any one time, of the total of the areas acquired in accordance with the provisions of this Act, may be administered primarily as wildlife management areas not subject to the prohibitions against the taking of birds," etc., it would mean that not in excess of 25 percent of the lands would be established as public hunting grounds. This is just the opposite of our State operations in Minnesota, whereby not more than one-third may be established as sanctuaries while the balance is public hunting grounds, during any open season. Criticism in the past of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior purchasing more and more lands within a State with duck-stamp money to establish game sanctuaries, and not having any public hunting grounds in connection therewith, was primarily responsible for bringing about this bill. Experience has shown that in any large area the smaller portion should be sanctuary while the larger portion should be public hunting grounds. I am quite confident that if the majority of the sportsmen of the country knew that this bill provides that not in excess of 25 percent of the areas would be public hunting grounds they would oppose the bill. I am sorry that we cannot appear before the committee. Thanking you, I am, Very truly yours, Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, Jr., Chief Clerk, Committee on Wildlife Conservation of Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MACOMBER: I appreciate very much the opportunity to express my interest in S. 2482. · I would like very much to see the amendment adopted increasing the duck stamp from $1 to $2, with the apportion of the money to be used for management and in development of migratory bird sanctuaries. I am in favor of giving the Secretary authority to cooperate with agencies of other countries which are parties to the Migratory Bird Treaty. I think a portion of this stamp money should be used for enforcement because it is a recognized fact that enforcement is necessarily a part of game management. I believe 25 percent of this fund could be used to good advantage for enforcement. Yours very truly, Senator HOMER FERGUSON, R. M. FREEMAN, Director. MISSOURI CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR FERGUSON: Because our own commission here in Missouri is having an important meeting on dates which conflict with the hearings of your committee on S. 2482 and on the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service, I cannot be in Washington on the 26th to appear before your committee. We in Missouri, however, wish to be recorded as favoring S. 2482 and as endorsing without hesitation the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and among the other Federal agencies, especially the wildlife work of the Forest Service. The situation with regard to waterfowl is such that no honest hunter would object to the increase in the duck stamp fee and we believe our hunters in Missouri will support it. The problem of enforcement of waterfowl regulations has naturally grown along with the very great increase in waterfowl hunters. While the States are willing to do all in their power both in waterfowl regulation and law enforcement, the international and migratory characteristics of the problem leave a gap that must be assumed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and that agency cannot discharge its responsibility without the means wherewith to do it. Also, we believe that management experience over the past years points to the authority to permit harvesting on certain areas from time to time as sound wildlife management practice. We We endorse without hesitation the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service. do not always agree with them, but we have learned that, whatever the odds in viewpoint between us, we always come out in the end with an intelligent answer. We see nothing in their administration of wildlife affairs that points to invasion of States' rights and we have not found the agency anything but cooperative in our mutual problems and transactions. The same has been true of the Forest Service. Our firm belief is that any additional backing or support or financial assistance that can be given such agencies will be placed in good hands. It would be far better to strengthen the hands of agencies directly in contact with the wildlife problem and organized to deal with it than to dribble out a little wildlife aid to a great lot of miscellaneous agencies. There no longer can be any doubt as to the importance of doing something for our fish and game, but, the Lord knows, this resource has been the "orphan in the corner." If we want to continue to fish and hunt we are going to have to do something about it. The comparatively small sums that would be needed to establish an adequate wildlife program for the Nation would be small indeed beside the huge allotments we seem to be able to find for flood control and other developments of no greater importance to people. We believe the enactment of S. 2482 and strengthening the hand of the Fish and Wildlife Service and other proper wildlife agencies will be big steps toward combating the problem. Very truly yours, I. T. BODE, Director. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: In reply to your recent form letter, we do not believe in increasing the price of the duck stamp, for a number of reasons. We are already hearing rumblings about the ever-increasing price of licenses. Another would simply add fuel to the fire. At the present time in our State no hunters of any other type of game species are assessed extra fees, and we do not believe the cost should be increased on just one form of hunting. Also, I personally feel that if a good portion of the proceeds from the duck stamps was devoted to management of waterfowl in Canada and Mexico it might pay extra dividends. Sincerely yours, Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, RALPH G. CARPENTER 2d, Director. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Flemington, N. J., April 21, 1948. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR WILLIS: Reference is made to your memorandum of April 15 in regard to S. 2482. This bill is certainly a step in the right direction wherein it will be possible for the Fish and Wildlife Service to make a greater contribution to waterfowl conservation and management through a $2 duck stamp. I am in accord with the provisions of this bill and wish to comment favorably upon the provisions of the act which make it possible to utilize the areas on a wildlife management basis rather than on a strictly refuge basis. I think it pertinent, too, that an area should not be opened to shooting when the population of birds in such areas is on the decline or before the area has been fully developed as a management area, refuge, reservation or breeding ground. I wish to congratulate you upon this legislation and you may rest assured that it has my wholehearted approval. Cordially yours, ARTHUR F. FORAN, Chairman. Mr. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON STATE OF NEW MEXICO, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Santa Fe, N. Mex., April 21, 1948. DEAR MR. ROBERTSON: Reference is made to your letter of April 15 to all State game departments and conservation associations relative to S. 2482. I think this Department is certainly in conformity with the plan to raise the duck stamp fee from $1 to $2. We are also heartly in favor of the insertion of the wildlife-management provision suggested in your bill, and we are also in favor of the proviso that in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior certain portions of the areas acquired may be administered as wildlife management areas rather than inviolate game sanctuaries; however, in regard to this provision, we believe that the amount that so may be used, that is, for a management area should not be in excess of 50 percent at any one time rather than not to exceed 25 percent. We cannot agree with the suggested deletion from subsection (a) of section 4 of the bill the words "not less than 90 percent shall be available" and the deletion from subsection (b) of section 4 the words, "The remainder shall be available." By deleting these two phrases there would be no restriction whatsoever on how the money was spent-that is, whether for actual acquisition and development of wildlife sanctuaries and management areas or for administration purposes. We feel very strongly that the migratory stamp money should be used principally for the acquisition and development of areas to benefit migratory waterfowl and we believe that 90 percent of the funds is not an unreasonable amount to be required to be used for that purpose. The remaining 10 percent, we believe, is sufficient for the purposes outlined in subsection (b) of section 4 of the present Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. If we are to raise this fee, let's be certain that the bulk is used for acquisition and development of lands rather than for administrative purposes. Yours very truly, Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, JR., ELLIOTT S. BARKER, State Game Warden. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Chief Clerk, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive MY DEAR MR. MACOMBER: Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1948, announcing hearings on April 26, 1948, on the reports submitted to the Subcommittee on Wildlife Conservation by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, to be held in the Senate Office Building. I regret very much that I will be unable to attend these hearings and it is doubtful at this time if we can have a representative there. We are scheduled for a hearing on our regulations for the coming hunting season in Greensboro, N. C., for this same date and time. This hearing will be occupying most of our attention. Be assured that I am most grateful for your invitation to attend the hearings before the Wildlife Conservation Subcommittee there. Cordially and sincerely, CLYDE P. PATTON, Executive Director. STATE OF OHIO, Columbus 15, April 23, 1948. DIVISION OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Hon. HOMER FERGUSON, Member, United States Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR FERGUSON: Regarding the expenditures of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior, we of the Ohio Division of Con servation and Natural Resources wish the committee to know that the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service is most important and vital to the division and the State of Ohio. After the recent war and due chiefly to the intensive agricultural practice used in Ohio to produce food for defense the upland game species were dangerously depleted. We in Ohio through the aid of the Wildlife Service and Federal funds, along with the counsel and cooperation of Wildlife Service, have initiated a Statewide restoration project which at the present time is operating in every county of the State restoring proper habitat for farm game. Without the help of the Federal funds and the services of the personnel of the Fish and Wildlife Service we do not hesitate to state this all-important project would be posibtibely impossible. We, therefore, respectfully request your committee to give favorable consideration to all of the appropriations requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service. In conclusion permit me to state that while we appreciate and are in sympathy with reducing the cost of the Federal Government it is our sincere feeling that the natural resources of this Nation, of which wildlife is one, should not be penalized at a time when circumstances produced by a war situation have so critically jeopardized them. It is our belief that any and all funds encessary to conserve, restore, and perpetuate any of the natural resources of this Nation are funds wisely spent at this particular time. Regarding S. 2482, we respectfully urge your consideration and favorable action upon this bill introduced by Senator Robertson of Virginia. It should be quite obvious to all interested in waterfowl that a fee set during the times when this Nation was in the throes of the depression with labor and materials at an all-time low in recent years to carry on a proper program of waterfowl restoration and conservation is positively insufficient to do an adequate job under the prevailing unheard of high cost of both labor and materials. On the other hand there could be no question that the waterfowl population of this continent has approached an all-time low and that if the population is to be restored adequate funds must be made available to carry on a proper management program. It seems to us that to make these funds available for waterfowl management would of itself in the end be of great economic benefit to commerce, trade and industry built upon the natural resource of waterfowl. In addition to the money being necessary to carry on a proper management program there is existing in the Nation today a tremendous need for public hunting grounds where the ordinary citizen might have an opportunity to hunt duck. It is my opinion that the waterfowl hunters throughout Ohio are most favorable toward the Robertson bill and are quite willing to pay the additional fee that they might have a further safeguard that their sport will be perpetuated and the waterfowl population increased and that some day in the future public hunting grounds will be made available to the ordinary citizen. Mr. Harry Johnson of this Division will in all probability be in Washington representing Ohio in the wildlife hearings set for next week. Sincerely yours, H. A. RIDER, Commissioner. GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT, Senator HOMER FERGUSON, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Oklahoma City 5, Okla., April 24, 1948. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR FERGUSON: Our department is interested in the hearings scheduled for April 26 in room 357 of your building when reports will be made by wildlife conservation agencies and in the testimony made in behalf of the Robertson bill No. 2482 or duck stamp bill. Oklahoma is indeed well pleased with the cooperation which the Fish and Wildlife Service has given. It has been of great assistance in our program of game expansion, predatory animal control and game management. Our State recommends that the Robertson bill establishing the $2 duck stamp, be passed. Cordially yours, KELLY E. DEBUSK, Director. OREGON STATE GAME COMMISSION, Senator A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: Reference is made to your memorandum of April 15 transmitting a copy of S. 2482. This department has no objection to this bill. OREGON STATE GAME COMMISSION, State Game Supervisor. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, U. S. Senate, Washington, D. C. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH, Columbia, April 17, 1948. DEAR MR. ROBERTSON: I am in receipt of your letter of April 15 enclosing me copy of S. 2482. I have been chief of the South Carolina Department of Game and Fish since 1913 and have carefully noted migratory conditions in the South during my tenure of office. I believe that the passage of the above-mentioned bill will be of great advantage to future migratory bird conditions and feel sure that the sportsmen will not object to paying $2 for the duck stamp. I am heartily in favor of the passage of this bill as it now stands. Personal regards. Very truly yours, Hon. HOMER FERGUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. (Attention: Mr. J. H. Macomber, Jr., Chief Clerk.) DEAR SIR: Thank you for your letter of April 17, advising me of the hearings to be held Monday April 26, 1948, on the reports, which have been submitted to the subcommittee by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies performing functions in the field of wildlife conservation. It will not be possible for me to appear to testify before the subcommittee. The work undertaken by Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Forest Service in the State of Tennessee during the past year and their work with the department of conservation has been highly satisfactory. At this time we wish to commend both of these agencies of the Federal Government for their interest in our State problems and for the excellent cooperation they have rendered. We are in favor of the passage of S. 2482, introduced by Senator Robertson, of Virginia. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has been handicapped for lack of funds to provide an adequate field personnel for enforcing the migratory game laws. The burden of enforcement has fallen on the individual States. We feet that the passage of S. 2482, will help this situation somewhat. Very truly yours, Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, STATE OF TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Nashville, April 19, 1948. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: I have your memorandum of April 15, with reference to Senate bill 2482, in regard to the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. The bill as written is satisfactory to this department with the exception that we would like to see |