If the authority of the States to issue licenses for hunting and fishing is limited because ownership of fish and resident wildlife is determined on the basis of land ownership, it is certain that the resulting loss of license revenue would seriously impair the ability of the State conservation agencies to continue the extensive and highly successful wildlife management programs now prevalent throughout the States. By law, history and centuries of tradition, the ownership of wildlife has been separated from ownership of the land. We feel this concept must be preserved to assure the proper management of the wildlife resources of the Nation. In the nine major Western States, the U.S. Government owns approximately 70 percent of the total land acreage and the States own about 1 percent. The annual revenue to these States for hunting licenses is in excess of $22 million and the sale of State fishing licenses more than $14 million each year. Nearly 80 percent of the total hunting effort and 60 to 70 percent of the fishing effort occurs on Federal lands. No longer is it idle speculation that the State licensing system might be supplanted by a Federal licensing requirement. This would virtually eliminate State conservation agencies as effective resource management entities as the loss in State revenue would be proportionate to hunting and fishing effort on Federal lands. Equally important is the confusion that would result if the Federal Government should decide to require licenses and establish regulations for the taking of wildlife on Federal lands which would be different from those of the States. Most Federal lands in the States are intermixed with private and other lands, creating a complete pattern of land ownership. This pattern causes the elimination of uniformity of wildlife management practices and increases the complexity of wildlife law enforcement rather than simplifying it. This association has long sought to resolve the controversy of State jurisdiction over fish and resident wildlife through negotiations with the Secretary of the Interior. Since the issuance of the Solicitor's opinion in 1964 and the recent action of the National Park Service in New Mexico, the association has necessarily had to increase its efforts to secure a congressional declaration. Congress, by defining the role of the Federal Government, and by recognizing State jurisdiction, can put an end to this controversy. The taking of deer without compliance with State law in Carlsbad Caverns National Park, N. Mex., is but one of numerous cases which could be cited where State and Federal officials have disagreed over the regulation and management of resident wildlife. Also, in spite of the Secretary's new policy statement, a new controversy is developing over the harvest of elk and buffalo in the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma. At issue is the difference between the State and Federal Governments about the meaning of the word "concurrence," and at the present time this controversy has not been solved. This association fully recognizes the traditional right of the landowner to manage his land. We also recognize that the Federal Government has the same right as any other landowner. We do, however, affirm that neither Federal land managing agencies nor any other landowner can preempt or negate State authority to regulate fish and resident wildlife. The international association firmly believes that the pending legislation will not affect existing Federal authority. We have specifically documented our intent in Resolution No. 1 adopted by the association September 13, 1968, and attached as a part of this statement. I might say at this point on the matter of Indian rights, it is not We believe this legislation will resolve the basic issues in the con- And we certainly agree that using these two bills as a base and using We would hope that the Secetary of the Interior would join with us, and we have asked him on previous occasions to join with us in drafting a bill that could be reasonable and could resolve this problem for all of us. And we are certainly ready at this point to do this. I would like to point out at this time that the association is not trying to challenge the question of hunting in national parks. We think-perhaps differently from the National Park Service we think there is a better way to manage the big game in the national parks than is presently being handled, but our efforts in this legislation are not directed toward the national parks, and we recognize that it is the present policy that there will not be hunting in the national parks and we don't want this issue to cloud our purpose as far as the legislation is concerned. We are concerned about lands other than the national parks, primarily. We could be concerned about the national parks in any case where there is a large effort to extend the national park system wherein present areas that are open to hunting and fishing would be taken into the national park system and further closed to hunting and fishing from then on. We believe that a declaration of national policy by Congress will provide the basis upon which goals, policies, and plans can be defined and action programs implemented for the protection of the American heritage of wildlife. By eliminating competition between governmental entities and encouraging a partnership between state and Federal conservation agencies, Congress will receive the acclaim and support of the outdoor recreation public. I would say here that it appears to me that Congress is in some way in the position of an executive running an organization, whether the organization consists of five people or 500 people, the executive is responsible for telling everyone what their job is. I think that Congress: could do a great service here by defining the role of the Federal Government and defining the role of the State government in this field. By so doing, we could move forward in an enlightened program of State and Federal cooperation in the field of wildlife management. Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today also representing the Colorado Division of Game, Fish, and Parks, and I will make just a few comments here related to our position. I would like to point out to you 1 that Colorado has reviewed its historic role with respect to the ownership and administration of resident wildlife. And in 1899 acknowledged a common law ownership of game and fish by the State by providing, "All game and fish within this State are hereby declared to be property of the State." The State supreme court affirmed and expanded this statutory declaration. The philosophy of Federal control of resident wildlife is inconsistent with other Federal programs. Initially, Federal intervention into the field of fish and wildlife management was welcomed as a sincere gesture of the Federal Government to help the States to conserve these resources; however, Federal involvement in fish and wildlife management has taken on a different aspect which has the connotation of a Federal takeover. Wildlife management investigations, studies, and projects are conducted on federally owned lands by the States and are largely financed from license revenues. Here again the cost is borne by the license holders. We believe that fish and game management can only progress through the State control of fish and wildlife, aided by the sincere efforts of the Federal Government. We are firmly convinced that each of the States has the knowledge and commensurate desire for this. If the Federal Government is allowed to make continued encroachments upon the States' authority to manage and regulate resident species of wildlife, it would be granted control where it is neither needed nor desired. Mr. Chairman, I brought some maps here today that are on the desk before you, and I would call your attention very briefly to three of them. First the yellow map which is the statewide map of the State of Colorado, which shows the general status of private lands, public domain, and the national forest lands, within our State. This indicates to you the checkerboard pattern and the broad expanse of Federal lands there. There is about 35 percent of Colorado that is in Federal lands. Then I would like to have you compare this map to the black folder here and the map that is entitled "the 1968 Colorado Big Game Season Information." If you will open that map, you will see that our game management unit boundaries are not based on landownership. They are based on topography and terrain and the needs of the wildlife species. You will notice that they cover private lands, they cover national park areas, they cover Indian reservations, they cover national forests, and they cover public domain. I think this points out quite vividly the need for unified wildlife management on all lands. It would be a virtual impossibility or an impracticability to try to consider any system wherein wildlife management is based upon landownership, and we think that by having this organized on a statewide basis, this is the only way to accomplish the purpose. I would call your attention also to the blue map which is a selected area in Colorado. This map was published in cooperation between the game fish and parks division within the State of Colorado and the fish and game management, this gets down to where you can see the school areas, the State fish and park lands, you see the private lands, you see the national forests, you see the roads leading to these and this gives you the further idea of the very complexity of this whole area of wildlife management. I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of all of our testimony here, and I am sure the other directors will support me in this, that we have had cordial relations with the Secretary of the Interior and with the field operations with the people in his Department. The basic disagreement here is one that we both recognize, a disagreement of philosophy and policy and it is one that, as we have pointed out to you, we would like to have Congress resolve. We think that here again that you have the various governmental entities reporting to you in one way or another, and we think that it is important that you give us guidance, give us the means by which we can sit down and work out our long-range programs and that the Nation will be better off for it. Thank you for this opportunity to present this statement Mr. Chair man. Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Woodward. And, as I indicated, the full statements will appear in the record. I notice appended to your original statement is the resolution that was adopted by the international association in Tucson on September 13. I was glad to note that there is an affirmative statement that the international association does not intend to proceed to affect any policy statement made by the Congress in matters relating to an international treaty regarding migratory birds the Rare and Endangered Species Act, the Bald Eagle Act, and the rights of the Indians and natives of Alaska, management of lands or control over wildlife species which have been ceded by any State to the United States, and Federal responsibility of conserving and developing fish and wildlife habitat on Federal lands. I think this probably gets by some of the concern of those who are Is that your understanding of the meaning of the resolution? Senator Moss. And your testimony also was that you had no desire or Mr. WOODWARD. This is correct. We are not attempting in this legislation to enter into that discussion at all. As I say, we disagree with the present management, but we are not attempting to try to resolve that in this legislation. Senator Moss. Does the national parks, in your testimony, include the national monuments and historic sites as well? Mr. WOODWARD. Yes, sir. me con wel wal not ΠΕ reg and reg rel wh Son tio WI sit bet he na cat Ga tes ST m re W re re F m I Co th CONG LIBRA E LIBR 221 or Moss. Because we have a policy also on the national monud historic sites. OODWARD. Right. or Moss. One of the witnesses who appeared earlier before this ee in Washington indicated his concern because he said you reat advocate of hunting in the national parks, and I simply to get this clarified for the record. Whether you are or not is oint. It is simply that you do not expect in this legislation that alking about to affect the present policy at all that obtains g national parks and monuments and historic sites. WOODWARD. This is true. I have spoken frequently suggesting esting that the Department of the Interior change its policy in the management of big game in the national parks, but as it o this legislation, we are not attempting to resolve this question ver. or Moss. I want to thank you, Mr. Woodward. I, too, have eas that vary a little on the management of game in the naarks, but, as I say, we are trying to make a record here that perfectly clear to the members of the commmittee when they to draw up or to amend any kind of legislation that may be S. OODWARD. Right. or Moss. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being we are delighted to know that all the directors of the interof the Western States have appeared or have come here indigreat interest in the matter before us. ext witness will be Robert A. Jantzen, director of the Arizona id Fish Department, from Phoenix. re very glad to have you, Mr. Jantzen. We will hear your y. ENT OF ROBERT A. JANTZEN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA GAME ANTZEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted copies of or Moss. That may be done. It will go in the record in full. that you have a map appended. Your map and the maps that bmitted by Mr. Woodward will be in the committee files for e so that we may understand the testimony more fully where it a map. ANTZEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. prepared statement of Mr. Jantzen is as follows:) STATEMENT OF THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT me is Robert A. Jantzen and I am a Director of the Arizona Game and partment. By Arizona Statute my responsibility as Director is to ad Arizona laws which deal with and relate to wildlife within the State. iate this opportunity to present the following statement before this e relative to Senate Bill 3212 which confirms historic state rights and diction of the states to regulate and manage the resident species of -308-69-pt. 2- -3 THE |