Page images
PDF
EPUB

limited count. Imperative that season not be closed. It would appear four birds per day is good compromise.

ARDENE D. BOLLER.

[Telegram]

SAN MARINO, CALIF., August 16, 1965.

Hon. GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:

Would appreciate your opposition to proposed legislation to close this year's duck season and reduce bird limit in Pacific flyway hearing scheduled tomorrow before subcommittee.

GEORGE J. O'BRIEN.

[Telegram]

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., August 16, 1965.

Congressman GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB,
House of Representatives Building,
Washington, D.C.:

Urge you strongly oppose proposed legislation. Closing 1965 season on migratory waterfowl. Such action would shortsightedly do irreparable harm to wildlife population and would not only dry up pounds but valuable ducks, unlimited support as well.

JOHN V. VAUGHN.

[Telegram]

PHOENIX, ARIZ., August 13, 1965.

Representative GEORGE SENNER,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.:

We have been advised that migratory waterfowl regulation scheduled for hearing before House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, August 17, 9:30 a.m., 2253 Rayburn Building. Arizona is a member State of the Pacific Flyway Council and participated in the liberation of season recommendation at our annual council meeting held August 5 and 6 this year. Recommendations resulting are based on sound management principles and data presented by professional waterfowl biologists from the member State. This flyway has been and is still seeking stable and simplified hunting regulations. Our information shows wintering ground counts after 1964 hunting equal to or slightly better than previous years. Also 1965 breeding ground habitat has expanded from previous year. Expected harvest in 1965 season as recommended by the council will not endanger status on any species in this flyway. Request your favorable support of Pacific Flyway Council recommendations. Ben Glading designated Pacific Flyway Council representative for hearing. He may be contacted at Statler Hilton Hotel, Washington, after August 16 for further details.

WENDELL G. SWANK, Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department.

[Telegram]

MONTGOMERY, ALA., August 16, 1965.

Congressman ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, Jr.,
House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.:

Request your assistance in retaining same season and bag limit on ducks as was afforded last year. Vast majority of qualified waterfowl technicians in Southeast convinced reduction in number of days and bag limit at this time unwarranted. Survey data utilized by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife outdated. Later survey reveal adequate population of ducks to retain last year season and bag limits.

CLAUDE D. KELLEY,

Director, Alabama Department of Conservation.

[Telegram]

EUREKA, CALIF., August 16, 1965.

Representative DON CLAUSEN,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.:

I am opposed to proposed closed duck season and/or three-bird-per day limit for Pacific flyway this year. Limit and days should not be shorter than last year. Our birds are mainly from Alaska not Canada. Please manage our birds by flyway. ROBERT RICHMOND.

[Telegram]

Hon. T. A. THOMPSON,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

PALO ALTO, CALIF., August 16, 1965.

Imperative your committee oppose any change in duck hunting Pacific flyway. Proposed action not only unwarranted but would be disastrous for duck population resulting from vast loss of habitat provided by clubs and increased kill by farmers under legal herding in early season. Letter follows.

D. E. GOTSCHALL, Dura Bond Bearing Co.

LOS ALTOS, CALIF., August 16, 1965.

Hon. T. A. THOMPSON,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. THOMPSON: This letter is with respect to my brief wire of this date concerning the unwarranted, unnecessary, and unwise proposals made by Representative Dingell with regard to the Pacific flyway.

Reliable surveys made by interested official groups indicate that the Alaskan and Prairie Provinces have the best water conditions since the mid-1950's, and that the number of birds in the Pacific flyway will be greater in 1965 than last year.

It's one thing to get a good hatch, but what happens if there is not sufficient water (and without water-food and nesting area) when these birds migrate south. Since gunners and their clubs (both public and private) supply an estimated 75 percent of the habitat for migratory waterfowl in California and since the loss of this habitat-even in part-would result in tremendous losses of birds, enactment of the proposed restrictions in view of an increase in the Pacific flyway duck population would prove disastrous.

My personal situation is not unlike that of many thousands of shooters. I reside in Los Altos and shoot in Butte County some 220 miles from my home. I personally enjoy no sport more than duck shooting. However, the high cost of shooting and the need to travel long distances would curtail-if not stop entirely-my shooting if the moratorium or reduced bag limits are enacted. I am sure this is true of many others. Without our financial support the clubs will not (and cannot afford to) provide water so necessary to keep the waterfowl alive.

Add to this one other factor. Farmers have the legal right, under a permit issued by the State fish and game commission, to destroy waterfowl which threaten their crops. This practice has existed for many years. Is it not reasonable to assume that the farmer-anticipating large flocks of ducks and geese and few hunters-will vastly accelerate their herding (slaughtering) practices? The Pacific flyway has an excellent 1965 duck population. For the sake of the hunter, the farmer, and the ducks, help us reestablish the 1964 bag limits and number of shooting days.

Sincerely,

D. E. GOTSCHALL.

[Telegram]

KANSAS CITY, Mo., August 16, 1965.

Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.:

Have been advised special hearing will be held tomorrow to set 1965-66 waterfowl regulations. As chairman, Ducks Unlimited Western Missouri, am familiar with 1965 duck breeding results. Strongly urge your committee heed recommendations made by four flyway councils and Ducks Unlimited.

RAYMOND E. WATSON, Jr.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1965.

DEAR COLLEAGUE: The duck hunters in my State and very likely your State feel that they are not getting their fair share in the newly set Federal limits for duck hunters in the Mississippi flyway district.

In comparing the proposals of the flyways in both the Atlantic and the central flyways in every case, the Mississippi flyway has either less days in the seasonless daily limit or less mallard duck limit. Please note the following comparison:

[blocks in formation]

Mississippi flyway composed of the following States: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri.

I would like to urge you to use your influence with Secretary Stewart Udall to try to get him to reconsider and expand their proposals for the Mississippi flyway.

Sincerely yours,

PRENTISS WALKER,
Member of Congress.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 17, 1965.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, House of

Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I respectfully urge you to accept recommendations of four flyway councils and Ducks Unlimited. My recommendation is sent at the suggestion of my good friend, fellow Memphian and chairman of Ducks Unlimited of Tennessee, Tim Treadwell III. Warmest thanks for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. GRIDER.

Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL,

OTTAWA SHOOTING CLUB, Cleveland, Ohio, August 16, 1965.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: I have been advised that you are holding a hearing of your Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation Tuesday morning, August 17, 1965, in Washington, D.C., relative to the waterfowl regulations about to be issued by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

We request your indulgence and that of the committee to be recorded in favor of the waterfowl regulations which were proposed by a majority vote of the 14 States in the Mississippi flyway at their meeting in St. Louis on August 6, which I attended and where I spoke in favor of regulations this year that would generally parallel the regulations of last year. I am making this recommendation on behalf of the members of our club who are deeply concerned about the future of waterfowling and who desire a conservation program which is both realistic and fair. This year's regulations proposed by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife are much too restrictive and entirely unnecessary in view of the vastly improved habitat in the Dominion of Canada where about 80 percent of our waterfowl are produced. It is patently unnecessary to send back to the breeding grounds next spring a 20-percent increase over the return of breeding pairs this spring. Even with a small reduction in breeding pairs returning to the Canadian prairies next spring, we shall have a satisfactory and healthy increase in the fall flight south next year because of the acknowledged improvement in water conditions throughout Canada.

We have the highest respect for biologists. They are sincere, capable, and dedicated people but their recommendations are always based upon strictly technical grounds without any consideration of the sociological effects of further restrictions on waterfowl itself. Loss of interest on the part of waterfowlers means clearly, in the end, less waterfowl because of the lack of breeding, migrating, and wintering habitat which will most surely disappear with the lack of interest which always diminishes with unnecessary restrictions such as those now proposed.

There is no crisis on the flyways. Mr. Walter F. Crissey, chief of the Migratory Bird Population Station at Laurel, Md., has stated emphatically that no species of waterfowl is in jeopardy so it is clearly evident that the most important ingredient of all is the waterfowler himself and if we are to err, let us err on the side of stockpiling outdoorsmen who pay the bill and maintain expensive habitat to perpetuate this healthful recreational activity. If their interest is further diminished, all is lost.

Sincerely yours,

H. G. SCHMIDT, President.

WISE, SMITH & CARTER,

Jackson, Miss., August 17, 1965.

Congressman JOHN D. DINGELL,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: I am writing you as an interested duck hunter and as chairman of the Mississippi Committee of Ducks Unlimited.

I have just learned of the hearing which you have called for the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee's Subcommittee on Wildlife to be held at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 17, in room 2253 of the new Rayburn Office Building.

As a close observer of the sport, it is my opinion that it would be most unwise to impose more restrictive regulations than were in effect last season. Such, in my opinion, would be totally unwarranted and would in fact hurt the sport tremendously. The recommendations made recently by the Mississippi Flyway Council to keep the length of the season and the bag limit the same as last year is completely reasonable. I very much hope that these recommendations will be followed.

With kindest regards and best wishes, I am,

Sincerely,

SHERWOOD W. WISE.

Hon. JOHN DINGELL,

OLYMPIA, WASH., August 18, 1965.

Acting Chairman, Fisheries and Wildlife Subcommittee,
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. DINGELL: We are informed by Mr. Glading, the Pacific Flyway Council representative at your congressional hearing on August 17, 1965, that you want a transcript of the waterfowl season recommendation of the Pacific Flyway Council at its meeting August 5, 6, 1965, in Las Vegas.

Enclosed is a transcript of the waterfowl season resolutions of the Pacific Flyway Council, all of which were unanimously adopted by the Pacific flyway States.

Very truly yours,

JOHN A. BIGGS,

Chairman, Pacific Flyway Council.

THE 1965 WATERFOWL SEASON RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE PACIFIC FLYWAY COUNCIL AT THE AUGUST 5, 6, 1965, MEETING, LAS VEGAS, NEV.

[blocks in formation]

Motion by Mr. Kirch that the waterfowl season length, bag limits, and shooting hours be the same as 1964, except that the basic duck bag limit be increased by one bird. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swank and passed unanimously.

Motion by Mr. Salter that the Great Basin goose seasons and bag limits be the same as those in 1964. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kirch and passed unanimously.

Motion by Mr. Crouse that the Columbia Basin mallard season, bag limits and shooting hours be the same as 1964, with the increase in the basic bag to 5 being compensated by a reduction in the bonus to 3 mallards; in all instances, the total bag shall be 8 per day and 16 in possession, including necessary mallards. motion was seconded by Mr. Salter and passed unanimously.

The

Motion by Mr. Kirch that the swan season in Utah be continued the same as last year, with the addition of 500 permits in the Stillwater area of Nevada, to be effective during the last 30 days of the season. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffin and passed unanimously.

Motion by Mr. Glading that the canvasback and redhead restrictions be eliminated in the 1965 seasons. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kirch and passed unanimously.

Motion by Mr. Glading that any waterfowl season items not specifically mentioned in previous resolutions shall be the same as they were in 1964. The motion was seconded by Mr. Crouse and passed unanimously.

Motion by Mr. Salter that the Ross goose be considered a white goose in the regular bag limit pattern. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swank and passed unanimously.

Mr. STEWART UDALL,

Secretary, Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C.

NEW ORLEANS, LA., August 18, 1965.

DEAR MR. UDALL: I have learned from the papers that you are thinking of cutting back this year on the number of ducks we can shoot during hunting

« PreviousContinue »