expedience, largely disregarded the provisions, purposes, and intendment of the existing law.

Under no sound premises can it be said that those who negotiated the treaties, or Congress, who enacted the existing law, intended that the regulations as to season or bag limit or other conditions should be uniform across the country, or without regard to conditions existing within the respective flyways. The very contrary appears from the language of the existing law. Neither the treaties nor Congress intended that regulations which were imposed, say for the areas within the Atlantic flyway, must be the same as those imposed for the areas within the Pacific flyway, where entirely different species of birds, and biological conditions exist. Certainly if Congress intended, in enacting the original act, that there should necessarily be absolute uniform regulations across the country irrespective of varying conditions and population and numbers of birds in the several flyways, it would not have outlined the several conditions including “lines of flight" which the act requires the Secretary to take into consideration in making his regulations.

Nor is there any sound reason, scientifically or otherwise, why there should be absolutely uniform regulations across the United States. Even within the States, laws and regulations for the taking of fish or game vary widely for different areas within the State and ever since game laws have been enacted, it has been definitely recognized as sound principle of regulation, that the actual conditions and needs within the several areas of the State should govern and control the character and extent of regulations imposed on such areas. The same principle has heretofore been acknowledged by the Federal Bureau as scientifically applicable to the regulation of migratory game birds.

On July 8, 1947, Secretary of the Interior Krug, in his letter to the president of Duck Hunters Association of California, stated:

The Department is convinced that the flyway concept as a basis for regulations is sound. Under date of July 1, 1947, Albert Day, the Director of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, in a letter to the same organization stated:

We are gradually moving toward the idea of establishing regulations in line with the conditions in the various sections of the country or by flyways. Before that, on April 7, 1947, Mr. Day, in a letter to the executive director of Ducks, Unlimited, stated:

We are thinking about including in the regulations a definition of States included in the four flyways and to suggest regulations by flyways. [Emphasis mine.]

William E. Warne, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in his letter of July 22, 1947, to Hon. George P. Miller, Congressman from California, stated:

Mr. Day tells me that the waterfowl flights along the Pacific coast are in better shape than in any of the other flyways, and that from a pure biological standpoint more liberal regulations could be granted California, Oregon, and Washington. However it is the feeling of the Service that the time is not quite ripe for a complete shift to flyway management. There are many thousands of people, in the Mississippi Valley in particular, who would fail to understand that, despite some common breeding grounds, the waterfowl populations of the two regions are separate and distinct, and that increased hunting on the Pacific coast will have no effect upon the population status of the birds of the Mississippi flyway.

In none of these declarations is there any contention or even intimation by the Department of the Interior or the Fish and Wildlife Service that regulations by flyways or in accordance with the elastic and flexible provisions of the proposed legislation, would be in any sense contrary to the treaties or the existing provisions of the law or inimical to sound or efficient principles of game management, or would in any way interefer with or prevent the protection of "the resource on a national as well as an international basis."

One may properly ask: Why this complete change of face? If there was reason or basis, as declared by the Federal Bureau a year ago, for more liberal regulations in certain flyways, including the Pacific States, there is even greater reason today, because Mr. Day, despite his recent series of conflicting reports on the wildlife census, admits that there was during the last season a substantial increase of birds along the Pacific coast as compared to the former year. He stated as late as the 6th of this month (April 1948) in San Francisco, that if the States in the Pacific flyway would get together on a program of regulations for their area, he would favorably recommend such program, even if it provided for different regulations than those made applicable to States and areas in other flyways.

The purpose of the proposed legislation with respect to flyways is to make clear that such regulations, where practicable, and consistent with the other provisions of the act and the treaties, should be in accordance with the standards originally contemplated, if not definitely prescribed in the existing law, and also in accordance with the principle which the Federal service itself has long admitted as being sound.

The Department's present report, while admitting that "migatory waterfowl follow fairly well-defined lines of flight," suggests or appears to infer (although the report does not make that entirely clear) that the flights within or among the flyways are altered or mixed up by storm, drought, and other conditions. If any such contention is actually intended by the writer of the report it is an entirely new theory and one not only contrary to the facts, as demonstrated through the years, but also contrary to the views and position which have heretofore been taken by the Federal Bureau and Department up to the time these bills were introduced.

Concededly, storms and other physical conditions may affect the hatch, population, or times of flight of the birds within a given flyway, but such conditions within such flyway do not necessarily, if at all, affect the conditions within another flyway adjacent or across the continent. As Assistant Secretary Warne stated last year: "The waterfowl populations of the two regions are separate and distinct" and that what happens in one flyway "will have no effect upon the population status of the birds of (the other) flyway."

Such factors, if they be factors, are reasons for and not against regulations in accordance with conditions existing within the respective flyways.

A further remarkable and inconsistent statement is contained in the Department's present report. It is said:

If emphasis is to be placed on the abundance of birds in any particular hunting area, there will be left no means of offsetting the scarcity of birds in other hunting areas. How absurd.

If there is an abundance of birds and biological and other conditions in, let us say, the Pacific flyway, such as to justify a certain bag limit and length of season for that flyway or area, the "means of offsetting the scarcity of birds in other hunting areas" or flyways, for example, let us say the Mississippi flyway, would be to provide for that flyway appropriate bag limits and season to compensate for such "scarcity." As declared by Assistant Secretary of the Interior Warne, in his afore-mentioned letter of July 22, 1947—

the waterfowl populations of two regions are separate and distinct, and that increased hunting on the Pacific Coast will have no effect upon the population status of the birds of the Mississippi flyway.

The Department's adverse report concludes its argument against the "flyway" proposal with the reluctant admission that "the proposed legislation does not specifically require regulations of this nature" but the report again asserts the weak and irrelevant plea that the proposed amendment might "be construed as requiring greater consideration for local conditions that for over-all conditions along the flyway."

Exactly what is meant by such last statement is not at all clear, but if it has any meaning, it is a reiteration of what has formerly been argued and, aside from bearing its own reputation, it is completely answered, I submit, by the foregoing comments on the Department's other contentions.

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Department's argument against the proposal for an advisory committee is centered in the asserted premise that the committee would be "cumbersome and of questionable value." In the very next breath, however, the Department's report argues that it now consults and advises with each of the States through their game departments, thus conceding that there is need for and claiming that there is already in existence an "advisory committee" consisting of the game department of each State. If there be such a committee from each of the States (which there is not) it is hard to see why the proposed statutory "advisory committee" would be either "cumbersome" or "of questionable value." The statutory committee proposed would be, we submit, not only less "cumbersome" but of greater value.

The report injects an erroneous and misleading concept, when it suggests that the proposed statutory "advisory committee" would set up a third group, and one which would work at cross purposes with the State game departments, with which the Department now claims it works in close harmony, not only in the promulgation but also the enforcement of the regulations. It seems rather

presumptuous, to say the least, for this Federal Department to assert that the Governor of any State would appoint a member of the committee from his State who would work in opposition to or in conflict with his own game department.

In many or most instances, it must be assumed that the Governor would either appoint the head or some member of his game department to such committee, or at least some person who would be acceptable to, and who would work in harmony with, such game department.

As pointed out by others, the claim of the Federal Department and Bureau that they work in close harmony with the State departments is not the fact. As others have stated, the Fish and Wildlife Service sends a draft of the proposed regulations to the several State game departments, shortly before the game regulations are proposed, but clamps the same under an iron curtain of secrecy, so that there can be no real or effective conference or advice concerning such proposed regulations and, moreover, practice and experience have demonstrated that the recommendations submitted by the State game departments are largely, if not entirely, ignored. Moreover, such recommendations apparently are "screened" from consideration by the actual regulating authority, the Secretary of the Interior.

The actual fact is that the proposed advisory committee would be neither "cumbersome" nor "of questionable value." Such a committee, like the former advisory committee which was abolished by Henry Wallace in 1937, would meet with the Secretary of the Interior, and such of his subordinates as he saw fit, in the summer after the biological conditions and other relative factors affecting the supply of ducks available in the several flyways for the coming season were known. At such a meeting there would be not only an interchange of views of the representatives of the several States and of the respective flyways, but also there would be had, which are not now had, "open covenants openly arrived at" and regulations which unquestionably would better fit the actual needs and conditions of the several flyways and sections of the country. Such regulations, when adopted by the Secretary and approved by the President, which officials would still have the unrestricted and final authority, would not only be more fair and appropriate, but would receive far greater approval and acceptance by the sportsmen and people in the respective flyways as well as by the country at large.

Senator CAPEHART. Our first witness on S. 2199 is John S. Field, president of the Washoe Fish and Game Association, of Reno, Nev. You may proceed, Mr. Field.

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. FIELD, PRESIDENT, WASHOE FISH AND GAME ASSOCIATION, RENO, NEV.

Mr. FIELD. Mr. Chairman, I filed a written statement, and I would like to have that inserted in the record, and then add an oral statement.

Senator CAPEHART. You would like to have this made a part of the record?

Mr. FIELD. Yes, sir; to preface my remarks.

Senator CAPEHART. Your statement will be made part of the record, and you may proceed in your own way to talk to your statement or about the bill.

(The statement is as follows:)

TEXT OF STATEMENT OF JOHN S. FIELD, OF RENO, NEV.

My name is John S. Field, president of the Washoe Fish and Game Association of Nevada. I am the Nevada member Western Migratory Game Bird Conference. The Washoe Fish and Game Association, a nonprofit corporation consisting of some 2,500 sportsmen of Washoe County, Nev., at its meeting of April 5, 1948, unanimously endorsed H. R. 5493, H. R. 5579, and S. 2199, relating to amendments to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to permit organization upon a flyway basis, and the appointment of an advisory committeeman from each State, to

confer with the Secretary of the Interior The board of directors at a previous meeting had taken the same action, date of March 16, 1948.

This association, of which I am privileged to be the president, at the same meeting, endorsed the formation of the Western Migratory Game Bird Conference, consisting of a representative from each of the States of Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho, and confirmed my appointment as the Nevada member of this conference. This conference has pledged its support of the flyway legislation above mentioned. The Washoe Fish and Game Association is highly representative of Nevada sportsmen.

Commissioner Charles Gilbert of the Nevada State Fish and Game Commission declared at a water migratory fowl hearing in San Francisco, Calif., conducted by Albert M. Day, Director of the Federal Fish and Wild Life Service, April 7, 1948, as follows, and I quote:

I want to put Nevada on record as favoring flyway regulations, elimination of the double possession limit, and 2-day-a-week shooting. Commissioner Gilbert was acting for our State commission.

Nevada's fine delegation in Washington, consisting of Senators Pat McCarran and George M. Malone and Representative Charles H. Russell, have all written me assuring me of their support of this forward-looking legislation.

The Nevada State Fish and Game Commission at its executive board meeting went on record as follows, and I quote from the minutes of that meeting, April 8, 1948:

By the majority of the voters of the executive board, the State of Nevada Fish and Game Commission expressed approval of Senate bill 2097 regarding the management of waterfowl on the flyway basis, and Senate bill 2098 regarding the organization of a waterfowl advisory committee.

These two bills involve the same matters as S. 2199, which combines both.

Mr. FIELD. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, we, in Nevada, consider that we are signally honored that this legislation has been introduced in the Senate by our distinguished senior Senator, Hon. Pat McCarran.

Our senior Senator is well known in our State as a duck hunter himself of no mean ability.

My statement has been designed to show that we in Nevada are wholeheartedly and unanimously in support of this legislation.

The Washoe Fish and Game Association of Reno, Nev., of which I am president, our State fish and game commission, and our fine delegation from Nevada here in Washington, are all unanimous and intensely desirous that this proposed legislation be enacted into law.

I have made my written statement brief with the thought, Mr. Chairman, that you might permit me, in a few brief words, to state why the Washoe Fish and Game Association is highly representative of Nevada sportsmen.

As an organization, we individually underwrite and guarantee each year the total State quota for ducks, unlimited.

Any deficit in the amount raised in the Ducks, Unlimited, program we make up from our own funds. With our funds we have put in electric fish screens, some 20 of them, in the Truckee River, which runs through our fair city of Reno and which prevent the fish, the trout, from going into the irrigation ditches and becoming fertilizer for the farmers' fields, and which prevent the trout from going into the power companies' flumes where they would be destroyed.

Those fish screens average around $2,000 or $2,500 each in price. With our own funds, we have promoted the formation, and assisted in the organization, of sportsmen's clubs in each one of our 17 counties in Nevada.

We have undertaken a program of planting with our own funds pheasants and chukka partridge throughout Nevada.

We have also interested ourselves in, and are still working toward, the establishment of public duck-shooting grounds in our State.

At our last meeting last month, we made a grant-in-aid of several thousand dollars to the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service to use in their antipredator control program of eliminating coyotes and other predators in the State of Nevada.

We felt that was necessary in order that the small funds available at their disposal could be supplemented, and this fine program increased in its scope and usefulness.

In addition to the other undertakings of our association, we have just recently completed last month a program of instruction which was sponsored by our association and in the course of which we instructed over 800 juniors in the city of Reno, alone, in the fine science of flycasting, fly tying, and stream conservation.

With the approval of the school authorities, we put that program into the junior high schools and the high schools, and we contemplate this fall embarking upon a similar program designed to teach the safety of firearms, hunting, knowledge of game, its habitat, and its conservation.

We are particularly proud in Nevada to be associated with and to appear before this committee with such distinguished gentlemen representing such fine organizations, as William Caubu, secretary-treasurer of the Duck Hunters Association of California; Mr. McCants, a representative of the Washington State Sportsmen's Council; Mr. Emil Ott, who has done such fine work as the executive director of the California Fish and Game Commission; Mr. Clark, who occupies a similar position in the State of Washington.

I repeat again, we are naturally proud that our senior Senator has introduced this legislation in the Senate.

Due to the short time of the notice of this hearing, unfortunately the representatives from our fine sister State of Oregon were unable to be personally present on this occasion.

I have been asked to read the following resolution adopted unanimously by the Oregon Game Commission, April 10, 1948:

Whereas it appears to the Oregon State Game Commission that the best interest of the western States on the Pacific flyway are better served by the regulation of migratory waterfowl by flyways rather than zones; and

Whereas the formation of an advisory board, to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service, in setting regulations and bag limits will be most advantageous in promulgating such seasons and bag limits; and

Whereas bill H. R. 5493, now introduced in both branches of Congress, will accomplish the aforesaid purposes: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That we urge our delegation in Congress to support this measure and instruct the supervisor to so notify all members of Congress.

I have been asked to attach a word of explanation to the resolution, that the legislation referred to by House number therein is identical with the legislation contained in Senate 2199, now before us.

I am happy, Mr. Chairman, you have read into the record the fine reply of Mr. Eugene D. Bennett, the president of the California Duck Hunters Association. If it had not so been put into the record, I was prepared to read into the record a copy.

With your permission, without reading it, I wish to append to my statement and file in the record, the statement dated March 27, 1948, by Nathan Moran, of San Francisco, with reference to the proposal for a migratory game bird advisory committee as proposed by S. 2199