STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISH, Annapolis, April 21, 1967. Mr. NED EVERETT, Counsel to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. EVERETT: In response to Mr. Dingell's letter of April 18 concerning hearings to be held on April 25, 26, and 27, 1967, I wish to advise the following: H.R. 480 by Mr. Dingell. The Department of Game and Inland Fish wholeheartedly supports H.R. 480 calling for an extension of 8 additional years in which funds may be appropriated for the acquisition of wetlands for the conservation of migratory waterfowl. H.R. 481 by Mr. Dingell. The Department of Game and Inland Fish also wholeheartedly endorses H.R. 481 which provides that no land contained in the national wildlife refuge system shall be sold, transferred for any other use, or otherwise disposed of without the approval of the Migratory Bird Commission. H.R. 482 by Mr. Dingell. The Department of Game and Inland Fish opposes H.R. 482 to require a hunting stamp for the taking of migratory birds other than waterfowl for the simple reason that this is probing further into departments' monetary sources. We wish to call to your attention the statements by the International Association of Game and Fish Commissioners presented before Congressman Hansen's subcommittee, at which time funding by direct appropriation was requested. Our neighbor to the north of us, New Jersey, has a license specifically for woodcock, and there would be a duplication of license fees if H.R. 482 were enacted. We firmly believe the appropriation requested before Mrs. Hansen's special committee will adequatley suffice. Respectfully submitted, GEORGE B. SHIELDS, Director. TENNESSEE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, Re H.R. 480 by Dingell. Mr. NED EVERETT, Counsel, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The State of Tennessee would like for the following statement to appear in the Dingell transactions at the Subcommittee hearing on Fisheries and Wildlife to be held April 25, 26 and 27, 1967. This State is in complete accord with Mr. Dingell's recommendation that the acquisition of wetlands for the conservation of migratory waterfowl be extended for an additional eight years. We are losing wetlands at an alarmingly rapid rate. Our State is having an estimated loss of 80,000 acres per year of valuable wildlife habitat. Other states are having a like loss and over much of our duck nesting portion of the United States, the loss is even greater. Once these areas have been destroyed, they can never be replaced and the sport of duck hunting will have passed by the wayside. We urge all concerned to support this measure. We have thoroughly checked H.R. 481, 482, 490 and 497, all relating to the protection and propagation of an outdoor recreation that we feel will require these Acts for further maintenance and for the very existence of a very valuable fauna of the United States and the recreation for a multitude of our people. We hereby urge their support in every way possible. Sincerely, FRED W. STANBERRY, Director, Tennessee Game and Fish Commission. STATE OF KANSAS FORESTRY, FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention of Mr. Ned Everett, counsel to subcommittee). DEAR SIR: Thank you for notifying me in your memorandum of April 18 regarding various fills effecting the conservation of wildlife and wetland areas, and a hearing concerning these bills on April 25 to 27. I would like to take this opportunity to express my opinion and the opinion of the majority of the sportsmen of the State concerning H.R. 482. Although I am a strong believer that users of the various resources should be the ones who are responsible for the maintenance rather than taking it from the general tax source of all the people; however, in this case I feel that adding other migratory birds of minor species to the waterfowl stamp is unnecessary and unwarranted. The various states are at this time carrying the bulk of the work regarding these minor species and of course a great deal of the work on migratory waterfowl. For that reason we are opposed to adding this stamp for the hunting of nonwaterfowl game birds. If and when the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife shows a real desire and interest in doing more basic work on mourning doves, rail, woodcock and other minor species, I am sure we will take another look in this State. One other basic philosophy that concerns many of the sportsmen is the possibility that the next step would be a federal hunting license to hunt birds under the jurisdiction of the federal government and to hunt many game birds or animals on federal lands; therefore, for a number of reasons including the ones enumerated above, we are not in favor of the passage of H.R. 482. We appreciate this opportunity to present this statement for your Committee Hearings. Yours truly, GEORGE C. MOORE, Director. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Chairman, Subcommittee of Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DINGELL: It is my understanding that hearings are scheduled on H.R. 480 by the House Subcommittee of Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation this week. The Mississippi Flyway Council and the Missouri Department of Conservation strongly support this bill, which would extend for an additional eight years the wetlands acquisition program. Regardless of the conservation efforts of states in the middle and southern parts of the Flyway, the future of waterfowl hunting is dependent on good annual production. The best means of assuring such production within the continental limits of the United States is to continue the program of acquiring and preserving the wetland habitat which is essential for duck nesting. We consider H.R. 480 to be in the best interest of Missouri and the Mississippi Flyway and we urge its favorable consideration by the Subcommittee and early enactment by the Congress. Sincerely, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL: The Colorado River Wildlife Council, composed of the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wy oming, and Utah, was organized explicitly to conserve and perpetuate the wildlife resources of the Colorado River drainage. The Council further points a coordinated approach to the fish and wildlife management of this large and productive wildlife area. Enclosed is a resolution adopted by the Colorado River Wildlife Council at their annual meeting on March 27-28 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Council was deeply concerned with the subject of this resolution and sincerely hopes you will be able to react favorably to this resolution. Sincerely, DONALD ANDRIANO, Secretary, Colorado River Wildlife Council. RESOLUTION No. 2 (Time extension for wetlands acquisition under House Resolution 480 and Senate Resolution 1078) Whereas the time limit on wetlands acquisition under the current Federal Program is about to expire, and Whereas the Purchase on wetlands is of considerable importance to all the states and the Colorado River Wildlife Council for the future of the nation's waterfowl, and Whereas wetland areas are diminishing at an ever-increasing rate; thus, reducing the amount of available waterfowl habitat, Whereas Congress has not appropriated funds authorized under present Legislation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Colorado River Wildlife Council recommended to the President, Vice President and Congress of the United States that they give careful consideration to the role of acquiring wetlands for the protection and management of waterfowl by extending the time period for the acquisition of wetlands by passage of House Resolution 480 and Senate Resolution 1078; be it further Resolved, That this resolution be sent to appropriate senators and representatives and Subcommittee Chairman Representative Dingell. Mr. NED EVERETT, SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF GAME, FISH AND PARKS. Pierre, S. Dak., April 24, 1967. Counsel, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks endorses H.R. 480. We believe additional funds for acquisition of wetlands should be from appropriated funds and are strongly opposed to H.R. 482. Sincerely, R. A. HODGINS, Director. STATE OF MARYLAND BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Annapolis, March 20, 1967. Congressman EDWARD A. GARMATZ, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GARMATZ: I would like to endorse wholeheartedly H.R. 480, Honorable John D. Dingell's bill on wetlands preservation which is currently in committee. Hoping that you will support this bill and with best wishes, I am Sincerely, ROY E. WALSH, Chairman. WASHINGTON STATE SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL, INC., Representative JOHN DINGELL, House of Representatives, DEAR SIR: The Washington State Sportsmen's Council passed a resolution in December of 1966 regarding the Wetlands Loan Act of 1961, and voted for its extension. May we take this opportunity of offering our support for your bill HR-480. Sincerely, ADAH WERKEMA, National Affairs Committee, 3rd Congressional District. THE STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, Mr. EDWARD A. GARMATZ: DEAR CONGRESSMAN GARMATZ: The Pacific Flyway Council is on record as favoring the passage of H.R. 480 relating to the extension of the period of time for acquisition of wetlands for waterfowl for an additional eight years. This would amend the Act of October 4, 1961 and would allow a period of 15 years to complete the acquisition of wetlands rather than the original seven years. This was discussed recently at the Pacific Flyway Council meeting in San Francisco, and the member states were unanimously in support of this legislation. Very truly yours, JOHN E. PHELPS, Director. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, April 27, 1967. Representative JOHN D. DINGELL, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Washington, D.C.: We are in full support of H.R. 480, 481, 490, and 497. Now in open hearings before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation respectfully urge every effort toward passage of these bills. Strongly oppose any favorable consideration of H.R. 482 also presently before committee. Statement for record to follow. JOHN E. PHELPS, Director, Utah State Fish and Game Department. THE STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, DEAR MR. DINGELL: The following statement confirms and explains our position concerning the five House bills relating to migratory birds and wetlands; namely, H.R. 480, 481, 482, 490, and 497. In earlier correspondence and/or wires, your support was solicited for all but one of the five, that one being H.R. 482, which proposes to increase the price of the stamps for taking migratory waterfowl and to require a new stamp for hunting other migratory birds. Our primary opposition to H.R. 482 has been documented to the Congress by the Western Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, and other such major organizations vitally interested in the Nation's migratory bird management program. Here in Utah there is currently a decided resistance by our recreating public to the increase in old or establishment of more new federal fees for recreation. The most often expressed concern is that those who fish and hunt will eventually "be priced out of these recreational pursuits." Expressions of such feelings first occurred here in 1959 after the price of the federal migratory waterfowl stamp had ben increased from $2 to $3. Opposition to this increased fee had a very serious and adverse effect upon our unsuccessful efforts to gain a much needed increase for state licenses from which this department is funded. Further, a drop out of some 40 percent of the waterfowl hunters in Utah was coincident with the stamp increase of 1958. Thus our management program was decidely crippled concerning this resource, and only during the last year have we approached again the number of hunters who were hunting our wetlands prior to the increase of 1958. Any new stamp to include the hunting of doves would only reduce the number of hunters here in Utah where we are now harvesting but a minor portion of the yearly increase of this species. Certainly we are not opposed to increased funding for neded migratory waterfowl programs when that need is demonstrated. We do not believe this is the case at present. If and when it is, there are many other sources to pursue before prices for the present migratory waterfowl stamp are increased or new stamps approved. Merits of the other four bills are self-evident, with H.R. 480 being of highest priority since it would extend for eight years the program to acquire much needed wetlands and the appropriation of funds for this acquisition. The other three bills are important "housekeeping" measures which, as companion bills to H.R. 840, will update and make more workable the Migratory Bird Conservation act. Once again, our thanks for your interest and support in this resource management program. Should you have any questions about these foregoing or other current legislative matters please let us know. Sincerely, JOHN E. PHELPS, Director. SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, GENTLEMEN: As Director of the Division of Game of the State of South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department, and as a representative of said State, I was very much in favor of the original "Wetlands Loan Act" (75 Stat. 813). The State of South Carolina has both directly and indirectly benefitted from the accelerated wetlands acquisition program and we realize the necessity for the passage of H.R. 480 (Wetlands Extension Act). In order to perpetuate the wildlife resource of this State, particularly migratory birds, and to benefit this resource in all States, I recommend the passage of H.R. 480. Sincerely yours, JAMES W. WEBB, Director. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME, DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: The Washington State Game Commission, the Washington State Department of Game, and I am most confident, the many thousands of sportsmen and persons interested in wildlife in the State of Washington, without qualification endorse and support your proposal, H.R. 480, to extend the term of the Wetlands Loan Act of 1961. We have several major waterfowl refuges in the State of Washington, where land acquisition has not as yet been completed for the reason that monies, in sufficient quantities to do this, have not been available. The extension of the Wetlands Loan Act would do much to assure completion of these refuges. |