Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Right.."

The thing that I think we have to recognize, and this is what I run into in the same way that you do, because people challenge me on these aspects, is that if we were to preserve all of the waterfowl habitat in the Dakotas and Minnesota, for example, we would put a very substantial fraction of each of those States in Federal ownership.

Our accelerated program was never designed to do that because we do not think that it is feasible or acceptable. We don't think that the public or the Congress would buy it or the Bureau of the Budget would finance it.

Therefore, we establish goals that are considerably smaller than trying to preserve all of that waterfowl habitat. We have tried to develop a program which identifies the key waterfowl areas, those which have the highest value as demonstrated in the number of ducks that have been produced on particular potholes, and, Mr. Karth, we actually have a field force which goes out and looks at many of these potholes, sometimes just by air, but the problem has been of such magnitude over the years that starting back in 1948 we had rather complete surveys of the pothole country of our own Nation and transect surveys of the Canadian breeding grounds so we do know where a lot of these areas are.

A lot of the drainage and this is a fact, too-that is reported in the agricultural statistics is of areas which are not of prime utility for waterfowl. The fact remains that even at that we are not acquiring all of the really significant waterfowl areas.

Mr. MORTON. Let me ask you one question and then I will finish up. Do you have a plan or is there a plan available that is based on selectivity, based on priorities, that you lay before yourself and you say these are the areas we must preserve I don't mean acquire all the northern half of Minnesota and put it in the public domain. But do you have selected areas based on your criteria of selection that you specifically feel that we must preserve in order to maintain maybe. not these maximum population numbers that we used to think about, but what might be a reasonable population of migratory water birds? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We have this stratified in this way.

The wetlands are classified according to types; type 5 which is open fresh water; type 4 which is deep fresh water marshes; type 3, which is shallow fresh water marshes; and then there are types 2 (fresh meadows) and 1 (seasonally flooded basins or flats). Our efforts are oriented toward types 3 and 4, with the latter type often involving areas of type 5.

I can't tell you that we have gone out right now and put a pinpoint on every pothole we want to buy, but we have our criteria established and we are trying to get all of these that we can get with the money we have available and the staff that we now have working in the types 3, 4. and 5.

Mr. MORTON. Let me ask it this way.

You do that on a selective basis. Let us say you bought all of type 3, 4, and 5 potholes. How substantial is that? How many millions of dollars is that? How many ducks does that produce? What is the size of that?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I can't answer those questions offhand.

Mr. MORTON. To make it easier for you, would this be a big enough investment so that we could sort of feel comfortable that this habitat really had been pretty well preserved by the people.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. As far as the potholes are concerned, the thing that you are talking about would encompass that fraction of our 211⁄2million-acre target that was composed of potholes, that is, about 134 million acres.

Mr. MORTON. This will take in the 212 million acres?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Right.

Mr. DINGELL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORTON. I think I have taken too much time. I yield the floor. Mr. DINGELL. The Chair feels that the points raised by my good friend from Minnesota and my good friend from Maryland are quite important matters to be considered by the committee and I believe it would be quite appropriate that the Department of the Interior submit certain additional comments for the record in response to the questions which were made by these two gentlemen, particularly the last point raised by Mr. Morton.

(The information follows:)

WETLANDS WITH WATERFOWL PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN MINNESOTA AND NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA

As a result of a survey by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in 1964 (the most recent year for which we have reasonably complete data), it was estimated that in the States of Minnesota and North and South Dakota there were about 4 million acres of wetlands having the capability of producing waterfowl. The quality of these wetlands varied considerably. On the basis of current average prices for lands being acquired in fee, the value of these lands would probably exceed $300 million.

The goal for acquisition of waterfowl habitat in the prairie States under the waterfowl production area program is 1,750,000 acres. Most of this acreage is in Minnesota and North and South Dakota and would represent about 40 percent of the 4 million acres of waterfowl-producing habitat in these States estimated to exist in 1964. In this three-State area, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has acquired, under the waterfowl production area program, since fiscal year 1961 a total of about 469.000 acres as of March 31, 1966, or about 27 percent of the acquisition goal.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. DINGELL. Certainly.

Mr. PELLY. Last summer regulations were issued in order to try to protect and increase the population of mallards. What did the winter survey show as to the success or failure of that effort?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We believe that we came remarkably close to the targets which were established last summer when we set the regulations. The overall indication is that we will put back in the breeding grounds this spring approximately 10 percent more birds than we had last year.

Mr. DINGELL. This is mallards?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. This is mallards we are talking about.

Mr. DINGELL. What about pintails?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I can't be as specific about pintails, Mr. Chairman. I don't have that figure right in my mind.

Mr. DINGELL. Can you give us those figures for the record on mallards and pintails and also the other species?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I can tell you what we anticipate it will be. You must remember that we are just now starting our spring surveys.

This will not be a figure based on surveys until we have completed the work that is just now getting underway in the breeding grounds, but I can give you our estimate of what we think the result of last year's hunting regulations was. I would be very happy to do that. (The information follows:)

ATTAINMENT OF 1966 WATERFOWL BREEDING POPULATION OBJECTIVES

On August 17, 1965, the Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, told the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation that he believed regulations necessary to return 20 percent more birds to the breeding grounds in the spring of 1966 would be too drastic to be acceptable and that such increase could best be done in two stages. He said he had so recommended to the Secre tary of the Interior, and further stated he believed 5-10 percent more birds should be returned to the breeding grounds in the spring of 1966 than were there in the spring of 1965. (Lines 29-41, page 93, Hearings on Waterfowl Management-1965, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Serial No. 89-12, August 17, 1965.)

It is too soon to make a final estimate of the effect of the 1965 hunting kill because neither the necessary banding data for determining the actual production rate nor the results of the mail questionnaire survey of waterfowl hunters are yet available. Nor has the May breeding population survey on the breeding grounds begun for 1966. However, the analysis of the duck wing collection survey indicates that the 1965-66 waterfowl regulations reduced the kill sufficiently that a 5-10 percent increase could result. The actual production rate for 1965 is not certain but the wing collection data (uncorrected for differential vulnerability) indicate 1.3 immatures per adult is still a reasonable estimate. Should the mallard breeding population prove to have increased 10 percent in 1966 (6.3 million) it will still be lower than in any other known years except 1965 (5.7 million) and 1962 (6.1 million).

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest if we could have a briefing that put all of these things together, the population of the species by species, what is really happening to habitat in various parts of the country, not only breeding, but also winter habitat, and could get a total briefing on this whole proposition, I think it would be of tremendous value to this committee and it would be very educational to all of us.

Mr. Dow. I should like to endorse the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland on that score.

Mr. PELLY. Didn't we have a pretty good briefing just prior to the issuance of the publication of the regulations? For 2 days, as I recall, we got all those figures and I would think that if you had been there it would give you a picture of it as of that date. I don't see what good it would do to have a briefing now until you have finished your spring

survey.

Mr. MORTON. Maybe we should wait until that is over, but it would seem to me when we get into flyway figures and we get into regulations it all comes on top of us at once. We could perhaps get a better feel of this thing, because I am really disturbed about the fact that we are spending $10 million in our accelerated program and we are spending land and water conservation fund money and duck stamps.

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield, there are no land and water conservation funds going to acquisition of refuges as such. There are peripheral benefits, but none of those funds goes into refuge acquisition as such.

Mr. MORTON. Maybe I was in error. Yes, I am in error on that point. Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman would yield, perhaps this would meet with the approval of the committee, and the Chair is at the service of this committee.

Perhaps it would be well for the Chair by direction of the committee to instruct the staff to work with the Department of the Interior at the appropriate time for a thorough review of the subject of the continental migratory waterfowl resource and the Chair would suggest that there are several opportunities by which this could be done.

It had been the intention of the Chair to consider this subject just previous to the time that the regulations were issued on migratory waterfowl. This would afford the duck hunters, conservationists, and State agencies an opportunity to express their views, which in turn would give the committee an opportunity to have a very thoroughgoing review of all points of view previous to the time that the regulations were issued."

The Chair would advise the gentleman that if members of the committee have other feelings on this, the Chair would be more than happy to assuage this because I think that this is a very important part of the oversight that this committee exercises over the Department of the Interior. I think, also, that with the changes that go on in terms of the migratory waterfowl resource, both up and down, it is extremely important that not only the duck hunters and citizens of the country testify, but that this committee be kept well informed.

The Chair will work with the gentleman from Maryland and also my good friend from Minnesota and also the gentleman from New York to see to it that this information is available to all of us and the country as a whole and perhaps at a time not too distant we can discuss when would be the most appropriate time.

Perhaps Dr. Cain and Mr. Gottschalk would like to make a comment as to when this committee should go into this point and comment on it.

Mr. CAIN. I would like to tell you now about a very recent move. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior has an Advisory Board on Wildlife and Game Management that has existed a few years. This Board has made two formal reports on assignments which he has given. The first had to do largely with surplus destructive ungulate populations in national parks-these are deer, and elk, and so on-and it has resulted in developing a new approach to management of such animals in national parks and monuments.

The second report was on the problem of predatory rodent control and nuisance birds and this has resulted in an organization within the Bureau of a Wildlife Services Division.

Just last week Secretary Udall gave this Board a third assignment and that is to study the national wildlife refuge system in relation to the wetlands program, in relation to estuaries, and in fact anything else that is related to the problem.

This is a nongovernmental citizens board, a small board of five men, and if this job is carried out with the thoroughness that the other two assignments were, we cannot expect a report from them sooner than about 2 years from now.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, I don't think the Chair is prepared to wait 2 years to discuss the subject.

Mr. CAIN. No, no. I just wanted to inform you that this action by the Secretary was only last week.

In the meantime, and as a matter of fact for some years, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has itself been examining the ade

quacy and the characteristics of the national wildlife refuge system, broader than the migratory waterfowl, but certainly with that at the heart of it, and we will be glad to report as we can at any period of time that you request.

Mr. DINGELL. You will complete your spring surveys when?
Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Approximately the middle of June.
Mr. DINGELL. All right.

Your nesting ground surveys will be completed when?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is the nesting.

Mr. DINGELL. That is your nesting ground surveys, the middle of June?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Then starting about the first or second week in July we start our brood surveys and these are not finished up until just before we come together for the Waterfowl Advisory Committee meeting, which is the time when all of the agencies and interested groups meet here in Washington to make their recommendations. We present what information we have as of that time.

Mr. DINGELL. Perhaps it would be well for the committee to discuss the date informally at another time.

Gentlemen, the Chair would just make one further observation on this point.

It has been the practice of your agency form time to time to invite members of this subcommittee along for either of these surveys, has it not?

I assume that such invitations would be extended to members of this committee if they chose to go, and the Chair would suggest it might be well for the gentleman from Minnesota or perhaps the gentleman from Maryland, or perhaps even for the Chair or perhaps the gentlemen from Washington and New York to consider going on one of these surveys and perhaps have the advantage of firsthand experience on this.

Mr. MORTON. My problem is I still am not happy with what we are really getting done whether we are going to have a better wildlife balance sheet in 1970 than we have now on the basis of what we are doing on the plus side, versus what happens on the negative side is a real question.

Maybe I haven't done any homework well enough. Maybe it is because I haven't had the time, but I would like somebody to spend 2 hours with me or 2 hours with any group and let me know what the heck is going on, so that I know whether we are making or not making

progress.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair will advise my good friend from Maryland that it appears that we are slipping back.

Mr. MORTON. Then we ought to do something about it and we ought to raise a lot of noise about it, and we ought to raise a lot more public pressure and we ought to start gearing ourselves up to holding it, because pulling this up out of the well is going to be a lot more difficult than holding it.

Isn't that right?

Mr. PELLY. I would like to comment that the hearings held just before regulations were issued last year were as informative to me as anything that I have ever experienced here in Congress, especially so because we got various points of view.

65-204-66-pt. 1—6