Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Glenn Bowers, Director of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Mr. Bowers, would you come forward, please? STATEMENT OF GLENN BOWERS, DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION, HARRISBURG, PA. Mr. BOWERS. Thank you. Senator Moss. As I pointed out, Mr. Bowers, if you would like to have your statement put in the record, you can, or if you would like to read the statement and then make further comments or respond to questions, you may do it that way, whichever you prefer. Mr. BOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since it is brief I think I will just read it. Mr. Chairman, I am Glenn L. Bowers, executive director of the Pennsylvania Game Commission and I appear before you representing this Commission, and in addition authorized to present a brief statement on behalf of our Governor, and further authorized and directed by the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs to submit a resolution adopted at their recent convention. First, allow me to present the statement of the Honorable Raymond P. Shafer, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: We are quite concerned in Pennsylvania about the controversy relative to the jurisdiction of the States over resident fish and wildlife. There is little doubt that extreme confusion would result if jurisdiction over these resources is tied to ownership of the land. Management of these valuable resources would be virtually impossible and enjoyment of fish and wildlife would be curtailed. Therefore, we support the intent of Senate bill 1232 and recommend its early enactment. The Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs is the statewide organization of sportsmen's clubs in Pennsylvania embracing 706 clubs and 129,033 members. The following resolution was adopted just this last Saturday, March 29, 1969, by this body: Therefore be it resolved, the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs endorses the intent of Senate bill 1232, pertaining to the authority of the States to control, regulate and manage resident fish and wildlife, and urges the immediate enactment of S-1232. Hunting in Pennsylvania is big business. Pennsylvania has more than a million hunters, which is more individuals licensed to hunt than any other State, and many Pennsylvanians hunt in other States. Therefore, while by comparison there is a fairly small portion of Pennsylvania under Federal ownership, the question of ownership, regulation and management of resident fish and wildlife on Federal lands is of utmost importance. Division of the authority to regulate and control resident wildlife would result in complete chaos among the managers and users of our wildlife resources. Historically, wildlife ownership and control has been with the States in sovereign capacity without regard to ownership of the land. The Pennsylvania Game Law declares the ownership, jurisdiction over, and control of wild animals and wild birds to be in the Commonwealth in its sovereign capacity. This historic tradition has worked well and we see no reason to tamper with it, but rather to solidify the position so 32-780-69- -3 that there can be no question as to authority. To this end we endorse Senate bill 1232. We do not question the authority of the Federal Government to manage wildlife concerned with treaties or subject to congressional acts protecting certain species or areas. We do oppose any infringement of the longstanding tradition of State control of resident wildlife. While certain policy declarations have been made, there is no assurance that these declarations will be properly interpreted or even continued if there are changes in officials or personnel. Therefore, a solid pronouncement by congressional action to clarify and support the States' rights is imperative. In Pennsylvania, we feel we have provided maximum recreational opportunities for sportsmen as well as nonhunters in the management of our wildlife resources. We have expended substantial sums for the improvement of wildlife habitat and citizen enjoyment on federally owned acreage. I must point out that these sums are hunting license dollars and not general tax revenue money since we have received no appropriation for general operations and must live within our income. Our budget for this year is in excess of $10 million. Therefore, it would appear we have provided something attractive for the licensebuying sportsman or we would not enjoy this kind of financial support. Many other States have enjoyed similar success in their wildlife management programs. Why jeopardize the valued enjoyment of these resources? Further, these programs have consistently generated citizen awareness to our total resource needs-air, water, soil, et cetera-toward enhancement of the living conditions? And surely utter confusion will prevail if control of wildlife is contingent upon ownership of land. It is time that this issue be resolved so that the State fish and wildlife agencies can continue to dutifully serve the citizens. Therefore, we urge favorable action at the earliest possible time on this important legislation. Thank you very much. Senator Moss. Well, thank you, Mr. Bowers. That's a very fine statement. Are there any national forests in Pennsylvania? Mr. BOWERS. Yes; we have the Allegheny National Forest which is slightly under a half million acres in size, 400 and some thousand acres. Senator Moss. Does your department or does the State have an agreement worked out with the Forest Service on the management of the resident fish and game on the forest? Mr. BOWERS. Yes; we have a working agreement with them and have had for many years now in that we, as I indicated, expended substantial sums of money in developing wildlife habitat on this land and, in turn, of course, they work with us on regulations, and so forth. Senator Moss. So you do have a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service where you enhance the habitat and the State sets the regulations as to seasons and bag limits and closed areas and things of that sort? Mr. BOWERS. This is correct; yes sir. And we have had, as I say, a very favorable and close working relationship with those people and they have been very good supporters of ours. Senator Moss. As I understand it from your testimony, you, of course, recognize that there are certain areas where the Federal law must prevail such as for migratory birds that are covered by treaties? Mr. BOWERS. There is no question about that and we have no objection to that whatsoever, sir. Senator Moss. Well, I do thank you for your testimony. I think it is quite consistent with what we have been hearing from the directors of fish and game. I think the objective is clear: The State would like to enhance to the maximum degree it can the amount of fish and game that the habitat will support, but you manage it in a way so that it is a recreation resource and can be kept in the balance. If game or even if fish are not managed at all, they tend to either become overpopulated and die of starvation or to be cleaned right out if there is no limitation on the taking and your job, as I understand it, is scientifically to try to manage that game so that it remains at its optimum level that the habitat will support and still provide opportunities for recreation in the taking of fish and game. Mr. BOWERS. Well, this is all very true and, of course, one of the big problems is getting public understanding so that they will accept, as you indicate, the scientific or biological aspects of the management program. Senator Moss. How large a staff does your department have in managing fish and game? Mr. BOWERS. The total would be around 800. Senator Moss. Among those I assume you have biologists and other scientific and trained personnel? Mr. BOWERS. Yes. Senator Moss. To manage the fish and game? Mr. BOWERS. We have a very small corps of biologists but we, hopefully, make up for it in quality what we lack in quantity. Mr. BARKSDALE. (Counsel for Committee on Commerce): Do you have any land up there under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department? Mr. BOWERS. Yes; we do. Mr. BARKSDALE. Do you have an agreement with the Interior Department? Mr. BOWERS. We have the Erie National Wildlife Refuge and, of course, we have licenses on the Corps of Engineers projects, a number of those in Pennsylvania, and I should point out, of course, that the Pennsylvania Game Commission itself has purchased with the hunters' license dollars more than 1,070,000 acres of the land which we own and control right now ourselves. So that we are the second largest land owner in the State. Mr. BARKSDALE. Have you had any problems with either the corps or the Interior Department that you might want to relate for the record, any significant problems where there is a conflict over the management of either fish or resident wildlife? Mr. BOWERS. I must say, sir, we have experienced no serious problems along that line. Mr. BARKSDALE. All right. Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Mr. Bowers. We are grateful to have you come and testify. Mr. Gene Gazlay, who is assistant director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, will testify for that department and some other appropriate organizations. We are very glad to have you, Mr. Gazlay. STATEMENT OF A. GENE GAZLAY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, LANSING, MICH. Mr. GAZLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am A. Gene Gazlay, assistant director for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. In addition to representing the States of Michigan and Wisconsin I am representing the Association of Midwest Fish and Game Commissioners and reaffirming the position of the International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners. The international association strongly endorsed S. 2951 and S. 3212 of the 90th Congress, which would have reaffirmed the rights of the States to manage and regulate fish and resident wildlife. The factual basis which led to the association's conviction that a legislative solution was urgently needed remains unchanged. The previously observed trend toward Federal encroachment into areas of responsibility and jurisdiction of the States has not been halted. The opinion issued by the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior on December 1, 1964, has not been revised, reversed or withdrawn. The litigation between the National Park Service and the State of New Mexico, although a relatively narrow issue, still has not been finally resolved. It is obvious that there is an underlying jurisdictional question which can only be resolved by a declaration of national policy by the Congress. Therefore, the two associations and the States of Michigan and Wisconsin wholeheartedly support the basic principles embodied in S. 1232 and S. 1401, and respectfully urge that such a bill be enacted as soon as possible. The importance of clarifying the limits of Federal authority over wildlife is readily apparent when you consider that approximately one-third of the total acreage of the 50 States is presently owned by the Federal Government. It is also understandable that a number of the Western States first became alarmed over the claims of the Interior Department Administrators that, on federally owned lands, the Federal Government has the right to manage and control wildlife. Lands owned by the Federal Government in Alaska and 11 Western States as a percentage of the total acreage is as follows: Alaska, 97 percent Utah, 67 percent Idaho, 64 percent Oregon, 52 percent Wyoming, 47 percent Arizona, 45 percent Montana, 30 percent In this connection it should be emphasized that, Federal ownership is of even greater significance than the above data indicates since federally-owned lands ordinarily furnish superior game habitat, being largely undeveloped and often at higher altitudes. Revenues to the States mentioned above from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses amounted to approximately $45 million in 1967, and well over half of this hunting and fishing effort occurred on lands owned by the Federal Government. In contrast, the Federal Government owns only about 5 percent of the State of Michigan and approximately 12 percent of the hunting effort and 16 percent of the fishing effort, occurred on these federallyowned lands. In Wisconsin, the Federal ownership amounts to about 6 percent of the total acreage with 8 percent of the hunting effort and 5 percent of the fishing effort occurring on Federal lands. It could be argued that, with much less Federal ownership in Michigan, Wisconsin and the other Midwest States, there is less urgency to these States in having a legislative solution to this jurisdictional problem. However, we do not agree with the supposition that we have less at stake than the Western States. There is great concern among the Midwest States that if the Federal Government can establish regulations for fish and wildlife on its lands, it is not too difficult to conceive that private landowners might logically claim a similar right. If such a development were to occur and be accepted the time-honored principle of State regulation and management of fish and resident wildlife would be completely destroyed. It would. in effect, completely reverse well established historically concepts and centuries of tradition, dating back to English common law, which have held that ownership of land must be separated from the authority to manage and regulate wildlife. It is imperative that this relationship be preserved if we are to avoid complete chaos in the management of fish and game resources in this Nation. It has also been argued that efforts aimed toward a legislative solution should be deferred to allow the policy statement issued by the Secretary of the Interior on June 17, 1968, a chance to function. We suggest that, although the Secretary's statement was a commendable first step, this would be an unwise course of action for the following reasons: First of all, this policy statement could be reversed by the present or any succeeding Secretary. On the other hand, a similar declaration of national policy by the Congress could be a badly needed cornerstone for a new and comprehensive national policy for preserving the quality of our environment. Secondly, the Secretary's policy statement does not cover lands administered by other Federal departments. Finally, there is no indication that the policy statement will have the necessary stature and assurance of permanence to satisfy the great majority of the States. In fairness, it should be noted that most of the States in the Midwest Association, and particularly Michigan and Wisconsin, have enjoyed a harmonious relationship with those Federal agencies concerned with the management of fish and wildlife on Federal lands. The principal land managing agency in this area, the U.S. Forest Service, has been outstandingly cooperative with State programs as evidenced by a number of fine cooperative management programs such as the effort to preserve the Jack Pine Warbler's habitat in Michigan. We hope this successful relationship can continue. The Association of Midwest Fish and Game Commissioners and the States of Michigan and Wisconsin fully subscribe to the stated views of the international association which would protect the traditional right |