Mr. MCCANTS. As to your original question, you asked what I determine that to be, and I determine that merely to be the management of each defined flyway on the merits of the bird population and agricultural condition, and the number of hunters within it.

Senator CAPEHART. Wherein is that different than the present law? Mr. McCANTS. There is technically no difference from the present law with the exception that the United States Fish and Wildlife in their own statements have clearly stated that they are definitely making a move in that direction.

They are, within themselves, realizing the necessity of the very thing we ask, and we feel the time is now at hand when, instead of taking steps slowly in that direction, which would ultimately wind them up in that direction 10 years from now, it should be done immediately, due to the fact we have some sections with low population of birds.

They need specific regulations governing them. We have other areas which have an abundance in proportion to the number of hunters, and they need specific regulations governing them.

We feel, basically, they are in accord with us, but for some reasons known best to themselves they are reluctant to move in that direction quite as rapidly as we feel they should.

They have stated themselves under the present regulations they have the right to govern the hunting regulations on the same basis which we are asking.

Senator CAPEHART. Let me ask you another question. The Secretary of the Interior, in his letter of April 16 to this committee states:

An analysis of the proposed bill indicates that it would amend section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in two respects. First, it 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 international basis. Next, it would establish a Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee with 48 members with which the Secretary of the Interior must confer prior to the adoption of any regulations designed to carry out the purposes of the conventions and the act. In addition, the legisla tion would rescind at the end of 6 months all regulations heretofore adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Mr. McCANTS. As to their first statement with relation to the flyway, he points out, while not directly in a manner it would not protect the national resource on an over-all basis, we are not requiring or requesting their flyway management be on any one specific flyway but govern all four flyways which constitute the entire natural resource. We are taking into consideration the four flyways which contains the entire United States as far as the bird population is concerned.

So, it is not to the benefit of one nor to the discredit of another. Senator CAPEHART. If any of you gentlemen wish to answer any of the questions I have asked, pull your chairs up to the table here, and we will have a round-table discussion of this.

Our chief interest here is getting the facts.

What I want to do is to give you gentlemen an opportunity now to convince the Congress that you are right and that the Secretary of the Interior is wrong.

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM P. CAUBU, DUCK HUNTERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.; DON W. CLARKE, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON STATE GAME DEPARTMENT, SEATTLE, WASH.; SETH GORDON, CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GAME, FISH AND CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS, HARRISBURG, PA.

Mr. CAUBU. In my opinion, it is not so much the Secretary of Interior who is wrong, as it the Fish and Wildlife Service that is wrong. They assume the autocratic attitude that they are going to tell us what to do, and their answer to this committee idea is that they contact in different ways various fish and game authorities in different States, and in that manner get their information to the Fish and Wildlife Service. What happens to it then, we can only guess.

All the State commissions have been very much disappointed at the regulations that have emanated from the Service, and to such an extent very often States do not even reply.

I think that is followed now by Mr. Day and it has not been satisfactory because he and some of his servicemen take the trouble to go visiting in the various States and try to contact the hunting public directly.

Senator CAPEHART. Let me at this point place into the record a communication from the Department of State, addressed to Senator White, chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the Senate, signed by Charles E. Bohlen, counselor, in which, among other things, they state the following, and I quote:

This Department perceives no objections to S. 2097, S. 2098, or S. 2199 from the standpoint of existing treaty obligations.

(The document is as follows:)

Hon. WALLACE H. WHITE, Jr.,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 13, 1948.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR WHITE: Further reference is made to Mr. Jarrett's letters of February 3 and 24, 1948, transmitting for the comment of the Department of State copies of (1) S. 2097, a bill to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755), as amended, to provide that regulations for any area, section, or flyway of the country shall be based on conditions and needs existing within such area, section, or flyway," (2) S. 2098, a bill "to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755), as amended, to provide for an advisory committee," and (3) S. 2199, combining features of S. 2097 and S. 2098.

This Department perceives no objection to S. 2098, S. 2098, or S. 2199 from the standpoint of existing treaty obligations.

The Department has been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES E. BOHLEN, Counselor (For the Acting Secretary of State).

(Also inserted in the record at this point is a report from the Department of Agriculture :)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, March 8, 1948.

Hon. WALLACE H. WHITE, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR: This is in reply to Mr. Jarrett's request of February 24, 1948, for the comments of this Department on S. 2199, 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."

Study of this proposed legislation suggests that the authority sought in subsections 3 (a) and (b) is already provided for in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, as amended. With respect to subsection 3 (c), it is our understanding that the Fish and Wildlife Service works closely with those interested in regulatory and related problems through regional conferences and through direct consultation with the State game and fish departments. It is our impression that, earlier in the program, there was an advisory committee.

These, however, are matters primarily within the province of the Department of the Interior and we therefore do not feel it appropriate to make recommendations thereon. We nevertheless appreciate your referral of this bill to us for consideration.

Sincerely,

CHARLES F. BRANNAN, Acting Secretary.

Senator CAPEHART. In other words, the Secretary of State does not object to the passage of S. 2199 on the basis that it would interfere with any treaty obligations with Canada.

Mr. CAUBU. We had in mind on the advisory committee that representative game men in various States familiar with water conditions and feed conditions and hunting pressure, and local matters, that should be considered when certain regulations are adopted, that they would meet in August, say, when the duck population can be pretty well established, with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and have available from the Fish and Wildlife Service all the statistical data about the population of the ducks,

Then in that manner they could arrive at what would be fair. Senator CAPEHART. I notice the act calls for a representative in each State to be selected by the governor.

Mr. CAUBU. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART. Each State has a fish and game division headed by a director, does it not?

Mr. CAUBU. Most of them do. They may have different titles.
Senator CAPEHART. But it means one and the same thing?

Mr. CAUBU. Yes.

Senator CAPEHART. Would it be better to amend this bill to state that the head of the fish and game commission of each State should be a member of it?

Mr. CAUBU. Or some representative of the fish and game commission. It could be something of that sort so long as there was some representative of game management authority in the State. It would be perfectly proper.

Of course, we would take it for granted, however, the governor of any State would appoint men he had already appointed to look after fish and game management.

Senator CAPEHART. Anything else?

Mr. CLARKE. Am I supposed to feel that I am giving my testimony now or should give it after this round table?

Senator CAPEHART. You give whatever you care to now.

Mr. CLARKE. I would like to give a little further testimony later. Senator CAPEHART. I again want to say we are giving you gentlemen an opportunity to answer the objections of the Department of the Interior, knowing that you are going to leave here possibly tomorrow, and you live a long distance away, and the purpose of these committee hearings is to secure the facts and to be just as fair and equitable as we know how and to give one side just as fair an opportunity as we do the other.

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I have drawn up my testimony, of which you have a copy. It is very shortly prepared and I feel brevity is something you people wish here, and we ought to state our facts.

As director of the Washington State Game Department, representing the game commission, I feel that management by flyway is very essential not only for the Pacific flyway but for all flyways.

While we may have an abundance of birds at this time, that picture may change where you people in the eastern flyway or the Mississippi flyway may have more birds than we have.

The situation that we have in the Pacific flyway is this: That most of our birds are bred in the Yukon, at least 80 percent, by figures established by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they travel through British Columbia, the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, and down into Mexico.

That trip in the old days, when there was an abundance of food, took 6 weeks for the flight. But because of the shortage of food in the States on the way down, they make that trip about 4 times as fast as they used, causing crop depredation, such as you have heard in previous testimony and other bills this morning.

As far as this flyway management is concerned, being a conservation measure, I cannot see it would be whatsoever, but it would give our people in the Pacific States a chance to harvest those birds more equitably.

We feel it is sound game management to harvest a crop.

As it is now, because of that extremely fast flight down and the lack of food in some of our States, we feel we should have different management than some of your eastern flyways.

Those birds go on into Mexico where they are shot by market hunters and sold on the market down there at 15 cents apiece for a big, fat mallard, and that does not set too well with the people in the State of Washington who are buying duck stamps and State licenses.

The Federal people, in conversation in Portland last year with the people of the States of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington, said that they would welcome such legislation.

Senator CAPEHART. Will you yield a moment?

Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir.

Senator CAPEHART. In other words, you feel that each State in cooperation with the Federal Government can do a better job than the Federal Government can do alone?

Mr. CLARKE. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART. And that you know more about your local conditions than does the Federal Government; is that your position?

Mr. CLARKE. That is right.

Let me finish that statement, and then I want to put myself clear as to this advisory board.

Dr. Carter made a statement in Portland that it was nearly impossible for the Federal wildlife people to recommend large bag limits in the Pacific flyway than they would get in the eastern flyway because of political pressure.

At that time he made this statement:

The big majority of the votes wherein the Eastern States, and because of the fact it might have an effect on their appropriations that they would be watching at all times they did not give us more than they gave to the Eastern States.

Senator CAPEHART. Do they have a different bag limit for each flyway?

Mr. CLARKE. Not now.

Senator CAPEHART. They have the same for each flyway?

Mr. CLARKE. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART. Regardless of how many ducks there may be? Mr. CLARKE. That is right. By their own figures, they show our Pacific flyway is up 58 percent this year.

Senator CAPEHART. One of the end results of this legislation might be, then, that the bag limit for the Pacific coast flyway might be six, and the Rocky Mountain flyway might be five, and the central flyway might be four, and the eastern flyway might be three?

Mr. CLARKE. There is that possibility; yes, sir.

I want to go on record for my game commission and myself, I am not in favor of this advisory board.

Myself, as a game administrator, I would not welcome an advisory board of the sportsmen.

Senator CAPEHART. You are opposed to the Board of 48?

Mr. CLARKE. I am, personally, and I know that my game commissioners are opposed to it.

Senator CAPEHART. What would you substitute for it in the bill?

Mr. CLARKE. I would substitute in the bill this: That the Federal Fish and Wildlife would get together with States in question on each flyway. If they wanted one man from each game commission, that would be perfectly all right. But to saddle the Fish and Wildlife Service with a board that might have the possibility, as always, of getting a crackpot on one of those boards, and it would not function properly.

I would hate to be saddled as a game administrator myself, and I feel it is unfair to saddle the Federal Wildlife people the same way. That is my own feeling, and I know the feelings of my game commission.

Senator CAPEHART. If you would eliminate that section from the bill, would you still get what you want?

Mr. CLARKE. I feel we would. Maybe some of the other boys in this hearing feel differently about it than I do.

I feel the biggest thing we are here for is flyway management, and while they claim they have that under their present administration, I still think it should be cloaked with the law of authority, and that is why I think we should have legislative action.

Senator CAPEHART. What would the bill do for you if we eliminated the section?