RA. BRA CON IBRA LIBR ONG RESOLUTION Whereas by law, history and tradition in the United States the ownership of wildlife has been separated from ownership of land, and Whereas fish and wildlife belong to all the people and are held in trust by the several sovereign states, and Whereas a solicitor in the U.S. Department of the Interior issued an opinion December 1, 1964, which challenged this tradition by stating in effect that the Federal Government has authority superior to that of the states in managing and regulating all fish and wildlife on Federal lands, and Whereas the states do not desire to change the present status of certain laws and concepts which have to do with international treaties, rare and endangered species, the Bald Eagle Act, rights of certain Indians and natives of Alaska, control of wildlife on land ceded by the states to the United States, and Federal responsibility for habitat development on Federal lands; it is, therefore, Resolved, by the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission that the Congress be urged to pass legislation reaffirming the states' rights to manage, regulate and control fish and resident wildlife on all lands, including those owned by the Federal Government with the above-mentioned exceptions. Dated this 6th day of May 1968. Chairman Moss. Thank you, Mr. Copelin. And thank you for touching on the philosophical legal bases that underlie this generally. That is, that the ownership or right of management of wildlife is not tied to the land, and that under our basic concept of the law, it is the landowner who has no right to manage the wildlife on his land. He can manage his own land. He can make it so no one can trespass on it. For instance, or to that extent, he has control but he may not in contravention of the State law kill wildlife out of season or permit some people to enter and others not to enter and things of that sort. Because the management and control of wildlife is held in trust by and for all of the people and must be uniformly managed in accordance with the State law, and your touching on that, of course, this is developed more fully by other witnesses, but basically this is where we get into the problem. One of the other factors that you touched on and is part of the problem, is that with the decline of predators. Our species of game, many species of game become so numerous that if there isn't some means of keeping the herd within limits, that they are going to destroy themselves by overgrazing the range, starvation resulting and so on, and, therefore, there is a real problem of management that the States generally try to tie in with the recreation phase of permitting hunting limited to certain times and certain amounts, so that it is beneficial to the herd rather than destructive of the herd to have the hunting. Now, this is part of what the States are concerned with, is that right? Mr. COPELIN. Yes, sir; there have been some changing needs in our State, where the Bureau has been removing elk out of the Wichitas, for example, for more than 40 years and it has been needed and is still needed. However, a place to hunt has become the No. 1 problem in our State, because as I indicated earlier most of our land is privately owned and we can help to solve this problem by buying more land. In fact, we could do it with about $800 million probably, but this is not necessary or desirable in our case since we feel it is better to satisfy this need on existing public lands to the extent that this can be done. Chairman Moss. Thank you; we appreciate it very much, and glad to have had your testimony. S. H. Dubon of the Florida Wildlife Federation, Mr. Dubon, we py to have you, sir, and you are going to submit a resolution? EMENT BY S. H. DUBON, FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION DUBON. That is right, Mr. Chairman. I am representing the a Wildlife Federation. And I would like to read a short resoluat was passed at our September annual meeting in Miami Beach. presenting and speaking in behalf of the Florida Wildlife Fedan affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. Il make my statement brief. The Florida Wildlife Federation ently opposes the granting of authority to the Federal GovernO manage and regulate the resident wildlife on federally owned believing that the Federal Government should be treated like er landowner. versely, the Florida Wildlife Federation firmly endorses the ents of the International Association of Game & Fish Comhers, the Southeastern Association of Game & Fish Commisand the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Florida Wildlife Federation fervently urges the passage of bills 2951 and 3212 or similar legislation, in order to clearly sh by the law the vestiture in the States of the sole authority to 1, regulate, and manage fish and wildlife within their territorial ries. nk you for the opportunity of presenting the views of the Florida fe Federation before your committee. , I have one or two observations that I would like to make. One is we have a good game and fresh water fishing commission. We Mr. Melvin Finn, of the Audubon Society, here, the Tropical MELVIN FINN. Yes, sir. irman Moss. You may proceed, Mr. Finn. ATEMENT BY MELVIN FINN, TROPICAL AUDUBON SOCIETY FINN. Senator, my name is Melvin Finn. I am an attorney and ative chairman of the Tropical Audubon Society, and I would o read a message from the president, Dr. Owre, which will be d into the record. THE ONG IBR BR CO RA Senator Moss. You may proceed. Mr. FINN (reading). DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We are opposed to the so-called states' rights wildlife bills for reasons both philosophical and practical. We do not believe the National Park Service should have to seek the permission of any state agency to carry out wildlife management programs so long as those programs do not include hunting. We believe enactment of S. 2951 and S. 3212 would seriously weaken the federal government's ability to protect National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges from experimental and often unwise management policies advocated by many state wildlife agencies. Here in Florida, the intrusion of state game management policies into Everglades National Park would be an ecological disaster. The state is introducing exotic fish, birds and mammals into state managed areas near the park. The Department of Interior has a mandate to preserve Everglades National Park as a natural area. If the proposals before this committee were to become law, the Department of the Interior would have to get state permission to rid the park of exotic antelopes, bass, ducks, giraffes or whatever else might cross into the park from the state managed zoo across the boundary line. We also fear the spirit in which these proposals would be interpreted should they become law. While the federal government supported by conservationists across America is trying to protect the American alligator, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Director proposes to give hunting licenses to alligator poachers. And when the state decided that two crocodiles living near Everglades National Park might be a potential threat to pet dogs on Key Largo, officers of the state shot and killed the crocodiles rather than giving the park an opportunity to remove the rare animals to a more remote location. The Tropical Audubon Society is strongly opposed to S. 2951 and S. 3212. We ask you to defeat this dangerous and unnecessary legislation. Dr. OSCAR T. OWRE, President. As I say, this is a message that I would like to enter into the record, Mr. FINN. Traditionally, I believe this is true throughout the United Of course, sometimes there are occasions in the situation, for example, of the elk in the Grand Teton and other situations, where there is such a situation or where there is a lack of predatation, creating problems where the surplus would have to be controlled or removed. But by and large, I think the present policy where the national parks are inviolative and wildlife refuges are there for the preservation of wildlife, inviolate areas where the hunting would not be the primary concern, would be very important to the American people; and I can envision the situation where the State-controlled wildlife in our national parks would hold sway, and where it would be difficult for a person who wanted to enjoy the wildlife, not from the standpoint of hunting alone, but who would not have the occasion to even see wildlife. Because wildlife traditionally becomes spooky when they are hunted, and most of the national parks in this light, more especially the chief feature of these parks being that you can go into them and see wildlife sted and they are very tame in the sense that they are not of you, and they become easily accessible to the people who o enjoy them just to know that they are living along with the of the country. cerely believe that these parks, especially national parks and e refuges should have their own policies. These parks are te traditionally. They were set up as inviolate areas and to have control for hunting and the like would certainly defeat the y policy of this type of preserve. nk you very much. rman Moss. Well, thank you, Mr. Finn. I should point out that islation that we are discussing does exclude those areas that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, which is the on with the national parks generally, but there are areas of overere there is Federal ownership and management of lands and some hunting and fishing is permitted and the question is who ve the jurisdiction to manage that resident fishing and wildlife. are glad to have your point of view and it will be in the record will be studied along with the others, and this is a matter on there are two or more sides. Thank you. FINN. Thank you, sir. irman Moss. Is Dr. Flora here, is that the right name? JOHN POPENOE. That should be Dr. John Popenoe, sir, and I ent the Florida Audubon Society. irman Moss. All right, Dr. Popenoe, glad to have you with us, u may proceed, sir. MENT BY DR. JOHN POPENOE, FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY POPENOE. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Florida Audubon y, a society of some 10,000 members in the State who are all very ned with conservation, and I would like to read this very brief irman Moss. You may proceed in any manner you wish. POPENOE (reading). The Florida Audubon Society welcomes pportunity to express its views on bills S. 2951 and S. 3212 or legislation intended to clarify responsibility over wildlife and the national parks, monuments, and wildlife refuges within the 1 States. 1ough our society was one of the original supporters of a Florida and fish commission and feels that our present State commission not take unfair advantage of provisions in these bills that could unting and fishing on Federal lands in Florida, we feel that bills are basically undesirable and unnecessary in view of the statement issued by the Department of the Interior on June 18, are especially concerned with ways in which these bills would legislation and laws protecting or providing for research of rare dangered species of native wildlife, including eagles, alligators, liles, panthers, sandhill cranes, and so forth, which deserve the gest protection policies such as we feel can best be afforded under al control. Overpopulation control and collecting for research purposes are frequently undertaken by Federal personnel as part of management and research programs and notice of these activities should properly be made to State game authorities. However, we feel that cooperation between Federal and State authorities can be carried on through policy statements, such as issued by the Secretary of Interior, and no specific legislation is needed at this time. Chairman Moss. Thank you. Do you have a comment on this statement that was made about the degree of permanency if you have it written legislatively and the degree of permanency of a policy statement made by an administrator like the Secretary and the Department of the Interior. Of course, nothing is fully permanent, because later Congress could always repeal what a former Congress has done, but between the two it seems to me a congressional policy is a great deal more permanent at least than is a statement by an administrator. Dr. POPENOE. Well, either is subject to being changed in the future, if the situation occurs. But our whole national park system is based on this policy of conservation and preserving the ecology of the area, and I can't foresee that anyone could change the basic policy of this. If anyone did, of course, we would be prepared to do whatever necessary to see to it that the basic policy is maintained. I don't know that the legislative policy would be more effective. Perhaps if it were put into legislation this policy of the national park system, it might be more effective. Chairman Moss. You feel the present orientation of the Department is more toward the type of conservation that you support than the congressional legislative policy might be? Dr. POPENOE. Not necessarily, but I feel that the State authority Chairman Moss. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Popenoe. We are Mrs. JOHN K. HOWARD, Ridge Audubon Society. Mr. Chairman, I STATEMENT BY MRS. JOHN K. HOWARD, RIDGE AUDUBON Mrs. HOWARD (reading). I am Mrs. John K. Howard representing On November 11, our board of directors voted unanimously to go on record at this hearing as being opposed to S. 2951 and S. 3212 and similar bills which would grant the States authority over wildlife on Federal lands. R. ง |