“Oversight of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act”

The subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will come to order. Good afternoon everyone. I want to welcome members, witnesses and our guests in the audience for today's hearing. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under committee rule four F, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chair and the 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 three O. Without objection, so ordered. We are here today to hold a hearing, an oversight hearing, titled oversight of the migratory bird treaty act. I now recognize myself for a five minute opening statement. The National Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or MBTA, will examine the current implementation and impacts of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or MBTA. Migratory birds are an essential part of ecosystems and local economies across the country. From waterfowl hunting in the Mississippi flyway to birdwatching at national wildlife refuges, a way of life for millions of Americans is rooted in migratory birds. It is in this spirit that the MBTA was passed by Congress in nineteen eighteen and has been amended subsequently to implement four different bilateral treaties governing the conservation of hundreds of migratory bird species. Over the one hundred plus year history of the MBTA, serious threats to migratory birds, such as the use of chemicals like DDT, have come and gone, while other threats from building strikes and wind turbines persist. In Wyoming alone there have been several high profile examples where wind companies pled guilty and been fined millions of dollars for the deaths of golden eagles and other protected species caused by their wind turbines. In recent months I have heard directly from constituents such as the Albany County Conservancy, who have grave concerns about the impacts of two proposed wind projects in Wyoming. Both, excuse me, both of these projects are currently moving forward in direct conflict with various executive and secretarial orders issued by the Trump administration. Which is why I have engaged the Trump administration directly, urging them to take a much closer look at these projects, both of which were approved by the Biden administration, before they proceed. The impact of power generation and distribution on migratory birds is complex. For example, birds colliding with or building nests on power lines and other energy infrastructure can lead to catastrophic events such as widespread outages, or even wildfire. We will hear from one of our witnesses about the legal uncertainty electric utilities face from MBTA implementation that threatens birds, rate payers, and public safety. I look forward to discussing how we can better protect migratory birds from power generation, and ensure utility providers have the tools necessary to safely and responsibly deliver power to our rate payers. Additionally, the subcommittee has heard in the past that growing an unchecked migratory bird populations have cost millions of dollars for important industries like agriculture and aquaculture. In response, natural resources committees have passed bipartisan legislation, such as the Cormorant Relief Act and the Black Vulture Relief Act. The Cormorant Relief Act went on to pass the House of Representatives by a voice vote. Today we will examine holistically if the MBTA's mechanisms for take for take adequately account for today's conservation and economic realities. Today's hearing is a function of our responsibility to review all of the major statutes under our subcommittee's jurisdiction. With that, I want to take the time to thank our witnesses for being here today. I do apologize for the late start. We just came off the floor after voting. But I do look forward to a robust conversation. I look forward to your testimony. I now recognize ranking member Hoyle for her opening statement. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um.

Uh, m- many Americans care deeply about our native bird populations and nearly a hundred million Americans consider themselves birders bird watching and relating activities uh generate two hundred and seventy nine billion dollars in economic output supporting one point four million uh jobs and contributing one hundred and eight billion in direct spending on birding related trips and equipment. many of those to Oregon. This isn't a new phenomena. Uh, America has a long history of bird conservation. President Teddy Roosevelt established the first federal bird reservation, Pelican Island, in nineteen O three. Over the course of his presidency, he established fifty-one bird reservations and four game reserves, laying the foundation for the creation of the national wildlife refuge system and building a network of land waters and wetlands for migratory bird habitat across North America. The US signed its first migratory bird treaty with Great Britain and Canada in nineteen sixteen and Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act soon after that. Thanks to the MBTA, um, the migratory bird one, not the trained system in Boston, we've protected native bird populations in their habitat for over hun hundred years. And the National Wildlife Refuge system has been an integral part of our migratory bird conservation strategy. For example, the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge includes rocks, reefs, and islands along about three hundred miles of the Oregon coast. This is, this unique refuge provides most of Oregon's uh nesting seabirds a place to raise their young. Unfortunately, the refuge system is chronically underfunded and understaffed and this problem has only grown in the last year. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service's own analysis, Fifty-three wildlife refugees currently have zero staff on the ground. Another three hundred and sixty-six are insufficiently staffed, and the rain remaining two hundred have limited staff. On top of that, the Fish and Wildlife Service has rescinded the refuge system's strategic growth strategy that had been in place for more than a decade. This policy provides guidance to local refuges on how to approach expansions and acquisitions in a cost-effective transparent and scientifically sound way. North American bird populations are still declining at alarming rates. Now is not the time to take the tools, take away the tools that local land managers rely on to assess how and whether to protect additional bird habitat especially without any clear replacement plan. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way on this committee to use the visionary conservation tools of the MBTA and the National Wildlife Refuge System, to address the rapid loss of birds we're seeing across America uh North America. I hope we can identify and act on strategies to achieve that goal, and I look forward to hearing more from all of you today. Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Westerman for his opening statement.

Well, thank you, Chair Hagerman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Oversight of our our committee's major environmental statues and their implementation is one of our most important responsibilities and today we turn our focus to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the MBTA and conservation of migratory birds is critically important to me and to my home state of Arkansas as thousands of people from across the country come there each year to hunt waterfowl in the pristine habitat of the Mississippi River Valley. Well-managed waterfowl hunting under the MBTA is one of the best examples of the North American model of wildlife conservation. Waterfowl are managed based on science and collaboration with states and regional bodies, which inform the parameters of hunting seasons and other conservation actions. This successful approach has led to the conservation of millions of birds, while still allowing for regulated hunting. This model demonstrates how we can manage other migratory bird species. Take the double-crested cormorant, for example, a species that this subcommittee is already familiar with and one that often wreaks havoc on many aquaculture small businesses in my district. In two thousand eighteen, when I was chairman of the Oversight and Investigation subcommittee, I chaired an a f- an oversight field hearing in northern Michigan with Representative Bergman where we discussed issues with double-crested cormorant depredation in the Great Lakes. We heard firsthand from state fisheries managers, conservation organizations, and sportsmen that growing double-crested cormorants were damaging Great Lakes fisheries. For example, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources testified that cormorant depredation was a ma major explanatory factor in the decline of Great Lakes perch populations. Replacing the current permitting structure for cormorants, which has been described as akin to a game of whack-a-mole, with a management structure that centers around collaboration between States, flyways, and the federal government, would have greater conservation outcomes and certainly for our constituents, who are impacted by these birds. Beyond depredation issues, a legal uncertainty around incidental take of migratory birds under MBTA impacts many industries. The question of whether MBTA's take prohib prohibitions cover incidental take has divided federal courts and the federal government's legal interpretation has changed, with each of the last three presidential administrations. Regulations that change after each presidential election create uncertainty for everyone governed by them. and depending on the industry can have catastrophic consequences. For example, birds colliding with or nesting on power lines create outages and in some cases increased risk of wildfires. The current state of regulatory whiplash only complicates utilities' efforts to mitigate these instances. As the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association put it, quote, " it's impossible for individuals and companies to know exactly what is legally required when otherwise lawful activities result in accidental bird deaths." Again, I wanna thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I look forward to the testimony and to continued discussions, and I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening statement.

Thank you very much, uh, Madam Chair. Our nation's heritage includes billions of migratory birds across North America. Uh, and I think we all know how birds have enriched our lives, we hear the music of birds in our backyards, when we uh see a bird on a family trip, our spirits may soar. Uh we're even entertained and moved to wonder, you know, when we see a a seagull snatch a sandwich out of a kid's hand. Uh birds are pretty awesome things. Uh and in addition to all of that wonder, uh they provide an awful lot of economic benefit. Uh the agriculture and forest industries save millions every year thanks to these natural pest controllers. A healthy, diverse natural ecosystem depends on birds to disperse seeds, fertilize the soil, and control the spread of diseases. We should never take our fine feathered friends for granted. Uh, and we should never use the popularity of bird conservation in cynical ways, as a pretext for political agendas that masquerade as bird conservation. Today bird conservation is not without its complexity and challenges. Just last week a groundbreaking peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Science found that bird losses are accelerating. And those losses are correlated of course with climate change. The challenges migratory birds face uh i- these challenges are well known. Climate change, invasive species, land use changes. Uh, they erode as central bird habitats, industrial activities, and the build-out of new infrastructure pose threats To birds and farmers, livestock producers, hatchery operators, aquaculture managers, all of these folks have to find ways to manage for and coexist with birds. While the MBTA that we're talking about here today is over a century old, it is just as relevant today as it was in nineteen eighteen. This law can help us protect migratory bird populations, provide certainty for infrastructure and energy projects, incentivize creative conservation solutions and help us manage conflicts with predatory birds. The MBTA enables us to make smart science-based decisions and manage bird populations across their range while coordinating with other countries like Canada and Mexico, who share that migratory range. And so I'm really glad we're talking about birds in the MBTA today. I am however frustrated that the majority did not ing include the Trump administration. in this hearing. Last year, the Department of Interior created a baffling double standard, simultaneously pretending that oil companies have no liability if they kill a bunch of birds while actively looking for ways to criminalize wind companies, uh, when they impact birds under the MBTA. So, look, it should be pretty basic. Either the MBTA covers incidental take or it doesn't. You cannot pick and choose your favorite industries, get preferential treatment based on the conspiracy theorist-in-chief's fear of clean energy. That is not conservation, that's corruption. The Fish and Wildlife Service for decades, whether Republican or Democratic administrations, interpreted the MBTA to cover incidental takes. Industries across the country developed strategies to avoid or minimize the killing of birds during normal operations. Oil pits were covered, energy companies developed guidelines and technologies, to reduce power line risk to birds. Architects and engineers developed amazing new building glass and architectural standards that have dramatically reduced bird deaths in many cases. Wind companies installed turbine sensors and identified strategies for siting wind farms to minimize risk to birds. But the Trump administration has just decided to go its own way, adding a new layer of uncertainty for businesses. And that is why I introduced the bipartisan migratory bird This bill would provide a greater level of legal certainty to companies whose operations pose a risk to migratory birds by directing fish and wildlife to establish a general permit program under the MBTA. If enacted, this would create a framework under the MBTA for permittees that choose to use industry-developed best management practices to minimize bird deaths. In addition to that legal certainty, the bill would reduce penalties for incidental takes and would establish a recovery fund and research program to invest in bird conservation. It's a simple bill, uh, based on over a decade of conversations between the Fish and Wildlife Service, Congress, industry stakeholders, and bird conservation advocates, and it would provide big wins for bird conservation as well as certainty for industries that need that certainty. It should be the starting point, a bipartisan starting point, uh, for this committee to turn the tide on the unnecessary loss of migratory birds across North America. So I wanna thank our witnesses. I look forward to this hearing, and Madam Chair, I yield back.

I will now introduce our panel of witnesses. Mister Mike McCormick, the President of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation from Jackson, Mississippi. Miss Leslie Swanson, the Senior Environmental Scientist of the Salt River Project from Tempe, Tempe, Arizona. Mister Paul Schmidt, retired Assistant Director for Migratory Birds with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, from Palmyra, Virginia, and Mister Davey Height, co-host of Bassmaster Television from ninety-six, South Carolina. Let me remind the witnesses that under committee rules they must limit you must each 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 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 will also allow all of the witnesses to testify before a member questioning. I now recognize Representative Wiesel to introduce his constituent, Mister McCormick.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm glad to have our President of Mississippi Farm Bureau here today. Mike's a strong voice for agriculture in our state, and he's been a real asset not just to Mississippi farmers, but to our broader agriculture and natural resource community across this country. Mister Mike McCormick represents nearly one hundred and seventy thousand Farm Bureau member families in Mississippi, and he's a cattle producer himself. He's not speaking from behind a desk in Jackson, Mississippi. He's speaking from experience out in the pasture. He knows what it's like when federal policy meets real life on the farm. And that's why conversations like this matter. Conservation is important. We'll all agree on that, but agriculture and conservation have to work together. When federal oversight creates unintended consequences for the folks who are raising our food caring for their livestock and managing the land every day, Then it's on us to pay attention and make sure we're getting it right. We appreciate Mister McCormick being here today to talk about the important certain federally protected migratory bird species are having back home in Mississippi and the very real economic and animal health challenges our producers are facing because of it. We're looking forward to the conversation today, hearing your answers. Thanks again, Mike and Madam Chair Yilba.

I now recognize Mister McCormick for five minutes.

Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Mike McCormick and I am a big cattle farmer from South Mississippi. I also have the distinct honor of serving as Mississippi as as Farm Bureau President and we're based in Jackson, Mississippi. One of the most common concerns I hear from my members is a growing conflict between agriculture and the many bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of nineteen eighteen. I commend you and your leadership in hosting this hearing today to review federal oversight of this important legislation. While we fully support reasonable measures to protect these valuable natural resources, we must develop workable policy that protects the species without causing a major economic hardship for private landowners and farmers. I would like to devote my time today in discussing primarily four species that provide a real challenge for the agricultural industry in my state and surrounding areas. One of the most devastating migratory bird species to our state's cattle producers is the black vulture. The black vulture population in the Mid-South area continues to grow and has become a serious problem more than ever before. I've seen a black vulture attack on my farms with my own eyes, and personally it's truly one of the most horrific things you could ever witness. The black vulture population swarm a herd of cattle attack newborn calves just after birth. In most cases, the vultures begin blinding the calf by pecking its eyes out, weakening its ability to navigate its surroundings and puncturing its hindquarters. And once that's accomplished, the calf's ability to and strength to fight is over and the vulture will liter- literally tear the newborn calf apart. In other situations where a mother attempts to defend her calf, the swarm of vultures surround the mother in the calf. Over time, the mother will become so stressed and fatigued, and fighting the vultures that sometimes she will end up accidentally trampling her own calf to death. And in occasions the vulture attacks the mother and the calf during the birthing process killing the calf as it exits the birth canal and injuring the mother to the point that the farmer has to euthanize the animal. As a farmer myself I can tell you how demoralizing you feel when this happens on your farm. You spend vast amounts of time and investments in making sure the mother and the unborn calf are properly cared for and protected from disease and adverse weather events. To see this horrific event happen at the hands of an aggressive predator and federally protected bird is disheartening. USDA, APHIS, and Mississippi State researchers conclude that the black vulture causes over two million dollars in annual calf losses in Mississippi alone. In addition to this ongoing threat to our state's cattle producers, a new emerging threat has recently arisen, impacting our state's poultry producers. Just this past month, the Mississippi Board of Animal Health was notified of a broiler farm in Mississippi with a positive case of avian influenza. Upon thorough investigation by state agencies, it was discovered that the spread of avian influenza into the broiler flock was likely linked to a series of black vulture encounters and deaths near and around the impacted broiler farm. This new discovery is of grave concern to us from an animal health standpoint. In twenty twenty one, the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation obtained a statewide depredation permit for black vultures from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. While we are very grateful for this program, it's simply not responsive enough to the needs on the ground when farmers discover their black vultures are attacking their calves. They simply don't have time to call and get a permit while they're trying to save their livestock. For this reason, I commend the committee in July of twenty twenty five for passing the Black Vulture Relief Act. H R twenty four sixty two, introduced by Representative John Rose and Representative Darren Soto. This is common sense legislation that supports the ability of our farmers to protect their livestock under their care. The double-crested cormorant is a federally protected migratory bird that's also cost our industry and the farm-raised catfish industry millions of dollars over the years. These birds consume fish and spread a host of diseases in the ponds. The average catfish farmer spends two hundred and eighty-five dollars per acre on harassment measures alone. The cost to the catfish industry related to bird depredation can be as high as sixty-five million dollars annually. Despite these efforts, harassment alone does not completely resolve the problems. In March of twenty twenty-five, Representative Mike Izzo and Representative Benny Thompson both from Mississippi, introduced House Bill twenty-two ninety-three, the Cormorant Relief Act of twenty twenty-five. We thank the committee for its leadership in passing this legislation and ultimately passing the full house in December, twenty twenty five. Another um pest or or or that we're dealing with in neighboring states is the black-bellied whistling ducks. They have become a serious problem to our neighbors in Louisiana. With tens of thousands of these birds that have taken up permanent residence on the Mississippi River corridor at our nation's largest ports, causing real threats to international bulk shipments of grains, cost in the rice industry more than three million dollars annually. Last, the emerging concern that we hear from our landowners across our state, are flocks of Canadian geese destroying annual ryegrass fields that are planted for cattle grazing in the fall. Essentially, hundreds of these geese swarm the fields uh and um take out and freshly emerge ryegrass within hours. The field is absolutely level. In closing, I want to commend the committee for hosting this hearing, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to share some pers perspectives from my form on these important issues, and I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you. I now recognize Miss Swanson for five minutes.

Good afternoon, Chairman Hangman, Ranking Member Hoyle, Vice Chairman Ixal, Chairman Westerman, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Leslie Swanson and I'm an Environmental Scientist for Salt River Project, one of the country's oldest and largest public power utilities, and the largest supplier of raw water in central Arizona. SRP was formed back in nineteen O three when Arizona farmers and ranchers pledged their land as collateral to secure a loan through the National Reclamation Act. Today, SRP manages and operates water infrastructure throughout Arizona, including six dams and reservoirs on the Salt and Verde rivers that can store roughly two point three million acre feet of water as well as thirteen hundred miles of canals, laterals, ditches and pipelines to deliver water across two thousand five two two hundred and fifty thousand acres of land on the power side of the business s r p is the third largest not-for-profit community-based public power utility in the us we provide electricity to nearly three million people in arizona and have an energy portfolio that includes nuclear natural gas hydropower coal solar and battery storage as a vertically integrated utility s r p transmits and delivers electricity across twenty nine hundred square miles service territory in central and eastern Arizona. We maintain a large transmission system and a distribution grid with more than twenty two thousand miles of distribution lines and nearly twenty five hundred miles of transmission lines. For the last fifteen years, I have served as the lead subject matter expert on avian power line interactions and have extensive experience in avian compliance matters. I explain my work as being focused on translating wildlife protection requirements into practical field level compliance measures, for a large electric utility. Part of my role involves managing SRP's voluntary avian protection program, overseeing federal permitting and reporting requirements, and I work closely with our field crews as well as federal and state agencies to implement practical science-based protections for migratory birds. I am also the immediate past chair of the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, which is an organization made up of electric utilities and resource agency partners, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service. SRP addresses avian issues across all of our assets, though most interactions occur on the transmission and distribution system, as you might expect. Great horned owls and red-tailed hawks are the most frequently involved species. Birds are attracted to utility infrastructure, including utility poles which offer them a place to perch, hunt, roost, and nest. SRP has a high voltage transmission line system traversing large parts of the state in forested areas. But in other locations, SRP transmission and distribution poles are the tallest options on the landscape. Power outages can occur when birds come into contact with electric infrastructure. That could mean birds building nests on energized assets or when birds fly into utility infrastructure. Birds sometimes drop prey on utility infrastructure, and bird excrement can come into contact with energ energized components, or equipment, causing that equipment to malfunction or fail. The voluntary program SRP operates reduces bird impacts and helps maintain the safety and reliability of our transmission and distribution system. And there's a series of measures that we implement. not limited to coordinating with local organizations that support avian conservation such as Arizona Game and Fish, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Audubon Southwest, and Liberty Wildlife, a local rehab group dedicated to wildlife rehabilitation. Over the years we've been asked to supply supply bucket trucks to assist with the rescue of a variety of different bird species. Some examples of the types of asks we've received were in the request to rescue a great blue heron tangled in fishing line and dangling from a tree, a request to help remove an osprey trapped in the safety netting at a golf and a request to save fledgling red ha- red-tailed hawk that got stuck upside down in the crook of a tree. We also assist Arizona Game and Fish in their bald eagle management committee, and we provide bucket trucks every year to help them r- uh access nestlings for banding. At the core of all of this is the commitment to protect and preserve all natural resources, while at the same time ensuring we carry out our mission of delivering safe, reliable and affordable electricity and water to our customers. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which today protects more than eleven hundred species, is one of the oldest wildlife protection laws dating back nineteen eighteen when it was enacted in an attempt to curtail over hunting of birds. Congress would not have anticipated the advancements humans would make over the next hundred plus years. This is true for the utility industry. Today we are facing unprecedented growth and a need to rapidly expand our generation transmission and distribution resources. As the demand for electricity increases, the development of the new resources and the ongoing maintenance of existing assets occur within the complex backdrop of federal state and local laws, in addition to utility. to industry policies mandating reliability, safety, and environmental standards. As you know, utilities navigate the complex way of regulatory requirements, regulatory certainty is a critical. Clearly defined compliance standards and criteria are essential for planning, permitting, construction, operation, and maintenance of the network of energy infrastructure supplying power throughout the country with more than a thousand species of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act a one size fits all approach creates significant implementation challenges

Thank you. I now recognize Mister Schmidt for five minutes. Thank you. Mr. Schmidt, for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and uh thank you, Ranking Member Hoyle, members of the subcommittee. It's my honor to testify today on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. I have almost fifty years of experience in wildlife conservation, much of which you see at at with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but also with Ducks Unlimited, and most recently as a consultant to projects across the country from bald eagle nesting sites, citing wind power to avoid waterfowl, and launching an innovative bird conservation initiative called Road to Recovery. I've testified in this very room before this committee many times previously, wearing different hats. Today, I represent only myself. The MBTA has served us and birds well for a hundred and eight years. This law provides guideposts for the lawful taking of birds and was one of the first of many federal laws and policies that help maintain healthy wildlife populations in the United States. The MBTA is the bedrock upon which we conduct bird conservation and build partnerships ensuring sustainable populations. The law provides a legal framework to prevent human activities from being harmful to birds. Scientific studies published in Science in two thousand nineteen and more recently in in twenty twenty six demonstrate the need for strong legislation and partnerships to understand and reverse declines. The North American population of birds is down by nearly three billion birds since nineteen seventy, with devastating losses in every biome, and the declines are accelerating. These studies are a clarion call to action. Healthy avian fauna is important for the healthy environment more broadly, and indeed for a vibrant and healthy society. Additionally, as mentioned here earlier, birds are a significant economic driver in the United States. Billions of dollars uh of economic output, millions of jobs, and tax b- benefits as well. Nearly a hundred million people engage in birding activities. And birds also provide pest control for agriculture. Birds bring people together. Working together in partnerships is critical to our success in conservation and recovery of populations. There are many examples of successful government non-governmental partnerships that benefit birds. such as our joint ventures, Partnerscapes, Partners in Flight, Flyway Initiative, Road to Recovery, and more. These partnerships deliver conservation that will recover and maintain healthy populations, provided there is the necessary investment. Current funding levels are not sufficient to meet the challenges we face in twenty twenty-six to recover bird populations on the brink of being listed as threatened or endangered. But there are existing funding streams that can contribute to recovery of birds and I'm happy to talk about them. Funding for the basic bird conservation mission for the Fish and Wildlife Service has suffered significant decreases over the past decade, such that the migratory bird management functions within the Fish and Wildlife Service have been severely hampered. Underpinning all conservation must be good science and monitoring programs that provide managers, private landowners, and the key information. Such monitoring programs as the breeding bird survey, waterfowl surveys, bird banding, et cetera, must be fully funded so that the data can be used to guide our managers. These are critical databases. With the effective laws and sufficient funding, We have demonstrated the ability to recover species. The MBTA is credited with saving the snowy egret, wood duck, sand eel crane, and many more from extinction. The law and its regulations provide a backdrop for efforts to stabilize and conserve bird populations. Bird conservation is good for our environment, good for our health, good for our economy. And it's nonpartisan, it's bipartisan. Birdwatchers and sportsmen alike contribute to our conservation successes and support bird conservation. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I am at your service and ready to help find solutions to the problems vital to Americans and the criti- and critical to healthy bird populations. I look forward to responding to any questions you may have. Thank you so much.

Thank you, and I now recognize Mister Haidt for five minutes.

Chairwoman Hagman, Reconnaid member Holt, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and thank you to Congressman Walbur for bringing this issue to the forefront. My name is Davey Haidt. I'm a Army National Guard veteran, a Bass Fishing Hall of Fame member, a Bassmaster Classic champion, and my retirement job, the co-host of Bassmaster Television. Most recently I was appointed to serve on the board of South Carolina Department of Natural Resources by our great Conservation Governor, Henry McMaster. I'm here solely to testify in my personal capacity as a professional fisherman and to share my experiences from the last thirty years on the water, fishing lakes, rivers, and coastal systems all across this country, not on behalf of SCDNR or any other organization I am a member of. I'm here to talk about an issue that reflects both the success of American conservation policy and the challenges that arise when recovery is not followed by practical science-based management. That issue is the management of the double-crested cormorant under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Over the course of my career, I've had the opportunity to fish waters across the United States, from Michigan to Alabama. from California to my home state of South Carolina. Over that time I've watched cormorant populations rebound, which is a conservation success. But I've also seen firsthand how in certain places the success has created real challenges for fisheries habitat and other wildlife. When a specie species rebounds, conservation work does not end, it shifts. We move from recovery to stewardship. And stewardship requires tools to maintain balance across the ecosystems. I began fishing competitively in the nineteen nineties and through my career in bass master television I've spent time on waters all over the country. Over that time I've seen major changes in fish population, forage, of availability, habitat, quality, and predator dynamics. In many inland lakes and reservoirs, increases in cormorant numbers have Coincided with noticeable changes in fish recruitment and availability. These impacts tend to show up most clearly in combined systems, places where fish can't simply move and swim elsewhere. These aren't just angler observations. State agencies and researchers have documented the same patterns. High con high concentrations of a very efficient fish predator can put real pressure on managing fisheries. And comrades are extremely efficient fish predators. According to a study done by Clemson University, a single bird can consume up to eight fish per day, often adding up to several pounds. When hundreds or thousands of birds, hundreds or thousands of birds concentrate on one lake or river, especially in the winter, the kill of predation adds up fast. And when fish populations take a hit, it doesn't just affect fishing. It affects license revenue, conservation funding, and local economics that depend on heavily, hea- depend heavily on fisheries. One example from South Carolina helps illustrate this. As mentioned, Clemson did a study study on calmorants on the Santee Cooper lakes in twenty eighteen. At that time about six thousand birds were wintering there, consuming an estimated forty eight thousand fish per day. That study was done nearly twenty years ago, during a severe drought and when cormorant poss- populations were lower than they are today. The takeaway is not just the number, it's the predation at the scale size overwhelming traditional fisheries management tools like krill limits size limits and fish stocking. Those tools are designed to manage angler harvests, not sustain high density predation, by a recovered species. And this is not just a freshwater issue. Cormorants also feed heavily on inshore and near coastal fish species, adding pressure to estuaries that are already dealing with habitat loss and water quality challenges. The impacts go beyond fish, large roosting colonies can strip vegetation, destabilizing shorelines and degrading islands. I personally watched islands disappear over the years due to heavy cormorant use. On Lake Murray in South Carolina, we've seen comrades take over islands that traditionally su- support our purple purple martin phenomenon, where over one million purple martins roost on their way to South America each year. Those islands have been long drawn birds from around the world, enthusiasts from around the world. As vegetation disappears, those habitats are being displaced. This is bird on bird habitat conflict. not anglers versus wildlife. Due to past court rulings, states have lost their ability to address document site specific problems. States are not looking to undergo undue conservation success. In my opinion, states need to target science-based flexibility to manage real impacts where they occur. Commercence or migratory and conditions vary dramatically across the country. A reservoir in South Carolina is not like a Great Lake or prairie pothole region. That's why flyway-based approaches like those approached by the Mississippi Flyway Council make sense. They allow for coordination, accountability, and balance while keeping overall populations healthy. Adaptive management is something we already do for deer, turkey, waterfowl, and fish. Migratory birds should not be an exception. when science supports that action. I'll close with this. The recovery of the double-crested cormorant is a conservation suve- success story, but unmanaged success can create unintended ecological consequences. After more than thirty years on the water, I'm confident that balanced science-based management produces the best outcome for fish, birds, habitat, and people who enjoy our great American outdoors. With thoughtful oversight, the modernized implementation, the Migratory Bur Bird Treaty Act can continue to protect migratory birds, while also preserving healthy fisheries and ecosystems. Thank you. I look forward to any questions.

Thank you. I wanna thank each of the witnesses again for being here today, for traveling here, and for sharing your testimony. I'm now going to recognize the members for five minutes of questioning, and I'm going to begin with myself. Miss Swanson. I stated in my opening statement that I have had numerous constituents reach out to me with concerns about what some are calling a wind wall that is being developed in southeastern Wyoming, the regulatory game of ping pong that has been played over out over the last several administrations in regards to the MT MBTA has created uncertainty, no doubt, but I also believe that there needs to be accountability for foreseeable impacts to migratory birds from activities like wind generation. My question is this. In your testimony you talk about how the how the Salt River Project's avian protection program is completely voluntary, but yet it has been integrated across all of your assets. What can Congress do to ensure electricity generation and transmissions assets account for impacts to migratory birds, without turning the MVTA into a blunt instrument that creates impractical mandates for other businesses. In other words, give us advice. What should we do? How do we fix this in five minutes or less?

Thank you, Chairwoman.

Three minutes, I've got other questions.

Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate the opportunity. Um, as you said, the SRP has a voluntary avian protection program. A lot of other utilities also have similar voluntary programs, and we try to integrate all of that work across the utility industry and across the assets that we manage. And while I can't speak to specifics, I think the flexibility is there, and we acknowledge that human uh infrastructure does impact birds, but it isn't a one size fits all solution. There are smaller cooperatives out there that may not have the staffing and the manpower that some of the larger investor owned utilities do have. And so we look forward to continuing to work with the agencies as we try to explore solutions that may help us progress this issue forward in a a reasonable manner. So thank you.

I think flexibility is important. And Mister McCormick, I'm gonna talk to you. I grew up on a ranch as well and understand the impact of uh uh what can happen uh in these situations. When a rancher walks out to a pasture and sees a flock of twenty, thirty or sometimes even fifty black vultures actively attacking a newborn calf, what would be their immediate priority?

I think you're called as a rancher to be a good shepherd, and your first response is to protect that baby calf. Uh, you don't have time to think about getting a depredation permit. You don't have time to think about anything else.

That's right.

You just wanna get the buzzards away from the baby calf so the mama can have her baby back.

I c very much can relate to that. And given that reality, doesn't it make sense that any permitting process should allow for retroactive authorization when a producer is responding to an active prep depredation event.

I agree with that, and I think that's one of the reasons we don't get as many requests for depredation permits is because it's after the fact and uh allowing somebody to to take uh the the vultures uh on the front-end uh would be a huge help to protect our livestock.

That's something that you would recommend that Congress do to change the the law,

Absolutely.

okay.

Absolutely.

And Mister Haidt in your testimony I found it very interesting. what you're talking about is a balance. And what I have seen over the years, being an attorney who worked with the um Endangered Species Act for many decades, is that when we have success stories, whether it is the cormorant as you described, or it is the gray wolf, or it's the grizzly bear, it can take decades to delist them, despite the fact that we have met all recovery goals and our state game and fish departments are very effective at managing them. And I think it's one of the the problems that I see with these acts, when we when we don't modernize them and recognize uh the way that we manage wildlife and that we need to have that balance across all of the different interests. But in your testimony you state when p species far exceed their recovery goals at the continental level, unmanaged localized concentrations can have significant ecological impacts. In your experience, in the context of cormorants, where are those impacts most impacts most acute?

Thank you for the question. So, immediately, me as a fisherman, my first answer is gonna be uh with the fish, the population, and and and the impact that the the thousands of comrades have on the fish population. But the thing that really drew my attention to the comrades and it's the habitat devastation. The islands that I spoke of, I honestly can take you to islands not just on my home lake where I grew up, but through the years I've fished places. One place in particular is on Tennessee River in Guntersville, Alabama. And and there were islands that were were beautiful in habitat. I would see geese nesting on those islands, that sort of thing. And when the comrades would would roost in large numbers, they would devastate. And and I'm not talking about just just small vegetation, huge trees, and and they would kill everything. Um and and when you see that happen, and then the erosion of that island, and I'm telling my age a little bit, over thirty years I've seen it happen. places that were beautiful islands that are literally not islands, they're humps that I actually fish over the top of because they're shallow water, um, bedding areas for bass. Oh, when you see that happen and how it devastates the habitat is what really drew my attention to the numbers of comrades and damage that they are causing.

So again, that's why we need to have the flexibility and use more common sense in terms of management.

Yes.

Well, I thank you, uh, again, and I'm going to call on Representative Dingel, Dingel from the great state of Michigan.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to Rinky, Member Hoyle. Look, uh, thank you for all the witnesses being here. Birds are vital to our communities and our economy, but the fact of the matter is in North America, their populations are dropping, and I believe we're in crisis. Even common species, the black birds, have undergone massive population losses. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is one of the best ways we have to fight these losses. It covers nearly all the native bird species in the United States, and we should be doing everything we can to protect this statute and the programs that support help our native bird populations. So, I wanna focus on what has been happening, in two nineteen a landmark study found that North America's bird population has declined by three billion birds since nineteen seventy. representing a loss of more than a quarter of the birds on the continent in just fifty years. Last week, a new study found that for a large portion of our birds, these population declines are actually accelerating. Mister Schmidt, given this news, how can the Migratory Bird Treaty Act help address these concerning trends?

I think uh the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is fundamental to do to doing just what you described. uh congresswoman. Um it it enhances our ability to build partnerships, collaboration, and working with individuals such as at this table to solve problems where human, wildlife come into conflict, but also collaborations that build upon the populations that we need. Road to recovery, a partnership that I um was instrumental in launching just a few years ago, is trying desperately to return re re um stem those declines, return populations and recover them before they become endangered or threatened. That to me is proactive in a way that is very successful. Now, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does it need to be modernized? I would suggest it does. to incentivize good uh stewardship on the landscape from private landowners, as well as governments. And I I think that the public is expecting the government to lead in this regard.

Thank you. The loss in degradation of bird habitat is one of the main drivers of bird population loss. Restoring bird habitats in rural and urban parks and greenways can make a real difference in conserving bird populations for the future. My legislation, the Local Communities and Bird Habitat Stewardship Act, would make one million dollars available through an annual grant program to protect, restore and enhance urban bird habitats, reduce urban hazards to birds, and educate the public about bird conservation. This will expand the reach of the current urban bird treaty grant program, giving the program dedicated statutory authorization and funding. Mister Schmidt, can you talk about the impact the Urban Bird Treaty Program grants have had on the thirty-one participating cities? And if the grant program were expanded, what the benefits would look like across the country?

Thank you for that question, because that strikes at the at um the work that I did in the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I established urban treaties back when I was with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Our first one, as I recall, was New Orleans with Mayor Morial. And throughout those thirty some cities that you've described, we have we have done remarkable things with l- with very little money, inspiring people to do, to volunteer and to support habitat protection, and to bring people in urban settings closer to wildlife, which I believe will help us all in the long run with the appreciation for wildlife and wild spaces to to be good stewards of our land more broadly. I I commend you for your leadership in that regard.

Thank you again, and I'm just gonna I'm out of time, so I wanna thank all of our witnesses again for being here and remind people about what an important role birds play in our ecosystems and everyday life. My bill that I'm talking about has received the support from the hunting community, conservations alike, it's endorsed by the American Bird Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation. So I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense legislation to benefit future generations and I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Representative Wahlberg for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thanks to the panel for being here. Um, I have the privilege of representing a district in southern central eastern and western Michigan, with Lake Michigan and Lake Erie as being two lakes in my district, as well as multiple inland lakes, waterways, rivers, streams, and uh a great fishery it is, as well as a great place for the bird population. Uh the double-crested cormorant of course is a bird that's listed under the MBTA. We've talked about it, but it wreaks significant havoc. on our fisheries and other sources of wildlife. Um, it's great to see how it has been restored, but uh, as has been noted, it is now a a bird that needs some stewardship. Studies from the state of Michigan indicate that there are over two hundred and thirty thousand double-breasted cormorants around the Great Lakes each being capable of eating one pound of fish per day or more. According to the Michigan DNR, that equals more than seventy-seven million pounds of fish per year, and that's, I believe, a serious issue. Uh, Mister Haidt, it's good to see you, when I grow up I wanna be just like you. Um, I appreciated reading through your written testimony, and I agreed with so much of what you presented about the dire situation that we're in, and I think more people need to understand exactly what's happening here. Can you explain the negative impact of comorants on free swimming fish, like those we have in the Great Lakes or those you have in the Southeast?

Like a gopher. I I the pretty swinging face you're talking about these comrades feed on is I was a professional angler for twenty four years, I've never uh a fisherman, a predator. I probably don't need that, but that's better. They they're great fishers. And and they're predators and and they um obviously when they get on a small body of water, um where the fish can't simply just swim away. They will devastate. I have a a close friend that has a a forty acre lake that he lives on and in two years, they devastated the fish population in that forty acre lake. But they're great hunters. They're they're great at what they do and the numbers that you talk about, when they get in large numbers, they herd groups of fish into shoreline areas and feed on them. So they they are just great fish predators that um they find a way to feed, like you mentioned, up to a pound, a pound and a half of fish. Per bird per day. Seventy seven million pounds is astonishing. We need to think about that.

That's a lot of fish.

Yes, sir.

That I couldn't catch. Um, you also note in your testimony there's a need for targeted management. In your opinion, as you mentioned toward the end of your testimony, how would a flyway uh council modeled approach improve management of the Comorant?

Well, I I think you you said it right there, basically, it's just the the local and state agencies working together and with the flyway model, we've seen that have success with other with other birds, with other ducks. Uh, as the chairwoman mentioned, I think a a balance is what we all look for. We, I mean, I enjoy seeing uh, believe it or not, the the double crested cormorant, but when you see thousands and thousands of them, you know there is an issue there. When you, when you go to some of these areas and see, like you mentioned, hundreds of thousands of birds that are feeding on these fisheries that we did not see thirty years ago. It's it's funny how as a child you remember certain things when you're very young. I remember being with my dad hunting when I saw my first cormorant. I remember that because it was very unusual. He told me what it was. I was five or six years old. But now when I go to those same areas on those same lakes, and I see thousands and thousands of them, there's an issue.

And in the end, I think it'll have an impact, I would assume. from history, it'll have an impact on the cormorants as well.

Yes.

Uh, when left totally

Yes.

undeveloped and uh un-unstewarded as it were. Um, thank you. Um, Mister Schmidt, in a two thousand three article which ran in the Los Angeles Times, you were quoted as saying the cormorant, and I quote, " the cormorant has had a significant negative effect in some areas". Do you still believe that the cormorant has had a significant negative effect in some areas, especially like those of the Great Lakes.

Yes, on uh fish populations, I would say so, and also as mentioned on some uh localized habitat issues where they uh impact the ha um, the vegetation and other nesting areas for other birds as well.

And that's certainly something that I think we could join together in a bipartisan way. Um, and in and in uh not only political bipartisan, but fishermen, duck hunters like me who see cormorants flying across the sky and uh uh and and people who love watching birds and watching flora fauna uh along the lake shores and other places that we could come together on. So

I believe there are tools tools available to use to control cormorants in particular areas where they're having impacts. I think one of the issues if I can is is funding for the agency that's responsible for this. has been devastated over the past decade. And they need they need staffing to help

But

help fishermen and and help local communities deal with these problems.

I I appreciate that, but I also think we ought to make sure we talk to the fishermen and the farmers, and all the rest, and take some of their advice, because I think there's some practical ways they can do they can handle this, with common sense. So, thank you. I yield back.

Thank you. And I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyle for five minutes.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Schmidt, I've I've, you know, we've talked a lot about common sense and I know that we can work in a bipartisan way, especially with hunters and anglers who really do so much in terms of conservation. Um, and I'd just like you to talk about some examples of how the Migratory Bird Treaty Act has encouraged partnerships and c collaboration, um, and also help proactively address threats to birds and reduce the need for more listings under the ESA.

Um, thank you for that uh question. I think there are many examples of partnerships that have been spawned by the MBTA. And it goes back to um efforts to develop best management practices to cover oil pits, uh open oil pits that were attractive nuisances and and death traps to birds. But it's been advanced into other other um industries as well, such as uh power lines as you heard today. The Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, which I sat on from the agency perspective years ago, is a great example of where together you can collaborate to develop avian protection plans that not only deal with the the impacts hopefully to the industry, the power generator, but also recognize the importance of of birds at the same time, and develop a proactive incentivized program uh to benefit birds and the and power.

Sorry, sorry about that, um and could you talk a little bit in the time we have left about what tools exist within the migratory bird treaty act to provide flexibility for project developers. And what are some examples of those tools being used uh successfully?

So I think development of best management practices, as I've mentioned already, but also in them it's my view that um over the past fifty or sixty years of implementation of the MBTA, that prosecutorial or enforcement discretion has been used quite effectively to encourage best m- practices amongst industries. and where these wildlife and people conflicts come into play. So I think there's a way to collaborate and use the MBTA positively. And as I mentioned earlier, modernization is is welcomed in and this this subcommittee and the committee has attempted to try to do that um in in recent times, and I hope you're successful in doing that for the benefit of all of us, as well as the birds.

Great, thank you, and I yield back.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Iseult for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mister McCormick, uh, based on your testimony, you mentioned the serious and ongoing challenges that double-breasted cormorants pose to the Mississippi catfish industry. As you know, I introduced the Cormorant Relief Act of twenty twenty five, which would require the Department of Interior to re-issue the depredation order allowing agriculture producers to take cormorants that are actively harming their facilities. Can you explain how reissuing the depredation order as proposed in the Cormorant Relief Act would provide timely relief to catfish farmers, and why current harassment and permitting tools just aren't enough?

Thank you, Congressman. Uh, the harassment tools are just not enough. The birds are smart. Uh, they know that they're not in danger. Um, they uh Uh the trucks circle the ponds uh as soon as they uh go across, then the the birds come right back. Um it's a it's a big issue, the farmers have very little uh tools at their disposal to keep the harassment up, uh to make it make it any effective at all. Uh they can use uh some noise uh some carbide ca- cannons type thing to s- to scare them off, uh but uh it's a it's a good place for them to be, it's a it's a lot of fish there. And uh I think if you look at your background in law enforcement, you know that if somebody owned a small business and uh they were getting broken into everyday and somebody was stealing uh a good portion of their inventory, they're not gonna be in business very long.

Right.

Uh those those fish farmers are the same way. That's their inventory, uh the profit margins are slim, and they need to be able to uh protect their their crop. And uh being able to take through uh your updated uh uh your your your your bill that uh needs badly needs uh to be passed, is is the only way that the farmers will truly have some protection against these predators.

Thank you. You mentioned rising issues with the black-bellied whistling ducks affecting grain export terminals and rice production, uh as well as the Canadian geese damaging rye grass forage and contaminating cattle water sources. From your perspective, what should Congress know and and uh what should we cons- how should we consider updates to the federal oversight under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to make sure we strike the right balance between wildlife protection and protecting American, agriculture, and food infrastructure?

Thank you, Congressman. I think what I'd like to say is is I have a little bit different view on on these uh species that we're talking about, cuz I don't see them decreasing i see their populations increasing i also see a a different pattern with these birds especially the the duck whistling ducks and the geese is they're no longer migratory they stay in mississippi and surrounding states yeah right a whole time they winter and summer there uh so the opportunity for them to do much more damage to our crops uh the ducks to uh uh uh commerce of moving the grain around the world is just uh increasing exponentially. So I see an ongoing uh pattern of of these uh birds um increasing in population, with very little tools to um uh defend ourselves from them.

Thank you, and thank you for coming today, and thank you for all the witnesses. Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Councilman.

Chair now recognizes Representative Molloy for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Uh, Mister McCormick, I'm gonna keep you in the hot seat for a little bit longer. I was listening to you talk about what the black vultures do to calves. And it reminded me of stories I keep hearing from sheep producers in Utah about ravens.

Mm-hmm.

Um, birds that are also protected, and they can predate newborn sheep. Um, and they're already having a hard enough time making a living, making ends meet in the sheep industry. And now one of the factors that they can't control is a bird that we've protected. And it makes me think, do you think in nineteen eighteen, when Congress passed the migratory bird treaty act, I think they were trying to make sure that we didn't hunt birds into extinction for their feathers that were fashionable at the time. Do you think they could have possibly intended to put farmers out of business, just because we can't do anything to manage these populations?

Thank you, Congressman. I don't think so, because I've I've seen over my lifetime as a rancher, Uh these birds uh uh changing their uh their characteristics they uh for a vulture, uh they were always known to uh just eat dead animals, but now over my lifetime they uh have come really good at being predators, and I'm sure the ravens are the same way.

Yeah.

Uh that they probably had other things that they uh uh fed on back in the day, but um they probably have learned of um uh they're very smart birds that uh hey there's something out there for eat. for us to eat. There couldn't have possibly been those um type of problems back in nineteen eighteen, and I do think it needs to be reviewed.

Yeah, I think you're right. And and I hear everybody here asking for flexibility, and that seems like a really logical, reasonable request. Mister Schmidt, I wanna pull you into the same type of conversation. So similarly, in my district in southern Utah, we have threatened Mojave Desert Tortoises. And Their eggs are vulnerable to predation by ravens. And again, the ravens are protected, but so are the tortoises, and we're we're trying to do all these things to control what people are doing, to make sure we're not harming tortoises. And yet we have this problem with the ravens. Um, I know your background is in fish and wildlife service. Uh, do you think more flexibility with how we manage the ravens would help us with some of the other issues that fish and wildlife service is trying to manage?

Um, I'll speak to it without first-hand knowledge of the issue you're talking about, but I think flexibility is important in the management and the, and adapting some of these laws. And, and so I can't disagree with your, the premise of your question. I would say this, that evidence shows that the vast majority of of the thousand bird species that are uh covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, decreasing at an accelerating rate. That tells me that the human environment, more broadly, is having a dramatic effect on bird populations. So we need to understand that and deal with it. But there are these few species that we've been focused a lot of attention on today, that have incredible adaptations, and they've adapted like the double-crested cormorant, Um, perhaps ravens, certainly, um, uh, Canada geese, uh, have all adapted to the human environment pretty well, pretty successfully frankly, and have have demonstrated impacts on in localized areas. And the case of the tortoise and um the raven is a is probably a really good example. I'd have to know more about it, but I would say we need flexibility to manage the the declining populations as well as the overpopulations.

Yeah.

It's a pap- it's a study I papered uh wrote with an author on a

Thank you.

number many years ago actually seeing the forecasting these problems.

Thank you. So, similarly, Miss Swanson, you talked about, you know, the the very foreseeable conflicts between transmission and birds. And it from what I hear you say, you're asking for flexibility. Could you just talk a little bit about how flexibility would make it easier? for you guys to manage.

Sure. Thank you very much for that question. And I think over the last fifty years we've seen fluctuations in the application of the Migratory Board Treaty Act. And the utility industry as a whole, we we plan long term, so it's very hard to plan and and account for the ambiguity that we've seen, and the the changes that come across. And we're trying to have that regulatory certainty, so we know what path to move forward on. So I think that's kind of what we're

Thank you. Mister Haidt, I was gonna ask you a question, but I'm out of time, so I will just tell you quickly. I have a staffer who's kind of obsessed with birds and is really excited about this hearing and he told me he saw two cormorants this morning out of his window of the Metro on the way to work so I don't know if that's as special of a memory as you have with your father fishing but they are definitely more common than they used to be. And I will yield.

They were riding the Metro?

i don't know why that's for details

they they're adapting

he is

i now call on uh mister mcdowell for five minutes of questions

thank you madam chairwoman mister heid when you were uh when your dad took you on the lake for the first time had you ever duck on it at that point

so i don't think i if i misspoke i apologize if i misspoke i apologize it wasn't first time on the lake with my dad. It was uh when I was young and it was a duck hunting trip. He was actually duck hunting, I was five years old, although I uh carried a shotgun probably a lot younger than I should have. At five years old I was just watching my dad.

Well so, I guess the reason I ask is I think it's important that we take people hunting and fishing for the first time.

Yes.

I think that's a huge issue because if we don't do that, we're gonna lose uh that heritage. But When I take somebody hunting for the first time, which I try to do as often as I can, I don't get to nearly as much anymore, uh because the speaker doesn't uh set the calendar around duck season. But do you think that a person that's never hunted could tell the difference at sixty yards between a Wigeon and a Comorant?

No, sir.

I don't think they could either. And so I guess, Miss Swanson, for you, uh can you explain the historical purposes of the migratory bird treaty act and whether congress originally intended that law to criminalize incidental uh or unintentional impacts or or whether it was primarily focused on stopping deliberate poaching and and commercial exploitation.

Thank you for the question. I can't speak to the intent of of the previous congress, but I I would say that similar to my testimony, the environment has changed, the human environment has changed a lot since nineteen eighteen. And I don't think there was any expectation or even visibility of some of the growth and some of the industry and the challenges that have evolved. And the directions where the human environment has gone and moving forward, if we do want to continue these conversations and figure out a path forward. I think most of the industries are probably very willing to step up. I know the utility industry is, and I'd be happy to talk to folks and be a resource to try and come up with a path forward. But um it's gonna continue to change. So I think we have

Sure. So, one of the things that you said, Mister McCormick, when we talk about Canada geese, um, you know, as a sportsman, I know how rare it is, I'm sure you do too, to, to take a banded duck or goose. Uh, and so you can imagine my surprise when hunting in Davie County, in North Carolina, uh, we sent a dog out to get a goose and he brought that one back and it had a band on it. And he went and got the other three, and all three of them were banded. And we called them in to see where they were from. And uh, they pretty much banded them in the Walmart parking lot of where we live, which is pretty far from Canada. Uh, and we have that problem with vultures that have expanded tremendously. And when I see uh, you know, the northern pintail, there might be, you know, you might see three or four fly in and then you just see a steady stream of comorants for a mile, just going for forever. Uh, and you can kill three pintails but you can't shoot a comorant. And then the other problem we run into is, you know, we do a lot of work for duck habitat and to, to produce additional numbers of ducks. And the, you know, in North Carolina we put wood duck boxes out all over all the lakes. Um, and the vultures go in there and they're killing the ducks, the the eggs of these wood ducks. And what we have to make sure as Congress is that we are not passing laws that that attempt conservation at the expense of something else. That's what we've done way too often. I mean there's there's people in Washington that think that coyotes sit around a campfire and sing and that they don't kill everything. Uh, and so they try to protect them. Well, doing that is at at the expense of deer, of basically anything else with a pulse. Uh, and and we have to make sure that we're not doing that. Um, Mister Schmidt, with with the remainder of my time, uh, uh, obviously I'm an avid sportsman, and I was pleased to see the the Trump administration's, um, change the paradigm for hunting and fishing in in the national wildlife refuge system from closed and less open to open and less closed. What are your thoughts on that policy change?

Um, Congressman, I'm a I'm a hunter, long time hunter, waterfowl and big game as well. Uh, I appreciate uh um public property to use to hunt. Um, I can't disagree with uh the need to have more and more space for such hunting, for sure.

OK. Well, uh, with I've run out of time. Madam Chair, I'll yield back.

Thank you. I again want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony and the members for being here, and asking your questions today. I thought this was a really interesting dialogue. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to those in writing, if we submit them. Under committee rule three, members of the committee must submit such questions to the subcommittee clerk by five PM Eastern on Monday, March ninth. The hearing record will be held open for ten business days for these responses. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.