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, WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION, Raleigh, April 20, 1948. 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, Senator HOMER FERGUSON, 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. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH, Columbia, April 17, 1948. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, U. S. Senate, Washington, D. C. 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, A. A. RICHARDSON, Chief. STATE OF TENNESSEE, Hon. HOMER FERGUSON, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, 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. I wish to submit the following for the record: 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, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, 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 at least 50 percent of the $2 stamp spent for protection and enforcement of the migratory bird laws. I have been informed that there are approximately 72 enforcement officers, namely, United States game management agents, in the United States. The total number of this force is inadequate and it is hoped that sufficient funds can be added to at least triple this number, which will then be a small group for the United States. Yours very truly, HALLIE HAMM, Director, Division of Game and Fish. GAME, FISH, AND OYSTER COMMISSION, Senator HOMER FERGUSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Wildlife Conservation, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR Ferguson: The game, fish, and oyster commission regrets its inability to be represented at the hearing on S. 2482, set for 10 a. m., April 26. This letter is sent to you in the hopes that it will serve to present our views on the merits of this bill. At a regular quarterly meeting of the game, fish, and oyster commission, held in Austin, Tex., January 15, 1948, a resolution was unanimously adopted supporting S. 2482, and especially that portion of the bill providing for an increase in price to $2 for the migratory bird hunting stamp. We sincerely urge you to give favorable consideration to this measure. Sincerely yours, H. D. DODGEN, Executive Secretary. Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, Jr. STATE OF VERMONT, Chief Clerk, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MACOMBER: I regret that an absence from my office made it impossible for me to prepare a statement to submit to you for inclusion in the testimony for the hearing conducted by Senator Ferguson. Personally I am very much in favor of the $2 duck-stamp bill and I trust that in addition to an increase in the price of the duck stamp we may have an increase in the amount of supervision and patrol Federal refuges are given. In this area it is hard to convince duck hunters that the Government is trying to do anything when the emphasis continues to be placed on midcontinental and western flyways. Of course I realize that it takes ducks to make more ducks and refuges are extremely necessary. With the hope that we will have the pleasure of seeing you the next time you are in town, I am Sincerely, GEORGE W. DAVIS, Director. Mr. J. H. MACOMBER, Jr., STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Chief Clerk, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MACOMBER: While it was not possible for the conservation commission to have a representative present in person at the hearings scheduled to open on April 26, 1948, on Senate bill 2482-providing among other things an increase from $1 to $2 for the migratory bird hunting stamp, it is entirely in accord with the provisions thereof where the proposed increase is concerned. It is my understanding that the bill further provides that as much as 25 percent of the current waterfowl revenues may be designated for the administration of waterfowl-management areas and opened to public shooting at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and under regulations promulgated by him. Under these conditions the commission is glad to recommend the bill in its present form. We shall be interested in any report of developments on this legislation which you may care to furnish us from time to time. Čordially yours, R. S. HARRIS, Acting Director. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, United States Senator, STATE OF WISCONSIN, CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, Madison 2, April 23, 1948. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: The Wisconsin Conservation Commission has voted unanimously to urge your approval of S. 2482. I know that it will be appreciated by the commission if you will incorporate their vote in your printed hearings. Very truly yours, ERNEST SWIFT, Conservation Director. Senator FERGUSON. We are recessed without a date at the present time. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to meet again upon the call of the chairman.) The following was submitted for the record. SUMMARY OF 1948 REPORT, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (Prepared by Senator A. Willis Robertson) The Fish and Wildlife Service controlled as of June 30, 1947, approximately 18,598,329 acres of land comprising some 257 refuges, wildlife management areas, and administrative sites. Of the total acreage, 1,307,195 acres was purchased by the Service at a cost of $8,689,447; 428,986 acres was acquired by gift; 16,405,274 acres is administered under Executive or public land order, and 456,874 acres is administered under lease agreements. Sale of hunting licenses of all types, by the 48 States, during the year ending June 30, 1947, reached a new high of 12,066,763. License sales have increased over the years, and the increase has been especially sharp since the war. Sales during the fiscal year 1947 (the last year for which complete returns are available) exceeded those of the previous year by 2,212,450. With this tremendous increase in hunting pressure, it is obvious that the States must exert the maximum effort toward wildlife restoration and management if wildlife populations are to be maintained at levels which will produce adequate shootable surpluses. The production of wildlife crops sufficient to satisfy reasonable expectations of the constantly growing army of hunters will require maximum production by wildlife habitats. Revenue from the sale of migratory bird hunting stamps, at $1 each, amounted to $2,016,819, an increase of $291,314 over the preceding year. Ten percent of these funds are used for the printing of the stamps, administrative expenses, and enforcement of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act and other acts for the protection of wildlife. The location, acquisition, development, and maintenance of national wildlife refuges is one of the most important responsibilities of the Fish and Wildlife Service in protecting and managing the migratory bird resources. Approximately 200 of these refuges, with 3,213,658 acres, are designed primarily to protect migratory waterfowl. Planned protection of brood stock in the system of national wildlife refuges is necessary for annual repopulation of nesting grounds in the United States, Canada, and Alaska. The present system of waterfowl refuges, while protecting sizable brood stock, is not adequate to compensate for the combined effect of factors, including hunting, which govern the seasonal abundance of ducks and geese. For the past 3 years, 9 of the 11 new refuges established have |