CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME 285 



The Attorney General of California was requested and has submitted his 

 opinion relative to the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe rules 

 and regulations for the management of fish and game in the National Forests. It 

 is his belief that authority for such action is lacking. A copy of this opinion 

 is enclosed. 



In view of the opinion of the Attorney General, the Fish and Game Commis- 

 sion would appreciate additional information relative to the authority for the 

 issuance of Regulation G-20A, the provisions of which, in so far as they refer 

 to fish and game management, the Fish and Game C<)mmission can not at this 

 time recognize. 



Respectfully yours, 



John L. Fakleiy, 



Executive Officer. 



Letters were also sent to all members of Congress similar to the 



following : 



May 9, 1934. 



(Similar letter sent to all members of Congress from California) 



Hon. Hiram W. Johnson, 

 Senate Office Building, 

 Washington, D. C. 



Dear Senator Johnson : 



Honorable H. A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, has recently issued 

 Regulation G-20A, in which authority is assumed for the management of fish 

 and game in the National Forests. This regulation provides for the establish- 

 ment of hunting and fishing seasons ; the fixing of bag and creel limits ; specifying 

 the sex of animals to be killed ; fixing of fees to be paid for permits, and other 

 related matters. 



Such assumption of authority, except as it may pertain to migratory birds, 

 is contrary to the whole background of fish and game management in this country, 

 and the Fish and Game Commission of California doubts the authority of the 

 Secretary to issue such regulations. This question has been referred to Attorney 

 General U. S. Webb, of California, and his opinion is: "that it was not the intent 

 of Congress to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture * * * to promulgate rules 

 or regulations with respect to hunting and fishing in National Forests, which would 

 conflict with the laws upon that subject enacted by the various states in which 

 the National forests are situated." A copy of this opinion is enclosed. 



As you well know, the National Forests of California embrace the more 

 important recreational areas of the State, and the assumption of authority to 

 manage fish and game in these areas would result in serious conflict of authority 

 between State and Federal agencies ; confusion to the sportsmen ; reduced revenues 

 and reduced work by the Fish and Game Commission. This regulation chal- 

 lenges the right of States to manage the wild life within their boundaries. 



The regulation is based, in part, upon the statement that the prevention of 

 over-grazing, and erosion, and the protection of watersheds, timber, and other 

 resources are dependent upon the regulation of the wild life population to the 

 carrying capacity of land and water. In California over-grazing by wild life 

 does not exist as a problem, but over-grazing by domestic stock in the National 

 Forests to the detriment of wild life exists in many cases. It would seem that 

 this regulation may be intended to regulate \vild life for the benefit of stock and 

 sheep men at a time when an effort is being made to reduce the production of 

 many of our commodities, including live stock. Certainly the management of fish 

 life can not be construed as a necessary factor in the prevention of over-grazing, 

 erosion, and the protection of watersheds and timber. 



The members of the Fish and Game Commission have requested me to inform 

 you of this regulation, and to ask you to enter protests in the proper places to 

 secure a change in this order which will make it compatible with the best interests 

 of California. 



For your information, I am also enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to the 

 Secretary of Agriculture, covering the same subject. 



Very truly yours, 



John L. Farley. 



Executive Oflicer. 



