads.
    As part of the development of a ``Roads Analysis'' process, 
improved technology has led to the development of more accurate 
estimates of total road densities. The current average road density, 
for instance, in the Chequamegon National Forest is 3.1 mi/sq mi and 
the Nicolet has a total road density of 4.9 mi/sq mi of road. To 
achieve the total road density target of 3.0 mi/sq mi of road on both 
forests, another 2% and 39% respectively will have to be decommissioned 
on the CNNF, which according to the final EIS will require a 
significant amount of time and funding to accomplish.
    The final EIS for the CNNF Forest Plan states that ``Achieving the 
road density upper limits set for the forests will require targeted 
road closures and obliterations to gradually reduce the number of roads 
traveled by public motorized vehicles. Road closures will affect only 
Forest Service roads; the Forest Service cannot close roads managed and 
maintained by State, County, or local authorities. Road closures and 
obliterations will focus on lower standard roads (Maintenance Level 2). 
The higher standard roads that comprise much of the forest road network 
will be largely unaffected by road closures, and many will remain open 
to licensed street vehicles. Recreationalists who enjoy driving lower 
standard roads will have fewer opportunities over time.''

    As a representative of the forest industry and an avid sportsman, I 
am very concerned about recent and ongoing closures on Maintenance 
Level 2 roads and the movement toward the more expensive Maintenance 
Level 3 Roads, Maintenance Level 2 and 3 roads are described as 
follows:

    Maintenance Level 2: Applies to infrequently traveled, primitive 
roads that are drivable by high clearance vehicles or used for 
transporting timber. These roads are usually too rugged for passenger 
car traffic.

    Maintenance Level 3: Assigned to roads that are drivable by 
standard passenger cars. Most are single land roads designed for low-
speed travel. Part or all of the roads may be surfaced with native or 
processed material.

    Given the lower value of wood in the Lake States as compared to 
other parts of the county, Level 2 roads provide critical, economically 
feasible access to commercial timber and these are precisely the low 
maintenance roads which provide access for hunting and fishing 
activities. GLTPA would strongly question any move to require all 
logging roads to be built to Maintenance Level 3 standards. Doing so 
will drive up logging costs, reducing the competitiveness of the Lake 
States timber industry.
    Higher standard roads could also lead to additional acres being 
restricted for access by recreational vehicles. Recreational vehicles 
operators are not necessarily known for being easy on road surfaces. 
The higher the value of the road surface such as that provided with the 
use of crushed gravel, the higher the maintenance costs. In addition, 
increased road costs could also make it easier to justify bypassing 
timber that may not have the highest on the stump value, but still 
needed for local markets and require management to maintain forest 
health as opposed to dropping them from consideration for treatment.
    In examination of the forest plan what appears to be happening, is 
that Congress's failure to fully fund the USFS roads program has given 
the agency cause to have to place restrictions on roads having a 
significant investment in them to be used for future management 
activities. However, a person must question why there is so much time 
and money being spent to block the use of Level 2 roads built by the 
forest industry for logging operations, which in turn provides 
recreational opportunities until they are no longer passible because of 
natural regeneration.
    The reality is that Congress's lack of funding is not only delaying 
needed forest management, but misdirecting scarce resources by forcing 
the FS to spend money closing roads when it should be expanding access 
for taxpayers. Recreation and healthy forests go hand in hand. For 
these to occur, it is essential that access roads on the landscape 
currently in place be made available for use by taxpayers.
    Increased timber harvest focusing on economically viable timber 
sales that meet the needs of local industry, can generate revenue which 
could be used to repair existing roads while benefiting wildlife 
habitat and recreation. In the short to medium term, however, Congress 
should prioritize funding used for road maintenance and repair to 
provide not only access to timber, but provide hunters, anglers, 
outdoor recreationists, and first responders like firefighters and 
search and rescue greater access as well.
    Thank you for your leadership on forestry issues, and I'd be happy 
to take any questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Schienebeck.
    I will now recognize Mr. Luke Hilgemann, Executive Director 
for the International Order of Theodore Roosevelt, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hilgemann.

STATEMENT OF LUKE HILGEMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL 
           ORDER OF T. ROOSEVELT, MADISON, WISCONSIN

    Mr. Hilgemann. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. It 
is my pleasure to be here with you today to testify on the 
importance of Federal land access for hunters and anglers. My 
name is Luke Hilgemann, and I am the Executive Director of the 
International Order of T. Roosevelt. Our organization has been 
in existence since 1975, and we are dedicated to upholding 
President Theodore Roosevelt's conservation legacy and 
advocating for the preservation of our sporting heritage.
    Over the past several decades, the decline in hunter 
numbers is a troubling trend that cannot be ignored. In just 
the last 5 years alone here in America, we have seen our hunter 
numbers decline by nearly 2 million. One of the top reasons 
cited by hunters for leaving the sport is the lack of access to 
public lands.
    Why does it matter if we lose hunters? It matters because 
hunters are the lifeblood of funding for conservation. The 
North American Model of Conservation, recognized worldwide for 
its success in restoring and maintaining healthy populations of 
game and non-game animals, relies on the financial 
contributions of hunters, anglers, trappers, and recreational 
shooters. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 
2022 alone, hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-related 
activities generated $394 billion in combined economic 
activity. It is a user-pay system, and it is the hunters, 
anglers, and trappers who willingly invest in licenses, stamps, 
and conservation efforts, benefiting us all.
    However, the threats to our sports extend beyond access. 
Predator management is a critical issue, and none more so than 
right here in Wisconsin. A study conducted in Wisconsin 
revealed that wolves killed more deer than hunters in five 
northern counties, highlighting the need for effective predator 
control measures. Without proper management, our game species 
suffer, and our hunting traditions will be jeopardized. After 
all, if there is no game to pursue on our public lands, access 
will no longer be the issue. We applaud Chairman Tiffany and 
his colleagues for passing the Trust the Science Act, a 
bipartisan legislative proposal that will return management of 
the recovered wolf populations to the states. And we now call 
on Senator Baldwin to take up that bill and pass it through the 
U.S. Senate as quickly as possible.
    Another concerning issue is the lead bullet and hook ban 
that was recently passed by the Biden administration. While 
environmental concerns are important, expanding the ban on lead 
bullets and fishing equipment will only make the problem worse 
when it comes to hunter and angler numbers. Lead ammunition and 
hooks have been affordable and widely accessible, enabling 
participation in our sports. We applaud Representative Wittman 
and his colleagues in the House of Representatives for passing 
H.R. 615.
    To address these challenges, though, and threats to our 
outdoor traditions, it is imperative that we prioritize the 
preservation and enhancement of public lands. IOTR has 
developed some suggested policy benchmarks for public land 
access for the Subcommittee to consider. These include:
    1. Responsible Management. Encouraging coordination between 
Federal agencies, state wildlife agencies, and local 
stakeholders to ensure that access decisions are made with the 
input of those who rely on these lands for hunting and fishing. 
Limiting onerous land designations that often prohibit access 
for these recreational opportunities is critically important.
    2. Balanced Conservation. Recognizing that responsible 
hunting and fishing are integral components of effective 
wildlife management and conservation.
    3. Streamlined Permitting. Simplifying the permitting 
process for hunting and fishing activities on Federal lands, 
reducing bureaucratic hurdles, and ensuring timely access for 
the use of these lands by sportsmen and women.
    4. Infrastructure Investment. Allocating resources to 
improve and maintain access to roads, trails, and facilities on 
Federal lands, ensuring that everyone that enjoys the outdoors 
has an opportunity to get there and use these vital resources.
    5. Education and Outreach. Promoting public awareness and 
education about the importance of hunting and fishing as 
conservation tools.

    Taking these steps will ensure continued access and 
availability for hunters, anglers, and other recreational users 
to enjoy our greatest outdoor resources.
    In conclusion, Chairman Tiffany and members of the 
Subcommittee, the threats to our sports are real and growing. 
The decline in hunter numbers, the need for effective predator 
management, and the potential impacts of lead bullet bans are 
all significant challenges that must be addressed. By 
prioritizing the needs of hunters and anglers, you can ensure 
the preservation of our natural resources, support local 
economies, and uphold the legacy of one of our nation's 
greatest conservationists, President Theodore Roosevelt.
    Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hilgemann follows:]
Prepared Statement of Luke Hilgemann, Executive Director, International 
                         Order of T. Roosevelt

    Chairman Tiffany and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on 
Federal Lands,
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the critical 
issue of federal public lands access for hunters and anglers. My name 
is Luke Hilgemann, and I am the Executive Director of the International 
Order of T. Roosevelt (IOTR). Our organization is dedicated to 
upholding President Theodore Roosevelt's conservation legacy and 
advocating for the preservation of our sporting heritage.
    Over the past several decades, the decline in hunter numbers is a 
troubling trend that cannot be ignored. In the last five years alone, 
American hunter numbers have decreased by 2 million. One of the top 
reasons cited by hunters for leaving the sport is the lack of access to 
public lands (Source: NSSF study 2021).
    Why does it matter if we lose hunters? It matters because hunters 
are the lifeblood of funding for conservation. The North American Model 
of Conservation, lauded worldwide for its success in restoring and 
maintaining healthy populations of game and non-game animals, relies on 
the financial contributions of hunters, anglers, trappers, and 
recreational shooters. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
in 2022 hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-related activities 
generated $394 billion in combined economic activity--securing public 
lands, habitat restoration, and the entire suite of wildlife 
conservation work across North America. (Source: 2022 FHWAR). It is a 
user-pay system, and it is the hunters, anglers, and trappers who 
willingly invest in licenses, stamps, and conservation efforts, 
benefiting us all.
    However, the threats to our sports extend beyond access. Predator 
management is a critical issue that must be addressed to maintain 
healthy game populations and sustain hunting opportunities on federal 
public lands. A study conducted in Wisconsin revealed that wolves 
killed more deer than hunters in five northern counties, highlighting 
the need for effective predator control measures (Source: Deer and Deer 
Hunting 2019). Without proper management, our game species will suffer, 
and our hunting traditions will be jeopardized. After all, if there is 
no game to pursue on our public lands, access will no longer be the 
issue. We applaud the efforts of Subcommittee Chairman Tiffany and his 
colleagues for passing the Trust the Science Act, H.R. 764 bipartisan 
legislation that will return management of the recovered wolf 
populations to the states.
    Another concerning issue is the lead bullet and hook ban recently 
passed by President Biden's administration. While environmental 
concerns are important, expanding the ban on lead bullets and fishing 
equipment will only exacerbate the decline in hunters and anglers. Lead 
ammunition has been affordable and widely accessible, enabling 
participation in our sports. Increasing costs and limiting options for 
ammunition will only discourage participation and hinder access to 
public lands. We applaud Rep.Wittman and his colleagues in the House of 
Representatives for passing H.R. 615--the Protecting Access for Hunters 
and Anglers Act which establishes a process for evaluating the use of 
lead ammo and fishing equipment on federal public lands that allows for 
public input rather than blanket policies that deny public input.

    To address these challenges and threats to our outdoor traditions, 
it is imperative that we prioritize the preservation and enhancement of 
public lands access for hunters, anglers, and other wildlife-related 
activities. IOTR has developed some suggested policy benchmarks for 
public land access for the Subcommittee to consider. These include:

    1. Responsible Management: Encouraging coordination between federal 
agencies, state wildlife agencies, and local stakeholders to ensure 
that access decisions are made with the input of those who rely on 
these lands for hunting and fishing. Limit onerous land designations 
that often prohibit access for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor 
pursuits without clear justification.

    2. Balanced Conservation: Recognizing that responsible hunting and 
fishing are integral components of effective wildlife management and 
conservation. By maintaining healthy populations of game species, we 
can also protect the habitats and ecosystems they depend on.

    3. Streamlined Permitting: Simplifying the permitting process for 
hunting and fishing activities on federal lands, reducing bureaucratic 
hurdles, and ensuring timely access for sportsmen and women.

    4. Infrastructure Investment: Allocating resources to improve and 
maintain access roads, trails, and facilities on federal lands, 
ensuring that hunters and anglers can reach their desired destinations 
safely and efficiently.

    5. Education and Outreach: Promoting public awareness and education 
about the importance of hunting and fishing as conservation tools, 
fostering a sense of stewardship among current and future generations.

    Taking these steps will ensure continued access and availability 
for hunters, anglers, and other recreational users to enjoy our 
greatest outdoor resources.

    In conclusion, Chairman Tiffany and members of the Subcommittee, 
the threats to our sports are real and growing. The decline in hunter 
numbers, the need for effective predator management, and the potential 
impacts of lead bullet bans are all significant challenges that must be 
addressed. By prioritizing the needs of hunters and anglers, you can 
ensure the preservation of our natural resources, support local 
economies, and uphold the legacy of one of our nation's greatest 
conservationists, President Theodore Roosevelt.

    Thank you for your attention, and I am ready to answer any 
questions you may have.

References:

1.  Deer and Deer Hunting Magazine: ``More Wolves Killed by Deer than 
hunters.'' December 2019.

2.  ``Making Public Lands Public: Access to Our Nation's Public 
Lands.'' 2023.

3.  2022 National Survey on Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated 
Recreation. U.S. Dept of Interior--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

4.  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. ``Predation by Wolves on 
White-tailed Deer in Wisconsin: A Review and Meta-Analysis.'' 2017.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Hilgemann.
    Next, I would like to introduce Mr. Tom Dougherty, 
President of the Voyageur Country Houseboat Operators 
Association in International Falls, Minnesota. Good to have you 
down here in Hayward, Wisconsin, Mr. Dougherty. You have 5 
minutes.

    STATEMENT OF TOM DOUGHERTY, PRESIDENT, VOYAGEUR COUNTRY 
HOUSEBOAT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL FALLS, MINNESOTA

    Mr. Dougherty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
Committee, for this opportunity to testify on this very 
important matter involving water access and opportunities to 
our outdoor recreation within Voyageurs National Park, a water-
based national park in northern Minnesota.
    I am Tom Dougherty, President of the Voyageur Country 
Houseboat Operators Association, representing area houseboat 
rental operations, including my family's business, Rainy Lake 
Houseboats. I also serve on the Board of Directors for the 
Voyageur Country ATV Club.
    I am here today to speak on behalf of stakeholders 
surrounding Voyageurs gateway communities, advocating for local 
outfitting operators, fishing guides, resort owners, houseboat 
operators, local government, visitors, and locals alike. We are 
faced with the unnecessary barriers when accessing the vast 
waterways in Voyageurs.
    When Voyageurs was formed nearly 50 years ago, the park was 
intended to complement the neighboring Boundary Waters Canoe 
Area Wilderness, allowing Voyageurs to boast a broader range of 
outdoor recreational opportunities that are prohibited in 
BWCAW. The newly formed national park would allow the use of 
motorized crafts, boats of all sizes, snowmobiles, and other 
forms of mechanized travel, a unique, best-of-both-worlds 
scenario for the region.
    Fast forward 50 years. The National Park Service has 
enforced new water rights restrictions on more than 50 percent 
of the park. We now fight for easy access to more than 218,000 
acres of Voyageurs National Park, including one-third of it 
which is underwater. Unrestricted water access is critical to 
our livelihood, local tourism economy, and necessary for an 
inclusive visitor experience.
    The state of Minnesota contends that it did not cede 
jurisdiction to the waters of Voyageurs National Park, and now 
the Federal over-reach into the state-managed waters has led to 
conflicts and challenges for local stakeholders and visitors 
alike.
    According to State Statute 84B.061, ``none of the navigable 
waters in Voyageurs National Park and the lands under them have 
been donated to the United States.'' The lack of cooperation 
and support from the NPS has strange relationships among 
Federal and state authorities and stakeholders.
    The NPS now deems state-regulated waterways within park 
parameters an extension of Federal land once they are frozen 
over. The new policies have restricted traditional winter 
activities, such as snowmobiling and ATV use, which previously 
contributed to the local tourism economy and outdoor 
recreation.
    There once was 100 miles of snowmobile trails on the 
Kabetogama peninsula. Today, there are only 18 miles of land 
trails.
    Recently, a truck portage through Mukooda Lake was 
restricted to permit-only access, making it no longer 
accessible by automobile and ATV. The route provided a safe 
passage around dangerous ice conditions from Crane Lake, 
Mukooda, Sand Point, and Namakan Lake, ending in Ontario, 
Canada.
    The public has long relied on access to the frozen lake 
surfaces for winter recreational activities. Access by all 
types of vehicles is crucial to providing opportunities, 
especially those with disabilities.
    The economic impact on local operators has been 
detrimental, with reduced access limiting the scope of their 
operations and ultimately restricting access to the public.
    Increased Federal law enforcement presence has resulted in 
a less welcoming environment for park visitors.
    The NPS has introduced new Commercial Use Authorization 
guidelines that impose additional regulatory burdens on local 
businesses who are not concessionaires. These new regulations 
threaten to undermine local operators and the area's tourism 
economy. The local operators have been working aggressively to 
obtain CUAs since December 2023. As of the 2024 Fishing Opener, 
some of our CUAs are still pending approval.
    The proposed CUAs will limit access by hindering the 
ability of businesses to operate effectively within Voyageurs 
as they have in the past. The visitor experience is compromised 
as fewer services and recreational opportunities are available, 
especially for those with disabilities. The local tourism and 
recreation economy is at risk due to the restrictive policies.
    In conclusion, we urge Congress to recognize the challenges 
posed by the current management policies of the NPS by taking 
decisive action and considering the following solutions:
    Introduce an amendment to CFR 36 to clarify and reaffirm 
state water rights by eliminating the need for restrictive CUAs 
and water-based constraints.
    A Federal audit surrounding decision-making about 
Voyageurs' water right jurisdiction and CUA guidelines.
    The state of Minnesota's jurisdiction over the park's 
waters should be reaffirmed to prevent Federal over-reach and 
support public access to all. We want to offer full access to 
our nation's uniquely water-based Voyageurs National Park.
    We sincerely thank the members of this Committee for 
considering our request.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dougherty follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Tom Dougherty, President, Voyageur Country 
                    Houseboat Operators Association

INTRODUCTION

    Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the 
opportunity to testify on this very important matter of improving water 
access and opportunities for outdoor recreation within Voyageurs 
National Park--a water-based park in northern Minnesota.
    I am Tom Dougherty, president of Voyageur Country Houseboat 
Operators Association, representing area houseboat rental operators, 
including my family's business--Rainy Lake Houseboats. I also serve on 
the board of directors for Voyageur Country ATV Club.
    I am here today to speak on behalf of stakeholders surrounding 
Voyageurs gateway communities--advocating for local outfitting 
operators, fishing guide services, resort owners, houseboat operators, 
local government, visitors and locals alike. We are faced with 
unnecessary barriers when accessing the vast waterways.
    When Voyageurs National Park was formed nearly 50 years ago, the 
park was intended to complement neighboring Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
Wilderness (BWCAW), allowing Voyageurs to boast broader outdoor 
recreational opportunities that are prohibited in BWCAW. The newly-
formed National Park would allow the use of motorized crafts (boats of 
all sizes, snowmobiles, and other forms of mechanized travel, etc.)--a 
unique, best of both world's scenario for the region.
    Fast forward 50 years, the National Park Service (NPS) has enforced 
new water rights restrictions around more than 50% of the park. We now 
fight for easy access to more than 218,000 acres of Voyageurs National 
Park, including 1/3 of that acreage which is water. Unrestricted water 
access is critical to our livelihood, local tourism economy, and 
necessary for an inclusive visitor experience.

BACKGROUND

I. Minnesota Not Ceding Jurisdiction

    The state of Minnesota contends that it did not cede the waters of 
Voyageurs National Park, and now federal overreach into state-managed 
waters has led to conflicts and challenges for local stakeholder and 
visitors alike.

  A.  According to state statute 84B.061, ``none of the navigable 
            waters within Voyageurs National Park and the lands under 
            them have been donated to the United States.''

  B.  The lack of cooperation and support from the NPS has strained the 
            relationship among federal and state authorities, and local 
            stakeholders.

        (See Exhibit A)

II. Frozen Lake Surface Plan

    The NPS now deems state-regulated waterways within park parameters 
an extension of federal land once frozen over.

    New policies have restricted traditional winter activities such as 
snowmobiling, which previously contributed to the local tourism and 
outdoor recreation economy.

  A.  There once was 100 miles of snowmobile trails on Kabetogama 
            peninsula. Today there are only 18 miles of land trails.

  B.  Recently, the truck portage through Mukooda Lake was restricted 
            to permit-only access making it no longer accessible by 
            automobile and ATV. The route provided a safe passage 
            around dangerous ice conditions from Crane Lake, Mukooda, 
            Sand Point, and Namakan lakes, ending in Ontario, Canada.

  C.  The public has long relied on access to the frozen lake surfaces 
            for winter recreational activities. Access by all types of 
            vehicles is crucial to providing opportunities, especially 
            those with disabilities.

  D.  The economic impact on local operators has been detrimental, with 
            reduced access limiting the scope of their operations and 
            ultimately restricting access to the public.

  E.  Increased federal law enforcement presence has resulted in a less 
            welcoming environment for park visitors.

        (See Exhibit B)

III. New Commercial Use Authorization (CUA)

    The NPS has proposed new CUA guidelines that impose additional 
regulatory burdens on local businesses who are not concessionaires. 
These new regulations threaten to undermine local operators and the 
area's tourism economy.

  A.  Local operators have been working aggressively to obtain CUAs 
            since December 2023. As of the 2024 Minnesota Fishing 
            Opener, some of our CUAs are still under approval.

  B.  The proposed CUAs will limit public access by hindering the 
            ability of businesses to operate effectively within 
            Voyageurs.

  C.  The visitor experience is compromised as fewer services and 
            recreational opportunities are available, especially for 
            those with disabilities.

  D.  The local tourism and recreation economy is at risk due to 
            restrictive policies.

        (See Exhibits C + D)

CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, we urge Congress to recognize the challenges posed 
by the current management practices of the NPS by taking decisive 
action and considering the following solutions.

  A.  Introduce an Amendment to CFR 36 to clarify and reaffirm state 
            water rights by eliminating the need for restrictive CUA's 
            and water-based constraints.

  B.  A federal audit surrounding decision-making about Voyageurs' 
            water right jurisdiction and CUA guidelines.

    The state of Minnesota's jurisdiction over the park's waters should 
be reaffirmed to prevent federal overreach and support public access to 
all. We want to offer full access to our nation's uniquely water-based 
Voyageurs National Park to all people.

    We sincerely thank the members of this committee for considering 
our request.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 __
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Dougherty.
    Finally, I would like to recognize Mr. Duane Taylor, 
Director of Safe and Responsible Use Programs for the 
Motorcycle Industry Council, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of 
America, and Recreational Off-Highway Highway Vehicle 
Association.
    Mr. Taylor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DUANE TAYLOR, DIRECTOR OF SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE USE 
   PROGRAMS, MOTORCYCLE INDUSTRY COUNCIL, SPECIALTY VEHICLE 
    INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE 
                  ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Chairman Tiffany and members of the 
Subcommittee, on behalf MIC, SVIA, and ROHVA, together 
referenced as the Associations, thank you for this opportunity 
to provide testimony.
    The Associations have a long-standing interest in the 
protection of the values and natural resources found on Forest 
Service lands. And to open, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield 
Act is clear. It states, ``it is the policy of the Congress 
that the national forests are established and shall be 
administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, 
and wildlife and fish purposes.''
    As a result, the Forest Service should implement its 
multiple use mission by ensuring that any policies it develops, 
including managing for climate resilience and wildfire 
mitigation, integrate recreation.
    There is no question recreation on Forest Service lands are 
in high demand and result in significant economic impact to the 
communities in which they are located. The Forest Service's 
National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey results state national 
forests average 150 million visits annually, that contribute 
more than $11 billion to the economy.
    As far as OHV recreation, the power sports industry, 
motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, recreational off-highway 
vehicles, sometimes referred to as side-by-sides, are a $47.7 
billion-a-year industry in the United States, with a 
significant number of these vehicles being utilized off-road.
    The Forest Service continues pushing new proposed rules, 
environmental impact statements, and other regulations in 
accordance with its Climate Adaptation Plan, Wildfire Crisis 
Strategy, and other plans and strategies. This concerns us, as 
these strategies often ignore recreation, or worse yet, 
establish that providing for recreation is adversarial to other 
priorities.
    The Climate Adaptation Plan states, ``Climate change will 
affect the ability of the nation's forests and grasslands to 
furnish important services to the public, including clean water 
and air, carbon storage and uptake, timber and nontimber forest 
products, productive grazing land, and recreation 
opportunities. These benefits may be lost or altered due to 
changes in wildfire, extreme events, and chronic stresses on 
watersheds and ecosystems.''
    It is important to note that recreation and other multiple 
uses are referred to as ``benefits.'' This is not accurate. 
Again, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act established 
national forests to provide for recreation and other multiple 
uses.
    We assert that recreation can help the Forest Service 
become more resilient and able to respond to climate change and 
prepare for and mitigate wildfires. We encourage the Forest 
Service to follow the lead of the FHWA, which has already 
recognized the role that trails can play in helping to manage 
for resilience. We refer the Forest Service and other land 
management agencies to FHWA's 2023 Trails as Resilient 
Infrastructure guidebook. This guide demonstrates how trails 
are part of resilient transportation infrastructure, how trails 
can be planned and designed to be resilient and sustainable, 
and how trails have a role in emergency planning and response.
    Trails as Resilient Infrastructure recognizes that trails, 
and by extension recreation, can, with proper research, benefit 
resilience and provide tools to respond to weather and fire 
events and to mitigate impacts from climate change. We submit 
that this is where the Forest Service should start any 
rulemaking, policy, or guidance.
    Trails as Resilient Infrastructure also includes a case 
study on the utility of OHV trails during a natural disaster. 
It says, ``In 2011, Tropical Storm Irene caused floods that 
damaged roadway bridges throughout Vermont. Residents used ATVs 
on trails to move people and supplies to and from isolated 
communities. Following the initial response effort, local 
officials decided to create trails more accommodating of ATV 
use to support future disaster response needs.''
    I would also like to note that Trails as Resilient 
Infrastructure highlights the Prison Hill Recreation Area in 
Carson City, Nevada. At the time, I served as Executive 
Director of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation 
Council, which led efforts to improve recreational 
opportunities at Prison Hill while mitigating impacts from 
climate change and wildfires.
    Trails as Resilient Infrastructure notes, ``A 100-year rain 
event in November 2021 tested the trails' design, with 
successful results. Culverts and trail grading improvements 
allowed the trail tread to shed water rather than convey it and 
contribute to erosion. Trails have been used to respond to 
wildland fires, including an incident where water was air-
dropped by helicopter directly onto a trail. The trail design 
and infrastructure performed well under the heavy load of 
water. Trails have also been used for search and rescue along 
the Carson River.''
    These are exactly the type of combined responses that 
should be inherent in Forest Service's decision-making 
processes.
    Finally, the Associations would like to call attention to 
volunteers helping in any number of ways with resilience and 
recovery. We highlight the post-wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance, 
a national organization founded to protect and restore 
sustainable OHV recreation from the devastating effects of 
intense wildfires and other natural disasters. Any Forest 
Service rulemakings and strategies should include continued 
opportunities for volunteers to help the USFS meet resilience 
and recovery goals.
    Thank you for your consideration.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Duane Taylor, Director, Safe and Responsible
                              Use Programs

    Chairman Tiffany and Members of the Subcommittee--On behalf of the 
Motorcycle Industry Council \1\ (MIC), Specialty Vehicle Institute of 
America \2\ (SVIA), and Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association 
\3\ (ROHVA)--together referenced as the Associations, I appreciate the 
opportunity to submit testimony relevant to Improving Access and 
Opportunities for Hunting, Fishing, and Outdoor Recreation on America's 
Federal Lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) is a not-for-profit, 
national trade association representing several hundred manufacturers, 
distributors, dealers and retailers of motorcycles, scooters, 
motorcycle parts, accessories and related goods, and allied trades.
    \2\ The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) is the 
national not-for-profit trade association representing manufacturers, 
dealers, and distributors of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) in the United 
States. SVIA's primary goal is to promote safe and responsible use of 
ATVs.
    \3\ The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) is a 
national, not-for-profit trade association formed to promote the safe 
and responsible use of recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs--
sometimes referred to as side-by-sides or UTVs) manufactured or 
distributed in North America. ROHVA is also accredited by the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) to serve as the Standards 
Developing Organization for ROVs. More information on the standard can 
be found at https://rohva.org/ansi-standard/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Associations have a long-standing interest in the protection of 
the values and natural resources found on public lands, including 
Forest Service lands, and we regularly work with land managers to 
provide recreation opportunities, sustain resources, and promote 
cooperation between public land visitors. The Associations also 
prioritize educating enthusiasts and the public about responsible off-
highway vehicle (OHV) recreation, including practicing Tread Lightly 
principals, wearing appropriate safety gear, and avoiding the on-road 
use of vehicles designed solely for off-highway use.

    To open--The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act is clear. It states 
(emphasis added):

        . . . it is the policy of the Congress that the national 
        forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor 
        recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish 
        purposes.

    As a result, the Forest Service should implement its multiple use 
mission by ensuring that any policies it develops including managing 
for climate resilience and wildfire mitigation, integrate recreation 
and find ways to utilize the conservation ethic inherent in 
recreational activities to help the Forest Service meet its ecological, 
social, and economic goals.

    There is no question recreation on Forest Service lands are in high 
demand and result in significant economic impact to the communities in 
which they are located The Forest Service's National Visitor Use 
Monitoring Survey Results state:

        Outdoor recreation is the most popular activity supported by 
        America's public lands. National forests average 150 million 
        visits annually that contribute more than $11 billion to the 
        economy.

    As for off-highway vehicle recreation--The powersports industry 
(motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and recreational off highway 
vehicles (ROVs or side-by-sides)) are a $47.7 billion/year industry in 
the United States with a significant number of the vehicles being 
utilized off-road. This includes dual sport and adventure motorcycles 
which are the quickest growing segment of motorcycle sales in the U.S. 
As a result, the Associations strongly support ensuring sustainable 
off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation opportunities continue to be 
available on our public lands including National Forests as 
appropriate.

    The Forest Service continues pushing new proposed rules, 
Environmental Impact Statements, and other regulations in accordance 
with its Climate Adaptation Plan, Wildfire Crisis Strategy and other 
plans and strategies. This concerns us as these strategies often ignore 
recreation, or worse yet, establish that providing for recreation is 
adversarial to other priorities, which is simply not the case. Consider 
this from the Climate Adaptation Plan (emphases added):

        Climate change will affect the ability of the Nation's forests 
        and grasslands to furnish important services to the public, 
        including clean water and air, carbon storage and uptake, 
        timber and nontimber forest products, productive grazing land, 
        and recreation opportunities. These benefits may be lost or 
        altered due to changes in wildfire, extreme events, and chronic 
        stresses on watersheds and ecosystems.

    It is important to note that recreation and other multiple uses are 
referred to as ``benefits.'' This is just not accurate. Again, the 
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act established National Forests to 
provide for recreation and other multiple uses.

    We assert that recreation can help the Forest Service become more 
resilient and able to respond to climate change and prepare for and 
mitigate wildfires. We urge the Forest Service to develop strategies 
that recognize recreation and other multiple uses are not distractions 
that must be provided for in some de minimis way. Instead, any new 
plans or proposed rules must carefully consider how recreation and 
recreationists can be preserved as assets to managing for resilience.

    We encourage the Forest Service to follow the lead of the Federal 
Highway Administration which has already recognized the role that 
trails can play in helping to manage for resilience. We refer the 
Forest Service and other land management agencies to FHWA's 2023 Trails 
as Resilient Infrastructure guidebook:

        This guidebook (``the Guide'') demonstrates how trails are part 
        of resilient transportation infrastructure, how trails can be 
        planned and designed to be resilient and sustainable, and how 
        trails have a role in emergency planning and response. Trails 
        of all kinds are places for recreation, exercise, and time 
        outside. Trails are used for active transportation, whether for 
        daily commuting or errand running, and also during unique 
        events or emergencies. Trails are also a crucial tool for 
        making communities more resilient in the face of climate change 
        and other emergencies. This guidebook examines the ways in 
        which trails can be made more resilient and how trails can 
        serve as resilient infrastructure, providing information and 
        guidance in support of these goals.

    Trails as Resilient Infrastructure recognizes that trails (and by 
extension recreation) can, with proper research, benefit resilience, 
provide tools to respond to weather and fire events, and can be 
designed in such a way to mitigate impacts from climate change. We 
submit that this is where the Forest Service should start any 
rulemaking, policy, or guidance.

    Trails as Resilient Infrastructure also includes a case study on 
the utility of OHV trails during a natural disaster:

        In 2011 Tropical Storm Irene caused floods that damaged roadway 
        bridges throughout Vermont. Residents used ATVs on trails to 
        move people and supplies to and from isolated communities. 
        Following the initial response effort, local officials decided 
        to create trails more accommodating of ATV use to support 
        future disaster response needs.

    I would also like to note that Trails as Resilient Infrastructure 
highlights the Prison Hill Recreation Area in Carson City, Nevada. At 
the time, I served as Executive Director of the National Off-Highway 
Vehicle Conservation Council which led efforts to improve Prison Hill.

    The Prison Hill Recreation Area was conveyed to Carson City by the 
Bureau of Land Management in 2015. NOHVCC was subsequently contracted 
to improve recreational opportunities while mitigating impacts from 
climate change and wildfires. NOHVCC's efforts were a huge success. 
Trails as Resilient Infrastructure notes:

        A 100-year rain event in November 2021 tested the trails' 
        design, with successful results. Culverts and trail grading 
        improvements allowed the trail tread to shed water rather than 
        convey it and contribute to erosion. Trails have been used to 
        respond to wildland fires, including an incident where water 
        was air dropped by helicopter directly onto a trail. The trail 
        design and infrastructure performed well under the heavy load 
        of water. Trails have also been used for search and rescue 
        along the Carson River.

    These are exactly the type of combined responses (using a 
recreational opportunity to address a broader resource issue) that 
should be inherent in the Forest Service's decision-making processes.
    Finally, the Associations would like to call attention to 
recreationists who serve as volunteers helping in any number of ways 
with resilience and recovery. For example, we highlight the Post 
Wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance (PWORA), a national organization founded 
to protect and restore sustainable OHV recreation from the devastating 
effects of intense wildfires and other natural disasters. PWORA 
collaborates with a diverse array of multi-interest strategic partners 
to mobilize volunteers and deploy resources to mitigate post-disaster 
impacts to recreation areas.
    Any Forest Service rulemakings and strategies should include 
continued opportunities for motorized volunteers to help the USFS meet 
resilience and recovery goals.

    Thank you for your consideration.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Taylor and all of you, thank you for your 
testimony. We are now going to turn to the Members for a round 
of questions, and first we are going to start out with my 
neighbor, Representative Stauber, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Chair Tiffany. I want to 
thank you for inviting us to your beautiful district in Hayward 
here, where one of the greatest KOAs is just down the roadway. 
I spent many nights there.
    The district I have the honor to represent just over the 
border in Minnesota is very similar to the Chairman's, as it is 
home to significant tracts of Federal land, including Voyageurs 
National Park and borders the Chippewa and Superior National 
Forests. Our great public lands are part of our way of life in 
northern Minnesota. That is why it is so important to my 
constituents that we are ensuring the greatest access possible.
    And I can't help but note that like here in northwestern 
Wisconsin, in northern Minnesota, our public lands often look 
like a checkerboard. Our Federal lands are mixed in with state, 
county, tribal, and private lands. It is impossible for any 
land manager to manage their respective acreage without working 
with those around them.
    That is why I am such a big supporter of the Good Neighbor 
Authority. It has been a successful program in Minnesota, and 
we need to expand it to bring tribes and counties into the 
fold, as well. I am proud to stand with my Republican 
colleagues on this Committee in leading the charge past the 
legislation that will do just that.
    I want to welcome a great constituent of mine in 
Minnesota's 8th Congressional District, Tom Dougherty, who 
traveled here from International Falls, and as he states, he 
operates a multi-generation, family-run houseboat rental 
business on Rainy Lake, right along the U.S.-Canadian border.
    Mr. Dougherty, I want to ask you to expand upon the 
economic impact that the recreation economy has in northern 
Minnesota, and can you share a little bit with the Subcommittee 
about how important this is for the communities that surround 
Rainy Lake?
    Mr. Dougherty. Mr. Chair and Members, I would be happy to 
talk about that. We have the gateway communities of Crane Lake, 
Ash River, Kabetogama and International Falls. When the park 
was first formed, we were promised an increase in visitors to 
the area. We really haven't seen that, although the visitorship 
is good and it is solid. But it is important to the area 
community. The number of resorts that are there, it is 
astronomical. Some of the resorts have been there for a number 
of years, and then some new ones have popped up along the way.
    As to put a number on it, I am not prepared to do that 
today, but I certainly could submit something in the next few 
days that could back up a number.
    Mr. Stauber. That would be great. We would ask you to do 
that. Over the past year, I know you and other operators within 
Voyageurs National Park have been facing new policies that 
basically make it harder and much more expensive to obtain 
commercial use authorizations, or CUAs, from the National Park 
Service to operate your business. Very briefly, can you share 
how the CUA process has changed, and what was the historic 
process to obtain a CUA, and what kind of hoops will you now 
have to jump through to obtain a CUA under the National Park 
Service's new policies?
    Mr. Dougherty. Mr. Chairman and Members, the previous 
process was rather simple. It was just basically one paragraph. 
Now we have several pages of stipulations, essentially, is what 
they are. For instance, for the houseboat operators, they 
developed a list of stipulations due to a set of unfortunate 
circumstances that arose in 2022, where we had an operator 
actually get arrested, a disagreement with law enforcement, and 
then out of that these stipulations were developed.
    And the stipulations are broad. When you rent a houseboat, 
for instance, there are a number of things that are on board 
the boat and could possibly go wrong, at no fault of anybody, 
and you need to go out and take care of those issues for your 
customers. We basically spent the entire winter negotiating 
with Superintendent DeGross who was accommodating. I think that 
most of the recommendations for these stipulations and things 
are coming from Region and possibly Washington.
    Mr. Stauber. As we talk about the Winter Use Plan, do you 
feel comfortable that it is going to increase access, or 
restrict access, from your point of view, at this moment? And I 
know it is not finalized.
    Mr. Dougherty. Mr. Chairman and Members, the best example I 
can use of the Frozen Lake Surface Plan would be Lake 
Kabetogama, for instance. It is 27,000 acres in size. Right 
now, you have access to all of it, with an ATV, a vehicle 
providing that you can get around on the lake surface, there is 
not too much snow or slush ice conditions.
    They are going to take that and shrink it down 
significantly. With one of the preferred plans, it will be less 
than 800 acres would be available to take an ATV or a motor 
vehicle to pull a fish house, to access your favorite fishing 
area.
    Mr. Stauber. And I suspect the locals will not support it, 
and that I will be in that fight with you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now turn to Mr. 
Collins, from Georgia, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think you 
had to tell these folks I was from Georgia. They probably know 
I am not from around here. I have kind of a little bit of a 
different accent.
    I like to tell people, first of all, I am a freshman in 
Congress. I spent over 30 years in the private sector. I am 
second generation in the trucking industry. We started moving 
over to road building products some 30-odd years ago, and I 
actually started my career at the age of 12. My parents hauled 
logs out of the woods. I tell people I have had pine sap and 
resin in every nook and cranny of my body you can think of over 
the years, working on those log trailers.
    And I always take a look, when we come to these field 
hearings, and I kind of ask myself, what is the problem, what 
is the solution, and how do we ensure that that never happens 
again? And I want to focus right now just on timber and on 
forestry, since that was kind of my background growing up.
    And if you take a look, we are just down the road from the 
Lumberjack Championship arena of the world. The forestry 
industry here in the state of Wisconsin produces 64,000 jobs, 
$24 billion in annual revenue. You are the largest producer in 
paper in the nation, and you are one of the top 10 timber 
producers in the Federal national forestry system. And 
Wisconsin continues to be responsible when it comes to forestry 
products and producing, and you have added to the timber that 
you cut out there with a net gain of 185 million cubic feet of 
saw timber yearly. And just to put that in context, that is 
enough to frame up over 139,000 homes a year.
    So, with that in mind, I am going to start out with Mr. 
Schienebeck. In my home state of Georgia, we have harvested 
more timber than any other state, and the overall tree volume 
in our forests has still increased every year since 1953. And 
while that may seem pretty simple, here is the kicker. Many of 
our forests in Georgia are private working forests with fuel 
restrictions than what you have on Federal forest lands.
    So, here is my question. What can we do to empower our 
Western states to start managing their forests, many of which 
are federally owned, more like what we do in the state of 
Georgia?
    Mr. Schienebeck. Well, I think the issue is over-regulation 
and over-reach in the Western states. When I look at the 
Western states, they pretty much destroyed the infrastructure 
that they had. And I know when all the fires started there was 
a lot of discussion about, oh, we need to manage more forests. 
Well, they had that opportunity to manage those forests and got 
rid of the infrastructure that was there. Now, what do you do 
with the wood, once you have cut it?
    And that is one of the things that we are afraid of that 
could end up happening in the Lake States, if we keep seeing 
more restrictions on business. I mean, we have lost a lot of 
mills. Georgia is losing mills. Why is that? We are totally 
under pressure of foreign ownership of our mills, which I see 
is an issue, because even though we have the jobs and stuff 
here, they are not loyal to the United States in their jobs and 
in their forest management. They are obviously going to be 
loyal to the home country, just like we would be.
    But I think we really need to start looking at the 
regulation, and we need to start going back to science for 
forest management. I think that would be a big step in the 
right direction.
    Mr. Collins. Leading over into the pulp and paper industry 
side of it, I know you have different levels for different type 
of timber that you cut. Can you speak more, I was reading on 
the Level 2 maintenance versus the Level 3 maintenance on these 
roads that the timber industry is providing.
    Mr. Schienebeck. Yes. So, Level 2 maintenance applies to 
infrequently traveled, primitive roads that are drivable by 
high-clearance vehicles, used basically for transportation of 
timber. Those are usually too rugged for passenger cars. I 
think we saw an example of that today.
    Level 3 is assigned to roads that are drivable by standard 
passenger cars. Most are single-lane roads designed for low-
speed travel. And part or all of the road may be surfaced with 
native reprocessed material. We saw an example of that on the 
field trip today too. The one road actually had crushed granite 
for probably the first 100-150 yards, and then after that it 
was a lot of native material. And actually for forest 
management, you do not need a superhighway because you are not 
going to be going back in there for probably 20 or 25 years, or 
whatever the timber growth is.
    Mr. Collins. Right. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, before 
we finish up, too, we saw these roads. And the thing is, you 
are talking about a timber industry which has very little 
profit. And when you start making a timber company pay more to 
have a Level 3 maintenance road instead of a Level 2, that is 
going to take away from the profit to the point where they 
can't make any money on it. And then on top of that you make 
them go in there, and when they get through with it they are 
having to barricade these roads. We just saw that this morning, 
where no one has access to it. And it really does not make 
sense.
    And I think you hit the nail on the head when you first 
said it. It is over-regulation from Federal Governments that 
are out of control.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time, and I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Mr. Collins. I would put out 
this one little silver lining as I start my questioning, is 
that we are fortunate here with Chequamegon-Nicolet that it is 
probably the best managed in terms of timber management of the 
national forests in America. Now Jenn, I am not going to let 
you off the hook with that, but it is worth mentioning that the 
Chequamegon-Nicolet is probably the best managed. Oftentimes, 
we see the most harvest coming off from the forest here in the 
Upper Great Lakes states, including the Chequamegon-Nicolet, 
which is a good thing. And if you look back to 10 years ago, I 
know when we were raising these issues when I was in the State 
Legislature, we have gotten better since then on the national 
forests.
    So, that is a ray of sunshine that is going on, but to me, 
the dividing line was in 1988, when they decided to go to a 
preservationist mentality at the Federal level, rather than a 
management mentality. And ever since then, we have seen the 
decline in harvest that has gone on across the United States of 
America. And we also have a very good graph. I don't think we 
have it along with us. While we see this decline in harvest, we 
see an upward climb on that same graph of the number of fires 
and the amount of fire here in America, especially in the West. 
There really is not a reason for that to be the case.
    Senator Stafsholt, we really appreciate the tour that you 
gave for us today. Could you kind of summarize what you showed 
us today and the concerns that you have been raising, certainly 
with my office, and over the last, what, 30 years that you have 
been coming up here?
    Mr. Stafsholt. Sure, and I appreciate you guys taking the 
time to come on the tour so we could show you some real 
examples. I think that is time well spent.
    What I tried to do today was show you some recent logging 
jobs that had concluded. In those jobs, we showed how the roads 
had been improved, both with new culverts, large rocks to 
prevent erosion, as well as gravel on top of the roads, and 3-
inch crushed rock on the roads, and then also the berm that was 
put over the end of those roads once the logging job is 
concluded.
    We went to a couple of other sites that had been closed off 
some time ago, and I think it is important to notice that we 
talk about how we closed them off and some of them are deemed 
foot travel only, but we looked at some of those that had grown 
so shut that foot travel wasn't even possible. And I think 
Henry here talked about it, as we keep these roads for future 
harvest, we are going to have to bulldoze them right back out 
like they were never even there. So, leaving those roads open 
for access for the public maintains those roads better than it 
does closing them down. That is kind of what we tried to show 
you today.
    Mr. Tiffany. We have heard from some people, as a 
justification for doing this, that the roads get rutted up. If 
you just allow public unfettered access you are going to end up 
with roads that are all rutted up. You are going to see people 
just tearing through the forest, tearing it up.
    Was that your experience 20 to 30 years ago?
    Mr. Stafsholt. Sure, that is a great question. I am just an 
old farm kid, but we build these roads to hold 80,000-pound 
logging trucks, so suggestions that a 5,000- or 6,000-pound 
passenger vehicle is going to make them impassible and 
extinguish them seems a little crazy to me. Are there some that 
have mud puddles on them that we drive through? Absolutely. But 
if you are talking about overall erosion and things of that 
nature, they are built to withstand 18-wheeler log trucks. So, 
over time, over the last 20 or 30 years, I have just seen a 
continued reduction in the access for all members of the public 
to use those roads.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Hilgemann, I was surprised to hear you say 
that, and I want to make sure that we clarify this, there were 
more deer taken by wolves in how many counties here in northern 
Wisconsin than by hunters?
    Mr. Hilgemann. Yes, that was a study that was done by a 
partner organization of ours called Wisconsin Wolf Facts. And 
they went in and looked at the number of deer that were 
harvested in five northern counties in comparison to the 
harvest by hunters. And what they found was, according to the 
science, yes, five northern counties here in northern Wisconsin 
had more deer harvested by wolves than by hunters for the first 
time in our state's history, since hunting has been allowed.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, with more predators, less access, what is 
happening in northern Wisconsin to the hunter?
    Mr. Hilgemann. The hunters are being pushed out. As a 
hunter who spent a significant amount of time up here in the 
North Woods, driving around on a lot of the roads that we just 
talked about, we saw 10 times more predator tracks than we did 
any other type of wildlife in forestlands that have been open 
for hunting for decades. And what that is doing is it is 
pushing hunters out. We are losing access, and my numbers 
indicate it. We have less participation from hunters buying 
licenses in the state of Wisconsin because we have an 
uncontrolled predator population that is killing the 
harvestable game that most hunters pursue.
    Mr. Tiffany. I always enjoy when I read the Wisconsin 
Outdoor News, you go back through the years and you look back 
50, 60 years ago at the deer poles that were put out, and 
people would have the picture of the deer hanging from their 
deer poles. And inevitably you would see it was communities 
here in northern Wisconsin that were in the subtitle, whether 
it was Siren or Spring Brook or wherever it may be. And you no 
longer see that happening. It has to have had a great economic 
impact. Is that right?
    Mr. Hilgemann. Without a doubt. And I think that is one of 
the areas of study that our organization is going to be looking 
a lot more into, is to figure out what has been the detriment 
of property values here in the North Woods of Wisconsin, where 
we see more For Sale signs up on hunting land that have been 
held for generations in this state, that now, because of a lack 
of deer to hunt, are being put on the market. We are losing a 
generation of people that have passed on these traditions here 
in this state, and it is a real detriment to our local economy.
    And all you have to do is look around up here during the 
winter months, when usually the bars, the restaurants, and the 
hotels are busy, packed with hunters. That is just not 
happening anymore.
    Mr. Tiffany. If I may take the liberty, isn't there also an 
environmental impact to this?
    Mr. Hilgemann. Without a doubt.
    Mr. Tiffany. Because people will say, ``OK, sure, it has an 
economic impact. But this is benefiting the environment by 
reducing the access, by having these predators on the 
landscape. That while there may be an economic impact, it is 
simply benefiting the environment.''
    Mr. Hilgemann. Again, what you have to look at is the 
number of animals that you don't see up here anymore. The 
diversity of the ecosystem has gone down as a result of an 
overpopulation of predators. I spent some time with Senator 
Stafsholt, touring around Iron County, where it used to be one 
of the biggest populations of hunters in the state of 
Wisconsin. This year they harvested and registered 330 deer in 
Iron County, total, 330 deer.
    So, you go from a population that used to be in the 
thousands now down to 330, clearly that is going to have an 
environmental impact. And worse yet, what people in the 
southern part of the state don't realize is that those animals, 
those predators, are starting to move further south. And that 
is one of the biggest problems we have with our wolf-counting 
operation here, or statistics and science here in Wisconsin, is 
we don't count wolves that move into the southern part of the 
state. It is not even a consideration.
    Mr. Tiffany. If I may, I am going to continue with a couple 
more minutes. I am going to take another round of questioning, 
and I am going to kick it off here.
    Senator Stafsholt, aren't we actually, by reducing access, 
you have a lot of different people that utilize the forest, 
right, I mean, for a variety of purposes. Are we starting to 
push those people together in terms of the user groups, where 
sometimes you will have conflicts?
    Mr. Stafsholt. Sure. As representatives of the public, when 
we have a public asset like our national forests, or our public 
lands, I think it is our responsibility to try to reduce user 
conflict as much as possible. We looked at a lot of roads 
today. I think your average bow hunter for deer would just as 
soon drive in off a main fire lane and park in there and find a 
deer stand. He is being forced back out to the main fire lane.
    I spent a lot of time at Clam Lake, Wisconsin. There are 
some local ladies up there that like to go out and pick the 
raspberries when they are in season, and they tell me the best 
spot to do that is at the end of a dead-end road where the log 
landing was because it is open, there are no trees over the top 
of it, and that is where the best crop is. And you are forcing 
them out to the main fire lanes too.
    Bear hunters are forced out to the main fire lanes. They 
would just as soon have their hunting locations not out on the 
main road.
    Basically, we take all these groups, and again, back in the 
day when we had a high deer population we had a ton of people 
up here deer hunting during the 9-day gun deer season. We had 
to have all those roads to kind of get people to be able to 
spread out. It is not such an issue now anymore because we have 
lost a whole ton of hunters because we don't have the deer 
population.
    But we literally force all of the user groups onto the main 
fire lanes, and that increases user conflict.
    Mr. Tiffany. With the advent of so many predators, 
including wolves, hasn't that also reduced the number of game 
animals? I hear anecdotally from hunters, you see far fewer 
snowshoe hares than you used to, as well as grouse hunters are 
starting to now become very concerned about bringing their dogs 
to northern Wisconsin, which if you go right over to Park 
Falls, as you well know, rough grouse capital of the world, 
where some grouse hunters will no longer come to northern 
Wisconsin because of the number of wolves. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Stafsholt. Yes. In my time at Clam Lake, like I said, I 
have grown up there. We spent all of our family recreation 
time. I remember back in the day when there were lots and lots 
of groups of bird hunters that would come from Kentucky, 
Georgia, Alabama, the Carolinas, Tennessee. They would come up 
for a couple, 3 weeks at a time and bird hunt. And all of those 
guys, they are not used to dealing with wolves down home, so 
they are in fear, and they don't come anymore. That, combined, 
I think, with some of the access issues.
    There used to be a big group that used to camp out on Fire 
Lane 182, that we went by today and we didn't point that out. 
But they used to pull off into a clearing that was part of the 
old E.L.F. site, and they would set up camp there. And because 
they would park off the road for safety they were told they 
couldn't park in there. So, that whole group doesn't come here 
anymore. I actually found them. They are over by Gordon, on 
County Line.
    Mr. Tiffany. That is really taking us way back, when you 
bring back the E.L.F. site.
    Mr. Stafsholt. I didn't suggest to bring back the E.L.F. 
site.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. For sure.
    Mr. Taylor, are we meeting the multi-use mandate at this 
point? Is the Federal Government meeting the multiple use 
mandate?
    Mr. Taylor. That, to me, is an interesting question. It is 
easy to say no, but what I would like to highlight is I have 
had the opportunity to work with a lot of great land management 
folks in the Forest Service, BLM, and we are basically ending 
up with silos. We have some recreation staff who are firmly 
committed to recreation goals, and who really want to see 
opportunities for OHV and other recreational access occur on 
their lands. But then you have other staff who are not focused 
on recreation, who are focused on wildfire or climate 
resilience, or those sorts of things. And they do not seem to 
all have the same ideas.
    I think what we really need to ensure we have our multiple 
use mandate met is to get everybody on the same page. And there 
are ways to provide for recreation that can meet resiliency 
goals, that can help us fight wildfires, and that can make the 
forests more sustainable and more healthy in the future. And if 
we do that we can absolutely meet our multiple use goals.
    Mr. Tiffany. Some people view this just as recreation as a 
use and do not say that there is a benefit. Talk a little bit 
about that, those two things, use versus benefit.
    Mr. Taylor. Sure. To some extent, of course, it is a use, 
but there are all these myriad benefits that aren't sort of 
readily apparent. Most of us who love the outdoors love it 
because we have a chance to get out there. You have heard most 
of the panelists today talk about their personal experience 
getting outside and seeing something. Well, if we lock up lands 
and eliminate recreation or other ways to get out there, we are 
not going to be growing future stewards of our public land. We 
need to make sure that young people get out there and see it.
    And by the way, young people get a bad rap a lot of times 
from gray-haired people like me. But I find that when we have 
young people in the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management, other land management agencies, they want to go on 
an ATV ride one day, they want to fish the next day, they want 
to hike the next day, they want to do it all. So, if we give 
them room to say, hey, let's not only allow for this 
recreational use, let's find a way to make sure this 
recreational use helps us meet our resilience goals, I think we 
could go a long way.
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield and turn to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Mr. Taylor, thanks for 
those comments. I agree that the multiple use concept can be 
met. But you have to remember, and I think you know this, there 
are bureaucrats in these agencies that have been there for 
years, and they do not want to change, and that is a 
frustrating thing. And that is why I think these hearings are 
very important.
    Senator, I appreciate your tour today. And one of the 
things that I find striking is these logging roads that went in 
where they harvested the timber, they came out, they are really 
nice logging roads. And then you see the berm built up. And, in 
fact, one of them, you said that you normally could walk or 
drive your 4-wheeler to a beautiful trout lake, which now they 
are probably not going to walk 2\1/2\ miles in to the trout 
lake. So, you have lost most of the trout fishing, you have 
lost the ability for the ATV-ers to drive down there.
    And it is frustrating because it is taxpayer money that 
helped put that road in, and the loggers are not able to get 
their last dumpage check until that road is checked off. And 
Mr. Taylor brings up the youth. We all remember where we were 
when we shot our first deer. We all remember specifically where 
we shot our first grouse. I have six children. I want them to 
enjoy this. And when you restrict access like this and you make 
it more difficult, we are not growing those recreational 
opportunities.
    And it is not just here in Minnesota and northwest 
Wisconsin. It is across the nation. And I think that leadership 
at the Federal level really needs to understand that. I am not 
so sure they do.
    And I want to talk to you, Senator, about the economic 
benefits. We talked about the ATVs and the hunters. I know that 
in Minnesota the 2 weeks or 3 weekends, it used to be just busy 
up in northern Minnesota. These businesses are hurting right 
now because the young hunters aren't coming. The old ones 
aren't seeing anything because of the wolf issue. Talk to me 
more about the economic issue here in northwest Wisconsin.
    Mr. Stafsholt. Yes, and we toured a couple of spots where I 
know there used to be deer camps that would show up, and they 
were third-generation deer camps. And a couple of things have 
happened. Those camps aren't there anymore. They don't show up 
anymore.
    In the National Forest you can camp for up to, I believe, 
21 days in one spot without moving, and people used to come up 
for the deer season and they would do that. And two things have 
kind of happened. One, the depletion of the population of deer 
and the things that they are here to hunt. A lot of those folks 
come from southern Wisconsin, maybe from the Twin Cities of 
Minnesota, and they drive from areas that are farmland, that 
have more deer, and they see deer every night at home. It is 
hard to get that youth to come up here for 9 days in northern 
Wisconsin where it is a little colder, and the snow is a little 
deeper, and stay in a tent, and they do not see any deer.
    The second thing that has happened is some of those camps 
are in locations, and we pointed out some today, where they 
used to be able to camp. They could pull their vehicle off the 
road, and the policy has been if it is not on the Travel Use 
Map that vehicle cannot be off the main fire line, so they have 
to put their vehicles back out on the road. It is not safe for 
them. It is not safe for the log trucks going back. Everybody 
would be in a better spot if they could just pull off and camp 
where they are going to camp.
    Mr. Stauber. Grouse hunting is very important, all 
recreation but grouse hunting, in particular. My mother is from 
Glidden, Wisconsin. My mother is 89. She still grouse hunts. My 
father is 91. They still grouse hunt. And they started down 
near Glidden, and it is near and dear to their hearts.
    When we talk about recreational opportunities, I can tell 
you the three of us on this panel understand it. We have to get 
more people educated on how awesome it is. For those of us who 
represent rural America, I think it is important that we have 
conversations like this.
    In just my time left, I can't remember which panelist 
mentioned this, but you talked about overburdened rules and 
regulations. I have to tell you, under this Administration, 
thus far, there has been $400 billion, and that is with a B, 
$400 billion of additional rules and regulations on American 
small businessmen and women, and I am looking at them right 
here. I mean, that is challenging.
    Mr. Dougherty, when you talk about an extra several 
thousand dollars a year, just because of rules and regulations, 
you add that up year after year, and then other resort owners, 
that is a lot of money, and I think that some folks just don't 
think it is worth it, and leave the resort business, et cetera. 
We don't want that. We want to grow it. And we live in the 
North Woods and Midwest for a reason. We want to be able to go 
out our door and get on the best walleye lake or the best 
grouse hunting within minutes of our home. That is why we live 
here.
    And I want to thank all the panelists for coming and 
sharing your experience with us, and Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Mr. Collins, would you 
like to take a few more minutes for questions?
    Mr. Collins. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I 
think I should get 8 minutes because I talk a lot slower, but 
we are not going to argue too much about it.
    Look, I want to pick up right where Congressman Stauber 
left off, and that is focusing on these regulations. Mr. 
Dougherty, I would love to hear just a little more, because I 
read your testimony, about water rights, and about the frozen 
lakes and how they are taking the state land.
    Mr. Dougherty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Water 
rights in Minnesota is an interesting topic. In our Minnesota 
state constitution, all of the water in the state is held in 
trust for the citizens of Minnesota. It is a non-negotiable 
item. They can't sell it. They can't give it away. It is held 
in trust for the citizens of Minnesota.
    And there was a recent court case in Alaska. I believe it 
was called Sturgeon v. U.S.A.. And there is an exemption now in 
CFR 36 for the state of Alaska, where the state water rights 
were reaffirmed. We feel that this solution that we are 
offering is viable. It is a heavy lift, but it would certainly 
solve a lot of our problems in Voyageurs, because it was never 
intended that they would have jurisdiction over the waters in 
Minnesota.
    The DNR is behind us. On your packet of supporting 
documents, there are comments from Shelly Patten, who is the 
Northeast Director for the Minnesota DNR. We conferred with 
Mrs. Patten on our testimony here, and she is all on board. The 
state of Minnesota is on board with it. Senator Hauschild read 
a resolution in the Senate just a couple of weeks ago, in the 
Minnesota Senate. That resolution passed. And we are going to 
keep moving with this, with the fact that we never relinquished 
and ceded the jurisdiction to those rights.
    Mr. Collins. I appreciate that. Mr. Hilgemann, I was 
reading in yours, you were talking about streamlining the 
permitting process on the other side, for hunting and fishing 
activities on Federal lands. I didn't know if you wanted to 
mention a little bit of that.
    Mr. Hilgemann. Yes. When we look at nationwide, when you 
look at the reasons why hunters are walking away from the 
sport, complex regulations is usually one or two, depending on 
your source. And for us, when it comes to those regulations, I 
think the perfect illustration of this is here in Wisconsin. 
When we started hunting deer we had a one-page regulation, one 
page. It was one page. Now our regulation is 73 pages for 
hunting deer, and it says on the bottom, in very small print, 
that this is not the regulations in their entirety. You are 
supposed to go to Statute Chapter 73 for the full book. It is 
over 200 pages of regulation just to hunt deer in Wisconsin. 
You feel like you need to walk into the woods with an attorney 
to tell you what you can shoot, what you can't shoot, and when. 
And that is the type of regulations that we have to get a grasp 
on, because it is one of the leading drivers as to why the next 
generation is not taking up this sport.
    Mr. Collins. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I know I 
don't have much time left, but I want to tell you, I think you 
all have been hitting the nail on the head in what we have been 
seeing is the problem here. And I have had the opportunity to 
go all over the country and do field hearings, whether it be on 
mining issues, Mr. Stauber, whether it be on border issues, 
whether it be on fisheries, just all over.
    When we sit up here and we sit across from communities, and 
we look at business owners and families, I see the concern and 
I see the worry, not just for you, not just for your business, 
but for the next generation. Because all small businesses are 
generational, and they are family businesses.
    And the problem is very easy. I think it has even been 
mentioned here over and over. It is an over-reaching, out of 
control Federal bureaucracy. And it has been that way as far as 
I can remember. And I think it picked up steam during the Obama 
administration. It is Federal agencies that feel like they 
don't have to answer to anyone.
    We have passed good legislation. Mr. Hilgemann, you are 
exactly right. We passed tons of legislation. You notice we 
don't have anybody from the other side of the aisle sitting 
here today? We have legislation that has been sitting in the 
Senate for 300-plus days that they won't take up. They don't 
plan on taking it up. It is because there is a socialistic 
movement out there. There is a socialistic movement to get 
everybody on the same page to where you don't want to hunt, to 
where you don't want to own guns, to where you just want to be 
urbanized, where you want to live in apartments and everybody 
be the same. Just earn enough money just to get by, and then 
let the Federal Government take care of you from that point on.
    Well, I have news for you. We can do things in Congress. 
One of the big things we can do right now is pass 
appropriations. If we do our appropriation bills and we do our 
job in Congress, then we can rein in some of these crazy 
regulations that are killing us out there, either you 
personally or small businesses.
    So, Congress needs to wake up and do their job. We need to 
do that in the House. That is what we fail at doing.
    Another thing, we have the REINS Act out there, Mr. 
Chairman. That needs to be passed. I encourage you. Write these 
down and make sure that the people who represent you understand 
that, and call folks that don't.
    And the last thing I think we need out there to rein in 
these environmentalists that are putting up lawsuit after 
lawsuit, we need some good tort reform in this country, to 
where when these people bring up these crazy lawsuits, by God, 
we can get money back from them when they lose these suits, 
because all they do is flip over to the next one, just bottom 
fishing.
    The other good thing I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I 
think there is change coming in this country, and it is coming 
fast. Be here in November. With that, I am sorry I went over, 
but I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I appreciate Mr. 
Hilgemann's comments in regard to solutions. I would turn to 
Mr. Schienebeck. Tell us what you think would be a few 
solutions here to the concerns that we have brought up here 
today in regard to access to Federal lands.
    Mr. Schienebeck. That is a big question. There is a lot 
that can be done, and regulation is something we have talked 
about.
    We have lost a lot of our pulp industry in the state of 
Wisconsin. We have lost that because we are not competitive. We 
are not competitive with transportation. We don't have rail. In 
fact, we have lost more rail in this state than we have gained 
for quite a few years, and that was a big part of it.
    Meanwhile, I am seeing other countries build new pulp mills 
and export that over here without any regulation attached to 
it, no tariffs, whatever. I think that is one thing, but the 
regulation, I will just give you one example. When Huber 
Industries decided not to build in Minnesota, after 2\1/2\ 
years of trying to get that mill permitted to build, I called 
the owner of Huber up and I asked him, ``Why not Wisconsin?'' 
And what he said to me was, ``We are going to go someplace 
where we can get that done in much quicker time.'' And I did 
talk to another gentleman about building a new pulp mill in the 
state of Wisconsin and he said it would be $2 billion. And he 
is a retired environmental engineer, after 35 years. But he 
said, ``That's not the problem. The problem is that it would 
take 10 years to get it permitted.'' 10 years.
    When Huber left Minnesota, they went down south and they 
got that thing done in 8 months, 8 months from start to finish 
to get a brand new mill built. Why aren't we doing that here? 
And we are lucky that we have the infrastructure we have, so 
transportation is one thing that could be done. I think 
removing some of the regulation. I mean, it is no secret right 
now the Forest Service, I think they are about $5.3 billion 
behind in their infrastructure. A lot of that started during 
the sequester period, under the Obama administration, when the 
sequester was supposed to see a cut of 2.6 percent across the 
board. They actually saw a 13 percent cut across the board, 
which has led to some of what we are seeing today with these 
roads.
    But, ultimately, I don't think we need to be maintaining a 
lot of these Class 1 and Class 2 roads. I don't know why they 
are not open, because they don't need much maintenance. They 
are just forest roads, right, so why aren't we able to use 
them?
    I think attracting some industry here, making sure that we 
have a place. I mean, we are growing 2.7 times more timber than 
we are harvesting. We are going to run into more problems with 
forest regeneration. We are going to run into more problems 
with a lot of different things.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are we growing over twice as much timber as we 
are harvesting?
    Mr. Schienebeck. Absolutely.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is that in Wisconsin?
    Mr. Schienebeck. That is all over.
    Mr. Tiffany. Nationwide?
    Mr. Schienebeck. If you look at the Forest Inventory 
Analysis, we are losing more timber to mortality than we are to 
harvesting. That is a big number. And we can't even get a 
cotton-picking renewable fuel standard passed. We have a lot of 
companies that want to make fuel from wood, right. We can't 
even get regulations. We have two people hanging us up in the 
EPA. Why is that? And Congress is not allowed any oversight on 
that? To me, that is almost a crime that Congress isn't being 
able to have some oversight on those regulation when the EPA 
passes them, and driving our costs up. Ridiculously high.
    So, I think those are a couple of things that could be 
done, rein in the Environmental Protection Agency. I mean, we 
have rules for a reason, and some of the permits that we are 
not getting are not because of the rules. It is just simply 
because of the time that is being stalled to get the permits 
done. I mean, I have a hard time contacting people in agencies 
anymore because ever since COVID they are not in their offices, 
and that has made it difficult. That adds a lot of time onto 
what we are doing and what we are trying to get accomplished.
    And Representative Stauber, you mentioned before about 
these roads and stuff. A lot of times I look at these roads and 
I am thinking, what is more important, a little bit of gravel 
and maybe some roadwork to fix the road up or freedom to 
actually be able to use them? To me that is a big deal.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your comments. Any closing 
comment you want to make, Senator Stafsholt?
    Mr. Stafsholt. Again, I would just like to show my 
appreciation for you guys coming here. It is important that you 
come to sparsely populated northern Wisconsin to see what is 
truly going on, and I appreciate that.
    One of the things that has been talked about is where do we 
go from here, and I guess my suggestion would be that we have 
some interaction between the forestry and maybe local folks, or 
maybe local user groups. We would like to have some input onto 
what roads are closed or which ones are open, hopefully some 
roads that are opening back up. And I would volunteer to be a 
part of that.
    Mr. Tiffany. We appreciate that very much, and that, I 
think, would go to the issue of coordination, which we won't 
open that up right now or we will be here for another couple of 
hours, which is a very important issue.
    I want to thank Committee staff who helped put this 
together today. Thank you very much for the time and effort 
that you put into this and coming to Wisconsin. I want to thank 
the House recording studio for joining us today and making the 
trip from DC. I hope you enjoyed your trip here to northern 
Wisconsin.
    With that, thank you, witnesses, for your testimony, and 
Members for your questions.
    Members of the Committee may have some additional questions 
for our witnesses today, and we will ask that you respond to 
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Thursday, May 16, 2024. The hearing record will be held 
open for 10 business days for those responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee on Natural Resources stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]