STATEMENT OF P. M. JONES, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF OHIO

SPORTSMEN

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the privilege of appearing before you with the statement of my organization, the League of Ohio Sportsmen.

My name is P. M. Jones, of Ravenna, Ohio. The statement I present is as the secretary, and is the position of the League of Ohio Sportsmen, an organization of my State dedicated to the objectives of serving the outdoorsmen in all phases of activities and recreational opportunities relating to the sportsmen. Among these activities is one relating to the interest of the waterfowl hunters of the State of Ohio and the regulations that are now being discussed and considered at this very important meeting.

We want to make it clear at the outset, that we do not take the position that the continuation of this sport is a hopeless and deteriorating activity. On the contrary, we are convinced that the sport of waterfowl hunting plays a large part in the recreational programs so highly emphasized and promoted on the national scale and that all elements be equally considered and every effort be made to increase the recreational opportunities when and wherever possible.

We interpret the department thinking in this very important subject. Recreation, to be fully positive. There are certainly no expansion values in a negative approach. We have supported 100 percent the appropriations of billions of dollars for the acquisition of thousands of acres so that the recreational opportunities could be increased and upgraded, and we share no part in intent or attempt of regulations that would downgrade the opportunities and values of this fine sport.

The above position and attitude is based on the following reasonings:

Whereas the League of Ohio Sportsmen is rapidly approaching its 70th year of dedicated activity to outdoor recreational pursuits with the field sports of hunting and fishing always of paramount impor

tance.

And whereas our continuous years of activity in these fields have resulted in our recognition of all species of game as a crop, a crop that can and should be harvested the same as any other land, forest, or aquatic product, always keeping in mind that such harvest be kept to reasonable levels.

And whereas the waterfowl population of the North American Continent assuredly must be considered as a crop not to be wasted, but properly harvested.

And whereas Ohio representatives, together with others representing States of the Mississippi Flyway Council, met in St. Louis on August 6, 1965, and compiled a majority report.

And whereas the concept and interest of the Mississippi Flyway Council was that a decision be rendered, and that recommendations be made by a majority vote, representing hunter opportunity as well as game management, and that these decisions and recommendations be fair and equitable with due respect to all elements of the question.

And whereas this decision has been rendered on August 6, 1965. at St. Louis, Mo., at the Mississippi Flyway Council hearings and

we urge that this report be respected and considered as a majority request.

And whereas the decision and report were rendered from consideration of the technical reports of the Federal and State departments revealing that waterfowl are not at a critical danger point and could well stand the seasonal framework of 1964 with very little effect on population.

And whereas the sportsman participation, contribution, and support being a major part and necessity of the entire departmental and management program, we believe the seeming extreme desire to enlarge the population would be unwise at the cost of a great reduction in hunter participation. We believe both elements are extremely important.

And whereas the increased consideration given to the 1964 season and bag limits has started a revival of interest and contribution by the waterfowl sportsmen, and this interest is of vital importance and should not be jeopardized.

And whereas by comparison of effects, Ohio, with the added liberal season of 1964 had an increase in duck stamp sales, and yet there were 5,000 less ducks killed. This supports the fact that the average waterfowl hunter has a given number of days available to him and the hunting pressure is not in equal proportion to season length and bag limits. And whereas the League of Ohio Sportsmen concur with the provisions outlined in the above-mentioned report and commend it to the earnest consideration of this committee.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the League of Ohio Sportsmen concur wholeheartedly with the statement made by the gentlemen from Louisiana and the gentlemen from Arkansas in the designation of bag limits and seasons.

1

I wish to file this report, sir, with the committee for further consideration.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. It will be received. Without objection, counsel will scrutinize it and see if it is appropriate to include in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF P. M. JONES, SECRETARY, LEAGUE OF OHIO SPORTSMEN, BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR'S HEARINGS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 17, 1965 My name is P. M. Jones of Ravenna, Ohio. The statement I present is as the secretary, and is the position of the League of Ohio Sportsmen, an organization of my State dedicated to the objectives of serving the outdoorsmen in all phases of activities and recreational opportunities relating to the sportsmen. Among these activities is one relating to the interest of the waterfowl hunters of the State of Ohio and the regulations that are now being discussed and considered at this very important meeting.

We want to make it clear at the outset that we do not take the position that the continuation of this sport is a hopeless and deteriorating activity. On the contrary, we are convinced that the sport of waterfowl hunting plays a large part in the recreational programs so highly emphasized and promoted on the national scale and that all elements be equally considered and every effort be made to increase the recreational opportunities when and wherever possible. We interpret the Department thinking in this very important subject, recreation, to be fully positive. There are certainly no expansion values in a negative approach. We have supported 100 percent the appropriations of billions of dollars for the acquisition of thousands of acres so that the recreational opportunities could be increased and upgraded, and we share no part in intent or

attempt of regulations that would downgrade the opportunities and values of this fine sport.

The above position and attitude is based on the following reasonings: Whereas the League of Ohio Sportsmen is rapidly approaching its 70th year of dedicated activity to outdoor recreational pursuits with the field sports of hunting and fishing always of paramount importance; and

Whereas our continuous years of activity in these fields have resulted in our recognition of all species of game as a crop, a crop that can and should be harvested the same as any other land, forest, or aquatic product, always keeping in mind that such harvest be kept to reasonable levels; and

Whereas the waterfowl population of the North American Continent assuredly must be considered as a crop not to be wasted, but properly harvested; and

Whereas Ohio representatives, together with others representing States of the Mississippi Flyway Council, met in St. Louis on August 6, 1965, and compiled a majority report; and

Whereas the concept and interest of the Mississippi Flyway Council was that a decision be rendered, and that recommendations be made by a majority vote, representing hunter opportunity as well as game management, and that these decisions and recommendations be fair and equitable with due respect to all elements of the question; and

Whereas this decision has been rendered on August 6, 1965, at St. Louis, Mo., at the Mississippi Flyway Council hearings and we urge that this report be respected and considered as a majority request; and

Whereas the decision and report were rendered from consideration of the technical reports of the Federal and State departments revealing that waterfowl are not at a critical danger point and could well stand the seasonal framework of 1964 with very little effect on population; and

Whereas the sportsman participation, contribution, and support being a major part and necessity of the entire departmental and management program, we believe the seeming extreme desire to enlarge the population would be unwise at the cost of a great reduction in hunter participation. We believe both elements are extremely important; and

Whereas the increased considerations given to the 1964 season and bag limits has started a revival of interest and contribution by the waterfow sportsmen, and this interest is of vital importance and should not be jeopardized; and

Whereas by comparison of effects, Ohio, with the added liberal season of 1964 had an increase in duck stamp sales, and yet there were 5,000 less ducks killed. This supports the fact that the average waterfowl hunter has a given number of days available to him and the hunting pressure is not in equal proportion to season length and bag limits; and

Whereas the League of Ohio Sportsmen concur with the provisions outlined in the above-mentioned report and commend it to the earnest consideration of this committee.

Mr. DINGELL. Does that conclude your statement, sir?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow, do you have any questions?

Mr. Dow. I might ask Mr. Jones this question. In the States of Tennessee and Iowa we had testimony this morning which was a little bit at variance from the Louisiana testimony. Is there any special reason why Ohio would be thinking alike on this with Louisiana and Alabama rather than with Tennessee and Iowa which are more similar States?

Mr. JONES. There certainly is a reason because I don't think that the gentleman from Tennessee or the gentleman from Iowa know what they are talking about. With the majority of people that know ducks and duckology, I think they will agree with the position which has been taken by the Arkansas men and by the Louisiana men. I might say that at the vote taken down there it was a majority vote of 8 to 6. Then besides the three States than I mentioned there were five other States that concurred with us in the same thoughts.

Mr. Dow. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Jones, let us take a hypothetical situation. If we were to find that the regulations that come out-neither you nor I have seen them are more restrictive and if we should see that the more restrictive regulations were to return a larger breeding population of ducks to the breeding area in such numbers that it would result in almost a doubling of the flights south next year, would you regard that as being a devise which would serve the interest of the duck hunter, conservationists, and sportsmen?

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, your question is indeed hypothetical

Mr. DINGELL. Let us assume that it is hypothetical and I make no guarantee that it is going to have that effect but I would like to have you address yourselves as to whether or not that would be in the interest of sportsmen.

Mr. JONES. I must answer that in this way, sir. We have no way of knowing if we were to send a certain number of ducks back north, and it might be an increase over what it was before, whether the nesting and breeding conditions up there were going to be such that we could realize a greater increase from that.

Mr. DINGELL. Let us assume now for the purposes of the question that we were to find that we are going to go into a period of rising precipitation and rising water levels, increased amount of habitat in the prairie Provinces, and in the three States where the majority of these ducks exist in the United States.

What would you say if these circumstances were to prevail as increase in the number of ducks going north, a fairly significant increase, and a significant increase in the breeding circumstances so that they could return very nearly double the number of ducks south? If this set of circumstances were to combine to produce about a doubling of the population fiying south of, let us say, the mallard, for example, what would the sportsmen of Ohio say to that kind of management? Mr. JONES. I don't think they would change one iota from the statements they have made right here. That is the thinking of the sportsmen and duck hunters of the State of Ohio.

Mr. DINGELL. You do not think that the duck hunter would be willing to forgo a slight curtailment this year for a bonanza next year, that would result in a significant increase in season and a significant increase in the size of the bag limit next year, with a great deal more facility in returning a large number of ducks north in the spring of 1967? What would the sportsmen of Ohio say about that? Would they call that bad management?

Mr. JONES. No; I don't think that is bad management. The more breeding stock that you can get any time

Mr. DINGELL. What I am doing is presenting to you a hypothetical set of circumstances and ask you what Ohio sportsmen would say. Would they call that bad management if that set of circumstances were to obtain?

Mr. JONES. I would say that conditions as they are as of right now as we know them, we would think that that was bad management. We believe that when you have a crop it should be harvested but harvested reasonably. I do not mean by that that we should have any bonus ducks or anything like that, but that we should have a reasonable season. And we believe that it recommends-as put out by the Flyway Council at St. Louis, were reasonable.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you call this kind of conservation practice to which I alluded in my hypothetical question an unreasonable conservation practice?

Mr. JONES. NO; I don't consider it unreasonable. But I don't believe that the majority of the duck hunters that know this situation would agree with it.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you say that the mallard population last year was very low?

Mr. JONES. In some sections it was, in other sections it was high. Mr. DINGELL. Would you say the mallard population for the year previous was very low?

Mr. JONES. Previous to that it was on the low ebb.

Mr. DINGELL. Overall last year the mallard population was still quite low, was it not?

Mr. JONES. There again you have your dry periods that we had up there in the pothole country that did not tend to good breeding seasons where last year you had a good one and you have a good one this year. Mr. DINGELL. Would you say the population of mallards last year was high?

Mr. JONES. The only thing I can tell you, sir, is the observations made by the gentlemen who went up through Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you say the population of mallards last year was high?

Mr. JONES. No; I wouldn't say it was high. I would say it was about average.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your courtesy in being here today.

Mr. DINGELL. Our next witness will be Mr. Robert T. Dennis, assistant conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America. We are glad to welcome you today, Mr. Dennis, and look forward to receiving your statement.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. DENNIS, ASSISTANT CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I am Robert T. Dennis, assistant conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America. Many of our members are waterfowl hunters-they appreciate the opportunity to be represented here today.

League members would like to see more liberal waterfowl hunting regulations. But they recognize that establishment of duck and goose populations capable of supporting greater hunting pressure is an inescapable first step.

We believe that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has demonstrated competence to measure the waterfowl production situation. This year, we are told that the situation is not good-perhaps in part because last year's hunting regulations were too liberal. We are faced with reports that the breeding population is down from 1964, while the habitat is improving and could support many more birds. The Izaak Walton League believes that the Bureau's primary waterfowl goal must be to achieve best use of available habitat. A water