Report of the President's committee on wild-life restoration

Historic, Archive Document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific l<nowledge, policies, or practices.

^ ■ ^ g. ^

i S\ 0-1934 ir

REPORT OF THE |
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE 0N ~
WILD-LIFE RESTORATION

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

REPORT OF THE
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON
WILD-LIFE RESTORATION

THOMAS H. BECK, Chairman
JAY N. DARLING ALDO LEOPOLD

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1934

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.

Price 10 cents

3^9445

Contents

Page

Letter of transmittal to the Honorable, The Secretary of Agriculture, Henr>' A.

Wallace v

Foreword vii

Conclusions and recommendations 1

Migratory waterfowl 5

Upland game 7

Song, insectivorous, and ornamental birds 9

Mammals 11

Administration and staff 13

Recapitulation 15

Exhibits:

A — Departments of Federal Government having authority affecting wild life__ 16
B — Letter of January 25, 1934, to the President, signed by 47 interested organi-
zations endorsing this Committee's work 17

C — Chart of administration and staff 21

D — Purchase procedure, migratory waterfowl 22

E — Purchase procedure, upland game 25

F — Map indicating areas of projects by States 27

(HI)

Letter of Transmittal

Department of Agriculture,
Room 207, Administration Building,

Washington, D.C., February 1934.
The Honorable, The Secretary of Agriculture.

Dear Mr. Secretary: Our report, in the preparation of which this
Committee has been engaged continuously since January 6, 1934, is
herewith respectfully submitted.

You will find that it encompasses a national wild-life restoration
program of the broadest scope.

We commend to your attention the fact that we have considered all
species of wild life and all values of restoration, instead of confining our-
selves to game.

May we hope that our work which has been vividly interesting and
stimulating and in which we have had most generous cooperation and
support from departments, bureaus, and individuals, will meet with
approval.

Thanking you for your helpful advice and cordial aid, we remain
Respectfully yours.

President's Committee on Wild-Life Restoration,
Thomas H. Beck,

Chairman.

(V)

The plan to withdraw by purchase submarginal
lands unsuited for profitable agricultural use affords
an unusual opportunity to carry out a vast and
pressingly urgent national program for wild-life
restoration.

At no time in history have we had such an oppor-
tunity to fulfill our obligation under the migratory
bird treaty and to accept the responsibility imposed
by the Lacey Act passed in 1900,

For reconditioning these areas, emergency funds
{P.W.A. and C.JV.A.) provide the necessary money.

(VI)

Foreword

This Committee has completed a preliminary study of the plan we
were appointed to investigate.

We have conferred with Federal and State officials and many leaders
in wild-life conservation, and have examined a vast amount of material
and data bearing on the subject.

We find the plan in its general aspects and intent practical, vitally
necessary, national in scope, and of great economic and social importance.

With your encouragement, we have expanded the prospect of this
report to include the restoration of all species of bird and mammal
wild life that are, or are becoming, scarce.

There is incontrovertible evidence of a critical and continuing decline
in our wild-life resources, especially migratory waterfowl, due to the
destruction and neglect of vast natural breeding and nesting areas by
drainage, the encroachment of agriculture, and the random efforts of our
disordered progress toward an undefined goal.

We found no evidence of the existence of a comprehensive or coordi-
nated plan or effort to correct the situation, which is patent to all in-
formed persons. Therefore, the need for a national program seems too
apparent for extensive comment.

At present, as in the past, authority over wild life is scattered through
several departments and bureaus (for list, see exhibit A), to the great
disadvantage of orderly progress in conservation and restoration.

The President has am^ple authority under existing law to consolidate
and coordinate these scattered responsibilities.

Nothing included in this report, so far as we know, requires any
immediate legislation and, therefore, the proposals, if approved, may be
put into execution promptly.

Your appointment of this Committee and its responsibility for making
a report has been widely and favorably publicized and practically all
individuals and organizations contacted have been enthusiastic in their
attitude and urge action.

Striking evidence of unanimous and unified support for immediate
action on the proposals we are making is had in the "treaty" drawn and
signed by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Conservation of
Wild Life Resources, the chairman of this Committee, and the representa-
tives of 47 interested organizations, including the National Grange and
the American Farm Bureau Federation, at the Senate committee hearing

(vn)

vm

held January 25, 1934, and presented to the President by a select com-
mittee on January 26, 1934. (See exhibit B.)

The adoption of this program and putting it in prompt operation will meet
with the unqualified, approval of, and capture the imagination not only of
7fiOOfiOO licensed sportsmen but, what is more important, millions of nature
lovers, students of wild life, and the children of this and future generations.

The economic values are enormous and the cost less than one great bridge
or housing project.

Conclusions and Recommendations

A national wild-life restoration program is economically justifiable and
immediately practical by utilizing submarginal and commercially
unprofitable agricultural lands now contributing so largely to the surplus
of agricultural products.

Projects comprising about 5,000,000 acres have, at this writing, been
selected and are herein submitted for immediate consideration.

A much larger acreage may be utilized upon further study, but circum-
stances which constitute an emergency requiring immediate action prompt
this Committee to submit a partial list of projects at this time.

Our program for Nation-wide wild-life restoration divides itself
naturally into five parts:

1. Migratory waterfowl and shore birds, such as ducks, geese, swans,
snipe, and plover, which demands immediate action if it is to have any
beneficial effect on this year's population.

2. Upland game, including wild turkey, quail, ruffed, pinnated, and
sharptail grouse, rabbit, and all other native species.

3. Song, insectivorous, and ornamental birds, many species of which
are becoming scarce and all of which are either of great economic value in
insect control or of major importance because of their spiritual, recrea-
tional, and spectacle values.

4. Mammals, including big game and fur bearers, which heretofore
have had but little consideration notwithstanding enormous possible
values in meat, wild hides, and fur.

5. A new administrative set-up designed to insure continued, coordi-
nated, and businesslike execution of the plan for the Nation-wide restora-
tion and conservation of our wild-life resources.

After full consideration, this Committee recommends:

1. The immediate acquisition of 4 million acres potentially or actually
suitable for migratory waterfowl and shore-bird breeding and nesting
grounds.

To insure immediate possession and control and still provide time for
careful surveys, proper selection, and construction work, we suggest 1-year
leases (5 percent of purchase price) with option to buy at an agreed price
any time during the lease period.

Areas thus acquired to be inviolate.

(Confidential list of projects submitted separately.)

2. The purchase of 5,000,000 acres of submarginal land suitable for
development and management as upland game areas.

39705—34 2 (1)

2

At such time as the game population of these areas becomes sufficient,
the surplus may be used for stocking other areas, or regulated shooting
under State supervision may be permitted by the granting of trespass
rights.

The acreage for upland game should be extended to include at least
10,000,000 acres, as rapidly as suitable tracts are found for withdrawal
from unprofitable agricultural production.

(Confidential schedule of areas attached.)

3. The purchase of at least 1,000,000 acres of areas known to be used
as breeding and nesting places and rookeries by such species of song,
insectivorous, ornamental, and nongame birds as are becoming scarce
and of which, sufficient seed stock still remains.

4. (a) Acquisition of 2,000,000 acres needed for the restoration of big
game, fur bearers, and other valuable mammals. This should include the
purchase of outlying farms or ranches where grazing privileges interfere
with the protection of wild-life ranges and deplete the soil conditions.

(b) The withdrawal of grazing privileges on extensive tracts of public
domain, and in the national parks and forests where the acreage necessary
to graze a head is too great to permit of any profit, and the repurchase of
the water rights in such areas.

(c) The taking of title, by the Government, to all reversion land in the
public domain and its retention for the restoration of wild life and improve-
ment of soil conditions.

5. That subsistence farm homes in sufficient numbers be established on
all areas acquired, the farmers to serve as caretakers and maintenance
men under the direction of trained district supervisors. Farmers with
satisfactory housing now reside on most of the areas and will be available
for this work.

Subsistence maintenance cost for the first year should be provided out
of emergency funds and thereafter from the following sources:

(a) Duck stamp revenue.

(b) Part of the funds to be made available under the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act.

(f) The proposed tax on arms and ammunition already agreed to by the
parties interested.

(d) Appropriations of public funds, such as are made for forests and
parks.

6. For Presidential approval, a new coordinated and comprehensive
administrative set-up, including the creation of a wild-life division out of
existing personnel, and the appointment of a director competent for the
execution of this program of national wild-life restoration and future
conservation (exhibit C).

7. That if the conclusions set forth in the above paragraphs prove to
be justified by the analysis of the facts hereinafter stated, that 3500,000

3

be immediately allocated by the C.W.A. for the work of technical examina-
tion of the areas listed, for the purpose of securing data not now available
upon which final approval of taking title must depend. (See estimate of
cost and employment attached, exhibits D and E.)

8. The "ear marking" an^d use of 325,000,000 to start the acquisition
program by the purchase of areas scheduled to such an extent as the above
sum will cover.

9. And finally, that 325,000,000 of P.W.A. and C.W.A. moneys be
allotted for restoration and improvement of the lands acquired. Definite
improvement projects to be submitted in the prescribed manner.

This work includes:

A. Construction of dams and dikes

B. Fencing and ditching

C. Excavation and blasting

D. Food planting and land clearing, etc.

Migratory Waterfowl

A great economic and recreational asset once
'present in prolific abundance^ now threatened with
virtual extinction by the destruction of breeding and
nesting areas.

An ironic commentary on our neglect of waterfowl
nesting areas is had in the proclamation of President
Theodore Roosevelt setting aside Lower Klamath
Lake^ Oreg., as a sanctuary, in which he said, ''this
is one of the greatest wildfowl nurseries in the United
States. * * * outdoor museum * * *

which will prove of great educational value. "

And in the report of F. L. Lathrop in 1932 which
states, ''Lower Klamath Lake was drained after
much difficulty and expense and dried up — devas-
tated by numerous fires and abandoned as unfit for
agricultural development.^^

The rapid depletion of the migratory waterfowl resource, now univer-
sally admitted to be a fact, is in large part a result of the unwise exploita-
tion of submarginal lands.

Drainage operations, intended to bring more land under cultivation,
have directly destroyed millions of acres of former breeding grounds, and
by lowering of water tables, have indirectly destroyed millions of acres
more.

Grazing of the remaining marshlands and ranges has prevented success-
ful nesting and reproduction of breeding stocks. Mov.'ing of hay, and hres
have destroyed many nests and nesting sites.

This destruction of nests by grazing and mowing the shores of lakes
and sloughs has reduced the annual increase from a normal expectancy
of 300 percent to as low as 15 percent in areas under observation.

These destructive agricultural factors are all associated to a large
degree with the overextension of the farm area. Coupled with them has
come an unprecedented series of drought years, further shrinking the
available breeding area. The net effect is that the natural increase from
propagation no longer equals the annual losses from all causes.

(5)

6

Natural propagation has been curtailed to such an extent that no
amount of further restriction of the take or methods of taking will suffice
to restore wild waterfowl.

There is need for prompt and decisive action.

The spring migration northward to the nesting grounds will be under
way by the last of February and the main nesting season ended by August
1. It is the belief of the Committee that material results may be obtained
this season by retiring from grazing and hay mowing the marginal lands
in the duck nesting areas. Some progress can also be made this season
toward restoring water on drained areas where the only requirement is
to dam up the drainage ditches.

Up-to-date figures and surveys are now available for 325,000 acres of
proved nesting areas, and we recommend their purchase as soon as the
executive organization has checked them over.

For the remaining portion of the areas under consideration, the infor-
mation is incomplete. For these incomplete projects the Committee
recommends immediate surveys by competent investigators; and where
the prospects leave room for doubt, that the areas be acquired by lease
for 1 year at 5 percent of the land value, with option to buy, rental to
apply on purchase price. This method will allow large areas to be imme-
diately available for nesting grounds.

Types of land to be submitted for consideration:

Natural nesting marshes now made useless by grazing and mowing.

Marshland drained and under unprofitable cultivation.

Grazed or cultivated lands on the shores of lakes or rivers used by breed-
ing birds.

Low-valued flat lands subject to damming for artificial lakes and
adapted to nesting.

Drained lakes and marshes which will require dam construction for
restoration.

Heavy alkaline lakes, subject to duck sickness, which must be freshened
or drained.

River-bank areas suitable for the creation of artificial lakes by
damming.

Nesting areas on which drainage projects are now being promoted.
Nesting areas where food was abundant, now lacking, but which will
come back if water is restored.

Watered areas where food is scarce but can be restored by planting.
Dry lakes in areas which may be restored by artesian wells.

upland Game

Our supply of native upland game birds, once the
finest in the world, has been reduced to a remnant
of its former abundance on large areas in the
United States.

Extensive restoration of wild turkeys, grouse,
quail, and other upland game will provide profit-
able utilization for millions of acres of rural land
which is unprofitable for farming and stock raising
and much of which is ideally suited to the produc-
tion of game crops.

The retirement of submarginal farms will have a very beneficial effect
on those upland birds which feed on wild foods rather than on agricultural
grain and weeds. This includes many of the species of birds now most in
danger of depletion.

Such areas, when cropped for game, can become valuable object lessons
to demonstrate that the growing of an underproduced crop like wild life
is a better and more profitable use than the growing of overproduced
staple crops which has heretofore prevailed.

Most States own a large acreage which has already been retired by the
process of reversion for unpaid taxes. Such lands are now commonly
idle. The proposed demonstrations of upland-game cropping on Federal
purchase areas should stimulate a like use of tax-reverted State lands.

There is no accumulated exact information on specific tracts suitable
for upland game. However, the land-use, soil, and economic surveys,
already made in the several States, plus the information on upland game
obtainable from State and Federal agencies will, when duly coordinated,
furnish a very sound basis for selection of areas. Such coordination, of
course, is beyond the powers of a volunteer committee. Hence, to an even
greater extent than in the case of migratory birds, there is need of a com-
petent executive staff to survey and appraise the best locations.

The upland-game program, while slower in the initial process of estab-
lishment than the migratory-bird program, can be made to yield more
tangible revenues in game and fur crops. The species involved are less
depleted, and once a full stand has been built up on a given area, an

(7)

8

annual surplus may be utilized for stocking other areas or harvested by
regulated hunting or trapping.
Types of land to be considered:

Submarginal upland farms which are or would become suitable for
wild turkey, woodcock, prairie chicken, sharptail grouse, ruffed grouse,
sage hen, or other upland birds, not requiring cultivated land.

Submarginal upland farms now supporting a small accidental popula-
tion of common game but more valuable if retired and put under a program
of game management.

Submarginal upland farms which should be retired for erosion control,
recreation areas, or other special purposes, but which would be incidentally
useful as range for any upland species.

Government-owned lands suitable for game management.

Song, Insectivorous, and Ornamental

Birds

No comprehensive proposal has ever been made for
the restoration of such of these birds as are becoming
scarce.

Remedial programs^ unless supported by private
funds, have dealt almost entirely with shootable game.

The economic, inspirational, recreational, and
spectacle value of these birds is incalculable.

The time has come for the definite affirmation, not by words alone but
by deeds and dollars, that all wild life is an invaluable public resource,
entitled not only to protective laws but also to effective aid. We recom-
mend, therefore, the present land-purchase program be directed specifi-
cally to the welfare of nongame species of special value, whether or not
game values are also present.

Most migratory nongame species are directly benefited by the migra-
tory game program, but not all. Some rookeries or nesting sites of valu-
able birds, such as herons, egrets, and cranes, are exposed to serious
destructive factors which can be removed by the acquisition and protec-
tion of adjacent areas. Where birds concentrate their nests in colonies,
the retirement and supervision of a relatively small tract would often
greatly benefit the status of the species concerned.

The last remnants of long-billed curlew in New Mexico, Utah, and
probably elsewhere, are definitely known to be on the decline due to the
grazing off of nesting cover on their breeding grounds. No particular
game values are involved. The purchase of the grazing and farm lands
needed to relieve this pressure is indicated.

Some species of rare songbirds of very restricted breeding range are
known to be shrinking, due to grazing or cutting of farm wood lots. The
purchase of such farms, if submarginal, is indicated.

A special inquiry should be made by the wild life administration to find
out whether such rare species as the whooping crane, the white pelican,
and the sandhill crane could be benefited by the retirement of farms or

(9)

39705—34 3

10

grazing ranches either on the breeding grounds, on the migration routes,
or on the winter range, if sufficiently localized.

Land purchases for nongame wild life must often take the form of small
parcels, insufficient to justify the services of a resident custodian. Admin-
istration of the lands will usually have to be entrusted to State or local
agencies under cooperative agreement.

Mammals

The possibilities for largely increasing the popula-
tions of big-game and fur-bearing species at small
cost are extraordinary.

Their restoration is of great economic importance
and will aid in checking soil erosion.

Outlying farms or ranches of a submarginal character may interfere
with wild-life restoration in many ways. The retirement of such holdings
will frequently involve the purchase of not more than 160 to 640 acres of
privately owned land on which the ranch is located, but will free thousands
of acres of overgrazed public lands which surround it, and can accomplish
the dual purpose of shrinking commercial livestock or farming and
expanding wild life, and, incidentally, in many cases, stopping erosion and
depletion of the range.

The miost common and important (obnoxious) type of interference
occurs where an outlying ranch controls the grazing privilege to the
surrounding range vitally needed by the large or rare big-game mammals
and prevents the exclusion of livestock from such range.

The selection and purchase of such properties can usually be performed
through the administrative agency managing game on the surrounding
range. Most of such lands will be in the national forests, national parks,
Indian reservations, on the Federal public domain, or in some State refuge,
forest, or park, so that no expense for administration or maintenance is
involved.

The Federal wild-life director should cooperate with the agency con-
cerned to buy such lands.

Less commonly, the outlying ranch will be on private or unregulated
public range. The action if any, must be suited to the circumstances.

Types of land to be submitted for consideration:

A grazing ranch headquarters situated on public domain where the
grazing permit has already been reduced to a minimum, but where
grazing still interferes with some valuable big-game herd, such as moun-
tain sheep, antelope, or elk.

A grazing ranch headquarters located on a bear range, where bear
commit occasional depredations and have in the past been subjected to

(11)

12

trapping or poisoning, but where the real remedy is to buy the ranch and
let the bears have the range.

Outlying farm properties serving as a base for poachers, market
hunters, or other illegal damage to valuable game herds.

An outlying farm now a source of damage claims by reason of beaver
colonies, elk herds, or other mammals using nearby range. To retire the
farm is good agriculture, good economy, and good conservation.

An outlying sheep ranch liable to transmit scabies to mountain sheep.

Outlying ranches which, by fencing or diversion of natural waters,
could be retired to the advantage of wild life.

Administration and Staff

Scientific research has j or years tabulated the j acts
of the destruction of our wild life and prescribed the
formulae for its restoration, but the means for apply-
ing the information have never been provided.

Now, if ever, action is possible.

(See chart — exhibit C.)

The immediate need for an administrative executive is imperative.

The work of putting into effect this or any national wild-life restoration
program and carrying on the essential conservation cannot be done with
the requisite speed or resourcefulness by the preexisting personnel or
through preexisting procedures.

On the other hand, it is absolutely essential that every trained man and
all available information be utilized to the utmost.

To coordinate all correlated Federal conservation and restoration effort,
the Committee has the temerity to suggest the appointment (by promxO-
tion) of a restoration commissioner under the direction of a committee
of the three Cabinet members most concerned, i.e., the Secretaries of the
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce.

The commissioner should supervise and coordinate the wild-life restora-
tion work of the following services:

Federal parks
Federal forests
Reclamation
Fisheries
Wild life (new)
Erosion control
Public domain

Emergency conservation work
Mosquito control

The President should be respectfully asked to issue an Executive order
requiring this and to place the jurisdiction over all wild life in the United
States and possessions under the Federal wild-life director. This juris-
diction is now scattered "all over the lot" from the Light House Service
to the Marine Corps.

(13)

14

Under the director of wild-life resources, there is need for division
heads, as follows:

A. Migratory waterfowl, shore birds, etc.

B. Upland game

C. Song, insectivorous, and ornamental birds

D. Mammals

These men must have available the services of divisions, as follows:

A. Land acquisition and restoration

B. Land and wild-life crop management

C. Research (imperative)

Much of the talent required for the above positions is available in the
Biological Survey, a misnamed, quasi-scientific bureau quite unequal to
the present task.

There is a shortage of trained field men needed for district supervision.
This shortage can be partially overcome by a series of local training camps
to be attended by the field staffs to be set up for the execution of this
program, and also by men selected from State conservation departments,
agricultural colleges, and other local agencies for the execution of local
wild-life conservation work.

Migratory bird and upland game areas purchased under this program
will usually require a resident custodian service, and also a technical
supervisory personnel. The functions of this personnel will include
patrol, posting, food and cover plantings, predator and disease control,
and maintenance of water levels.

On the average one custodian will be needed for each 3,000 acres, and
one supervisory manager will be needed for each 10 custodians.

The cost of this field service and the ways of meeting this cost are
discussed under the next caption. It appears likely, however, that the
cost for custodians can be materially reduced by providing them, in
cooperation with the Subsistence Farm Home Administration, with
subsistence farm homes as part of their compensation. This can usually
be provided by rehabilitating some existing farmhouse. Satisfactory
performance of duties, however, must be the basis of employment. Rev-
enues from cropping game or fur, where they exist, can be used to amortize
subsistence farm homes for custodians.

It is of the utmost importance, however, that no Federal wild-life area
be so organized that its maintenance depends on utilization of wild-life
crops over and above the safe take. It is incumbent on the proposed
administration to see that no such situation arises.

Any national program for wild-life restoration that might be devised
would be predestined to failure if its administration is left to the de-
centralized Government Bureaus whose functions bear upon the problems.

15

It is hoped that administrative costs that are temporarily in excess of
the present budget can be met out of emergency moneys for emergency
work.

Costs

Emergencv fund for surveys, examination, etc., of .

. . Minimum

projects (source C.W.A.). See Exhibits D and Good job Partial job job

E for details 3430,910 3430,910 3430,910

Land to be withdrawn from commercial agriculture

and used for wild-life restoration (source

F.S.R.C.) 25,000,000 18.000.000 12,000,000

Restoration of land (sources P.W.A. and C.W. A.) _ 25,000,000 18,000.000 12.000,000
Maintenance first year out of C.W.A., C.C.C., and

subsistence homes {^) (0

Total 50,430,910 36,430,910 24,430,910

Maintenance after first year:
Revenue sources:

Duck stamp proceeds 3700,000

Migratory Bird Conservation Act appropriations 300,000

Ammunition tax 2,500,000

Game and fur cropping (0

Total annual revenue 3,500,000

1 Estimates not feasible at the present time.

Recapitulation

The destruction of our once abundant wild-life
resources, through waste and neglect, constitutes one
of the sorriest chapters in our national history.

The knowledge, the facilities, and the funds
necessary for restoration are available if we zvill put
them to work.

Extensive restoration of our wild life will re-create
a national resource of incalculable value, which will
add measurably to the health, happiness, and
prosperity of the people of the United States.

Note: A confidential list of tentative projects, from which definite selections will be made, was submitted to the
President with this report. All governmental sources. State commissioners, sportsmen s organizations, and many
interested individuals were asked to submit proposals.

Exhibit A

Departments and Bureaus of the Federal Government having authority
affecting Wild Life:

Department of Agriculture:

Bureau of Biological Survey-
Forest Service
Department of Commerce:

Bureau of Fisheries

Bureau of Lighthou-ses
Department of Interior:

National Park Service

General Land Office

Reclamation Service
Navy Department:

Administration of game on five areas in Virginia, Hawaii, and
elsewhere
War Department:

Administration of game on 17 areas in 8 States.

(16)

Exhibit B

Memorandum of agreement on wild-life restoration signed by representatives
of 47 organizations and presented to the President January 25, 1934

Hon. Franklin D. Roosevelt,

The White House, Washington, D.C.

My Dear Mr. President: We have the honor to present to vou the
unanimous vote of a large group of representative conservationists who
met today at the Senate Office Building at the request of the Special
Committee of the Senate on the Conservation of Wild-Life Resources to
consider certain legislative phases of a program presented by this com-
mittee and certain administrative and executive phases of a plan proposed
by your committee of three, known as the "President's Committee on
Wild-Life Restoration."

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to express to you the enthusiastic
appreciation and the hearty cooperation pledged by the sportsmen of the
country, the nature lovers, the farmers' organizations, the conservation
commissioners, the representatives of the National Association of Audubon
Societies, and the sportsmen's magazines for a comprehensive plan with
the possibility of a large fund in support of this plan for the restoration
of our migratory waterfowl, upland game birds, and insectivorous birds,
and the purchase, for these purposes, of large areas of submarginal lands.

The conference unanimously approved the foiUowing:

(1) The duck stamp bill prepared by the Special Senate Committee on
the Conservation of Wild-Life Resources, Senate bill 1658 and House
bill 5632.

(2) Senator Joseph T. Robinson's wild-life refuge bill no. 2277: A bill
to establish fish and game sanctuaries in the national forests and on other
public lands, approved by the Senate committee and now on the Senate
Calendar.

(3) The coordination bill, introduced by the Senate committee, to
coordinate conservation activities of the several Federal departments,
which passed the Senate and was approved by the House committee in
the last session.

(4) Your stimulating order setting aside the sum of 325,000,000 for
the withdrawal of submarginal lands from commercial agriculture which
suggests the use of certain portions of these lands for migratory water-
fowl and upland game.

(5) That appropriations should be made as authorized under the
Norbeck-Andresen bill and the policy established therein for a period of
10 years (5 years have already gone) should be renewed.

(6) The treaty with Canada established our duty to conserve migra-
tory birds along their annual flight lanes within our country. When

(17)

18

these birds reach the Mexican border, or the Gulf of Mexico, many of
them cross into the domain of our sister republics to the south, particu-
larly Mexico. We recommend that negotiations be entered into to
bring about a treaty with Mexico similar in character to that with
Canada.

Proposals for a plan to be submitted to the President by the President's
Committee on Wild-Life Restoration.

(1) Restoration of migratory waterfowl nesting areas by purchase
(1-year lease with option to buy, to hasten possession and guard against
error) of a large number of such areas in the States where these birds
naturally multiply if given proper environment and food.

(2) A Nation-wide upland game restoration program, with specific
projects.

(3) A Nation-wide plan for action involving the acquisition and
restoration of areas suitable for facilitating a prolific nature in increasing
the population of all wild life, especially those species which are, or are
becoming, rare.

(4) A proposal for a much-needed coordinated and businesslike
administration set-up to carry the plan into successful execution if
or when the report is approved by the President.

For the first time in the history of organized conservation, there was
a unanimity of action in a broad program which, in our belief, will
redound to the great benefit of future generations.

Respectfully submitted.

(Signed) Frederic C. Walcott,
Chairman Senate Committee on the Conservation of

Wild Life Resources.

(Signed) Thomas H. Beck,

Chairman President's Committee on

Wild-Life Restoration.

Additional signatures attached to the report by the Senate Committee on
Wild Life Resources and the Presidential Committee on Restoration of
Wild Life

American Game Association — Seth Gordon, president. Investment
Building, Washington, D.C.

Izaak Walton League — S. Barry Locke, conservation director, 222 North
Bank Drive, Chicago, 111.

More Game Birds in America, Inc. — Arthur F. Foran, president, 500
Fifth Avenue, New York City.

National Association of Audubon Societies — T. Gilbert Pearson, presi-
dent, 1775 Broadway, New York City.

International Association of Fish and Game Commissioners — William J.
Tucker, Austin, Tex.

19

Western Association of Fish and Game Commissioners — Nathan Moran,
41 Sutter Street, San Francisco, Calif.; John L. Farley, Russ Building,
San Francisco, Calif.

American Fisheries Society — Fred A. Westerman, Lansing, Mich.

New England Fish and Game Association — John C. Phillips, 41 Mount
Vernon Street, Boston, Mass.

Western Game Association — ^Thomas A. E. Lally, 404 Bell Street Ter-
minal, Seattle, Wash.

American Forestry Association — Ovid Butler, 1727 K Street, Washing-
ton, D.C.

Southern Association of Fish and Game Commissioners — I. T. Quinn,

Montgomery, Ala.
Farmers Union — John A. Simpson, Oklahoma City, Okla.
National Grange — Fred Brenckman, 630 Indiana Avenue, Washington,

D. C.

American Farm Bureau — Chester H. Gray, Munsey Building, Washing-
ton, D.C.

New York Zoological Society — W. Reid Blair, New York City.
Camp Fire Club of America — William B. Greeley, 38 Park Row, New
York City.

American Rifle Association — M. A. Reckord, Barr Building, W^ashing-
ton, D.C.

Emergency Conservation Committee — Rosalie Edge, 734 Lexington

Avenue, New York City.
American Game Conference — William C. Adams, State Office Building,

Albany, N.Y.

National Legislative Committee — E. Lee LeCompte, Munsey Building,
Baltimore, Md.

Western Fish and Game Association — Newell B. Cook, Salt Lake City,

Utah; David H. Madsen, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Conservation committee of the Arms and Ammunition Institute —

E. E. Handy, Bridgeport, Conn.

American Geographical Society — Isaiah Bowman, Broadway and One

Hundred and Fifty-sixth Street, New York City.
Mid- Western Duck Club Association — Robert Lungstras, 3101 South

Vandeventer Avenue, St. Louis, Mo.
Conservationist at large — Harry B. Hawes, Transportation Building,

Washington, D.C.
American Conservation Society — Guy Amsler, Little Rock, Ark.
Conservation Commission of Ohio — William H. Reinhart, Columbus,

Ohio.

National Parks Association — Robert Sterling Yard, 700 Twentieth

Street, Washington, D.C.
Arkansas and Tennessee Duck Club Association — Nash Buckingham,

Memphis, Tenn.

20

Personal representative of the Governor of Wyoming — I. H. Larom,
Valley, Wyo.

American Nature Association — P. S. Ridsdale, 1214 Sixteenth Street,

Washington, D.C.
Magazine editors:

National Sportsman — William H. Foster, 108 Massachusetts Avenue,
Boston, Mass.

Outdoor Life — Harry McGuire, Mount Morris, 111.

Field and Stream — Ray P. Holland, 578 Madison Avenue, New
York City.
Migratory advisory board:

William Finley, Jennings Lodge, Oreg.

Lee Miles, Little Rock, Ark.

Brooke Anderson, Chicago, 111.
The President's committee of three:

Thomas H. Beck, Hartford, Conn.

J. N. Darling, Des Moines, Iowa.

Aldo Leopold, Madison, Wis.
House of Representatives:

Richard M. Kleberg of Texas.

Tom D. McKeown of Oklahoma.

A. Willis Robertson of Virginia.
Senate Committee on Wild Life Resources:

Senator Frederic C. Walcott of Connecticut.

Senator Key Pittman of Nevada.

Senator Charles L. McNary of Oregon.

Carl D. Shoemaker, secretary.

X

<

a:
o
o
en

CL

z

g

cm
o

UJ

I

o
-J

<

o

2:

(21)

Exhibit D

Purchase Procedure^ Migratory Waterfowl

Each project submitted will be subject to the following surveys before
final acceptance:

1. Potential capacity of the area to breed birds.

2. Land acquisition.

3. Engineering.

{a) Present water conditions and possibilities.
{h) Practicability of planned construction work.

Detailed reports of each survey will be submitted. Final acceptance
or further surveys of the project will depend on satisfactory reports.
The original survey party will consist of:

1. A project inspector accompanied by a plant ecologist. The project
inspector will visit and inspect the area included in the project in order
to ascertain its possibilities as a breeding and nesting ground. The
points to be covered in this survey are:

{a) Location.

{b) Potential capacity to produce birds.

(c) Relative importance in comparison with other projects.

{d) Environmental conditions in and surrounding the area, i.e.,

grazing, agriculture, natural enemies, etc.
{e) Management problems.
The plant ecologist will accompany the inspector to investigate and
report on the vegetation in the area, character of the soil and water, and
the possibilities of providing suitable vegetation for food and cover.

For the purpose of estimating costs, each inspector and party will
cover an average of 10 projects on one trip out of the district headquarters
which will be centrally located and established by the supervisor to be
employed as explained below.

To properly carry out the work of locating the most practicable, use-
ful, and economical projects, a temporary inspection staff should be
organized for a period of 4 months.
This staif should consist of:

Five district supervisors
Ten assistant supervisors
Two supervising engineers
Two supervising plant ecologists
Twenty game inspectors
Twenty plant ecologists
Two engineer office assistants
Fifteen land examiners
Ten clerical assistants

(22)

23

Upon receipt of a satisfactory report from the project inspector and
plant ecologist, the district supervisor will visit and inspect the area,
pass upon it, and arrange for an engineering survey after contact with the
State game commissioner and State engineer.

2. Upon receipt of a satisfactory report from the district supervisor,
a land acquisition examiner will be sent to negotiate with the owners for
control of the necessary property on a lease with option to buy within 1
year. The amount paid for the lease is not to exceed 5 percent of the
purchase price and will be considered as part payment if the property
is purchased within the tenure of the option.

Upon a report from the land acquisition examiner, indicating that
control of the property has been obtained, the district supervisor will
arrange for an engineering survey.

3. Engineering survey. — This survey will include:

(a) Inspection and report of present water conditions and the

possibilities of additional water for the project area.

(b) Construction work surv.ey.

The report will include recommended construction work with plans
and specifications for the type of work necessary to maintain suitable
water levels with estimated costs.

The district supervisor will keep in close touch with the surveying
engineer to see that the engineering or construction work is designed to
give the best results for suitable breeding and nesting grounds. In some
cases it might be necessary for the district supervisor to accompany the
engineer's survey party.

It is estimated that each recommended project will require on an
average of 6 days' time of one project inspector's survey party — three
days for the original survey of the project and 3 days for the work of
overseeing engineering parties.

It will therefore be necessary to set up a temporary inspection organiza-
tion equipped with motor vehicles for a period of 4 months.

The estimated costs of this organization are:

5 district supervisors at 31,200 $6, 000

10 assistant supervisors at ^800 8, 000

2 supervising engineers at 31,200 2, 400

2 supervising plant ecologists at 31,200 2, 400

20 project inspectors at 3800 16, 000

20 plant ecologists at 3800 16, 000

2 engineer office assistants at 3600 1, 200

15 land examiners at 31,000 15, 000

10 clerical assistants at 3400 4, 000

39 automobiles at 3550 21,450

92, 450

Gas, oil, tires, and repairs 120,000 miles at 30.04 4, 800

General traveling, 74 men for 120 days =8,800 man-days at 34-_ 35, 520

132, 770

24

Aerial surveys can be made over many of the projects advantageously.
Views of the area photographed from the planes will often give sufficient
information to classify the project properly. No estimate of the cost of
such surveys is included in these inspection cost figures as Army planes
can be used for the purpose.

It is estimated that 25 percent of the projects originally submitted will
not pass the first inspection. On this basis there will be 225 projects
recommended for engineering survey.

The costs of the preliminary engineer's survey are estimated as follows:

1 engineer at 325 a day for 10 days 3250

1 engineer's assistant at 35 a day for 10 days 50

Average cost prelimxinary engineer's survey 300

225 projects at 3300 67, 500

Approximately 10 percent of the projects will fail to pass the prelimi-
nary engineering inspection. Therefore, it is estimated that 200 projects
will be submitted for the construction survey and mapping of the project.

1 engineer, 325 a day for 15 days 3375

3 assistants, 35 each per day for 15 days 225

600

200 projects at 3600 120,000

Summary of estimated costs for surveys of proposed projects. (This
does not include administrative expense) :

Temporary inspection organization 3132,770

Preliminary engineering survey 67,500

Final engineering survey 120,000

Total 320,270

An executive should be appointed head of the inspection staff with
offices at Washington. He should be assisted by an office force of
approximately six clerical assistants. To the total given above, there
should be added, therefore:

1 executive, 4 months 32,000

6 clerical assistants at 3400 2,400

Since this work falls definitely within the class of men who are largely
unemployed at this time, provision should be made for payment out of
CW.A. funds.

Exhibit E

Purchase Procedure^ U pland Game

Each project will be subject to the following surveys before final
acceptance:

1. Potential capacity of the area to breed birds.

2. Land acquisition.

Detailed reports of each survey will be submitted. Further surveys or
final acceptance of the project will depend on satisfactory reports.
The original survey party will consist of:

1. A project inspector accompanied by a plant ecologist. The project
inspector will visit and inspect the area included in the project in order
to ascertain its possibilities. The points to be covered in this survey are:

{a) Location.

{b) Potential capacity to produce wild life.

(c) Relative importance in comparison with other projects.

{d) Environmental conditions in and surrounding the area, i.e.,

agriculture, livestock, natural enemies, open land, timbered

land, topography, water, etc.
{e) Management problems.

The plant ecologist will accompany the inspector to investigate and
report on the vegetation in the area, character of soil, and the possibilities
of providing suitable food and cover for the wild life native to the section.

To properly carry out the work of locating the most practical, useful,
and economical projects, a temporary inspection staff should be organized
for a period of 4 months. This staff should consist of:

One ruffed grouse supervisor ^
One quail supervisor

One sharptail grouse and prairie chicken supervisor

One exotic species supervisor

Two game animal supervisors

Six assistant supervisors

Three land examiners

Two supervising plant ecologists

Fifteen project inspectors

Fifteen plant ecologists

Ten clerical assistants

Upon receipt of a satisfactory report from the project inspector and
plant ecologist, the species supervisor or an assistant will visit and inspect
the property and contact the State game authorities.

(25)

26

2. Upon receipt of a satisfactory report from the supervisor, a land-
acquisition examiner will be sent to negotiate the terms as described in
exhibit D (purchase procedure, migratory waterfowl).

The supervisor will prepare a plan of management for the property to
be put into operation as soon as control is obtained.

It is estimated that 100 upland-game projects will be inspected and
passed upon. The estimated costs of an inspection organization equipped
with automobiles to take care of these projects are:

7 supervisors, at 31,200 38 ,400

7 assistant supervisors, at 3800 5 ,600

2 supervising plant ecologists, at 31,200 2,400

2 soil experts, at 31,200 2,400

1 5 inspectors, at 3800 1 2 , 000

15 plant ecologists, at 3800 12,000

10 clerical assistants, at 3400 4,000

10 land examiners, at 31,000 10,000

32 automobiles, at 3550 17,600

74,400

Gas, oil, tires, and repairs, 100,000 miles, at 30.04 4,000

General traveling, 58 men for 120 days = 6,960 man-days, at 34_ 27 , 840

106,240

There should be no additional administrative expense as this work can
be carried on in the office of the executive in charge of waterfowl surveys.