form, its mid-term form and it's final form, which is characteristic of the team of working closely together with DMF's that they also indicate early in the letter-in fact, in the first two paragraphsthat a majority of the recovery team's plan has been accepted by the agency, and they put that a percentage of 80 or 90 percent. We certainly focused, and they wanted to call attention, to where we differed and that's healthy in this process, and there are a couple of things I would say in terms of why we differed.

Subsequent to the time that their draft plan was given to us, there have been additional science, and that was a 12-year period of time. There were thousands, literally thousands, of pages of comments from the public when we submitted their draft plan for comment. We had a peer review of the draft plan, which also provided guidance to us. Judge Marsh, as you've indicated, the courts often come in not necessarily giving priorities, but certainly giving clarifications, overturning the hydropower biological decision. The judge certainly gave some clear direction of where changes should occur in the recovery plan.

But I'm proud again of that team. It's the backbone-their proposal is the backbone of our final draft proposal, and our differences continue to be looked at and hopefully will be minor.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Well, Mr. Schmitten, I appreciate that response, but I'm going to ask that we make Dr. Bevins' letter a part of the record because I suppose we can both grab our excerpts, but it's highly critical in different aspects, and I just-again, I think it's interesting that the very recovery team that, as you say, you personally chose, would send a letter such as that.

Then just, finally, Ms. Beattie, if you would just clarify. You stated to Senator Thomas I believe that after the listing is complete, that you wish to hand it over to the States. Is that correct?

Ms. BEATTIE. I'm sorry, when the delisting is complete. All wildlife except for a very narrow Federal mandate are managed by the States. Part of the narrow Federal mandate is endangered species. Once they are no longer endangered, they go back to the management of the States. We negotiate a monitoring and management plan with the States before they're handed over, and that's where we are with the grizzly bear at the moment.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Do you agree with Secretary Babbitt that there is need for further clarification

Ms. BEATTIE. Yes.

[Laughter.]

Ms. BEATTIE. I'm sorry, forgive me, Senator-further clarification of

Senator KEMPTHORNE. No, that's the right response. You will not become an endangered species with that response.

[Laughter.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. He says clarification that there should be greater authority and clarification of that authority for States and regions included in the statute.

Ms. BEATTIE. Oh, yes, we have a long list of proposals for tightening our partnership with the State, giving the States more power, more participation in every aspect of the Endangered Species Act, which we would be happy to tell you about any time. We do, I must say, also despite the publicized conflicts have a number

of quite amazing success stories, which are often not publicized with States and with private landowners that are really important. Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Schmitten, do you agree with Secretary Babbitt?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Yes, sir.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Fine. [Laughter.]

Mr. SCHMITTEN. By the way, let me just say that I think it is a major weakness of the Act that we don't collaborate as well with the States. Frankly, in my years of dealing with the States, they have the information most often in the northwest and the same with the tribes. The other weakness is that the Act simply is not proactive. We should be focusing on preventing listings, not spending millions and millions of dollars trying to catch up with a species that has been listed, and I hope that the shift can occur in preventing listings.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that.

Senator Reid, any further questions?

Senator REID. I do have a question or two. I've been reading the testimony of Dr. Robert Taylor, director of Wildlife Ecology, California Forestry Association. Here is what he says, among other things:

"I was instructed to conduct a research program on the northern spotted owl in California." Taken together these studies that he conducted indicated that the owl population was large and stable and it flourished in commercial second growth forests. "Therefore, I recommended submitting a petition for delisting. The Fish and Wildlife Service completed its 90-day review nearly a year later and rejected the petition without looking at any of the data on the theory that the owl population in California was not a delistable unit." He goes on to say that all the information that he gathered and submitted was rejected, and in his own words, "We were met with a wall of passive indifference."

How would you respond to that?

Ms. BEATTIE. To the last allegation, Senator, I would say that I know for a fact that we worked very hard and labored very long over that, and I'm sorry that Mr. Taylor saw that as passive indifference. The California range of the spotted owl is the southern most obviously, the tip of the northern spotted owl range. It is not disjunctive except-because of a political boundary-from the rest of the spotted owl range. So the entire northern spotted owl was listed as threatened as an entire population. Our policies have good, I think, biological reasons to not allow us to delist one segment of a range.

I think what's really important to emphasize is that when a species is listed, it's for many reasons besides the sheer numbers in the population. It is for the trends in the habitat and the trend in the spotted owl habitat throughout its range were precipitously downward. It has to do with other conservation measures in place. It has to do with-there is a list of criteria so it is not just the trends in numbers, but we could see if you look at any trend in the habitat, and I think Mr. Taylor even would not disagree it is precipitously downward. So we realized and biologists realized they

don't have to wait to see the numbers go down further of the actual owls if the habitat is falling like that.

In California we have deferred to the California Timber Practices Act as a conservation measure for the spotted owl. So there is no practical effect of the listing in California because the California State law is perfectly adequate to protect the spotted owl, and we are also even proposing to in a 10-point plan that I believe the Secretary spoke to even go further in many ways to defer to State law on these considerations.

So for biological reasons and for practical reasons-for biological reasons the delisting of the southern tip of the range was not possible, and for practical reasons it wasn't necessary.

Senator REID. Excuse me, I'm sorry. I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. I have a meeting at 10:30 with one of the secretaries, and, therefore, I would like to ask a question. I'm impressed that we have people from outside the United States coming today to these hearings, and I apologize to them for not being able to stay and listen to their testimony because I'm interested in this. But while we have the administration witnesses here, there is going to be some testimony today indicating that the Environmental Protection Act that we have the Endangered Species Act, I'm sorry, that we have impacts upon economies of other nations unfairly. I see testimony and I would like to hear from you briefly on that, and we have testimony from Dr. Grandy who is with the Humane Society who give us the other bit of information. In the last reportable year Dr. Grandy indicates that we had 46,000-almost 47,000 animals who were brought back to the United States representing 250 species killed by American trophy hunters, which is an increase in just 3 years of almost 100 percent.

In 1993, 1,322 animals representing 40 endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act were killed by American trophy hunters and imported to the United States, also an increase of almost-well, about 84 percent in just 3 years.

Endangered and threatened animals that were imported as trophies in 1993 included 416 African elephants, 346 leopards, and on and on with these animals.

What is your comment in regards to these people who will testify about the impact on the Endangered Species Act on the economies of their country?

Ms. BEATTIE. Senator, my first response is that the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species, so-called CITES, is, as its title implies, a cooperative effort by 128 nations of the world to restrict the trade of endangered species. It is not directly about the conservation means within countries. It is on its face about trade.

So I would say that any signatory-and, again, becoming a party is a voluntary step by a nation-but any signatory is signing up to have its trade restricted of its endangered or threatened species. So I would not disagree that the United States or anybody else has an impact on their economy from their participation in the Convention of International Trade and Endangered Species.

By saying that we do so unfairly or that the convention does so unfairly, I would only have to guess what that means. It may mean that in many cases the United States-and I assume other coun

tries do not take at face value the certification of another country, that the harvest of the species is on a sustainable basis. If we have evidence or reason to believe that that harvest is not on a sustainable basis, it is our obligation, we believe, under the treaty and an obligation to our citizens to do some investigation of that and not simply take the export permit on its face. We try only to do that where there is evidence that there is not a conservation scheme in place for that species, and we try to walk that middle way of not being overly intrusive, but, on the other hand, not ignoring evidence.

So I can only speculate what the unfairness allegation means and respond to that.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Ms. Beattie and Mr. Schmitten, thank you very much again for your good input and help in this whole endeavor as we reform the Endangered Species Act. Many things I think were brought out here in this session, and too I want to underscore the point that as both of you pointed out, we do need to fully define greater authority and responsibility to the States in this partnership, and that will be one of the key components that reauthorization will include.

Any final comment?

Ms. BEATTIE. We look forward to working with you on this, Senator.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that.

All right, we will take a 2-minute recess while we ask the next panel to come forward.

[Recess.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Ladies and gentlemen, we will continue now with this hearing. I look forward very much to the information that the second panel will be offering us as well.

Our first witness-and, again, I might say to all of our panelists on the second and third panel, we will make your formal remarks part of the record. So if you could just summarize and make the key points, and we will be running the clock with regard to your opening statements, so as you see the yellow light coming on, you could begin to conclude your remarks. But, again, we'll be very courteous because we know many of you have come from long distances.

With that, our first panelist will be Dr. Allan Egbert, who is the executive director of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL, who is accompanied by Gary Taylor, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Dr. EGBERT.

DIRECTOR,

STATEMENT OF ALLAN EGBERT, EXECUTIVE FLORIDA GAME AND FRESHWATER FISH COMMISSION, TALLAHASSEE, FL; ACCOMPANIED BY GARY TAYLOR, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Mr. EGBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this chance to share our experiences in Florida and the prospective of the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies on the Endangered Species Act. We believe that the Act is a vital conservation tool for species threatened with extinction. However, reasonable changes will make it more effective in meeting its conservation objectives, more user-friendly, we be

lieve, to private landowners and generally more capable of ensuring the conservation of the natural communities on which both fish and wildlife and people depend.

The 50 States have management responsibility, as Director Beattie indicated, for threatened and endangered species before they're listed. We share responsibility once they make the list, and then we reassume full responsibility once they are recovered. We, of necessity, must work with private property owners in local jurisdictions throughout this process. We believe our insights can help improve the Act for both fish and wildlife and for the citizens of the Nation.

Our recommendations for changes to the Act would, in the first place, reaffirm the role of the States with focus on preventative management, would provide certainty and incentives to private landowners, would reemphasize recovery actions to restore species, and would improve the effectiveness of the Act through administration improvements. These recommendations are underlined by three precepts:

First, provision of legislative certainty to the jurisdictional roles of the Federal and State agencies as co-administrators of the Act. Second, a coordinated Federal-State rulemaking to define standards for certain decisions, such as when is recovery complete.

And, third, the creation of rebuttable presumptions for the validity of State information.

We at the Association reaffirm our commitment to preemptive fish and wildlife conservation so that the need to impose the rigors of the Act is minimized. The Act will play a role in our preventative management programs but should remain primarily as a tool of last resort to protect species against extinction. We especially encourage binding conservation agreements for candidate species in lieu of listing. Clarification to support such conservation agreement is needed, and, again affirmation of State authority for pre-listed species must be legislatively assured. Private landowners need legal assurances that once they commit to an agreement, no additional liabilities under section 9 of the Act would be imposed upon them. Once a species then is listed, factors which will result in the recovery of the species and its ultimate delisting must be addressed. The States, again, should play a major role in recovery planning, implementation with the assistance of local governments, private organizations and non-governmental organizations.

A case in point I would mention, Mr. Chairman, is development of the Florida panther habitat preservation plan, a document that was to be jointly developed by the service and my agency to identify ways to preserve Florida panther habitat in southwest Florida throughout and with an emphasis on retention of those important lands and private ownership.

The service assumed leadership in the development of that document, but, unfortunately, by the second draft, which was published in the Federal Register and thereby formalized, the preservation plan had evolved into an acquisition plan apparently in part because of commitments made by the service in an out-of-court settlement action relating to panther captive breeding. After four subsequent rewrites of the plan, it was revised to its original purpose