public of an opportunity for maximum recreation at a time when
recreation is clearly one of our greatest needs.

Utah, as well as the other States, has established an organization for
statewide coverage of the problems and needs of fish and wildlife. We
have acquired trained and experienced biologists, law enforcement per-
sonnel, administrators, information and education specialists, conser-
vation officers, and the entire range of related and supporting person-
nel to do the job. We believe that our standards are extraordinarily
high in the training, education, and experience which we require for
the personnel we now employ to meet not only the present day scien-
tific problems, but also in meeting with the public, and explaining
to them the importance of the programs which we have underway.
Time does not permit me to develop and to explain these various
programs for the improvement and betterment of the wildlife re-
sources, but I can honestly say that they are extensive, well organized,
and progressive, and calculated to permit us to keep pace with the
problems we recognize we have at hand.

The recent experiences which have caused this bill to come before this committee have highlighted a basic problem where the United States, in the management and protection of Federal lands, has attempted also to manage and regulate the fish and wildlife on such lands, with particular emphasis on big game animals. The States have no quarrel with the right of the United States to manage and protect its lands, because we recognize that the United States has such a right both by constitutional and statutory provisions. But we do have a quarrel with the United States when it goes beyond the management of its lands and attempts to manage the game on Federal lands, thereby usurping the responsibilities of the States and often suggesting programs and actions which conflict with and would frustrate State programs for the management of such game. If the States were to attempt to manage the Federal lands under the guise of managing game, then the position of the States would be as untenable as an attempt by the United States to manage game under the guise of managing its lands.

The answer to this problem seems to me to be obvious and rather simple. The United States should manage and protect its lands. The States should manage and protect the fish and wildlife within the respective States whether situated on private lands, State lands, or Federal lands. The proposition that private persons should manage the game on private lands, that the States should manage the game on State lands, and that the Federal Government should manage the game on Federal lands, even if it were legally possible, would obviously be unworkable. Such a program reaches the point of absolute absurdity when it is recognized that, at least in the public land areas, where State school sections are checkerboarded across the entire State, game would be on a State school section one moment, and on forest land or Bureau of Land Management property the next moment.

But, as I stated before, the correct approach to this problem is relatively simple, and the bill before this committee today provides the guidelines for the most desirable solution. That is one whereby the State conservation officials, equipped and trained for their job, manage the fish and wildlife resources; and the Federal conservation officials, equipped and trained for their jobs, manage and protect the Federal lands. There is no reason why the Federal and State officials cannot

hand in hand where they have common interests so that the ers of the public who are citizens of the respective States as well he United States, may enjoy the great natural resources which tion has to offer.

ainly we cannot expect the public to become wrapped in red tape
ticulously identifying and separating State ownership from Fed-
wnership, as to whether they are seeking to hunt, fish, camp,
sightsee, or pursue other such recreational activities. They must
itled to enjoy these benefits under a program where all levels of
ment, not only State and Federal, but counties, cities, and other
linate political subdivisions work in harmony to develop all of
tural attractions, facilities, and resources toward the maximum
tion and potential which now exists.

o not say that there would not be additional conflicts and prob-
between State and Federal officials even if the proposed bill is
d, but I do say that any such conflicts would be far fewer, and
he major source of contention would be substantially eliminated.
her am enough of an optimist to believe that any problems which
develop from time to time could be solved by a mature, rational,
faith effort between the State and Federal officials involved. By
l effort, they could work out any such problems that might de-
I wish to emphasize that I have great respect and high regard
ost Federal conservation officials with whom I have had the
re of working, and I hope that this respect is reciprocated.
refore, I very strongly endorse the proposed legislation, and
mend to this committee that it be reported out favorably. I am
hat the other 49 States join Utah in urging Congress to bring
an early solution to the conflicts at hand, so that the public,
real beneficiaries of the resources we are talking about can enjoy
imum utilization of these critically important resources.
ator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Phelps, for that very fine statement.
ere discussing earlier the difference between the relationship
ps between the Interior Department agencies and the Forest
ce which is part of the Department of Agriculture. I assume
has a cooperative agreement worked out with the Forest Service
me as the other States. Is that working effectively here?
PHELPS. Yes.

ator Moss. Have you had any instances of trouble that were not
ed out? I am sure you must have had some disagreement.

PHELPS. We have had disagreement and, with their efforts and fforts, we have been able to solve them before they became

ator Moss. So the creating of the Flaming Gorge Recreation Area tute whereby it was all put under the Forest Service really re1 the problem pretty well as far as that area was concerned, is

orrect?

PHELPS. Yes.

Mr. PHELPS. No, sir: it is strictly a State resource. And we do acquire some fish from the Fish and Wildlife Service, but it is managed by the

fish and game.

Senator Moss. I see. And was there hunting in the recreation area this fall for big game?

Mr. PHELPS. Yes, sir.

Senator Moss. With any success?

Mr. PHELPS. Yes, sir.

Senator Moss. That is fine. I hunted up there before it became a recreation area. I just wanted to know if it was spoiled or not.

Mr. PHELPS. I was particularly pleased that you got your deer, too.
Senator Moss. Yes, I got a good one, too.

Well, I know that in general we have had very fine cooperation between our Federal agencies and our State Fish and Game Department here in Utah, and our purpose in trying to make this record is to make sure that we always have a good relationship and we avoid conflicts that can lead to difficulties on either side. And I think all of us are much concerned that we continue to have the great recreational value there is in having fish and game and out of doors experience in that regard. Here in Utah we become so carried away with the deer hunt, I think some of our little towns just close down during the deer season and everybody goes out to the mountains and I think that is great. Thank you very much, Mr. Phelps.

I did want to make reference to the fact that Mr. Phelps has done an extra good job in helping to get the other directors in from other States and in helping to coordinate this hearing which gives us the opportunity of reaching so many of our Western States, in fact, practically all of them, and making this record at this time.

As was pointed out earlier by Senator Bennett, the legislation itself will cease to exist now with this Congress, and therefore another bill will have to be introduced, but while this calendar year goes on we can complete the record and we can have most all of our work done when we start on whatever new bill we take for the next session of the Congress, and that is the reason we are taking the time now to complete these hearings.

We will now ask Mr. Robert L. Jones, the Deputy Director of the California State Game and Fish Commission, if he will come forward and testify for us.

We are happy to have you, Mr. Jones. Do you have a map that goes with your statement?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mr. JONES. Yes; we have a map also.

Senator Moss and guests: I am Robert L. Jones, deputy director of the California Department of Fish and Game. I am appearing on behalf of our director, Walter T. Thannon, who as immediate past president of the International Association of Game, Fish & Conservation Commissioners has been closely involved in discussions among the States and with Federal agencies on the subject matter before you.

California welcomes this opportunity to present our views on the bills relating to the authority of the State to control, regulate, and manage fish and wildlife within their territorial boundaries.

measures before you, S. 2591 and S. 3212, are addressed to a
that has been with us throughout most of this century in the
States, but which actually has been of concern from the earliest
the English common law, when the king claimed ownership
ildlife resources of the land. bo to noze J9T
problem has been somewhat oversimplified as being one of
rights or States' authority, but we view it as one of reaffirming
tional responsibility as well as a right. And we believe the
have made a good record in discharging their traditional re-
ilities to manage the fish and resident wildlife within their
ries.
976 niemer bloda di voiled on bits arresidio
rnor Ronald Reagan and the California Fish and Game Com-
, which provides policy direction for the Department of Fish
me, are both on record as supporting the measures before you
er legislation with the same purpose. batallos ved 2012 out
purpose is to settle recurring disputes like the one now in
on between the State of New Mexico and the National Park
. It is to reaffirm the traditional role of the States as managers
resident wildlife on Federal lands and other lands within the

ornia shares with the other Western States a particular con-
er the 1964 opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of the
r which asserts exclusive Federal jurisdiction over fish and
t wildlife on federally owned lands. The Federal Government
ore than 45 percent of the land in California and even greater
Es in many of the other Western States. These Federal lands are
unposted and intermingled with State and private lands. I have
t with me one of the excellent resource and recreation maps
ed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, covering the
ille area of California. The map illustrates my point of inter-
d and confusing land ownership far better than words can.
relatively limited area in northeastern California contains
nd private lands shown in white-and lands owned by four
e Federal agencies the Department of the Army, National
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service.1109
ions of checkerboard patterns, where alternate sections are
ly and privately owned, can be seen in the lower left-hand
Above this there are scattered parcels of public domain inter-
d with large areas in private and State ownership. of iT.
Federal claim to jurisdiction over fish and resident wildlife
pheld, our citizens and those of other States would be com-
confused by the conflict between State and Federal laws and
tions, particularly since each Federal agency is virtually cer-
promulgate its own regulations independently of the other.
next logical step by the Federal agencies would be to require
g and fishing licenses on Federal lands. Such an action would
pt most State conservation agencies, and seriously disrupt if
stroy wildlife and fishery protection and management programs.
present time, most fish and wildlife conservation in this coun-
being carried on by the States. This job includes all of the
-ies of the State game department, not the least of which is its
fe protection activities; its warden force. California employs
ildlife protection officers and supervisors alone to protect these

ces.

ES/

BRAN

BRAT

४

In California, approximately 85 percent of the revenue to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund is from the sale of licenses, stamps, and tags for hunting and fishing.

Were Federal agencies to assume this task, we could also expect a great expansion of the Federal Government's activities and expenditures in this field.

We fully recognize that Federal agencies have the rights of any landowner in the matter of access and managing his land; however, the responsibility to manage and regulate fish and resident wildlife resources traditionally has been with the States as trustees for their citizens, and we believe it should remain there.

There are several legal precedents for the present system whereby the Federal agencies manage public lands and the States manage the wildlife. We believe one of the most important ones is that historically the States have collected license fees from the hunter and fisherman for doing this job of management and control.

The largest single landowner in California is the U.S. Forest Service, with close to 20 million acres. I believe the following list of Federal lands will help the committee to see the problem:

1. U.S. Forest Service....

2. U.S. Bureau of Land Management_
3. U.S. Department of Defense---
4. U.S. National Park Service____
5. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation___
6. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs__
7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service_
8. Miscellaneous Federal agencies---

Total U.S. agencies--

Acres

19, 970, 000 14, 970, 000 4,320, 000 4,061, 000 1, 105, 000 545, 000 80,000 24, 000

45,075, 000

Approximately 77 percent of this land, including all lands owned by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, are open to hunting. All Federal lands except those of the Department of Defense, or about 92 percent of the Federal land total, is open to fishing. I think you can readily see that a shift to Federal ownership and control of fish and resident wildlife resources would be a pattern for confusion in California, not just for the hunter, fisherman, and other recreationist, but also for the management agencies.

I think that summarizes the situation in California relative to ownership and management of the land.

Turning to specific problems, we have had only one potential major difference with a Federal agency over management of wildlife on Federal lands. As in the New Mexico case, it involved the National Park Service. A jurisdictional problem developed in October, November, and December of 1967, when the Park Service planned a research project on the Joshua Tree National Monument to trap and tag bighorn sheep. The plan was to capture animals with the use of drugs within the monument area.

The bighorn sheep in California is a fully protected animal under the California Fish and Game code. The Department of Fish and Game informed the Park Service of the legal status of the bighorn, and informed them that it would only be possible to take the animals legally with the Park Service acting as the agent of the Department. The Park Service declined to proceed under these conditions.