pletely the fact-finding activities on the basis of which all sound regulation policies must be based.

Because of my familiarity with one or two lines, I may speak of them more specifically. I refer to the investigations of migratory birds and to the studies of food habits of birds and animals, both of which, together with the work on fur-bearing animals, are slated for complete elimination. The study of migratory birds is centered largely around the gathering of information by means of birdbanding. This work has been admirably developed by the Biological Survey in recent years, and it is safe to say that more information has been gained regarding the movements of migratory birds in that time than in all the years that preceded. In fact, it is the only method by which exact information can be obtained. I understand that the President has recently appointed a Committee on Game Conservation and that on the basis of recommendations of this committee a very considerable sum will be used for the conversion of submarginal lands for wild life and game purposes. On what can such a committee base its recommendations except fundamental facts gained by such research activities as those mentioned? It should be pointed out that, particularly in the case of the bird-banding work, the large function of the Biological Survey is to act as a repository and clearing house for records that are being accumulated by hundreds of voluntary collaborators all over the country. The Bureau's part of the migratory bird work in the past year has, I understand, cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000. If the voluntary work that has gone into the obtaining of these invaluable records had to be paid for, it would certainly run up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now if the coordinating work of the Biological Survey should stop, not only would it result in a complete paralysis of the work but records of inestimable value on birds already banded would be lost, and a smoothly working machinery would be destroyed which would require years to replace. Furthermore, the present highly skilled direction and supervision would be dissipated and could not be reassembled without much delay in time and effort, if at all.

Under separate cover I am sending you a reprint of a paper on the Early History of Bird-Banding in America. I can't expect you to read it, but if you can glance it over you will note that I have had a long-time interest in birdbanding as a scientific method and am thoroughly convinced of its importance.

If a manufacturer finds it necessary to restrict the operation of his plant for a time, he does not, if he expects to continue business and is sensible, devote himself entirely to selling his product on hand and let his plant go to rack and ruin. Nor does he keep some of the machines and destroy others that are essential to operation. He maintains, again if he is sensible, a workable unit which can, when necessary, be brought into full operation. Is it too much to expect as much foresight and planning in governmental affairs?

I am, of course, cognizant of your own sympathetic attitude to research, and I realize that the making of the Budget is not in your hands, but I am sure that, if the particular case I have stressed represents the policy of the Budget Bureau and if this policy is accepted by the Congress, it is a matter of grave concern, particularly to the scientists of the country and to your Department.

By the direction of President Roosevelt a cominittee was appointed by the National Academy of Sciences to investigate and recommend means of reorganization and correlation within the Government Departments. I understand, further, that there is a special subcommittee for the Department of Agriculture. I can scarcely believe that this committee can have recommended such action as that proposed in relation to investigation in the Biological Survey, and it would seem most unfortunate if such drastic measures should be taken before the matter has received consideration by that group. I should point out that probably more people who are concerned in this question are, like myself, not particularly interested in the particular organization under which these essential research activities are conducted so long as the management is efficient and sufficient for their proper continuance.

It occurs to me that if the recommendations relative to the Biological Survey are indicative of a wide policy on the part of the Bureau of the Budget with respect to agricultural research, it is a matter which should be brought to the attention of a wide public, and unless you see good reason to the contrary, I am inclined to call attention to the facts by a note in Science.

To change to a pleasanter topic, allow me to congratulate you on the splendid and inspiring address you gave at the Boston meetings. I regret that I could not have been there to hear it, but enjoyed reading it in Science.

Sincerely yours,

L. J. COLE,

Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin.

Since Mr. Hart asked the question in reference to Michigan, I would like to name a few of our cooperators there: Dr. Barbour, of Mayville; Dr. Bartholomew, of Lansing; Dr. Blanchard, of the University of Michigan; Dr. Cahalane, director of the Cranbrook Institute of Science; Mr. M. J. Magee, president of the Soo Bank at Sault Ste. Marie; Dr. Pirnie, director of the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary; and Professor Stack, a professor of Zoology at Michigan State College Those are just a few. As a matter of fact, there are nearly 150 cooperators in the State of Michigan. I have here a complete list of the cooperators in all of the States.

Mr. HART. At this point I should like to insert a letter from W. B. Mershon, Sr., of Saginaw, Mich.

Hon. MICHAEL J. HART,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

JANUARY 19, 1934.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN HART: I have not seen you in a long time except a brief glimpse of you going down the elevator of the building in which I am officed sometime last fall. I do not get to Washington often, but I am still one of the advisory committee. I was reappointed by Secretary Wallace which is quite an honor.

I am writing you to be as lenient and as liberal as you can with the appropriation, or budget rather, of the Biological Survey. Three or four years ago it was $2,250,000, and even that did not provide for what wardens were necessary to enforce the Federal migratory bird law. It stood a big cut a year ago and the proposed reduction for the year beginning July 1, 1934, completely eliminates appropriations for a lot of what to me are very important items, and it reduces the amount in a number of other cases to the danger point. There was not money enough to enforce the migratory bird protection last year and it is to be cut further, according to the present Budget estimate, $6,842. There is a decrease of over $200,000 in the appropriation for control of predatory animals and injurious rodents, and predators are increasing all the time and extraordinary efforts have to be taken in some localities to keep them in check. For instance, at the Turtle Lake Club where I hunted deer this fall we shot 2 coyotes 1 day. Two or three years ago we did not see one and had no idea there was one in the country. After the snowfall this year we were perfectly amazed to see how they had come in there. No control has taken place in that district since 6 or 7 years ago when the United States Government loaned us a man to teach the local men how to thin out the foxes that had cleaned out our partridges, and over 800 foxes were taken out of that district in a 2-year campaign. The crow has increased to such an extent that it is making big inroads in the duck supply and destroys the eggs as well as the young birds. Something has to be done to thin them out, and so it goes all over. Beginning with boll weevils and grasshoppers (and by the way the grasshoppers got all my grain this fall up in Saskatchewan) and continuing on through mice and other rodents, the coyote and the wolf, it is a continual fight the same as the farmer has to carry on with spraying for the insect pests.

The Biological Survey has a lot of men that have been trained to the work of their various Departments and they have become specialists, and if you let them go it would take years to build up such a force. I know there are some oldtimers that have been there in the scientific departments that never could be replaced. It means the loss of trained men and women whose services are vitally necessary; e.g., not a single ornithologist would be left in the Bureau if this reduction is made.

It is the only Federal Bureau that functions exclusively in the interest of the wild life of the country, which is a natural resource whose value to the Nation exceeds a billion dollars annually. Now our waterfowl is fast disappearing and something has to be done to save them, and it is the Federal Government only that can do this.

Now if you cannot do any better, if you can restore the following items in the Budget it will be a good deal better than nothing:

That division for studing food habits of birds and animals..
The production of fur-bearing animals___-

Investigational work under "protection of migratory birds'

You see the total cut proposed of $392,959 is to be taken from estimates already reduced by 28 percent during the present fiscal year.

Now you are one of the subcommittee having this matter in charge. I do not often ask you for favors, and I do not consider this is one. It is simply giving you the benefit of my knowledge of what is going on in the Biological Survey. I was 78 years old Tuesday, and for over half a century I have devoted a great deal of time to the study of wild life, and I do feel it would be unfortunate to reduce the funds available for the next fiscal year in the full amount that has been proposed. I am a great believer in the Budget and paring down useless expenses, but there are certain activities and undertakings that the States cannot carry on and we are dependent upon the Federal Government.

I am leaving for New York Sunday to attend a 3-day session of the American Game Conference.

With best wishes for your good health and that 1934 may be a prosperous year for you, I am,

Yours very truly,

WM. B. MERSHON.

Mr. LINCOLN. In connection with this list, for the information of all of the gentlemen here, I may state that because of reductions in appropriations in the current year, it became necessary to give up part of my equipment; my assistant had to be put on furlough for the entire year and we have had to refuse to issue any more banding permits. I may also say, without the slightest fear of successful contradiction, that with funds to develop this work as I know it can be developed, we can in one year double the number of cooperators and the number of birds that are banded, simply because there is no form of ornithological science that has so captivated the interest of the bird students of the country.

I am reminded of a case of a mallard duck that probably will be of interest to you. This bird has for 6 years come back and nested in the same place near our crescent lake refuge in Nebraska. It carries one of our bands so there is no chance of error. We have the records of her young that have been killed in 7 States, Mexico and 2 Canadian Provinces, but the old female has come back for 6 years now and nested in the same place. She makes her migration regularly and so far has succeeded in escaping the hunters.

I wanted to explain one of our maps a little bit, if I may. It is an illustration of just what is possible and shows a very practical application of this work in connection with our administration of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The map, as you see, shows the distribution and fall migration of the redhead duck, which, of all of our game species, is perhaps, the most seriously threatened at the present time. The area outlined by the heavy line [indicating on map] represents the main breeding ground of that bird. You will notice that it is discontinuous, the only species of North American duck where this is so apparent.

Because of the drought and agricultural activities, the rest of this area, is now gone. This duck does not breed in the far north. The only part of that area that is now left to produce ducks for us is this northern section, indicated on the map by cross-hatching, and a little section around the north end of Great Salt Lake. That is all that is left of productive breeding ground for that bird.

Now, with that fact before us, it became very desirable that we know where those ducks go. This map is based entirely on banding data. I have tried to show by bands of spots [indicating] the direction and the relative density of the flights from the different breeding grounds. The spots do not represent the exact areas where birds

have been recovered, but the density of the spotted bands indicate where they have been recovered in numbers.

There are two or three points of particular interest. This area here is the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, where we have a large and very productive banding station for waterfowl. Remember, also, that this same species breeds up in here in the prairie provinces of Canada [indicating on map]. When these northern birds start on their fall migration, many of them go almost due south across the Great Plains, toward the Gulf coast. Other flocks from this same northern breeding ground go to the southeast, across the line of the Great Lakes, across northern Ohio and western New York, turn abruptly south and reach the Atlantic Coast in the vicinity of Delaware and Chesapeake Bays.

These facts are definitely proved by banding. It might be said that we already knew that these birds came down here for their winter sojourn. That is true but it is also true that we did not know just where they came from.

Here is another point of even greater importance. Birds from the Bear River marshes in Utah actually come to the Atlantic Coast. Discovery of that fact is new to ornithological science and it will prove to be an important feature in the administration not only of that refuge but in the shooting regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

You will notice, that not only do those birds come to the Atlantic coast, but I desire to call your attention to the way that they come. They start northeast in the fall when most birds are going south. They pass through the Dakotas, Montana, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and join these other birds coming from Canada on their way to the Atlantic coast, and here in North Dakota there are some redheads traveling from west to east at right angles to the route of others of their own kind traveling from north to south.

Mr. SINCLAIR. They are feeding on the wheat fields first?

Mr. LINCOLN. Yes; they stop off at various points to feed, of

course.

Now, other redheads raised on the Bear River marshes in Utah go into California by two routes, one through northern Nevada and the other through southern Oregon, and then pass south through the interior valleys of California and down to Mexico.

DECREASING NUMBERS OF MIGRATORY BIRDS

Mr. CANNON. Is the wild duck very near extinction?

Mr. LINCOLN. I would not say "extinction." I dislike to use that word.

Mr. CANNON. What fowls are nearing extinction, if any?

Mr. LINCOLN. Among the ducks, I would not say that any are actually nearing extinction. I would say that there are some that have been very seriously reduced.

Mr. HENDERSON. The numbers are becoming less and less each

year.

Mr. SINCLAIR. Unless they are changing their flight, there are not one quarter of the ducks that there used to be.

Mr. HENDERSON. Of many species, not a tenth.
Mr. SINCLAIR. Not a tenth; no.

Mr. CANNON. Do you think our migratory birds are seriously menaced? I live in the Mississippi Valley, and my impression is that that is one of the great flight areas.

Mr. LINCOLN. It is.

Mr. CANNON. The number of birds coming down the Mississippi Valley is infinitesimal compared with the flights of a few years ago. Is this temporary or does it indicate serious inroads upon the supply of birds.

Mr. LINCOLN. It certainly indicates that serious inroads are being made, I think, from various causes. Overshooting and the destruction. of the breeding grounds are the two important factors. I think there can be no question about that.

Mr. CANNON. What is the recommendation of your Bureau, both as to shooting and preservation of the breeding grounds?

Mr. LINCOLN. That is a little premature now, sir. You see, our recommendations will come up before the advisory board about the middle of the summer. We are still studying present conditions as contrasted with those of last year. We have had every available man in the field all during the shooting season, collecting information, and at the present time I do not think anyone in the Bureau is prepared to say definitely just what our recommendations will be, except that it is a vital necessity that we do something to restore the breeding grounds and to eliminate the waste, as well as to preserve the breeding stock.

Mr. SINCLAIR. I am not a scientist, but I know there are thousands of lakes in my territory and in eastern Minnesota where birds have heretofore hatched, and even last year attempted to raise a brood, and they did bring them out, and then they died for want of water.

Mr. HENDERSON. I think I may state that there are two things which must be done. We must preserve our breeding stock and we must restore so far as we can the birds' breeding grounds by improving conditions there, through the creation of refuges and otherwise.

Mr. CANNON. Would you have them under Federal ownership? Mr. HENDERSON. Federal ownership and State ownership, in cooperation with individuals and associations-everybody that can do anything to save and improve the breeding grounds. Much can be done by keeping livestock out during the breeding season, and by postponing the cutting of hay until the birds are on the wing about the 1st of August. Certain things can be done besides the actual acquisition of land; but undoubtedly the Government should develop a large number of refuges if we are going to save our waterfowl. Mr. SINCLAIR. I have actually seen on the road an old duck leading her brood from a dry hole to where there was water.

Mr. HENDERSON. Many of them never reach the water. Mr. SINCLAIR. Many of them never reach the water, of course. Mr. LINCOLN. You might be interested to glance at this other map (indicating) showing the distribution of birds from another banding station. That is, incidentally, in the Cheyenne Bottoms in Kansas. Those are all ducks. You see where they have gone to. That happens to be a very unusual station.

Mr. SINCLAIR. They have gone clear into Alaska.

Mr. LINCOLN. The birds have gone to the Arctic coast, to the Caribbean, to the Atlantic, and to the Pacific. Mr. CANNON. Where is that station?