4 GAME REFUGES. 



Sec. 5. That it is the purpose of this act to provide breeding places for large wild 

 animals, such as deer, elk, mountain sheep, and other species, which may be made 

 to produce an increased food supply by breeding under natural conditions and spread- 

 ing over adjacent territory, whereon they may be hunted in accordance with State 

 laws; to establish sanctuaries of medium size rather than large preserves; and when- 

 ever possible to establish chains of sanctuaries which in turn will restore wild game 

 animals to intervening territory; but it is not the purpose to authorize the establish- 

 ment of such game sanctuaries or refuges as will embrace all the hunting grounds of 

 any given region. 



STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. MONDELL, A REPRESENTA- 

 TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING. 



Mr. Jacoway. Yoo may proceed, Mr. Mondell. 



Mr. Mondell. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, 

 I am opposed to the bill under consideration for a variety of reasons, 

 as follows : 



First. Because Congress has not the constitutional authority to 

 enact such legislation. 



Second. Because if it were within the power of Congress to enact 

 such legislation it would not be wise to do so, owing to the fact that 

 the evils that would attend and follow such legislation and its en- 

 forcement by Federal authorities would far outweigh any good that 

 it may be claimed would flow from it. 



Third. Because — and I want particularly to call your attention to 

 this — the States affected have full, complete, and unquestioned 

 authority to provide for game preserves or sanctuaries, as the bill 

 proposes, and to fully and completely protect the game within them, 

 and a number of States have done so. As a matter of fact, not only 

 have the States full, complete, and absolute authority to do every- 

 thing that is proposed in this bill, but they have authority to do 

 very much more in the protection of game than the bill proposes, 

 and do it. 



The bill proposes to authorize the President, upon the recom- 

 mendation of the Secretary of Agriculture, and with the approval of 

 the governors of the States, to establish certain areas within the 

 nattonal forests as game sanctuaries or refuges; and section 2 of the 

 bill provides a penalty to be fixed by a United States court of both 

 fine and imprisonment for the hunting, pursuing, or killing, or 

 attempting to hunt, pursue, kill, or capture any wild animal, birds, 

 or fish within the limits of these preserves; while section 3 authorizes 

 the Secretary of Agriculture to allow fishing or the hunting or 

 killing of predatory wild animals in a manner not in contravention of 

 State laws and under such regulations as he may prescribe. 



It will be noted that the bill raises squarely the question as to the 

 jurisdiction of the Federal and State governments, respectively, 

 over the hunting, killing, and taking of wild game, and collaterally 

 the question of the extent or character of Federal authority and 

 jurisdiction over public lands reserved as national forests. 



As to the first and primarily important of these propositions, there 

 is little ground for difference of opinion. In the case of Ward v. 

 Racehorse (163 U. S., p. 507) the court held "the power of a State 

 to control and regulate the taking of game can not be questioned." 



I have quoted the exact words of the decision, and this power was 

 declared to be "complete," page 510, and it was held that this power 



