Dr. Ralph MacMullan is represented here today by David Arnold who sits next to me, and he has been designated as the representative of the Michigan Department of Conservation and the Association of Midwest Fish, Game, and Conservation Commissioners.

We have done this because we were requested by the committee's counsel, Mr. Irwin, to consolidate our testimony, which we have tried to do, sir.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Glassen.

Mr. GLASSEN. I am an attorney by profession. By way of further identification: I am a former chairman of the Michigan Conservation Commission, and I have been and I am now an active member, director, or an officer of a large number of local, State, and National conservation and sportmen's organizations.

Dr. MacMullan is the director of the Michigan Department of Conservation, and my cohort here, Mr. Arnold, is a member of his staff.

The organizations that we represent are concerned with the conservation and the management of natural resources, and I will try to speak to that angle of the situation. I want to speak primarily on the effect that firearms control we believe could have and will have on these matters.

I believe that this is an aspect which has not been properly stressed or considered in other testimony given to this committee. I feel that it is also appropriate to point out that State conservation departments have an obligation to their hunters to protect them against unreasonable regulations which may prevent hunters from freely enjoying their sport, but which may completely fail to accomplish the primary purpose of the regulations which I understand is to lower the crime rate. Hunters have contributed more toward outdoor recreation programs at the State level than any other group. Their tax and license dollars have provided many projects of lasting benefit, not only to game, but to the general public as well. I would like to emphasize that this money has been available from no other source, and no substitute revenue appears forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

The last Congress was properly known as the conservation Congress. No previous Congress had given as much consideration to, or accomplished so much in, the field of conservation and recreation, as this last Congress.

Since hunting and shooting are an integral part of the overall recreation program, the organizations for which I speak today offer their help and assistance to the present Congress toward preventing it from taking any action which would nullify any part of the fine advancements which were made by the previous Congress in legislation.

Any legislation which inadvertently reduces the sales of sporting arms and ammunition may not only depress license sales, but may also significantly reduce collections of excise taxes which are the source of revenue for the highly important Pittman-Robertson program for wildlife restoration.

Speaking to that for one moment, since 1955 the taxes on sporting arms and ammunition have yielded an annual average of $14.8 million, which is reallocated to the States on a matching basis. Since the beginning of this act in 1937, there has been collected and disbursed for conservation practices $268,401,966, which represents sales of more than $22 billion in sporting arms and ammunition.

51-635-65-pt. 2- 3

The accomplishments of the Pittman-Robertson program are most noteworthy. During its first 25 years, 680,000 acres of hunting lands were acquired in the Midwest alone.

Most of this is in areas where public hunting grounds are at a premium where it is hard for the average hunter to find a place to hunt. This land has been developed primarily for the hunter and at his expense, but fishermen fish the impoundments; nature enthusiasts enjoy the wildlife; photographers film the birds; campers and picnickers enjoy the freedom of the areas.

Nonhunting uses of these areas in southern Michigan alone, even though they are financed by the hunter for nonhunting uses, amounted to over 1,600,000 man-hours in 1962. We have the figures on that. Although the hunters finance it, the nonhunters have 1.6 times as much use of it and the nonhunting use increases annually.

It follows that State conservation departments are universally short of funds because public demand precedes planning for recreation and conservation, and planning always seems beyond available monetary means of accomplishment.

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I would like to say it will be a bad day when income catches up with planning. Unless planning is ahead we are not doing as we should.

Even though the hunters provide much recreational opportunity to the general public, benefits to the hunter are provided wholly from his license fees and arms taxes. The thinking sportsmen would have it no other way, for he knows he could not hope to secure an equal amount from general tax funds.

As a matter of fact, he probably wouldn't get any out of the general tax funds. And he realizes too, that management of the game which is his primary interest is a complex matter, dependent upon many interrelations: economic, biological, and social. I would like to point out just for one moment here that game management is more necessary than the nonhunter realizes. If you don't have game management you just don't have suitable quantities of game. The game management to protect the game and to make more game and to kill more game, and the moment you lose game management your suitable quantities go down and ultimately you are not going to have any important quantities of game.

In practically every conservation department hunting license fees furnish an important part of all funds, not just for hunting, but for fishing, conservation education, law enforcement, and frequently the administrative expense for all activities of the department, which may include fishing, usually does, and sometimes parks, forestry, and so forth.

In many States hunting is a very potent force in shaping the sociology. Michigan is an excellent example. Combined sales of small game and big game licenses have totaled over a million annually every year since 1950. One out of every five adult males in the State is a deer hunter. One out of every twelve persons hunts deer at least once every 5 years.

The hunter's total contributions to Michigan's resource management and recreation programs-and I mentioned it does not all go to him, but for recreation generally-amounts to over $5 million a year. Surveys show us that the Michigan deer hunter pumps about $30

million into the economy each year. The small-game hunter generates another $40 million because we went over 600,000 there.

Nationwide hunters expend, so our figures indicate, about $1.5 billion on all of the things that they buy in connection with their sport.

However, in spite of the popularity of hunting and the considerable sums of money involved, strangely enough, the loyalty of many hunters is a fragile thing. It is the fickleness of the first-day hunterand his license is just as good as any dedicated hunter's-and the competition from other types of recreation that concern us.

That is what concerns us in conservation. There is evidence at hand to warn us that the inconvenience caused by unwarranted firearms regulation could result in a significant decline in hunter numbers. Mr. Chairman, that is what we would like to talk about mostly in our testimony.

There are more than 20 million persons who buy hunting licenses each year, and they are not all dedicated sportsmen. They are not even all enthusiasts. In Michigan we have some figures on this.

We find that of our hunters who seek pheasants, far and away the most popular game bird, 43 percent hunt not more than twice during the annual season. We also find that 7 percent of the deer hunters hunt not more than 1 day and another 15 percent not more than 2 days. The days hunted are not necessarily the opening days, and the hunting is not limited because of success or its lack in killing game. We have an annual turnover of 30 percent in deer hunters. These people just mentioned are the undedicated minority who, if subjected to any added inconvenience, will stay at home and watch TV or take their wives to Aunt Martha's.

They are just not going to go hunting.

A conservative estimate in the Midwest is that one-third of the hunters are casuals, and that any fetters placed on them will discourage a substantial number from buying a license if we put any roadblocks in their way of acquiring a license.

I said that is an estimate. That estimate is based upon some very considerable investigation of the Midwest States and going somewhat to the east into Pennsylvania. This includes Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan; and, as near as we can come up with a figure, a third of all of our license buyers are casuals. They are not dedicated hunters.

Legislation pertaining to the acquisition of a gun is a most sensitive area because most hunters, even the most indifferent, usually buy rather than borrow their guns and other equipment, and of this I have personal knowledge within my own experience-maybe because gun owners just don't like to loan their equipment.

The organizations for which I speak today oppose legislation which is likely to cause any potential hunter not to indulge in his sport and hence not to buy a license because we need that money.

We hold no brief for the cheap weapon, and we do not support the sale of cheap handguns at any level, but we cannot say that all guns sold by mail order are unsuitable for hunting because we know otherwise. Game hunting in this country, as distinguished from Europe and other foreign countries, has not been confined to the rich but appeals to members of all economic levels, perhaps more to the lower income group because hunting has been more readily available to them. We

know that many firearms, especially those used in deer hunting, are of the mail-order variety.

They may have been surplus military weapons at one time.

A man may have reconstructed and worked on them himself, and he makes a good weapon out of it, and we just can't say they are not suitable weapons. Maybe they are not suitable until they are worked

on.

The concern I express in respect to depressed license sales is shared by leaders in the conservation field. Last September the International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners passed the appended resolution in opposition to antifirearms legislation, and I have attached a copy of that to my testimony.

A similar resolution passed by both houses of Michigan's Legislature this session emphasized the need for adequate penalties for the misuse of firearms along the lines of the Casey bill, asks that authority not be given at any government level to prohibit the purchase and ownership of firearms by law-abiding and responsible citizens, and points out that 12 million sportsmen in Michigan alone could be adversely affected by improper legislation.

The Integrated State Bar of Michigan last year passed a resolution in opposition to S. 1975 after it had been amended following the tragic events of November 22, 1963, to include shotguns and rifles.

This bar of Michigan I mentioned is integrated. The bar as such believes that such, in the words of the resolution

legislation will not be a deterrent to crime but will constitute a useless annoyance to our citizens and an unnecessary restriction of their basic legal rights.

The Michigan United Conservation Clubs one of the organizations for whom I am designated to speak today, with 360 affiliates has over 60,000 members and all of these members unqualifiedly oppose the restrictive provisions and legislation of the type of S. 1592.

During informal discussions with members of Michigan law enforcement agencies, it has been universally agreed that the problem firearm is the concealable weapon, not the sporting firearm. The Ingham County sheriff, who happens to be the sheriff of the county where I live, has been in office a number of years, a very respected experienced and a trained law enforcement official, appeared on a panel, of which I was also a member, in protest to a version of S. 1592, and he stated without any equivocation that his firearms problems were not with sporting firearms.

The American Legion of Michigan recently met in Lansing and on July 18 unanimously passed a resolution opposing legislation of the type of S. 1592 even with the recent proposed amendments coming from the Treasury Department.

Those were explained and notwithstanding there were 2,000 delegates present at the time this came up for action, 2,000 delegates, and there was not a no vote on this resolution opposing S. 1592. I have attached a copy of that here, but with 2,000 people in the hall and there were more delegates to the convention but 2,000 there, there wasn't a single no vote that went up.

On the other hand, in this resolution you will note that the American Legion supports legislation of the type of the King and the Hickenlooper bills, which, incidentally, the organizations for which I officially speak today are acceptable to and we will give you support.

In addition to the organizations named above who have passed resolutions we have even the Federation of Humane Societies and we have literally in Michigan scores of conservation clubs which have passed resolutions against legislation or proposed legislation of the type of S. 1592 on the basis of its content and probably most important, on its philosophy.

If I might take just a moment on that matter of philosophy, this becomes very important to the sportsmen. The philosophy of legislation of the type of S. 1592 is that guns shall not be available. We are going to make them available only to certain specified persons. They will generally not be available.

The sportsman disapproves of that type of legislation. He wants guns to be available and he is willing to support legislation which will make the guns unavailable to certain types of persons, felons and juveniles. He doesn't want to start out with the premise that they are not available to anybody and then make exceptions only in favor of a certain few.

It will be noted that the international association, one of the groups I speak for today, offered no opposition to firearms legislation comparable to S. 1975 before it was amended after November 22, 1963, when it applied only to the handgun.

All the organizations for which I speak do not oppose legislation of the King-Hickenlooper type and could and would support such reasonable legislation at this time. I am not unmindful that homicides are sometimes committed with the shotgun and the rifle, but it is exceedingly rare that sporting firearms are used in such felonies as armed robbery, burglary, and similar crimes committed by experienced felons.

If you are going down to hold somebody up you don't carry a model .12 or a model 1160 along with you and announce to the public that you are going to have a holdup. There will always be homicides of passion, and these will result whether or not a firearm is available. In just last night's paper I noticed on the front page, reports of two homicides. One was committed with a gun by a man who was obviously deranged. In the other there was no weapon of any kind involved. This man killed another with his fists and feet.

A man in the police business found his wife parked on a side road and he killed the consort of the moment with his bare hands or his feet. Such crimes of passion as those last night are very frequently committed with a knife and often the knife of the ordinary kitchen variety.

We say just as it is not practical or reasonable to restrict the acquisition of the sporting rifle or shotgun merely because a minuscule number are involved in homicides of passion we don't want to start out with the premise that they are going to make them unavailable.

If we were to ban all guns, not just the mail order source, but all guns, we wouldn't stop the type of violence that I am talking about. To stop mail-order sales of sporting firearms will inconvenience thousands of legitimate sportsmen without a ghost of a chance of accomplishing the intended purpose of curbing crime.

Professional conservationists and sportsmen in general as good husbands, fathers, good citizens, and taxpayers are just as interested in curbing crime and juvenile delinquency as anyone else.