I am honored to speak to respected members of a very important group for the Department of the Interior. Hunters and fishermen have long been active participants in and contributors to Interior's conservation mission.

Let me begin by expressing my profound appreciation for the work you did to promote the President's Healthy Forests Initiative. This initiative is very important to me.

I grew up in Colorado, hiking and camping in the Rocky Mountains. I have vivid memories of the way those mountains looked. There were forests of strong Ponderosa pine, punctuated by open meadows and stands of quaking aspen. Deer and elk, ptarmigan and marmots were plentiful. My family was always watching as we hiked or drove through the mountains, trying to catch a glimpse of wildlife.

Today those mountains look somewhat different, as many of you know. On the good side, thanks to some great efforts in game management, you can routinely see bighorn sheep and occasionally mountain goats-animals that, for all the time I spent in the mountains, I never saw until I was in my twenties. Colorado now even has lynx and moose, which were not reintroduced until recent years.

On the down side, the forests look a lot different than the beautiful stands of my childhood. As a successional tree that flourishes in open areas created by fire, the aspen have become scarce. Some scientists have even predicted they might gradually disappear.

The pines are much denser. Scientists tell us there are now hundreds of pines per acre, where once there were only 15 - 25. My gut tells me the same thing. There are now far too many stands of scrawny, dog hair pines. Whole hillsides contain ghostly trees, bare of needles-that have succumbed to pine beetle infestations, and await a stray spark to ignite them.

We used to view Smokey Bear as the embodiment of good forest management. Today, we know that healthy forest ecosystems are far more complex. "Only you can prevent forest fires" was a noble phrase, but one we took to extremes. By preventing all the little fires, we set the stage for huge, catastrophic fires-unnatural fires that burn far hotter and in a more devastating way than their predecessors.

Last year, I watched some of my childhood forest haunts burn. The Heyman Fire burned mountains near Denver, and sent clouds of smoke high into the sky-eclipsing both the sun, and any fire I had ever seen in a lifetime of living near the mountains.

I have seen other fires even more fearsome. I have twice visited Oregon with the President to talk about the Healthy Forest Initiative. The first time, the Biscuit fire raged. That one fire consumed an area over half the size of Rhode Island. From Air Force One, I couldn't grasp the scale until I spotted some helicopters dumping buckets of fuel retardant. They looked like tiny insects, like the tiniest of gnats, as they flew among the smoke and flames.

The second time, we planned a Presidential visit to a small Oregon community. Unfortunately, a fire forced the evacuation of that town just as the President headed to the Pacific Northwest. Even though the President's event was moved to a safer site, we saw the fire as we approached. Because of the layers of air in the upper atmosphere, the smoke filled a top and bottom layer, with a layer of clear air. This created an eerie spectacle. As Air Force One flew toward the fire, it appeared to be flying into the jaws of a giant beast, capable of easily consuming even the largest of airplanes.

But we also know that the effects of decades of forest neglect have less spectacular, but equally significant effects. For years, our forests were moving toward a monoculture of dense forest.

You communicated this important message.

I know many of you changed travel plans to stand with President Bush last week when he signed the measure into law. We hope to have your continued support as we work within the framework of the new law.

As we approach the holidays, I have to stop and acknowledge that the New Year means we are completing the third year of this Administration. Within that time, we have worked to change the philosophy in Washington.

We have attacked the assumption that all wisdom resides in this government enclave. We have not always accepted the theory of one-size-fits-all laws. We have reached out to form partnerships and to encourage stewardship. We have asked opinions and looked for innovation at the local level.

Theodore Roosevelt started your organization in 1887. By 1903, you were instrumental in his decision to inaugurate our National Wildlife Refuge System. Hunters and anglers were among the first to recognize the excesses of market hunters and the need to preserve wildlife populations for the future.

When an organization can remain viable, from one century to the next, we know that it is founded on enduring principles and a powerful cause. Roosevelt couched it in these terms in 1907: "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem, it will avail us little to solve all others." You have followed that tenet with quiet and effective activism.

In Roosevelt's era, establishing parks and refuges was our main environmental policy and one of the best ways to protect many areas. We are proud of the system of National parks and wildlife refuges that exist today. You should be proud of your role in sustaining them.

But by the last 35 years of the 20th Century environmental problems had grown beyond the solutions of setting aside parks and refuges. Problems were dramatically visible to others besides hunters and anglers: our nation's symbol, the bald eagle, on the verge of extinction; the Cuyahoga River on fire; and smokestacks belching fumes in our cities.

Out of this crisis period came the enactment of landmark environmental laws ranging from the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Compliance with these laws and others significantly has improved our environment. But there has been controversy along the way. Federal policies resulted in conflicts, real and perceived, between economic growth and environmental protection.

Environmental discussions triggered passionate antagonism and hostility. In political and media debates, environmentalists and businesses demonized each other.

We have learned that command and control approaches have their strengths and their limitations. The Endangered Species Act provides an example. The Act gives us a tool to prevent and punish the wanton killing of birds and animals that caused the extinction of the passenger pigeon and other species.

But the Act's punitive aspects intimidate otherwise law-abiding citizens into fearing endangered species.

Enforcing minimum standards alone will not achieve the level of environmental quality we want to see. We need to go beyond minimum compliance, and reach out to harness innovation and enthusiasm. We need to tap into American ingenuity and the community spirit to care for our land, water, air, and wildlife.

Today the vast majority of Americans enjoy tremendously a clean and health environment and want to see wildlife thrive.

Like the great conservationist Aldo Leopold a half century ago, we seek a Nation of citizen stewards on farms, in neighborhoods and communities, near factories and urban areas. We need ways to stitch together fragmented landscapes and to nurture habitat across all landscapes.

Cooperative conservation and partnerships give us this ability to build creative and vibrant networks for conservation. They empower people to solve problems in ways that make sense for each community.

Just this week there was a story about children in Calaveras County in California discovering the celebrated red-legged jumping frog of Mark Twain fame on their ranch.

A line from the Associated Press story read, "The family was nervous when they suspected their property was home to a federally protected species."

This explanation followed in the story: "As a threatened species, the frog enjoys protections that have caused some trepidation from property owners and developers who fear intrusive government oversight or a drop in land values."

Under the old way of looking at endangered species, regulators would have showed up on the ranch to begin telling the family what they could and could not do with their land.

Luckily the family decided to come forward with their discovery. Fish and Wildlife personnel are sitting down with them and looking at cooperative ways to both preserve the frog and the ranching way of life for the family.

Instead of a bad experience for them, the children are excited about the frog and will I hope grow up to be committed conservationists.

My conclusion to the story about the jumping frog of Calaveras County story is that there are ways for ranchers to voluntarily promote the species on their lands and to help reintroduce populations and cultivate habitat.

COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION
Just one example of what we at Interior call Cooperative Conservation.

We offer grant funds to private property owners under several different programs to allow them voluntarily to help threatened or endangered species.

They include the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, the Landowner Incentive Program and the Private Stewardship Grants Program.

I know one of your concerns is the loss of wetlands in this country. We have a number of incentive-based programs that have achieved significant successes in restoring, protecting and enhancing wetlands.

We see these programs as the future of environmentalism. In the year 2000, for example, Americans created, restored, rehabilitated, enhanced or protected almost 2 million acres of wetlands through non-regulatory efforts.

As an example, on Wednesday I announced the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program awards. These are funds from the Sport Fish Restoration program designed to protect coastal wetlands. The program is up more than $2 million from last year with $17 million in grants to 10 states to conserve, restore and protect coastal wetlands. State and private partners will add more than $42 million to the mix.

This is one of more than 20 such government programs that contribute to wetlands restoration. Others include the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the Joint Ventures under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the Wetland Reserve Program that is run by the Natural Resources Conservation Service at Agriculture.

We would welcome conversations with you on how we protect wetlands.

HUNTER CONTRIBUTIONS

Hunters and anglers have always contributed to wildlife conservation in personal ways. Of course there is the Duck Stamp program, but there is also the Federal Aid Program for Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. It is one of the most successful user-pays programs ever.

This small federal tax on hunting, fishing, and boating equipment generates substantial revenue for state conservation programs. That program is up to $676 million. The tax is returned to the states by formula.

In the last two years the Fish and Wildlife Service has worked closely with its state partners to improve the administration of this program. We are so pleased to see it back on track and efficiently and effectively returning funds to State Wildlife Agencies. Under my watch those funds will be spent for their intended purposes.

HUNTING IN REFUGES

Many of you have seen an advertisement by The Fund for Animals this year. It says at the top, "What don't they understand about the word refuge?" It goes on to say: "Allowing the killing of animals for sport in an area designated as a 'Refuge' debases our language, deceives the public, and violates the American spirit of honesty and fair play."

Welcome to our world at Interior where some environmental groups spend most of their time and funds spinning away from the truth.

More than any other single group, sportsmen and women care about conservation and the Refuge System. From your early commitment to restore declining wildlife populations to your ongoing efforts to improve habitat, sportsmen have given countless hours for fish and wildlife. You are among our best volunteers. It is hunters and anglers who contribute more than $2 billion a year to acquire and restore important habitat.

Congress repeatedly has recognized hunting and fishing as legitimate uses of Refuges. In 1997 Congress designated them as priority uses of Refuge lands.

REFUGES

Since the Bush Administration has been in Washington, we have opened up or expanded hunting and fishing in 50 refuges across the country. Our Fish and Wildlife Director, Steve Williams has had a lot to do with that. When the Comprehensive Conservation Plans come in from the refuges with a recommendation for no hunting or fishing, Steve simply asks, "Why not?" Don't misunderstand, there are refuges where hunting and fishing are not appropriate and managers should have the option to ban such activities. But it is not the answer for all refuges. We now have more than 300 of our 542 refuges open to hunting and the numbers continue to rise. Last year, there were nearly two million hunting visits to our nation's wildlife refuges.

We are committed to expanding hunting and fishing wherever they are compatible with the refuge system's wildlife conservation mission.

FUTURE

Unfortunately, hunting and fishing are not necessarily being passed on to the younger generation.

For too many of our youth, fish is something you see in an animated film called "Finding Nemo." Hunting is done on a computer gameCCand too often people are the prey. An entire generation seems to think true wilderness is found on the television show, "Survivor."

We recognize hunting and fishing as important elements of American culture. They connect people with the outdoors and with nature. A hunter must understand wildlife and habitat. You play a key role in conservation-and we hope you continue that for future generations.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Along with other federal agencies and the hunting community, the Fish and Wildlife Service is working on a Memorandum of Understanding to improve shooting on federal lands.

The restructuring of the Pitman Robertson Bill has opened an additional $20 million of section 10 funding that states can use for developing shooting ranges and hunter education programs.

Fish and Wildlife has hired a hunting and fishing coordinator for our National Wildlife Refuge System, whose sole responsibility is to oversee that these activities are indeed recognized as priority use activities.

We have also developed a course at our National Conservation Training Center in West Virginia to educate refuge managers and other Service employees on the culture of hunting as well as on ways to safely and successfully administer hunting programs on refuges.
With this spirit in mind, the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service recently joined the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and 17 other public and private partners in a Memorandum of Understanding dedicated to improving and maintaining access to public lands for hunters and anglers. The agreement will establish a general framework for cooperation between government agencies and private organizations to improve access on public lands for hunters and anglers.

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

An issue many of you have raised is energy development. We have been working hard to improve communications with stakeholders at all levels. A year ago, Bob Modell hosted the first joint meeting with wildlife groups and industry at his beautiful ranch in Cody, Wyoming.

The conversations centered on how to meet the demand for natural gas yet protect the important wildlife values in the region.

The week before Thanksgiving the Bureau of Land Management hosted a second meeting in Shepherdstown, WV. There was surprising unanimity between industry and the conservation groups. Both believe we can have energy development and provide for viable wildlife populations. Both have suggestions for better sharing of information during the different processes.

We support the dialogue and will be interested in the report produced.

We are seeking to increase communication and that means listening as well as talking. We are committed to changing the way things are done from command and control to cooperative conservation.

We want to work with you in partnership to preserve the heritage of hunting and fishing. We want to preserve the land and its species, but we also need to live on the land and promote thriving communities.