Oversight Hearing on Invasive Species, Polar Bear Trophies, SD Water, Cormorants

The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will come to order. Good morning everyone. I want to welcome members, witnesses and our guests in the audience to today's hearing. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under committee rule 4F, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chair and ranking 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 3O. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the congressman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, and the congressman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. We are here today to consider four legislative measures. H.R. 4219, National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Case of Hawaii. H.R. 6251, to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before the date the polar bear was determined to be a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, sponsored by Representative Begich of Alaska. H.R. 7288, the Western South Dakota Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act, sponsored by Representative Johnson of South Dakota. And H.R. 8195, the Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act of 2026, sponsored by Representative Walberg of Michigan. I now recognize myself for a five-minute opening statement. Today the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a legislative hearing on four bills. Our first bill, H.R. 6251, introduced by Congressman Begich of Alaska, deals with the importation of polar bear trophies. In 1994 Bill Clinton signed legislation to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act. That legislation allowed U.S. citizens to import polar bears that were taken as part of lawful sport hunts in Canada. However, in 2008, the polar bear was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. That listing halted the import of these polar bear trophies and as a result, there are 41 hunted polar bear trophies that remain in Canada. H.R. 6251 would allow these polar bear trophies that were taken in sport hunts in Canada prior to the polar bear listing in 2008 to be imported into the United States. Each polar bear that is imported would be subject to a permit fee. Importantly, these fees collected would help fund ongoing efforts to support polar bear conservation in the Arctic. Another bill we'll be considering today is Congressman Dusty Johnson's legislation, H.R. 7288, that would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study for the Western South Dakota Water Supply Project. Like many other parts of the country experiencing population growth, the western side of South Dakota is experiencing increased demand for water resources. The feasibility study authorized by Congressman Johnson's legislation would allow for further analysis of the Western South Dakota Water Supply Project's costs and benefits. I appreciate Congressman Johnson's work on this legislation to improve water supply reliability for his constituents. Our third bill, H.R. 8195, introduced by Congressman Tim Walberg of Michigan, is the Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act of 2026. This legislation seeks to counter a growing problem in the Great Lakes region and around the country, the rise of the double-crested cormorant, a bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act whose populations have soared in recent decades, leading to the decline of other populations in this ecosystem. This subcommittee is no stranger to the conflicts between overabundant cormorant populations and fish species. Cormorants have threatened commercial aquaculture operations and put immense pressure on free-swimming fish populations. Congressman Walberg's bill would establish true population-level management by requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop regional management frameworks for the take of cormorants in consultation with the existing regional flyway councils. The bill requires these frameworks to be managed in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and updated every five years based on population surveys to ensure sustainable cormorant populations. I thank Congressman Walberg for his ongoing leadership on this issue. And our last bill, introduced by Congressman Ed Case of Hawaii, seeks to revise the invasive species strike teams within the Fish and Wildlife Service, which control for emerging invasive species within the National Wildlife Refuge System. With that, I want to thank the witnesses and our members for being here today and I yield back. I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyle for her opening statement.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today we're discussing four bills on wildlife invasive species and water scarcity. As we continue to see the impacts of climate change and drought, it's more important than ever to manage our natural resources using science and collaboration. First, I support Representative Case's bipartisan H.R. 4219, the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act, and I appreciate that it was included in today's hearing. This bill codifies the Fish and Wildlife Service's invasive species strike team initiative. These strike teams provide Fish and Wildlife Service with additional support to protect national wildlife refugees from threat of invasive species. Invasive species damages cost the United States an estimated $138 billion annually. Investing in early eradication, management and outreach will end up saving money and saving our ecosystem. Strike teams have already had success stories. They work to eradicate the crazy ant on the Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, an important habitat for native seabirds. In Oregon, strike team funds have supported a 75-acre invasive plant removal and wetland restoration project at the Siletz Bay Refuge. The program facilitates a holistic and localized approach to invasive species management that I hope to see maintained and deployed at additional sites across the country. H.R. 7288, the Western South Dakota Water Supply Project Feasibility Studies Act, directs the Secretary of the Interior in coordination with the Western Dakota Regional Water System to study the viability of a project to supply municipal and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System. This study is an important step towards ensuring reliable water access for communities in western South Dakota, particularly as the water system is responding to population growth and drought. Next, H.R. 6251 amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow polar bear trophies to be imported to the United States if they were taken in a sport hunt in Canada before the species was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. I'm concerned this bill is asking agency personnel to review old disputed and dated facts around a hunt and decide whether narrow exemptions apply. And given the short, how shortly staffed this agency is, I don't know that this is where they should be spending their time. Again, if we can fully staff these agencies, I'm more than happy to have them expand the duties that they have. Lastly, H.R. 8195, the Responsible Cormorant Management Control Act of 2026, directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop regional frameworks to manage the double-crested cormorant population. In many places in Oregon, our fish populations have been decimated by cormorants, so I would like to see us move forward and I do recognize the importance of population management. But we also need to ensure we're looking at the full picture in these places. Overrun with cormorants, our end goal should be rebalancing habitats instead of just signing up lake managers for lethal cormorant removal. We should look at methods to rehabilitate fish habitats in coastal areas to deter cormorants from colonizing them in the first place. I look forward to hearing more about the bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a comprehensive and balanced solution to this very real problem. And I thank our witnesses for being here today. I yield back.

Thank you. I do want to let the everyone here know that we will have votes at 11:30. So I'm hoping that we can keep this fairly tight and perhaps finish the entire hearing before we head over to the Capitol. I will now introduce our first panel and as is typical with legislative hearing, the bill sponsors are recognized for five minutes each to discuss their bills. I now recognize Congressman Begich for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairwoman Hageman, for the opportunity to waive onto the subcommittee today. I appreciate your willingness to include H.R. 6251 on this hearing's agenda and I want to briefly explain what this bill does and more importantly, what it does not do. H.R. 6251 is a narrow targeted fix for a straightforward problem. In 2008, the Interior Department listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Because any ESA-listed marine mammal is automatically considered depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, that listing froze all pending import permit applications, including 41 from American hunters who had already legally taken bears in Canada before the listing date. Let me be clear about who these 41 hunters are. They played by the rules, they hunted under a science-based program that FWS had formally approved as sustainable, paid their fees and submitted their applications. Then through no fault of their own, the regulatory ground shifted beneath them, not because of anything they did wrong, but because of the timing of an administrative decision. The bill before us does not authorize any new harvest, does not change Canada's management program and does not alter the polar bear's ESA status. It simply allows the Secretary of the Interior to issue import permits for bears already legally taken from the same populations under the same standards the service had approved for over a decade. Deputy Director Miko will speak to the administrative position on this legislation and Ms. Demboski, sorry, Demboski from Safari Club International will speak to the legal history and conservation record that underpin the bill. The MMPA has always balanced conservation with the rights of American hunters who engage in lawful sustainable wildlife harvest. H.R. 6251 restores that balance for 41 Americans who have been waiting nearly two decades for a remedy that is both simple and just. I urge the subcommittee to move this bill forward and yield back the balance of my time.

I now recognize Congressman Johnson for five minutes.

Thanks, Chair Hageman. Thanks, Ranking Member Hoyle. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to testify on my bill today. I wish all my friends on the committee, on the subcommittee, could live in western South Dakota. We don't really want all of you there specifically, but I wish you really understood what an unbelievable national resource this is. You've got the world-famous Black Hills of South Dakota, you've got the eerie Badlands, you've got vibrant Rapid City, South Dakota, you've got three great colleges, you've got Ellsworth Air Force Base. You have some of the most important cattle-producing ground in our country. Why do I mention all these great national assets? And it's because they are at risk. Western South Dakota faces a clear and growing water challenge. For generations we have relied on the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers for water. As Ms. Kahn's written testimony before you describes though, these aquifer sources aren't sustainable. They're finite, they're increasingly stressed and they're highly dependent on precipitation. Groundwater withdrawals have increased a lot and frankly, drought conditions push these aquifers to their limits. And at the same time, this is we've got a I think a national obligation to make sure that Ellsworth Air Force Base, which is going to be the home of the new B-21 Raider, which will be the backbone of our nation's future bomber fleet, we have an obligation to make sure that it it has water when it needs it. This is not just a local priority. It's a national security imperative. And so the bill before you is a responsible solution. It authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on delivering Missouri River water to the Western Dakota Regional Water System. I got to tell you this is not a leap into the great unknown. We're not asking the federal government to do it on its own. Local and state partners have been laying really substantial groundwork in for years. Over the past five years, they've organized a regional coalition, completed initial engineering and planning, and received commitments for more than $10 million in state and local funding. South Dakotans understand how important this project is and and we're stepping up and are looking forward to having a partnership with the federal government as well. One final note, there are a tremendous number of federally managed lands all that are in Western South Dakota. And so this water project is also going to make it easier for the federal government to take care of its obligations in national forests, grasslands, parks, and this is an important project for that as well. Madam Chair, I would ask permission to submit for the record a document containing letters of support, maps, and additional information on the project.

Without objection.

Very good and with that I want to thank the committee again for this hearing and I look forward to working with you all to pass this into law.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And I want to thank all of the members for their testimony. I will now introduce our second panel, Mr. Dave Miko, the acting deputy director for operations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, D.C. Under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone and as you know we use timing lights. When you begin the light will turn green, when you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow, and at the end of five minutes, the light will turn red and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I now recognize Mr. Miko for five minutes.

Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Dave Miko, and I am the acting deputy director for operations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on three bills of interest for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The service supports the goals of H.R. 8195, which would require the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate with the four regional flyway councils to establish regional management frameworks for the take of double-crested cormorants. The service recognizes the negative impacts cormorants can have on property, businesses, people, and fisheries. We work with our partners to minimize this damage and issue permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the lethal take of cormorants to mitigate impacts to property, aquaculture, fish hatcheries, and other resources. H.R. 8195 would expand on the service's existing work with regional flyway councils on monitoring and managing cormorant populations. It also requires the service to identify management actions that could be conducted on the refuge system to support those management efforts. This legislation also clarifies that the service can and should be working with private pond and lake managers to mitigate the impacts of cormorants on stock ponds. The service will welcome the opportunity to work with the bill sponsor and the subcommittee to clarify certain provisions in the legislation to ensure effective implementation. The service supports H.R. 6251, which would extend the existing grandfather clause in the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies legally taken from approved populations in Canada before May 15, 2008. Any marine mammal listed under the ESA is considered depleted under the MMPA. Therefore, after polar bears were listed in 2008, the MMPA prevented the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies except for the grandfather clause for the hunts prior to February 18, 1997. While the service conducted extensive outreach to hunters prior to the final ESA listing rule, due to a court order requiring an immediate effective date, a few dozen MMPA import permit applications were not able to be processed in time and those hunters' trophies have been stuck for decades. H.R. 6251 would lift a long-standing unintended regulatory burden on those American hunters. The service supports the goals of H.R. 4219, which would codify and authorize funding for the refuge system invasive species strike team program established in 2004. The program takes a proactive approach to addressing invasive species on national wildlife refuges by focusing on prevention, early detection, and rapid response. This enables the service to target emerging invasive species before they become established, minimizing long-term ecological and economic damage. Strike teams work closely with partners to coordinate efforts across jurisdictions and landscapes, strengthening collective preparedness and response. Protecting America's natural resources from invasive species is a priority for the Trump administration and the service is committed to continuing our work with partners to address invasive species threats both on and off service lands. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you, I'd be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

I thank the witness for your testimony and I will now recognize the members for five minutes each for questioning. I'm going to start with myself. Mr. Miko, in your testimony, you mentioned that Congressman Begich's legislation would reduce regulatory burdens on lawful American hunters, which is a top priority of the Trump administration. What would be the conservation impact of allowing the importation of these lawfully hunted trophies? In other words, what would be the impact on the ground, if anything?

Appreciate that question, Chair. Impact on the ground would would there really be no impact, it would just allow these polar bears that have been stuck for decades in Canada to be legally brought across into the United States.

Okay. Under the current case-by-case permitting system for cormorants, many stakeholders experience a bureaucratic bottleneck that prevents timely action while fish stocks are actively being depleted. How would the regional management framework proposed in Mr. Walberg's legislation allow the service to move away from reactive piecemeal permitting and toward a more efficient streamlined approach that provides predictability for fish and wildlife managers?

Yes, appreciate the question and certainly understand the frustration with the public and private landowners and pond owners with managing cormorants. I do have some personal experience with cormorant management as a fisheries manager with Pennsylvania, state of Pennsylvania. We had challenges with cormorant management as well within our our hatchery system, having to install nets and other deterrent methods. It takes away resources that could be used elsewhere. With respect to shifting from a point-by-point deterrent process, this bill would allow for the setup and requires the setup of regional management frameworks that we would work alongside the flyway councils to understand the broad impacts of cormorant populations nationwide, would set up a framework that we could work on large geographic areas to deliver cormorant management applications, again providing relief broadly instead of at a point-by-point basis.

Okay. And finally, would you agree that this legislation would allow the service to focus more resources on long-term habitat conservation rather than on case-by-case approvals?

Yes, absolutely. Not only would improving the permitting process and providing more tools in the toolboxes this bill would do for us to manage cormorants more broadly, it would enable those staff to be able to focus on broader habitat needs across the service's priorities.

Okay. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Ms. Hoyle.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Miko, thank you for testifying today. I'd like to take some time to talk about invasive species management. This is something that in a bipartisan way we can all agree is something that we should get ahead of whenever possible. And in your testimony on H.R. 4219, you lay out the administration's support for addressing invasive species threats before they cause significant environmental and economic harm. I agree. Now in Oregon, we're very concerned about the quagga mussels. They're a small freshwater mussel that are spread rapidly across the United States, you know of it. And Oregon's one of the few states where they haven't taken root. You know, they harm local ecosystems, clog up dams, irrigation, other water infrastructure, making them a very costly species to fight once they take hold. In Idaho, they just spent $3 million chemically treating a 3.5-mile long stretch of the Snake River in an effort to eradicate the species. If those mussels reach Oregon, they'll hurt our waterways and cost taxpayers millions. So, earlier this year, state officials found quagga mussels on a boat entering Oregon for the first time, so it's an active threat. Unfortunately, my office has heard that the grants for the quagga zebra mussel action plan projects have been stuck in review for a few months with no updates on when those funds are going to be made available. And I know we're not the only state that this is happening to. Can you provide an update?

I appreciate that question and we certainly understand the importance of collaborative conservation. It's the cornerstone of how we do conservation across this country. We are within the service and in the department doing a thorough review of all the grants, grant applications, and grant packages that have been brought before us, making sure they align with the president's priorities as well as making sure we're spending taxpayer dollars wisely.

Okay. Well, thank you, but this is not an isolated problem. So, myself and other members of the Natural Resources Committee have been hearing from stakeholders that routine Fish and Wildlife Service grants are stuck in review. So, it's critical for this the quagga zebra mussel action plan grant awards to be released as soon as possible so local partners can do the prevention work during the peak recreational boating season. We also have five percent snowpack, so we have a massive drought. We can't afford another environmental disaster. And each day that goes by risks contamination. So, I understand that your agency has been hit by the massive cuts to to your staff, right? Under DOJ or whatever it is. And I know that there's a lot of work to be done by a limited amount of very dedicated people. Having said that, two questions. Can you tell us why it's taking so long to approve funding for routine projects that are bipartisanly supported, whose desk are these grant approvals stuck on? Because that seems to be the issue. And can you commit now to following up in writing to ensure these grant moneys don't get lost before it's too late?

Appreciate the follow-up question and I think that again we're looking at all the grant sites that come across to the service and to the department. Those grants are independent, they vary in size and scope, so we're doing a thorough review of those grants and I would be happy to follow up with you on specific grants of interest that you may have.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Miko. And I'm just going to make this point more clearly one more time. These are routine grants, these are really, really urgent because it will cost taxpayers more, our guides, our fishermen, the people that recreate on our rivers. It's going to cost us all a lot more money and time and pain. And what I'm asking is, can we please move things forward that really aren't controversial and are stuck somewhere on someone's desk because moving these things forward means that we can attend to the other much more complicated issues that I know arrive on your desk every day. Appreciate that. Thank you.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Begich from Alaska for five minutes.

Mr. Miko, just one question. The department acknowledges the 2008 listing unfairly penalizes hunters who follow the law. Does the Fish and Wildlife Service still have records identifying which of the 41 applications are outstanding at this time?

Appreciate the question. We do not have those specific records in our hands. Those records have our records retention act lasts for three years, so those records are no longer available to us. We are committed to helping those lawful hunters find those records that may be available, searching the Federal Register notices from when they first applied for their permits to help them connect those dots.

So we have a way of reconstructing that record.

We have a way to help those hunters find a path forward.

That's good. Okay. Thanks. I yield back.

Thank you. And I want to thank the witness. I would like to thank the witness for your testimony and the members for your questioning. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witness and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. And while the clerk is resetting the table, I will introduce the witnesses for our third panel today. Mr. John Jones, President of the Lochow Ranch Pond and Lake Management from Bryan, Texas. Ms. Kristin Conzet, Executive Director of Western Dakota Regional Water System from Rapid City, South Dakota. Ms. Christy Martin, Program Manager of the University of Hawaii's Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species from Honolulu, Hawaii. And Ms. Madeline Demaske, Litigation Associate for the Safari Club International from Windsor, Colorado. Under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone and as you heard previously, we use timing lights. And when you begin, the light will turn green. When you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow and at the end of five minutes, the light will turn red and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning. I now recognize Mr. Jones for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Miko, thank you for being here. The last time you were in front of the subcommittee, we had a back and forth about the sledgehammer that DOGE took to all federal agencies, but particularly the impact on your agency and its ability to be in fact efficient and get money out the door. And I want to kind of follow up on a different line but still around this efficiency issue, particularly as you've seen, my last understanding was 20 percent of your workforce was fired. So one of the best things that your agency does, I think we can agree on both sides of the aisle, is the grant making that goes to every single congressional district in this country. Between the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, NAWCA funds, National Wildlife Refuge funds, two particular projects in my district I'm very proud of, Holly Beach Farm received funding as well as good freshwater mussels, Madam Ranking Member, in the Patapsco River. Really important work on the ground in communities that need it. You do about $2 billion in grant funding across 8,000 separate grants. It's a really impressive number. But I want to ask you about a new rule that I can't find the rule, but I believe it's now implemented, which I'm going to get to in a moment, imposed by the Department of Interior that would require every grant over $50,000 to be signed off at the Secretary level. Now, last year, that meant about 7,000 of the 8,000, or 85 percent of all grants would now have to be signed off by the Secretary, which is a tremendous amount of work and is, I believe, going to hold up a whole lot of money that's important to these critical conservation programs in Republican and Democratic districts. So how has this rule impacted grant processing timelines? When was the rule made? How has it been communicated to grantees, states, and tribes?

I appreciate the question and certainly hear the frustration in your voice that I'm sure the frustration that you're feeling from your constituents. You know, just to go back to reminding folks that we, as you point out, receive a lot of grants at the Fish and Wildlife Service. Those grants are important to put conservation on the ground and we review all of those.

Are 7,000 grants being held up on the Secretary's desk right now?

We are working through the process within the Service, within the Department of Interior.

It's my understanding at least $190 million in grants and cooperative agreements are being held up, and that's just a portion of the $2 billion that we expect to get out the door. Again, the opposite of government efficiency here. I want to move on to the fact that the Code of Federal Regulations clearly states that agencies must include certain information in notices of funding opportunities, or what we call NOFOs, including details of the merit review process and the number of people the agency requires for reviews. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to enter into the record 2 CFR 200.205. And I've heard directly from my constituents that the new rule we just talked about where grants over $50,000 require Secretary-level approval has not been communicated to applicants, state governments, nonprofits, local governments. After looking at the newest NOFO release just a few weeks ago for the NAWCA grants in FY 26, there is zero reference to this new rule or any Secretary-level review. Madam Chair, I'd make a motion, I'm sorry I didn't let you rule on the last motion.

Yes, without objection.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to enter into the record the notice of funding opportunities for the NAWCA FY 26 funding as published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Without objection.

Thank you. In fact, after extensive research, this rule does not appear anywhere in Fish and Wildlife's publications, not as a formal rule or as an informal directive to the partners you work with every day. Again, I'm just to require the Secretary, who is very busy doing important work, whether I agree with all his decisions or not, to personally review 7,000 grant applications that we just talked about are every year. These are decades-old grants doing important work in every part, in every corner, Republican and Democratic parts of this country. Opposite of efficiency. My mind is kind of blown by this inefficiency here. What steps is the Department of Interior taking to inform applicants or even address this inefficiency?

I again appreciate the follow-up questions and we work through the NOFOs to alert, as you point out, those applicants of the...

One at a time? For all 8,000?

Through the NOFO process, we inform...

But if it's not in the publication I just entered into the record at the beginning of the NOFO, how are you communicating that to grantees?

We work through the NOFO process.

I just entered into the record the fact that you're not working through the NOFO process to communicate this issue. So I want to work with you on this. My constituents, as you can imagine, this is critical money that is often matched by local and state and nonprofits across this country. Critical work and I'm just astonished by this lack of efficiency. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. Florida has, gosh, dozens and dozens of wildlife refuges, including in Central Florida with Merritt Island, Lake Wales Ridge, St. Johns River, Archie Carr, Pelican Island, and of course, we know in South Florida and Southwest Florida, the Everglades and the Keys. Yeah, we take on a lot of invasive species, as you may know, sir. First, we have Burmese pythons, we have feral hogs, we have iguanas, even rhesus macaques, the monkeys, lionfish. What is U.S. Fish and Wildlife doing currently to help with these invasive species and how would H.R. 4219 that would increase the strike teams for invasive species help with this effort?

I appreciate that question and the strike teams are a vital tool in our toolbox to work with states and partners to combat the impact of invasive species. And Florida does have a large challenge with invasive species. The habitat and the climate is just ripe for those challenges. The strike teams and working with our partners allow us to identify invasions early in the process. As the Ranking Member pointed out, that's the time that we can be most effective, most efficient financially to take care of those invasive species. We work with the partners to develop innovative approaches to eradicate when we find these populations within those habitats. We don't want them to be. But this bill, we've got 21 strike teams within the Service, a strike team in every region of the Fish and Wildlife Service. And again, they are just positioned to not only work on wildlife refuges, but when asked by partners, work on partner lands, provide technical assistance, help spread those innovative opportunities and ideas to combat those species.

And Deputy Director Miko, we saw in the Gulf an attempt to waive the Endangered Species Act for Rice's whales and additional oil drilling there could affect manatees and sea turtles. What, if any, input did U.S. Fish and Wildlife have in this attempt to basically cancel the ESA for the Gulf of Mexico?

I appreciate the follow-up and I'm aware that the committee met, that they passed a motion there, but I'm unfamiliar with, was not involved in those conversations and be happy to follow up with you.

I do want to stress there's bipartisan opposition to that move in Florida with tourism being by far our largest industry along with agriculture. And so this is wholly inconsistent with the top industries of our state and the belief of the vast majority of our delegation. So I do want to express that as you all are in some of these rooms to fight for us because maybe people care, don't care about the Rice's whale, but they really care about the manatees. They really care about the sea turtles and we should care about all species, including the Rice's whale. Lately, we've seen a new challenge to the scrub jay, which is an endangered species, the Florida scrub jay. We had someone come down from the north, buy a bunch of scrub jay habitat and then now wants to delist the scrub jay. That person has been highlighted in infamy on the internet for trying to do that in Florida. We welcome people in Florida, but we don't like when people come to absolutely change our way of life for the worse. So what can the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service do to help protect the Florida scrub jay habitat, which is already protected under law? How can you enforce that? What can you all do to stop delisting based upon attempted technicalities?

I appreciate the question on the scrub jay and I'm unfamiliar with the details of that. Certainly, the Fish and Wildlife Service works through our refuge system to protect habitat for a variety of critical species, species that are listed, work through the Endangered Species Act provisions there to assure that development and other activities are in line and protect those species.

So in your opinion, will the U.S. Fish and Wildlife continue to defend the ESA? Because we have an individual who bought land knowingly and is just trying to end the species designation because he's saying they're not in interstate commerce. Now, of course, we have bird watchers who come in from across the country and hunters. So will the U.S. Fish and Wildlife continue to defend these designations that you all have already designated?

I appreciate the follow-up question and the Fish and Wildlife Service will absolutely work within the bounds of the law to administer the Endangered Species Act.

Thanks. I yield back.

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act. My name is John Jones, owner of Lochow Ranch Pond and Lake Management. I am here today testifying both as a professional fisheries biologist and as an advocate for the millions of private pond and lake owners across the United States who cannot be here. I have been actively involved in lake and pond management since 1998. I earned a degree in fisheries management from Texas A&M University and founded the company in 2003. Today we manage more than 10,000 private bodies of water across Texas and the surrounding states. I currently serve as the chair of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Freshwater Advisory Committee, past president of the Texas Aquaculture Association, and member of the Texas A&M Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management External Advisory Committee. I strongly support the Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act. This legislation would provide practical, science-based tools for managing double-crested cormorants while preserving the conservation successes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Double-crested cormorants are highly efficient predators that consume up to two pounds of fish per bird per day, roughly $50 worth at current retail baitfish prices. Flocks of 50 to 100 birds on a single pond can inflict thousands of dollars in damages in just one day. Once established, they can destroy years of careful fisheries management in a matter of days or weeks and permanently disrupt predator-prey relationships. In severely impacted waters, the only economically viable option is often to remove the remaining fish and completely restart the fishery. As a professional fisheries biologist, I have watched many, many dedicated landowners eventually abandon their management efforts after realizing they are fighting a battle they cannot win. Healthy public and private fisheries create lasting enjoyment for families, including my own four young children. When cormorant predation reduces fishing quality, it discourages the use of these waters and diminishes the recreational value that so many Americans cherish. Strong recreational fisheries drive angler participation, license sales, and essential conservation funding. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act successfully restored cormorant populations from historic lows, a genuine conservation achievement. However, that success now requires responsible stewardship. Since 2016 court decision, landowners, private managers, and state agencies have been left with very few effective tools to address site-specific damage. As a result, the stewards of more than two million private lakes across Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are largely defenseless. Non-lethal methods only provide temporary relief because cormorants quickly adapt. I am also keenly aware through my work with the Texas and National Aquaculture Associations that cormorants cause tens of millions of dollars in annual losses to American fish farms. These same farms are the source of most fish stocked into private waters, so their losses directly affect the availability of replacement fish for landowners. The Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act of 2026 follows a proven model already used successfully in waterfowl management through regional flyway councils. It would maintain healthy cormorant populations at the continental level while giving states the flexibility to manage localized overabundance where real conflicts exist. In closing, this legislation simply adds a much-needed practical tool to our toolbox. It will help both public and private waters stay productive, sustainable, and valuable for American families, rural economies, and our shared outdoor heritage. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I now recognize Representative Johnson to introduce Ms. Conzet.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I would just tell you if you want something important done in western South Dakota, your first call should be to Chris Conzet. She is a savvy and well-respected operator with expertise in public policy, economic development, and water infrastructure. I have known her a long time. We were both in the state house when she was in the state legislature and I was able to see week in and week out that this is a person whose word is solid, whose judgment is sound, and who gets things done. She is absolutely the right person to be leading the Western Dakota Water Project and we are excited to have her here today. Thank you and I yield.

Thank you. And I now recognize Ms. Conzet for five minutes.

Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and committee members of this subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to come and testify on H.R. 7288 today. My name is Kristin Conzet and I am the executive director of Western Dakota Regional Water System. First, we would like to greatly thank your staff members, not only for our delegation, but your committee staff members for giving us assistance in professionalism throughout the process. H.R. 7288 is a feasibility study bill. It does not authorize construction. It directs the BOR to determine whether long-term municipal, rural, industrial water supply project to bring Missouri River water to western South Dakota is feasible. The Missouri River is our state's greatest natural resource. Allowing western South Dakota to access it is the next logical and necessary step. Western South Dakota faces a growing water security risk. It is one of the only major regions in the state without a reliable long-term water supply to meet community, rural, agricultural, economical, tribal, and national defense needs. Existing groundwater sources, the Madison and the Minnelusa aquifers, are finite, precipitation dependent, and under increased stress. A 2025 U.S. Geological Survey confirms these aquifers remain essential but limited. Withdrawals have increased roughly 33 percent since the 90s, reaching about 50,000 acre-feet annually, with increasing stress identified across the Black Hills region. Those sources are valuable, but they are not sufficient for long-term water security. The need is regional and significant. Western Dakota's footprint is 51,000 square miles across 22 counties. This is the home of roughly 375,000 residents, including 53,000 tribal members. Our 49-member strong coalition includes 30 public water systems and reflects a shared understanding that this challenge requires a coordinated regional solution at this time. The concept is straightforward. Western Dakota has identified a preferred intake at Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, with water delivered west through a major transmission system to the Rapid City region and beyond. Our project is not duplicative. It addresses a long-standing gap in the underserved region that is western South Dakota. There is a clear national defense need. Ellsworth Air Force Base is a critical asset and the B-21 mission increases urgency for reliability in the water supply. Within 15 miles of Ellsworth Air Force Base, the population is 130,000 with a total demand of 12 million gallons per day. The base requires at the low end two million gallons a day and at the high end four million gallons a day. Reliable water is essential to mission readiness and sustained operations. Our project will also support our regional economy. Agriculture depends on reliable water for livestock and rural communities. Tourism in the Black Hills generates about $2 billion annually. Western Dakota has completed substantial pre-feasibility study groundwork. Over five years we have advanced engineering, demand projections, intake evaluations, and system planning. The state of South Dakota has invested more than $12 million towards our project along with our members and our local supporters. This is a serious coordinated effort ready for the next federal step. H.R. 7288 allows the Bureau of Reclamation to answer critical questions before any construction decision, including need, engineering, cost evaluation, federal interest, and tribal coordination. This is the appropriate and proper response. The study is not wasteful. It ensures that any future investment is justified, targeted, and grounded in demonstrated need. For this reason, I respectfully urge the subcommittee to advance 7288. This is a necessary step towards long-term water security for western South Dakota and I will stand by for your questions, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And I now recognize Ms. Martin for five minutes.

Aloha Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in strong support of H.R. 4219. My name is Christy Martin with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species where I'm the program manager. It's a program under the University of Hawaii. I've worked on invasive species for more than 25 years now. I've done everything from boots on the ground to managing to public outreach and everything in between. I also had the privilege of serving on the Invasive Species Advisory Committee which advises the National Invasive Species Council on issues. Invasive species are a very serious problem in Hawaii as it is in every state and territory. There were two reports that were done on invasive species in Hawaii in the early 1990s. One of them was done by the Office of Technology Assessment. That report found that Hawaii had the most serious problem in the nation. And the OTA's assessment was quite accurate. There was a study in 2018 by the U.S. Geological Survey that found that Hawaii had 200 percent the density of non-native species compared to the other 48 contiguous states combined. So we have a problem, but all states and territories have the same problem. Dealing with invasive species before they become established and costly. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a capacity to respond to invasive species and that is the Invasive Species Strike Team. The teams do not replace existing pest management programs but instead they work to identify the highest priority issues and address them before they become permanent and costly programs. I'm going to share a few examples of the strike teams from my region as I'm most familiar with that region. My favorite has got to be the eradication of yellow crazy ants from Johnston Atoll. Johnston Atoll played a critical role in the defense of the Pacific. It also plays a critical role for birds. There are 14 species of seabirds that nest on the island and it holds the world's largest population of red-tailed tropicbirds. The island was invaded by yellow crazy ants sometime before 2010. The ants spread and they cause harm to birds because they spray formic acid on the birds. This injures the birds, blinds them, and allows the ants to overwhelm bird populations and kill them. Reproduction was not happening on the island for the birds. So the crazy ant strike team was formed and over the course of 11 years members switched in and out every six months to be able to try and develop the tools and techniques to address those crazy ants. And in 2021 they brought in a team of volunteer dogs and handlers from Conservation Dogs of Hawaii. They found that they managed to eradicate the ants. That was 2021 and we have not seen yellow crazy ants since then. Another great example is the installation of the U.S.'s largest predator-proof fence and that's at Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. That was done in 2023. In 2025 they also eradicated feral pigs from that property as well as wild cats. Since then they have had record breeding for Laysan albatross and again red-tailed tropicbirds as well as wedge-tailed shearwaters. In Guam, they're having problems with feral pigs just like all of our states. They worked with the USDA Wildlife Services to identify the best way to get rid of feral hogs from that property. They found the type of trap and the type of bait that works best, turns out it's coconut. And they were able to eradicate over 118 feral pigs from that refuge. They shared that information with neighbors and now everybody knows the tools and techniques that work best and they use them. I wanted to spend a moment speaking about language in section two, which is the provision of assistance. This specifies how they can work outside of refuge property with neighboring landowners as well as ecologically related places. Financial assistance, technical assistance, contracts, cooperative agreements, all of that is available in this bill. Also I wanted to point out language in subparagraph B, which provides that other federal departments can request the expertise and use of the strike teams when, pardon my saying, but when there's an house on fire. When it's an hair on fire situation, we can call on these strike teams to participate in a state-level response or it could be a national response. And that is wise use of a resource. So in summary, H.R. 4219 would establish the strike teams legislatively. It will ensure that these cost-effective measures and successes can continue and it also provides additional language that makes these teams even better. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Martin, and I now recognize Ms. Demaske for five minutes.

Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6251. My name is Madeleine Demaske, and I serve as litigation associate for Safari Club International. SCI is a nonprofit organization with more than 100,000 members and advocates worldwide working to protect hunters' rights, conserve wildlife, and educate the public about hunting and its role in conservation. I have been fortunate to travel to the Arctic three times, including once on a polar bear hunt. The people, wildlife, and communities of the Arctic hold a special place in my heart. I am honored to testify on behalf of SCI and our members in support of 6251. This bill would allow the importation of polar bear trophies taken in Canada before the species was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act on May 15, 2008. A brief word on context. Polar bears have been protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act since 1972, which generally restricts imports. Congress, nevertheless, made a deliberate choice to create a limited exception allowing for the importation of polar bear trophies taken in Canada when strict criteria are met. For more than a decade, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife issued permits under that exact framework. That changed in 2008 when the polar bear was listed as a threatened species under the ESA, and as a result, automatically deemed depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This designation triggered an automatic import ban regardless of when a polar bear was legally harvested. As a result, the service administratively closed 41 pending permit applications submitted by hunters who had lawfully taken polar bears before the ESA listing took effect. SCI challenged the ESA listing and subsequent import ban, however, the court ruled in favor of the service at the time based on a largely now overturned legal theory. H.R. 6251 corrects that unintended consequence. Without authorizing any new polar bear harvest, weakening conservation safeguards, or altering management practices in Canada. It simply allows bears legally taken before the ESA listing to be imported into the United States. Importantly, this narrow fix is fully consistent with the science-based conservation and management of polar bears in Canada. Canada manages the majority of the world's polar bear populations through long-standing adaptive management programs developed in partnership with indigenous communities, governments, and other stakeholders. Current estimates place the global polar bear population at more than 26,000 bears with approximately two-thirds or 17,000 living in Canada alone. This is a historically high number that is widely distributed across their historic range. Most of the world's polar bears are hunted in Canada through managed established programs in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. For decades, total reported polar bear harvest has remained well below established quotas, typically accounting for only three to four percent of the national population. These quotas are conservative and science-based, and they account for all human-caused mortality, including subsistence harvest, guided hunts, defense of life kills, and illegal take. Guided hunts occur entirely within the indigenous subsistence quotas and do not increase total harvest. The bears covered by H.R. 6251 were taken entirely within that system. As a result of the 2008 import ban, American participation in guided polar bear hunts declined sharply, but total harvest did not. Subsistence harvest took its place and the economic and cultural benefits associated with guided hunts also declined. Historically, U.S. hunters have contributed millions of dollars to northern communities through guided polar bear hunts, funding local jobs, small businesses, and essential services. In remote regions with few economic alternatives, that revenue circulates locally and supports broader economic stability well beyond the hunt itself. Guided hunts also provide important non-economic benefits, Canada's polar bear conservation system is closely tied to the well-being of the indigenous communities that live alongside the species. I have seen firsthand how guided hunts support food security, reinforce traditional skills, and facilitate intergenerational knowledge transfer. In closing, H.R. 6251 addresses a narrow but significant problem that arose not from unlawful conduct or conservation necessity, but rather from the rigid operation of an automatic statutory trigger within the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The 41 hunters affected fully complied with all applicable laws at the time of harvest and took bears from populations previously reviewed and approved by the service as sustainably managed. H.R. 6251 restores the statutory balance Congress established, one that aligns conservation outcomes, international cooperation, indigenous participation, and community benefits. SCI respectfully urges the subcommittee to advance H.R. 6251, and I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you, and I want to thank each of the witnesses for your valuable testimony today, and I will now recognize members for five minutes each for questions. I'm going to begin with myself and Mr. Jones. In your nearly 30 years of managing lake and pond ecosystems, you've seen firsthand how an overabundance of apex predators like the double-crested cormorant can disrupt a balanced fishery. In your experience, how does the current federal permitting process hinder the ability of managers like yourself to protect fisheries and aquatic resources?

Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I can best speak to my personal experiences today in private waters, we have zero ability for any sort of lethal take, which is a big change from 10 years ago. I would contend that we could use more science-based tools to especially rurally where there's a lack of electricity and roads around these water bodies and labor is very, very scarce. I would also say that some of the tools that are out there that are more aquaculture-based are not as effective in rural situations such as lasers that do work on some other bird species that do not in private water settings. Another example would be in the larger fish farms, a friend of mine owns one of the larger farms in Texas, they experience over a million dollars a year in direct loss to cormorants and they have many thousands of birds over the course of a year. However, their current lethal take limit is approximately 10 cormorants. And so what you can see is today the current solutions are not right-sized to the problem.

Okay. How would the regional management approach proposed in Congressman Walberg's legislation allow for more proactive, science-based intervention?

Thank you again for the question. I would say that it's pretty simply the same successful framework that we've seen work for waterfowl is going to result in much-needed accurate counts. I think this is very important, getting accurate counts and a renewed ability to identify regional needs and targeted solution for those landowners and producers.

Okay. Ms. Conzet, in your testimony you describe how reliable water access is the backbone of economic development in rural communities like western South Dakota. Can you elaborate on how the region's current water supply is insufficient to meet growing demand and how a feasibility study for a Missouri River connection could provide the certainty needed for long-term regional planning?

Madam Chair, thank you for the question. Through a USGS study, it verified the findings of previous studies that confirmed that the aquifers are currently under stress and will not meet the current or the future population growth during an extended drought period. The mission, the Missouri River is the most viable water source that we have and between our two borders it is South Dakota's greatest natural resources, and it will provide long-term, we've got all the studies behind it and all the engineers behind it, provide long-term water security for regional economic development as well.

Okay. Ms. Demaske, you described this situation as an unintended consequence of the ESA listing. Can you explain how timing of that listing disrupted the MMPA process that Congress designed?

Thank you for the question. Congress expressly created a pre-act exemption under the ESA to protect species lawfully harvested before a listing. The pre-act exemption applies to all threatened and endangered species unless a 4D rule exists, which does not exist for polar bears. But when the polar bear was listed in 2008, a separate provision of the MMP automatically treated the species as depleted, overriding the exemption and eliminating the case-by-case review based on the legality and conservation criteria. When the polar bear was listed as threatened under the ESA, it was, sorry. As a result, the permitting process was short-circuited and those 41 pending applications were closed solely because of timing. Compounding that effect was a court order that required that delisting to go into effect immediately rather than the regular 30 days. Had the listing taken effect after the normal timetable, some hunters may have been able to import their trophies before the change in status. Now that's purely speculative, but whether they could have imported under the pre-act exemption of the ESA is not.

Okay. Thank you for that. The chair now recognizes Ms. Elfreth for her five minutes of questioning.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I can't quite see you, I'm sorry, Mr. Jones. Thank you for, you know, the ranking member mentioned invasive species being another commonality between almost all of our districts and all of our states and and we need a more concerted federal effort to join in state and local efforts to actually, you know, combat these things. So I want to thank you for your work on this. My my question though is I think my concern and to Representative Walberg, I appreciate the bill. My concern though is that this was once a threatened species or a species that needed help getting back. Now I think this is all about balance, we're at an overabundance. I think my concern is I don't want to open the floodgates and get back to a place we were in the 1970s. So is there a balance or is there a check-in, perhaps a five-year measurement and report back that we could have some type of guardrail here to find the correct balance for the ecosystem? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Well, you know, I don't know that I'm not an ornithologist so I can't speak to some of the things of the Migratory Species Act, but I would say that I can speak to localized needs and overabundance and I'm just really thankful that there may soon be a tool to address those needs, have good science behind it. I can't overemphasize how important I think accurate counting is. I think that today a lot of studies are done with, you know, people with their master's and doctoral theses and hopefully there'll be a way to use the robust counting that's done for waterfowl on some of these species that are overabundant today.

I couldn't agree with you more and I would just, Madam Chair, if there's a way that we could maybe craft a compromise here that takes into account that science, figures out what the balance should be for the entire ecosystem, which is I think what the bill is trying to get at, but that doesn't further threaten or take us back to the 1970s for this particular species. I'd be very interested in working with the sponsor of the bill and the subcommittee on finding that correct language. Thank you. I yield back.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Walberg for five minutes of questioning and perhaps he can address that.

We're certainly willing to look at anything that makes this bill stronger, but also impacts in a way that all of our resources are stewarded in appropriate way for the benefit of all. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the committee for holding this hearing today to discuss my legislation H.R. 8195, the Responsible, and I think that's a key word, Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act of 2026. The resurgence in the population of double-crested cormorants in the Midwest have reached historic levels according to some estimates and what I've seen in the in the duck blind as well as on a a fishing boat going for walleye and and perch, resulting in unprecedented levels of damage done to our fisheries and the recreational opportunities we cherish in the Great Lakes. And this isn't just a Great Lakes problem, as you have clearly pointed out, Mr. Jones. Cormorant populations in some parts of the country are exploding with their populations doubling every four years. This is a conservation problem. It's a stewardship problem. It's a humane issue as well and one that I believe my bill can help solve. Let me let me start with this question. I think it would be valuable. Mr. Jones, you have a wealth of practical experience and that's sometimes hard to find around here on the Hill. I read through your written testimony and I couldn't agree more with you, but the question I'd like to ask to substantiate that, could you describe how the current management approach following the depredation order that was struck down as was mentioned in 2016, leave state agencies and private managers with as you said, and I quote, limited often ineffective tools.

Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Yes, very easily actually. With that court decision, I believe in 2016, the private landowners lost all tools. Without any sort of lethal deterrent to mix in with the other methods, I would say we have zero effectiveness any pond or lake we're involved with, which is a small percentage of the ponds or lakes overall. You have to the fish farms have a slightly different set of needs than the private landowners, but if you think about the millions and millions of private lakes out there and the effect they have on the tens or dozens or however many folks use those, it affects an awful lot of people. The the tools that we have today are inanimate, scarecrow type objects which simply don't work and some of the other tools like lasers we don't have power and the bird bangers, things that you might use in an aquaculture settings don't exist to the private landowner. So I'd say that we're actually defenseless. I'm looking forward to the day when we go back to where there's an approach that makes sense and gives us some amount of control over the water that we're that we enjoy being a steward of.

Well, in the Great Lakes as well, we don't have it doesn't work with the size, you know, Lake Michigan is on on my western border, Lake Erie and more importantly Canada is on my eastern border and Canada manages it totally different. And out in out in the boat fishing I can see what Canada is able to do that we can't do in Michigan or in the United States. Let me follow up. Could you also share how the collaborative flyway council approach will allow state agencies and private managers to more responsibly manage site-specific conflicts and better protect our fisheries?

Well, I think to the the best of my knowledge, what I like about it is we can say that there's success in the way that ducks have been managed over the last decades and there's a lot of similarities with the flyway councils and such doing the counts every five years. I think the first one's supposed to start within six months and and accurately tally the birds in those particular areas and then offer regional solutions. Going back to my example earlier of my friend the fish farmer with his roughly 10 permits for the many thousands of birds, it's not right-sized. I'm hopeful and believe because we're so united on this front both public and private that we'll that farmer may have a tool that's more right-sized for his problem.

And you want balanced and effective outcomes in the end, correct?

Absolutely. You know, my life is water and and conservation and that's that's the best that we could we could all shoot for is is balance.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for five no questions. All right. The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Hoyle for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you so much. I have a question for Ms. Martin. First of all, I want to thank you for flying all the way out from Hawaii to join us in person today and would like to give you an opportunity to describe what it's like to watch these ecosystems recover after an invasive species are fully removed. In Oregon, these Fish and Wildlife Service's invasive species strike teams have been incredibly successful and would love to hear what that's been like for Hawaii.

Mahalo for the opportunity and thank you for the question. It's quite an experience to come and speak before you and I just appreciate it. My career in conservation really started teaching in the marine environment. I then moved on to the Maui Invasive Species Committee. When I got there, there was a team working to save the last remaining po'ouli and this is a native Hawaiian forest bird. We believe there are only two left in the wild. The team tried to get these two birds together and encourage them. During my time, yes, they even made t-shirts. I bought one and I can't bring myself to get rid of it because that work was not successful. So we lost a species and I can't tell you what that feels like. We need to do everything we can to protect what we have. And it's not just native species. Native species have an effect to the rest of our world. We need to be able to grow our own food, to market our products to other states. We need to be able to go through our forest and use some of those forest trees for furniture as my family did. We need to be able to play without getting stung by fire ants. We need to be able to use coconut resources like our ancestors did. It's the impact of invasive species goes way beyond and I'm sorry I'm so emotional. That's what makes me fly across the country to speak. Thank you.

Thank you so much for sharing that, Ms. Martin, and with that I yield back.

Thank you. When you first started talking about the crazy ants, I perhaps thought you were talking about my mom and dad's sisters. But that now I'm really going to be in trouble when I get the phone calls tonight for saying that. I was just kidding. The chair now recognizes Mr. Ezell for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all for being here today and sharing information with you. I started working on this cormorant thing right after I got into office when the catfish farmers of Mississippi showed up and were telling me the devastating effects of what this bird was doing to the population in of the catfish in Mississippi. One guy cited an example that this bird when they would put several thousand fingerlings in their pond to start raising the catfish, by the next morning those birds had totally cleaned out the entire pond. So I think we all understand that this is something that's got to be done and working with this committee is the way to get things done through, you know, science-based efforts and some common sense. But I want to thank Mr. Walberg for his leadership on H.R. 8195 and working with me on the things that I've been working on to get some sort of handle on this cormorant that is just really caused so many problems for not only catfish farmers, but if you ride up and down the Mississippi Gulf Coast, these birds are on every piling, every pole, every every piece of dry land so they can rest up until they can go eat some more fish. And so thank you for for helping us with that. So Mr. Jones, can you describe the scope of the damage that you are seeing that the cormorant populations specifically in aquaculture in private fisheries is causing?

Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. So in private lakes over and over in a majority of lakes, the majority of the management efforts through the spring and summer and fall are erased by the wintertime arrival of cormorants. It's just it's just that simple. I've seen and documented hundreds if not thousands of cases where I would say as much as a 90 percent reduction in biomass of fish in a pond or lake occurred over the winter months. Today there's not the the manpower or the tools necessary to to do anything about it. In aquaculture industry, there's plenty of of references to this, but it's tens of millions of dollars direct losses of fish. Remember that we're trying to feed our own nation here and and that directly affects that. The replacement fish for the private lakes, there's a always a shortage by the end of growing season and one of the the biggest factors to that is of bird predation in the spring. And then to your point, I've been fishing down the coast and and I think I can't wait for there to be better census of the birds. The the census today is not accurate. I'm confident of that and I think that increased science here is going to show that we've underestimated the count by huge amounts.

Very good. How could a regional management framework like proposed in Mr. Walberg's bill improve the outcomes compared to the current system?

Well, I think that we're going to have great science and you know, I'm a scientist first and it all starts with science. I'm I'm all for animals and fish. It's my career, it's my livelihood and it's everybody that's around me shares the same values. But you have to have good science to begin with, you have to have good counts to begin with and then you you want to work together towards outcomes that are responsible. And again, I'm just going to point back to duck and geese populations and the management tools and the interest in the science and we all believe those numbers and we work towards them. I think states having having more tools and flexibility to deal with localized problems, obviously there's a different problem in Nebraska than there would be along the coast where there's fish farms. And being able to do this on both fresh and saltwater farms, I think this is important to realize that a lot of these farms use some saltwater. We need to make sure that we have the flexibility to use these same tools in both types of water.

Thank you and thank you all for being here today and Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Downing for five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the witnesses for being here. Really appreciate it. I'm going to start with Ms. Demaske to clarify the impact that my esteemed colleague Congressman Begich's legislation would have on polar bear populations and hunting. So first a simple question, who is legally allowed to hunt polar bears in United States up in Alaska?

Thank you for the question. Only subsistence users in Alaska are allowed to hunt polar bears.

Outstanding. How about in Canada? What's the or and what's the legal process for securing the ability to hunt polar bears in Canada?

Canada only authorizes indigenous quotas. Guided hunts are then gone through the indigenous community. The indigenous community is then able to assign those tags to a guided hunter, but they are required to go through the indigenous communities.

About how many tags, do you know?

I do not know the answer to that.

Just curious. So would the passage of H.R. 6251 create any regulatory changes that would result in additional polar bears being killed anywhere in the world?

No, sir. H.R. 6251 only impacts the 41 polar bears that were harvested after the threatened listing of polar bears in May of 2008. It would not change the MMPA listing, the ESA listing, or the CITES listing. It would not authorize any additional harvest, it would not weaken conservation safeguards, and it certainly wouldn't change management in Canada.

Are there any previous examples where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed imports of wildlife harvested before an ESA listing but imported after the listing took effect?

Yes, sir. The clearest example is the African lion. When the service listed the African lion as threatened under the ESA in 2015, it continued to allow import of sport-hunted lion trophies taken before and in many cases after the listing, so long as the hunter obtained an ESA import permit and the service made the required enhancement findings. In other words, the service did not impose an automatic retroactive import ban based solely on the listing date, but instead worked with hunters and evaluated imports through the case-by-case permitting basis.

Thank you, that's helpful. So finally, you had mentioned that polar bear hunting generates benefits for Arctic and native communities. Could you provide some examples?

Yes, sir. So as I mentioned, I actually traveled to the Arctic. I've been there three times and once on a polar bear hunt, so I saw firsthand watching the community distribute the meat. An average polar bear has about 450 pounds of meat that's distributed oftentimes to the elders because they are no longer able to hunt for themselves. You see increases in guide and assistant transfer of knowledge. Oftentimes young individuals in the community are not able to learn that in a subsistence hunt, so instead are paid to learn how to continue their traditions. And then I would also say importantly, you see a lot more hunters are required to use, sorry, guided hunters are required to use traditional methods of hunting, which includes dog sleds. That is a habit that has been grossly not passed along except for guided hunters, so you see a lot more dog sleds and that coming back in communities.

Wow. Going to have to go visit and check that out. Well, I want to thank you for these answers and just be clear, there should be no confusion that Congressman Begich's legislation would implement a narrowly tailored policy that solely will focus on transferring 41 polar bear trophies taken prior to the species classification as threatened under the ESA. So moving on here, I'm going to move to Ms. Conzet. I want to thank you for testifying today as well and just talk about communities in my home district of central and eastern Montana. They deal with many of the same water challenges that you've outlined in South Dakota, and many of our counties rely on the Missouri River as their primary water source. So can you elaborate on why western South Dakota is the only part of the state that currently lacks access to long-term Missouri River water supplies?

Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. If you really divided up North Dakota and South Dakota, it should be East Dakota and West Dakota. We should have gone right down the Missouri River. It's a different culture and one isn't better or worse than the other, but there is different ways of life. And if you look at the western half of the state, the reason that we have not is because we are a resilient people who choose to insulate and take care of issues within our on the western half of the state. But our aquifers are plentiful. The Minnelusa and the Madison are plentiful, they're just not sustainable. And so this is the time because we know that it's going to take up to 40 years if we look at Lewis and Clark, a wonderful project that feeds in from the Missouri into the eastern half of the state, it took 40 years. So what we are doing here, our bold goal here is to start something now, and we have to act now when it comes to this because we have every bit of science and engineering saying that we do not want future generations to have to react.

Right. Well, thank you for that. Unfortunately, I've run out of time and I'll just say if you said eastern, western Dakota, we just call it far eastern Montana. But no, just kidding. I thank you and on that, Madam Chair, I yield.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Begich for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleague did such a great job asking you questions. I'm just going to make a statement here. First of all, thank you for being here, Ms. Demaske, for there's someone back in Alaska named Demboski and I apologize for making that mistake. But we appreciate your testimony, we appreciate your expertise on behalf of SCI and the 41 hunters that have been impacted by this. You know, we sit in this chamber and a colleague who predated my time here, Congressman Don Young, originally introduced this bill. And his portrait hangs here watching over us over every hearing in in this chamber. But he was an avid hunter and anyone who ever visited Congressman Young's office knew just how much he cared about conservation and about wildlife and making sure we did things right. And I think what what he would have said at this time is look, sometimes the the government doesn't get it right, right? Not every piece of legislation is perfect, and sometimes there's uninformed and unintended consequences that come from the rules that we put in place in Congress. And clearly this is one of those instances where people did it right, they followed the law, and they shouldn't be penalized for doing it right and following the law. And so we want to correct that. This bill is narrowly tailored, it takes steps to correct that injustice, and and I hope that we can find bipartisan support to pass this legislation and allow these hunters to receive the trophies of their hard work. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you. And the chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson for five minutes of questions.

Well, for Ms. Conzet, to me one of the so often we see that electricity from the Missouri River dams or water from the Missouri River, that it there are plans to take that outside of the Missouri basin. To be clear, I mean, this is keeping this water inside the basin serving area that need is going to long-term, as you said, over the course of the next 40 plus years need a lot of help. I'm curious, does the current drought place any more urgency on this? Or is that even independent of the drought? Do you just feel like this this is something that's got to get done?

Madam Chair. Thank you. Yes, the drought is concerning. What we have done here is we engaged USGS to do a survey for us, a third party to back up our study showing that if long-term drought was overlaid in western South Dakota, that we would be under a drastic shortage. But interestingly, USGS took that study and went back not only as far as the water records that we have, they went back 700 years. And how did they do that? They used tree rings. And so they were able to document and show us, and that's a study that's available now through our organization, that roughly every 80 to 85 years we have a drought. The dirty thirties as we will all, you know, have in our history lessons we recognize that, that was a blip. That was nothing compared to the previous drought. So every 80 to 85 years we have a drought. We're in year 82 right now. So it is not surprising, it is shocking, but it is not surprising that we are seeing, if mother nature has anything to do with it, that we're seeing this now.

Obviously for this committee and for all of Congress, tribes are critically important. Talk a little bit about the engagement you've had with tribal leadership on this project.

Well, when we talk about tribal nations, they are tribal nations. And so what we need with the feasibility study is the ability to engage nation to nation. Now currently we have two seats on our board that are available for the the two tribes that are located in western South Dakota. And with the presidency changes, there is some shifts in priorities. So they aren't currently sitting on the board. But we look to rectify that. We will find a way to move forward, and the most respectful path is going through the feasibility study to do a nation to nation consultation. And we're working locally. We have tribal members that serve in the House and the Senate, and western Dakota is working with them to try to breach that gap and get a little more working togetherness, I guess I would say.

Very good. Ms. Conzet, anything else you'd want to add in response to any of the questions anybody's asked you that maybe you didn't get time to tackle? You've done a great job, so I'm not suggesting there's a hole in the evidentiary record, but if there you're burning to get something off your chest, here's your one minute and 53 seconds.

Well, short of sharing some religious views, no sir, I do not have anything I'd like to add to the record. I just want to say thank you to your time for your time.

Very good. With that I yield back.

Thank you. And again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here, for the distance that you have traveled, and for your willingness to share your expertise and your information with us today. It's been very valuable for the members and for what we're attempting to do here in Congress. of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the committee must submit such questions to the subcommittee clerk by five PM Eastern on Tuesday, April twenty first. And the hearing record will be held open for ten business days for your responses. If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.