because of the artificially maintained marshes between Sandusky and Toledo, Ohio, has a very important relationship to the thousands of birds of the Atlantic flyway en route from their Canadian breeding grounds. North and South Dakota also are shown in the Mississippi flyway but it is an open question whether during the shooting season, their lakes and marshes are populated more by Mississippi birds than by those of the Central flyway. The problem presented by the flyway system as contrasted with the zonal system of regulation is one that is worthy of the closest consideration of American sportsmen who, despite the annual exercise of their right to criticize and complain, nevertheless also demand an intelligent management of the natural resource that provides their favorite sport. Mr. BISHOP. Dr. Gabrielson, if you granted permission to hunters to hunt in refuges would you not have requests to change the bag limit, and so on? Dr. GABRIELSON. The real disadvantage of opening the refuges to hunters perhaps would be uncovered when we found it necessary to close them again. That would be one of the real administrative difficulties. You can easily realize how many people would be raising all kinds of objections. I would very much like to keep the management part of this refuge program in such shape that we will not have that problem. I want to build it to the point where we will really have some protection in each strategic district visited by the birds. We have made some real progress and the refuges will be increasingly valuable as the hunting pressure increases. Mr. BISHOP. Will you tell me if you anticipate, as a post-war program, taking over any of the ground which the Department of Agriculture is trying to get rid of; for example, the Crab Orchard proposition down in my district? Dr. GABRIELSON. I would like to have a part of that. Mr. BISHOP. But you will have to take it all over? Dr. GABRIELSON. From the wild-fowl standpoint I would like to have the major portion of it, but I would not like to run the dams or the power end of it. Mr. BISHOP. There are no dams and no power. Dr. GABRIELSON. I thought they had some power project under way. Mr. BISHOP. There are perhaps possibilities but the dams are not finished. Dr. GABRIELSON. If there was power I would not want it because I do not want to get into that business. We had negotiations under way just prior to the war, but nothing has been done on it recently. Mr. BISHOP. I hope some serious consideration will be given to it because I am afraid if some agency does not take it over-and the State does not want it-it will get out of our hands. Dr. GABRIELSON. We are very much interested in it. Mr. BISHOP. I am very much interested and so are our people. Dr. GABRIELSON. I would like to talk to you about it later. I am going to Chicago Tuesday, but when I come back I will come to see you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Gabrielson, theoretically what percentage of a given shooting area of ducks, let us say, should be in a refuge and what percentage should be open? Dr. GABRIELSON. That depends a lot on where it is and the kind of foods that are in it. Congress set the only legal standard that I know of when it created the Bear River Refuge. We built those marshes; under a special act of Congress which specified we could never open up to shooting more than 40 percent of the total area and, as I recall, they had quite a fight to get even that much. The CHAIRMAN. If you should open 40 percent of the refuge in Back Bay or even 50 percent-I think that would be better you have 20 percent of a limited shooting area closed-would not that 4,500 acres of refuge be sufficient as long as the duck population continues to increase? Dr. GABRIELSON. This is 40 percent of the total area of the Bear River Refuge; we have only 20 percent of the duck area at Back Bay be closed. The CHAIRMAN. Forty percent of the marshes? Dr. GABRIELSON. The only marshes at Bear River are those built back by us; they were alkaline, mud flats, until we built them up. In this case we were instructed by the Congress not to ever open more than 40 percent of them for shooting. Frankly, I think that with the type of shooting in the Back Bay area, opening the refuge would not help very much, because if the hunters did shoot in the area that is now refuge, it would simply result in the birds leaving the area. Accordingly, the hunters would not be any better off-except for a day or two-than they are now. If the refuge was all open to shooting the birds would simply move out in a few days. You will recall what happened there before we had the refuge when the shooters and gun clubs felt that the land was worth very little. Some of it was sold to us for much less than its previous valuation. The CHAIRMAN. But you had a combination of problems there. In the first place, there was at the time a great national shortage of ducks. Dr. GABRIELSON. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And in the second place, the water had been polluted, polluted with salt water. Dr. GABRIELSON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And now you have a good supply of ducks and feed. Dr. GABRIELSON. But the type of hunting you have there is such that I frankly do not believe it would help very much to open up the refuge. It would result in increased hunting for a short period but I do not think it would help in the long run; as the shooting would merely drive the birds from the refuge area that was opened into the other areas that were still closed. The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing else the committee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the chairman. (At 4:35 p. m., the hearing was adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.) CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1944 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., in room 448, House Office Building, Representative A. Willis Robertson (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. The first witness today will be Mr. Lloyd W. Swift, Chief, Division of Wildlife Management, of the United States Forest Service. The Chair is glad to recognize you at this time, Mr. Swift.. STATEMENT OF LLOYD W. SWIFT, CHIEF, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be with the committee again. Before going into the report of the Forest Service, I would like to say that Dr. Shantz would like to have his good wishes extended to the committee. He is now living at Santa Barbara, Calif., and I hear from him occasionally. I believe that he is enjoying his well-earned retirement. The Forest Service is glad to submit its report for its activities for 1943: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE FOR THE YEAR 1943 TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The report for 1943 has been prepared in three sections. The first part deals with the general wildlife conditions on the national forests, including a discussion of wildlife statistics. The second section presents the regional reports and accomplishments in line with the practice followed in previous reports to the committee. A third part covers a special regional discussion of fish resources and fish management on the national forests. GENERAL WILDLIFE CONDITIONS As in 1942, wildlife work on the national forests during 1943 continued on a reduced scale because of a shortage of personnel and other limitations resulting from the war situation. In general, attention has been directed to big game overpopulation areas and similar problems which required immediate action in order to prevent further damage to the plant and soil resources and the wildlife itself. Physical improvements such as stream improvements, water developments, and other peacetime construction projects could not be undertaken in any of the regions. The main contribution, therefore, has been to maintain the wildlife environment in a desirable condition for the production of fish and game through the continued availability of food and cover. Considerable thought has been given to the wildlife work which might be undertaken during post-war years. A review has been made of the projects carried out under the Civilian Conservation Corps and other programs. From this the Service has attempted to determine what types of stream improvement, water development, food and cover plantings, and other wildlife expenditures have been most satisfactory. With this as a basis, standards and specifications for new projects are being prepared. In building the post-war program, attention has been given to the project work inventories. These have been revised in the light of past experiences and the needs for a short-term as well as a long-term program have been worked out. This includes the kind and quantity of structures, manpower needs, including technicians, equipment requirements, and, as rapidly as practicable, the development of project plans to the blueprint stage. Through this planning, it is expected that a number of very worth-while projects can be initiated whenever funds become available. Several of the regions have made very material progress in the development of big game herd management plans. These plans involve the year-long range of deer or elk herd and are worked out in cooperation with the State game commission and other agencies. In this way a plan of management is prepared on a sound basis since it includes all of the range and involves other factors which bear upon the longtime welfare of the herds. Where these plans have been applied, the results have been very encouraging since they permit the State game commissions to adjust the hunter harvest to the annual surplus and thereby maintain the herds in reasonable adjustment with their ranges. For a number of years the proper distribution of some of the big game herds on national forests has been brought about in part through the skillful use of salt. In Montana and Idaho, for example, the Forest Service and the State game commissions have cooperated in distributing thousands of pounds of salt on the elk range to draw them off the depleted winter ranges in the spring and to hold them off the critical winter areas for a longer period in the fall. In the past the salt has been provided by the State game commissions and delivered to a central point on the national forests from where it was commonly distributed by pack horses to predetermined points within the elk range. This tedious job is now being speeded up through the use of airplanes. Men knowing the territories now are able to fly over the areas to be salted and in a few hours drop the same amount of salt from an airplane to salt grounds which would have taken several men and a pack string a week or more to cover under the old system. This Continued study of deer and elk distribution on the national forests emphasizes a situation which has long been apparent, namely, that deer are inclined to remain in a restricted territory whereas elk often migrate and establish new herds. tendency is especially noticeable in regions 3 and 6. In Arizona and New Mexico the native Merriam elk were exterminated about 1900 and the Rocky Mountain elk were introduced in 1912. The elk have gradually increased their range, and it is expected that eventually they will occupy parts of all the national forests in Arizona and become established on most of the national forests in New Mexico. In region 6 elk are moving south along the Cascade Divide toward the California line, and in the interior of Oregon are beginning to appear in new territories on the Malheur and Ochoco National Forests. The habit of the elk to extend their range often introduces management difficulties. The elk are larger and stronger animals than deer, and in the case of direct competition will force the elimination or marked reduction of the deer herds. Moreover, elk cause more conflict with agricultural developments, especially where they come in contact with stacked hay and with orchards. The Oregon Game Commission, in recognition of the conflicts which might arise, has attempted to confine the eastern Oregon elk to their present range through heavy shooting of animals migrating into new territories to the south. A helpful development of recent years in the management of big game has been the more frequent use by State fish and game commissions of the limited license procedure to control the hunter take. By this system, any big game herd can be managed in accordance with an approved program, since the number of licenses can be adjusted to the kill which is appropriate to the welfare of the herd. Moreover, this procedure permits longer seasons and gives the hunter an opportunity to pick his time and hunt in a more leisurely fashion and under conditions which provide a higher level of sport. The general authority which fish and game commissions now hold to open State game refuges has been used widely and has resulted in better management of game herds. It is now generally agreed that where a commission has plenary powers better results can be obtained by regulating the hunter take than by establishing and maintaining large refuges. For many years the deer season in California has been limited to the late summer and the fall months. Because of the fire situation, shortage of manpower, |