Capps expressed concern that language inappropriately included in the defense authorization bill by Chairman Duncan Hunter would essentially kick the public out of part of a National Park purchased for $30 million dollars in 1986.  This effort to reduce public access to the island would be done without congressional hearings or opportunity for public comment on the proposal.  Capps noted that the Chairman’s bill would violate the terms of a 1997 court-ordered settlement by extending indefinitely a private trophy hunting operation on the island. 

A copy of the Congresswoman’s testimony follows:

Statement of the Honorable Lois Capps

Before the House Committee on Rules

Regarding the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122)

May 9, 2006

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee.

I’m asking the Committee to make in order my amendment concerning Santa Rosa Island, which is part of the Channel Islands National Park and located in my Congressional District.

Specifically, my amendment seeks to strike subsection (c) of Section 1036.

Subsection (c) prohibits the National Park Service from carrying out a 1997 court-ordered settlement agreement that requires the shutdown of a private hunting operation on Santa Rosa Island.  The hunting operation currently closes virtually the entire island to the public for up to five months a year.  The agreement also calls for the removal of non-native deer and elk from the island to ensure protection of Santa Rosa’s critical natural resources, including several federally listed species.

The defense authorization language on Santa Rosa should be rejected for several reasons. 

First, this issue has no place in the defense authorization legislation.  This language deals with the operations of a National Park and interferes with the mission of the NPS to restore the islands and open them to the public.  There have been no congressional hearings or opportunity for public input on this proposal.  It is my understanding that the Defense Department has not requested this provision and the NPS strongly opposes it.

Second, this proposal seeks to continue indefinitely an unusual trophy-hunting operation of non-native deer and elk on Santa Rosa.  This operation currently closes off public access to about 90 percent of the island for 4 to 5 months of the year while hunting is underway.  However, the hunting is scheduled to wind down over the next several years and cease completely in 2011, when full public access to the island will be ensured.  This proposal would also undermine the Park Service’s on going and successful work to restore the island to its natural form. 

The termination of hunting operations is being done through a legally binding court ordered Settlement Agreement entered into by the Park Service, the previous landowner (Vail & Vickers), the Justice Department, and the National Parks Conservation Association.  It is my understanding that even Vail & Vickers is not seeking to extend the hunting operation.  Neither is the Park Service, Justice Department or the National Parks Conservation Association. 

Under Chairman Hunter’s language, one of the principal goals of this settlement – year-round public access to Santa Rosa – simply would not happen.  And it would hinder the Park Service’s plans to turn the island into a destination spot, complete with overnight lodging and expanded access for disabled visitors. 

Third, this proposal appears to be predicated on giving members of the armed forces and disabled and paralyzed veterans’ greater access to Santa Rosa Island.  To be perfectly clear – everyone has access to the island right now, including members of the armed forces and veterans.  If there is a need to address access problems for members of the armed forces or veterans, then this issue can be worked out without any legislation.  I have spoken with the Superintendent of the Channel Islands National Park and he assures me that he is willing to do whatever he can to work with the Defense Department if there are any access problems veterans might be having.  The Defense Department has made no such requests.

Last year when this issue was raised, at the end of the defense authorization conference, Chairman Hunter argued that this proposal would allow our servicemen and women and veterans to engage in hunting activities on the island.  They can do that currently, but a quick look at the website of the hunting outfitter contracted by Vail & Vickers shows that hunting trips cost between $5,000 and $16,500.  Admittedly, that is hardly within the reach of your average soldier, sailor or airman.  But in an era of $300 to $400 billion annual deficits and monthly obligations of nearly $10 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, it seems unlikely that the Pentagon will seek funding to subsidize hunting trips or that Congress would go along if it did. 

Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember how this all started.  It was a mere five months ago that Chairman Hunter proposed kicking the public off Santa Rosa completely by transferring the island to the Defense Department.  This was rejected by the defense authorization conference, after being called an attempt to create a private hunting reserve for top military brass and their official guests.

Then the idea of giving veterans more hunting opportunities became the reason to intervene in Santa Rosa.  But, as discussed earlier, veterans already have access to Santa Rosa and the Park Superintendent has offered to address any problems with that access.  And veterans currently enjoy a wide variety of other hunting opportunities on private and publicly held lands, as well as on military bases around the country.  For example, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts all on the Central Coast provide hunting to the military and veterans.

The latest rationale for this proposal is supposedly to stop “the extermination” of these privately owned, non-native deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island.  However, the settlement agreement only calls for removal of the animals; it does not specify how the animals must be removed.  If Vail & Vickers wish to remove their animals to the mainland, they are not precluded by the agreement from doing so and I would support such an effort.  It is important to remember that the animals are being removed because of the damage these large herds cause to Santa Rosa and federally listed species. 

The proposal contained in the defense bill would mean something far different than more hunting opportunities for veterans or animal protection.  It would mean the indefinite continuation of the trophy-hunting operation.  This would keep the public off Santa Rosa for nearly half of the year while hunting is underway.  I would remind the Committee that the public paid $30 million for this island 20 years ago.  Last year, some 5,000 people visited Santa Rosa Island and that this numbers will increase commensurately once the island is open year-round to the public.

In addition, the defense bill language would require the Park Service to maintain the huge herds of non-native deer and elk on the island in numbers that exist today.  These are, of course, animals the Park Service does not even own so there are takings issues at play here.  And, from the conservation perspective, maintaining these huge herds would mean continued damage to federally listed species and reduce the value of the Channel Islands National Park. 

Mr. Chairman, the issue of ending hunting on the island is a very serious one.  The Park Service and Vail & Vickers are in constant contact on this issue to ensure the cessation date is met and that it is done in a fair and equitable manner.  The goal is to ensure that the public, finally, has full access to its national park. 

Clearly, Congress involving itself in these issues, as proposed in this bill – with virtually no discussion and no public input – is simply wrong.  I hope the Committee will make my amendment in order and allow a full airing of this issue in the House. 

Thank you.

###