be set up in any area except on the basis of general plans approved jointly by the head of the department or agency exercising primary administration thereof and the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the State wherein the areas or waters lie. That language necessarily means that if waters be impounded in any national forest, the Fish and Wildlife Service could not exercise management jurisdiction even over migratory birds except under a plan approved both by the Forest Service and the State. Section 4 of the bill merely provides for the continuance of some new type of water development either by act of Congress or by act of the President, but the administration of such new projects are definitely tied to the management plan specified in section 3 by carrying forward the provision of approval by the agency exercising primary administration with the further proviso, included at the request of the western game commissioners, that the plan shall not be inconsistent with State laws.

No jurisdiction now enjoyed by the Forest Service is taken away from it by this bill. But, of course, it is true that in all future water impounding projects the Forest. Service is included with all other Federal agencies in the general requirement to give due consideration to the wildlife interest involved and to work out management plans in cooperation with the State in which the area lies. That, in my opinion, is as it should be, is what all the States and all interested conservationists want, and if the United States Forest Service wishes to be relieved of that responsibility it will be asking to be placed on a different basis from any other Federal agency and asking for greater power than I think it should be permitted to exercise. In that connection the States are not unmindful of the unfortunate dispute a few years ago between the Forest Service and the Game Department of the State of North Carolina over the killing of deer in the Pisgah National Forest under Forest Service rules and regulations in violation of State laws. That contest was decided in favor of the Forest Service by the Federal courts on the ground that when North Carolina, by legislative act, granted to the United States Government the right to aquire forest areas in that State it also conferred upon the Federal Government jurisdiction over the wildlife in such areas. Fortunately, an agreement was worked out between the Forest Service and all of the State game departments under which the Forest Service agreed, in the future, to take no action on national forests that was inconsistent with local State fishing and hunting laws. But that is merely a voluntary agreement and is not a law in those States which have conferred upon the Government jurisdiction over wildlife nor is it a law with respect to national forests created from the public domain.

Sincerely yours,

A. WILLIS ROBERTSON.

(Whereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)

CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE

MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1946

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John W. Flannagan, Jr. (chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

I have been furnished a copy of H. R. 3821, a bill introduced by Mr. Robertson, on July 17, 1945, proposing to amend sections 4 and 8 of the act of September 2, 1937, as amended.

Mr. Robertson, we will be glad to have a statement from you on this bill.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this is a suggestion that on several occasions has come to the Select Committee on Wildlife Resources, from a number of State game departments, based upon the fact that they have been using Pittman-Robertson Act funds to acquire areas, and that it has given some of them so many of these areas that it is a burden on them to properly administer and maintain them.

The law as originally written contemplated the funds should be used to stimulate the acquisition of areas that could be used for public hunting and for refuge purposes and to keep down the use of it for employees, you might say.

But now we have reached a point in this development where the States need to have some funds for maintenance, and they have got to have more funds for administrative purposes. So after consultation with the fish and game administrators in the various States and with the Fish and Wildlife Service, we felt that funds had reached the point where there would be enough for the acquisition program plus a reasonable amount for maintenance, and it would be only fair to the States to let them use a part of it, but not exceeding 25 percent of the funds that they get, for maintenance purposes.

Mr. GRANGER. For the record, where does the money come from? Mr. ROBERTSON. The money is derived from an excise tax on guns and ammunition. It is paid by the sportsman, and there is something over $12,000,000 to the credit of that fund. The States have been getting $900,000 during the war years. Our budget recommendation for this purpose is $3,000,000 for this year. The States testified before the committee, and the Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed it, that they could well use $3,000,000. Whether the subcommittee on the Interior supply bill is going to put that money in the current bill I do not know, but we will probably find out late this week.

37

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Robertson, how much does that tax bring in now?

Mr. ROBERTSON. The tax amounts to between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 a year; did over the last period, and when we again have guns and ammunition it would not surprise me if it brings in $3,000,000 a year. Of course, it did not bring in so much during the war but each year brought in more than we paid out.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been self-sustaining?

Mr. ROBERTSON. It has accumulated a surplus of $12,000,000 already.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I am not quite sure about this bill, Mr. Robertson. I know some of the conservationists want the whole $12,000,000 appropriated, but I have not heard anything about this bill, or the need for this type of legislation, except from those we have had before the committee.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, you remember the testimony before the committee was that they all wanted it.

Mr. ANDRESEN. All those that appeared there; yes.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. Mr. Day who is head of the division handling the grants or allotment of the funds in connection with this work with the States indicates there was a great demand for this fund. Of course, they do not have to use it this way; this is merely permissive.

Mr. ANDRESEN. It authorizes the use of 25 percent a year for wages and salaries when it was originally provided for conservation. That is quite a bit of money.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not imagine that all of the maintenance funds would go for salaries and wages and I think a lot of the States would not use as much as 25 percent for that purpose.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I am not against the legislation but I would like to inquire into it further, and would like to have a few days to consider it, and to discuss the matter further with you.

The CHAIRMAN. Should we have another hearing on the matter after the recess?

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Have we not had this matter under consideration before?

Mr. ANDRESEN. Not this particular bill.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I testified about this at the same time.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, for the committee to hear Mr. Chaney, Chief Counsel of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Chaney.

STATEMENT OF DONALD J. CHANEY, CHIEF COUNSEL, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. CHANEY. Mr. Chairman, in answer to Mr. Andresen's inquiry or question as to whether the States have pushed for this additional amendment for maintenance, I believe in the testimony of Mr. Day, when he was here before, the statement is that in at least three of the recent meetings of the national meetings of the State game and conservation commissioners, that this question was brought up and the States have felt very definitely that it is almost useless to acquire more land than they can properly manage and to meet the costs on areas

acquired and maybe acquired if funds are allotted this year and next, probably exceed and do exceed a total amount of moneys that are available for maintenance purposes.

Mr. Robertson mentioned wages and salaries; but the funds will be used for general maintenance. Now under the present law the funds can be used only for acquisition or for reserve projects.

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is, stocking.

Mr. CHANEY. Yes; and the amendment would allow the States to use a percentage of the money that is allocated to them for maintenance purposes. It does not increase the amount that comes to the States; it merely provides that the amount that is allocated to the States can be used within the limitation provided, for maintenance. Mr. ROBERTSON. And I may add right there if any one State needs the full 25 percent for maintenance purposes it does not deduct by 1 cent the amount that will be available or that will go to the States, which is fixed by a certain formula.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the present law allocations are made to the States.

Mr. CHANEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And this legislation would give to the States the right to use not to exceed 25 percent of the funds allocated for maintenance purposes?

Mr. CHANEY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any disagreement among the State authorities on this proposed legislation?

Mr. CHANEY. None whatsoever that I have found out.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, in view of that statement it is satisfactory to me.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we ought to bring the bills out together. Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you move the favorable report of the bill?

Mr. ANDRESEN. Yes."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Andresen has moved that we make a favorable report on H. R. 3821.

(The question was put and motion was agreed to, and the hearing was adjourned.)

X