The end product brings out usable figures on (1) the number of potholes, slough, and other water areas per square mile of transect or land type; (2) the number and percent of the available water areas occupied by breeding ducks; (3) the average number of breeding pairs per area, per transect, or per square mile of land type or area sampled. It should be borne in mind, however, that the population figures arrived at by this technique are not to be regarded as total breeding populations. They are indexes to trends. Summary breeding ground data, prairies and park lands of Canada, summer 1947 Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted at this point, I should like to read into the record a copy of a letter that was addressed to Mr. J. H. Macomber, Jr., chief clerk, Committee on Expenditures, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. It refers to S. 2482. Also, at this point of the record, I should like to have inserted in the record a resolution that was mailed to me by Don W. Norton, secretary of the Ramsey County Sportsmans Association. Both the letter and the resolution refer to the question that is before us this morning. Senator ROBERTSON. Without objection, the letter and the resolution will be included in the record at this point, and the Senator from Minnesota may now examine this witness on the contents of that letter and resolution. (The letter and the resolution submitted by Senator Thye follow:) Re S. 2482. Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, Jr., Chief Clerk, Committee on Expenditures, 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 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. Very truly yours, FRANK D. BLAIR, Director, Division of Game and Fish. RESOLUTION Whereas the United States has acquired title to large areas of land in the State of Minnesota from the proceeds of the sale of duck stamps including the Tamarack refuge, the Mud Lake refuge, the Rice Lake refuge and the Talkott Lake refuge and is further spending large sums of money annually in the management of these areas as refuges, not only for migratory waterfowl but for upland birds, big game and fur-bearing animals; and Whereas the Fish and Wildlife Service in the management of these areas exclude the citizens of Minnesota from hunting all species of game, from trapping furbearing animals and even from fishing upon the area without obtaining special permit; and Whereas the Fish and Wildlife Service further claim that it has inadequate funds to properly protect migratory waterfowl in their wintering ground, to adequately develop further wintering grounds for migratory waterfowl, and to properly investigate causes of duck-population changes; and Whereas the State of Minnesota needs additional public shooting grounds and in our judgment can more adequately and fairly administer lands within this State and the many species of wild aimals found thereon in the interest of the people who own such animals; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Minnesota delegation in Congress be urged to introduce and press legislation to transfer the title of these lands to the State of Minnesota for use for conservation purposes and for the development of sanctuaries and public shooting grounds in such proportions as may be needed and in the best interests of the people of this State; be it further Resolved, That the officers and directors of this association be instructed to canvass the sportsmen and conservation organizations of this State with a view toward obtaining support for that program and to take such other steps as may be desirable for its consummation. February 17, 1948. Senator THYE. I shall read from one paragraph of the letter, which is not only a question, but also a suggestion and possible criticism of provisions in S. 2482, and the paragraph reads: 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. I wonder whether you would care to comment on that particular paragraph. This letter is by Frank D. Blair, director, Division of Game and Fish of the State of Minnesota. Dr. DAY. Without studying the recommendation in detail, I think I could state that the Department would oppose any legislative efforts to prescribe how much or how little of an individual area should be thrown open to public shooting. That would depend to a large extent upon the situation as to the individual area. There are many refuges that should never be thrown open to shooting. They are too small. They are of such great importance in protecting the birds as they migrate south during the fall that they should not be open to shooting. Birds should have some place where they can sit down and feel free to rest and get a bite to eat without somebody shooting at them from behind every bush. There are some areas that should never be open. Again, there are areas that could well be partially opened. The provision that is inserted in Senator Robertson's bill authorizing the Secretary to open not to exceed 25 percent of the total of the refuges, would give some flexibility which is not authorized at present. In the west in particular, there are some large areas. For example, Malheur is one refuge where, in many years, we could very well open a portion of the area. In California, in the depredation areas, the thought is that the Service should acquire lands, grow feed upon them, and after the critical harvest season is over, they might be thrown open to public shooting. There are some other areas where public shooting can be allowed. The Bear River refuge has always had it, so has Lake Mattamuskeet, but both of these are large areas. I think it would be a mistake to attempt by legislation to open two thirds and close one-third. I think that is a thing that should be left to the administrative discretion of the Secretary, depending upon the individual refuge involved and the situation of the birds as they move through each fall. Senator THYE. Now the other is the resolution passed by the Ramsey County Sportsmans Association. I shall not read the resolution, but it will be in the record so that those who may read the record at some future time will have the information and the benefit of what the Ramsey County Association had to state, or did state, in their resolution. Senator ROBERTSON. Dr. Day, do you wish Mr. James, the head of your Fish Division, to supplement your testimony or do you think that this report is sufficient as regards your over-all report on the activities of your Bureau? Dr. DAY. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the information which we have summarized this morning and the data contained in the full report covers the position of the Fish and Wildlife Service. However, Mr. James is here in case the committee has any questions they would like to direct to us on general fishery matters. Senator ROBERTSON. I would like to say that Mr. James is doing a fine work, and there is no activity, in my opinion, than the Fish and Wildlife Service that has attracted more favorable attention at the present time than the distribution of fish. There are more people that fish than hunt, and when you talk about the one-gallus man, he is in a better position to do a little fishing, even though he just rigs. up a pole from the bank of the stream on a cotton line and puts a worm on the hook, than there are those who can indulge in duck hunting, because, with all due deference, duck hunting is not, as I have known it, primarily a poor man's sport. I would like to see everybody hunt duck, but if duck hunting is going to put a man in the red, he had better turn to fishing or some other sport besides duck hunting. Mr. James, will you tell us whether your distribution of fish has expanded and if not, what is the trouble? Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, before we leave the question of ducks, did you find the duck population as you had expected, Dr. Day? Last year, when you got your final tabulations, as I recall it, you expected a 54,000,000-duck population as of a year ago, when you were before the committee. There was some argument on that question. There were those that contended you were wrong, and there were those that did support you. What did you find the situation actually to be in the year? Dr. DAY. To clarify that point, I should say that the estimates we used in the 54,000,000 figure expressed a trend in waterfowl population based upon the observations we have made every year during the winter concentration periods for the past, I believe, 13 years. Our estimate a year ago of around 54,000,000 was questioned by some who felt it was too high. It was questioned by others who felt it was too low. Again, it is only a trend which we use as the basis for making observations. Senator THYE. It is a trend, however, on which you base in your decisions as to the bag limit and as to the days of the open season. Dr. Day. It is one of the bases that we use in arriving at the final decision regarding the open seasons. Last year, early in the season, the water situation was much improved on the Canadian breeding grounds and on much of our own breeding territories in the northern parts of the United States. Later in the season, the situation in the eastern portion of Canada was not so good. We were fearful when the fall flights first began that the decline had not been halted, that we were still going to find less birds this year than we found last year. It looked discouraging in the early periods when we were taking our waterfowl inventories. After we had finally made the survey clear across the country in January, which is our usual custom, we found that generally there had been an increase in the numbers of birds wintering in the United States. The western flyway, which includes the Pacific coast country, showed a rather large increase. On the other hand, the central flyway, down through the prairie States, showed a falling off, but in the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways, the number of birds was about the same, with possibly some increase. A year ago we sent planes down the west coast of Mexico and Central America and back up the east coast. We found that a large number of birds were wintering in Old Mexico and Central America. This year we sent the plane back with the same crew but a little bit earlier than a year ago, and we were startled to find a very large decrease in the number of birds wintering in Mexico; in fact, there were only about half of what there were a year ago. When that report came in, we turned the plane crew around and sent them back over the course again but this time at the same period when it was covered a year ago. On this survey they came up with even less than half as many birds as they saw in Mexico the previous year. This year we sent a crew with an airplane to Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, and they scouted that whole Caribbean country to find what bird populations might be there. We concluded, after getting the information from our Mexican surveys and from the Caribbean, that the waterfowl population had about leveled off. It looks as though this year it was about what it was a year ago. So we have been quite encouraged by the belief that perhaps we have reached the bottom of that very serious decline and that it has leveled off. In balancing the continental population-the great decrease in Mexico against the increase we found in the United States-we feel that we are just about where we were a year ago as to spring breeding populations. I may say I have just returned from two waterfowl meetings on the west coast, one in San Francisco, and one in Seattle, where everyone was convinced that there was a large increase in wintering birds in those States, which corroborated our own findings. I discussed in considerable detail why this might have happened, and it seems rather logical. There was a severe drought this year in southern California. Drought conditions extended across California into Arizona and New Mexico. A great band of drought from this temporary desert extended about a thousand miles between the last water in California of any appreciable extent and the first water in Mexico. It seems entirely logical that the birds, striking that band of drought and realizing that it wasn't so good to try and feed down on the desert, turned and came back. In fact, the evidence seemed to indicate that in Idaho and Washington, a heavy flight of birds came through early and disappeared and then later came back. Accordingly, we think we have very good reason to believe that the excessive decline in Mexico may have been due to this great drought, but we feel that the breeding population of waterfowl going north this spring, is probbaly as good as it was a year ago or possibly a little better. In general it is just about the same. Senator ROBERTSON. I may say that Dr. Lincoln, who is in charge of your census and general duck program, is present, and I should like Dr. Lincoln to come forward just a moment at this time and tell us whether or not we are going to have more ducks this year than last year. we had STATEMENT OF FREDERICK C. LINCOLN, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Dr. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I must make a little correction. no longer head up the winter inventory work. Work on waterfowl is still a very important subject with me, but a couple of years ago I asked the Director for relief from some of the multitudinous duties that I carried for many years, and he very kindly attached me to his office. So I am now in the Director's office rather in the Research Division. Senator ROBERTSON. You are still one of our best prophets. |