To Senate Committee on Commerce: CANTON AUDUBON SOCIETY, We of the Canton Audubon Society are in opposition to Bills S. 1232 and S. 1401-the so-called "State's Rights" wildlife bills. We believe that there is actually no need for this legislation at all. In fact, if anything the legislation would only serve to cause additional conflictions. This controversy and legislation are both unnecessary. Our club is in entire agreement with the view that the federal parks and refuges should be directed to maintain mutual cooperation with the states on game control programs on the federal lands. In many parts of the country, particularly in the west, it would subject federal refuges and parks to the whims of local hunting pressures brought to bear upon the state. Federal agencies would be forced into a "bargaining" position. For example, transferring game from one federal refuge to another could present many public relation problems. Many state agencies can be easily influenced by pressure from the public. The state's viewpoint could also be influenced in terms of hunting and fishing license fees. We believe that game management on federal lands and in national parks must be managed for the advantage of all the people in the United States. It should not be influenced by local pressure groups. This proposed legislation would cause a good deal of confusion in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1966. This legislation also nullifies the Bald Eagle-Golden Eagle Protection Act. Our association has no selfish motive in our opposition to these two "State's Rights" bills. Our only concern is to see that our wonderful natural resources are best managed for the benefit of the most people today and for future generations. DEAR MR. HUSE: The New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Fish and Game fully endorses the basic principles of S. 1232 and respectfully requests that Congress enact legislation of this kind. New Jersey has not been adversely affected by the opinion of the Solicitor General of the Department of the Interior on December 1, 1964, but we realize that legislation to reffirm and clearly establish the right of the states to manage resident fish and wildlife is now receiving serious consideration and is conclusive proof that a jurisdictional controversy exists. At this time the only other party to this controversy which threatens the timehonored principle of public ownership and state regulation of fish and resident wildlife is the Federal Government. But of even greater importance, and this applies particularly to New Jersey, to the future of this state's wildlife resources, as well as that of other states, is the implication that ownership of fish and game is based on the ownership of land. We submit that the job of controlling, managing, and regulating fish and resident wildlife is being handled in a very capable manner by well-trained, experienced state employees who have a thorough knowledge of these resources, the ecology of the area in which the respective state is located and the outdoor recreational needs of the people. A change is not necessary to achieve the best interests of either fish and game, or hunters and fishermen, or many other people who are interested in fish and wildlife. We would emphasize that in supporting the tenets of S. 1232 our support extends to the exceptions included in this bill to spell out existing Federal responsibilities. The New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Fish and Game feels that enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress of the United States is the only logical solution to the present controversy that was brought about by the opinion of the Solicitor General of the Department of the Interior on December 1, 1964. Policy statements which have been suggested, no matter how liberal, are entirely too subject to change by administrative decision. Uncertainties regarding jurisdiction do not contribute to the wise, orderly management of fish and wildlife resources, especially since most of the management procedures involve long-range programs. Congressional answer in enacting S. 1232 will establish a clear-cut decision to the basic question of wildlife ownership, and we believe that this is absolutely essential to the future of the natural resources of fish and wildlife in this country. The New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Fish and Game respectfully requests that you act in the best interests of the people of New Jersey by reporting favorable on S. 1232 which is under consideration today. We have appreciated this opportunity to express the views of the citizens of New Jersey, and particularly those who are actively engaged in conservation activities. DEAR MR. HUSE: Please make the following a part of the record of the hearings to be held on "state's rights" wildlife legislation: Our organization wishes to express its opposition to S. 1232, S. 1401, H.R. 71 and other "state's rights" wildlife bills of a similar nature. Such measures would cripple the authority of the National Park Service and of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to manage and protect animal communities in the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, respectively. The danger that the bills would open the National Parks to public hunting is great. The importance of a total ecological outlook is becoming increasingly clear. Any bill that would tend ultimately to upset the ecological balance in those few places where it could otherwise be maintained should be strongly opposed. Sincerely yours, LIANE B. RUSSELL, Ph. D. (Mrs. W. L.), STATEMENT OF THEODORE R. SAMSELL, DIRECTOR, THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement to the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment of the Senate Committee on Commerce. This statement expresses the view of the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources on bills relating to the authority of the State to control, regulate and manage its resident wildlife species. The legislation specifically referred to is Senate Bill 1232, recently introduced in the 91st Congress. In West Virginia there are some 800,000 acres of land in the Monongahela National Forest and another 100,000 acres in the George Washington National Forest. The Jefferson National Forest recently purchased approximately 17,000 acres in West Virginia and will expand this area to 30,000 acres. In addition, there are close to 50,000 acres of land in Army Corps of Engineer projects and thousands of acres contemplated for future Federal reservoirs. These Federal lands presently constitute around seven per cent of the total area of the State. Although only seven per cent of the State is in Federal ownership, approximately 50 per cent of our hunters and fishermen utilize such lands. This high use of Federal lands is due to easy access and superior quality game and fish habitat. Harvest figures in West Virginia indicate that 20 per cent of the annual deer kill occurs on Federal lands, 75 per cent of the bear kill, 15 percent of the ruffed grouse and 40 per cent of the wild turkeys. West Virginia is concerned over the 1964 opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Interior which asserted exclusive Federal jurisdiction over fish and resident wildlife on Federally-owned lands. If this Federal claim to jurisdiction over fish and wildlife is upheld, great confusion will develop and sportsmen will experience conflict between state and Federal laws and regulations. If Federal agencies start issuing hunting and fishing licenses for lands under their jurisdiction, loss of revenue would greatly curtail active state wildlife management and research projects. West Virginia realizes that the Federal government has the same rights as any landowner in managing his land and in dealing with access problems. The responsibility to regulate and manage resident wildlife and fish has been traditionally vested in the various states as trustees for the people. We feel that this responsibility should remain with the state. If responsibility to manage resident wildlife and fish should be taken away from the state and turned over to the Federal government on their lands, there is nothing to prevent similar action on the part of private landowners. Such action would wreck our state game and fish management programs, and hunting and fishing as we now know it would no longer exist. West Virginia has enjoyed good working relations and cooperation with Federal agencies owning land in our state. We certainly hope that this good relationship will continue during future years. The West Virginia Department of Natural Resources is empowered by statute with the responsibility of controlling and managing the fish and game within the state. Our game and fish staff is composed of highly trained personnel with the professional ability and desire to comply with this directive. This responsibility, I feel, is being carried out extremely well and should remain with the state. It is my candid opinion that the dictates of good public policy require the management of resident game and fish within a state's borders by a single agency. I submit that the agency most qualified for this task in West Virginia is the State. The state is historically the owner of the wildlife in trust for its people, and control and management are, and properly should be, inseparable parts of that ownership. I am asking at this time that the Committee favorably consider West Virginia's endorsement of Senate Bill 1232. This bill, for all practical purposes, is identical in legislative intent and closely resembles other bills that were introduced into the 90th Congress. I want to thank the members of this committee for the opportunity to make a statement regarding this important legislation. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, STATE OF WISCONSIN, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Madison, Wis., March 28, 1969. Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Thank you for your notice and invitation to appear concerning the Committee hearing on bill S. 1232 relating to management of fish and resident wildlife on federal lands. In recent years we have been working on this matter with the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, and our position currently is incorporated in their planned presentation; therefore, we do not expect to have an additional appearance for Wisconsin, or submit a separate statement for Committee records. Our position, generally, of course, is to retain control of fish and resident wildlife on all lands within the state, including federal property. Thank you again for your notice. Very truly yours, L. P. VOIGT, Secretary. WASHINGTON STATE BIG GAME COUNCIL, Hon. FRANK E. Moss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MOSS: The Washington State Big Game Council, Seattle Chapter, has evaluated the provisions of S-1232, now pending in the Commerce Committee and wish to go on record in support of this legislation. The issue in question is of vital concern to citizens of the State of Washington as much of our public lands are federally owned. Traditionally the management of resident game populations has been provided by State agencies, notably the State of Washington Departments of Game and Fisheries. The proven abilities and dedication of State Game and Fisheries Departments in the propagation of fish and game in this nation, indicate that both the wild life and the recreationist will be benefitted by adoption of this bill. It is further requested that this letter be made part of the permanent record of the hearing conducted by your sub-committee. Very truly yours, Hon. ROBERT PACKWOOD, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DOUGLAS E. FISHKIN, Secretary. STATE OF OREGON, GAME COMMISSION, Portland, Oreg., June 5, 1969. DEAR SENATOR PACKWOOD: A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of New Mexico State Game Commission vs. Udall, et al, No. 58–68, filed May 15, 1969, is a matter of great concern to the people and conservation agencies of the western states. The above decision dismissed the suit of the State of New Mexico which attempted to prevent killing of deer on the Carlsbad National Park in violation of state law. The court in its holding said that the state's remedy did not lie in the court, thus by implication compelling the states to seek protection through legislation. I am informed that Senator Hart is the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee that is considering SP 1232 and 1401 and that action by that committee could bring one of those proposals to the floor of the Senate. Either SB 1232 or 1401 would provide the definition required for protection of state jurisdiction and alleviation of current conflicts. Your assistance with this important legislative matter will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. MCKEAN, Director. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF GAME, Olympia, Wash., October 8, 1969. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I feel obligated to express my views to you on Under Secretary of Interior Russell Train's letter to you of October 2nd on S.B. 1232 and S.B. 1401. With officers of the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, I attended a meeting with Secretary Train in his office on September 16th. At that meeting, it was made abundantly clear that the International Association had attempted for more than four years to negotiate with the Department of Interior problems associated with the primary authority of the certain states to control, regulate and manage wildlife within their respective territories. This long period of negotiation has not resolved this problem and actually has resulted in further deterioration of the relationship between the respective states and Interior. It is the feeling of the State of Washington Department of Game, and this is unanimously shared by all fifty state fish, game and conservation agencies, that the only solution to this problem is legislation. If it is Secretary Train's position. to attempt to further delay legislation by suggesting to your committee that an acceptable arrangement is being worked out at this late date, I can positively assure you this in no way reflects any change in the position of the states for the immediate need of this very necessary legislation. This point was clearly made to Interior at our September 16th meeting. It would be the sincere hope of the entire membership of the International Association that the Commerce Committee would act immediately on these bills presently before your committee, and to do everything possible to see that S.B. 1232 or S.B. 1401 passes the Senate as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that you will give this legislation immediate consideration. Very truly yours, CARL N. CROUSE, SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, Senator WARREN B. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We understand that reports have been filed with your Committee on Commerce on S. 1232 and S. 1401, both bills which deal with the jurisdiction over wildlife on federal lands. Our concern with these bills stems from the fact that we believe their passage could lead to hunting in our National Parks, to which we have previously stated our opposition. Since these bills differ from those introduced in the last Congress and on which hearings were held, we would urge that public hearings be set up to consider S. 1232 and S. 1401 in order that testimony can be heard from conservation organizations. We have in mind particularly our National Audubon Society, in order that its competent officials may present our point of view. Thanking you for your consideration, I am Sincerely yours, Mrs. HAZEL A. WOLF, Secretary. U.S. SENATE, Hon. PHILIP A. HART, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Environment, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR PHIL: Oregon's Game Commission Director, Mr. John W. McKean, has recently been in touch with me regarding S. 1232 and S. 1401, which are currently pending before the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment. I am enclosing a copy of his letter for your information, and consideration. As you will note, Mr. McKean supports S. 1232 and S. 1401 and feels that either of these proposals would sufficiently protect our states' authority to control, regulate, and manage fish and wildlife within their borders. Your consideration of Mr. McKean's position in further deliberations on these proposals will be most sincerely appreciated. Cordially, BOB PACKWOOD. о |