Hon. HOMER FEGGUSON, STATE BOARD OF FISHERIES AND GAME, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR FERGUSON: I wired you today requesting that you record our department in favor of the Robertson bill (S. 2482) to increase the duck stamp to $2. With regard to the cooperation which we have received from the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, our relations with this bureau have always been most cordial. We have found that the members of their personnel are well qualified for their appointments and have always given us excellent cooperation within the limits imposed by their available funds. I have always felt that we could profitably use more assistance in research on New England marine fisheries. However, it appears that appropriations for this purpose have never been adequate for the size of the problems involved. Very truly yours, R. P. HUNTER, Superintendent. HARTFORD, CONN., April 28, 1948. Senator HOMER FERGUSON, Room 357, Senate Office Building: Please record the Connecticut State Board of Fisheries and Game in favor of the Robertson bill (S. 2482) to increase duck stamp to $2. The cooperation of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service with our department has always been eminently satisfactory within the limit of their funds available. R. P. HUNTER, Superintendent, Connecticut State Board of Fish and Game. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 15, 1948. I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have written to Seth Gordon, chairman of the executive committee of the_International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners. I am a member of this committee, and I have written to Mr. Gordon regarding a letter I received from J. H. Macomber, Jr., chief clerk of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, wherein Mr. Macomber advised us that Senator Ferguson is holding a hearing April 26, 1948, in the Senate Office Building on reports which have been submitted to the subcommittee by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies performing functions in the field of wildlife conservation. Mr. Macomber also advised that the subcommittee will probably receive testimony concerning S. 2482, a bill introduced by you for the purpose of amending the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934. No doubt Mr. Gordon will arrange for a representation of our committee to be in attendance at that hearing. Whoever is appointed to represent us will present our viewpoints along with the others. Very truly yours, C. N. FEAST, Director. APRIL 20, 1948. Mr. SETH GORDON, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Game Commission, DEAR MR. GORDON: I have received a letter from Senator A. Willis Robertson, enclosing a copy of S. 2482, which he introduced on April 12 for the purpose of amending the Migratory Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, such amendments being to raise the cost of the duck stamp from $1 to $2, and to provide that not to exceed 25 percent of the total areas acquired in accordance with the provisions of the act may be administered as wildlife management areas not subject to the prohibition against the taking of birds. In accordance with my vote at the January 16 meeting of the executive committee of the International Association, and in accordance with the action of the association at its last convention, Colorado is in favor of this bill. I call your attention to page 3, item 3, of the January 16 executive committee minutes. I quote the last sentence of this item: "The bill was discussed in general, and the only question that was presented was the percentage of money to be allotted the Fish and Wildlife Service under the act for purposes of law enforcement." You will note that the motion that followed this statement stipulated that the bill be amended to provide that not more than 25 percent of the fund be spent for purposes of law enforcement. I have given this measure considerable thought since our Washington meeting when this action was taken. Fundamentally, I question whether we should limit the Fish and Wildlife Service to any definite percentage. However, inasmuch as the committee action was taken, my stand will be to go along with it as far as the percentage is concerned. I do suggest the following: that the bill (now S. 2482) be amended to provide that not more than 25 percent of the fund be spent for purposes of management. The words "law enforcement" would tie such expenditures definitely to the employment of law enforcement officers, which, by their title, are called United States management agents. It would seem to me that the wiser move would be to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to use their discretion as to the type of management purposes for which such expenditures should be made. Senator Robertson's bill carries the provision allowing 25 percent of the area to be managed, and, under this provision, it would seem to me the better viewpoint to grant the Fish and Wildlife Service the discretion as to how the 25 percent fund should be spent to properly manage the 25 percent of the area as provided by the bill. Considering the condition of our migratory birds, and also considering the increased cost in operations, as well as the necessity of shaping some of our refuges into a management plan and a plan for some controlled public shooting, it is my opinion that everything possible should be done to effect the immediate passage of S. 2482. Very truly yours, C. N. FEAST, Director. GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION, Senator A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: I have your memorandum of the 15th enclosing copy of S. 2482, and would appreciate it if you would put the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission of the State of Florida down as being heartily in favor of the raising of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act to a charge of $2 for these stamps. We are also heartily in approval of the idea of permitting 25 percent of the migratory bird sanctuary areas to be opened to public hunting. I believe that this action would gain more good-will than anything the Fish and Wildlife Service could possibly do, and I believe it would be heartily approved by the majority of the sportsmen. With kindest regards to you, I am Very truly yours, BEN C. MORGAN, Director. Hon. HOMER FERGUSON, STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: In reference to the hearings set for Monday, April 26, 1948, on the reports which have been submitted to the subcommittee by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies, performing functions in the field of wildlife conservation, as Chairman of the legislative committee of the International Association of Fish, Game and Conservation Commissioners, and as director of conservation of the State of Illinois, we have found the Fish and Wildlife Service to be very cooperative in every respect. They are rendering a very fine service to those interested in the preservation of our natural resources, including wildlife, in the various States. Their job is not an easy one as they sometimes have to make rulings which benefit the country as a whole which some one individual State might object to. In our opinion, they are entitled to the fullest support, and they should be given sufficient funds through which to carry on their functions in the field of wildlife conservation. Ohio will send one man, Mr. Johnson, to the hearing, and there may be some others. As soon as I receive the information, I will wire you. Sincerely yours, LIVINGSTON E. OSBORNE, Director. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, Boise, Idaho, April 22, 1948. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Receipt is acknowledged of your communication of April 15 enclosing copy of S. 2482 which amends some sections of the present Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. We concur in the proposal that the cost of the stamp be increased from $1 to $2, but would like to insist that the act in question be so amended that public shooting grounds will be established on not less than 50 percent of the areas so acquired. We would also like to see some provision set into the act which would make it mandatory that not less than 75 percent of the proceeds from the Stamp Act be spent for land acquisition and improvement, and not for maintenance and operation. Very truly yours, T. B. MURRAY, Director. STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, Jr., Chief Clerk, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear MR. MACOMBER: The State Conservation Commission of Iowa has gone on record as being in favor of S. 2482. The purpose of this letter is to make that a matter of record. It is our desire that that fact become a part of the record. Yours sincerely, BRUCE F. STILES, Assistant Director. Hon. HOMER FERGUSON, Washington, D. C. STATE OF INDIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DEAR SENATOR: I regret very much that we will be unable to have a representative at the meeting of the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies performing functions in the field of wildlife conservation. I wish to say at this time that the cooperation that we have had with the Fish and Wildlife Service has been very satisfactory. We heartily endorse bill S. 2482 introduced by Senator Robertson of Virginia and anything that is done to further this legislation will be very much appreciated by the State of Indiana. Sincerely yours, JOHN H. NIGH, Director, Department of Conservation. DIVISION OF GAME AND FISH, Frankfort, Ky., April 20, 1948. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ROBERTSON: Your letter of April 15 along with copy of S. 2482 has been called to my attention and we heartily agree with this bill and have sent telegrams to Senator Barkley and Senator Cooper of Kentucky urging their support, and also, urging them to use their influence in helping get this bill reported favorably and its ultimate passage into a law. The sportsmen of this State and of other States are very grateful to you for your fine cooperation and interest in our wildlife resources. DEAR SENATOR: Thank you very much for your memorandum of April 15 with the enclosure, S. 2482. I most certainly approve the increase of the migratory bird hunting stamp from the present fee of $1 to the proposed $2. However, I am not at all sympathetic with the remainder of the bill which provides that this additional $1 will be used on the migratory bird sanctuaries and under conditions which, most likely, would never occur. They propose opening a small percent to public hunting. I, in no way, wish to cast a reflection on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or any other governmental agency; however, I do not believe that any Federal agency is in a position to create public hunting areas for the various States. I am very fearful it would just be another case of Federal interference in problems that belong rightfully to the State. I do believe the State should be assisted by the Federal Government in any way possible, but the State should have full and absolute control of their wildlife resources. I would respectfully suggest that at least 50 percent of the additional $1 should be expended on an increase in the Federal Enforcement Division. With the present inadequate force of Federal officers it is not possible to give the necessary protection to our migratory waterfowl. This increase in the Federal wardens' force should be for groups of Federal officers who could follow the migratory waterfowl in their various flyways. In Louisiana we have heavy concentrations of migratory waterfowl from September to May, with the heaviest concentrations usually from October to March. Usually, the Federal men who are now employed and stationed in Louisiana can take care of a period from March 1 to October 1. During these 7 months the additional men could be following the flights back to our northern boundaries. The remaining 50 cents of the proposed additional $1, I feel, should be apportioned to that part of S. 2482 that reads: "and he may cooperate with the appropriate officials and agencies of any country which is a party to a treaty with the United States for the protection of migratory birds in the development and protection of such birds and their habitat, in such manner as he may deem advisable, including but not limited to the grant of funds to carry out such cooperative efforts." My only comment on that is that I feel that those funds should be used for projects in Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Central and South America, or wherever and for whatever purposes should be considered necessary, but I would not like to have these funds expended for a duplication of surveys and resources that had already been accomplished and being provided at the present time by agencies, particularly in Canada. I certainly hope that consideration will be given to Louisiana's request for proposed changes in S. 2482. Respectfully, MAJ. JAMES BROWN, Director, Fish and Game Division. STATE OF MARYLAND, GAME AND INLAND FISH COMMISSION, Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Senate Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: In reply to your memorandum under date of April 15, I wish to advise that the Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission approves Senate bill 2282 which provides for the amendment of sections 2, 4, and 8 of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, and section 5 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of February 18, 1929, as amended. It is the opinion of many wild-waterfowl hunters that more Federal funds should be made available for the enforcement of the above act and to acquire and maintain an adequate number of sanctuaries for migratory birds. Very truly yours, ERNEST A. VAUGHN, Director. Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, Jr., STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Lansing, April 20, 1948. Chief Clerk, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mr. MACOMBER: This will acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 17 advising us of the hearings to be held by your committee on Monday, April 26. We appreciate being invited to appear before the committee but we do not believe it is necessary to have anyone from this department make a personal appearance, nor do we believe that we need to file a formal statement. We would like to pass on to you the action taken by the Michigan Conservation Commission on the subjects covered by S. 2482, a copy, of which was enclosed with your letter. At its January meeting our commission after considerable discussion went on record in favor of increasing the price of the duck stamp to $2. While it took no formal action on the proposal to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to open to shooting not to exceed 25 percent of the areas acquired with duck-stamp money I am sure it was the consensus that the 25 percent leeway given to the Secretary was to be preferred over the present statute. Our commission would be inclined to be even more liberal. Very truly yours, Re: S. 2482 Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, Jr., P. J. HOFFMASTER, Director. STATE OF MINNESOTA, Chief Clerk, Committee on Expenditures, St. Paul 1, Minn., April 22, 1948. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mr. MACOMBER: Thanks very much for your letter of the 17th, with copy of the above-mentioned bill. We will be unable to have a representative in Washington on this legislation. We are in favor of the increase in the duck-stamp fee for the purpose of establishing public hunting grounds in connection with game refuges and we would prefer to have the law read that not in excess of one-third of any such areas would be permanently established as a game refuge or game sanctuary, while the balance of all such lands would be public hunting grounds, or open to public hunting whenever there is a crop of any particular species of game to be harvested. Except during open seasons all of such areas should be sanctuaries or game refuges. The way the bill reads at the present time, starting in line 6 on page 2: “That in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior not to exceed 25 per centum, at 79156-48- -20 |