« PreviousContinue »
Mr. DAY. It will give Montana more shooting than they have been able to get under present regulations.
Senator CAPEHART. It gives them more shooting?
Mr. DAY. It gives them more shooting days.
Senator MOORE. By dividing it into two zones?
Senator CAPEHART. Here is what was said by Representative D'Ewart of Montana:
The variation in climate and altitude are so great that one zone just does not suffice. This bill proposes, because of that situation, to make the counties bordering on Canada, east of the Continental Divide, and north of the Missouri River into a new zone.
The Bureau has objected to this in a bill that I previously introduced on the ground that it possibly would make two seasons for killing ducks in one State. That, however, can be avoided by issuing licenses properly to take care of the situation.
Senator MOORE. That would be applicable to the whole State. Of course, they could shoot in one section during either season.
Mr. DAY. That is right. The duck hunters will drive a long ways and it would mean you would be giving the citizens of Montana an advantage over any other State. They would have a longer season. Senator CAPEHART. You offered Montana last year the right for two seasons of 14 days each. That meant you were giving them 14 days all over the State?
Mr. DAY. All over the State.
Senator CAPEHART. What they want you to do is to give them 14 days in eastern Montana at one period and then 14 days in western Montana at another period?
Mr. DAY. No. They want for eastern Montana 35 days in one period and in western Montana 35 days in another period, instead of two 14-day seasons.
Senator CAPEHART. Or a total of 70?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Senator CAPEHART. You offered them 14 days in eastern and 14 days in western Montana if they wanted to take it, did you not?
Mr. DAY. And they turned it down.
Senator CAPEHART. I do not get the meaning of this legislation. It is not quite clear to me what they want.
The bill does not state they are to have 35 days or 14 days.
Senator MOORE. You offered to give them 28 days divided into two periods?
Mr. DAY. Any time between October 6 or 7 and January 6.
Senator MOORE. So in the cold region they could choose the more adaptable period?
Mr. DAY. That is right.
Senator CAPEHART. Anything further?
If not, we will close the hearings, unless somebody wishes to testify either for or against the legislation."
If not, we will now stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., hearings on S. 1735 were closed.)
TO ESTABLISH TWO MIGRATORY WATERFOWL ZONES IN MONTANA, AND AMENDING MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1948
UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:45 p. m., in the committee room of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the Capitol, Senator Homer E. Capehart, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Capehart (chairman of the subcommittee).
This is a hearing on S. 2199, a bill to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act so as to provide regulations adopted pursuant to such Act for any area, section, or flyway shall be based on conditions existing within such area, section, or flyway, and to create a Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee.
The bill will be inserted in the record at this point.
(S. 2199, the bill under discussion, is as follows:)
[S. 2199, 80th Cong., 2d sess.]
A BILL To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act so as to provide that regulations adopted pursuant to such Act for any area, section, or flyway shall be based on conditions existing within such area, section, or flyway, and to create a Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended (U. S. C., 1940 edition, title 16, sec. 704), is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 3. (a) Subject to the provisions and in order to carry out the purposes of the conventions referred to in section 2, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed, from time to time, having due regard to the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds, and after conferring with the committee created by subsection (c), to determine when, and to what extent, if at all, and by what means, it is compatible with the terms of such conventions to allow hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any such bird, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, and to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the same in accordance with such determinations and with the provisions of subsection (b), which regulations shall become effective when approved by the President. "(b) Insofar as it is practicable and consistent with the purposes of such conventions and of this Act to do so, each regulation adopted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be based upon and make due allowance for local conditions (including abundance of the species, biological conditions, and any actual or threatened injury to agricultural or other interests) existing within each sec13
tion, area, and flyway of the United States to which such regulation shall apply. The Secretary shall adopt special regulations for particular areas, sections, and flyways if such action is necessary in order to carry out the provisions of this subsection.
“(c) There is hereby created a Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee, to be composed of one representative from each State, to be selected by the Governor thereof. Such committee shall confer with and advise the Secretary of the Interior with respect to all determinations made and regulations adopted by him pursuant to subsection (a). The members of the committee shall select a chairman from among their number. Any vacancy in the committee shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. The members of the committee shall receive no compensation for their services as such, but they shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties as members of the committee."
SEC. 2. No regulation heretofore adopted pursuant to section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall remain in effect after the close of the sixth calendar month which begins after the month in which this act is enacted.
Senator CAPEHART. I want to place into the record at this point a communication from the Washington State Sportsmen's Council, Inc., Seattle, Wash., addressed to Hon. Wallace H. White, chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, signed by Ken McLeod, secretary, and a resolution passed by that organization in support of S. 2199.
I also wish to place in the record a communication signed by Eugene D. Bennett, president of the Duck Hunters Association of California, together with a statement which constitutes a reply to the adverse report signed by the Under Secretary of the Interior, Oscar L. Chapman, on H. R. 5493 and S. 2199.
Without objection they will be printed in the record. (The documents are as follows:)
Hon. WALLACE H. WHITE,
WASHINGTON STATE SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL, INC.,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed herewith find resolution adopted unanimously by this council at its Spokane meeting on March 14, relating to the establishment of Federal migratory bird regulations on a flyway basis and approving H. R. 5493, H. R. 5579, and S. 2199, which would accomplish the purposes set forth in the resolution.
Your support of these measures will be appreciated.
EMERGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 2
KEN MCLEOD, Secretary.
Whereas the State of Washington would benefit by an amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to provide for migratory bird regulation upon a flyway basis and would further benefit by the creation of a Migratory Bird Advisory Committee consisting of a representative from each State to confer and advise with the Secretary of the Interior, and
Whereas there has been introduced in both branches of the Congress of the United States bills to accomplish the aforesaid purposes, which bills are H. R. 5493, H. R. 5579, and S. 2199, and the Washington State Sportsmen's Council should support said legislation, and
Whereas it is advisable in the best interests of the Washington State Sportsmen's Council, and particularly those license holders in the State of Washington who hunt migratory birds, that the Washington State Sportsmen's Council participate and send a representative to a conference of States sportsmen within the several States comprising the Pacific flyway, which conference is known as the Western Migratory Bird Conference: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Washington State Sportsmen's Council in regular meeting assembled in Spokane on this 14th day of March 1948, That the council favors and shall support the flyway and advisory committee legislation now pending in Congress and known as H. R. 5493, H. R. 5579, and S. 2199, and the Secretary of the council is hereby directed to convey such support and indorsement on behalf of the Washington State Sportsmen's Council to the State of Washington representatives in Congress and to the chairman of the respective congressional committees to which said legislation has been referred, and be it further
Resolved, That the Washington State Sportsmen's Council endorse and support the principle embodied in the formation of the Western Migratory Bird Conference consisting of a representative of the organized sportsmen from each State within the Pacific flyway, and the president of the Washington State Sportsmen's Council is hereby empowered and directed to designate the representative of the council. (Submitted by Washington Duck Hunters, Inc.)
DUCK HUNTERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA,
Hon. PAT MCCARRAN,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: I have hurriedly prepared for your consideration and possible use this rather long analysis of and answer to the Department's adverse report on your bill. I think the adverse report is indeed very weak and evasive and without merit.
EUGENE D. BENNETT.
REPLY TO ADVERSE REPORT SIGNED BY UNDER SECRETARY OF INTERIOR CHAPMAN ON H. R. 5493 AND S. 2199
The Under Secretary of the Interior has signed a letter or report in which he recommends against the enactment of the afore-mentioned proposed legislation. The writer of such report has apparently entirely misunderstood, and has definitely misconstrued, the provisions and effect of the propsed legislation. Moreover, the report advances, or attempts to advance, views, facts, and contentions entirely in variance with the actual situation and in direct contradiction of the views and position heretofore taken by the Department and its Fish and Wildlife Service. It is felt, therefore, that such report should not go unchallenged either as to the facts asserted or the conclusions advanced.
The first contention made in the report is that the provisions of the bill that "regulations adopted pursuant to such act for any area, section, or flyway shall be based on conditions existing within such area, section, or flyway":
** * * would emphasize the adoption of regulations giving first consideration to local conditions and interests as against the adoption of regulations designed to protect the resource on a national as well as an international basis.
This contention is without basis or merit. Paragraph (b) of section (3) of the bill, the "flyway" provision, is specifically subject to the condition that any such regulation shall be adopted only: “insofar as it is practicable and consistent with the purposes of such conventions (the treaties with Canada and Mexico) and this act to do so."
Obviously there is nothing in such provision which is contrary to or "against the adoption of regulations designed to protect the resource on a national as well as an international basis."
Moreover, the proposed amendment is completely in line with the provisions and intendments of the existing law, which provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall take into consideration and have "due regard" to the-
seasons of time, weather, and to the distribution, abunance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds. [Emphasis mine.]
In other words, the provisions of the existing law contemplate, if they do not specifically provide, that regulations shall be based upon, and in accordance with the so-called "local conditions" or the conditions within the respective flyways. The difficulty has been, and the reason for this proposed legislation is, that the Department and the Federal Bureau have, apparently for reasons of political