tion did I ever hear anybody in the West criticize them on their methods.

Mr. ANTHONY. This criticism extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the Biological Survey has in the past rather intimated that the criticism was not widespread. The criticism has become so widespread that in the recent election in Nevada the States repealed the appropriations giving cooperative aid on predatory animal life.

Senator NORBECK. Might I ask you right there: Did they repeal their act or fail to make an appropriation?

Mr. ANTHONY. I understood that

Senator NORBECK (continuing). There is quite a distinction in that matter. Of course, at times in paring the budget items are dropped.

Mr. ANTHONY. I know that this appropriation was not made. Senator THOMAS of Idaho. I am sure that you want to be fair about that.

Mr. ANTHONY. I certainly do.

Senator THOMAS of Idaho. Another thought about that is that there ofttimes arises friction between the State authorities and the Federal Government. It is not a question of preventing the killing of the coyote with poison, but it is a question of friction in the handling of the matter, and they sometimes get at loggerheads, and that sometimes has something to do with lack of cooperation in something useful.

Senator NORBECK. That very thing happened in South Dakota, my home State. There was a disagreement and a withdrawal of State funds. There was no disagreement over the poisoning method. There was a disagreement, however, for a time, and they have got together since.

Senator KENDRICK. Before I go I want to ask the witness if he is aware that nearly every Western State for the past several years has proceeded to appropriate large sums of money for the extermination of wolves and coyotes.

Mr. ANTHONY. Yes; I am very well aware of that.

Senator KENDRICK. I have never heard the question as to how it should be done raised by either the legislators or by the authorities of the State.

Senator THOMAS of Idaho. A number of counties in our State have failed to cooperate with the Biological Survey on the poison program that they wanted to put out. But it was a disagreement as to administration, and in some counties I think they have gone so far as to furnish poison themselves and use it independently of the Biological Survey.

Senator NORBECK. Mr. Anthony, you may proceed. You asked a moment ago whether you could place in the record Mr. Sumner's letter. I do not think the question was decided at the time. If it has not already been arranged, the committee reporter may put Mr. Sumner's report at the proper place.

Mr. ANTHONY. I should like to read one or two extracts from the report by Mr. Holman, who is a State leader in Utah in the predatory animal work, simply as giving an insight into the work they are doing. This is from the Third Biennial Report of the State Board of Agriculture of Utah, in 1925-26, found at page 69:

METHODS AND RESULTS OF WORK

During the past few years there has been a gradual development and improvement in the poison methods used by this department in its control measures, and we have devoted more and more time each year to this class of work, realizing fully that it is the most effective wholesale means of controlling predatory animals and conserving livestock and game.

During the past year practically all of our efforts during nine months were devoted to poison work, and in most cases poison stations were not revisited for a long time, and many of the animals found by hunters when the stations were revisited were too far decomposed to save any part, and in many cases the stations were never revisited at all. This being the case, the tables showing the results of work as far as skins and scalps turned in are concerned really show only a very small part of what has actually been accomplished. We have no definite way of getting a reliable check on the results accomplished with our poison work, so far as the number of animals killed is concerned, but we have tried to draw some conclusions from the best information we can get and have tried to get information from reliable stockmen in all parts of the State as to conditions on the range to determine whether or not the campaigns were proving effective in reducing predatory animals to a point where losses in livestock were noticeably cut down.

That does not indicate that their program is thoroughly established on a firm basis of fact. If their own state leader in Utah admits that they never go near the stations and do not know what they are doing, how can they make claims that they have efficient business methods, and also for the nondiscriminatory character of the damage done. Also the fact that they have consented to a joint investigation shows that they have a somewhat open mind on the facts to be learned. If they had evidence to satisfy them of their correctness they would have introduced it because they have been worried over our criticism for a long time.

There was something said here yesterday about secondary poisoning, and the statement was made that in the case of these strychnine baits for predatory animals there could be no secondary poisoning. Also, I noted some smiles when one of the telegrams indicated that possibly there had been some secondary poisoning from predatory baits, and I wonder how the Biological Survey will smile off secondary poisoning by the use of thallium. Thallium is a metallic poison and is accumulative like arsenic. When grain is poisoned by thallium and it is eaten by a game bird, and that bird is shot and taken home and eaten, it is quite possible that serious results to human beings would result.

Senator NORBECK. Would it be fair to ask there: Do you know where any serious results have ever come from it?

Mr. ANTHONY. I have been told by Mr. Sumner in one of these reports that hunters had ceased shooting mourning doves in the region where they heard that thallium had been put out, because they began to find that mourning doves had died and they discovered they had been poisoned.

Senator NORBECK. But so far as you know no serious results to human beings resulted?

Mr. ANTHONY. The situation is too new to have any very definite facts. We are investigating it and it is being tried out as an experiment in the Southwest. But from what we have heard of it, it has very serious possibilities, and the Biological Survey is not saying very much about it.

Now, to sum up, I should like to impress upon you these facts. First, that the scientists and naturalists in these various institutions I represent have no quarrel with the stockmen or agriculturalists. They concede that control is desirable in many regions. They do believe that predatory mammals can be controlled in a more efficient manner without the use of poison, by using traps, dogs, guns, and some less radical means of control.

Senator NORBECK. May I ask in order to get the matter clearer: Are the organizations that you represent in favor of the 10-year program proposed, except for the poison feature of it?

Mr. ANTHONY. It has only been considered as intensifying the present practice with which they disagree. There is nothing in the bill to show that this will not be a greatly aggravated condition of the present-day policy. The wording of the bill indicates that this enlarged appropriation is overwhelmingly in favor of destruction by the practices carried out in the field to-day by the Biological Survey.

Senator NORBECK. Well, I can understand a short answer better than I can a long one. I can not always follow a long and involved answer, Are your people opposed to the program outlined in this proposed bill, even if poison were eliminated?

Mr. ANTHONY. I believe that I represent the opinion of these gentlemen when I state that they are definitely opposed to the 10-year bill.

Senator NORBECK. Because of the greater destruction of certain predatory animals and fur bearers?

Mr. ANTHONY. Because the premises of the bill are to favor certain special interests with a total disregard of all the fundamental and vital problems concerned.

Senator NORBECK. Let me ask you this: When you speak of fundamental and vital problems, do you mean from the scientific or from the economic standpoint?

Mr. ANTHONY. I mean from the point of view of all the available data bearing on the subject. We know that many of these animals being destroyed are an asset to the agriculturalist, and we know that

Senator NORBECK (interposing). I certainly do not want to be rude here, but we are trying to get your ideas before the committee. I can better understand the scientific interest in the preservation of the species than I can the interest of some New Yorkers in the welfare of certain people who live in the West and who believe that those people do not know their business.

Mr. ANTHONY. There is nothing local in this opposition. A great deal of our membership is from the West.

Senator NORBECK. Is your interest from the standpoint of the scientist or are you trying to help the sheepmen and cattlemen of the West?

Mr. ANTHONY. Our interest in this is entirely as a practical problem, and not as a matter of theory or of sentiment. We are opposing this on the score of economic and practical considerations.

Senator NORBECK. These investigations that you made were made at the instance of the Fur Dealers' Association partly?

Mr. ANTHONY. In part. It was supported in part by an appropriation from the New York Zoological Society, and by salaries of the personnel of the American Museum of Natural History.

Senator NORBECK. Isn't it a fact that the Fur Dealers' Association are against the destruction of these predatory animals, generally speaking?

Mr. ANTHONY. I do not believe I understand your question. Senator NORBECK. Isn't their enmity based on the fur trade? Mr. ANTHONY. They have a financial interest, just the same as the sheepmen and stockmen.

Senator NORBECK. That is what I am trying to bring out. Now, you may go ahead. I want to give you every chance to present your side of the case. But I should like to have it clear.

Mr. ANTHONY. I have only to add that we feel the extensive use of poison is a method that is very extravagant to all the wild life of the region, and that considered from every angle and with all the information available we find no sufficient justification for it.

Senator NORBECK. I think you have made that clear enough. You also make it clear that you oppose the program even though no poison would be used.

Mr. ANTHONY. That is my intention; yes, sir.

Senator NORBECK. Doctor Anthony, you may have whatever time you want.

Mr. ANTHONY. My most effective evidence can be presented in the documents offered at your hearing, because these reports are more or less lengthy, and unless there is some special point that I can develop from them at this time by questions, I think they will be much more impressive if studied as a total report.

Senator NORBECK. Just as you like.

Mr. ANTHONY. I might point out in this instance that there has been every attempt made to carry on this work by cooperation in a friendly manner, and our investigators who have been in the field along with the Biological Survey men have been unanimous in stating that they have had every opportunity given to them by the Biological Survey men, so that this has been an amicable undertaking so far as we are concerned.

But I think the fact might be pointed out that the Biological Survey men have known all summer that these field investigations were coming on, and it is no more than natural to suppose that there has been a certain amount of house cleaning. We admit that if we knew we were to be inspected we would try to put our house in order.

I also believe that this is by no means a closed subject, and that it will stand continued investigation for a long period of time, and the scientists wish to go still deeper into the subject regardless of whether the bill is passed or not. It is one that is vital to every conservationist in this country.

Senator NORBECK. I will now call Doctor Howell.

Mr. HENDERSON. Might I interrupt just a minute to supplement my reply to Chairman McNary in regard to the fur catch in New York?

Senator NORBECK. Yes.

37585-31-9

Mr. HENDERSON. I had the office telephoned after I replied, and found that we had data for the State of New York for the year 1927, which shows the number of fur bearers reported as caught during that year, by species, with the numbers taken, and their value for that year. I showed this to Mr. Mills, and he said he would be very glad to have it introduced in connection with his statement.

Senator NORBECK. You desire to have it printed in the record at this point?

Mr. HENDERSON. In connection with Mr. Mills's statement.
Mr. MILLS. That is satisfactory to me.

(The statement referred to is here inserted as follows:)

Senator NORBECK. I note by far the greatest number is muskrat, and it represents only half of the value of the fur for that year.

Mr. MILLS. One-half, approximately. May I say one word more? In regard to the expense of that investigation, permit me to say that Doctor Redington, and before him Doctor Nelson, and I have frequently discussed these investigations, and it was with his full approval that the furriers helped the scientists to make this investigation. We did not go to the scientists and demand it. It was done with Mr. Redington's approval and all was very friendly.

Senator NORBECK. Mr. Mills, did you appear before the House committee on this measure?

Mr. MILLS. Last year, not this year.

Senator NORBECK. Did you take the same position at that time? Mr. MILLS. Not at that time, but I took the position which I believe I mentioned here. I think there is a choice between control of poisoning campaigns carried on by Government agents and indiscriminate campaigns carried on by Tom, Dick, and Harry, and as between them give me the Government campaign every time. That is the position I took a year ago. But that has been a matter of controversy between me anad my western people for the last five years. Their contention is that it is not a matter of choice between two evils, that they will have neither evil.

Senator NORBECK. It might also be said that you have been engaged in this work for 20 years.

Mr. MILLS. For 30 years.