you would hoe one out, and they can do it much more cheaply than they can do it with their limited labor supply. Senator ODDIE. Is that grazing detrimental to the forest growth in any way? Mr. GREEN. No; it is not, because they don't overgraze generally only that little narrow area. If you go into the southern part of the State you will see that every ridge has been cleared out by hand labor, for the same purpose. Senator ODDIE. Do you think that normal grazing is injurious to the forest growth? yes. Mr. GREEN. The way it is run now, I think it is to some extent; Senator ODDIE. Do you think it is injurious to the tree growth of the forest? Mr. GREEN. No; I don't mean to the tree growth. Senator ODDIE. I am referring to the growth of trees in the forest. Mr. GREEN. No; I don't think so. The CHAIRMAN. The hour for adjournment has arrived. The committee will meet at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, and we will now stand adjourned to that hour. (Whereupon, at 5.35 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., to-morrow, Wednesday, September 23, 1925.) NATIONAL FOREST AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1925 UNITED STATES SENATE, The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment on yesterday, in the Palace Hotel, San Francisco, Calif., at 10 o'clock a. m., Wednesday, September 23, 1925, Senator Robert N. Stanfield (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Gilmore. STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. GILMORE, ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and your position, Mr. Gilmore. Mr. GILMORE. My name is Charles L. Gilmore. I am attorney and assistant executive officer of the California State Fish and Game Commission. The statement that I wish to make, gentlemen, is not in any way allied with the matters that you have heretofore heard with respect to grazing. As a preliminary, I wish to state that the Fish and Game Commission is a political arm of the State of California. Under section 640 of the political code of this State this commission is charged with the duty of administering and executing the laws of this State relating to the protection, preservation, propagation and conservation of fish and game. It is a self-supporting organization, although a political arm of the State, being supported wholly and entirely by funds derived from the sale of fishing and hunting licenses, and fines and forfeitures collected for violations of the fish and game laws. Therefore I appear here in more or less of a dual capacity, representing a large part of the recreation seekers, those who follow the rod and gun. In the early history of this State we had very few fish in our streams. In the lower reaches we had the salmon, sucker, and in one stream the steelhead trout. In the higher mountain regions in some of the streams and some of the lakes we had the rainbow trout, and in one or two lakes we had a sort of lake trout known locally as a pogie. This commission in 1870 commenced the introduction of other fishes, until now in the higher mountain regions we have the eastern brook trout, the lochleven, the German brown, or European brown. trout, sometimes called the von Bahr trout, that have all been introduced in the lower reaches. We have the crappie and the bluegill, and the sunfish, and the black and striped bass, upon which a considerable commercial industry has been predicated. While it is true that the fish and game commission of this State is a political arm, it has been for some years last past really a nonpolitical organization, as we can witness that one of our commissioners has been in that position for 16 years, and another one has been there for 14 years. They hold office at the pleasure of the governor, but they have lasted through several administrations. Our chief fish culturalist has been with the commission nearly 45 years. Our executive officer has been with the commission in various capacities for nearly 40 years. And we have any number of men that have been with the commission for periods up to 25 years. I am merely stating this to show you that I am not appearing here in a political capacity; that it is not a political question I bring to you. There has arisen here in California an apparent dual control of matters relating to fish and game. As I said before, all moneys are derived from local sources. There are no funds from Federal agency. This dual control commenced in 1918-I presume that is a good basis to start from- when the Congress passed the Federal migratory bird treaty act. There the Federal Government took control of all birds of migratory species, that is, the ducks and geese, etc., and in order to carry out the provisions of that act whereby the Federal Government has assumed control, and for the purpose of enforcing that law, they have designated to this State one game warden. Bear in mind that this State is of considerable area. You can take the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Ohio and put them all together, and then California has a thousand square miles more over and above that, and that is an immense territory. Therefore an attempt by the Federal Government, even in that particular instance, to handle matters relating to fish and game in California would naturally fail because of the inability to cover the territory with one man. Now, referring to the national park question, inasmuch as the increase of the Sequoia Park and the Yosemite National Park is now before this committee. In 1919 California ceded jurisdiction over Yosemite, Sequoia, and General Grant National Parks to the United States, saving the right to collect fishing license fees therein and some other rights. They did not cede jurisdiction over Lassen National Park. At the session of the legislature in 1925 a bill passed known as Assembly Bill No. 1052 that was to cede jurisdiction over Lassen, but the governor of this State refused to sign that bill, and he did so, I am free to state, largely at my own instigation. That we could see no necessity for it and we could see no gain to be derived thereby. We have stocked the waters, and the men who fish and hunt have paid for it and there could seem to be to me no real reason why jurisdiction, particularly over those matters, should be ceded to the Federal Government. As to the policy of the National Park Service, that may be all right in those places where it is in effect at the present time. But we are against the policy because of the fact that the Director of the National Park Service has unlimited regulatory power. There is nothing to be gained in the increase. The recreational advantages that are offered under the present conditions will not be increased nor enhanced in so far as the fish and game are concerned, under park control. We have always tried, and I think we have succeeded, in marching hand in hand with the development of our national resources. It was mentioned yesterday as to two lakes, Huntington and Bass Lakes, being created for storage of water supply. In order to show this development I want to call your attention to another lake that just comes to my mind, and that is the lake down in Los Angeles County called Bear Lake. The site of Bear Lake was originally an arroyo. A dam was put across the lower end of it and created a lake. The fish and game commission stocked that lake with fish. There was not a particle of fish life in it. And since that lake was built there is not a human possibility of any reproduction by natural means. In other words, there are no spawning grounds in that lake, because no streams enter it. It is estimated from reliable sources that about 300,000 people visit that lake during the fishing season annually, which reaches from May 1 to November 1. And during the fishing season anywhere from 200 to 300 boats are out on that lake daily catching fish, and they get the limit. So that in the development for industrial and municipal purposes there was an increase in the recreational advantage in that instance. We have another lake up in Plumas County, wholly an artificial one, known as Lake Almanor, owned by the Great Western Power Co. There are 100 people visiting it to-day to partake of its fishing where one visited it prior to that development. Now, no such development as that is possible within a national park. When a national park is established-and this is proven in relation to Lassen National Park-the Federal authorities, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, assumes control over the fish and game therein. And, mind you, this State has not ceded its authority over Lassen Park. And we have always worked under the assumption that the fish and game of the State belong to the people thereof in their sovereign capacity, as the United States Supreme Court has so often enunciated that principle. But upon the assumption of the Lassen National Park they proceeded to promulgate regulations relating to the taking of fish and the prohibition as to hunting. The prohibition as to hunting may be all right. Perhaps that is necessary in their wisdom. But the prohibition as to fishing I can not agree with, and neither can the fishermen of this State agree with it. How a man is going to do any injury wandering along a stream with a rod any more than the man who is merely walking along through the country and seeing its beauty is a thing that I can not fathom. The park service regulates the season, the limits, and even goes to the extent of designating to you the exact spot wherein you may fish, and you fish no place else. We have endeavored to establish an additional hatchery to put in in the Yosemite Valley, but under the form of agreement that was |