Chairman Moss. You are aware of course of the case that occurred in New Mexico at Carlsbad that largely brought this to a head. The situation on Wichita is somewhat similar to that then?

Dr. FRYE. Yes; sir, we think that there is in some instances a lack of communication. We have excellent working relations as I am concerned though with all areas of the Federal Government, but we simply believe that this extremely important area of jurisdiction should be resolved by something a little more firm than a simple policy state

ment.

Chairman Moss. Out in the western part of the country we, of course, have a great many national forests, large areas of national forests, and the Forest Service has in every instance I believe worked out an agreement with the State on the management of fish and wildlife and the experience seems to be that those are most successful.

I don't know to what extent you have forest lands here in Florida and whether your experience is similar to that or not?

Dr. FRYE. We have a million and a half acres and we have an excellent working relationship with the National Forest Service. They own the land, we control the game, we get together and set regulations, there is no problem.

Chairman Moss. There is the situation then where their problem is habitat and your problem is game?

Dr. FRYE. And regulation.

Chairman Moss. And you jointly get together?

Dr. FRYE. There is no problem, but again until the Solicitor's opinion came out, we thought that this was the way it was legally and this is the thing that has really gotten us concerned. We would not like to see a situation where any Federal agency would begin to regulate the taking of fish and game on national forests, for example, we feel that is a state responsibility.

Chairman Moss. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Frye.

Dr. FRYE. I want to make just one other general comment and this is in the area of communication of conservation oriented groups. Here in Florida we think we have a wonderful working relationship with practically all conservation groups, but somehow we don't always get together, and it disturbs me very much that I see within some of the differences that have come out here this morning not a thing in the world but a simple failure to try to understand each other's point of view.

The game departments where they are concerned are the sole authority insofar as the protection of all types of fish and wildlife go and it is sometimes a little bit disturbing when we do not see to get our message across.

I am not blaming anyone. It is just a fact of life and only points up to a greater effort perhaps on behalf of the State Game and Fish administration to communicate.

Chairman Moss. Well, thank you, and I think I must disagree with you on that. I am not aware of any fish and game commission whose interest is anything but to enhance and perhaps develop to the maximum the population that it has of resident fish and wildlife, so that any feeling that the States would manage to destroy the herd is certainly unfounded. Of course, fish and game have to have a degree of management, and if the herds are not kept in balance with their habi

habitats available to them, they are going to destroy themselves, have seen that in various parts of the Western United States. Kaibab herd of deer was the classic example about 25 or 30 go. All hunting and predators were largely eliminated up on ateau; the deer having no exit overgrazed its habitat and was ng to starve itself out. It required some degree of management ent that magnificent herd, which is a very distinctive and beauticies of deer different from others in that area, from destroying ithout proper control of the size of the herd.

here is something to the management of fish and game. Thank

r. Wallace here who also is from the Florida Game and Fresh Fish Commission. If you are, Mr. Wallace, we will be glad from you?

MENT BY H. E. WALLACE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FLORIDA
GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

H. E. WALLACE. Assistant director, Florida Game and Fresh
Fish Commission. Sir, I am not going to rehash this whole situa-
ut we will echo the sentiments of the other States.
irman Moss. Your full statement by the way will be in the record
am sure that Florida has been actively conferring with and col-
ting with the other State game and fish commissions and the
ational association, and what you are saying now is you think
hat they have already stated is essentially what you would say
enting Florida?

WALLACE. I have read the statement of the Salt Lake City hear-
nd they are a rehash of the same thing and we endorse the senti-
completely, and we urge the passage of these two bills.

irman Moss. Is your State game and fresh water fish commission re?

WALLACE. They are appointed by the Governor.

irman Moss. For staggered terms?

WALLACE. For 5 years; yes, sir.

irman Moss. And how large a commission is it? WALLACE. Five men.

airman Moss. Well, we do appreciate your coming to lend your and your support of the position taken by the other State fish and commissions, you pretty well hammered this thing out.

- WALLACE. We just have to do it and I think this statement I resent will reflect our views completely. We do endorse it, sir. airman Moss. Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace. And it will cluded in the record and we will show that you appeared here l us that.

WALLACE. We don't have the problem that the Western States ut we still have 10 percent of our land which is Federal lands. airman Moss. Ten percent in Florida?

Mr. WALLACE. And a good habitat, too, yes, sir.

Chairman Moss. My State comprises 7 percent of Federal lands

so you can see we do have a problem.

Mr. WALLACE. You have a big problem.
Chairman Moss. Thank you very much.

Mr. WALLACE. I think Dr. Frye has echoed our sentiments.
Chairman Moss. Very good, we are glad to have that, sir, thank
you, Mr. Wallace.

STATEMENT OF THE FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

I am H. E. Wallace, Assistant Director of the Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission. On behalf of this Commission I wish to express our sincere
appreciation for the opportunity of appearing before this Committee to discuss
Senate Bills 2951 and 3212 and to present this statement for the record.
The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission is a constitutional agency of
the State of Florida. Article IV, Section 30 of the Florida Constitution states
that "From and after January 1, 1943, the management, restoration, conserva-
tion, and regulation, of birds, game, fur-bearing mammals, and fresh water fish,
of the State of Florida, . . . shall be vested in a Commission to be known as
the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Among the powers granted to
the Commission . . . shall be the power to fix bag limits and to fix open and
closed seasons, on a state-wide, regional or local basis, as it may find to be
appropriate, and to regulate the manner and method of taking, transporting,
storing and using birds, game, fur-bearing animals, fresh-water fish, reptiles,
and amphibians."

Before the creation of the Commission as a constitutional body, with complete
jurisdiction over regulation and management of the State's wildlife resources,
there were dozens of local laws affecting game and fish. This vexing situation
resulted in the banding together of hunters and fishermen in protest of the
perplexing and incongruous laws interfering with the pursuit of their sport.
They complained about this continued proliferation, citing the eight general laws
and sixty local laws affecting game and fish. They pointed to the thirty-eight
countries which had local deer hunting seasons differing from that of the general
season. Multiple seasons applied to other game species as well.

Because of this groundswell by the people for uniform regulation and management of the wildlife resources by one public body the 1941 Florida Legislature proposed a constitutional amendment creating a Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and providing it with complete authority to manage and regulate the state's wildlife resources. Subsequently by public referendum during the 1942 general election the people of the state voted the Commission into existence and into the Constitution.

Since the creation of the Commission on January 1, 1943 there has been only one attempt in the succeeding 25 years to dilute its authority. This attempt was presented in the form of a public referendum during the 1960 general election and was defeated by the people of Florida by an overwhelming two to one majority.

This is a clear mandate that the people of Florida cherish their fish and wildlife resources and want it properly managed and regulated by one authority. Likewise this is a clear indication that the people of Florida would oppose granting to the Federal Government independent jurisdiction of wildlife on federally owned lands wherein the potential hodge-podge of varied rules and regulations would threaten to destroy what they had so emphatically endorsed and defended for the past 25 years.

I realize that the members of this committee have listened, repeatedly, to testimony by representatives from the various state wildlife agencies and I will not give a lengthy statement on the other reasons that we universally endorse state jurisdiction over control, regulation, and management of fish and wildlife within their territorial boundaries. Basically, we feel that the federal government should exercise the same authority over its lands within a state's boundaries as does a private landowner. Both can control ingress and egress to their property, but both should recognize that the authority to regulate resident fish and wildlife on these lands rests in the state. This authority should encompass the establishment of open and closed seasons, issuance of licenses, and other powers essential to the proper management of wildlife.

oblem is not as acute in Florida as it is in some of the western states
rge percentages of land area of the state are federally owned. Yet,
acres, or approximately ten percent of the 34,721,000 acres in the State
a, are owned by the Federal Government, and included in this ten
s some of the prime wildlife habitat in the state. So, we are vitally con-
Dout the principle involved. If the control of resident wildlife on federal
re carried to its ultimate end the state would have no authority in the
ent of game on the extensive federally owned areas in Florida such as
palachicola and Osceola National Forests. These areas are tremendously
t to the sportsman of Florida. For example, the Ocala National Forest,
omprises the Ocala Wildlife Management Area, is the most heavily
of the 34 management areas in Florida. In all fairness, I must point out
relationship with the Federal land holding authorities in Florida-
Forest Service, the Military, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-has
erally excellent, and this relationship has been based on the acceptance
sdiction over resident wildlife has rested in the state.
mmarize, we think that it is important to establish definitely by Con-
al action the concept that the management of resident wildlife as distinct
ratory birds is the responsibility of the state regardless of the ownership
nd on which such wildlife occurs. Toward this end we urge your support
proposed legislation.

man Moss. Then is Mr. Thrasher of the Alabama Department
ervation here?

STATEMENT OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

hairman, gentlemen of the Committee, I am Reynolds W. Thrasher, As-
Chief, Division of Game and Fish, Alabama Department of Conservation.
iate the privilege of being here today for the purpose of testifying in be-
Senate Bills 2951 and 3212. My organization is pleased, Mr. Chairman,
r Committee took the time from your busy schedule to hold a hearing
outheastern part of the country whereby the views of the states of this
an be more conveniently expressed.

e many of our Western States, Alabama has not had the jurisdictional
s relating to resident fish and wildlife species; but with continued in-
ade by the federal government into the rights normally reserved to
es, we can expect jurisdictional problems to arise sometime in the near
nless the legislation under discussion here today, or similar legislation,
d.
Fish and Game agency in Alabama is primarily concerned, insofar as
land ownership is involved, with those lands owned or under control
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Forest Service, U.S.
of Engineers, Army and Air Force bases, and the Tennessee Valley
ty. To date, the Game and Fish personnel within the Alabama Depart-
Conservation and the personnel charged with game and fish matters
bove mentioned agencies have cooperated in an excellent manner. It is
nion that one basic reason for this cooperative attitude has been the
that the states had jurisdiction on the management of resident fish and
species and that the federal agencies had no such authority in this
e are fearful that if the position relating to management of fish and
on federally owned lands previously expressed by Secretary Udall is
matter of general policy, then we can expect to see a process begin
y some federal agencies will exert a position involving fish and wildlife
ment which is contrary to that of the state. This is not to infer that the
authorities in Alabama will deliberately rebuttal the management pro-
s advocated by the state, but more probably that the higher echelons of
ncies will use the policy as a means of downgrading the state's position,
ntually allowing for the sole authority of management to rest with the
agency or agencies involved.

THE

BR..

BR

I am sure by now that the Committee understands the many problems which would arise in the event that the federal government is allowed to regulate fish and wildlife on federally owned lands. In Alabama, we would find it necessary to consider awarding equal privileges to private landowners, and in so doing could set up a process whereby the principle of public ownership and state regulation of fish and resident wildlife would be seriously damaged. This would detrimentally affect the quantity and quality of hunting and fishing and would prove a crippling blow to the Game and Fish agency, since it would bring about a rebuttal to the right to license for hunting and fishing on privately owned lands within Alabama.

We do not feel that the Congress or any department of the federal government is desirous of seeing the agencies now charged with the management of fish and wildlife at the state level put out of business, but this could be the situation if an extension of Mr. Udall's previously expressed policy is carried out. We realize that Mr. Udall has softened his position in later statements, but the present system allows for the setting of policy by administrative direc tive, which can be altered with the change of mind of a Bureau director.

The Alabama Department of Conservation is not seeking authority lawfully vested in any of our federal agencies, nor is it advocating additional authorities to its fish and game agency. All that is asked is that the rights of the states to manage their fish and wildlife resources be expressed by a clearly defined law, rather than the confused system now in operation.

Our purpose in coming here today is to express the belief that the states have done an outstanding job in the management of the fish and wildlife resources in spite of many obstacles; and if the future generations are to realize the wonderful sports of hunting and fishing, then the future of these resources must be left in the hands of those who have done a good job up to this point.

We urgently request that the Committee give favorable consideration to the legislation under consideration here today.

Chairman Moss. Thank you, Mr. Thrasher, for that very fine statement and I think you have also brought for the record the statement also by Mr. Aubrey J. Carr, who is the president of the Alabama Wildlife Federation, and we are most happy to have that included as part of our record and Mr. Carr's statement is generally in agreement with the opinion you have expressed?

Mr. THRASHER. Yes, sir.

Chairman Moss. We are pleased also to have you say that you are not having any problems now. You just want the situation clarified so that you won't run into some of the problems that have occurred elsewhere in the other States?

Mr. THRASHER. We couldn't take one of those elk hunts.
Chairman Moss. Thank you very much, Mr. Thrasher.
(Statement of Aubrey J. Carr follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE ALABAMA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, BY AUBREY J. CARR,

PRESIDENT

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the Committee, the Alabama Wildlife Federation is pleased to be afforded the privilege of presenting a statement before you supporting S-2951 and S-3212. These measures are of great importance to the future well being of fish and wildlife resources within the State of Alabama, and we urge you to give these measures favorable consideration.

The Alabama Wildlife Federation truly represents the outdoor recreationists within the State of Alabama and continues to serve in a manner which strives to improve all facets of this important phase of our everyday life. During the past few years the Federation has successfully sponsored legislation resulting in a constitutional guarantee that the State's game and fish monies will not be expended for any purposes other than the improvement of the hunting and fishing programs. The Federation has also successfully sponsored legislation providing for a $43,000,000 parks bond issue to further improve the State's outdoor recreational resources. In addition to these important measures, the Federation has carried on an active campaign to abate water pollution and has