297 reat strides. These are but a few of the activities of the Federation which -ected toward a better outdoor recreational program for the people of ha, as well as the many thousands of visitors which come to the State ear. we reviewed the abundance of statements presented to the Committee at as hearings, and many of the things I would like to say would be repetiIt has become quite evident that a continuance of the policy of allowing deral agencies to control resident fish and wildlife species on federally lands can only result in a deterioration of the states' game and fish ms. Game and Fish agency in Alabama has maintained an excellent relation- sir. EMENT BY EUGENE E. SCHWALL, NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE SCHWALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present this statement airman Moss. We are happy to have you do that, sir. . SCHWALL. I also have a letter from the North Carolina Wildlife SCHWALL. Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I guess e North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is the lawfully -ituted agency charged with the responsibility for the manage, protection, and regulation of the State's wildlife resources. By ay, you asked the question about the size of our commission. It is e-member commission appointed by the Governor. Terms are on ggered basis so that there is a continuity of program. accomplishing these responsibilities, the commission responds to public interest on the State level. It functions in a democratic her, holds public hearings on wildlife matters throughout the e, and represents and protects the interests of sportsmen and rvationists. A BR BR We are firmly convinced that historically, legally, and morally, the State of North Carolina has the right and the responsibility to conserve, manage, and regulate the taking of fish and resident wildlife on public and private lands and waters within the territorial boundaries of the State. We believe that this right and responsibility supersedes and transcends that of the Federal Government. The basic concept accepted in this country since colonial times holds that ownership of wildlife is separate and distinct from ownership of land. This concept has been judicially recognized, and it now appears only proper that it be legislatively recognized as well. North Carolina being one of the Thirteen Original States at no time ceded any of its lands to the Continental Congress. Federal lands in the State today have been acquired by purchase or gift from private landowners and these lands except in cases where the general assembly ceded the wildlife rights and those are very few, traditionally have been subject to State laws and regulation for wildlife. We contend that the Federal Government occupies a position in the State no different from that of any other landowner and, therefore, is entitled to no wider privileges respecting ownership of wildlife living upon its holdings. We concede that the management of the habitat is the prerogative of the owner of it. Our commission has worked cooperatively with the Federal agencies. In the State we have good relationships, minimums of understanding with the Fish and Wildlife Service and with the Forest Service. About 6 percent or a little more of our land is in Federal ownership, and our problem hasn't been acute in this regard up to now. But we feel that if this opinion of the Solicitor is accepted and a precedent is set that the rest of the area of the State of North Carolina will be subject to the same concept that the ownership of wildlife is in the land and the wildlife resources commission will lose its authority over control. Morally, there is no acceptable alternative to State ownership of resident wildlife. If its management and regulation were the sole prerogative of the landowner, extermination of the wildlife resource in many places would be inevitable. Each landowner would hasten to harvest his crop before it moved across the property boundary line and was taken by his neighbor. Some remarks were made here about the wildlife agency thinking only of hunting and fishing. In North Carolina, the wildlife resources commission has succeeded in getting complete protection of hawks and owls by general assembly action, protection of the alligator or protection of turtles. These are not hunting species, and, so I believe, that we can be considered only a game and fish agency. The recent action of the Department of Interior stemming from the Solicitor's opinion points up the need for clarification and reaffirmation of the historic right of responsibility of the States to manage and regulate public lands and waters within their boundaries. I mentioned water because our trout waters are primarily owned Federal lands in the western part of the State which are a very important resource in our State. It does not cover all of this opinion, and the action of the Secretary does not cover, of course, all of the issues i NO THE L 299 d here, nor does it cover all of the Federal lands as it has been ned here, nor is there a permanent solution or any solution adatively dictated no matter how satisfactory it might appear s subject to change tomorrow. these reasons, the wildlife resources commission supports the Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to come before you. SCHWALL. Yes; we have good relationships with the Forest rman Moss. Thank you very much, we appreciate that. ARED STATEMENT OF EUGENE E. SCHWALL, NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Eugene Schwall. ssistant Director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. ppearing on behalf of Executive Director Clyde Patton, the Wildlife ReCommission, and more than one and one-half million North Carolina en. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is the lawfully constituted e. The United States Constitution reserves to the States and the people therein all rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government. There is nothing in that document, nor in its amendments, that would convey responsibility for ownership, conservation, or management of wildlife to the Federal Government. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the concept divorcing wildlife ownership from land ownership in rulings that all species of resident wildlife are held in trust by the individual States for the people. This long-time State responsibility has been challenged recently by action of the Department of the Interior on the premise that, because the Federal Government owns land, it also owns the wildlife on this land. This challenge has caused the States to seek clarification and confirmation of the States' historic and legal rights to manage their wildlife in order to accomplish a firm and complete resolution of the present dispute between the States and the Federal Government in this matter. Morally, there is no acceptable alternative to State ownership of resident wildlife. If its management and regulation were the sole prerogative of the landowner, extermination of the wildlife resource in many places would be inevitable. Each landowner would hasten to harvest his crop before it moved across the property boundary line and was taken by his neighbor. The non-landowner, comprising an increasing percentage of the population, would have no place to hunt and the State would be without jurisdiction to license or otherwise control hunters and fishermen. Ultimately, this could result in the virtual extermination of resident wildlife in many areas. It could also render State wildlife agencies legally, financially, and physically incapable of protecting, managing, and restoring wildlife so decimated to its natural productivity. Recent action of the Department of the Interior, stemming from a solicitor's Opinion (71 I.D. 469), points up the need for clarification and reaffirmation of the historic right and responsibility of the States to manage and regulate fish and resident wildlife on public lands and waters within their boundaries. Subsequent modification of this action by the Secretary of the Interior is commendable. However, it does not cover all the issues involved on all Federal lands, nor is it a permanent solution. Any solution administratively dictated, no matter how satisfactory it might appear today, is subject to change tomorrow. Congressional action is needed, and needed now, if State programs to conserve and protect wildlife are to be preserved. Unless something is done immediately, the revolutionary opinion released by the U.S. Department of the Interior could quickly lead the nation's landowners to follow this same concept and claim ownership of wildlife on their land. As we have already pointed out, this would pave the way for the eventual destruction of this valuable public resource. We support the basic intent and purpose of the proposed legislation as embodied in S. 2951 and S. 3212 and strongly urge this Committee to act favorably on this legislation. We are grateful for the opportunity you have given us to appear before you and express our views. THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: In connection with the Senate Committee on Commerce's public hearings with regard to S. 2951, the North Carolina Wildlife Federation respectfully submits the following statement and would request that its content be included in the testimony of these hearings: The North Carolina Wildlife Federation is the largest private, nonprofit conservation organization in the State of North Carolina with some 14,000 members who are dedicated to the conservation of the renewable natural resources of our state and nation. At the 1968 annual meeting of our organization, it was unanimously voted to support legislation similar to S. 2951 as we feel that such legislation confirming the individual state's authority over wildlife is absolutely essential to an orderly wildlife management program as we have experienced in past years and which would continue to merit the support of the individual sportsman. 301 h Carolina's wildlife program has been successfully managed for 21 years s motto "More Sport for More People-With Equal Opportunity For All." uccessful program has been operated without favoritism in the public inand is truly one that presents "equal opportunity for all." he current federal position against the status in this matter should be sful, we feel that a precedent would then be established which would wildlife private personal property subject to the management and ownerthe owner of the land. Such a philosophy would completely destroy public tion of wildlife and, in our opinion, would be the beginning of the end of ctive wildlife conservation program in these United States. tsmen through their hunting and fishing license money and through P-R -J programs (which have the full support of the sportsmen) have paid for is obviously a very successful program of managing the nation's wildlife ces in the public interest. If the federal program is supported many public could become private hunting preserves for VIP's and hunting privileges h lands could be used for political patronage by officials in control. Private would be managed without any coordination with those lands adjoining haos would result. Under such a program we are confident that the public not have the opportunity it now enjoys in the important field of recreand the support of the sportsmen who have paid the bill in the past would be rawn. Such a system would only make this type of recreation available by rge to the wealthy sportsmen. h the above in mind, the North Carolina Wildlife Federation urges rt and endorses S. 2951 as being both in the public interest and in the st of the resource itself. ɩnking you for giving us an opportunity to make this statement, I am Yours very truly, r. ROBB. Yes, sir. airman Moss. Is Mr. Dunbar Robb, assistant chief of the game ion, Missouri Conservation Commission, here? TURNER W. BATTLE, airman Moss. I will be glad to hear from you, sir. TEMENT BY DUNBAR ROBB, ASSISTANT CHIEF, GAME DIVISION, г. ROBв. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we have a relatively brief r. ROBB. Thank you, sir. I think in the first place the important g to recognize is that a controversy already exists over this matter e rights of the individual States to regulate fish and wildlife, fish resident wildlife as evidenced by the court decisions, or those now ling in the Denver court of appeals and as evidenced by the Soliciopinion of 1964. ow, to date, the only party other than the States to this controis the Federal Government. issouri actually has especially excellent working relationships with Federal agencies that manage lands in our State. We are really erned about the implications of a court decision that might go nst, say, the State of New Mexico in this case in Denver because we that what would be fair for the Federal Government would be for every private, every individual landowner, if ownership of the life is going to be tied to ownership of the land then this could ge from our present American system and throw us completely into the Euronaan sustem of private ownership of wildlife. |