11 



And in a lot of areas you have citizen resistance, for one reason 

 or another, to the estabhshment of a land refuge or land acquisi- 

 tion. So while you can get great enthusiastic support for admin- 

 istering something locally, which is run by some wonderful private 

 organization, run by the Nature Conservancy or Ducks Unlimited, 

 you cannot get the same enthusiasm if you try to come in and have 

 the Feds do it by setting up a refuge system. The people will not 

 like it, or the ranchers or the farmers will not like it, one or the 

 other. , „ , 



So this is an attempt to do that. And I think it pretty well does 

 at least what we thought, addresses the problems we thought were 

 a matter of concern back when the original legislation was passed. 

 I would say that is something you probably are going to look at and 

 very well should to see what it is that ought to be done to address 

 both the problems of money and sensitivities. 



You know, just to give you a thought. One of the things I learned 

 some years ago was in Britain. They have wonderful national 

 parks. They look the same as they did 50 or 100 years ago. But all 

 kinds of private human activity goes on, landowners in there and 

 everything else. 



What those lands are, they are impressed with the public trust, 

 or an easement which keeps them in the same condition they were. 

 So as a result, in London, or rather in England, your history of de- 

 velopment of a national park system is not done on the basis of 

 something which is v/here the government comes in and buys the 

 land. I happen to like that, by the way. But it is done on the basis 

 of the government coming in and achieving the protection of the 

 values that they really want in some far less expensive way. 



This is essentially what we are trying to do here and it is some- 

 thing on which the expertise of this Committee, which is really the 

 very highest, is, I think, fully capable. 



Mr. Studds. Are there any other questions for the Chairman? 

 The gentleman from North Carolina. 



Mr. Taylor of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 

 your comments this morning. I share your concern for wildlife as 

 a sportsman and as someone who appreciates nature, and I very 

 much find us heading in the right direction. 



I have been very much concerned about regulations, whether it 

 is dealing with wetlands or other areas of the environment, where 

 we have takings of people's private property under the guise of pro- 

 moting wildlife conservation or some other worthy goal without any 

 compensation. So I especially appreciate that you approach this in 

 a way where you put these lands together through the purchase of 

 either easements or the fee simple interest of the land. 



I have been concerned about the wetland issue based on the fact 

 that many times wetlands are defined as having any one of three 

 criteria: either plant type, soil type, or water. 



I proposed once that maybe we should have a wetland definition 

 that if the ordinary Federal bureaucrat is standing in it and 

 doesn't know it, then it ain't a wetland. But no one particularly ac- 

 cepted that on the Committee. I cannot understand why. 



How do you define a wetland, those that you are putting to- 

 gether? Is it any one of the three plant types or soil type or water, 

 or is water necessary for your definition of a wetland? 



