Section 7

This section amends the Migratory Bird Conservation Act in several respects. Subsection (a) removes the word "game" from sections 4 and 12 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This is a technical amendment. The word does not appear in any other section of the act, and the act was not intended to restrict the migratory bird acquisition program to "game" birds. This amendment will permit the program to include all forms of threatened species of migratory birds.

Subsection (b) amends the present section 10 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The revised section 10 directs the Secretary of the Interior to administer the lands acquired or reserved pursuant to that act in a manner that, among other things, will conserve and protect migratory birds and other species of wildlife found thereon. Where the administration of an area that has been acquired or reserved pursuant to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act is prescribed by some other provision of law, such as in the case of those lands within the Klamath Federal reclamation project, which are administered pursuant to the act of September 2, 1964 (78 Stat. 850), this new section 10 will not apply.

Subsection (c) is technical. It amends the Migratory Bird Conservation Act to include in the definition of the term "migratory birds" those birds that are defined in the treaty between the United States and Mexico which was concluded in 1936. Presently, the act refers only to the earlier treaty with Great Britain (for Canada).

Subsection (d) repeals the present sections of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act which provide for the enforcement of said act and for penalties for violations thereof. These enforcements and penalty provisions are now covered by section 4 of the bill.

Section 8

Subsection (a) repeals the provisions of law which now authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands for wildlife refuges by exchange. A broader exhange authority applicable to the entire system is found in section 4 of the bill.

Subsection (b) is a technical amendment to make the provisions of the recently amended "Revenue Sharing Act" applicable to the areas established to protect and conserve all forms of fish and wildlife that are endangered.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Estimated additional man-years of civilian employment and expenditures for the 1st 5 years of proposed new or expanded programs to protect species of fish and wildlife that are rare or threatened with extinction

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., July 15, 1965.

Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 9424, a bill "To provide for the conservation, protection, and propagation of native species of fish and wildlife, including migratory birds, that are threatened with extinction; to consolidate the authorities relating to the administration by the Secretary of the Interior of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and for other purposes."

This legislation would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to initiate and carry out a comprehensive program to conserve, protect, restore, and propagate selective species of native fish and wildlife that are found by him to be threatened with extinction. In addition, the bill would modify the Secretary of the Interior's authority over the administration of the national wildlife refuge system.

This bill was introduced at the request of the Department of the Interior. Since the objectives of the measure do not come within the scope of the activities of this Department, we defer to the views of the Department of the Interior. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely,

Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,

RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 14, 1965.

Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of June 25, 1965, requested the Department's comments on H.R. 9424, a bill to provide for the conservation, protection, and propagation of native species of fish and wildlife, including migratory birds, that are threatened with extinction; to consolidate the authorities relating to the administration by the Secretary of the Interior of the national wildlife refuge system; and for other purposes.

Certain features of the bill involve conservation treaties between the United States and other countries. The Department believes that the proposals in the bill which pertain to our international organizations are worthwhile and are in accord with the objective of our treaties on the subject. In fact, it is particularly fitting that a reaffirmation should be made at this time of our intention to pursue our obligations under the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, 1940. The Organization of American States has recently decided to convoke an Inter-American Specialized Conference to Deal With Problems Relating to Renewable Natural Resources in the Western Hemisphere. The Conference will be held in Mar del Plate, Argentina, from October 4 to 8, 1965. One of the major subjects to be discussed is methods for implementing the 1940 Convention.

Accordingly the Department would interpose no objection to the proposed bill. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II,

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. Mr. DINGELL. We are honored and delighted to have our acting chairman of the full committee with us this morning. He has authored one of the bills under consideration today. Congressman Garmatz, would you care to make a statement on your bill, H.R. 9493 ?

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Chairman, may I take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to make a brief statement before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation in support of my bill, H.R. 9493, and H.R. 9424, an identical bill introduced by one of our distinguished former colleagues, T. A. Thompson.

Over the years, I have become increasingly concerned over the considerable number of birds and mammals native to the United States which have become extinct.

In the past, endangered species have been protected by special acts of Congress. H.R. 9493 and H.R. 9424 would eliminate the necessity of having to come before the Congress each time a native species is threatened, by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a comprehensive program to conserve, protect, and propagate native species of fish and wildlife, including game and nongame migratory birds, that are threatened with extinction.

As you are well aware, we have obligations under international treaties with Mexico and Canada to protect and conserve native species of fish and wildlife, including migratory birds. This legislation would be most helpful in fulfilling these obligations.

Mr. Chairman, unless appropriate action is taken in due time, other species now endangered will soon disappear forever from the face of our earth. I sincerely hope the subcommittee will take immediate action and adopt this legislation, which would be a great step forward in protecting and restoring these threatened species.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Congressman, for a fine statement. We appreciate your appearance before this subcommittee on such a vital issue.

Now, the Chair will note the Secretary of the Interior is due here around 11 or 11:15, so we will take witnesses a little out of what would be the usual order.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DINGELL. On the record.

With that, the Chair is very happy to welcome an old friend and distinguished conservationist, Mr. Charles Callison, assistant to the president of the National Audubon Society.

Mr. Callison, the Chair is indeed happy to welcome you.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES CALLISON, ASSISTANT TO THE
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Mr. CALLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.

My name is Charles H. Callison, assistant to the president of the National Audubon Society, a national conservation organization which has headquarters at New York City.

Our society has been looking forward to the introduction of this bill, and we are pleased and honored to have the opportunity to support

it. We think it proposes a logical and long overdue broadening of the purposes and authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico contemplated, and in fact obligated the Federal responsibility of the United States for the protection and conservation of all the migratory birds named in the treaties. However, due to an ambiguity or oversight in the drafting of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other laws spelling out that responsibility, there has always been doubt that authority existed for the acquisition and management of lands for the benefit of the nongame species.

Among the migratory birds, there are far more of the nongame than game species. Many of the nongame species are of economic importance because of their recreational value and their insectivorous habits. All are important for esthetic and scientific reasons. Some are in dire need for special research and conservation measures. So are some important species that were not included in the treaty listings of migratory species, although they are in fact migratory.

I refer to such forms as the peregrine falcon, the osprey, the bald and golden eagles, and some of the other beleaguered birds of prey, as well as pelicans, ibises, and kites.

The National Audubon Society has at times been critical of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in a friendly way for manifestations of a narrow preoccupation with the game species. We recognize the recreational value of hunting and the economic aspects of the business of supplying the needs of hunters.

We also recognize, and applaud the fact, that waterfowl hunters have contributed more funds, through their purchase of duck stamps, than any other group to the acquisition of lands for the National Wildlife Refuges. Many Audubon members are themselves duck hunters and purchasers of duck stamps.

However, the general public contributes most of the rest of the funds for the Bureau's operations through the general tax revenues, and now the general public will contribute additional amounts through the channels of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

The general public is interested in all kinds of wildlife; not just the game species. So we view this legislation as a long and significant step in the right direction.

Why spend money and make extraordinary public efforts to prevent the extinction of a species such as the California condor, now down to a remnant population of about 40 birds; or the blackfooted ferret, which may be our rarest mammal, and which will never be seen by more than a mere handful of people; or the humpback chub, a rare species of minnow found only in a few unspoiled tributaries of the Upper Colorado Basin; or the devil's-hole pupfish, which I never even heard of until the current study of endangered species began and which is said to inhabit only a single, spring-fed pool in Nevada? Why bother with them?

There are several important reasons.

The esthetic and scientific interest in any species increases, one might say as an axiom, in geometric proportion to its scarcity. Scientists and bird watchers will travel halfway around the world to see and study a bird as rare as the condor or the whooping crane. They would hardly cross the street to see a starling or a house sparrow.

The scientific value is quite real, and, in a sense, immeasurable. Every living species, however common or rare, must be considered a storehouse of undiscovered knowledge of as yet unknown importance in the sciences of biology and ecology. That is why scientists cry in alarm when, through man's ignorance or cupidity or neglect, any rare plant or animal is threatened with extinction.

The National Audubon Society, which has specialized for over half a century in the study and preservation of rare wildlife, could not write a more discerning justification of the purposes of this bill than the authors of a leaflet entitled "Survival or Surrender for Endangered Wildlife" that was recently published by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Although I may be stealing some of the thunder of the Department of the Interior spokesmen who will testify here today I should like to quote a few paragraphs from this leaflet :

Suppose the last whooping crane quietly gave up the struggle for survival in some lonely marsh. Would it make any difference to you? Chances are that you'll never see a live one anyhow-millions of Americans never will. Why worry? The same may be said of many other rare or endangered species of wildlife. What are the values of these creatures? Why spend time and effort to save them?

As the numbers of a wildlife species grow fewer, their true value grows greater, for in the few are concentrated all the worth of one small but valuable part of our whole world.

History is replete with examples of evolution and change, a matter of considerable import to mankind as an indication or insight into his own future. Threatened species are visible indicators of some of the changes that are often so subtle as to be otherwise unnoticed and therefore unmeasured.

Nothing is surer than death and extinction, but the death of a species can be postponed longer than that of an individual. Man's wisdom and experience have not been extensive enough to grasp the full significance of the loss of a species of wildlife. Each occupies a niche and makes a contribution to the whole of life. The biological impact of forever removing a species from the environment may not always be readily discernible, but something of value has been lost. Why feel concern for the whooping cranes?

Because they are still there.

Many years ago the board of directors of the National Audubon Society composed and adopted a statement of Audobon philosophy as a general expression of guiding policy for our society. This statement appears in full in my own statement, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to point out one pertinent paragraph. It is the fifth one:

We condemn no wild creature and work to assure that no living species shall be lost.

Mr. Chairman, we heartily endorse the purposes of this bill. We endorse nearly all its language. We believe it can be improved and strengthened by the addition of a few small amendments.

On page 5, line 10, of H.R. 9424, we recommend the following amendment:

Delete the period after the word "accommodations" and add

when, and in such locations, and to the extent that the Secretary shall determine will not be inconsistent with the primary purpose for which the affected area was established.

With an aggressive Bureau of Outdoor Recreation now looking over its shoulder, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife needs clear statutory directives to help it resist the pressures that seek to turn every wildlife refuge into a center for mass, public recreation.