Finally the populations were reaching and exceeding 100,000 birds in a relatively confined area, and I can assure you that many conflicts developed in this section of Wisconsin. During this period, working in the Mississippi Flyway Council, a quota system was developed, which was designed to prevent excessive kill of these birds, so that the long-range objective which we share with the States in the Mississippi Valley, of trying to build this flock to something like 300,000 wintering birds within the flyway could be achieved. Now, reference was made earlier to a conflict in objectives. It may appear that this is true, but our basic objective is to increase the size of that flock, but to try to do it in such a way that the problems of depredation and losses to individual landowners can be kept at a minimum. In the last few years, the States of Wisconsin and Illinois would agree on a quota, and most recently this agreement was a target of 15,000 birds for the State of Illinois and 11,000 for Wisconsin. Mr. DOWNING. Pardon me. Has Wisconsin agreed to the 14,000 quota that you may propose? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Not on a statewide basis, sir, but the point I was making was that when this quota was established, this was a quota which was agreed upon by the two States. I think this was 3 years ago. The Illinois quota was larger because there are birds which come to southern Illinois by a route other than Wisconsin. Some of these birds come down through Ohio and across Indiana, and some come from Michigan down through Indiana and eastern Illinois. ask I think it was 2 years ago in the discussion at the flyway council that the two States simply said, "Well, we can't agree, so we are going to you to make up your mind," and the quota ratios that were then in effect have been continued since that time, and this year are 20,000 and 14,000 birds. The problem that caused the current difficulty was that we have been increasing our capability to determine kill, and it became apparent that, while we had a quota of 11,000 birds in the State of Wisconsin, the actual kill was very substantially greater than this. Mr. Kastenmeier in his testimony indicated that we think it was in the vicinity of 35,000, rather than the 11,000 quota. I accept the suggestion that we do not have a positive count of the number of birds killed. To accomplish this across the whole State, and even in the quota area around Horicon Marsh, would be a very expensive and difficult and challenging operation. Mr. DOWNING. Is it my understanding that you are going to recommend a 14,000 quota for Wisconsin? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is correct. Well, I say this: this is the recommendation of the staff, based on the target of trying to reduce the kill in the Mississippi Valley to the point where we can see that flock build up. Now, the target is 300,000 birds. We have about 205,000 now. If we sustain a kill in the Mississippi Valley flock much in excess of 50,000 birds, we are not going to move that flock forward. We are going to hold it back. We are going to cut it down. We are confident that we cannot shoot that flock much more than 25 percent of its total numbers without having an adverse effect upon the flock. Mr. DOWNING. How do you r- ose to limit this kill to 14,000? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We have had conversations with the Wisconsin Conservation Department in a series of meetings, and I would have to tell you that we have not concluded finally as to the method that will be employed to try to achieve the 14,000 quota limit. A number of ways have been suggested, which I can go into, or have Mr. Crissey or Mr. Studhohlme report here to the committee. I doubt if any of them can be effectively ultilized so that we will come up exactly with 14,000 birds. Let me tell you that on the last 2 days of shooting at Horicon Marsh last year, the kill in the quota zone exceeded 2,000 birds per day, so that you can see that with a 14,000 bird quota for the State, it is not a simple problem to try to figure out in advance how you are going to stop hunting at this particular time. This is subject to further discussion with Mr. Voigt, the director of the Wisconsin Conservation Department, and his staff and our staff, and we are trying to work with them in establishing a reasonable approach to this problem. Mr. DOWNING. Does the State of Wisconsin agree with you on the limit of 14,000? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I think the State of Wisconsin would agree on the limit of 14,000 in the quota zone, but not statewide. The State feels that this would inhibit goose shooting throughout the rest of the State, and we recognize that this is a problem. In other words, if you kill 14,000 birds, which you could do in 7 days at Horicon, it would wipe out goose hunting in the rest of the State. Mr. DOWNING. How about my State and Mr. Lennon's State of North Carolina? What limit do you have down there? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. You have no quota in North Carolina of the same type that is applied in this Mississippi Valley flock, Mr. Chair man. You had a season of 70 days last year, as I recall, and two birds per day, and four in possession, but there is no quota established. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much, sír. You have helped the committee. Is there additional testimony? Mr. RACE. May I ask the gentleman a question? Are you advocating a 70-day goose season for Wisconsin this year? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. The framework season for the Mississippi flyway will be a 70-day season, as I recall. I would have to doublecheck this specifically. Again, I have to say that this is the season recommended. It is a 70-day season for the flyway as a whole. Mr. RACE. As I understand in the Horicon Marsh area, hunters go in there. They buy a hunting license, and this is done by lottery. The hunters are not just allowed to go in there at random to hunt. There is a lottery of some kind, where they draw numbers, and so many can go in there each day. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is correct, sir. Mr. RACE. You said in the last 2 days there was a tremendous kill of some 2,000 a day. Now, did you leave a lot of people in this restricted area to hunt those 2 particular days, to get that many birds? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I must explain that on the Horicon Marsh, on the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and the State areas, there is a managed or controlled hunt, and it is necessary to have a special permit to get on these areas, but in the quota zone, which is substantially outside and larger than the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and the State area, there is much hunting that takes place in private cornfields, so that the kill beyond that which was taken in the refuge itself by the men who had by lottery secured a permit to get on the refuge was made up on these adjoining farms. This is where the bulk of that kill takes place. Working with the State, we have I think established a reasonably good approach in that area, but the trouble comes in that, if the geese killed over the rest of the State are added to those in the Horicon area, which is a very large number, we are killing a very heavy fraction of the total Mississippi goose flock, and it is just a question of shall we allow this harvest to take place, and put the future of the flock in jeopardy. Mr. RACE. Do you feel the flock is smaller this year than it was last year? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No, sir. Mr. RACE. With the tremendous kill last year the flock is not smaller? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I will have to say that it is slightly larger than it was last year, as I recall the figure that I gave previously, and I think it is correct. I personally sat in the 2-day meeting of the Canada Goose Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council, including representatives of the Wisconsin department, Illinois, and Missouri, and the other States, and it was reported that the flock achieved 25,000 birds last year, total. Mr. RACE. Do you have any way, sir, of diverting these flocks and dispersing them so they all will not come in this one congested area? I understand that this is going to be tried this year. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Many things have been tried. I cannot be overly optimistic. In the past we have on occasion hazed geese by the use of light airplanes and driven them to other areas, but the problem of getting a Canada goose to change its habits is a real challenge to the technical capability of the people that have tried to do it. We had a similar problem in California, as Mr. Reinecke may remember, some 20 years ago, when we had a vast population of ducks and geese, which were preying very heavily on the rice farms, and a large hazing program was developed. We had I don't know how many planes, we had firecrackers, and all sorts of devices for scaring them, and finally came to the conclusion that the only way to work out that problem was to supply supplementary forage for the birds. Working with California, there have been created a number of areas along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, which have reduced the depredation problem. There are also fewer birds, but we are providing feed that they formerly got off the farms. Mr. RACE. They are still getting it off the farms. I inspected those areas last year, and they were cleaned out. In one there was 100 acres of corn, and it was stripped. There was not a kernel of corn on one stalk. Do you think the Government should supplement these farmers for their losses in that area? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I do not believe that is a practical approach to the problem, sir. I do think we have an obligation to try to relieve them of this damage by trying to get more of these birds out of there, and reduce the depredations in that way, if you see what I mean. Mr. RACE. The State of Wisconsin has passed a bill to pay some of the farmers for the losses. I understand it is a very small appropriation, and it does not meet half of the demand there is for losses that have occurred in that particular area. I personally think that, this being a Federal and Government haven over there for wildlife, the Government should go along with the State of Wisconsin and pay these farmers for their losses. These losses are an act of God, but, if the Government would not be protecting our wildlife over there, the birds would not be destroying their crops. I am considering in the near future introducing some legislation to help these farmers if that occurs again this year. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We are doing our best to alleviate the problem by reducing the size of the flock. We are on the horns of a dilemma, because this is almost as unpopular as the result of the depredations. Mr. RACE. I understand that. I understand you are not raising feed for them, and expect to disperse them that way, by not raising enough food for the wildlife. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. This is one of the techniques, sir. Mr. RACE. I thank you. Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Pelly. Mr. PELLY. Last year the great problem that was discussed was the mallard. I think we ought to be brought up to date on the results of the program to increase the mallard population. We have not come to that yet. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We would be very glad to report. The 1965 breeding population, which we reported last year, Mr. Pelly, was 5,850,000. With the production which we had this year, and then, without getting into a lot of the numerical figures, subtracting from that the anticipated kill both in Canada and in the United States, and the mortality that otherwise occurs, produced a fall flight of approximately 141/2 million birds. Then subtracting from that the U.S. harvest, and the Canadian kill, et cetera, and other mortality, we find that we wound up this spring with a 1966 breeding population of 7,560,000 birds. Mr. PELLY. What did you say you started with? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. 5,850,000. Mr. PELLY. That is a great percentage increase? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Percentagewise I think the figure was 29 percent. As you recall, we were shooting for 10 percent. We are gratified that it jumped more than we expected, because of weather conditions, and I think to some extent the fact that we had more breeders back on the breeding grounds this past spring, as a result of reducing the kill last year. Mr. PELLY. Were the measures that were taken to reduce the kill the reduction in the bag limit and the number of days that hunting was allowed? Did that actually reduce the kill that you anticipated for mallards? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. There was a reduction in the kill in all of the fly way with the exception of the Pacific flyway. The Pacific flyway is unique in its reactions in waterfowl management. Mr. PELLY. I know what you say, because I am from the Pacific flyway. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Yes, sir. I don't mean by that peculiar. Unique perhaps would be a better word. Mr. DOWNING. Counsel, do you have any questions at this time? Mr. Gottschalk, would you please supply data showing how you arrived at the 1966 breeding population for North American mallards? We would also like to have recommendations of the four flyway waterfowl councils and the 1966-67 waterfowl regulation frameworks. In addition, please supply the committee with a statement on the discrepancy between the forecasted 1965 mallard production rates of 1.3 immatures per adult and the post season analysis indicating a 1.6 ratio. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We will be happy to submit this material for the record. (The following material was subsequently supplied for the record :) 1965-66 population plot for North American mallards A. 1965 breeding population__- 1965 May aerial surveys corrected for birds not recorded by aerial crews. (=) percent summer mortality. B. 1965 production ratio (immatures per adult in the prehunting season fall population). Wing collection data adjusted for relative vulnerability between adults and immatures from 1965 preseason banding data (adults were as likely to be taken as immatures during the 1965 season in the United States). C. 1965 fall flight.. "A" plus "A" times 1.58. D. U.S. harvest--- 5, 850, 000 5,557, 500 1.6 14, 449, 500 2,348, 000 Same as "D" times 1.333 to include crippling loss as 25 percent of the total. F. Canadian kill: Adults Total 214, 000 988, 000 1, 202, 000 Weighted distribution of recoveries from 1965 preseason banding applied to "E"-15 percent of adults and 34 percent of immatures were killed in Canada. G. Total hunting kill in Canada and the United States‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 4, 332, 000 "E" "F." H. Other mortality.by 1 Additional losses indicated to obtain "I" from "C" minus "G"-in this case it was 18 percent of the fall flight ("C"). I. 1966 breeding tion 1966 May by aerial crews. surveys 2, 557, 500 7,560, 000 eted for birds not recorded |