286 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME 



In response to the letter addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture, 

 the following answer has been received : 



[COPT] 



Department of Agrtouxture. 



Washington, May 23, 1934. 

 Mr. John L. Farley, Executive Officer, 

 Division of Fish and Game, 

 450 McAllister Street, 

 San Francisco, California. 

 Dear Mr. Farley : 



Your letter of May 9th is received. 



It would be most disappointing to me if the adoption of Regulation G-20A 

 disturbed, disrupted, or in any way interfered with such friendly and cooperative 

 relations between State and Federal officials as you describe. As a matter of fact, 

 the regulation was designed to improve and cement that relationship. If it does 

 otherwise it will fail to accomplish one of its major purposes. 



Public attention has been focused recently on better planning for the develop- 

 ment and use of natural resources. Quite naturally, the public demands that land 

 under public ownership be made fully productive. With this awakened interest on 

 the part of the general public, it is important that the interest of public officials 

 be correspondingly increased. Under existing practices there is too much of a 

 tendency to attempt to defend unsatisfactory condi-tions by a denial of responsi- 

 bility. This condition should be remedied, and the adoption of Reg. G-20A is a 

 step in that direction. 



It would be unfortunate if we failed to accept facts. There are cases where 

 cooperative effort has failed to provide a sensible system of managing a forest 

 or part thereof in the interest of wild-life production. This failure is not due as a 

 rule to a lack of cooperativeness on the part of officials in charge, nor is it due to 

 inadequate knowledge of conditions prevailing and the action required. It is due 

 largely to inadequate and inelastic State laws or other circumstances over which 

 officials have no control. This results in some areas being depleted of wild life, while 

 other areas become overstocked. 



The application of Reg. G-20A to such conditions is in no way inconsistent 

 with the primary purposes of State laws or the objective of State officials. It 

 merely provides a means by which these objectives can be attained. 



If under the State law all areas on National Forests can be made to produce 

 a maximum of wild life consistent with the requirements of other resources and 

 the needs of the public, State officials need have no fear of the application of 

 Regulation G-20A. 



If on the other hand this objective, to which I feel sure all interests will 

 readily agree, can not be obtained under existing practices, then Regulation G-20A 

 should be given a fair trial. In this way it becomes an effective instrument for 

 the accomplishment of a definite goal, and it would appear that the question of 

 jurisdiction should be subordinated to the paramount issue of getting the greatest 

 net public benefit from the public property. 



While it is appreciated that the opinion of Attorney General Webb is con- 

 trary to the opinion of the Solicitor of this Department on which Regulation G-20A 

 was based, the Department does not feel it would be redeeming its responsibility 

 as a manager of public property if it failed to take such reasonable means as will 

 insure the protection and development of all resources. In the event that any State 

 in which the regulation is to be applied prefers to have the question of jurisdiction 

 settled before reasonable management of a given area is applied, the Department 

 will welcome a clear definition of its responsibility by the courts. 



The point should be emphasized, however, that the regulation will be applied 

 to specific cases where cooperation has failed, and that in each case an intensive 

 field investigation by competent authorities selected by the Department will be made 

 in cooperation with representatives of the State and other interested agencies if they 

 care to participate in such examinations. 



It is hoped the above explanation of the regulation and its purposes will allay 

 any fears State officials may have of the Department's intention to disrupt cooper- 

 ative relationships where satisfactory results are being or can be obtained. When 

 the plans of the Department are understood, it is believed State and Federal officials 

 will join wholeheartedly in a constructive measure for the development of the wild 

 life resource. 



Sincerely yours, 



(Signed) R. G. Tug well, 



Acting Secretary. 



