gress, backed by sportsmen, and asking them to take that into consideration.

It is in no sense changing any existing set-up. It amounts to, in my personal opinion, what I would call a memorialization from Congress to give these duck hunters what they are entitled to under the existing laws.

Senator CAPEHART. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FIELD. Thank you.

Senator CAPEHART. Our next witness is L. H. McCants, president, Washington Duck Hunters Association, Seattle, Wash.

STATEMENT OF L. H. McCANTS, PAST PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON DUCK HUNTERS ASSOCIATION, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. McCANTS. Mr. Chairman, for clarification of your record, I would like to change that to past president of the Duck Hunters Associations.

Also, I represent the Washington State Sportsmen's Council, which is a sportsmen's organization containing within its membership approximately 140 sportsmen's clubs within the State of Washington, who in turn represent potentially 40,000 licensed sportsmen within that State.

With your permission, and in consideration of time, and the rest of the witnesses, I would like to offer you my statement, and from that statement read merely a few high lights as to our reasons.

Senator CAPEHART. Your statement will be printed in the record, without objection.

You may proceed.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY L. H. McCANTS, SUBMITTED TO SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AT HEARINGS ON S. 2199, HELD APRIL 16, 1948

My name is L. H. McCants, of Seattle, Wash., and I represent the Washington State Sportsmen's Council, Inc.

The organized sportsmen as well as the Department of Game of the State of Washington unanimously request that you lend your support in obtaining the passage of the above bills which have been referred to your committee for investigation.

In making the above request, we believe that our reasons are justified and wish to submit the following as substantiating evidence:

For many years it has been well established that waterfowl, in their annual migration, follow four distinct routes each containing its own relative bird population, having little or no intermingling with adjacent areas. The origin of the bulk of all the waterfowl following each migration lane takes place in either the Canadian breeding grounds or the nesting areas in the Territory of Alaska. The zones through which birds pass while in course of migration are commonly known as flyways.

Each year sees different numbers of waterfowl leave the northern mating grounds, rapidly winging their way southward. In the breeding and nesting areas varying climatical conditions, such as flood, fire, and drought, as well as the encroachment of civilization, have a marked effect on the numbers of birds taking wing each fall. It is estimated by good authority that the mortality in juvenile birds and in unhatched eggs is far in excess of the loss to adult birds when once matured and in course of migration. Oftentimes serious set-backs in remote districts are not detected sufficiently in advance of the announced shooting seasons to enable a change in regulations without the reduction becoming a hardship to certain parts of the country not affected.

In central Canada the advancement of agriculture has been a major factor in depleting a large portion of what was once known as the principal waterfowlbreeding grounds of the North American Continent. A large percentage of the birds raised in this district utilize the Atlantic or Mississippi flyways for migration purposes. The Alaska Territory, which serves mainly the Pacific flyway, having had practically no outside interference, has not materially changed as to its productivity. Known conditions in the nesting areas, as well as on the flight lanes, are factors upon which the hunting regulations are predicated.

During their migratory stage, the adult birds are affected to a large degree by which route they travel. Each corridor having conditions unique within itself, present diversified problems. Some areas are more sparsely populated with hunters and have expansive districts in which food and protection are abundant, while others have multitudes of gunners and insufficient forage together with little or no protective cover. Conditions in one flyway may differ from that of another to the extent that while each may play host to relatively the same number of birds, uniform shooting regulations could not exist without a serious depletion resulting.

Present methods used in setting up hunting laws are generally based on the anticipated number of ducks and geese in the overall. In the construction of these laws, more consideration should be given to the number of birds, hunters, and general conditions existing in each flyway, some districts being well able to reap a normal harvest, while another has difficulty retaining sufficient numbers for brood stock.

Inadequate sanctuaries and a scarcity of natural food has created numerous agricultural crop damage conditions, and in addition forced thousands of birds to seek food and shelter in Mexico, where market hunting still prevails without apprehension. It is significant that this commercial killing in the southern terminus of the central and Pacific flyways has created unrest with the United States sportsmen. They feel there is a lack of sound game management when a surplus is allowed to accrue, and then is permitted to be wasted in a country where the lack of sportsmanship and conservation is a common characteristic. An attempt at averting agricultural crop damage on the Pacific flight lanes has introduced the setting of special open seasons on some species which concentrate in large numbers in farming districts.

These special seasons had no limit as to shooting hours or as to the number of birds killed. One specie of duck, namely the Baldplate Widgeon, which frequents the State of Washington in large numbers, was reduced as a result of these seasons better than 70 percent. Most authorities feel that this excessive crop could have been harvested in the regular hunting season. Instead, thousands of birds, fatally wounded during night shooting, were left to perish and were never utilized in any fashion. Had a flyway game-management program been in operation when this condition arose, we feel certain that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service would have incorporated the proper corrective measures into the general hunting regulations, which would have provided additional hunting for the sportsmen and at the same time been conservative in reducing the kill.

The inequality of present-day methods of game management can be further illustrated by the following data from the files of the game department of the State of Washington-1941 waterfowl census indicated 344,000 birds in Washington with hunting laws permitting the killing of 10 birds per day for 60 days; 1947 census indicated 396,000 birds, but hunting was curtailed to a bag limit of 4 ducks per day for a 28-day period. According to the statements issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service this reduction was necessary because a reverse situation existed in some other flyways. We are well aware that the hunting ranks have increased, but we believe that it has not been to the extent to warrant such drastic reductions in bag limit and shooting days. We feel that neither curtailments nor relaxation in one flyway should be influenced by conditions existing in another flyway. Each flight route should be governed by conditions in the individual territory through which the respective group of waterfowl passes while in migration.

This, in our opinions, would be sound game management providing equitable administration for the birds as well as the hunter.

In addition to flyway regulations, this proposed legislation recommends the establishing of a Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee with which we, in the State of Washington, are in full accord. The Advisory Committee, consisting of 48 members, would vastly enhance the ability of the Federal Bureau in establishing known conditions on each flyway. In achieving a harmonious relationship between waterfowl and hunter, controversial problems may arise, many of which

can be adjusted by the Committee member in his own home State. This, in turn, would tend to relieve a good portion of the load now borne by the game agency. The previous Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee, which was disbanded in 1937, proved beyond all question its value. Valuable data gleaned from this group was instrumental in preserving our waterfowl resource when destruction appeared inevitable. The situation is now at hand when the formulation of a similar group can assist in making forward strides in the field of waterfowl. Now, therefore, in consideration of the outlined facts and statements, the sportsmen and game officials of Washington ask that you act favorably on this bill when making your report.

Mr. McCANTS. The organized sportsmen as well as the Department of Game of the State of Washington unanimously request that you lend your support in obtaining the passage of the above bills, which have been referred to your committee for investigation.

In making the above request, we believe that our reasons are justified, and wish to submit the following as substantiating evidence:

For many years it has been well established that waterfowl, in their annual migration, follow four distinct routes each containing its own relative bird population, having little or no intermingling with adjacent areas.

The origin of the bulk of all the waterfowl following each migration lane takes place in either the Canadian breeding grounds or the nesting areas in the Territory of Alaska. The zones through which birds pass while in course of migration are commonly known as flyways.

Senator CAPEHART. We do not have a map showing that, do we? Mr. McCANTS [indicating]. I believe this map would show it. That is known as the Pacific flyway.

Senator CAPEHART. Where are the other three?

Mr. McCANTS. That is something I am not too familiar with.

Senator CAPEHART. Mr. Johnson, will you furnish maps to the committee?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Senator CAPEHART. Let me ask this question: You have four flyways here. What does the bill do for the four flyways?

Mr. McCANTS. This bill would set up the regulations of fish and wildlife having to do with each flyway as to the conditions, speaking agriculturally and climatically, within the area in which the birds utilize that area in their migration course-the number of hunters, the amount of food, the amount of waterfowl sanctuary.

I would like to further say, in answer to the question you asked Mr. Field, as to the matter of it being a conservation move, we feel definitely it would be a conservation move, because now it has been clearly defined as to the breeding ground, and a great many species, their origin, and nesting area.

This would continue research to include nesting conditions of various flyways, but also focus attention on those flyways which need additional sanctuaries, which, in turn, would be a conservation move and would restrict those flyways which have large population of hunters and relax those which are sparsely populated.

Senator CAPEHART. You can readily see, possibly, I am not a duck hunter. I have hunted a few ducks, but they do not mind my hunting them.

They are perfectly satisfied when I go duck hunting.

These four flyways, this is the normal route the ducks take, or is it controllable?

Mr. McCANTS. There is, in some instances, a slight overlapping from one flyway to another, and from the standpoint of controllability, it is pretty clearly outlined by State boundaries in most cases.

Your Pacific flyway is pretty well defined on the eastern border by the Rocky Mountains, and the western side by the Pacific Ocean. Your central Rocky Mountain flyway is bounded by the Rockies on the west and the Mississippi on the east side.

In some cases, there is a converging of flyways and an overlapping which, in turn, have been outlined by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In most cases, and I would say in the bulk of all cases, they can define them quité exactly, just as readily as they have in the drawings on their maps.

Senator CAPEHART. Then the purpose of the bill is so that the hunters can have more ducks to hunt?

Mr. McCANTS. I believe it would be faulty on the part of on the part of any group to jeopardize the standards of their own resources by submitting and backing any type of legislative action which would not have a twofold purpose; that of conserving the resources while at the same time providing a harvest equitable as far as the resource will stand.

And in our determination of this bill, it has just that within itself.
Senator CAPEHART. Is there a similar bill to this in the House?
Mr. McCANTS. I believe there are two bills, yes.

Senator CAPEHART. It evidently has not been passed by the House yet, because it is not over here, is it?

Mr. JARRETT. No, Senator, that is the only bill before us.

Senator CAPEHART. I presume what happened was that Senator McCarran introduced a bill in the Senate and the identical bill was introduced in the House, and neither the Senate nor the House have acted upon either one of the bills as yet.

Mr. JARRETT. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART. Has the Department of the Interior asked permission to testify?

Mr. JARRETT. They are coming up on the 21st, next Wednesday. Senator CAPEHART. To testify against this legislation?

Mr. JARRETT. I suppose so.

Senator CAPEHART. He has no objection to H. R. 107, but he objects to S. 2199. I have put their objection in the record.

Of course, section 3 of the bill has to do with setting up this advisory group, does it not?

Mr. McCANTS. That has no connection with the topic of the flyway management. It is a separate section of the bill.

Senator CAPEHART. In other words, under section 3, the Secretary of the Interior cannot promulgate any rules, regulations, and so forth, without consulting with the Advisory Committee.

Mr. McCANTS. That is correct, according to the bill.

Senator CAPEHART. He claims that is bad administrative practice. Mr. McCANTS. That is their opinion. In a similar sense, they are doing relatively the same thing today by having conferences, such as

78232-48- -5

they did in the city of Seattle, taking under advisement opinions of recognized sportsmen and game departments. They have done that last year, and they feel keenly interested in our opinions and recommendations.

Senator CAPEHART. Did someone state a moment ago that at one time we had a law such as this?

Mr. McCANTS. At one time they had an advisory committee.
Senator CAPEHART. Composed of how many?

Mr. GORDON. About 20. They had a departmental advisory board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. At that time it was in the Agriculture Department and was discontinued prior to the time when the transfer was made of the old Biological Survey and Bureau of Fisheries to the Interior Department as the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Senator CAPEHART. What you are asking for in this bill is an Advisory Committee composed of one from each State who know local conditions?

Mr. McCANTS. That is correct.

Senator CAPEHART. Who are close to the sportsmen and hunters in the respective States, to advise with the Secretary of the Interior on the rules and regulations, and so forth, in respect to wild birds? Mr. MCCANTS. That is correct.

Senator CAPEHART. Have I stated it correctly?

That is about the total of the legislation, is it not?

Mr. McCANTS. Well, that particular part of it, that section. The bulk of the legislation has to do with the regulation of the seasons and bag limits on flyways.

Senator CAPEHART. That comes under (b) of section 3. Let me see if I can state this again.

The Advisory Committee, composed of 48, 1 from each State, will confer with the Secretary of the Interior in respect to rules and regulations. And that is under section 3 (a).

Then section (b) states:

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 section, 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. What do you understand that to mean?

Mr. McCANTS. If I may have your permission, as long as you are not a duck hunter

Senator CAPEHART. I do not know too much about it, but I am trying to make a record here, because you gentlemen are going to return to Seattle and Reno, and the Department of Interior who are opposed to this bill are going to remain in Washington, and they are going to be quite close to the Congressmen and the Senators.

I am just trying to be fair and equitable and give you gentlemen an opportunity to state your position and answer the Department of Interior's objection.