This is seen in the technical committees of the councils, the flyway councils, and many of the recommendations that were made to the Bureau for their consideration in the past 2 days, and several days before, are based on the findings of the technicians of the various States making up the councils.

Our recommendations are not without value and substance. They represent sound data and sound analyzation of that data.

I think that the Bureau finds themselves in an interesting position, because the staff of the Bureau has made certain recommendations to the Director, and to the Commissioner, based on the very best information they have, and the analyzation of that data.

It now behooves the Director of the Bureau to take into account the recommendations of the various councils, the various States, and the various ideas, and blend those then with the recommendations of his staff, to come up with one thing, which is a waterfowl season that is palatable and acceptable to the waterfowl hunter, and of course to the substantial increase of the populations of waterfowl in the United States.

I think the people from Ducks Unlimited brought out that the disagreement at this point is how much should we return to the breeding ground. The figure of 28 percent has been indicated by the Bureau. The councils feel that there should be a substantial number of waterfowl returned to the breeding grounds, but we do not feel-and I slip from speaking for Montana to "we," and I will come back to Montana, since that is who I speak for-Montana feels that the return should be somewhere at a lesser amount, between 17 and 18 percent, to allow a proper and adequate and substantial season for the waterfowl hunters of Montana, and the rest of the United States.

I would say that the States recognize the council system because it is our opportunity to be heard, and the States do represent the people of their area, and their feeling, and I would say that as a State director, I know without too much doubt how the people in my State feel, because they are not hesitant in any way to let us know.

So our desire is to be properly heard, and have our information properly considered in these seasons.

Specifically, in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, we have been amassing data to substantiate a mallard zone within the flyway of the central group.

We feel the information is proper. We have suggested it through the council, and to the Bureau for their consideration. They must review this and come up with some ideas as to how it stands.

Perhaps the data is not conclusive, but somewhere a start must be made for proper management of species on a flock basis within flyways. Again, I would say we don't think the waterfowl population is as high as it should be. We feel it should be substantially increased. Any disagreement that we may have with the Bureau stems from how rapidly should this be increased, and should we try to increase it at the jeopardy of a substantial season.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer questions, if you have any.

Mr. DOWNING. The committee wants to thank you very much for your presentation.

Are there any questions of this witness?

Thank you very much, sir.

Our next witness is Mr. John M. Anderson of the National Audubon Society, and director, Sanctuary Department, Sharon, Conn.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. ANDERSON, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, DIRECTOR, SANCTUARY DEPARTMENT, SHARON, CONN.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, the National Audubon Society has very carefully reviewed the regulations pertaining to waterfowl hunting which were presented yesterday by Director Gottschalk to the Waterfowl Advisory Committee.

We find these regulations are based upon a vast amount of scientific study. They appear designed to allow the maximum of outdoor recreation through hunting without endangering the resources. Therefore, the National Audubon Society endorses these proposals made by Director Gottschalk. It is our sincere hope that they will be adopted in their entirety by the Secretary of the Interior with the possible exception in regard to hunting of whistling swans and sandhill cranes. We do not question the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to adequately protect these two species from overharvest. We are confident that they can and will do so, but we are concerned that adverse public reaction to killing these two species might in the long run be more damaging to the sport of wildfowling than if they were given complete protection.

While there are admittedly 2 million duck hunters in the United States, it must be borne in mind that there are probably 50 million people who are also concerned with the esthetic and other recreational values of these resources who are not hunters.

Should there be any question about it, I, myself, though I work for the Audubon Society, am a professional waterfowl biologist and have been a duck hunter all my life and expect to continue to be so. We feel that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service knows what it is doing and how to do it.

Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much.

I might add that I am a duck hunter, too, but I have done nothing to decrease the population of ducks.

In the interest of time, I wonder if we could have Mr. Jack C. Williams of the Horicon Rod & Gun Club and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, Mr. Elmer Rehse, of the Horicon Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. John Schoenfeld, Beaver Dam Fishermen's Club, come up to the witness table at the same time.

STATEMENTS OF JACK C. WILLIAMS, HORICON ROD & GUN CLUB AND WISCONSIN CONSERVATION CONGRESS, HORICON, WIS.; ELMER REHSE, HORICON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HORICON, WIS.; AND JOHN SCHOENFELD, BEAVER DAM FISHERMEN'S CLUB, BEAVER DAM, WIS.

Mr. REHSE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we did not expect to be called quite this early for testimony. Due to the airplane strike we are somewhat disorganized and our notes are not currently

in the room but will be here very soon. Our statement is not now prepared but we will submit a written statement to this committee.

I am Elmer Rehse, with the chamber of commerce in Horicon, Wis. With me is Jack Williams, representing the Horicon Rod & Gun Club and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress and John Schoenfeld, representing the Beaver Dam Fishermen's Club and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. Very briefly, sir, we agree in general with the statements submitted by the Wisconsin Conservation Department and the Honorable Representative Kastenmeier. There is a point of very distinct interest to this committee, and this is the situation on the Horicon Marsh Refuge. The goose hunting situation there has been considerably discussed, and this is the primary problem before us.

The situation which we would like to bring forth is the quota which has been proposed by the Federal Bureau, at 14,000. I will try to get this in some order here.

The quotas as indicated for this coming year are 14,000 and the Federal department has indicated that last year an estimate of 35,000 was killed in the entire State of Wisconsin. They have admitted, incidentally, that this is purely an estimate, and they have no accurate way of counting the actual goose kill.

I would like to submit as a matter of record the goose population over the past few years as an indication. In 1963, the peak goose population in the Horicon refuge was 85,000; in 1964, the peak population was 97,450; and last year in 1965, the peak was 121,268.

They have indicated this serious goose kill, which I might add has been questioned by the Wisconsin department and they are at odds on this actual kill figure, but I want to point out that if this kill is accurate, that the goose population is still increasing, and with all expectations as far as the Horicon refuge is concerned, it will probably increase this year.

Mr. DOWNING. When you say goose population, you don't mean geese that are bred in Wisconsin. You mean those that come through the flyway.

Mr. REHSE. This is the flyway goose, that is right. There is no goose breeding as such in the Horicon refuge. Sometimes there are one or two pair.

Mr. DOWNING. It has been increasing yearly.

Mr. REHSE. Yes.

Mr. DOWNING. You are of the opinion that if this is so, there should not be a reduction in the kill, is that right?

Mr. REHSE. Well, there shouldn't be a reduction in the kill, Mr. Chairman. If the population is increasing the kill should be increased to keep it under control. We are not questioning the quota as such. This is not too serious a problem. Many hunters have pushed for more, and it would seem that the larger quota would be in order with this large population. This is the one time peak population on the refuge. The problem, of course, which arises is the actual count and the quota zone.

Of course, as the Department mentioned before, I think last year's hunt was a 7-day hunt in the zone, and the rest of the State was left open. We contend that an accurate count should be made. We feel that the goose kill in Wisconsin should be registered in all areas, and particularly in the zone and near the zone.

When the original zone is closed, an area could be set up near the zone where 95 percent of the kill is in the State in and around this quota zone. We feel that an accurate count should be made so that there is not a problem as to the goose kill.

Mr. DOWNING. Does the Department of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife disagree with you about the increase in population of the birds? Mr. REHSE. I don't believe so. These are figures that have been published.

Mr. DOWNING. Well then, why do they advocate a reduction in the kill?

Mr. REHSE. This is a question which we would like to raise to the committee, sir. We don't know. These are published figures. These are not disputed. To my knowledge, they have never been disputed. Now we have a further problem.

Mr. Jack Williams, representative of the Horicon Rod & Gun Club and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, would like to bring out a point, also.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I am Jack Williams from Horicon, Wis., representing the Horicon Rod & Gun Club and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.

We came here from Horicon and are trying to bring out some of these points and trying to find some answers on this goose problem. I don't know if this has been brought out to the committee. We didn't get into here until 10 o'clock, and this could have been brought up already, but I don't know if it was or not.

In this year's plans for the refuge the Federal Department proposes to reduce this goose flock at the Horicon Marsh to about 50,000 birds at its peak population. Now to do this they have proposed several different ways that they are going to do it.

They claim that they are going to haze these birds out of the refuge with aircraft, explosives, traffic, any possible way that they can to keep these birds out of the refuge. This wouldn't be done right during the hunting season, but would be done before and after the hunting

season.

Now, we understand what they are trying to do, but we don't go along with this. We feel that the refuge was set up as a refuge and as a resting place for the game. We feel that they cannot haze the geese out of this refuge without hazing all the rest of the wildlife out of there and disturbing them, and we don't go along with this at all. We want to find out why the Bureau is allowed to do this.

Also they propose that, in Wisconsin around the Horicon Marsh, in the quota zone, with their regulations they would open the season at sunrise and hunt to sunset.

Now in previous years these zones were zoned out at special times for opening. We had one zone immediately around the refuge opened at 9 in the morning and we hunted until 2 in the afternoon. Therefore, the majority of the birds had moved out early in the morning and returned back into the refuge before 9 o'clock, thereby prolonging the season and making a little better sport out of this.

If you have never been out to Horicon, you just can't realize what this is to see all these birds out there. It is our feeling that if they are allowed to do this, open this season at sunrise and close at sunset,

we really don't think that the season will last more than 3 days. There won't be any sportsmanship involved.

Mr. DOWNING. With a limit of 14,000?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; for this quota.

Mr. REHSE. If I may interject, I think with any quota, if we were given a sunrise opening and sunset closing with no feeding on the refuge, there is certainly not going to be any season.

Mr. DOWNING. Don't you have a limit?

Mr. REHSE. Yes; one bird.

Mr. WILLIAMS. These hunters are all aware of the fact that the season is not going to last very long. We are going to get a high pressure of hunters right away and by opening from sunrise to sunset, they will keep killing geese. It won't be a hunt any more. To my knowledge, it would just be a slaughter.

Mr. PELLY. Are there any geese flying between 9 and 2? Aren't they pretty well back on the water?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. This was the reason it was set up from 9 to 2, and it has worked out feasibly that the geese did return to the refuge. It made more sport. You have to lure your geese over decoys, except on certain days when we had rough weather this has worked out fine. It is our feeling that the reason they want to do this is that we feel they want to get this season over in a hurry.

Mr. DOWNING. Who?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Federal Fish and Wildilfe Service.

Mr. DOWNING. I find this a little confusing. You mean the Federal Government is advocating a sunrise-to-sunset limit and you want a 9-to-2 limit?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOWNING. And you figure that fewer birds will be killed with a 9-to-2 limit?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. This will prolong the season much longer than from sunrise to sunset.

Mr. REHSE. As a matter of record, I would like to say that in the past season they estimated the kill in the quota zone as 13,000, and we had a 9-to-2 period last year, and it was only a 7-day season. If we have a smaller quota this year and open from sunrise to sunset, which is the best shooting hours, if it lasts 3 days, it will be a miracle.

I would like to point out a little bit in addition. They are proposing hazing, but in addition to the hazing proposal, the Federal Bureau has at its disposal 1,760 acres of tillable cropland that have always been planted for the purpose of feeding the geese. This year they have not planted this land. There is no feed. When these geese come in this year in addition to hazing, the only result of this can possibly be, with the hazing and no food on the refuge, a serious case of increased crop depreciation to the farmer in an increased area. That can be the only possible result.

We don't know why there is no food provided, but the Federal Bureau is providing no food on the refuge this year, and this is completely opposite of all past practices, and the hazing is a new proposal. It seems to be no sense.

Mr. DOWNING. I wonder if you could direct yourself to this, Mr. Gottschalk.