a bill. It has the support of the fish and game commission of my State and, of course, of the sportsmen's associations.

It is the feeling of those desiring this legislation that Montana, comprising some 146,131 square miles in area, with a spread of thousands of feet in elevation, is too large and variable an area to make only one zone workable and practical. It is my understanding that for similar reasons the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan both are divided into two zones.

As you may know, the area of my State exceeds by some 10,000 square miles the total area of the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland combined. The area of any one of several of the counties of Montana which under this bill would constitute the northern zone is greater than that of any one of three Eastern States.

For the above, as well as other pertinent reasons which I shall not take the time of your committee to give, passage of S. 1735 seems justified and I respectfully request favorable consideration on your part.

Senator CAPEHART. The chairman would like to place in the record at this time a letter from Fred C. Gabriel, county attorney, Phillips County, Malta, Mont., addressed to the Honorable Albert W. Hawkes, Washington, D. C., which is a statement in respect to S. 1735.

(The letter follows:)

In re Senate bill S. 1735.

Mr. ALBERT W. HAWKES,

Washington, D. C.

MALTA, MONT., February 27, 1948.

DEAR MR. HAWKES: This bill was introduced by Senator Murray of Montana and has the active support of both Senators and both Representatives.

For the third time, the Montana State Legislature has passed a joint senate and house memorial urging the State be divided into two zones, north and south, for the hunting of migratory waterfowl.

The latest memorial is found in the 1947 Montana Session Laws at page 809. The Montana Fish and Game Commission made such a suggestion to the Fish and Wildlife Service at Chicago without results.

The Montana Wildlife Federation has for the past 3 years passed a resolution suggestion the division of the State into two zones.

I was appointed by the president of the Montana Wildlife Federation as chairman of the committee to present this question to the Department of the Interior. I did so, and for the past 2 years have been trying to persuade Mr. Day and Mr. Cottam, with negative results.

I have a letter from Gov. Sam Ford to the effect that he is for the measure. Day and Cottam go on the theory that the old zoning system must continue. So you will understand, the United States is divided into a northern zone, an intermediate zone, and a southern zone, etc.

The Fish and Wildlife Service at Chicago have power to designate which zone Montana will be placed in. For the past 2 years, it has been in the intermediate zone. Prior to that it was in the northern zone.

The Fish and Wildlife Service go upon the theory that all States are of equal size. They make no allowance for the difference of area or altitude. In other words, "Pigs is pigs."

The reason behind the request for a division of the State is that Montana is too large for one zone. The boys in the southern part of the State desire the later date; the boys in the northern part of the State must have the earlier date or get no hunting.

For the past 2 years the northern sportsmen have had no hunting. It is to correct this unfair zoning system that the State of Montana seeks to be divided into two zones, a northern and an intermediate zone.

Such a division exists in Alberta and in Saskatchewan, Canada, just north of us, and from my personal contact with the officers in charge, they have no trouble.

Let us compare Montana with a few Eastern States. You can take all of the New England States: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and to this add New York, New Jersey, Delaware,

and Maryland, and yet not have area enough to equal Montana. Let us tabulate it:

Square miles 47, 654

Square miles

7,514

1, 965

9, 941

129, 050

Massachusetts.

Rhode Island_.

17, 081

The line of counties desiring the earlier hunting date have an average altitude from 2,500 to 3,000 feet, and that they border the Canadian line. Though we have been forced into the intermediate zone by the Fish and Wildlife Service, as yet, we have not started to raise grapefruit here.

The counties desiring the northern zone and their respective square miles are as follows:

Phillips

Square miles

Square miles 1,440

Blaine

Liberty.

Hill_

Toole_

Valley

1, 720

2,838

28, 148

Let us compare some Montana counties, desiring the change, with some Eastern States:

Phillips County, with its 5,278 square miles, is larger than the State of Connecticut with its 4,820 square miles, and larger than the combined area of both Rhode Island and Delaware. Let us tabulate:

You will note that the nine counties named above are larger than the five States listed.

To deny five States of the Union an equal right to participate in the privilege of hunting migratory waterfowl would not appeal to the average citizen, yet that is exactly what has been going on, and we are now appealing to Congress to right the wrong.

Yours very sincerely,

FRED C. GABRIEL.

(Whereupon, at 10:30 a. m., the subcommittee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)

TO ESTABLISH TWO MIGRATORY WATERFOWL ZONES IN MONTANA, AND AMENDING MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1948

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12 o'clock noon, in the committee room of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the Capitol Building, Senator Homer E. Capehart (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Capehart (chairman of the subcommittee) and Moore.

Senator CAPEHART. We will now take up for further consideration S. 1735.

Our first witness will be Mr. Albert M. Day, Director of Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Day?

STATEMENT OF ALBERT M. DAY, DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. DAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, are opposed to this bill.

This bill is, again, attempting by legislation to do something that should be done by administrative act under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The State of Montana, similar to all other States, has different conditions within the State. Eastern Montana is open, high prairie country that freezes up rather early, while western Montana has many warm springs and running waters, and the birds stay in western Montana later than they do in eastern Montana.

A great deal of consideration has been given to the idea of zoning the States to give each State two separate shooting zones.

What they desire, if there were a 30-day season, is 30 days in one zone and 30 in another zone, which in substance would give that State 60 days of shooting compared to 30 days of shooting in other States, unless we did the same for every State.

Every State can put forth a good argument for zoning.

Three years ago we had more demand for zoning coming out of the State of Delaware than any other one State in the Union, unless it was Montana.

9

Senator CAPEHART. Oklahoma could well have one in the east and one in the west, I presume.

Mr. DAY. By drawing lines based on temperature and elevation, some western States can justify as many as five zones. Probably Montana could have three or four. But it makes such a complicated pattern of administration that instead the philosophy of the Service for years has been to spread the season as wide as possible to give as many days to all parts of the State to provide some shooting as the birds go through.

That has worked quite well in the years when we could have long

seasons.

When we cut the seasons down to 30 and 35 days, it meant that some of the portions of the States would not get as much shooting days as others.

Last year in an effort to play fair with all parts of the States as near as possible we adopted the split season regulations. We specified that no shooting be permitted before October 6 or 7, and none later than January 6.

We prescribed that the opening of the shooting days should be every 2-week period, October 6, October 20, and so on, for the sake of uniformity between the States.

We prescribed that the States notify us what period or periods they wished. The eastern two flyways could have either 30 days or two split seasons of 12 days, the western two flyways 35 days or two split seasons of 14 days each.

We did that hoping it would take care of this recurring situation in Montana.

Yet, when the State fish and game departments came back with their advice, Montana recommended the 35-day straight season again. Senator CAPEHART. In all the States?

Mr. DAY. No, in Montana.

Senator CAPEHART. In Montana?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

This map indicates that pattern resulting from the States selecting the shooting seasons in these two western flyways, those with green selected the split seasons in order that they could have some early shooting and some late shooting.

Those in yellow selected the straight seasons.

Senator CAPEHART. And Montana selected

Mr. DAY. Montana selected the straight season which still did not help the situation for eastern Montana.

In the two eastern flyways, the orange represents the straight seasons of 30 days, the blue the split season.

In the West, we find rather wide acceptance of the split season idea. Montana, for instance, last year, took October 7 to November 10. California on the other hand took October 21 to November 3 and December 23 to January 5.

So the Federal regulation last year did permit the splitting of the shooting time in Montana but not by drawing a line which would have given one part of the State shooting at a different period than the other part.

Senator CAPEHART. Who remembers the argument on the part of the proponents for splitting Montana into two sections? What do they maintain it will do?