Raising the Duck Stamp fee to $5 across the board would raise substantially more money than the voluntary, over-printing plan. Increasing the required fee would without doubt cause some decline in the number of licenses sold, at least for a year or two, but we do not believe the drop would be numerically more than 25 per cent at the most. If 75 per cent as many persons buy Duck Stamps at $5 as bought them at $3. the total returns to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund would increase by 25 per cent. Chances are some of those who dropped out the first year because of the increased fee would return to the fold in following years. Fewer hunters for a few years would not necessarily be bad for the resource, as waterfowl breeding stocks have had a hard time recovering from the low levels of recent years. Should the wild duck populations recover to more normal levels, we believe the number of licensed waterfowl hunters would surely increase. As stated earlier, the National Audubon Society supports either bill. We recommend H.R. 14136 as most likely to produce a substantial increase in revenues. We also suggest the Subcommittee consider adding to H.R. 14136 a provision something like Subsection (d) of H.R. 11967. The Secretary could be authorized to make grants to public and non-profit agencies-for the purposes stipulated in Subsection (d)—in an annual amount equivalent to the additional revenues calculated to have accrued as a result of the increase in the fee from $3 to $5. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views. STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, FOR ITSELF AND THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, ON NO. H.R. 13495. A BILL TO AMEND THE ACT OF OCTOBER 4, 1961, RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF WET LANDS FOR CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY WATERFOWL To House Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife Conservation: The National Audubon Society was one of the enthusiastic supporting organizations when the Dingell Wetlands Acquisition Act of 1961 was considered and passed by the Congress. Although we have been disappointed and at times discouraged because the program authorized by that Act has never reached the tempo that was visualized, we are still firmly convinced that its objectives were soundly planned, and that those objectives are absolutely necessary if North American waterfowl resources are to be maintained at a level satisfactory to the American people. We respectfully urge a favorable report on H.R. 13495, Mr. Dingell's bill to extend the program for an additional eight years. Mr. Chairman, the Christian Science Monitor, on April 20, 1966, carried an excellent article by Staff Writer Leon W. Lindsay on the importance of the wetlands conservation program and the troubles that have beset it. We offer a copy of this article, commend it to the study of the Subcommittee, and request that it be made a part of the record of this hearing. Our sister National conservation organization, The Wilderness Society, 729 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., has asked to be associated with us in this statement. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 20, 1966] APPROPRIATIONS RAG-WETLAND PLAN SPUTTERS (By Leon W. Lindsay, Staff Writer of the Christian Science Monitor) An "accelerated" federal program to save 121⁄2 million acres of wetlands in the United States is sputtering for lack of funds, while dredges and bulldozers continue to chomp away at irreplaceable wildlife habitat. That's the picture in April, 1966, with the seven-year wetlands acquisition program voted by Congress in 1961 well past the half-way point. Less than 15 percent of wetland acreage targeted to be saved has been placed under federal protection. The chief reason: Congress has voted so far only $32.5 million of $105 million originally envisioned for the vital conservation program. Not all the news on wetlands is bleak. The federal program does show signs of gaining momentum after a slow start. And state acquisition programs in key wetlands areas are chalking up significant gains. The Department of the Interior defines wetlands as "lowlands covered even temporarily by water not more than six feet deep." Tidal marshes, inland swamps, glacial "potholes," low, wet area on farmland, or a vast expanse like the Florida Everglades-these are wetlands. To the coldly commercial eye, wetlands are practically useless. The owner of a coastal salt marsh, for example, has a piece of property of no productive value to him. "The owner of a salt marsh becomes a public servant," says the Audubon Society. "The richness of his marsh flows into the sea." But, "the fish that have crossed the family table were, in part, the product of a marsh. The shellfish that provide both food and employment are marshfed * * * The beauty of many coastal towns *** often rests heavily upon marshes." As to the owner of an inland marsh-why shouldn't he drain it and put it to plow, or sell it to a developer to drain, fill, and build houses on? He may hunt duck on it, or even lease it to some city hunters. But there would be a lot more profit in other use. BUFFER ZONES The values of wetlands to society as a whole are perhaps easier to see, though hardly more tangible. Wetlands are buffer zones between the water and the land, where wildlife nests, takes refuge, or lives through life cycles. Without them, much of North America's fauna would disappear. To those interested in recreation potential, wetlands are of prime importance. Chiefly, they provide nesting, feeding, and wintering grounds for wild waterfowl. Man no longer hunts as a necessity, but increasing numbers of Americans turn to hunting for recreation. Hunters' organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Inc., are a major force in preserving and even creating wetlands. In some states Ducks Unlimited actually receives public money to pursue its program of providing waterfowl habitat. The weekend fisherman values wetlands, too, as does the birdwatcher. Some commercial value is found in wetlands for fur trapping, though in the United States this is a limited use. WATER CONSERVATION An increasingly important motivation for saving wetlands is simply the desire to preserve what is left of the natural beauty of the North American Continent. In addition, some well-informed officials see significant water-conservation values. Says Wayne H. Olson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Conservation: "Personally, I think there is substantial value in wetlands retaining small water reserves in upland areas of watersheds. Studies now being conducted hint there may even be significant recharge of ground water from potholes." For 27 years prior to 1961 the federal government had a modest program of wetlands acquisition financed chiefly by funds derived from duck-hunting stamps required on state hunting licenses. But this program did not stem the rush to "develop" or "convert" wetlands. Then in 1961 Congress passed an accelerated, seven-year program for acquisition. But the lawmakers have not followed through with sufficient appropriations to keep the acquisition on schedule. Public Law 87-732 set an over-all goal of 12% million acres to be set aside for waterfowl conservation. The federal government was to provide $105 million to acquire 4% million acres. About 31⁄2 million acres were already in federal hands. The states were to acquire 21⁄2 million acres on their own to add to their holdings of 2 million acres. LAND ACQUIRED Through June 30, 1965, Congress had voted a total of $25 million for the program. With the addition of $15 million in duck-stamp receipts from 1961 through 1965, this provided a total of $40 million for buying or securing easements on wetlands. This was only 35 percent of the $140 million Department of the Interior officials had anticipated. John S. Gottschalk, director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, is in charge of the program. He sums up the program thus far: "Under the seven-year accelerated program, as of Dec. 31, 1965, we had acquired 622,000 acres." This is less than 15 percent of the seven-year goal, with only three years remaining. *** Destruction of wetland habitat continues." Mr. Gottschalk cites two examples: 1. A survey of Long Island wetlands completed in June, 1964, "revealed a physical loss of *** 6,724 wetland acres since 1959*** with losses now totaling 33 percent since 1954; 88 percent of all remaining Long Island wetlands are now considered vulnerable to destruction." 2. "A mid-November [1965] aerial survey of drift prairie country in North Dakota revealed an 11.7 percent loss of Type III wetlands over the period 1963-65. HOPES OUTLINED "In addition, an increase of over 300 drainage referrals were handled by our field biologists in 1965 over 1964 in the 'pothole' states of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. "These referrals are applications for federal drainage assistance which our bureau reviews for a determination of wildlife value, and possible preservation through purchase or easement, as authorized by Public Law 87-732. "Our main hopes for wetland preservation lie in: (1) wildlife interests working more closely with landowners; (2) an incentive payment or income to owners who preserve wetlands; (3) acquisition of the more critical wetland areas by federal or state wildlife interests; (4) the replacement of losses within drainage projects; and (5) the incorporation of many wetland developments within the major irrigation and water management projects throughout the nation. "Progress definitely is being made on all counts-but the future is uncertainespecially the demands for food for peace' etc., which would place tremendous pressures upon all arable lands." DEPARTMENTS AT ODDS This clash between the goals of greater farm production and the preservation of wildlife reaches directly into the federal bureaucracy. It puts the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture at odds on land-use policy. Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service programs aid farmers who wish to drain land for increased production or channelize streams in order to prevent erosion. The latter can dry up a wetland area just as effectively as out-and-out drainage. Mr. Gottschalk notes: "*** There have been some changes. Agriculture Conservation Program [ACP] payments to farmers for drainage in 1966 has been reduced, and in South Dakota, ACP-assisted open-ditch drainage actually was removed from the docket-statewide. "We believe that agricultural interests increasingly realize the values of wetlands, but the trend continues to be against wetland preservation, both in the United States and Canada. "In nearly all cases, economic value is the deciding factor, whether a 'pothole' on a farmer's field, or a coastal marsh eyed by a housing developer." (First of two articles. Next: What key states are doing.) Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, MIAMI, FLA., May 9, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. SIR: The members of the South Dade Horticulture Study Society would like to be placed on record as favoring positive action on H.R. 12324—the bill providing for the enlargement of the Key Deer Range in the Florida Keys. We feel that the enlargement of the range of the Key Deer will do much to serve the cause of conservation of wild life, vegetation and bird life that are unique to the Florida Keys. Your favorable consideration and action on H.R. 12324 will be appreciated by our members. Sincerely, WAYNE E. WELLMAN, Chairman, Conservation Committee. MARYLAND BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Mr. NED P. EVERETT, Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. EVERETT : Thank you for your letter of May 10th. The statement I wish to make in support of Congressman Dingell's Bill, H. R. 14136 is as follows: As Chairman of the Board of Natural Resources of the State of Maryland, I am in full support of Congressman John D. Dingell's H. R. 14136. The increase of the duck stamp from $3 to $5 will give to the Department of the Interior much needed additional funds to acquire wetlands, new sanctuarys, and money for research on waterfowl. As former Chairman of the Eastern Shore Committee of Ducks Unlimited and as a private real estate broker, I am keenly aware of the diminishing marshlands and other habitat areas that our wintering waterfowl so desperately need. Unless the Government through the Department of the Interior and the States involved acquire key areas, there will be no need to produce more ducks in this country or Canada if there is no habitat to support them. No one is naive enough not to acknowledge the fact that without the Department of the Interior's sanctuarys and the expansion of them, waterfowl and waterfowl hunting will be a thing of the past. I strongly support H. R. 14136. Trusting this will be sufficient and with best wishes, I am Sincerely, ROY E. WALSH, Chairman. HUNTINGTON AUDUBON SOCIETY, Representative JOHN D. DINGELL, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL: H.R. 12324-authorization to enlarge the Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge, H.R. 13495-to extend for eight years the wetlands acquisition program, H.R. 11967-to permit the sale of Duck Stamps at $5.00, and H.R. 14136-across the board authorization to raise the Duck Stamp fee to $5.00 are all before your Subcommittee. The Huntington Audubon Society wishes to express its approval of all four bills and hopes that your Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife Conservation will bring them to the floor of the House for voting as soon as possible. Yours truly, WILLIAM MCANENY, President. CAMBRIDGE, OHIO, June 3, 1966. JOHN D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: The writer of this letter is Attorney for and Washington Representative of the League of Ohio Sportsmen. Some six years ago the League went on record as advocating an increase of the price of the Federal Duck Hunting Stamp from $3.00 to $5.00 and now desire to be on record as supporting your H. R. 14136, which legislation accomplishes just what the league has been advocating. Very truly yours, SCOTT & SCOTT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. ROBERT E. SCOTT, Attorney and Counselor at Law, Cambridge, Ohio. DEAR BOB: I was pleased to hear from you with regard to my colleague's effort to secure passage of H.R. 14136 to increase the price of duck hunting stamps. It seems to me that John Dingell's proposal makes good sense, and I am happy to note that the League of Ohio Sportsmen supports this increase. The passage of the Dingell bill will enable the Department of Interior to move forward on projects which will improve the hatch of all of the areas for this sport. I shall be more than glad to support this very worthwhile effort and will so indicate to Congressman Dingell and I would appreciate if you would convey to the Ohio League of Sportsmen that you have secured my commitment of support on this subject. Kindest personal regards. Very sincerely yours, ROBERT E. SWEENEY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. ROBERT E. SCOTT, Attorney at Law, Cambridge, Ohio. DEAR MR. SCOTT: Thank you very much for your letter of the 28th of May regarding legislation recently introduced by Congressman Dingell, H.R. 14136. I appreciate your writing to me, and want you to know that I will support this bill and will do what I can to see that it passes. With kind personal regards, I am, Very sincerely yours, Mr. ROBERT E. SCOTT, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, Cambridge, Ohio. WAYNE L. HAYS, U.S. Congressman. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DEAR MR. SCOTT: I wish to thank you for your letter of May 28, 1966 and wish to assure you that I will be most happy to support Congressman John Dingell's bill, H.R. 14136. Sincerely, MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., June 14, 1966. Mr. ROBERT E. SCOTT, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, Cambridge, Ohio. DEAR MR. SCOTT: Thank you for your recent letter urging my support of Representative Dingell's bill H.R. 14136 now pending in the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I will be most happy to support it. Sincerely yours, FRANK T. Bow, Member of Congress. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. ROBERT E. SCOTT, Scott & Scott, Cambridge, Ohio. DEAR BOB: Thanks for letting me know of your interest in the pending bill, H.R. 14136. As you may know, hearings were held by the Subcommittee on May 5th. No further action is scheduled at this time. I am appreciative of your views on this matter and will keep alerted for anything I can do. Your Congressman, WILLIAM H. AYRES. |