16 



Secondly, we started out in the first year with a comprehensive 

 analysis of what the major problems facing the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service were and what we could do about them, what we, the Foun- 

 dation, could take on. 



For example, out of that analysis we identified implementing the 

 North American Waterfowl Management Plan which had been just 

 signed by the Secretary of Interior and Canadian counterparts but 

 basically was then just quickly on its route to a shelf. So we took 

 that on. 



Secondly, part of that analysis also looked at the agency and rec- 

 ognized that most Federal agencies — most institutions tend to be 

 fairly embalmed in their own culture, and they don't look outside 

 that culture. 



We looked at the Fish and Wildlife Service and then looked at 

 how we could solve their problems interrelating with State agen- 

 cies and the private sector, turning the envelope inside out instead 

 of focusing just on the Fish and Wildlife Service. That has created 

 a very creative synergism. 



Thirdly, we took to heart some of your original legislation that 

 required Federal money to be matched. We could have just operat- 

 ed on the basis of a one-to-one match but match, but we, basically, 

 as we started operating saw an opportunity there and decided to 

 increase the leverage. And, actually, in one of your reauthorization 

 bills several years ago, the House required a two-to-one match. Al- 

 though that was not passed, we took it to heart, and so we have 

 been aggressively leveraging our money wherever possible, particu- 

 larly with organizations like The Nature Conservancy and Ducks 

 Unlimited that have well-developed fund-raising arms. 



At the same time, with grants with little organizations, mom and 

 pop operations, organizations just getting started, we give them a 

 one-to-one match to get them going. If we come back for more, we 

 increase the leverage. 



Finally, we just have really pushed the whole concept of partner- 

 ship as far as we possibly can. There is a lot of rhetoric that goes 

 back and forth about working together, but natural resource prob- 

 lems are inherently controversial. Any time you create a park or 

 refuge or set up a regulation you are prohibiting somebody from 

 doing something. So the more players you get involved in the 

 project on a consensual basis and get them to invest dollars takes 

 them to a totally new level of commitment in terms of seeing some- 

 thing through and in solving the problem. 



Mr. HocHBRUECKNER. Mr. Myers. 



Mr. Myers. I can't speak to the effectiveness of the National 

 Parks Foundation but in looking at the effectiveness of the Nation- 

 al Fish and Wildlife Foundation I believe it has to do with what 

 Mr. Barry said, their ability to scan the horizon, see the emerging 

 issues, see where fish and wildlife activities should be heading in 

 this country and get out front and try to pull programs that direc- 

 tion, I think that has been key. 



Another factor is the integrity of the people involved in the pro- 

 gram and their ability. They deliver. They are can-do people. You 

 enjoy working with them, and they don't let you down. 



Mr. Hochbrueckner. Thank you, Mr. Myers. 



Mr. Dennis. 



