MISCELLANEOUS FISHERIES LEGISLATION MIGRATORY WATERFOWL REGULATIONS THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas N. Downing presiding. Mr. DOWNING. The Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation will come to order. This morning the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation will begin hearings on the subject of wildlife conservation as it would relate to migratory waterfowl regulations. As I am sure all of you are aware, this is the time of the year when season and bag limits for the coming hunting season are about to be determined. Last week the flyway councils met to formulate recommendations and it was just yesterday that the Waterfowl Advisory Committee concluded its meeting with the Department of the Interior. On Wednesday of next week, August 17, the Secretary of the Interior will make a final determination of the regulations for the forthcoming season. The Chair is most hopeful that the testimony to be received at this hearing will be given serious consideration by the Secretary and his staff before a final determination is actually made. The Chair would like to point out that over the years there has been considerable controversy among the States, wildlife organizations, and sportsmen over the administration of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, which has primarily been centered around season and bag limits. Although this subcommittee has the function of overseeing the administration of this act, in its supervisory capacity, it also has as its goal both the satisfaction of the sportsmen and the preservation of wildlife. Because of last year's restrictive regulations and because of improved nesting conditions, present wild duck populations show a significant increase over the low period of 1965. The Chair hastens to point out that this information is most encouraging but would like to stress that any tendency to increase bag 79 limits should only be granted after due regard to this year's water condition, breeding population, and other important waterfowl statistics. In this way, the interest of both the sportsmen and waterfowl are served on a reasonable and just basis. Our first witness this morning is the Honorable Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin. Is Congressman Laird present? Will you identify yourself for the record? STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MELVIN R. LAIRD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AS PRESENTED BY WILLIAM J. BARCODY, JR., LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT Mr. BARCODY. My name is William Barcody. I am legislative assistant to Congressman Laird. He was unavoidably detained this morning, Mr. Chairman, and will be unable to be here. He has conferred with the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier, last evening and wishes the record to show that he associates himself with and supports the position taken by Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much. Mr. BARCODY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWNING. Our next witness is our colleague, the Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier, Congressman from Wisconsin. It is a pleasure to have you. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me this morning in addition to my own statement the statement of the State of Wisconsin Conservation Department which I would like to make available to the committee. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the courtesy in your offering to permit me to be heard this early because I myself must go to a subcommittee which I chair and which is in executive session. Mr. Chairman, the committee will have before it additionally a number of Wisconsin conservationists and others from Wisconsin who are arriving in a few minutes and will come into the committee room to speak about this particular matter. I deeply regret that the Wisconsin Conservation Department was not able to have a representative here this morning to present their own point of view. Mr. DOWNING. Would you like the letter addressed to you under date of August 9 incorporated in the record? Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I so request. Additionally I would request that my own statement be made part of the record. Mr. DOWNING. Without objection, the letter from the State of Wisconsin Conservation Department will be placed in the record and your statement immediately thereafter. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, STATE OF WISCONSIN, CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, Madison, August 9, 1966. House of Representatives, House Office Building, DEAR MR. KASTEN MEIER: We greatly appreciate your invitation to attend the hearing at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 11, which will be held by the Fish and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. We understand this meeting is being held for the purpose of reviewing recommendations for the establishment of regulations for waterfowl for the 1966 season. Unfortunately, the current airline strike makes travel very difficult, and for that reason we are sending this letter to you which will further amplify the position of our Department and Commission on waterfowl regulations and the 1966 program of Canada goose management in Wisconsin. Mr. J. R. Smith, Superintendent of the Game Management Division, returned recently from the Mississippi Flyway Council meeting in St. Louis, and I have discussed with him the recommendations made by that Council which will be considered in Washington this week. Insofar as ducks are concerned, our Department is very happy to endorse the stand taken by the Council that we have a 45-day season, with the framework affecting Wisconsin beginning October 8. While we would have preferred an earlier framework so that hunters in northern Wisconsin would have more opportunity to harvest waterfowl, we do believe the season recommended by the Flyway Council is satisfactory and perhaps the best compromise possible considering the various viewpoints of the fourteen Mississippi Flyway states. You are aware, of course, that our major problem at present concerns the recommendations of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife for the handling of the Wisconsin goose problem in 1966. In this connection, we would like to emphasize again that we are not opposed to the over-all philosophy adopted by the Mississippi Flyway Council in relation to Flyway goose management. Except for the problems associated with damage, we are not interested in harvesting more than our fair share of Canada geese. We do, however, believe the recommendations being considered now by the federal government will work an extreme hardship on both the farmers and hunters in our state. It appears from conversations with personnel of the Bureau that the 14,000 quota will be applied to Wisconsin as a whole, and as indicated by their surveys, when this quota of 14,000 Canada geese is taken, the Wisconsin season will close. I. There are a number of problems associated with this proposal which we will comment on at this time: 1. Surveys.-Practical application of any quota depends on accurate kill figures. There are no survey techniques currently available to either Wisconsin or the federal government which will give a reasonably close estimate of the Wisconsin goose kill on a day-to-day basis. The Fish and Wildlife Service plans to use an intensified survey which will be based upon the collection of Canada goose tail fans from a selected number of Wisconsin hunters. This same type of survey was used in previous years as a method of obtaining age data on the geese killed in the state. We have reviewed this with our own statisticians, and they believe it is not adequate to determine the goose kill accurately on a day-to-day basis, and that even under the best conditions, the confidence limits will be very broad. Such a survey depends heavily upon the good cooperation of the hunter. The general attitude of the Wisconsin hunter at this time will not encourage this needed cooperation. Our Department would have no objection whatsoever to cooperating with the federal government in testing such a survey further if the results obtained would not be used for determining the season length. Such an experiment, coupled with other efforts of our own Department, could be studied after the season and results compared as to actually what happened in the Wisconsin Canada goose season. If the tail fan survey appears entirely valid and is approved by our statisticians, we would have no objections to its use as an administrative tool in 1967 provided no better method can be developed. 2. Damage. At present, Wisconsin is experiencing Canada goose crop damage during the fall and spring migration periods. Recognizing this problem and hardship imposed on Wisconsin farmers, the 1965 Legislature passed a crop damage bill which provides payments for waterfowl damage to farmers. This damage, which at present is confined mainly to the Horicon quota zone, certainly can be expected to spread over a much wider area if the Wisconsin Canada goose season is closed at an early date. We have learned from experience that the closing of the quota zone in Wisconsin after eight or ten days of hunting encourages geese in large numbers to stay in Wisconsin until the weather becomes severe-usually some time in December. Further restrictons on hunting in Wisconsin over a broad area will set the stage for additional damage in new areas, and will further deter the Canada goose population from good distribution Flywaywide. You will recall we already have provided you with a copy of the position of our Commission on this matter. It has recognized the crop damage potential of an expanded goose flock, and recommends that if this flock is expended by approximately 100,000 birds, the federal government should undertake legislation to provide payments to cover this loss. 3. Necedah National Wildlife Refuge.-In previous years, the quota of geese assigned to Wisconsin was limited to the Horicon quota zone. In 1966, the quota will be assigned to our state as a whole. Section 23.09 (7) (b)1, of the Wisconsin statutes, provides that a minimum of 10% of the state quota will be assigned to the Necedah area. This particular section will compel our Commission to assign a quota of at least 1,400 birds for the Necedah refuge area, and because of this, it will be necessary for us to set up a separate zone surrounding this refuge. In 1965, the goose kill in the Necedah area was approximately 900 Canada geese, and unless the harvest increases sharply in 1966, the assignment of 1,400 geese actually would penalize the remainder of the state. It also would mean the development of unreasonable hunter concentrations in this limited area. 4. Public relations.-As you know, during April 1966, we held a series of four hearings on goose management in our state. A general feeling was displayed by the participating citizens that Wisconsin was being discriminated against by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. While we believe the Bureau is overly optimistic in their plans to distribute geese throughout the Flyway, we do not question their sincerity. What we do question is their adamant approach to a situation which is tailormade to create severe public relations problems. It should be remembered the basic problem here is a result of mismanagement of the Horicon refuge over a period of years. It is possible that additional problems may be created by the 1966 management proposals. There is much need for more gradual changes during this transition period. II. Alternatives: We would like to call to your attention that in 1966 our Commission will establish a statewide bag and possession limit of one Canada goose. This should make a substantial reduction in our statewide kill. Also in 1966, we are planning to assign an increased number of people to assist in the enforcement within the Horicon quota zone. By this intensified enforcement, we hope the registration of geese in the Horicon quota zone will closely represent actual kill. It is our suggestion that a pre-determined number of geese be harvested in this zone, and when that number is taken, the zone be closed and the rest of the state allowed to continue through the full seventy days provided by the framework. By the use of these alternatives, we believe a season can be designed to stay within the quota finally assigned to Wisconsin. The surveys by the Bureau and the state will be used then to determine the need for any further restrictions well in advance of next year. It is very difficult to predict what may happen at Horicon and in the rest of Wisconsin in 1966; however, if reasonable regulations are adopted by the federal government, we will be very happy to assist in surveys and other management measures which will tend to reduce the possibility of large-scale public opposition to this program. We would greatly appreciate your presentation of this Wisconsin viewpoint to the aforementioned Committee. Very truly yours, L. P. VOIGT, Conservation Director. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN Thank you for this opportunity to bring to the attention of Congress some of the problems Wisconsin hunters, landowners, and conservationists are facing this fall as a result of goose hunting regulations proposed by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. I particularly appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to make these initial remarks at this time, since I have to return to my own subcommittee this morning. I have three purposes in appearing here today: First, I would like to raise some questions in your mind about the proposed regulations so that when the Bureau witnesses testify you will be able to satisfy yourself as to some of the questions being asked in Wisconsin. Second, it is my pleasure to submit herewith a statement of the Wisconsin Conservation Department. Unfortunately, due to the airline strike, the Commission witnesses were unable to appear, but they did provide me with a statement of their views which is attached to this statement. Thirdly, I would like to introduce three Wisconsin hunters and conservationists who made special arrangements to come here to present the views of Wisconsin hunters, conservationists and landowners. They are: Jack C. Williams, of Horicon, Wisconsin, representing the Horicon Rod and Gun Club and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress; Elmer Rehse, of Horicon, Wisconsin, representing the Horicon Chamber of Commerce and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress; and John Schoenfeld, of Route 1, Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, representing the Beaver Dam Fishermans Club. I think it is most significant that these men and the groups they represent have gone through the expense of coming to Washington to testify. None of these gentlemen is wealthy-and the clubs they represent are not either. But the problems they face in the upcoming goose hunting season are important to them and to the state of Wisconsin as a whole. Since they have gone through this additional effort to get here, I hope that you will give their views full consideration. If we could take the time to discuss the history of the Flyway flock, it would make an extremely interesting history and would assist in understanding the problem. To return then to the proposals of the Bureau, it appears that the Bureau intends to pursue two conflicting goals in this fall: Increase the overall size of the flock by drastically curtailing the kill in Wisconsin and Illinois and at the same time apply drastic measures to reduce the number of geese at the Horicon Wildlife Refuge in Dodge County. They apparently intend to set a quota for the entire state rather than within a limited quota zone and close the season throughout the state when that quota is shot in the quota zone at and around Horicon or when a percentage of the quota is shot in that area. At the same time they propose to haze the birds and not provide feed for them at Horicon in hopes of forcing the birds to move along to other areas. The closing of the season throughout the state after the quota is taken has many ramifications. For hunters, it means a very short season and a very unsatisfactory one. For the landowner, it means that the geese will not be under any gun pressure and will be free-and if the hazing techniques are applied-will be driven off the reservation to forage for food among the farmers' crops in an ever-widening area. For the conservationists, it means a goose slaughter of unprecedented proportions in a short period of time. Geese tend to lose their wildness when they congregate in large numbers and become almost tame. With the pressure on hunters to get their geese during a short season the kill will be heavy-and perhaps uncountable. The State of Wisconsin has indicated it concurs in the bag and possession limits and that it is willing to cooperate on establishing a means of surveying and counting the kill so as to know more about how many geese are being killed in Wisconsin. They do not agree with the proposal to close the state to goose hunting when the quota has been taken within the quota zone, however, I support them in this view and strongly recommend that the statewide 70-day season be continued. If there is to be a shorter season, however, a larger quota-perhaps 20-25 thousand should be assigned Wisconsin as a means of gradually reducing overkill and increasing the flock. If we accept for argument purposes the Bureaus contention that Wisconsin hunters killed 35,000 geese last year, a cut to a strictly enforced quota of 14,000 is simply too drastic. The problems for professional game management people at Horicon are immense. The sometimes conflicting pressure on them from all segments of the Community are equally great. |