OCR Text |
Show *¦:¦. Feral animals, like the wild burro and wild horse, should be given some form of statutory protection on the public lands. On public lands not designated for fish and wildlife as the dominant use, fish and wildlife values should not, by themselves, justify retention. However, such values and others must be considered before determining that any lands should be transferred out of Federal ownership. The authority of Federal land management agencies to acquire lands or interests in lands primarily for resident wildlife and fish management purposes, or to provide for public use of land for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, should be specified. Present authorities for Federal acquisition of lands primarily for wildlife purposes are confined to the purchase of land in support of the migratory bird program as elements of the Migratory Waterfowl Refuge System, and as special purchases in furtherance of the Endangered Species Act of 1966.11 Although the Federal Government administers some specially designated areas primarily for the benefit of species other than migratory birds, such as the Kenai Moose range, these areas were for the most part set aside and reserved from the public domain. We believe the acquisition of private property primarily for resident wildlife and fish management, or to provide public use areas for hunting, fishing, 11 Ibid. and wildlife observation, is properly a function of the states and not of the Federal Government. However, in eliminating privately owned property within national forests and national parks, priority should be given to the acquisition of land suitable for resident game and fish management purposes. When a decision is made to dispose of public lands chiefly valuable for other purposes, rights generally should be retained to protect fish and wildlife values, including public hunting and fishing. However, private owners should be permitted to impose reasonable conditions on public use, to levy reasonable charges, and to have the right to close the land where hunting and fishing would be incompatible with other uses to which the land has been put. We note the fact that many states are finding it desirable to lease access to private lands for hunting and fishing to counteract the practice of "posting" private lands. The Federal Government should not contribute to the problems of the states by making it possible for additional areas to be posted against hunting and fishing where compatible with other uses. Hunting and Fishing Use Fees Recommendation 65: A Federal land use fee should be charged for hunting and fishing on all public lands open for such purposes. 169 |