ple. Yes, there are things to change. But the Act has been very powerful in its 25 years in making our environment attractive.

Senator THOMAS. That wasn't really my question. My question is: you become an advocate for the endangered species, do you not? Dr. PIMM. Yes.

Senator THOMAS. And you should. But I think we do need to understand that. We have a thing going with grizzly bears, for example, in Yellowstone Park. I expect the grizzly bear team to be the greatest advocates. I don't expect them to be very balanced in their view. My point is that I think we have to recognize that, and some on the other side are not balanced either. But certainly, if you work with that each day, you could hardly be expected to see all the ramifications. But, is that a fair statement?

Dr. PIMM. With great respect, I don't think so. I do see with all of these cases people who benefit and people who do not.

Senator THOMAS. Do you think, Doctor, that every species has the same value? Should we put the same emphasis on the protection of every endangered species?

Dr. CLEGG. It is very difficult to anticipate future value. My background is partly in agriculture. One of the big success stories in agriculture has been the establishment of global gene banks to preserve genetic resources for crop improvement. But we do that in the face of future uncertainty. We do not know which genes we're conserving are likely to have future utility for man and for agriculture.

It's much the same, I think, in other areas of biological conservation. We're trying to make a bet about the future with very limited present knowledge about how that future will play out. From that perspective, one sensible strategy is to treat both species as if they were equivalent. I think the actual policies play out, however, in different ways. We do make priorities in the way in which the policies are implemented, and the way in which we invest resources in endangered species protection.

Senator THOMAS. I guess you wonder if you treat the bald eagle or the grizzly bear the same as you do some kind of an insect. You didn't really answer my question.

Dr. CLEGG. Well, I guess I tried to answer your question by saying

Senator THOMAS. You said most.

Dr. CLEGG [continuing]. That it is very difficult to predict future value. So a sensible strategy is to in fact treat all entities which are eligible for protection uniformly. But in reality, we don't actually do that. We do make societal decisions.

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, could I comment on that, please?
Senator THOMAS. Go ahead.

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I think the issue of balance needs to be recast. Specifically, I think what needs to be balanced are the short-term obvious things that are bearing down on us as pressures tomorrow (in terms of economic benefits, for example, or property rights), against longer term benefits for which we have somewhat incomplete knowledge.

Some of those longer term benefits are undoubtedly economic, some of them are undoubtedly health. Some of them have to do with the kinds of things that we don't completely understand at

this point. So it's more short-term versus long-term that I think is the real issue. It's decisions about species that are often driven by short-term considerations that have much more important longterm implications.

That I think is the real difficulty in this issue. Professor Clegg's description of not knowing the value of some, the future value of some species, is a real one. I'm a marine ecologist. The area of natural products chemistry in marine systems is relatively recent. There are lots of seaweeds, there are lots of sponges, there are lots of sea squirts from which we are finding very interesting, novel, new compounds with important medicinal properties.

They seem like something that is just kind of some slippery, slimy thing on the rock, that would be easy to say, that's not important to save. So we have incomplete knowledge about the value of many of these species, both in terms of the kinds of products that they deliver, but also the roles that they play in their

ecosystems.

Senator THOMAS. Would you also, and I'm looking to be argumentative, we have incomplete knowledge, we also have a finite amount of money.

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That's correct. I think that in reality, priorities need to be set. And part of what this Ecological Society of America report and the National Research Council report do are give guidelines based on science about the kinds of priorities that could be established. They would be things like taking a proactive, early approach to protect as many critical habitats as possible, protecting umbrella species, because they often protect a large number of other species, focusing on hot spots where there are large numbers of endemics.

Those are the kinds of things that can be done that would be scientifically based reasons to help set priorities and are very reasonable in terms of allocating resources. I think it's less appropriate to use those criteria in deciding what to list or not list. But I think it is appropriate to use those criteria in deciding where to allocate limited resources, once endangered species have been identified. Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Senator Thomas, thank you.

One announcement. In order to accommodate some conflicting schedules, I'm going to ask that the fourth panel will be moved to the third panel position, and we'll just slide them in there. So with that, Senator Baucus.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to follow up a little bit on Senator Thomas' questions, if I might. I understand the uncertainty. It's clear that's a problem. Let's assume that the scientific community is fairly convinced that there's no food chain issue. Let's take a species, let's take some slime, a small insect or something. Let's assume that the scientific community is quite certain, not 100 percent certain, but you know, fairly certain there's no food chain issue here, you go up the food chain, it's not really all that important or relevant.

Let's further assume that the scientific community knows the molecular structure and the DNA structure and all these things, and gee, there's not much here of any future value with respect to developing drugs or what-not. This is just something, you can't see

much relevance to anything. Let's just assume that. I know it's a very, very difficult assumption to make. But let's assume it.

Then, is that a species that we should protect with the same force as if we're talking about the bald eagle or wolf or bear? I'm just curious what you as scientists think about that, from a scientific perspective.

Dr. PIMM. Perhaps I could respond. The difficulty is that species like that hardly ever occur in isolation. But if you find a species that is odd, the chances are that there's a lot of other species, many hundreds of other species, that are equally odd. If we could in fact find one lonely, isolated, obscure species, then perhaps we would not care about it.

But in reality, when you find one peculiar species, there are likely to be hundreds of other peculiar species that we don't know about. And it's from them that the kind of peculiar and bizarre and

very

Senator BAUCUs. But what if you knew, you found some odd species, and you've studied this thing to death. There's just no way this thing is related to anything. Then what do you think?

Dr. PIMM. My experience in the way that the Fish and Wildlife Service has identified species is, they don't do that. They tend

to

Senator BAUCUS. No, that's not my question.

Dr. PIMM. I know.

Senator BAUCUS. The question is, you as a scientist, what would your recommendations, what would your thoughts be?

Dr. PIMM. I think it's, with the greatest respect, sir, it's a nonquestion, because odd species don't occur on their own like that.

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, I think it might be productive to turn that question around, and to say that in fact, there probably are species that we know are particularly important, and that efforts could be placed more on those species, which is a little different from the question that you are asking.

Senator BAUCUS. Right.

Dr. LUBCHENCO. But in fact it is probably a better reflection of reality. In other words, to put priorities, to allocate resources to those species that we know have some biological, human ecological importance.

Senator BAUCUS. That's a good point. Because resources are finite. And priorities are very important.

Another question. I asked Secretary Babbitt his view. What in the world's going on here? Why are some people so upset with the Endangered Species Act? I mentioned to him westerners, for example, some westerners are quite upset. But most westerners want, you know, they want a proper Act.

But yet, they're pretty upset here. As scientists, from your point of view, what's your explanation? Why do you think there is a significant problem among a lot of people with the Endangered Species Act? What's the root of it as you see it, from your perspective? Why? Any of you.

Dr. CLEGG. Well, I'm not sure that there's a scientific explanation for the public concern.

Senator BAUCUS. I'm not asking for a scientific explanation. I'm asking, as scientists, what, from your perspective as scientists, not

a scientific explanation, but from your perspective as scientists, what's the cause of the problem?

Dr. CLEGG. Well, let me speak with a different hat on. I'm also dean of a college which is partly a college of agriculture. Our agricultural constituency is afraid of the Endangered Species Act. They're very worried about its impacts on them, mostly because of regulatory uncertainty. They don't know how it will impact on their practices and on their business. So I think uncertainty probably is an issue which is important from a policy point of view.

Senator BAUCUS. Do you think that the Act can be changed to accommodate points of view that a lot of people have, namely more State control, more certainty, the safe harbor provisions and so forth, yet at the same time, not to compromise the essential thrust and the central purpose of the Act?

Dr. CLEGG. That's a very difficult question for me to answer. I'm not sure that I can provide you with an informed answer.

Senator BAUCUS. Based upon what you know of the discussion and of the law and what some people are suggesting?

Dr. CLEGG. Yes, I believe so. I believe that our system of government and our way of resolving problems is a very good one, and that we will arrive at solutions which achieve these goals, both biological conservation and more acceptable regulatory mechanisms. Senator BAUCUS. Dr. Lubchenco.

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I think the challenge is to figure out a way to be much more proactive and involve the range of stakeholders that need to be involved, which requires understanding the importance of protecting species. That needs to happen before things come to loggerheads, where it's the courts that are involved. So I think it's a different approach, and I think that would be a very wonderful outcome of the deliberations that we will be engaged in, in the next few months.

Senator BAUCUS. Dr. Pimm.

Dr. PIMM. I don't have anything to add.
Senator BAUCUS. So you agree?

Dr. PIMM. I agree.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Senator Baucus, thank you very much. I thank the panelists. Very informative information that you've given us, so thank you.

I would like to invite now the local and State officials to come forward. The Honorable Judy DeHose, who is councilwoman from the White Mountain Apache Tribe, Whiteriver, AZ; Mr. John Harja, chairman, Working Group on Endangered Species Act, Western Governors' Association, Salt Lake City, UT; the Honorable Emily Swanson, State Representative from Bozeman, MT; the Honorable Dick Knox, State Representative from Winifred, MT; and Mr. Dave Schmidt, National Association of Counties, commissioner, Linn County, OR.

We welcome all of you. We look forward to your comments that you'll be making to us. Let me begin then by calling on councilwoman DeHose. Again, I would ask that we be mindful of our 5minute rule that we're making every effort to adhere to, so that we can accommodate everyone's schedule. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF JUDY DEHOSE, COUNCILWOMAN, WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE, WHITERIVER, AZ

MS. DEHOSE. Senator Kempthorne, Senator Reid, and members of the committee, I am Judy DeHose, tribal councilmember, representing the Cibecue District on the Tribal Council of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Chairman Lupe sends his regrets that he is unable to be here, and asked me to present his testimony.

The White Mountain Apache Tribe is honored to have been invited by this committee to present testimony on the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.

For those of you who are not familiar with our White Mountain Apache people and our land, our reservation homeland, known as the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, is comprised of some 1.6 million acres of lands ranging in elevation from 2,500 feet to over 11,400 feet. We have vast canyons and range land and over 700,000 acres, primarily ponderosa pine forest, through which traverse 400 miles of rivers and streams. Our reservation is home to abundant game and fish, including the once-endangered Apache trout, elk, bear, mountain lion, pronghorn antelope, deer, wild turkey, osprey, and our Nation's symbol, the bald eagle.

In pre-reservation days, we were entirely self-sufficient and healthy in mind, body, and spirit. The sacred waters which arise on our reservation sustained us. We depended upon wildlife, native plants, and our own agriculture for food, shelter, and clothing. All life was held sacred and that tradition continues today. The first deer was never struck down during a hunt. We would let it go so that there would always be one remaining in the forest. Prayers are always offered after the taking of any wildlife, giving honor to the sacrifice of that life for the survival of our families. Prayers are still offered today when the animals are hunted and killed.

Apache people never saw ourselves as separate from the Earth. We are one with the land. Hunting was not for sport and trophies but to provide food and clothing. Although we have been masters of our lands since time immemorial, the land and its fruits have never been simply for the taking, but are elements of our responsibility for stewardship of the land that the Creator has provided. Our people have always been taught to respect the land and living things. Individual ownership of land was unknown to us. But our responsibility to care for the land was taught to us from an early

age.

Our tradition of stewardship continues to guide the natural resource management philosophy of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Our lands were severely damaged due to the mismanagement by the Department of Interior from the time the reservation was first established in 1871. We have since regained managerial control of our lands, and are now in the process of repairing the extensive damages that were done to our grazing lands, forests, and riparian areas. In the past 10 years, the tribal council has voluntarily reduced our annual allowable timber harvest from 92 million board feet to 57 million board feet because of our concerns over over-cutting our forests and damaging our environment.

Despite the damages we have sustained, our reservation remains a refuge for many endangered and sensitive species, both listed and unlisted. Although the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973,