have studied the matter from the information supplied me by the Department of the Interior and feel that I can and should introduce certain vital considerations.

First, while the sportsmen of Wisconsin do readily admit the need for sound game conservation practices, I feel they are solidly united in opposing a statewide quota.

I am advised that a 14,000-kill quota is being considered for the entire State of Wisconsin. I'm sure I don't have to remind you, gentlemen, that the Horicon Marsh area in east-central Wisconsin had a quota, by itself, of 11,000 in 1965.

Despite this high goose-kill quota, last year saw an unbelievable amount of farm crop damage by these birds after the quota was filled and the short quota-area season was closed.

Now, there are a lot of aspects to this problem and I do not intend to go into each of them individually, but I would call your attention to the following points:

(1) Unless reliable machinery exists on a statewide basis to conduct an accurate kill count, a quota on a statewide basis cannot work. The Wisconsin Conservation Department has expressed a willingness to cooperate with Federal authorities in developing a satisfactory method of conducting a statewide count during the 1966 season. State conservation officials do not accept the reliability of methods previously used by the Federal Government in counting the goose kill. Therefore, I would urge that no statewide quota be established until agreement is reached on a reliable method of counting the kill.

(2) If the extent of the statewide season is based on the kill within the present quota area-in other words, if we close the statewide season as soon as a certain percentage of the quota is filled in the Horicon Marsh area where accurate count methods are used-then we are going to have some very serious conequences to deal with:

(a) Because the average daily kill is so much greater in the Horicon Marsh area than elsewhere in the State, a season which is dependent on the rapidity of the Horicon kill would be unfair to hunters in other sections of the State.

(b) Because the hunting activity-both at Horicon and elsewhere is one of the primary deterrants to crop damage, the much shortened State goose hunting season would result in an almost inconceivably high crop loss from foraging birds. An extended hunting season is, therefore, not only desirable to the hunter, it is vital to the farmer in the surrounding areas.

(3) One of the major conservation problems involved here is the concentration of the goose flock at Horicon, in numbers ranging from two to three times the planned capacity of that area. Unless steps are taken-and to my knowledge, none have to date to disperse the flock from Horicon and hold the goose population there to the 50,000 flock which is believed to be the ideal capacity, we will have solved nothing we will have satisfied no one we will have to face the problem on another day.

Mr. Chairman, you have received the statement of the Wisconsin Conservation Department and have been informed of steps which are being taken to insure that Wisconsin will not harvest an unreasonably

large portion of the Mississippi flyway's 200,000 geese, 120,000 of which frequent the Horicon Marsh in Wisconsin.

I understand that the flock can tolerate a hunting harvest of up to 50,000; yet, it is reported that Federal authorities are considering a 14,000 State quota.

On the basis of all of the information I have received, both here in Washington and back in Wisconsin, I can see no reason why a State quota of up to 20,000 could not easily be established with no adverse effects to the flock.

Since statewide kill-count procedures have not gained the confidence of conservation officials, I would urge that the 1966 goose season in Wisconsin be established on the basis of a 14,000 quota for the Horicon quota area, and the continuation of the 70-day season-but with the one goose bag and possession limit adopted by the State this year in an effort to reduce the overall kill.

At the same time, I would strongly recommend that State and Federal officials immediately institute plans for the development of an accurate statewide kill-count procedure, to be implemented this year. I would also urge State and Federal officials to begin plans for the dispersal of the Horicon flock, maintaining the 50,000 capacity population at Horicon and creating new waterfowl areas around the State to attract the excess population.

I thank you for allowing me this time and again urge that you study the views expressed here today in a spirit of careful and deliberate consideration.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Mr. Pelly?

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the theory, and I think it is the first time that I have ever heard before this committee about the theory of dispersing flocks in the interest of conservation. I think that rather than coming here and urging increasing or lowering kills, you have suggested that a proper balance be established in one locality and then to disperse the flocks in other refuge lands elsewhere. I think that has a lot of merit to it.

Mr. RACE. Thank you. I think it is a very good idea and would divide the hunting up in the State.

Mr. PELLY. As you know, this subcommittee is very much interested in extending the refuge lands to conserve our wildlife and your suggestion ties right in with the overall thoughts of this committee. Mr. RACE. I thank the gentleman for agreeing with me.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Reinecke?

Mr. REINECKE. Thank you.

I would like to welcome our colleague and thank him for a very interesting and informative statement.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much.

Mr. RACE. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. Our next witness will be Mr. John S. Gottschalk, Director for Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior. He will be accompanied by Mr. Walter Crissey, Director of the Migratory Bird Station at Laurel, Md., and Mr. A. T. Studholme, Chief, Division of Management Enforcement.

Do you have a statement?

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. GOTTSCHALK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE; ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER CRISSEY, DIRECTOR, MIGRATORY BIRD POPULATIONS STATION, AND A. T. STUDHOLME, CHIEF, DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I do not have a prepared statement myself, Mr. Chairman, but when we consider the current status of waterfowl and the history and last year's regulations and general considerations of waterfowl regulations as a whole, Mr. Crissey will have a prepared statement which we would like to present to the committee and leave for the record.

Mr. DOWNING. You may proceed.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We are pleased to have this opportunity to present a short history of waterfowl regulation and waterfowl hunting in our country for the benefit of the committee in its consideration of the stewardship which our Bureau, through the Department of the Interior, provides for what we all recognize as one of America's great outdoor resources.

I would like to preface our testimony this morning by echoing the feeling of optimism which the chairman reported in his opening remarks. When we testified last year, it was our sad lot to report that the mallard population, for example, at that time was as low as it had been noted during the course of the survey work which we have been carrying out now for nearly two decades.

We anticipated regulations last year which were designed to return an increased number of birds to the breeding grounds to take advantage of what appeared to be improved breeding conditions in the essential prairie breeding areas of Canada, and to a lesser extent our own prairie States.

As a result, we established a target of a 20-percent reduction in kill last year and a consequent return of 10 percent more birds to the prairie nesting regions.

I will report this in general terms at this point because we are prepared to document our statements with the statistical material from our survey work in more detail.

I can report that nature has been extremely kind to waterfowl and also as a result to waterfowl hunters, and I might add indirectly to those of us who have the responsibility to recommend to the Secretary the regulations which will be in force this coming fall.

Water conditions last year, last winter, and this spring, have continued to remain the best they have been now for approximately 6 years. As a result of improved water conditions and as a result of a larger number of breeding birds which flew back to the potholes last spring, we started the breeding season in the best condition from the standpoint of the potential for breeding, although not for the number of breeding birds that we have had for a long time.

We all are aware of the fact that nature has the capability to respond, sometimes dramatically, to changes in the habitat and in the environment and, while it might not have been exactly a dramatic

response this year, there has certainly been a most gratifying response on the part of the birds.

The ratio of young produced to adult birds is higher this year than it has been at any point in the last 10 years. Now, this is not to suggest that we are approaching the conditions which prevailed historically at various times when we had several years of favorable water conditions.

It does take into consideration the fact that our data for the last 10 years include some of the poorest years in terms of production that we have ever experienced.

Nevertheless, our records indicate that the birds produced at the rate of 1.6 young per adult which is slightly better statistically than

three young birds per pair of adult birds, and this is a truly gratifying situation and one which gives us leave to think in terms of more relaxed regulations than we have been able to recommend in past years.

I want to emphasize, of course, that my remarks are very general, covering the whole spectrum of waterfowl. You will find differences with respect to individual species, and in some cases with respect to different areas, but with that as a background, I would like to review for you just for a moment the procedures we follow and then, with your permission, to tell you the recommendations of my staff and where we stand in this regulationmaking process.

Our predictions of the fall flight of birds is dependent primarily upon two surveys carried out in the summer months. One is made in June and consists of a survey of breeding pairs of ducks. This is followed in July by a survey which shows the number of broods per pair of adults.

The first gives us a figure which can be related to the figures from previous years as to the population of adult birds. The second is the figure which gives us a factor which when multiplied by the number of adult birds gives us the anticipated total number of birds that would be available to start south in the fall.

Now, we get this information together as rapidly as we can and usually in the second week of August there are a series of waterfowl council meetings, one for each of the waterfowl flyways in the United States, and I might say Canada, because Canada has observers attending the respective waterfowl flyway council meetings.

At these meetings this year for the first time we presented the material which we had accumulated through these surveys with the recommendations of my staff. They were not the recommendations which I will make to the Secretary, but they were the recommendations of the staff in the Bureau to the councils for the types of regulations which we thought would achieve a continuation of our basic policy, to try to accommodate the greatest possible recreation but still put more birds back into the breeding grounds to take care of what we confidently expect will be another year of good water conditions in the prairie breeding grounds.

The councils met a week ago last Thursday and Friday. My staff came back to Washington last weekend. We worked on Saturday and Sunday reviewing the material they had obtained from the councils, and on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week the consolidated versions of the information that they had obtained from the council

groups and the last word which we had from our people was put together in the form of recommendations from the staff to me, and presented to the Waterfowl Advisory Committee, which has been holding its meeting the day before yesterday and yesterday..

Now, the purpose of the Waterfowl Advisory Committee meeting is to subject the technical recommendations of my staff, a group of men heading our various divisions which work with waterfowl, to the opinions of the State fish and game departments and of the private organizations who are working for our citizens in a nongovernmental way in the interest of waterfowl conservation.

The group includes all of the major national conservation organizations in addition to the representatives of the flyway councils.

This group tell me, with I would say a measure of candor, what they think of what we think, and there is a great exchange of ideas. We look upon this as a way to recognize what you might call social values of waterfowl shooting. It gives us the input from people who are on the one hand close to the hunters, and on the other hand close to the people who occupy a noncompensatory user status as far as waterfowl are concerned.

I refer, of course, to groups like the National Audubon Society, which is present at this meeting. It also includes representation from the major national organization composed almost exclusively of waterfowl hunters, and that is Ducks Unlimited.

I want to report that our cooperative working together with Ducks Unlimited, I believe, has reached a new high of understanding, and I would like to commend that organization for the energy which they have displayed in trying to help solve the waterfowl problem by working in the place where the ducks are produced; namely, in Canada. It is a citizens' effort designed to put some of America's interest and wealth into a place where it cannot be done by the Government itself. It is truly an orgnaization of great importance in this field.

All of this has come now to the point where we have developed, and I say "we" in the sense of reflecting my staff recommendations, a series of proposed regulations which I am now considering, and from which I expect tomorrow to distill the essence and make a recommendation to the Secretary. He will have on his desk early in the week our formal recommendations for the 1966 waterfowl

season.

I don't know into how much detail you wish to go, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to give you as much as you wish, but perhaps at this time you might like to hear Mr. Crissey's general statement about the probable character of the waterfowl flights this coming fall. Mr. DOWNING. I think that would be desirable.

Do you have any questions, gentlemen?

Mr. PELLY. I have a comment.

I thought that last year maybe we went into too much detail, that, if we could get a summary and then by questioning any details that seemed desirable would be brought out. I just thought we went on at great length last year, and it did not seem to serve any great purpose, so that my suggestion is the summary, and then the questions.