only in this manner will the fish and wildlife prosper and abound for the generations yet to come.

Although we have no members in your state, nevertheless, we feel that what is good for the citizens in the Rocky Mtn. Region is also beneficial to all the citizens of this nation of ours. In essence, we ask nothing for ourselves that we do not want or are willing to give to all the citizens of the U.S.

In behalf of our members we take this opportunity to thank you in advance for any and all assistance that you may give us in the above matter.

Respectfully,

FRANK PABIAN, Secretary.

SHARON, CONN., June 20, 1969.

Senator WARREN MAGNUSON,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I am writing to urge you to oppose the "States Rights"-Wildlife Bills-S. 1232 and S. 1401.

In most cases I am in favor of local governments handling their own affairs with the least possible federal intervention. The regulation of Federal lands and National Parks does not at all fit into this category. These lands have been purchased by and preserved for every tax paying citizen in the United States not isolated groups and should therefore be regulated by the Federal Government in the interest of all.

If the Federal Government had not acted to protect our Bald and Golden eagles, we'd probably now have none left to protect. The steps in conservation are so small and come so slowly it would seem disastrous to take one backwards. Most sincerely,

ROSWELL R. HART.

MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND RESIDENT WILDLIFE ON FEDERAL LANDS

THE COLORADO VIEWPOINT

1

I write to you today in behalf of the State of Colorado to discuss an issue of vital concern to all people. The issue is the jurisdiction of fish and resident species of wildlife, and more pointedly, whether or not the State can retain the responsibility, and the authority to conserve, control and manage resident species of wildlife for public use and benefit in accordance with applicable State law or whether the United States, in the exercise of a proprietary interest in land within a state, has the authority to exercise dominion over any species of wildlife. Colorado in 1899, acknowledged the common law doctrine of ownership of game and fish by the State, by providing:

"All game and fish within this State now held by private ownership legally acquired—are hereby declared to be the property of the State and no right, title, interest or property therein can be acquired or transferred or possession thereof had or maintained except as expressly provided . . .”

The State Supreme Court affirmed and expanded the statutory declaration by stating:

". . . The power of the State to make regulations tending to conserve the game within its jurisdiction is based largely on the circumstances that the property right to the wild game within its borders is vested in the people of the state in their sovereign capacity; and it is not only the right but it is the duty of the state to take such steps as shall preserve the game.

The Colorado General Assembly, in 1937, created and charged the Game, Fish and Parks Commission with the following responsibilities:

"For the purpose of providing an adequate and flexible system of protection, propagation, increase, control and conservation of game . . . the commission is hereby authorized and directed to determine under what circumstances, when, and in what localities, by what means, and in what amounts and numbers, the same may be taken or killed . . ., and thereupon by appropriate rules and regulations: 'Shall fix seasons and bag limits, shorten, extend or close seasons on any species of game . . .'

1A statement of Harry R. Woodward, Director, Division of Game, Fish and Parks, Denver, Colo., before Senate Committee on Commerce, Cleveland, Ohio, Apr. 3, 1969.

Establish and close to hunting, trapping or fishing, game, bird and fish refuges and to close or open any lakes or streams or parts thereof to fishing, to regulate and prescribe the means by which game and fish may be taken as in its judgment may be deemed best to perpetuate, increase, restore, or control any kind of game and fish and assure a constant and adequate supply thereof . . ."

The General Assembly also conferred upon the commission the authority to destroy wild animals causing depredations, where, in 1937, it is stated:

"When, in the judgment of the game and fish commission of the state of Colo rado, it is deemed necessary to cause the destruction of any wild animals, whether protected by law or not, because of the fact that such animals have become detrimental to life, health, crops, timber, property or cultivation of lands, it is hereby authorized to kill, cause to be killed or grant permission to kill such animals under such rules and regulations as said commission deems necessary .." As is evident from the authorities cited herein, the General Assembly of the state of Colorado and the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado have long considered this State to have the paramount right to conserve and manage resident species of wildlife long acknowledged as common law to be owned by the several states.

There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the Federal Government to regulate wildlife in these United States. Rather, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The philosophy of Federal control of resident wildlife is inconsistent with other Federal programs. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act and other Federal programs are all designed to encourage greater state participation in recreational development and management.

Initially, Federal assistance in the field of wildlife management was welcomed as a sincere gesture of the Federal Government to help the states conserve these resources; however, recent Federal involvement in the field of wildlife management has the connotation of a Federal take-over. Such instances as the hiring of biologists by numerous Federal agencies (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, etc.), increased land acquisition for wildlife management, the desire of the BLM to manage wildlife on their lands, etc., imply that Federal agencies do intend to manage wildlife on Federal lands.

The Deputy Solicitor's opinion of 1964 asserting Federal authority over wildlife on Federal lands, a subsequent policy statement by the Secretary of the Interior on March 11, 1967, supporting the Solicitor's opinion, and the recent action by the National Park Service at Carlsbad, New Mexico, are forcing the states to seek favorable action by Congress which will recognize the traditional right of the states to administer and manage wildlife. Prior to the Solicitor's opinion, Federal agencies apparently were content to exercise their authority over federal lands and migratory game and let each state manage resident wildlife.

A new policy statement issued June 17, 1968 by the Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, partially recognizes the states' position except in matters relating to National Parks, National Monuments, and historic areas of the National Park System. However, it points up quite vividly the undesirability of a policy that vacillates from Secretary to Secretary or at the whim of a Secretary, while still assuring the Secretary discretionary power.

We wish to explain how the state of Colorado has viewed its historic role with respect to the ownership, management and control of resident species of wildlife. The close association of the State with its people coupled with a thorough knowledge of the wildlife resources, enables the State to manage this resource in the best interest of all people. State wildlife agencies have embarked on new dynamie programs and immeasurable progress has been made within the past thirty years. Due to scientific advances the future appears bright.

Wildlife management investigations studies and projects are conducted by the Division on federally owned lands and are largely financed from license revenues. The Division of Game, Fish and Parks also employs law enforcement personnel who spend much of their time on Federal lands within Colorado protecting wildlife through enforcing State wildlife laws. Again, the cost is borne by the license holders.

The total acreage of Colorado is 70,465,749 acres. As of January 1, 1968, the Colorado Division of Game, Fish and Parks owned or managed approximately 165,000 acres, or 0.2 percent of the State. The Federal Government owns approxi mately 25 million acres, or a little over one-third of the State.

Much of the prime hunting and fishing lands and waters are situated within the boundaries of federally-owned land. Except for antelope, approximately 80 to 90 percent of big game hunting takes place on federal land. Of the elk and deer taken in Colorado during any one year, 80 percent of the elk and 50 percent of the deer are harvested on federal lands. Approximately 40 percent of all small game hunting is done on federal lands. If federal lands suitable for hunting were under the exclusive control of the Federal Government, the Division would sustain a direct loss of nearly 4 million dollars annually.

Colorado has approximately 6,000 miles of natural streams, 1,900 natural lakes and 350 reservoirs open to public fishing. Approximately 95 percent of the significant fishing streams, 98 percent of the natural lakes, and 20 percent of the reservoirs are on federal lands. The trout streams and lakes located in these areas are stocked by the people of the state of Colorado from monies collected by the Division of Game, Fish and Parks through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. The Division would lose approximately 1.8 million dollars annually if waters on federal lands were under the exclusive control of the Federal Government.

The necessity for immediate and incisive action has been precipitated by an action of the National Park Service in New Mexico. The action by the Service in the taking of deer within the boundary of a federal park without the permission of the state of New Mexico caused New Mexico to file a complaint against the Secretary of the Interior and others in the Federal District Court. An opinion of a United States District Judge ruled in favor of the New MexicoState Game Commission and requires that the Secretary of the Interior comply with the state law of New Mexico if he desires to continue killing deer within the boundaries of Carlsbad Caverns National Park for the purpose of conducting a research study. This decision was appealed by the United State government and will be heard in the Circuit Court of Appeals sitting at Denver, Colorado. An adverse court ruling in this case could have a catastrophic impact upon wildlife management.

The people of the state of Colorado believe that issues raised in the New Mexico case are of importance to all states. If the Federal Government is allowed to make continued encroachments upon the states' jurisdiction to manage and regulate resident wildlife, it would be granted control where it is neither needed nor desired. Further, it would create an impossible checkerboard pattern of land ownership as each landowner might be encouraged to claim ownership of fish and wildlife on his land and ignore State game and fish laws including license requirements. This would eliminate uniformity of wildlife management practices exercised on federally controlled lands, thereby increasing complexity of enforcement rather than simplifying it. This would have an even greater effect upon fish and wildlife than exclusive federal control. Together, they could eliminate state conservation agencies.

Federal control would create an additional burden upon the individual taxpayer. The additional monies required for Federal control could better be spent on state programs by the state. Another consideration would be the imposition of severe burdens upon the Federal Administration. A tremendous increase in personnel would be required; additional judges (to administer laws relating primarily to misdemeanors), administrators, law enforcement officers, biologists. clerical help, etc. Federal courts are already crowded, game management agents responsible for territories too large, and refuge and fish hatchery programs suffering from lack of funds.

The states have long recognized and discharged their responsibility fairly and wisely. We believe that fish and game management can only progress through state jurisdiction of resident wildlife aided by the sincere efforts of the Federal Government. Federal control should be justifiable only if the states fail to conserve a national resource. Such is not the case in regard to resident wildlife.

We are firmly convinced that each of the states has the knowledge and commensurate capability to manage resident wildlife within their respective borders. We believe it imperative that Congress assess the role of the Federal Government in the field of wildlife management. This assessment should include the following issues :

Whether or not the ownership of wildlife should be vested with the land or the landowner.

Have the several states failed to judiciously exercise their duties in the field of wildlife management.

Would the opportunity of the individual to participate in the development of fish and wildlife management plans be drastically reduced under federal control. Have the states already ceded too much power to the Federal Government. Is strong central authority vested with the Federal Government necessary to implement effective fish and wildlife programs.

Would uniform administration be possible if the Federal Government and the individual landowner were given responsibility for administering wildlife.

If the Federal Government is granted authority to manage wildlife on lands they control, would each individual landowner be granted the same prerogative. Could realistic long term wildlife research and management programs be consistently maintained.

Would the complexity of enforcing wildlife laws increase.

How great an increase in personnel would be required to enable the Federal Government to adequately administer fish and wildlife.

Would federal court hearings cause additional delays in the disposition of each case.

Has any federal agency exceeded its authority to manage fish and wildlife and, is so, has this been detrimental to the resource.

Can the Federal Government better manage wildlife than the state. Would exclusive federal control eliminate state conservation agencies. The decision reached by Congress regarding wildlife management should be accompanied by the requisite legislation for effective implementation.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
Hartford, April 1, 1969.

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Thank you for your cordial invitation to appear before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce on S-1232 relating to management of fish and resident wildlife on federal lands.

While I am unable to attend this hearing personally, I am pleased to take this opportunity to express my endorsement of a statement already filed with the subcommittee by Mr. Theodore B. Bampton, director of our Connecticut State Board of Fisheries and Game.

I would especially note Mr. Bampton's comment that while the extent of federal land ownership in Connecticut is relatively small, we place high value on wildlife resources and support favorable consideration of S-1232 toward the end of sound regulation and management of them.

It is pertinent to note, also, that the pending legislation carries the endorsement of Commissioner Joseph N. Gill, of our Connecticut Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as well as the Board of Fisheries and Game. Sincerely,

JOHN DEMPSEY, Governor.

ASSOCIATION OF NORTHEAST GAME, FISH & CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT BOARD OF FISHERIES & GAME,
Hartford, Conn., April 2, 1969.

Hon. FRANK E. Moss,
Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MOSS: The Northeast Association of Game and Fish Commissioners wishes to endorse in principle, legislation designed to clarify and insure the right of the states to control, regulate and manage resident fish and wildlife on federal lands. This action was unanimously endorsed at a meeting of the Association at White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, February 11, 1969.

Since our February meeting, S. 1232 has been introduced in the Ninety-first Congress. We believe that this measure accurately reflects the intent and wishes of our Association.

It is our wish that this letter be considered part of the record of the public hearing to be held by the Sub-Committee on Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Senate Commerce Committee, on April 3, 1969, in Cleveland, Ohio. Sincerely yours, THEODORE B. BAMPTON, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE B. BAMPTON, DIRECTOR, CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF FISHERIES & GAME

The Connecticut Board of Fisheries and Game endorses the principles embodied in S. 1232 and similar legislation introduced in the Ninety-first Congress. The provisions of such legislation will insure the States' inherent right to control, regulate and manage fish and wildlife for public use within their territorial boundaries. Further, such legislation continues to recognize exceptions, such as: the rights of Indians; the rights of the United States in areas where the States have ceded by law exclusive jurisdiction and the rights and powers of the Federal Government with regard to species of fish and wildlife in which the States have relinquished all interests. Examples of the latter are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald Eagle Act and the Rare and Endangered Species Act. We believe such legislation is needed to clarify the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the States and that of the federal agencies.

The State of Connecticut has long held that the title to wild animals is in the State, held in trust for its citizens. The State has delegated its stewardship responsibilities to the Board of Fisheries and Game. Sections 26-65 and 26-111 of the Connecticut General Statutes authorizes the Board to develop sound management programs for all species of wild birds, wild quadrupeds, and all fish, and further, to regulate hunting and sport fishing on public and private lands and waters.

Admittedly, the extent of federal ownership in Connecticut is very limited, comprising approximately 7,000 acres, and over one-half of this total leased to the State for recreational use. We have not experienced jurisdictional disputes with any federal agencies over the right to regulate, manage and control resident fish and wildlife on federal lands; however, being a small state with long estab lished "Yankee" traditions, we value our wildlife resources and are jealous of our rights to control, regulate and manage these resources.

We respectfully urge the Committee to give favorable consideration to S. 1232.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN G. WILDER, DIRECTOR, THE BOARD OF GAME & FISH COMMISSIONERS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

The Board of Game and Fish Commissioners of the State of Delaware strongly endorses S-1232 (Ninety-first Congress) which when enacted will guarantee the states the right to control, regulate and manage fish and wildlife within their territorial boundaries.

The fact that legislation to reaffirm this right has been introduced in the Congress of the United States and has received serious consideration over the past two years is conclusive proof that controversy exists.

Section 106, Title 7, Delaware Code states that "the Board (Board of Game and Fish Commissioners) shall protect, conserve and propagate all forms of protected wildlife of this state and enforce by proper actions and proceedings the law relating to". In Delaware, no other governmental agency is granted this authority except that the state recognizes the jurisdiction of the United States of America in the taking of fish and wildlife under any international treaty or convention to which this country is a party.

Since colonial times in this state the ownership of fish and game has not been associated with the ownership of land. We do not recognize that federal agencies have preference or control of resident fish and game over other land owners. The Board of Game and Fish Commissioners of the State of Delaware enjoys an excellent working relationship with several federal agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both substantial land owners in our state. We would like to continue these excellent relationships on the basis of what we have assumed to be an unquestionable division of authority whereby the responsibility for resident wildlife has been vested with the State of Delaware and the responsibility for migratory wildlife has been vested with the Federal government.

Our Commission feels that enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress of the United States is the only logical solution to the present controversy. Long range programs are difficult to carry out when matters of jurisdiction are unsettled. Consequently, the Board of Game and Fish Commissioners of the State of Delaware respectfully requests that you report favorably on the legis lation under consideration.