Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

than 60 percent of the areas be maintained as an inviolate sanctuary, the balance to be open to public shooting. This is one of the most productive and also one of the most popular of the wildlife refuges in the United States. Some hunting has also been permitted on Mattamuskeet in North Carolina. The same is true for Tule Lake in northern California, and recently portions of Malheur in Oregon have been opened. Such openings have been possible because the lands were acquired with funds other than duck-stamp funds. On many areas hunting of such upland game species as deer, quail, and grouse have been permitted, and on several areas field trials are staged with no damage to wildlife.

In his statement to this committee in support of the proposal to permit establishment of wildlife-management areas through the use of duck-stamp moneys, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service said he was confident that the proposal is sound, that it will lead to improved administration, and that pressures will not develop that will make it either dangerous or unworkable. He assured the committee that few areas will be open to public shooting and that such departures from the sanctuary idea will be made only after a thorough study and for good reason.

Hon. S..O. BLAND,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington 25, D. C., May 4, 1949.

Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. BLAND: Reference is made to your request for a report on H. R. 3711, a bill to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 451; 16 U. S. C. 718b), as amended.

I recommend enactment of the proposed legislation.

The proposed legislation would amend sections 2 and 4 of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 451; 16 U. S. C. 718b), as amended, so as to permit the accomplishment of three major purposes. First, it would permit a larger share of the migratory bird conservation fund to be used for enforcement and related activities than is now permitted. Secondly, it would permit the acquisition and administration as a part of the migratory waterfowl refuge system of certain management areas as distinguished from inviolate sanctuary areas. Thirdly, and as a means toward these ends, the legislation would increase the fee for the Federal migratory hunting stamp from $1 to $2.

These purposes represent a somewhat new approach in the program for the conservation of migratory waterfowl which could not have been considered some years ago, but which now can be considered in the light of accomplished progress relating to the development of wildlife resources on a national scale.

At the time of the enactment of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 451), the greatest need in the conservation of migratory bird populations was the establishment of a system of refuges that would not only maintain the populations of the birds at a figure consistent with the hunting demands of the public, but also, if possible, increase those populations to take care of the natural increase in hunting intensity, both in the local areas as well as in the Nation as a whole. Without reviewing in detail the extremely important and varying factors involved in this conservation program, it may be stated as a well-established fact that the program has been highly successful. Thus the act of March 16, 1934, provided that 90 percent of the special fund received from the sale of the $1 migratory bird hunting stamps was to be used for the acquisition, administration, maintenance, and development of wildlife refuges with particular emphasis on inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds. Only 10 percent, as compared with the 25 percent provided in the proposed legislation, was available for the administration of the act and for the administration of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. At that time and for some years thereafter, both the populations of the birds and the numbers of the hunters were at such levels that proper enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulations did not present the acute problems that

are presented today. In the last 3 or 4 years, hunting intensity has increased enormously. In contrast, the populations of migratory birds, which were substantially increased from 1929 to and including 1944, showed a startling decline down to the last season. While this immediate problem may or may not continue for any length of time, it is not unlikely that it will recur from time to time, and some flexibility in the use of the migratory bird conservation fund for enforcement purposes, as well as for use in the development and maintenance of wildlife refuges, should be provided.

The legislation also would provide that a portion of the fund available for the acquisition of lands might be expended for the acquisition of wildlife management areas. Experience in the problems of waterfowl restoration and the establishment and management of wildlife areas indicates rather clearly the possibility of a new type of area that may be termed the management area. This experience has indicated that with respect to a few of the refuges already under administration there are fringe areas rather readily available that could be utilized by the general public for public shooting without conflict with the primary purposes of wildlife restoration. The needs of the hunter, as well as of the game species, are becoming more apparent each year because of the encroachment of privately controlled hunting on what were formerly open hunting areas. A considerable amount of heretofore available habitat is rapidly being acquired or controlled by private and commercial clubs. While such private and commercial clubs do contribute materially in many instances to the conservation and restoration of waterfowl and other wildlife, the average hunter is not in a position to maintain membership in private clubs, or to pay the high rates charged by the commercial gun clubs. Thus, the average hunter who has contributed willingly through the purchase of the migratory bird hunting stamp to the restoration of the species gradually is being deprived of the opportunity of enjoying any interest on his investment.

The increase of the fee for the Federal migratory bird hunting stamp from $1 to $2 is simply a means to provide the financial aid required to carry out the other three purposes of the bill. In its present form, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act requires each person hunting migratory waterfowl to contribute $1 annually to the special fund for the acquisition, administration, maintenance, and the development of wildlife refuges, and for expenses in executing that act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In general, the proposed increase in cost of the annual fee to be paid by a hunter, which fee is utilized directly for his benefit, is rather insignificant from the individual's standpoint. At the same time, it collectively is such an increase as very well may be quite effective in carrying out the general purpose and activities of the wildlife restoration and management program of the Fish and Wildlife Service. I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

OSCAR L. CHAPMAN, Under Secretary of the Interior.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as passed the Senate, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING STAMP ACT OF MARCH 16, 1934 (48 STAT. 451; 16 U. S. C. 718B), AS AMENDED

SEC. 2. That the stamps required by this Act shall be issued and sold by the Post Office Department under regulations prescribed by the Postmaster General: Provided, That the stamps shall be sold at all post offices of the first- and secondclass and at such others as the Postmaster General shall direct. For each such stamp sold under the provisions of this Act there shall be collected by the Post Office Department the sum of [$1] $2. No such stamp shall be valid under any circumstances to authorize the taking of migratory waterfowl except in compliance with Federal and State laws and regulations and then only when the person so taking such waterfowl shall himself have written his signature in ink

across the face of the stamp prior to such taking. Each such stamp shall expire and be void after the 30th day of June next succeeding its issuance and all such stamps remaining unsold by the Post Office Department at the expiration of said June 30 shall be destroyed by said Department. No stamp sold under this Act shall be redeemable by said Department in cash or in kind.

SEC. 4. All moneys received for such stamps shall be accounted for by the Post Office Department and paid into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be received and set aside as a special fund to be known as the migratory bird conservation fund, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. All moneys received into such fund are hereby appropriated for the following objects and shall be available therefor until expended.

(a) Not less than 90 per centum shall be available for the location, ascertainment, acquisition, administration, maintenance, and development of suitable areas for inviolate migratory-bird sanctuaries, under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, to be expended for such purposes in all respects as moneys appropriated pursuant to the provisions of such Act; for the administration, maintenance, and development of other refuges under the administration of the Secretary of the Interior frequented by migratory game birds; and for such investigations on such refuges and elsewhere in regard to migratory waterfowl as the Secretary of the Interior may deem essential for the highest utilization of the refuges and for the protection and increase of these birds [.]: Provided, That in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior not to exceed 25 per centum at any one time, of any area acquired after July 1, 1949, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, may be administered primarily as a wildlife management area not subject to the prohibitions against the taking of birds, or nest or the eggs thereof, as contained in section 10 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222 16 U. S. C. 7151), as amended, except that no such area shall be open to the shooting of migratory birds when the population of such birds frequenting the area or in the migrations utilizing such area is on a decline, nor prior to July 1, 1952, or the date upon which the same has been fully developed as a mangagement area, refuge, reservation, or breeding ground, whichever is later.

PROVIDING THAT THE UNITED STATES SHALL AID THE STATES IN FISH RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECTS

JUNE 29, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, submitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 1746)

The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred. the bill (H. R. 1746) to provide that the United States shall aid the States in fish restoration and management projects, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

Page 5, line 22, after the word "than" delete the words "one half of". The proposed legislation would inaugurate a program of Federal aid to the States for the restoration and management of the fishery resources of the States similar to that now in effect with respect to other wildlife under the provisions of the act of September 2, 1937 (50 Stat. 917), popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. Under the provisions of the act of September 2, 1937, wildliferestoration programs are financed by the sportsmen of the country out of a special fund derived from a tax on firearms and shells and cartridges. Similarly, the proposed Federal-aid program for fish restoration and management would be financed by the fishermen enjoying the benefits of the program through a tax on fishing rods, creels, reels, and artificial lures, baits, and flies. While the exact amount of the fund that may be derived from the special tax is not known, it is estimated that it would be sufficient to provide the States with a fish-restoration program comparable in many respects to that carried on for the benefit of other wildlife under the act of September 2, 1937. Under the Pittman-Robertson Act, the excise tax on sporting arms and ammunitions is appropriated by the Congress to bring about restoration of game. Each State receives its proportionate share on the basis of land area and sale of hunting licenses, as compared to all

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »