Huelskamp Submits Comments to Prevent Lesser Prairie Chicken from Being Listed as “Threatened” Species

(GARDEN CITY, KAN.) – U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service hosted a public comment hearing in Garden City on Thursday night to hear from citizens about the proposed listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act. Congressman Tim Huelskamp submitted the following comments for the record. He offered the following explanation of his comments: “As a farmer, landowner, and Member of Congress, I strongly oppose not only listing the Lesser Prairie Chicken, but also the heavy-handed manner in which USFWS has gone about their process. Not a single Kansan I have heard from thinks this is the right way to go because Washington seldom – if ever – gets it right. Instead of allowing voluntary solutions by individual landowners, farmers and ranchers, counties and states, the USFWS inserted itself – unwelcome – into a process already making progress. Do not list this bird as endangered; doing so will imperil both private property rights and growth in our agricultural and energy economy.” Full remarks as prepared for submission: Speaking as a farmer, landowner, and a Member of Congress, I am strongly opposed to the expressed intent of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the Lesser Prairie Chicken (LPC) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, as well as the FWS process itself. Let me begin by stating that I have not heard from a single constituent who thinks that listing the bird is the right course of action. Almost every time the federal government—be it FWS, EPA, FNS or anyone else—steps in with new instructions, regulations, mandates and restrictions to “solve” a problem, they only serve to reinforce my belief, and that of many of my constituents, that people in Washington have no idea what is going on in the real world. In the handful of instances when those inside the Beltway correctly identify a problem, they often inevitably fail to prescribe a workable solution. A listing of the LPC would likely to be another example of this. My first concern is that while gathering public comments, FWS is explicitly prohibited from considering the economic impacts of its decision. As a farmer, I know that we all want to protect the environment for future generations. I also know that ignoring the economic costs of government regulation is not only foolish but very dangerous to the jobs and prosperity of the entire region, particularly to our core agricultural and energy industries. Second, I am very concerned with the delays taken by FWS regarding the publication of its intent to list the LPC. Despite the court settlement in September 2012 that requires a final decision on listing the LPC by September 30, 2013, it took FWS more than two months before finally publishing its intent in the Federal Register. That shrank an already small window for stakeholders to evaluate the proposal, demonstrate their existing conservation efforts, and prepare for compliance. Third, I roundly reject the belief underlining the entire effort—namely, that the federal intervention is the most effective solution. In the 40 years since the Endangered Species Act became law, more than 1,350 species have been listed as endangered, but only 24 have been delisted, for a success rate of approximately 1.7%. That is simply abysmal. Why must we assume that the federal government will do a great job of rescuing a species when you have demonstrated so little success? Fourth, speaking of success, FWS has not identified a target population level. So we have no way of knowing just how many birds would be needed to remove a “threatened" label from the LPC. Colleagues of mine who also represent LPC habitat have asked FWS for such a number, but none has ever been supplied. You may find greater support for listing the bird if we knew that there was an end goal; but as the proposal stands now, there is no hope of ever achieving success. Fifth, the timing of the listing is awful with the entire region in the throes of an historic drought. This is a species whose habitat is grassland, which is very susceptible to changing weather patterns. Additionally, historic tracking of the LPC population indicates that the species is incredibly resilient, and bounces back from drought situations. To take action now is to lock in drastic measures that will require significant action from landowners for years to come. For this reason, if FWS still believes that listing is necessary, you should at least wait until the drought ends and the habitat has a chance to recover. Then FWS can reevaluate and get a better sense of just how at-risk the species actually is. Lastly, there are ongoing efforts and proposals to protect the populations happening at the individual, local, state, and regional levels. Kansas has a number of conservation initiatives in place already that provide incentives and assistance to farmers, ranchers, and landowners to protect the bird and develop its habitat. Furthermore, there are a number of additional proposals in the works—including one being drafted by the Fish and Wildlife Services for each of the five states, and one from the range’s Farm Bureaus—that include clear targets for both habitat and species population, and that do not require federal intrusion into private property. I appreciate the opportunity to share these concerns with you, and sincerely hope that this public comment period is taken seriously by FWS. I don’t believe that I am alone when I say that to this point in the process, there seems to be little interest in the concerns of those who will actually be impacted by a listing. But I hope that the comments you receive and the feedback from the public hearings will give you cause to slow down and seriously evaluate whether or not this is the best, most effective use of resources to preserve the species.