GAME REFUGES. 15 



and extend their authority and control. They would never trouble 

 themselves over questions of jurisdiction. They naturally consider 

 Federal control the best. There are certain clubs organized of pro- 

 fessional or amateur hunters who want to see game increased and who 

 do not always approve State game regulations who give their assent 

 with or without information to any proposal of the extension of 

 Federal authority. 



I know of a few gentlemen who are very anxious for this legisla- 

 tion because they have not been entirely happy over the very strict 

 regulation in regard to elk and other hunting in my State. They 

 actually have the idea that in some way this bill gives the Federal 

 Government control over hunting in the States, which it does not 

 purport to do at all, except that it attempts to prohibit it in certain 

 regions. 



Those who favor this legislation and understand it do not ordi- 

 narily, publicly, proclaim their reasons, or at least all of them, for 

 advocating the legislation. Many such people desire to break down 

 and destroy completely State jurisdiction and control over game, at 

 least within forest reserves. They know this bill will not do that. 

 They know perfectly well that if only small areas are included in 

 these so-called sanctuaries, as the Federal authority will have no 

 control over the game as it passes from the sanctuaries, their estab- 

 lishment will have little effect on increasing the amount of game in 

 a region which does not have wise State laws enforced by healthy 

 public opinion. Such people ought to know that the friction caused 

 by conflict of Federal and State authority around and in these refuges 

 will tend to weaken rather than strengthen public sentiment in the 

 localities in favor of game preservation. Out of this condition, unless 

 the counts intervene, a general extension of the Federal authority is 

 expected by a considerable number of people. 



I want to emphasize that fact. Attention was called the other 

 day to the fact that in the State of Montana, in parts of which there 

 never has been a very good public sentiment in the matter of game 

 preservation, a lot of elk that had strayed from the Yellowstone Park 

 were slaughtered. Yellowstone Park is the largest of our game sanc- 

 tuaries, but the moment the game went beyond the sanctuary it 

 was under State law. Now ; you might increase that sanctuary a 

 few miles by taking in. some forest reserves adjacent to it, but you 

 could not extend it over all of the State of Montana ; you could not 

 extend it over all the country in the forest reserve, because if you 

 did you would be violating the plain intent, or the proclaimed intent 

 of the bill, and if you did not so extend it over all of the country in 

 which there was game you would not protect the game, but, perhaps, 

 tend to create a sentiment that would give it less protection than 

 now when it ranged outside the sanctuaries. 



Mr. Jacoway. Your argument, then, is that the States can control 

 all of the territory within the State, whereas the Federal Government 

 can only control that part which it owns ? 



Mr. Mondell. If the Federal Government can control at all it can 

 control only as a proprietor and through a prohibition against what 

 it alleges to be a trespass. That is the only theory on which you can 

 establish these preserves at all or maintain them. You can not 

 maintain them on any theory that the Federal Government has any 

 control over the game, because the game is not the Government's 



