their prerogatives of resource management are usurped by Washington, to be delivered into the hands of the antitechnologists at a later date.

Resource management, practiced by the individual states, can sustain a risk-benefit test with flying colors, that is, the transplanting of coho salmon in the Great Lakes, for sport fishing; the stocking of trout in coldtail waters of warm water streams, which had sustained the construction of high water dams; the wide distribution of channel catfish for farm pond use; the movement of muskie and walleye to southern waters; the transposition of striped bass to 30 inland States, attest to the efficacy of State resource management programs.

This awards authority to "one wing" of the environmental movement over "the other wing." AFFF has confined itself to a discussion of the overt logic for the proposed legislation. To address the covert logic for the proposed legislation, there is a philosophical movement in the world today which is antitechnological. This philosophy permeates environmental activity. A spinoff of this philosophy is reflected by an obsession against the use of "exotics" at any time, in any place, because there are no good exotics. Carried to an extreme, this theory decrees that any fish not native to watershed can be classified as "exotic."

The exertion of such philosophical tenets have separated the scientific community. Knowing full well that Congress would not entertain the enactment of legislation involving criminal penalties which favored one philosophy over another in a divided scientific community, the supporters of this extreme view of the environment have provided Congress with "other reasons" which have been rebutted.

In brief, the proposed legislation is flawed to the core. It seeks to subordinate States rights. It represents a power play by Interior against USDA, and by one wing of the environmental movement against the other wing.

It is absolutely detrimental to aquaculture. It unwittingly abridges amendment 8, and the commerce clause of the Constitution. In its present form, the bill is subject to attack from two distinct areas of constitutional authority. It even leaves out a severability clause. We have that in there, and I would like to amend it. We have thought it over. The fact they left out a severability clause was indicative of sloppy bill drawing, but we have changed our minds, because this legislation, taken in toto, if it is ever challenged in the courts, would be totally wiped out; and if there was a severability clause, conceivably the Federal Government could be left with nothing because if the repeal of the Black Bass Act and the repeal of the major end of the Lacey Act was left standing as the only thing left in the legislation as not touched by the court action, then the Government would be without any

recourse.

So probably they did right by leaving out the severability clause because it would be knocked out all the way and the Lacey Act would be available to them.

We apologize for the length of our testimony, but we found no way to shorten it.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you.

Prior to your testimony, Congressman Bethune from Arkansas spoke with me and brought out the fact that your organization does not have any professional counsel here in Washington and that you serve in your capacity certainly free of any salary or compensation and, in addition to that, you were half way finished cutting rice and you decided to give that up and come up here to Washington to give testimony.

The committee appreciates that and appreciates the time and efforts you have spent with us to present the concerns of the American Fish Farmers Association.

Let me ask you in general: have you been having problems with the Black Bass Act or the Lacey Act in the past? It is just a strengthening of the principles behind those two laws which makes illegal the shipment of illegally taken species across State lines. It seems we are just strengthening the penalty to give some teeth to it.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say right now that I have two hats on here today. I have come up here to represent the fish farming industry because I am the elected president of this volunteer organization, but I also have another hat.

You have before you the total concern of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the matter of amending the Black Bass Act and I will be glad to go into that.

Mr. BREAUX. We already have a Black Bass Act. What does the legislation add to it that you feel uncomfortable with, over and above whatever is already prohibited in the act?

Mr. MALONE. The Black Bass Act that we have today is only concerned with violations which the State originates. It is easy enough to keep up with the laws of the State where your hatchery is.

Mr. BREAUX. Let me ask a hypothetical.

Do you believe if it is illegal to grow and sell fish in Arkansas and you know it is illegal to import fish from California, you should be able to do that anyway?

Mr. MALONE. No.

Mr. BREAUX. Is that not what the amendments would do insofar as the Black Bass Act is concerned?

Mr. MALONE. We have suggested that it deals specifically with the problem. I do not know if you were in the room then, but our suggestion was that it gets down to a particular case.

Mr. BREAUX. Would you identify the particular species?

Mr. MALONE. That is the only instance they have ever shown any

concern over.

Mr. BREAUX. Would that be the only species that the law would ever affect?

Mr. MALONE. It is the only one that has ever caused any concern to them.

Mr. BREAUX. OK.

Mr. MALONE. It is the only one. It is the total responsibility that lies behind the three resolutions that enable this thing. If that is the truth, we suggest that we get at it and▬▬

Mr. BREAUX. What I am trying to point out, if you are saying that it is illegal and you agree with the principle that fish should

not be shipped in violation of the receiving state, what is your concern?

You said we only have a problem with one species or a few species at the most. It would only affect those species shipped illegally.

Mr. MALONE. If the bill said that in some different fashion, that would be one thing; but in order to accomplish the purpose of catching this one or two species, they have thrown a net that is so great that the language of the bill catches any violation of any law, just any violation of any law.

Mr. BREAUX. The point that I think is important is that you made some good suggestions; and we will follow up on them. These amendments do not add to the Black Bass Act, any species that are not already covered by State or foreign law. We are not adding any additional species. We are just focusing on the penalties and saying if it is illegal to import into that State, then you shouldn't.

If California has a species and they say you cannot import that species, we are not adding four or five or even an additional species to that list.

Mr. MALONE. That has not come up yet, but the question of that fish, as far as I am concerned, is today moot because that fish is replaced by a sterile hybrid.

Mr. BREAUX. Then no one would have any problems, then?
Mr. MALONE. Right.

In essence, I happen to be the possessor of brood stock to make that happen. So if I were to be selfish, I could have laid back and not objected for my industry and let Congress pass this thing, and it will literally give me a patent on my hybrid, but I am here because I honestly believe this is harmful to other fish farmers.

Mr. BREAUX. I do not want to cut you off, but we have a recorded vote. I would like to ask you to stay until we return so we can ask you some questions.

The committee will be in recess until we return.

Mr. MALONE. All right, sir.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. BREAUX. The subcommittee will please be back in order. We were continuing at our break on the questioning and addressing some of the points that you have brought out in your presentation to the committee. I take it you do not have any basic disagreement with the Federal Government trying to help the States to enforce legally existing State laws when you have a problem of interstate shipments between two different States?

Mr. MALONE. Our problem, Mr. Chairman, is with the present proposed legislation as drawn, is the fact two things have happened here. I think this comes up maybe at a time when you were not present. We stated that the fish farming industry is about 30 years old, and that we have existed 30 years without anything, any real traffic with the Lacey Act, or the Black Bass Act. Until those resolutions were passed, there was no part, no indication on the part of the Federal Government or the States that there was any real need of that.

Now, in trying to solve a particular problem, we think that we have cast too big a net. And the literal interpretation of the bill

definitely involves, for the first time, fish that are domestically raised in private hatcheries, the first time.

We had no traffic with the Black Bass Act. It was involved with illegally taken fish, and we have never served as a shelter for illegally taken fish. This came up 30 years ago, before the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, because I well remember it, that as we moved into this business, testimony was taken that we would be a shelter for the traffic in bass and crappie taken from the wild waters and funneled through our hatcheries to the public. It did not happen.

We stated it would not happen for a particular reason. And those reasons were that we knew that it was not a paying proposition for someone to steal those bass out of the wild in the first place. So we have had nothing to do with the Black Bass Act.

To solve one particular problem, the whole thing has been turned into a broad net that inadvertently is going to affect the transmittal of every fish from State to State. The legislation clearly says that any law of any State will trigger this act.

We have run into this sort of situation. We have some States that have importation laws that regard some fish that are shipped alive, and have to have a disease certificate. Some States do not. Then there are other factors. There are some States that claim that the black bass would not come into their State, and others do not.

The fish farmers raise the fish, and sell the product to somebody, and it moves on out and goes through the normal chain of interstate commerce. And to some way or another a shipment is made to someone, and if I think those bass are going to go to Ohio, and they wind up in Michigan, and Michigan has a law against it.

Does it go back to that farmer? Does he count it under this thing? Is he counted under this thing? And what is the penalty against him? That is really what we are talking about.

Mr. BREAUX. I think most all members of this committee support your industry, and do not want to do anything which will provide undue harm and unnecessary penalties that will give you reason for concern. And we are going to try and draft a piece of legislation that addresses the problem, but not give you any undue problems. Mr. Forsythe, any questions?

Mr. FORSYTHE. No, sir.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Malone, I thank you very much, especially for taking time out from your very busy schedule to bring these concerns to the committee. I might add, as to the States testifying, our next witness will be the counsel for the International Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which will represent all of the fish and game agencies of all the various States. So we will be hearing from their representative, also.

Mr. Malone, thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr. MALONE. Thank you.

Mr. BREAUX. Our next witness is Mr. John Gottschalk, legislative counsel, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. John, the committee welcomes you again, and we are pleased to receive your testimony. We have a copy of your testimony, and invite you to summarize it any way you can, or present it in the manner you see fit.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GOTTSCHALK, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will summarize my testimony.

You know that I represent the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, representing the States, the Provinces and Federal agencies, of United States, Canada, and Mexico. We are emphatically in favor of this legislation, as my testimony indicates, because it provides the kind of cooperation between the Federal Government and the constituent units of our country, the State agencies, that we think produce the most healthy kind of cooperation,

It, in a word, makes violations of a State wildlife or fishery law, automatically a violation of Federal law, and that is a tremendously powerful weapon, as we have learned through the operation of the Black Bass Act and the Lacey Act over these many, many years.

By way of background—and I will not go into this in detail, I think it is important to note that our citizens have had great interest in the importation of wildlife, and the movement of wildlife and fish from one country to another, and from one State to another, with interesting, and in some cases catastrophic results. One of the more interesting sidelights is the fact that the first Federal conservation effort in this country was the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner of Fisheries. His specific charge, back in 1881, was to import the German carp for the benefit of the citizens of America.

Fish and game departments in the States, and to some extent the Federal Government, have occupied themselves almost continuously ever since trying to find ways of eradicating the mistake that was made back there before the turn of the century.

We have lived with many other mistakes of the same kind. These mistakes have had a tremendous impact on the native species of the wildlife in this country, and have cost us millions of dollars overall, and have been a terrible management headache in many different areas.

So we feel that the codification that is proposed, and the other aspects of the proposed legislation, are all in line with a sound national wildlife conservation policy. We feel it is high time to bring these things about.

We do have one question that we think the committee should look at, more than we have had an opportunity to do so, and that is the proposal that the Lacey Act and Black Bass Act amendments be extended to cover infractions of regulations of Indian tribes. Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the fact that this is an extension of Federal law in a way that does not happen in any other subsidiary constituency in the States. For example, no town or county of a State can enact laws pertaining to fish and wildlife, unless the State has enacted legislation which gives them the authority to do so.

It seems that in a way this provision here might be a sort of back door approach to recognizing the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. I