unless they will live up to the tenets, and the provisions, of the migratory-bird treaties which they signed with this country. Senator FERGUSON. I can see why that is true. If they want to use the money as a decoy to destroy the very thing that we believe in there would not be any use of doing it. Mr. BROWN. I thought I would bring that before you, and you have copies of that letter. Senator FERGUSON. At this point we will make this letter a part of the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) AMERICAN WATERFOWL COMMITTEE, To the Members, Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife Conservation. GENTLEMEN: As secretary of the American Waterfowl Committee, I have been instructed to present for your attention the following resolution adopted by the committee at its last meeting held in St. Louis during the North American Wildlife Conference: "This group favors the use by the Government of the United States of its favorable position in connection with the granting of loans or other financial assistance to the Republic of Mexico and Central American countries, to seek desirable and necessary protection of migratory waterfowl." Copies of this resolution were ordered sent to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the members of the Committee on Wildlife Conservation in both branches of the Congress. Incidentally, the American Waterfowl Committee is composed of representatives from 10 of the national organizations interested in some phase of the wild waterfowl problems of the continent. Respectfully submitted. J. HAMMOND Brown, Secretary. Senator FERGUSON. We would have to have a firm understanding with these countries. Mr. BROWN. I want to explain this, that the American Waterfowl Committee is composed of 10 national organizations' representatives, not always the same people, who will meet at call of its secretary and discuss current waterfowl problems. The whole object of the committee is to bring about coordinated thinking and cooperative action on those problems. But a peculiar thing is that when we present our decisions before the gentlemen of the Fish and Wildlife Service, they are not bound to take our advice and neither are any of the individual organizations composing the committee bound to take the advice either. So, it may be a very healthy condition where you can bring a group of men who know what they are talking about together with their hair down to talk off the record on a problem. And we generally get to this end: We mostly wind up with an unanimous decision as to the proper move to take. It is not always taken, but I think Mr. Day will admit that it has been of very valuable assistance to him in his directorship of the Fish and Wildlife Service so far as it has to do with waterfowl. I think I can say this one thing further. We took up a bill-not this particular bill, because it had not been put into the hopper before we met. We took up a similar bill in the House, that is, the increase from $1 to $2 for the Federal duck stamp, and there was a unanimous decision that it was the thing to do, that we would have to do that before we could make much more headway in the management and enforcement of the waterfowl laws; but, when it came to how that should be done and how the money should be spent, there was a divergence of opinion, which was natural. There was also a divergence of opinion as to whether there should be an opening of portions of the refuges and waterfowl preserves, as I think this bill also says and so does the one that is in the House. We did not go into that very deeply for the simple reason that there arose the differences of opinion and it was not pertinent at that time, but all we wanted to do was find out the opinion of those present as to the advisability of increasing the cost of the duck stamp. I just give you that as an indication of the thinking of these chaps. I believe that is all, as secretary of the American Waterfowl Committee, I have to tell you, unless you have some questions. Senator FERGUSON. Could I get some thinking as to the question: What is your opinion as to what should be done with the money that is raised by the increase? Mr. BROWN. Both as secretary of the Committee of the American Waterfowl Association and as president of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, and also in the meetings of the State and local individual waterfowlers, I have found an interest in more than just shooting waterfowl, an interest in wanting to preserve the crop. There seems to be an 85-percent demand that if we want to increase the amount paid for the duck stamp, the increase is brought about by the need of more enforcement. There should be in the bill itself a minimum amount that can be used for, or must be used for, enforcement. They are afraid that if you leave that wide open with changing personnel and things of that sort, you might speedily find yourself in the same position you were before. Senator FERGUSON. In other words, you may get more administration rather than enforcement. Mr. BROWN. Yes. So I really believe you should have quite a percentage of new funds or the funds as a whole given over in the bill to enforcement. You would have a much better reception at the hands of the people who pay the bill in the last analysis, the sportsmen themselves, than if you leave it as it is now. That is my thinking in the matter and the thinking I get from people all over the country and all levels, from the sportsmen I mentioned up to the national officials and people of that sort. I think, when Mr. Buckingham comes on the stand, he has some very interesting data on that from a survey we took as soon as the season was over. The officials of the Outdoor Writers Association of America made a survey also. He has some very interesting data on that and I would question him on it if he does not have it in his presentation. Senator FERGUSON. Have you anything further to say? Mr. BROWN. Nothing personally. Remember I am not appearing here as president of the Outdoor Writers Association of America but as secretary of the American Waterfowl Committee. Senator FERGUSON. I would like to ask you these questions as an individual. Mr. BROWN. I am very much disturbed over this Mexican situation and, as president of the Outdoor Writers Association of America and also as an outdoor writer, I am opposed to sinking any money in Mexico for any purpose whatsoever until we can get better under standing of the administration of enforcement during the resting period of our crop down below the border. Some people have tried to minimize the amount of slaughter down there, but the reports I have received in many ways convince me that it is horrible. Senator FERGUSON. We can save them up here and they go down there and get slaughtered. Mr. BROWN. The part I want to put in the record is that some of our good American sportsmen are helping to make the slaughter. Senator FERGUSON. In other words, they go down there after the season is closed in America. Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Senator FERGUSON. And they are allowed to shoot any amount under any conditions. Mr. BROWN. Under the law, maybe not, but as things are they do. Not only that, but meat is high just the same as it is here. The people on the average are poor and it is an easy way to get something to eat. On a smaller scale we have the same thing in Maryland. Our wild turkeys are almost gone. Recently a survey made shows there are a maximum of 300 wild turkeys left in Maryland. The reason is, during the war meat was scarce and those people in the mountains think the good Lord put those turkeys there for their benefit and they are going to take them law or no law; they are going to take them when they are hungry. Senator FERGUSON. We find the same thing in Michigan. Mr. BROWN. All the bad sportsmen are not in Mexico by any means, but they certainly have their share and until they decide to be law-abiding and protect the waterfowl, I don't see why we should send any money down there. Senator FERGUSON. As far as the treaty is concerned, then, there is grave doubt that it can be lived up to, but before any money does go down there this should stop. Mr. BROWN. I don't think there is any difference of opinion in all the country. In Canada we can see that we should help them up there because the preponderance of our crop comes from up there and we should be able to go up there and spend some of our own money. Senator FERGUSON. They have cooperated? Mr. BROWN. They have cooperated. Senator FERGUSON. Ducks Unlimited have demonstrated that beyond a doubt; haven't they? Mr. BROWN. Yes; I think so. And yet even in Canada some of our sportsmen have taken their birds right after the season opened up there, almost before they left the nesting ponds and water; so they tell me, and I think there is proof it has been done. I don't know the final solution or what it is going to be. Of course, somebody suggested there be a high nonresident license. I see some of the States are going to do that, but I hate to see that come about because it limits a man to just the game he happens to have in his own State and some of us would be very bad off if that were universal. Senator FERGUSON. Once we get a license fee for a nonresident that is prohibitory, it is going to mean that your sportsmen and those interested in game conservation will get to thinking of their own State and not think of the whole picture, which would be a bad situation. Mr. BROWN. It started out in South Dakota. Now some of the other States are taking it up and it looks like there is a tendency on the part of State officials to raise the fee so they would have enough for their own, which is quite true. The hunters from Pennsylvania come down on us in Maryland and on the Chesapeake Bay, because they don't have any salt water of their own up in Pennsylvania, on the Susquehanna, especially. There has been a tendency to put a prohibitory license fee on them, but we prefer it to be as it is because we still believe that the tourist dollar that comes in from outside of the State is worth three times as much as one of our own dollars that is simply swapping hands all the time. Senator FERGUSON. We do find though in Canada, for instance, it is not only the American people that go up there and are guilty of the acts of destroying game, but their own people also. Mr. BROWN. The picture that I get-of course, this is all secondhand information-but the picture I get is that there is a much smaller percentage of Canadians who take any interest in wild fowl than there is in this country. I don't believe that the portion of the crop that is taken by Canada, even under the very few instances that we have of our own boys going up there and shooting them right on the nesting ground-after the season opened, of course-I don't think the kill by sportsmen in Canada, including Americans who go over and Canadians themselves, is large enough to occasion any special attention. Senator FERGUSON. It is much more in Mexico? Mr. BROWN. Yes; down there they go after the birds for eating purposes. That is, they are appearing in the markets now just as chickens are in this country. There is a poorer class of people down there and there are more birds going down there, driven down by industry and for other reasons where their wintering places have become untenable. They are going to Mexico and spreading out all over that country and Central America. Senator FERGUSON. So you think it is much more serious in Mexico? Mr. BROWN. Yes. There has been some attempt to hush up the matter and it is hard to get the actual facts. I believe some agency should get the exact facts about the thing, but they are hard to get. But I do believe they are bad enough-if you cut them by half-the reports that come out, they are bad enough to make us think twice before we send any money down there. Senator FERGUSON. I am glad to get that view on the matter. Is there anything else you have? in. Mr. BROWN. That is all I have. Senator FERGUSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown for coming Is Mr. Buckingham here? STATEMENT OF NASH BUCKINGHAM, CHAIRMAN, WATERFOWL COMMITTEE, OUTDOOR WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Mr. BUCKINGHAM. Yes, sir; here I am. Senator FERGUSON. Good morning, Mr. Buckingham. We would like to hear from you this morning on the question now before us. Won't you be seated? Mr. BUCKINGHAM. Our committee has furnished a statement of our position on S. 2482. Senator FERGUSON. Suppose I make it a part of the record at this place? Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I'll appreciate it if you will. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, Jr., OUTDOOR WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Memphis Tenn., April 19, 1948. Chief Clerk, United States Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MACOMBER: In re your letter April 16, 1948, subcommittee hearings by Senator Ferguson, chairman, subcommittee on Wildlife Conservation, room 357, Senate Office Building, 10 a. m., April 26. Necessary members of our association have been notified. In addition to filing this statement on S. 2482, the writer would deeply appreciate being heard as soon as is compatible with schedule; he must return south on important matters, as requiring travel. As to this association's comment on S. 2482. In re amendment: by striking out the figure "$1" as it appears of March 16, 1934, and inserting in lieu thereof the figure "$2." Since 1940-41, the Outdoor Writers Association, in its organ Outdoors Unlimited and by official utterances, has urged raising the price of duck stamps to provide adequate enforcement of the long inadequately enforced migratory-bird law. In addition, management by the flyway rather than the old zone system is now being used, and this requires additional expense. For long, the Outdoor Writers Association has pointed out that the duck-stamp law, and any increase thereof in price, is not a public tax. It concerns solely those interested in the preservation and increase of wildfowl for gunning purposes and food. It is, in effect, simply a request by such that they be permitted to tax themselves; such funds to be used for the preservation and increase of a great natural resource. This to be congressionally approved, used, and safeguarded; summarily, it is duck hunter money. As to S. 2482, the Outdoor Writers Association does not believe that a $2 duck stamp will provide as much as will be proven necessary, ere long, to do a real job of enforcement and management. But, if $2 will provide even a start in the right direction covering both liabilities now existing (inadequate enforcement and management), then, by all means, let's make that start. To delay undoubtedly means a major disaster to failing and debauched waterfowl resources. At this writing $350,000 was allowed for enforcement (protection) of the migratory-bird law. This figures approximately $7,300 each for 48 States. At the present writing, "enforcement," according to the best information available from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, gets between 7 and 8 cents of the $1 duck stamp for wildfowl protection. The writer was informed by an official of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service that during the 1947-48 open season the South-Southeastern States, where a great percentage of violations against waterfowl occur, said area's allowance amounted to only 2 cents of the dollar. Receipts from duck-stamp sales for the past two seasons have figured approximately $2,000,000 and $1,900,000. If an "upped hatch” is reported from Canada and the northern United States, there'll probably be enlarged sale for 1948–49. While duck stamp sales fell off slightly in 1947-48, every report from States and sportsman observation reveals a tremendous increase in violations. Unless funds are forthcoming quickly, an out-of-hand situation in 1948-49 could very easily result in annullment of gunning a year later. Too, there is no guaranty, from the weather angle, that a drought comparable in severity to that of 1929, 33, could not reduce 1948-49 hatch to the closure point. In such case the need for immediate funds for restoration work would be drastic. The Outdoor Writers Association of America, composed largely of unwealthy hardbitten realistic reporters with no lugs in them or strings attached when facing public wildlife-resources issues that merit and need scrutiny (especially when exploitation steals and game bootlegging are involved) have well meant, hopeful, and possibly constructive ideas to advance in regard to wildfowling's future management, of which enforcement is an absolute must, or else. |