This will not be a figure based on surveys until we have completed the work that is just now getting underway in the breeding grounds, but I can give you our estimate of what we think the result of last year's hunting regulations was. I would be very happy to do that. (The information follows:)

ATTAINMENT OF 1966 WATERFOWL BREEDING POPULATION OBJECTIVES

On August 17, 1965, the Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, told the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation that he believed regulations necessary to return 20 percent more birds to the breeding grounds in the spring of 1966 would be too drastic to be acceptable and that such increase could best be done in two stages. He said he had so recommended to the Secretary of the Interior, and further stated he believed 5-10 percent more birds should be returned to the breeding grounds in the spring of 1966 than were there in the spring of 1965. (Lines 29-41, page 93, Hearings on Waterfowl Management-1965, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Serial No. 89-12, August 17, 1965.)

It is too soon to make a final estimate of the effect of the 1965 hunting kill because neither the necessary banding data for determining the actual production rate nor the results of the mail questionnaire survey of waterfowl hunters are yet available. Nor has the May breeding population survey on the breeding grounds begun for 1966. However, the analysis of the duck wing collection survey indicates that the 1965-66 waterfowl regulations reduced the kill sufficiently that a 5-10 percent increase could result. The actual production rate for 1965 is not certain but the wing collection data (uncorrected for differential vulnerability) indicate 1.3 immatures per adult is still a reasonable estimate. Should the mallard breeding population prove to have increased 10 percent in 1966 (6.3 million) it will still be lower than in any other known years except 1965 (5.7 million) and 1962 (6.1 million).

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman. I would suggest if we could have a briefing that put all of these things together, the population of the species by species, what is really happening to habitat in various parts of the country, not only breeding, but also winter habitat, and could get a total briefing on this whole proposition, I think it would be of tremendous value to this committee and it would be very educational to all of us.

Mr. Dow. I should like to endorse the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland on that score.

Mr. PELLY. Didn't we have a pretty good briefing just prior to the issuance of the publication of the regulations? For 2 days, as I recall, we got all those figures and I would think that if you had been there it would give you a picture of it as of that date. I don't see what good it would do to have a briefing now until you have finished your spring

survey.

Mr. MORTON. Maybe we should wait until that is over, but it would seem to me when we get into flyway figures and we get into regulations it all comes on top of us at once. We could perhaps get a better feel of this thing, because I am really disturbed about the fact that we are spending $10 million in our accelerated program and we are spending land and water conservation fund money and duck stamps.

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield, there are no land and water conservation funds going to acquisition of refuges as such. There are peripheral benefits, but none of those funds goes into refuge acquisition as such.

Mr. MORTON. Maybe I was in error. Yes, I am in error on that point. Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman would yield, perhaps this would meet with the approval of the committee, and the Chair is at the service of this committee.

Perhaps it would be well for the Chair by direction of the committee to instruct the staff to work with the Department of the Interior at the appropriate time for a thorough review of the subject of the continental migratory waterfowl resource and the Chair would suggest that there are several opportunities by which this could be done.

It had been the intention of the Chair to consider this subject just previous to the time that the regulations were issued on migratory waterfowl. This would afford the duck hunters, conservationists, and State agencies an opportunity to express their views, which in turn would give the committee an opportunity to have a very thoroughgoing review of all points of view previous to the time that the regulations were issued.

The Chair would advise the gentleman that if members of the committee have other feelings on this, the Chair would be more than happy to assuage this because I think that this is a very important part of the oversight that this committee exercises over the Department of the Interior. I think, also, that with the changes that go on in terms of the migratory waterfowl resource, both up and down, it is extremely important that not only the duck hunters and citizens of the country testify, but that this committee be kept well informed.

The Chair will work with the gentleman from Maryland and also my good friend from Minnesota and also the gentleman from New York to see to it that this information is available to all of us and the country as a whole and perhaps at a time not too distant we can discuss when would be the most appropriate time.

Perhaps Dr. Cain and Mr. Gottschalk would like to make a comment as to when this committee should go into this point and comment on it.

Mr. CAIN. I would like to tell you now about a very recent move. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior has an Advisory Board on Wildlife and Game Management that has existed a few years. This Board has made two formal reports on assignments which he has given. The first had to do largely with surplus destructive ungulate populations in national parks these are deer, and elk, and so on-and it has resulted in developing a new approach to management of such animals in national parks and monuments.

The second report was on the problem of predatory rodent control and nuisance birds and this has resulted in an organization within the Bureau of a Wildlife Services Division.

Just last week Secretary Udall gave this Board a third assignment and that is to study the national wildlife refuge system in relation to the wetlands program, in relation to estuaries, and in fact anything else that is related to the problem.

This is a nongovernmental citizens board, a small board of five men, and if this job is carried out with the thoroughness that the other two assignments were, we cannot expect a report from them sooner than about 2 years from now.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, I don't think the Chair is prepared to wait 2 years to discuss the subject.

Mr. CAIN. No, no. I just wanted to inform you that this action by the Secretary was only last week.

In the meantime, and as a matter of fact for some years, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has itself been examining the ade

quacy and the characteristics of the national wildlife refuge system, broader than the migratory waterfowl, but certainly with that at the heart of it, and we will be glad to report as we can at any period of time that you request.

Mr. DINGELL. You will complete your spring surveys when?
Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Approximately the middle of June.
Mr. DINGELL. All right.

Your nesting ground surveys will be completed when?
Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is the nesting.

Mr. DINGELL. That is your nesting ground surveys, the middle of June?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Then starting about the first or second week in July we start our brood surveys and these are not finished up until just before we come together for the Waterfowl Advisory Committee meeting, which is the time when all of the agencies and interested groups meet here in Washington to make their recommendations. We present what information we have as of that time.

Mr. DINGELL. Perhaps it would be well for the committee to discuss the date informally at another time.

Gentlemen, the Chair would just make one further observation on this point.

It has been the practice of your agency form time to time to invite members of this subcommittee along for either of these surveys, has it not?

I assume that such invitations would be extended to members of this committee if they chose to go, and the Chair would suggest it might be well for the gentleman from Minnesota or perhaps the gentleman from Maryland, or perhaps even for the Chair or perhaps the gentlemen from Washington and New York to consider going on one of these surveys and perhaps have the advantage of firsthand experience on this.

Mr. MORTON. My problem is I still am not happy with what we are really getting done whether we are going to have a better wildlife balance sheet in 1970 than we have now on the basis of what we are doing on the plus side, versus what happens on the negative side is a real question.

Maybe I haven't done any homework well enough. Maybe it is because I haven't had the time, but I would like somebody to spend 2 hours with me or 2 hours with any group and let me know what the heck is going on, so that I know whether we are making or not making progress.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair will advise my good friend from Maryland that it appears that we are slipping back.

Mr. MORTON. Then we ought to do something about it and we ought to raise a lot of noise about it, and we ought to raise a lot more public pressure and we ought to start gearing ourselves up to holding it, because pulling this up out of the well is going to be a lot more difficult than holding it.

Isn't that right?

Mr. PELLY. I would like to comment that the hearings held just before regulations were issued last year were as informative to me as anything that I have ever experienced here in Congress, especially so because we got various points of view.

65-204-66-pt. 1— -6

The State representatives gave their observations and it made, I think, a very fine hearing, and one that I hope will be repeated this year.

Mr. KARTH. Mr. Chairman, I can't help but agree entirely with what the gentlemen from Maryland says and I plead ignorance along with him I guess. I never had the benefit of this kind of explanation from the Department and various interested groups, including some of the people who work in the State agencies.

I might say that I am not really concerned about how much Federal property is owned in Minnesota or any one of the other States that are considered to be duck breeding States, because the individual who gives the easement doesn't really care if he is giving it to the Federal Government or to the State government or to a private owner, as long as he gets paid for it.

If you were talking about outright ownership I suppose that this is something else again, but we are talking about the Department taking easements on some of these areas where they are looked upon as valuable duck breeding areas.

I don't get disturbed about it a bit. I think it is between the Federal Government and the individual who owns the land and if he is paid enough and makes it worth his while he would just as soon give the easement to the Federal Government, and for conservation purposes probably even rather than to give it to anybody else for the same price. Mr. DINGELL. The Chair has some questions I would like to ask at this time now.

With regard to easements in the report that was submitted to the committee by your agency, you indicated that the present rate of easement as opposed to dollar purchase of fee lands is in the ratio of about $2 in easements to about $1 of free acquisition or 2 acres of easements for every acre of fee purchase.

Is that correct?

Mr. CAIN. The ratio of easement to fee in acres is about 4 to 1. In cost it is about 2 to 3.

Mr. DINGELL. You mean you are getting 4 acres in easement for every acre of fee purchase?

Mr. CAIN. For the period of 1962-1966, the easement acres are 417,113. The fee acres are 101,993, so that ratio is about 4 easement acres to 1 fee acre, but in terms of cost the fee cost was about $3 million. The easement cost was $2,300,000.

Wait a minute. That is 1966 figures. I don't have a total cost for the long period.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, the Chair is concerned about one point. There was language in the report of the Department to the Appropriations Committee suggesting that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife would continue the policy of more widespread acquisition by easement instead of purchase in fee to reduce the cost of the program.

Gentlemen, this particular Member of Congress does not propose to have the Department of the Interior dictated to by the Appropriations Committee on matters that are properly under the scrutiny of my legislative committee since they have no authority to legislate. I wish to know whether or not your division of funds has been on the

basis of instruction by the Appropriations Committee or has it been on the basis of the need of the circumstances?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. As indicated in our report, Mr. Chairman, if I many comment on this question, we think overall that we will wind up with a balance of about 1 acre of fee wetland to about 2 acres of easement.

The reason is that usually we try to buy these areas in clusters. There will be a central or at least a specific area that has permanent characteristics that will provide a sort of biological nucleus for a particular congregation of potholes.

The other potholes in the area, many of them, may be of an ephemeral nature which could be utilized to some extent by a farmer except during the breeding period and on these we would take easements.

This has been the basic policy all along. In short, we recognize that we are going to have to buy some of these areas, but we can also take advantage of the easement process in getting areas at a lower cost and still satisfying the long-term requirements of the program.

Mr. DINGELL. You have indicated an adverse report on the possibility of overprinting duck stamps.

Mr. CAIN. That's right.

Mr. DINGELL. Your thesis I think could be reduced to these words. You prefer to have all duck stamps increased to $5 rather than to have an optional possibility of increasing the duck stamps to $5. Am I correct?

Mr. CAIN. Mr. Chairman, on H.R. 11967, the overprinting bill, we recommend against it because what information we have from previous voluntary purchases in 2 years of experience total less than $10,000 so we thought this was not a significant device.

We do not recommend either for or against the increase from $3 to $5. We just don't make a statement on that, but in association with our comment, we said that the significant bill before us was the one to extend the loan fund.

Mr. DINGELL. Let me ask you this then.

What is your departmental position with regard to increasing the cost of the duck stamp?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Essentially it is this.

We are at the present time in a position where we have one of the lowest waterfowl population we have had for many, many years. We are in the position where we will have to have the Wetland Loan Fund Act extended if we are to do what we know is necessary to maintain a viable population of waterfowl in the United States.

We are fearful that to attempt to carry out a legislative program involving the increase of the duck stamp price from $3 to $5 under these circumstances might jeopardize the loan fund program.

Mr. DINGELL. You say it might jeopardize the loan fund program? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Right.

Mr. DINGELL. Why would it jeopardize the loan fund program? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I think, while a great many waterfowl hunters who are aware of the problem and concerned about it would support us, that a great many more would object violently, particularly in view of the fact that we have a low waterfowl population at the present time.