fearful that this could put us in a dangerous decline. And we've 

 really got to step up this. 



Mr. Vento. Let me yield to my colleague. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think as usual, 

 Norm Dicks gave an excellent statement, right to the point. I agree 

 with your premisses and what you have come up with, especially 

 when you talk about avoiding the listing. I think most of us would 

 like to avoid a listing like the plague in many areas, but it is so 

 easy to list. I think if we have any argument with the Endangered 

 Species Act, it would be the point that listing is relatively easy. I 

 don't see anything sacred in the Endangered Species Act. 



We go back and look at it again and again and again and try to 

 purify and perfect laws. I think we would be wise to take a look 

 at the listing of the Endangered Species Act and take the word 

 "solely" out. I think that would be a word that would be prudent 

 for everyone. 



We could look at other factors of the species in question. I think 

 if would make it more palatable and one that, as you stated, 

 wouldn't close up America, the way it is going now, if we continue 

 to put these things on one after the other. And some rely on 

 sketchy and questionable biological information. I am urging my 

 people to go to court. If that is the way it is, challenge these people. 



Secretary Babbitt is coming up to talk about the Mexican spotted 

 owl in Utah, Arizona and others; and the stuff is so sketchy, I have 

 put people out to see if they could find it. They found two. The rest 

 is circumstantial evidence that couldn't be introduced into a court. 

 I think that it would be prudent for Congress to take a look at the 

 act and make it better than it is. 



Mr. Dicks. My view is, a species-by-species approach will not 

 work. What we are trying to do in the Northwest is take western 

 Washington, western Oregon, northern California and take an 

 ecosystems approach. Let's deal with the owl, the murrlet, the plov- 

 er, and the salmon; and we want to do it once, comprehensively. 



We want to have a good, credible plan for habitat protection. And 

 then we want to legislate. And that's it. And that seems to me to 

 be the approach. Then we could revisit it. 



The failure here is that we wait until the species is in trouble 

 before we take action. And, frankly, what we need to do, I think, 

 is every State needs to get all of its people together, its resource 

 people — and we have some State borders — and work out a plan. 

 And then you take it to the Fish and Wildlife Service and say, here 

 is our plan. We have looked at economics, science, and everything, 

 and this is the plan that we think gives us a chance to protect a 

 cross-section of the species with a goal of biodiversity, and we want 

 this problem certified so that we don't have to go through this spe- 

 cies-by-species problem. 



And we have to be affirmative about that, and once you have 

 done that, you are certified, and you review it every five years and 

 see if some changes need to be made. 



First of all, a species-by-species approach will never work be- 

 cause there are too many of them and you don't have enough gov- 

 ernmental officials to handle them all and you wait until things are 

 in trouble. 



