o . g o . p.on..v.. Q..... ._o..
... . . .. .
.‘ . .o . .0...
. . .. . ....r..
.E....- .v 0 . . ,o
. . E. . uc.

 

O 0.. .0.....10.Q-.
.v. ....vo. o_.
o v... ...!,.IOI._
\.. . . .c... ...o.
. . ,... ....o.
. ...o-p...o..‘l
o.. ..o ...‘.."o.
... .... on..‘v..o
. .. . ..,r......,.
......-.. 0"._ 9o‘
.... ......‘ .....
.n.....-.quw.~...g
.o ...... V ... ....
, .... v. - ._. .
, . o .o . .E. ...
.,...V..c. ....
i v ... .. . . ..
o .v... .p‘. .
_ . . .., v
v “ c. v a. .
.\. .. ......
4.. . . Q ..
v E. . .o. . .
o...0.~.. .. . .
v . o....
u c . p o . Q.
. . . . . .
_ ._s.. .u .u..
_ . ... ..
u... . . ..
.~. . .

 

‘—0Mfl .o ”a... Humvffi’nflmww 0"

w~~

-1

-w!..~.uh~-q~M--o 0.0-0. vow-"cg“- .- ~9wm~~~w-

A

  

b l
v,
o o. . .
.l V
«I... o v o . . . . v. . I I
v . . u , . . . . . o
u g n. o o. 1.... 0a.. 2....
‘c 1 9. ‘3. . .
~ ., . .03.... s 3..
o O . .I -.u O .,. .o it.
I: '10.! .E

 

1227‘“... ..
K.” o! t .0. o

 

a

.9..

WI

AFS

   

,
9'
H

GEN-IE

A
ON AND P

CE
ZATI

R
E

U

u 0:».

.09.. .

.r‘hjlvov‘ . .erAE'

.

II.

 

$.....

-.-
'0.
v- a
.
~ ‘
~..
s...
..._,
_._.
u. .
.,1.
,o..
...
..
...
.
.u.
__.. o
c
O. .
0..
.
.
..
.
g
_
.
.
O

 

m
m

 

l

.0” _.

   

.. I.
Q .3"
«30......
.o...
.0.

      

- ~0.v

GEN a IE8 OF;

A

    

u .31

. .. ‘
o A _.... .. . a ..~.v .o .. ._
o o.. .. . . a ..
.. ... . .. . .‘
.. . . . A..y .p . E .
IO. .9 .. o. o 0 .
.. _ .... . .
.n o. 0-. .’ . . .
.. . a .
. ... u. . .
,c. . 0.. o. _ . o .
. _‘ . .'. _ . ..
.oo . . o _.
.. . u . . . . _
_.. .. . . v . u
. .
..o~ . . ..
.V... .2 o o . o _. h: . .
a 4 . n. c
, . .‘Qoo . . o
o . . .. o._ .
. U... . _ ....o-.
n .‘u 5
‘ ... x. ‘ . 0
. . _Q .
.... .. . -.. . r .
. . . . .
. o .
. .. — .Q -
c 0 a 0-! .—
... . . I . u . .
o . .- I . -
. .0 .. . . . . .
.
- .-
. ... a
.
.~ v .
.. . . u
t . v . .
_ c-
9. . I n o u-
. a. l
o ..
. p U c
.
.
. n \ .
. . .
. 9
_ . v
c o .
.
n.
. .
.
o .
'n .
O I
o
.
.
”A. .

 

‘
o

of (a

6

13??

     

 

Thesis for the 83ng

3Q . o . o ‘ ... .
. . . v . .
. . . u o. a. ._ . ... .. ‘ .._
1‘1..O.§t ...‘I_ ...s....loo..
-. :v..p v.-.o.:o :11... 2. O... a
......\ ... ...... .I.
O . 3‘ v
.I. '

 

 

          

. . Di .4.... ..4E~v;.o..t\.DJl~
4 .u. a .E’ a .t.."

.x . .v...t.JO.

. . .. .. o an» r
..

.. ~

   

 

.
... .
o ..u .o o .. .. . t .
l .0 o I a . V.
. .. ..... .. .ou ....
. ... .0... o .o..,.
.1 .o. ..
.. .¢ .... . n
...o.»....... .. ....
.o 4... p........ ..._
.. a. .
. . . ... ....
. .
..o... . . ,. .4 n. v.
. . . _. «4 t . ..
4 .. c . . vs .,I . ... a
..o A 1-. v I. ..
a r... ... u.
.. .o .o . A o
. .. . p .. . 4
_ n. n u on .. ... . .
. .. ..
. . . .
.. ,.. .. .n .r . 3a... . .
a _ U a c
. .r o. .
. .. .. 1. . O. ... .
_. a, v . A. .. :3 .
. __ .. ’. .. .
n
. . . .2 . . 7..., .. . .
_l I u o.
. ... . .... .0. f. _
a
. r4... ;.., . .» .k. u
. . ..
J7 . . . u. . .
. .
. _ .. .r. . .
f ‘ ..-. _-
_ . . .b
E .. .— . ... .
u A r
.
. _ 1..
.. .... .
r. .|_.
I . -II .
.. .. .y ..,rw 3‘
.. .... . 1.....L. I
,_ . ... .
.4 .
. _ , .
‘ or
.. u . v. . .
.. C—l . .
. .
x .
_y . .c . ....o,.
J. g a
. .
o u .l. I .
J .v . . ..
‘ . .. 4. J...
,.
p .
: . a c. .; 41:: I
. . . . .. o.
.. . .
. . .lvvr..“.
c .... _ .4 3., ..
. . ‘ ..
..r . .
u v
.
0
xx 0, . S.-
o a. _ ‘c. .
u
. A
.o I __
v .
r o
_ . .
.. .
4
a. O. ..
.
u ,r E
.. ., . _...
z .y. ;\ .
.. E} .
.
y
,7
a . .
_ . . .
_
n .-
. a
.
. ..
. .-
.
. .
.
.
... v .
.
_
...
I
..
r .
o .
.
.7
. v_
_.
__.
.
a.
_
a
.
. a
’
’-
.I
.
._
C
_ I . v.
u . w I..o: .2.
. — Q .0 l
. ac .. . f.’ ...$.
.. .Io.§'.co.
in.

"‘ MlllllfllHIlllllfllllllllllllllllliIllHll‘lllIllflllllllllfl

3 1293 10396 0005

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

by

Bernard John Bujnowski

The origins of this study are rooted in a project of the Michigan
Senate Conservation Committee which attempted to collect data on
various operational and organizational aspects of state natural
resource agencies. Raw data from the senate study served as the basis
of this thesis in which the major natural resource agencies of ten
states were studied with respect to organizational patterns, executive
decision making, and agency programs. Additionally, data summaries
are presented for the various functional divisions of an agency, e.g.,
fish, forestry, game, information and education, law enforcement, and
parks and recreation. The information summarized is generally limited
to personnel (staff size and type), activities engaged in and budgetary
information.

From this data generalizations can be made regarding organizational
patterns among the various natural resource agencies. Of these patterns,
two types were consistently recorded. In 23 states, for example,
natural resource management is overseen by a single comprehensive
department which houses most, if not all, natural resource functions.
Within the department management responsibilities are delegated to
separate divisions according to resource types or services rendered--

forests, parks, wildlife, planning, etc. Programs and procedures are

 

«If '
m. ,..,w-ranc-v& u '

:crdinated at a mid
arezutive. In most
nerd or emission
:5 these ccmissions
riichpernits their
Tue second majc
states which are cha
temrce agencies ex
53f the management a
35mm agency is
F3113? directories m.
shard of lay Citiz.

miplicity and dec¢

“itralizat ion .

nt, suggests
.: .
«established patter

 

«dzcate that th is 0

Bernard John Bujnowski

coordinated at a middle management level or by the agency's chief
executive. In most cases natural resource policy is determined by a
board or commission appointed by the governor. A significant number
of these commissions are endowed with a legislative grant of authority
which permits their promulgations to carry the weight of law.

The second major organizational pattern is exhibited in those
states which are characterized by several separate, autonomous natural
resource agencies existing in one state, each agency being responsible
for the management and administration of a particular resource. Each
individual agency is administered by a single executive or director;
policy directories may come either from the director's level or from
a board of lay citizenry. The prevailing characteristic is one of
multiplicity and decentralization rather than consolidation and
centralization.

The former type of organizational framework, a single comprehensive
department, suggests improved efficiency and administration by virtue
of established patterns of communication, centralized decision making,
and comprehensive resource management. Recent state reorganizations
indicate that this organizational format is gaining increased acceptance.
Several factors, however, may limit its effectiveness or even prevent
its consideration as a viable form of natural resource administration.
Among these are a large and diverse population of resource users, a
large and diverse variety of resource types, and the political climate
of the state in consideration.

Having presented a structural framework for natural resource
administration, efforts were made in the final chapter to flesh out

this framework via a case study procedure. One segment of the State of

fitigan's Departlent
famed in the analys
:restricted snowmobii
:52 study were infon
daisian participants

mlusions to be due

156 above areas .

 

 

 

 

 

Bernard John Bujnowski

Michigan's Department of Natural Resources' decision making process was
observed in the analysis of a policy formulated and implemented to allow
unrestricted snowmobiling in Michigan's state parks. Observed in this
case study were information flows and processing, the role of the
decision participants, and agency procedures. The results permitted

conclusions to be drawn about the decision processes of the agency in

the above areas.

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A STUDY
OF THE ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAMS OF THE

RESOURCE AGENCIES OF TEN STATES

by

Bernard John Bujnowski

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1972

 

A5 is the case H
not so web the resul
:llective efforts of
asbehalf and their c
gratitude. I an eSpo.

innervation and the

 

for providing me vit'r
tea-plate the project.
Similarly, I vie

Jr. Lewis V. Honcriei

 

: .
.esources. Both mett':

g; ,s
. thesis advisor vh‘

:ne development of m‘

For their vo rk

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As is the case with almost all graduate theses, the end product is
not so much the result of the work of one individual as it is the
collective efforts of a larger, supporting group. For their efforts on
my behalf and their contributions to this project, I acknowledge my
gratitude. I am especially grateful to the Michigan Senate Committee on
Conservation and the Environment and its chairman, Senator Gordon Rockwell,
for providing me with both the subject matter and financial assistance to
complete the project.

Similarly, I wish to thank Professor Louis F. Twardzik and
Dr. Lewis W. Moncrief, both of the Department of Park and Recreation
Resources. Both members of my graduate committee, the latter served as
my thesis advisor while the former provided significant contributions to
the development of my graduate and professional careers.

For their work in helping to prepare the tables appearing in the
appendices and text, I am appreciative for the services of Sharon Horner,
Nancy Reinhold and Anne Mills, student sides with the Recreation Research
and Planning Unit. A special note of thanks is extended to Vicki Selby,
secretary, Recreation Research and Planning Unit, who typed the manuscript
as well as contributed many practical insights to its preparation.

Finally, I owe a lasting debt of gratitude and appreciation to my
wife, Lorraine, whose sacrifices, patience and understanding helped to

overcome many obstacles.

ii

£1331st . .
LIST OF TABLES

LISTOF FIGL'RES . .
Czapter

 

I. ih’TRODUC'i lON

Purpose of 5:
Collection of
Presentation

. L

 

( '-~'
.11 .

H. MURAL RESO’.

Introduction
Alaska , . .
Florida .
Mamachusetts
Himesota .
Nebraska . .
N9“ Mexico .

eun~"‘)'1\¥ania
Ennessee
t

 

 

washington .
ORGANIZATIOII.

Single CO I'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES I C O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v

LIST OF FIGIIRES I O O I O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Presentation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

UIH‘P‘

II. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE STATES . . . . . . . . 6

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . 58

III. ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS: STATE NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES. 65

Single Comprehensive Natural Resource or Conservation
Department - Type A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Frmctions Separated by Departments - Type B . . . . . . . . 73
Commission Form of Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Organizational Tendencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

IV. SNOWMOBILING IN MICHIGAN STATE PARKS: A POLICY ANALYSIS . 88

The Case: Snowmobiles in State Parks . . . . . . . . . . 89
Information Systems in the Decision Process . . . . . . . 93
Extra-Departmental Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
The Commission-Its Role in the Decision . . . . . . . . . 97
Policy Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Conclusions and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

111 '

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

iEPZv’DICES . . . .
I. TABLEAR ANALYL

II. QUESTIONNAIRE

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . .

APPENDICES . .

I.

II.

TABULAR ANALYSES . . .

QUESTIONNAIRES USED IN FACT FINDING SURVEY

iv

Page
109
114
114

172

table

1. honresponse F; '

2' Haj” Charact

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Nonresponse Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Major Characteristics of State Natural Resource Agencies . . 81

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

A. Type "A" Organizational Pattern - Single Comprehensive
Agency . O C C O O O C O O C O O O O C O O O C O O 0 O 7 1

B. Type "B" Organizational Pattern — Autonomous Units . . . . . 74

vi

The intent of
agencies at the st
produce a compendi
meter of areas in

tional and field 1

I: make distinctio

song the various

internal relations

department, the in
tent (

should more

cecisions are form

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of Study

 

The intent of this study was to collect data regarding natural resource
agencies at the state level for purposes of comparison. The results will
produce a compendium of facts about state natural resource agencies in a
number of areas including executive and policy levels as well as opera—
tional and field levels. The analysis of this data will also enable one
to make distinctions between the principle organizational patterns found
among the various states. These distinctions will be based upon the
internal relationships of the sub-units within a major natural resource
department, the interaction between a state's individual resource depart-
ment (should more than one exist), and the manner in which policy and
decisions are formulated by the different agency types.

Finally, a case study is presented which attempts to operationalize
the concepts of organizational decision-making and dynamics in an actual
policy situation.

Collection of Data

 

The data used in the study was obtained from a series of questionnaires
fielded by the Michigan Senate Committee on Conservation and the Environ—
ment in January, 1970. The questionnaires were distributed to the nat-
ural resource or conservation departments of all fifty states, each
department receiving eleven different questionnaires addressed to the
following offices: chief executive, natural resource/conservation

commission, fish division, forestry division, game division, information

nc' education, 1
jerks division,
agency.

Each questi
ration depending
eatter in which

51: ace, personné
acted that the n
seat are limited
consumptive use 0
forestry, game, 8
resource responsi‘:
listed earlier we:
enroumental mana
lollutiOn control)
Furthermore,
at times precluded
Since each state re

arre types listed

only One major

EIEa
s. AS Table 2

 

 

and education, lands management division, law enforcement division,
parks division, recreation division, and the water pollution control
agency.

Each questionnaire was intended to elicit various types of infor-
mation depending on the nature of the agency or bureau studied. Subject
matter in which information was sought included sc0pe of operations,
finance, personnel, and decision-making authority. Yet it should be
noted that the natural resource functions to which questionnaires were
sent are limited largely to agencies or offices which managed for a
consumptive use of the resource under its jurisdiction, e.g., fish,
forestry, game, etc. The resulting implications are that any additional
resource responsibilities which an agency had beyond the eleven areas
listed earlier were not included in this study. This would include any
environmental management responsibilities (with the exception of water
pollution control) with which a department might be charged.

Furthermore, the manner in which the questionnaires were distributed
at times precluded an effective assessment of organizational patterns.
Since each state received only one copy of each of the eleven question-
naire types listed previously, the implicit assumption is that the state
has only one major natural resource agency which manages all resource
areas. As Table 2 indicates, this is not always the case. Who, for
example, should respond to the questionnaire addressed to Kentucky's
"Chief executive - natural resource/conservation department" when the
state has three major resource departments? Unless supplementary infor-
mation was provided by all separate resource departments, it was often
difficult to determine the relationships between individual departments

existing under one state governmental structure.

Although 195?
divisions of all f
:ypes varied. Tab
various questionna
the data of a part
Latural resource a
reorganization. 'l
triude New York,
Sorth Carolina.

The data core;
was based upon a x
the Parks Divisior
””35“ 0f dEpar1
was 3150 C011ecte<
Resource Countissit

We" “50 provide.

Although responses were received from at least some agencies or
divisions of all fifty states, response rates of the eleven questionnaire
types varied. Table 1 presents the appropriate response rates for the
various questionnaire types. A follow-up procedure was used to update
the data of a particular state when it was learned that the state's
natural resource agencies had undergone or had planned to undergo
reorganization. Those states contacted in the followbup procedure
include New York, Delaware, Maryland, California, Colorado, Maine and
North Carolina.

The data compiled for the case study presented in the last chapter
was based upon a number of personal interviews with staff members of
the Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, as well as
a number of departmental executive officers. Appropriate information
was also collected through attendance at monthly meetings of the Natural
Resource Commission; minutes of Natural Resource Commission meetings
were also provided by the department. A review of literature on policy
formulation and organizational theory contributed the necessary back—
ground material.

The case study itself dissects the development of a particular policy
which allows unrestricted snowmobiling in Michigan's state parks. In
presenting the case an explanatory or verbal model is used to theorize
on the policy process. The use of this model is to provide an abstraction
of a process characterized by many disparate elements. The resulting
simplification allows an overview of decision-making which will hopefully

provide insights into the process.

“~—
"‘~—————__

Questionnaire Tyf
\
Chief Executive
Conservation Corn:
Forestry
information & Edu

Lands Management
Fish

Cane

Lav Enforcement
Parks

Recreation

'n'ater Pollution (

-“““““---—-_.

Table 1. Nonresponse Rates

 

 

 

Questionnaire Type Questionnaires Not % Non-
Fielded Returned Response
Chief Executive 50 9 18%
Conservation Commission 50 12 24%
Forestry 50 18%
Information & Education 50 12%
Lands Management 50 30 60%
Fish 50 18%
Game 50 8%
Law Enforcement 50 4%
Parks 50 17 34%
Recreation 50 21 42%
water Pollution Control Agency 50 6 12%

 

 

 

 

All data u:
found in Appendi
ten states, how
II, which were c
Each state descr
tional patterns '
level - (a) a 51:
Minus department
eiually divided h
Vimesota, Florid-
fraaevork and Ala,
characterized by 1
IEgions 0f the COL

s] '
d..anth, the sout

I‘ '
plains area, the s

and Alaska. Other

included in ChaptEl

The selection prom

Sane of the word .

 

at
. eseuted are mere

are drawn.

 

 

Presentation of Results

 

All data uncovered through the study is presented in a tabular format
found in Appendix I and, as such, all fifty states are represented. Only
ten states, however, are included in the summaries presented in Chapter
II, which were considered representative from a number of points of view.
Each state described in Chapter II represents one of two major organiza-
tional patterns which characterize natural resource management at the state
level - (a) a single comprehensive department, or (b) a series of auto-
nomous departments. The states presented in the second chapter are
equally divided between the two organizational types with Utah, Nebraska,
Minnesota, Florida and Massachusetts reflecting the former organizational
framework and Alaska, Washington, New Mexico, Tennessee and Pennsylvania
characterized by the latter pattern. The states also represent the major
regions of the country including the following areas - New England, mid-
Atlantic, the southeast and south central regions, the Great Lakes, the
plains area, the southwest, inter-mountain west, the Pacific northwest,
and Alaska. Other variables considered in the selection of states
included in Chapter II were territorial mass and population density.

The selection process can not be considered a sample in the statistician's
sense of the word since there was no randomization involved. The states
presented are merely a representative group about which no conclusions

are drawn.

The follow:
study. As indic
questionnaires H
natural resource
These areas will
presented. The 1
about the executi
log data is prese
0f fish, forestry
it’d recreation pr:
rater P011ution cc

imagement divisiC

in the tables of A

 

CHAPTER II

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE STATES

Introduction

 

The following pages contain summaries of data obtained from the
study. As indicated in Chapter I, the target or subject areas to which
questionnaires were sent included eleven functions: chief executive,
natural resource/conservation commission, fisheries management, etc.
These areas will serve as subject headings under which the data will be
presented. The initial data presented for states will be information
about the executive level of the natural resource agency. The remain-
ing data is presented according to an operations breakdown in the areas
of fish, forestry, information and education, law enforcement, and park
and recreation programs. The final heading will be that for the state's
water pollution control agency. Data from states having a lands
management division was not included in Chapter II but is presented
in the tables of Appendix I. No data is presented, of course, from
those divisions or bureaus having responsibilities in the above areas
which did not respond to the study.

Within each subject heading, the data has been summarized to
include statements regarding personnel, fiscal information, programs,
and scope of authority of each division or bureau handling the above
management functions. This data is supplemented by additional infor-

mation contained in the tables of Appendix I.

The diversity

 

suggested by its 5':
mo and one-half t':
distributed over t‘h
persons per square

Alaska, which
of extremes. Char:
Pifiht and polar be;

Edited States whicl

 

isu‘ostantial port'
Circle. Alaska's .
t0 the Aleutian ls

tfle PaCifiC Geean

Alaska

The diversity and scOpe of Alaska's natural resource base is
suggested by its sheer bulk, 586,400 square miles - a territorial mass
two and one-half times as large as Texas. Its population of 300,000
distributed over the area results in a populationCEmsity of only .51
persons per square mile.

Alaska, which became the 49th state on January 3, 1959, is a state
of extremes. Characterized in folklore as a frozen land of perpetual
night and polar.bears, there are a number of regions in the continental
United States which consistently receive greater annual snow accumulations.
A substantial portion of the state, however, does fall within the Arctic
Circle. Alaska's topography ranges from Mt. McKinley's 20,320 foot peak
to the Aleutian Islands which extend 1,200 miles west and southwest into
the Pacific Ocean. The state is also studded with various national
phenomenon ranging from volcanoes to fjords and glaciers. Alaska's
natural resources run the gamut from its fabled fish and big game animals
to numerous oil and mineral deposits.

Management of these resources is the function of two agencies, the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Natural Resources
which is primarily a parks, forestry and mining agency. The latter,
along with the Department of Public Health, also provides services for
water pollution control.

The Department of Fish and Game is under the direction of a ten
man board appointed by the governor with the approval of both houses of
the state legislature. Fish and Game Board members serve staggered four
year terms and while it performs no administrative duties, the board

formulates policy for fish and game resources as well as conservation

13,. enforcement -
operates with 3 CO
legislature excel?t
fish and game 5935
tore sets the lice
The chief adm
post, a gubernator
by the Fish and G
the director can a
In 1969-70 the
15 per cent over 1
sillion was provid.
from the fEderal g:

generated revenue .

law enforcement. In matters of natural resource policy the board
operates with a considerable degree of independence from the state
legislature except in some fiscal matters. The board establishes

fish and game seasons and regulations, for example, while the legisla-
ture sets the license fees.

The chief administrative officer of the department is the director's
post, a gubernatorial appointee selected from a list of names provided
by the Fish and Game Board. Legislative approval is also required before
the director can assume the duties of his five year term.

In 1969-70 the department's budget was $9.9 million, an increase of
415 per cent over the last ten years. Of the current budget, $4.7
million was provided by a general fund appropriation and $2.7 million
from the federal government. The remainder was derived from self-
generated revenue resulting primarily from the sale of hunting and
fishing licenses.

E122

Alaskan fish resources fall under two classifications - commercial
and game species. These resources are managed by two different sub-
units of the Fish and Game Department, the Division of (a) Commercial
Fish and (b) Sport Fish and Game.

The Commercial Fish Division operates under two program segments -
(a) management and research and (b) stream rehabilitation. The manage-
ment section has the responsibility for attaining a maximum sustained
fisheries yield while stream.rehabilitation efforts are centered in
Prince William Sound for the purpose of restoring earthquake damaged
streams. The division employs a staff of nine administrative personnel,

52 researchers, 47 field technicians, and 58 part time workers.

3

g;- :' a“ ~."~14-. 1".” 7‘53!

”31"

u

 

Comercial fi

 

l
coastal waters and
both salmon and SJ
are harvested frozl

Salmon plantil
350,000 fry and If]
anadromous hatcherl

Approximat e1 5
fish licenses, dis
is. 1969. The revsA
d6PCSited in the s"

The commercial
State's top income
56hind Crude oil a
flucuation and pro.
Production devalo;

The Game Fish

Programs

 

Commercial fish species are harvested from both the state's marine
coastal waters and anadromous fisheries. The salt water fishery produces
both salmon and shellfish while five species of Pacific salmon and char
are harvested from the anadromous fishery.

Salmon plantings in 1968 consisted of 3.5 million eyed eggs,

350,000 fry and 100 smolt. The stock was produced by the state's two
anadromous hatcheries.

Approximately 12,600 resident and 6,300 non-resident commercial
fish licenses, distributed by the State Revenue Department, were sold
in 1969. The revenue generated from the sale of these licenses is
deposited in the state general fund.

The commercial fishing industry had for many years ranked as the
state's top income producer. In 1969, however, it fell to second place
behind crude oil and natural gas production as a result of cyclic
flucuation and protective closures. It is expected that as oil and gas
production develop, fisheries will fall behind on a more permanent basis.

The Game Fish Section of the Fish and Game Division operates
programs independent of Commercial Fisheries; these include (a) manage-
ment services and (b) investigations, a research-oriented segment for
solving management needs and meeting federal aid requirements. Applied
research is directed to the areas of fish population studies, environ-
mental impact studies, water inventories and specific species studies.

The Game Fish Section employs a staff comprised of six administrative
personnel, 31 research/field employees, and 42 part time workers. It
operates on an annual budget of $1.2 million (1969-70), all of which
represents self-generated revenues. Budget allocations within the

section include ten per cent for administration, 45 per cent for research,

15pm cent for l

The hatcherj
consists of one .
fish plants in 1‘
969,000 and 247,

Licenses ar
authorized priva
37,000 non-resid
the Fish and can

the legislature .

10

15 per cent for hatcheries and 30 per cent for management.

The hatchery program.serves to produce stock for state waters. It
consists of one cold water hatchery which resulted in the following
fish plants in 1969-70: trout 1.1 million, salmon 1.3 million, grayling
969,000 and 247,000 sheefish.

Licenses are distributed by the State Revenue Department through
authorized private vendors; sales in 1969 totaled 63,000 resident and
37,000 non-resident licenses. License sale revenues are deposited in
the Fish and Game Fund which in turn is appropriated to the divison by
the legislature.

Forestry

The Forestry Division is an agency under the Natural Resources
Department and has jurisdiction over 3.4 million acres of state forest
lands. In addition to state acreage, federal forest lands cover 24.4
million acres.

Utilizing a budget (1969-70) of $162,000 for forest management and
$200,000 for fire fighting, the division employs a staff of eleven
foresters for forest management, but contracts for the services of the
Bureau of Land Management for forest fire protection. Prison labor is
also used for fire fighting and forest maintenance.
gang

The Game Section of the Sport Fish and Game Division operates a
program composed of six major segments: lands section, laboratory
section, research, survey and inventory, administration, and management.
Its current budget, $1.97 million (1969-70), is derived from the receipts
of license sales and federal grants. Besides operationalizing the

division's programs, budget funds also provide a staff of eleven

adamistrators, t"
part time help. .

within the divisi:

aid activities (rs
divisional manager
of nuisance anima'
otters, musk oxen
State. The amount
fe$pectively.

Alaska's leg.
£9.000 resident a:

non-res idents are

 

11

administrators, twelve researchers, 30 field workers, and occasional

part time help. The budget monies are allocated to three categories

within the division according to the following classifications: federal
aid activities (research, survey and inventory, coordination of activities),
divisional management activities (I & E, regulation proposals, control

of nuisance animals) and an animal tranSplant program in which sea

otters, musk oxen, and bison are distributed to various areas of the

state. The amounts allocated are $1.5 million, $261,000 and $59,000
respectively.

Alaska's legendary big game populations accounted for the sale of
49,000 resident and 11,000 non-resident hunting licenses. Additionally,
non-residents are required to purchase big game tags for the species
they wish to hunt. The division reports that Alaska's big game popu-
lation consist of 20,000 black bear, 10-12,000 brown and grizzly bear
and an indeterminate number of polar bear. The number of elk roaming
Alaska's mountain ranges is about 1200 while caribou number over a half
million. Other big game animals include 120,000 moose, 35,400 sheep
and 15,000 mountain goat. Herds of approximately 375 musk oxen and
bison are also managed by the division. The wolf, numbering some 5000
animals, is far more populous than anywhere in the continental United
States where even reported sightings are rare. Blacktail deer,
unofficially classified as a small game animal by Alaskan hunters,
number 200,000 and are considered to be underharvested.

Information and Education

The I & E Division of the Fish and Game Department expends an

annual budget (1969-70) of $54,700 and utilizes a staff of five to

provide educational and information services for the Fish and Game

Department. It pt

 

school conservatic
materials process.
Sinilarly, CODSidt
fisheries since 1
Another area
attention is the
This program, accr
produces and dist

consel'vation sub j

18“ Enforcement
\

Thirty-six 1:
provide law enforc
addition departmet

Eur the reEuler .

0n a $1.5 million

enforceWant of

12

Department. It prepares press releases and educational material for
school conservation education programs. About three-quarters of the
materials processed are directed to the resident sportsmen population.
Similarly, considerable contact is maintained with the commercial
fisheries since it is the state's leading industry.

Another area of the I 5 E program which receives considerable
attention is the division's motion picture production and loan service.
This program, accounting for 35 per cent of the division's budget,
produces and distributes a variety of films dealing with wildlife and
conservation subjects.

Law Enforcement

Thirty-six law enforcement officers and eight administrators
provide law enforcement services for the Fish and Game Department. In
addition department employees from other divisions are used to supple-
ment the regular enforcement staff. The enforcement section Operates
on a $1.5 million annual budget (1969-70) and is responsible for the
enforcement of all conservation laws, marine safety regulations, and
patrolling state parks. Officers are also required to remove road
killed big game animals which averages ten bison, 150 moose and 20
deer annually.

New officers are assigned to a six month training program before
assuming regular field duties; an in-service, week long training pro—
gram is provided for veteran officers. The state is divided into 28
enforcement regions which has assigned to them one enforcement officer
per region. The officer is responsible for the entire district in
addition to whatever commercial fisheries may exist in his assigned

area. Officers are rotated to a different district approximately

every two years.
All officers
average annual mi:
available for pat:
issues an average
rate of 96 per ce:
Alaska's par]

area °f 40.000 am

tell Sites with ea‘

 

 

 

Pet CEnt of the Pi
and nine” Per Ce:
while the pa-

to abOut 105 good

13

every two years.

All officers drive marked, state-owned vehicles and accumulate an
average annual mileage of 20,000 miles. Eight light aircraft are also
available for patrol duty, enforcement and survey work. Each officer
issues an average of thirty citations yearly resulting in a conviction
rate of 96 per cent.

Ease

Alaska's park system consists of sixty state parks covering a total
area of 40,000 acres. Numbering 588 total campsites, each park averages
ten sites with each site being §,625 square feet in size. Sixty-one
per cent of the parks are located more than 150 miles from urban areas
and ninety per cent are intended for vacation or extended usage.

While the parks open all year, weather conditions limit the season
to about 105 good camping days yearly. During that period, annual
visitation reaches 300,000 persons. There are no fees or charges
levied on state park users.

The Parks and Recreation Section of the Department of Natural
Resources employs a staff of four seasonal rangers, six administrative
personnel, three planners and seven maintenance workers. It operates
on a $325,000 annual budget (1969-70) appropriated from the state
legislature. From this appropriation 16 per cent is used for admini—
stration, 28 per cent for maintenance, 6 per cent for land acquisition,
and the remainder is expended on park development.

As its name suggests, there is neither a separate park division or

recreation division, both functions are combined in one agency.

 

 

Hater Pollution C

  
 

Responsibili
by the Departunt
through the state
is shared with th
use.

The Departnez

the part tine gen

 

Wllution control
lent's Division 0!
budzet of $57,000

riation and Peder

14

Water Pollution Control

Responsibility for protecting Alaska's water resources is assumed
by the Department of Health and Welfare via the authority given it
through the state's water pollution control act. This responsibility
is shared with the Department of Natural Resources in the area of water
use.

The Department of Health and welfare employs three engineers and
the part time services of fifteen sanitarians to staff its water
pollution control program. These personnel are attached to the depart-
ment's Division of Environmental Health and are supported by an annual
budget of $57,000. The sources of this budget are a department approp-

riation and Federal Hater Pollution Control Act grants.

Information on the land management agency can be found in the

tabular analyses section of this study.

 

 

    
  

Having a lan
resource base whit:
dark, lush swamps
people is distrib:
PEOPIE per square

The mnageme:

installed in one (

 

Within the depart:
administration, d4
with their purvier
Fresh Hater Fish,
istrative Service
off

Ice as well as

The departme

éovemor and his

15

Florida

Having a land area of 54,130 square miles, Florida boasts a natural
resource base which ranges from 7,700 miles of ocean shoreline to the
dark, lush swamps of the Everglades. Florida's population of 6.78 million
people is distributed over the state's land area at a rate of 125.7
people per square mile.

The management responsibility for the state's natural resources is
installed in one comprehensive agency, the Department of Natural Resources.
Within the department are four functional divisions charged with the
administration, development and supervision of the particular resource
with their purview: Marine Resources, Interior Resources, Game and
Fresh Water Fish, and Recreation and Parks. A fifth division, Admin-
istrative Services, provides support services in the chief executive's
office as well as for the remaining divisions.

The department's chief executive, the director, is selected by the
governor and his cabinet and serves at the pleasure of that selection
body. Implementing the policies and programs established in consultation
with the governor, the director is responsible for a full-time staff of
821 employees and an annual departmental budget of 22.9 million (1969-70).

Although there is no board or commission which generates department-
wide policy, the Game and Fresh Water Fisheries Commission (attached to
the division of the same name), functions independently of the head of
the Department of Natural Resources. The commission consists of five
members appointed to staggered five-year terms of office by the governor
and has the authority to fix bag limits, seasons and other hunting and

fishing regulations.

J; o 32‘
V V ‘ ‘ a. ~--- , "'a's'W‘LH—a
ell-3.....-

    
   

Division conducts
Pesearch, and Ann
fishery is manage
sent, Karine Resc
and limited come
1"? the Fresh Hate
(195940) SUpporI
strative purpose
cent), and manag
“though cc
“five biologis

employed (0 CO“

16

.Elfihf

The Fresh Water Fish Section of the Game and Fresh Water Fish
Division conducts its activities under three programs: Management,
Research, and Aquatic Weed Control. Although the state's salt water
fishery is managed by another division of the Natural Resources Depart—
ment, Marine Resources, Florida's anadromous fishery (largely a sport
and limited commercial shad fishing in the St. Johns River) is managed
by the Fresh Water Fish Section. An annual budget of $1.2 million
(1969-70) supports these programs and provides allocations for admini-
strative purposes (7 per cent% research (24 per cent), hatcheries (9 per
cent), and management activities (60 per cent).

Although complete data about this agency's staff was not available,
twelve biologists, two administrators, and six clerical personnel are
employed to conduct fish research activities. This program includes a
limited pesticide monitoring program on six lakes, as well as water
quality, habitat, and fish population/stocking studies.

The section's hatchery facilities, operated under the management
program, consists of two warm water hatcheries with an annual capacity
of 4 million fish. In 1969-70 fish were planted in Florida waters at
the following levels: bass-150,000, bluegill-1.5 million, channel cat-
fish/sunfish-200,000.

Fishing seasons and limits are established by the Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission while fees are set by the state legislature.

 

*
Information in this section applies only to the Fresh Water Fish
Section of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Division. Data from the Marine
Resources Division (salt water fisheries) was not available.

 

 

Licenses ,

1969 to 1.

amount is
and state
he timbe
in 1967.
The

17

Licenses, distributed by county judges and their agents, were sold in
1969 to 481,000 resident and 28,000 non-resident fishermen. An addi-
tional 3,700 commercial fishermen are licensed by the state.

Forestry

0f the 19.4 million acres of forest lands in Florida, the largest
amount is held in private ownership, 17.3 million acres. The federal
and state governments manage 1.6 million and 540,000 acres respectively.
The timber harvest from the combined sources was 325 million board feet
in 1967.

The state's holdings, 307,000 acres, are under the jurisdiction of
the Forestry Division, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Employing a staff of approximately 800 employees, this agency expends
an annual budget of 9.4 million (1969-70) to conduct its management/
production and protection programs, the former being a self-supporting
operation. In lieu of taxes for lands held by the Forestry Division,
the agency returns $274,900 to local units of government annually.

Soil testing activities, conducted through a cooperative program
with the University of Florida, are provided for private landowners.
Seedlings are also furnished to landowners and surveying operations are
conducted for these groups during outbreak conditions of various insect
pests.

Game

Employing a staff of 45, the Game Section of the Game and Fresh
Water Fish Division conducts its activities under six program segments
including: Research, River Basin Studies, Public Hunts, General Game
Management, Administration and Coordination, and Management Area

Development. These programs are funded by an annual budget of $1 million

 

 

Eellowi:
hlac‘s. b

Se

\‘- E'

18

(1969-70) which has as its sources monies from the Pittman-Robertson Act
Fund (50 per cent) and a departmental budget appropriation (50 per cent).

Game pOpulations are determined through the utilization of various
methodologies including survey flights for waterfowl and the use of
harvest data for deer. Based on population studies, the numbers of the
following big game species have been determined: white tail deer-450,000,
black bear-1,000, turkey-80,000, and wild hog-100,000.

Seasons and hunting limits are established by the Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission in consultation with the Game Section. Licenses,
distributed through county judges or county tax collectors and their
agents, were sold to 223,000 residents and 2,800 non-residents in 1969.

Law Enforcement

 

The Law Enforcement Section of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Division
services with a staff of 125 enforcement officers, 24 administrative
personnel, and expends an annual budget of $1.6 millioni1969-70). Depart-
ment employees from other divisions as well as citizens commissioned to
make arrests are used to supplement regular forces during hunting seasons.

New officers receive three weeks of in-house training in addition
to 200 hours of "Police Standards Training". Upon completion of these
programs, officers are assig ned to one of the state's 15 enforcement
areas (eight officers per area). Within these regions, officers cover
an area of 475 square miles and are responsible for enforcing fish/game
laws and boating regulations in addition to the removal of road killed
big game animals. Assistance is also provided in forest fire protection
and the patrolling of state park areas.

All officers are uniformed and are issued state-owned, identified

vehicles which are driven an average 25,000 miles annually by each

 

i:
Q
h
'5
E
's'
o,

 

 

l’l
stricer.

in varim

Parks an:
__—

l'ne
'a'lth a ti
acres, t
hiking t
Park and
life ref

To
(include

Elf”), (

19

officer. The agency also uses four light aircraft and two helicopters
in various aspects of law enforcement and search/rescue operations.
Parks and Recreation

The Division of Recreation and Parks operates a system of 83 parks
with a total area of 177,000 acres. With an average park size of 2,130
acres, the system also provides 2,826 campsites and 7,500 miles of
hiking trails. Federally operated areas in Florida include one national
park and five national monuments, three national forests and seven wild—
life refuges.

To operate its system the division employs a staff of 343 rangers
(includes all staff found at parks - superintendents, guides, clerks,
etc.), eight administrators, 22 planning personnel, and 25-100 part-
time/seasonal employees. Organizationally, the division is composed of
four bureaus: Planning and Grants, Land Acquisition, Park Operation and
Recreational Services.

While all of the parks in the system have day use areas, 35 (42 per
cent) offer camping facilities. Open throughout the year, the parks
attract approximately 7.4 million visitors annually; both residents and
non-residents are assessed a daily entrance fee of $.25 ($10 annual permit).
Water Pollution Control

The Department of Air and Water Pollution Control is charged with
the administration of pollution abatement programs. Organizationally,

the Department is divided into three sections: Director's Office,

 

*
As of July 1970, the Recreational Services Bureau (formed as the
result of a 1969 state reorganization act) had not been funded and con-
sequently was not operational.

 

. .2'“ u -

P .‘u

 

' «MJ'

 

If

 

Operatic:
:he deve.
guidelin
also dev
Hater qu
the revi
lities s
pernit t
of the 1
Provider
Em.
(1969-7
Sible f
Health
dCEESti

of thes

Ir
of Cane

20

Operations Division, and Planning Division. The latter is charged with
the development of air control regions throughout the state based on
guidelines provided by federal clean air laws. The Planning Division
also develops research projects in the areas of pollution control and
water quality restoration. The duties of the Operations Division include
the review of plans for industrial waste and air pollution control faci-
lities submitted by applicants. Approval of these plans results in a
permit being issued by the division for the construction and operation

of the facility. The administration of federal grant monies is also
provided through this division.

Employing a staff of 15 and having an annual budget of $1.0 million
(1969-70), the Department of Air and Water Pollution Control is respon-
sible for curtailing stream and air pollution from all sources. The
Health Division, Department of Health, however, reviews all plans for
domestic waste facilities and is responsible for monitoring the operation

of these facilities.

 

Information about the Information and Education Agency, Division
of Game and Fresh Water Fisheries, can be found in the tabular analysis

section of this study.

 

 

the st:
per Sq
20,000
also h

0f oce

uhile
and 1'1
in thi

he:De:

21

Massachusetts

 

Massachusetts' population of 5.8 million people is distributed over
the state's 8095 square miles of land area at ranges of less than ten
per square mile in its western and north central areas to approximately
20,000 per square mile along the state's eastern boundary. The state
also has 255 square miles of total water area in addition to 2000 miles
of ocean shoreline.

The agency charged with the greatest number of responsibilities in
natural resource management is the Massachusetts Department of Natural
Resources. Operating units of the department consist of the following
divisions: Forests and Parks, Conservation Services, Law Enforcement,
Marine Resources, and Mineral Resources. A Division of Water Resources
and a Division of Water Pollution Control are responsible to a Water
Resources Commission whose chairman is the Commissioner of Natural
Resources.

A Board of Natural Resources, appointed by the governor, sets
certain policies and regulations under which the department operates.
While the board has this policy making function, many of the duties
and responsibilities of the department and its divisions are articulated
in the General Laws of the Commonwealth. The board consists of five
members serving staggered five year terms.

The department's chief executive (commissioner) is selected by and

a
is responsible to the Board. The department operates on an annual

 

*

Recent legislation (1970) suggests that future commissioners will
be gubernatorial appointees and will serve terms which run concurrently
with that of the governor's.

 

 

 

fielc
Vide:
for 1

Cent

22

budget of approximately $7 million (1969—70) and employs a staff of
600 permanent and 1600 seasonal employees.
Fish

The Fisheries Section, Division of Fisheries and Game, operates
four basic fishery programs including: cold water management (trout
research, management, and propagation), warm water management; Water
quality investigation (fish kills, productivity, inventory); acquisition
(developing access sites); pesticides (monitoring programs); and
hatcheries. In addition the state has both an anadromous as well as
a salt water fishery, the latter being managed by the Division of
Marine Fisheries.

Operating on an annual budget of $600,000 (1969—70), the Fisheries
Section employs a staff of three administrators, six researchers, twelve
field personnel, and ten part time workers. The budget figure pro-
vides for allocations of 15 per cent for administration, 30 per cent
for research and management, 35 per cent for hatcheries, and 20 per
cent for construction and rebuilding projects.

The Fisheries Section operates five cold water hatcheries having
a combined capacity of 1.2 million fish. One anadromous hatchery
also began production in 1970. In 1969 fish planted in Massachusetts'
waters amounted to more than 1 million trout and 325 salmon smolts.
State fish productions are supplemented by a private hatchery program
of four warm water, eleven cold water, and two bait hatcheries.

After fishing seasons and limits are jointly established by the
department and the division, licenses are distributed to town clerks
for public sale. License sales for 1969 included 163,000 resident and

5300 non-resident licenses.

 

 

HE
Hassac

C0118}

three

and w

Studi
POpul
atria
ham,

23

While there are no commercial fishing operations conducted on
Massachusetts' inland waters, the Marine Fisheries Division regulates
commercial salt water fisheries.

Game

 

The Game Section of the Fisheries and Game Division operates under
three program segments including Game Propagation, Wildlife Research
and Wildlife Development.

The agency expends an annual budget of $769,000 (1969—70) and employs
a staff of two administrators, nine game biologists, four field per-
sonnel and 16 part time employees. The budget figure provides for
allocations in the areas of administration (2 per cent), research
(18 per cent), habitat development (60 per cent), and game propagation
(60 per cent).

Major research efforts are directed at life cycle and habitat
studies conducted on deer, turkey, rabbit, and waterfowl species.
Population figures are determined either through hunter surveys or
serial inventories for small game and waterfowl while records of
harvest numbers are used as the basis for determining the size of the
deer herd. The deer herd contains 16,000 animals while bear exist
in huntable, though unspecified, numbers.

Hunting licenses are distributed from the same source as fishing
licenses, town clerks. The purchase of one general hunting license
entitles the holder to hunt both small and big game animals. Both
the hunting of bear and antlerless deer require special permits,
available at no extra charge, which are distributed through drawings.
License sales in 1969 amounted to 131,000 resident and 1600 non-resident

sales.

 

 

Infc
side has
Cane.
by this

The
which i
L3? Enf
\

Ope
hforce
three a

eaforce

24

Information and Education

 

Information and education services are provided not on a department
wide basis but by five man unit within the Division of Fisheries and
Game. In much the same manner, the focus of I & E materials produced
by this unit is primarily on game and fish activities.

The unit publishes a bi-monthly magazine, MASSACHUSETTS WILDLIFE,
which is distributed without charge and has a circulation of 43,000.

Law Enforcement

 

Operating on an annual budget of $700,000 (1969-70), the Law
Enforcement Division employs a staff of 68 enforcement officers and
three administrators to provide for all areas of conservation law
enforcement.

New officers are installed immediately upon hiring to a field
position without prior formal training programs. New men are, however,
assigned to a veteran officer who supervises the new officer until the
latter is able to assume full field responsibilities.

Utilizing a regional law enforcement concept, the state is divided
into 47 enforcement districts with at least one officer assigned to
each district. Not coinciding with fish and game regions, each district
is approximately 200 square miles in size. In addition to enforcing
fish and game laws within these areas officers are also assigned patrol
responsibilities for state parks.

All officers, with the exception of marine boat officers, are
issued state-owned vehicles which are driven an average of 25,000 miles
annually. Rented helicopters are also occasionally used for fire and

marine patrol or law enforcement work.

  
  

The average numbv
95 per cent conv
While the d.
responsibility f
Satural Resource.
iiities include
Division, the la
Planning.

The Pollutj
Engineers, and
budget of 5626,
budget aPPTOprj

In additi.

attivities , th

in 1967. The

“EDI plants as

adtching fede-

25

The average number of citations issued by each officer is 20 with a
95 per cent conviction rate.
Water Pollution .

While the department's Division of Pollution Control has the primary
responsibility for pollution abatement programs within the Department of
Natural Resources, other state agencies charged with similar responsib-
ilities include the Department of Public Health and the Water Resources
Division, the latter's duties falling chiefly in the area of resource
planning.

The Pollution Control Division employs six administrators, 35
engineers, and a clerical staff of 16. The division expends an annual
budget of $626,000 (1969—70) which is composed both of a legislative
budget appropriation and Water Pollution Control Act monies.

In addition to monies spent by the division on pollution control
activities, the state has undertaken a $150 million bond program passed
in 1967. The program provides up to 25 per cent of the cost of treat-
ment plants as well as funds to make municipal program eligible for

matching federal grants.

 

Minnesota's
the state's 85,0'
per square mile.
Minnesota has 0v.
130 miles of Gre
The Deoartn

agency a is heads.

Fear term.

 

26

Minnesota

Minnesota's population of 3.8 million residents is distributed over
the state's 85,000 square miles of land area at the rate of 44.7 people
per square mile. Characterized by an abundance of water resources,
Minnesota has over 4,000 square miles of total inland water area and
180 miles of Great Lake shoreline.

The Department of Conservation, the state's major natural resource
agency, is headed by a commissioner appointed by the governor to a six
year term.

When the department was first established in 1931, it was admini-
stered by a five member commission. This system was abolished in 1937
when authority was vested in a commissioner. Under this system, the
department is governed through programs and policies established by
the commissioner.1

A large department, the agency employs 1160 full time employees
and operates on a total annual conservation budget of $27.1 million
(1969-70), a figure which has increased 45 per cent over the last ten
years. The budget has as its sources a general fund appropriation
($8.9 million), self—generated revenues($12.5 million), federal funds
($840,000), and an "other" category of $4.7 million.

The department houses all conservation functions and is composed of
a number of agencies at the divisional level including Fish and Game,
Lands and Forestry, Parks and Recreation, Enforcement and Field

Services, and Soils, Waters, and Minerals.

 

1"Minnesota Department of Conservation", p. 2, no date.

   
  

activities accord
research, popula:
stocking, and the.
private hatchery
id researchers, ‘

A

Of $3.0 million (

 

i‘ne section‘
program which im
Strategic locatic
Progran is an or
Esuch, it incl
and Pilot progra

Hatchery pr
“Shes Segue“.

hatcheries have

' .H‘ _4 _I In A ,

27

§}§h_

The Fisheries Section, Division of Game and Fish, conducts its
activities according to six program segments: habitat development,
research, population assessment, lake rehabilitation, propagation and
stocking, and the administration of licenses, commercial fishing, and
private hatchery programs. The agency employs four administrators,

14 researchers, 197 field tehcnicians and operates on an annual budget
of $3.0 million (1969-70).

The section's research activities include a pesticide monitoring
program which involves the periodic collection of index Species from
strategic locations for analysis. The general focus of the research
program is an orientation towards problems generated from the field.
As such, it includes many life history studies, program evaluations,
and pilot programs.

Hatchery programsare conducted with fish stock produced at the
Fishery Section's ten warm water and four cold water facilities. These
hatcheries have combined capacities of 500 million and two million fish
respectively. A vigorous program, hatchery reared fish were planted
by the Fisheries Section in 1969 at the following levels:

Trout - 2,000,000

Salmon - 225,000

Bass - 225,000

Walleye - 272,000,000

Northern Pike - 7,100,000

‘ Mhskellunge - 103,000

Ninety-five warm water hatcheries (largely bait producers) and twenty
cold water plants supplement the state's fish rearing facilities.

Licenses are distributed to the public by general agents who in

turn received licenses from county auditors. Under this system, auditors

retain a two pe
from license 5.-
3i5,000 non-re
tomercial fis

Minnesota
an annual tint
7.5 million a
3-3 million a
3-3nillion a
grants (59 pe

ReSponsi
lands and F0]
394 and OPEr:

includes the

28

retain a two per cent and agents a six per cent commission on proceeds
from license sales. Sales in 1969 totaled 1.1 million resident and
340,000 non-resident sales. The Fish Section also licenses 290
commercial fishermen.
Forestry

Minnesota's forest lands extend over 17 million acres and produce
an annual timber harvest of 125 cubic feet. Private owners control
7.5 million acres while federal and county forests account for 2.8 and
3.3 million acres respectively. The state maintains and operates
3.3 million acres, most of which was received through federal land
grants (69 per cent) or through tax reverted properties (28 per cent).

Responsibility for managing the state's forests is charged to the
Lands and Forestry Division, an agency employing a full time staff of
394 and operating on an annual budget of $5.7 million. This figure
includes the funding of fire protection as well as land management
programs. The state returns $141,000 annually to local units of
government in lieu of taxes received by lands operated by the division.

Additional responsibilities beyond timber management include
conducting land appraisals, easement evaluations and providing trail
and wilderness camping facilities. Private landowners are also assisted
through programs which furnish seedlings and provide consultant services
for spraying operations.

As the state's lands managemenn.agency the division is also
charged with disposing of tax reverted lands as well as consolidating
state holdings. An average of 5000 acres of land revert to the state

each year, generally in 40 acre parcels.

Hm Que
program segue:
development (1
and other pub'
(unrovement
programs, the
33593! Chars ,
in annual bm
the areas Of
habitat deve
(67Per Cent

Althoug
501’ liCeIlses
SEasOnS and
heir agent:
umbreSidEn

General Cam

Kill S

29

Game

 

The Game Section of the Game and Fish Division conducts four major
program segments focusing on research (upland, big game, and waterfowl),
development (improves and maintains habitat on wildlife management areas
and other public lands), deer management, and private land development
(improvement of wildlife habitat on private lands). To operate its
programs, the agency employs a staff of five administrators, 15
researchers, 79 field technicians, and a part time staff of 75 workers.
An annual budget of $2.67 million (1969-70) provides allocations in
the areas of administration (3 per cent), research (10 per cent),
habitat development (20 per cent), and salaries/land acquisition
(67 per cent).

Although the state legislature established a broad legal framework
for licenses and seasons, the Conservation Department sets actual
seasons and fee schedules. Licenses are sold by county auditors and
their agents and in 1968 were distributed to 592,000 resident and 1400
non—resident hunters. Revenue from hunting license sales goes to the
General Game and Fish Fund and is re-appropriated to the divisions.

Kill statistics and aerial surveys, the methods used to determine
big game populations, have established big game populations at the
following levels: white tail deer - 500,000, black bear - 600,000,
elk - 25, moose - 7,000. Post season telephone and postcard surveys
are used to determine the number of animals killed in a season.
Information and Education

The Department of Conservation's Bureau of Information and Education
operates on an annual budget of $204,000 (1969—70) and employs a staff

of fourteen including five information—education specialists.

Statisti
lotion pictur
Additional 1):,
were mailed c
and special 1
distribution
and Educatior
:irricuium f,

The age]
's’OLLXEER, h,

Parks and Re
\

30

Statistics on some of the bureau's programs indicate that their
motion picture loan service lent out a total of 2400 films in 1969.
Additionally, over 50,000 pieces of literature produced by the bureau
were mailed out to the public in the same time period. News releases
and special feature columns are also produced within the agency for
distribution to media sources. In 1970, the Departments of Conservation
and Education began work on developing a conservation education
cirriculum for Minnesota's school system.

The agency's official bimonthly publication, CONSERVATION
VOLUNTEER, has a circulation of 65,000 and is distributed free of charge.
Parks and Recreation

The Division of Parks and Recreation administers state parks,
memorials, parks, reserves, and wayside areas. The system consists of
90 units located in various areas throughout the state with 59 of these
units being classified at state parks or recreation reserves. These
areas vary in size from 1000 to 30,000 acres. Twelve of the 90 units
are classified as scenic or historic monuments and range in size from
50 acres to one acre.

The division is responsible for park acquisition, development and
maintenance, and the operation of revenue producers as refectories, boat
services, tourist and group camps, and camp rentals. Other activities
include park planning, investigation of potent ial park sites, and

cooperating with local units in providing recreation services.1

 

1"Minnesota Department of Conservation", p. 9, no date.

lav Enforcenen

The Divis
annual budget
enforcement oi
mloyees.

New offi
moths before
Service week
officers,

Operati:
fish and 8am
area, Withi
and are res;
regulat 10“ s ‘
his game an:

All of
lv'hich are d
als° uSes f

38 Citat ion

31

Law Enforcement

 

The Division of Enforcement and Field Services operates on an
annual budget of $2.4 million (1969-70) and employs a staff of 146
enforcement officers, 8 administrative personnel, and 9 clerical
employees.

New officers are provided with a field internship lasting 2-6
months before being assigned full field reaponsibilities. An in-
service week long training program is provided yearly for veteran
officers.

Operating with eleven enforcement districts which coincide with
fish and game regions, a range of 7—14 officers are assigned to each
area. Within these districts, officers cover a 635 square mile area
and are reaponsible for enforcing game, fish and marine safety
regulations. In addition officers are required to remove road killed
big game animals from highways.

All officers are uniformed and are issued state-owned vehicles
which are driven an average of 24,000 miles annually. The division
also uses four single engine aircraft for patrol work. An average of

38 citations are issued annually by each officer.

 

Information regarding the state's water pollution control agency

can be found in the tabular analyses section of this study.

Nebraska
the state's Z
More reali
per cent of
area. Dougl
Mole per 5
square mile:

The Ca:
Share the r
comission
"ith the ac
its poliCy
limited by
include t‘n

bane, Law

32

Nebraska

Nebraska's population of 1.48 million people is distributed over
the state's land area at an average rate of 19.4 persons per square mile.
A more realistic picture, however, is suggested by the fact that 36
per cent of the state's population lives on 4.3 per cent of the land
area. Douglas County (Omaha) has a population density of over 1,000
peeple per square mile of surface area. In addition the state has 728.7
square miles of water area.

The Game and Parks Commission, along with the Forestry Department,
share the responsibility of managing the state's natural resources. The
commission consists of a seven member board appointed by the governor
with the advice and consent of the state's unicameral legislature. In
its policy making role, the commission acts as an autonomous agency
limited by certain legislative guidelines. sub-units of the commission
include the following divisions: Fisheries, Land Management, Parks,
Game, Law Enforcement, Information and Education, Engineering, Federal
Aid, Personnel, Research and Budget/Fiscal.

The commission also appoints a chief sdministrative officer, the
director, who serves a six year term and is responsible for administer-
ing a total conservation budget of $9.8 million (1969-70) and a staff
of 350 full time employees. The budget figure, 50 per cent of which is
composed of self-generated monies, has increased 300 per cent over the
last decade.
ngh_

The Fish Division employs a staff of four administrators, 63 field
technicians, 30 part time employees and expends an annual budget of

$581,000 (1968). Not operating under specific program structures, the

   
  
  
  
  
  

division conduct
to the individua

Although no
division (includ.
does conduct its
division's resou
activities .

The divis 1c

and two cold war

 

this total figun
planted in state
by 19 private he

Fishing sea
based on recomm
by 1200 private

following numbe

33

division conducts its activities in five management districts according
to the individual needs of each district.

Although most fish research is conducted by a separate research
division (including a pesticide monitoring program), the Fish Division
does conduct its own limnological and development studies. Most of the
division's resources are channelled into management and hatchery
activities.

The division operates five hatchery stations, three warm water,
and two cold water, with a combined capacity of 17.8 million fish. Of
this total figure, approximately 4.9 million fish of various species are
planted in state waters. The division's hatchery program is supplemented
by 19 private hatcheries.

Fishing seasons are established by the Game and Parks Commission
based on recommendations of the Fish Division. Licenses are distributed
by 1200 private vendors who, in 1969, distributed fishing permits in the
following numbers:

Resident - 140,720

Resident Hunting and Fishing - 56,581

Non-Resident - 11,062

Five Day Non-Resident - 14,157
The division also regulates the state's commercial fishing industry which
consists of 173 licensed fishermen.
Game

The Game Division conducts three program segments in the areas of
big game, upland game, and waterfowl management. It employs a staff of
13 field technicians, two administrators, and expends an annual budget
of $254,000 (1968-69). The budget figure provides allocations for the
areas of administration (10 per cent) and management activities (90 per

cent).

  
   
  
  

Ihe division's r.
program, life hi
quail habitat as
surveys and hunt
following game 5
3“alone - osoo.

h‘hile Small

Permits used for

 

Sign'S central c
on a mamaBernent
to each unit,

Categol‘lES:

34

The division's research efforts consist of a pesticide monitoring
program, life history and ecology studies of pheasant and grouse and
quail habitat evaluations. Big game population studies using aerial
surveys and hunter check stations have estimated the size of the
following game herds: mule deer — 40,000, white tail deer - 35,800,
antelope - 6500.

While small game licenses are distributed through private vendors,
permits used for big game and turkey hunting are issued from the divi-
sion's central office. The number of available permits is determined
on a management unit basis with a specific number of permits allotted
to each unit. In 1969 hunting licenses were sold in the following
categories:

Resident Small Game - 149,173

Resident Turkey - 1,706

Resident Big Game - 28,033

Non-Resident Small Game - 20,003

Non-Resident Turkey - 49

Non-Resident Big Game — 2,446
Law Enforcement

The Law Enforcement Division provides services with a staff of 47
enforcement officers, four administrators and two clerical employees;
the division operates on an annual budget appropriation of $968,000
(1969-70).

Upon completion of a six month field internship, new officers are
assigned to one of the state's five enforcement districts which coincide
with fish and game regions. Patrolling an area of 1638 square miles,
each officer is responsible for enforcing laws in the area of fish, game,

and marine safety. They also patrol state park areas and remove road

killed big game animals.

All officer
vehicles which a
division Med 3
of forty citaticl
rate of 99 per C

The Divisic
functions as the i
it shares resporl
other agencies i
'n'ater Commissior

Operating i

staff of three .-

 

 

vesting personne

 

35

All officers are uniformed and issued state-owned, identified
vehicles which are driven an average of 40,000 miles annually. Two
division owned aircraft are also used for enforcement work. An average
of forty citations are issued annually by each officer with a conviction
rate of 99 per cent.

Water Pollution

 

The Division of Environmental Health Services, Department of Health,
functions as the state's major water pollution control agency although
it shares responsibility for pollution abatement programs with several
other agencies including the Water Pollution Control Council, Soil and
Water Commission, and the Water Resources Department.

Operating independently of these agencies, the division employs a
Istaff of three administrators, four engineers, one planner, and four

testing personnel and expends an annual budget of $183,000 (1969-70).

 

Information on the state's land management agency can be found in

the tabular analyses section of this study.

New Mexico'
over the state's
persons per Squa
amounts to 215 3

Natural {‘95
including the Dr
and the Park an-
Sfafis are admins
DQP‘artnent of F1
The Game ar
by a five membev
advice and tense
five YEar terms

we Commifision i

 

the legiSlature

l
Establishing fi.

36

New Mexico

 

New Mexico's population of 1.01 million people is thinly distributed
over the state's 121,511 square miles of land area at a rate of 8.3
persons per square mile. An arid state, New Mexico's inland water area
amounts to 215 square miles.

Natural resource management is shared by a number of state agencies
including the Department of Game and Fish, Department of State Forestry,
and the Park and Recreation Commission. Water pollution abatement pro—
grams are administered by the Department of Public Health.

Department of Fish and Game

 

The Game and Fish Department's programs and policies are formulated
by a five member commission which is appointed by the governor with the
advice and consent of the senate. The commissioners serve staggered
five year terms of office and may serve more than one term. Typically,
the commission acts within the confines of the authority granted it by
the legislature. This authority allows it to act independently in
establishing fish and game seasons and bag limits, to provide conser—
vation law enforcement services and to authorize programs to be imple—
mented by the various division. The legislature, however, retains
approval authority over the department's budget and the price of
hunting and fishing licenses.

The commission also appoints the department's chief administrative
executive, the director, who serves at the pleasure of the selection
body rather than a fixed term. The director is responsible, through
division chiefs, for both the department's full time staff of 171 and
an annual department budget of $2.67 million (1969-70). The budget

figure, 82 per cent of which is composed of self-generated monies, has

increased by te:
Fish Division
The Fish D
activities nude
and management ,
sent and land a
Public access 5
stocking in pub

three research

 

expends an arm
receiving the l
The divisj
Problems inth
Ciuality Studies
fish Productio
Prevention of

control and

37

increased by ten per cent over the last decade.

Fish Division

 

The Fish Division, Department of Game and Fish, conducts it
activities under five major program segments. These include research
and management, coordination (between research, management, develop-
ment and land acquisition programs), development, land acquisition (for
public access sites), and production (of catchable size trout for
stocking in public waters). Employing a staff of three administrators,
three research personnel, and two field technicians, the division
expends an annual budget of $560,000 (1969-70) with the hatchery program
receiving the largest allocation (69 per cent).

The division's research efforts are directed towards studies of
problems involved with the rearing and stocking of hatchery fish. Water
quality studies are also being conducted with the goals of increasing
fish production through the improvement of natural food sources and the
prevention of fish kills resulting from summer stagnation. Pollution
control and elimination studies are also conducted.

The division's hatchery facilities consist of six cold water
hatcheries with a combined annual capacity of 4.0 million fish (429,000
pounds). In 1969 fish were planted in Nex Mexico's waters at the
following levels: trout (rainbow, brown, cutthroat, and Dolly Varden) -
4.6 million, salmon - 307,300.

Distributed through vendors who receive $.25 on each license sold,
86,000 resident and 38,000 non-resident licenses were sold in 1969. The
state also has one licensed commercial fisherman who works for the

division as a rough fish control agent.

Forestry

New Mexico
total of 225,00

of forest land

3.3 million acr
million and 163

To adminis
agency Separate
of 20 Workers,
(1969—70) which
and $253,850 fc.

The dePart
its management
landowners in 5
C3

The Game I

a t’ .
c 1v1ties Unde

 

38

Forestgy

New Mexico's timber lands encompass 5.7 million acres from which a
total of 225,000 board feet is harvested annually. The largest amount
of forest land comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government,
3.8 million acres, while private and state forests account for 1.7
million and 163,000 acres respectively.

To administer its acreage, the Department of State Forestry, an
agency separate from the Department of Game and Fish, employs a staff
of 20 workers. The department expends an annual budget of $390,000
(1969-70) which includes allocation of $86,000 for forest management
and $253,850 for fire protection and control.

The department engages in some extension-type activities beyond
its management and protection responsibilities by assisting private
landowners in spraying and reforestation projects.
£395_

The Game Division, Department of Game and Fish, conducts its
activities under four major segments: administration, exotic big game
(raising selected species for introduction), animal control, and
federal aid. The last program encompansses many of the traditional
management activities - big game, waterfowl, game bird, habitat
improvement, etc. The division employs a staff of eight administrative
personnel, twelve researchers, 29 field technicians and expends an annual
budget of $630,000 (1969-70). The budget provides for allocations in
the areas of administration (5 per cent), research and management
(50 per cent), habitat development (30 per cent) and nuisance animal

control (10 per cent).

Studies em;

   

the state's big
deer - 300,000 ,
atelope - 180,!

25,000 and jave

ludivld
With th re E
elease

39

Studies employing aerial surveys and pellet counts have established
the state's big game animal populations at the following levels: mule
deer - 300,000, white tail - 15,000, black bear - 3000, elk - 12,000,
antelope - 180,000, bighorn sheep — 550, Barbary sheep - 400, turkey —
25,000 and javelina - 2,000.

Licenses distributed through authorized vendors were sold in the
following amounts in 1969:

Resident Small Game - 13,240
Resident Turkey - provided with big game license
Resident Big Game - 99,770
Non-Resident Small Game - 1,853
Non-Resident Big Game - 4,915
Special licenses required for some animals are distributed through a

lottery system when demand exceeds the number available.

Information and Education

 

The Information and Education Division, Department of Game and
Fish, provides I & E services for the department with a staff of eleven
and an annual budget of $199,000 (1969-70).

The division's services are oriented principally towards information
programs with conservation education activities being limited primarily
to individual presentations to schools by department personnel. Along
with the regular format of news releases, feature stories, and special
releases, the division also provides a weekly 3 1/2 minute taped program
to 42 radio stations across the state. A half—hour color videotaped
program.is also provided to television stations on a weekly basis.

The division publishes the bimonthly magazine, NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE,

which has a circulation of 13,000.

Law Enforcement

As an agen.

 

Division provid.
|

Employing a Sta:
operates on an F
“isting Staff,
Veil as CitizEn
NW Office
being installed
Officers are as

(one OffiCer pe

 

geographic are
for an awerage
and Sane law e
road killed big

All offiCe

0f 253000 mile:

rate 0f (.0 per

40

Law Enforcement

As an agency of the Game and Fish Department, the Law Enforcement
Division provides services in the area of fish and game law enforcement.
Employing a staff of 34 officers and one administrator, the division
operates on an annual budget of $60,000 (1969-70). To supplement the
existing staff, the agency also uses employees from other divisions as
well as citizens commissioned to make arrests.

New officers are assigned to a six month field internship before
being installed as full time officers. Following this training period,
officers are assigned to one of the state's 34 enforcement districts
(one officer per district); officers are regularly rotated to different
geographic areas. Within his assigned unit, each officer is responsible
for an average territory of 4,200 square miles and, in addition to fish
and game law enforcement, also patrols state park areas and removes
road killed big game animals.

A11 officers are uniformed and drive state-owned cars an average
of 25,000 miles annually. Citations are issued at an average annual

rate of 40 per officer of which more than 90 per cent result in conviction.

 

Information regardirg the state's water pollution control agency can

be found in the tabular analyses section of the study.

Pennsylvan
over the state'
people per squa
umber of dense
Philadelphia an
north central r
thinly Populate
is the 10“ roll

mountain chains

Four agenc
of each other.
natural reSOun
the Game Cormnig

is Charged Witt

ppointed b

 

41

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's population of 11.79 million people is distributed
over the state's 45,333 square miles of land area at a rate of 260
people per square mile. Like many eastern states, Pennsylvania has a
number of densely populated urban areas with cities the size of
Philadelphia and Pittsburg being cases in point. Yet in the state's
north central region, many areas still remain wooded, undeveloped, and
thinly populated. The dominant feature of Pennsylvania's topography
is the low rolling slopes and ridges of the Appalachian and Allegheny
mountain chains. Some agricultural areas in the state's southern and
central regions are more open and have a less severe terrain.

Four agencies, administratively and organizationally independent
of each other, have responsibilities for managing the state's
natural resources. These are the Department of Forests and Waters,
the Game Commission, and the Fish Commission. The Sanitary Water Board
is charged with administering the state's pollution abatement programs.
Fish.

The Fish Commission is headed by a nine member policy board
appointed by the governor; members of the board serve staggered eight
year terms and are responsible directly to the governor. The Fish
Commission exists as a separate agency and is not a fishery agency for
a larger department.

Programs are conducted under six segments including: (a) Executive
and General Administration, (b) Fisheries, (c) Law Enforcement, (d) Con-
servation Education and Training, (e) Real Estate and Maintenance
(acquires-water and related land areas for public fishing and boating),

and (f) Engineering. To staff these programs, the department employs

‘ ‘n.
. i’ '.
I ‘_II

In“ )“'I. ll'

53 adminis
“Inc agency
entirely o
Resea
diseases a
state. T‘c
Cniversity
Species ar
An ac
Cold Hate:
We: 29 m]-
Stocking I
bass~1_1 n
1-7 millic
A priVate
is also 0F
Fism
COmmiSSioE
aPPOinting
agents).

non‘reSide

F0

“\Strz
CoVer

prodUCe an

forest acr

st -
ate and ;

42

53 administrative personnel, 18 researchers, and 315 field workers.
The agency's annual operating budget, $5.0 million (1969-70), consists
entirely of self-generated revenues.

Research is conducted on diet and culture methods, treatment of
diseases and the introduction of new species to various waters of the
state. The commission has also contracted with the Pennsylvania State
University to conduct a pesticide monitoring program in which various
species are checked for DDT concentrations.

An active hatchery program, supported by four warm water, five
cold water, and one anadromous hatchery having a combined capacity of
over 29 million fish, supplied the following amounts of fish for
stocking purposes in 1969-70: trout-385 million, salmon—190,000,
bass—1.1 million, walleye-21.3 million, pickerel, pike and muskellunge—
1.7 million, and an additional 1.4 million fish of various species.

A private hatchery program of 62 warm.water and 56 cold water facilities
is also operating in the state.

Fishing season, limits, and fees are established by the Fish
Commission although the Department of Revenue is responsible for
appointing issuing agents throughout the state (approximately 1800
agents). In 1968 licenses were sold to 654,000 residents and 34,000
non-residents. A small commercial fishery industry of twenty licensed
fishermen is also regulated by the commission.

Forestry

Covering over 17 million acres, Pennsylvania's forest lands
produce an annual timber harvest of 928 million board feet. Most of the
forest acreage is held in private ownership, 13.5 million acres, while
state and federal government own three million and 500,000 acres

respectively.

Approximatt
the jurisdictioz
Hater. Consist
neat, Forest Ad
operations are
The bureau expe

areas of forest
E3319

The Perms}.
fisheries Count
member on its 1:I
is appointed b?
mission functic
POIiCy with the
legislature.

The agenc:

is
resPonS ib 1e

 

43

Approximately two million acres of the state's forest land is under
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forests, Department of Forests and
Water. Consisting of five divisions, Forest Protection, Forest Manage-
ment, Forest Advisory Services, Minerals, and Land Acquisition, all
operations are administered in the field by twenty district foresters.
The bureau expends an annual budget of $5.95 million (1969-70) in the
areas of forest management ($2.7 million) and fire protection ($3.2 million).
Game

The Pennsylvania Game Commission is in many ways similar to its
fisheries counterpart, the Fish Commission. Although it has one less
member on its policy board, the eight man board of the Game Commission
is appointed by the governor to staggered eight year terms. The com—
mission functions as an independent agency and formulates all game
policy with the exception of license fees independently of the state
legislature.

The agency's chief administrative officer, the executive director,
is responsible for a staff of 35 administrative personnel, l4 researchers,
290 field technicians, 400 field workers, and 200 part time workers.

In addition to implementing the commission's policies and programs, the
executive director is also responsible for expending an annual budget
of $11.3 million (1969-70) as well as a $3.5 million bond issue.

The Game Commission conducts its activities under seven program
segments: (a) Executive and General Administration, (b) Information
and Education, (c) Game Propagation and Stocking, (d) Research, (e) Law
Enforcement, (f) Training of game conservation officers, and (g) Land

Management.

Seasons an
are distributed
agents. One ge

antlerless dee

102 ,000 non-re

 

Provides Servic
budget of $7501

While the
news releases,
effort is dire(

 

 

44

Seasons and limits are set by the Game Commission while licenses
are distributed through county treasurers and 1600-1800 private issuing
agents. One general license is valid for both big and small game (except
antlerless deer) and in 1969—70 were sold to 1.1 million residents and
102,000 non-residents.

Information and Education

The Information and Education Division of the State Game Commission
provides services for game functions with a staff of 26 and an annual
budget of $750,000 (1969-70).

While the division offers many of the traditional I & E services--
news releases, television programming, motion picture production--much
effort is directed to the division's monthly publication, PENNSYLVANIA
GAME NEWS, which has a circulation of 211,000 (including 38,000 out-of-
state subscribers). While the division's conservation education program
certifies 75,000 students annually in a hunter safety program, summer
camps and programs for teachers' workshops are also a substantial part
of the division's conservation education activities.

Law Enforcement

The Law Enforcement Division of the Game Commission provides
services with a staff of 142 conservation officers, l7 administrative
personnel, ten clerical workers and an annual budget of $2.41 million
(1969-70). In addition, 1700 deputy game protectors (private citizens
with full enforcement authority) supplement the full time staff.

New officers attend an eleven month training school followed by a
three month field internship before being installed as a full time
officer. Following this period, training school graduates remain under

the supervision of a seasoned officer for one year. Officers are

-. a , . |
‘nnr—‘m -. 'v 1, ; ""‘L‘ '5' ,

assigned to one
one officer per
average area of

Hith the e
uniformed and a
driven an aver;
0f 55 citation.

 

45

assigned to one of the state's 141 enforcement districts at the rate of
one officer per district. Within these districts officers cover an
average area of 350 square miles.

With the exception of two special investigators, all officers are
uniformed and are issued state-owned, identified vehicles which are
driven an average of 25,000 miles annually. Officers issue an average
of 55 citations yearly with more than 95 per cent resulting in convic-
tions. When defendants request to settle directly in the field, money
can be accepted by the arresting officer.

Parks and Recreation

Pennsylvania's parks are maintained and operated by the Bureau of
State Parks, an agency of the Department of Forests and Waters. The
system includes 66 parks with a combined area of 118,000 acres. Also
provided are 5,400 campsites (approximately 175 per park) having an
average size of 3,600 square feet.

In addition to these facilities, the agency also provides 752 miles
of nature trails, 468 miles of hiking trails, 67 miles of bridal paths,
and 225 miles of snowmobile trails.

The state's park system is supplemented by six areas administered
by the National Park Service and one national forest. Staffing the
park system are 68 rangers, eight administrative personnel, 4O planners,
eight maintenance workers, and a part time/seasonal crew of 650.

Although year-round camping is available at 27 park areas, the
regular season runs from the second week in April to the third Sunday
in October. The average visitation on major holiday weekends is approx-
imately 350,000. Although no entrance fees are levied, resident and

non-resident campers are assessed a $1.25 daily camping charge.

'4.”

While the
of Community Ai
program intend

urban areas .

 

46

While the bureau does not have a recreation section, the Department
of Community Affairs, Division of Recreation and Conservation, administers
program intended to provide recreation services for local units and

urban areas.

 

Information regarding the state's land management and water pollution
control agencies can be found in the tabular analyses section of this

study.

Natural r
three agencies
Fish Commissi
being responsii
l
The Game .
by the governfi
reQuired. Ea,
Office. The (
management of
the chief P01:
sewing in an

separate
CoriserVatior1
the State in
land rescUrce

prQVides Se

pr0m0t 1 0n
’

n
1'00 Dart ti

(1969‘70)

6"

£

I'D

47

Tennessee

Natural resource management in Tennessee is the responsibility of
three agencies including the Department of Conservation, the Game and
Fish Commission, and the Stream Pollution Control Board, the latter
being responsible for water pollution abatement.

The Game and Fish Commission is headed by a nine man body appointed
by the governor; legislative confirmation of the appointments is not
required. Each commissioner serves a six year staggered term of
office. The commission, as its name suggests, is responsible for the
management of the state's fish and wildlife resources. It functions as
the chief policy making organ for the fish and game sections without
serving in an administrative capacity.

Separate from the Fish and Game Commission is the Department of
Conservation whose responsibilities are to the non-game resources of
the state in the areas of minerals, parks, forest resources, water and
land resources. It also functions in a planning capacity as well as
provides services in the areas of information, education, tourist
promotion, land reclamation, and hotel and restaurant inspection.

The department head, the commissioner, is selected by the governor
and serves at the pleasure of the governor rather than a fixed term.
The department employs 1500 full time personnel plus an additional
1600 part time employees and operates on a $12 million annual budget
(1969-70).

Game

 

The Game Division is organized into four major program segments
which include: (1) Lands Management ( in charge of upland wildlife

management area operations), (2) waterfowl management section (in charge

of waterfowl m
management ser
work in each d
farmer assists

division) .

 

 

The divis
33 per Cent Cr_l
from self-gem
division is SJ
research pets.

Research
POPUIations t‘;
kill data. T‘;
by hunter con
System (big g
utilized to d‘

Licens in

figures for l

48

of waterfowl management area development and operations), (3) game
management services (district biologist staff which performs necessary
work in each district regarding surveys, kill data, hunter contact,
farmer assistance, etc.), (4) research (performs all research for
division).

The division operates on a $1.2 million annual budget of which
33 per cent comes from a departmental budget appropriation, 21 per cent
from self-generated funds, and 46 per cent from federal funds. The
division is staffed with 96 personnel including 6 administrators, 6
research personnel and 84 field people.

Research includes the determination of wildfowl and small game
populations through ground and aerial counts, annual road counts and
kill data. The number of animals harvested in a season is determined
by hunter contact in the field (small game) and a volunteer report
system (big game). A tag and release method and harvest ratios are
utilized to determine big game populations.

Licensing is accomplished through bonded license dealers. Total
figures for 1969 hunting license sales include 257,040 resident small
game, 75,378 resident big game, and 10,000 non-resident small game.

Law Enforcement

 

The Law Enforcement Division operates with an annual budget
(1969—70) of $1.5 million and a staff of 119 enforcement officers and
3 administrators. The division also utilizes department employees from
other divisions to supplement regular officers.

Law enforcement officers are assigned to districts corresponding
with eight statedwide fish and game regions. With a range of 11—20

officers assigned to each district, each officer covers an average of

 

regard to mari
portion of the
season. Appn
coaches and cg
enforce boati:

All offir

Personal Vehi

 

49

315 square miles. Specific areas of responsibility include game and fish
law enforcement, removal of road killed animals, and marine safety. With
regard to marine safety, the full time game and fish officers devote a
portion of their time to enforcing boating regulations during the boating
season. Approximately twenty seasonal employees, usually teachers,
coaches and college students, are hired during the boating season to
enforce boating safety regulations.

All officers are uniformed but do not drive state-owned vehicles;
personal vehicles are used by officers who record an average of 21,000
miles per year.

Parks and Recreation

 

The Tennessee state park system consists of 26 parks covering a
total of 170,000 acres of land. Located on these parks are 2000 public
campsites having an average size of 2800 square feet. Thirty per cent
of the parks are designated for day use and the remainder are used
primarily for "vacation" or extended usage. Parks are open the entire
year with heaviest use occurring during a 175 day period in the Spring
and summer seasons.

An estimated 10 million visitors use Tennessee's parks each year
which receive an average of 350,000 visitors on major holiday weekends.
Neither entrance fees nor camping fees are levied on the users.
Supplementing the state park system is one national park and one national
forest as well as eighty state operated wilderness camping areas.

‘The Parks Division, Department of Conservation, is staffed by 51
park rangers, 32 administrative personnel, 90 maintenance, and 650 part
time /seasonal employees. A recreation section of the Parks Division

works with local units of government in developing parks in urban areas.

This section a'

combined lengt':

'n'ater Pollutio

 

The Tenne
aaintaining th
it functions
l'Otks closely

A $430,0C

nine engineers

 

Data .

anaIYSes

50

This section also administers 76 hiking and nature trails having a
combined length of 178 miles.
Water Pollution

The Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board is responsible for
maintaining the water quality of the state's lakes and streams. While
it functions as an autonomous agency, the Stream Pollution Control Board
works closely with the Department of Health.

A $430,000 annual budget provides for a staff of one administrator,
nine engineers, and thirteen chemists and biologists. In 1970 the

state bonded itself for $15.8 million for water pollution abatement.

 

Data from the Lands Management Division is included in the tabular

analyses section of this study.

Utah's po

 

34,916 square
75 per cent of-
aost urbanized
Utah has
miles of inlar
amount Of fIES
and StI‘Eams it
Natural ,

Department of

 

charged to th

into Six fUnC‘

RESOUI-CES’ wa
FiSh and Game
which deveIOI

departmet1t i:

51

Utah_

Utah's population of 1,059,000 is distributed over the state's
84,916 square miles at the rate of 12.4 persons per square mile. With
75 per cent of its residents living in urban areas, Utah is the tenth
most urbanized state in the union.

Utah has 616 square miles of fresh inland water and 1200 square
miles of inland water in the Great Salt Lake. While having a minimal
amount of fresh water lakes, there are, however, 5,110 miles of rivers
and streams in the state.

Natural resource management is the responsibility of the State
Department of Natural Resources although water pollution abatement is
charged to the State Division of Health. The department is divided
into six functional divisions including Parks and Recreation, Water
Resources, Water Rights, 011 and Gas Conservation, State Lands, and
Fish and Game. Each individual division has its own advisory board
which develops policy for that division. The executive staff of the
department is headed by a director who is appointed by the governor
with the advice and consent of the legislature. The director serves
at the pleasure of the governor.

The department Operates on an annual budget (1969-70) of $9.7
million, $2.9 million of which comes from the general fund, $1.5 million
from the federal government and the remaining 55 per cent from self-
generated revenue. The self-generated revenue is derived from hunting
and fishing license revenue (68 per cent), special use fees (12 per cent),
and other miscellaneous fees (17 per cent).

Success in having budget requests approved by the legislature has

been between 80 per cent and 90 per cent annually. With an estimated

budget of $9 . 7

Resources ' s bu

 

The Fish

|

three major pr
rearing and d:

management-or:

management (0‘

 

pr0grams) .

 

The staf
and f0rty-fiv
(1969‘70) of
budget Expem
for hatchem
The fish sec

COMOn with

52

budget of $9.736,500 for 1970-71, the Utah Department of Natural
Resources's budget has increased 78 per cent in the last ten years.
§i§h_

The Fish Section of the Fish and Game Division operates under
three major program segments including fish culture (responsible for the
rearing and distribution of cold water fish), research (conducts
management-oriented studies, ecological evaluations, etc.), and
management (operates fishing water inventories and habitat improvement
programs).

The staff includes five administrators, thirteen research personnel,
and forty—five field technicians and operates on an annual budget
(1969-70) of $1.9 million dollars with 3.5 per cent of the annual
budget expended for administration, 8 per cent for research, 65 per cent
for hatcheries and 23.5 per cent for management and water development.
The fish section operates on a regional management concept using units
common with game management.

The thrust of research efforts are directed to ecological studies
of fish habitat evaluation and studies evaluating management practices.
No regular pesticide monitoring program is under operation. Studies
attempting to assess the desirability of introducing new game species
to state waters have resulted in the possible introduction of the
striped bass.

The efforts of the hatchery program are directed primarily to the
stocking of state water with some experimental rearing of striped bass
being conducted. Twelve cold water hatcheries are being operated with
a production of 15 million trout and 173,000 Kokanee salmon annually.

Five private hatcheries are also in operation throughout the state.

Fishing
66,000 non-rl
officers and
established ’
and reviewed
sales is ret‘
Forestry

0f the ,
Quarters of
the state wh
expected, tir
total harVes
were removed
land. FI‘Om
$20,000 fol.

The div
administralto

 

53

Fishing license sales in 1968-69 included 132,000 resident and
66,000 non-resident annual licenses; licenses are sold by conservation
officers and through retail outlets. Fishing seasons and limits are
established by the Fish and Game Board as proposed by the Fish Section
and reviewed by division staff. All of the revenue generated by license
sales is returned to the division's general fund.

Forestgy

Of the 4.3 million acres of forest land in Utah, more than three-
quarters of it is in federal hands. Only 280,000 acres are held by
the state while 652,000 acres remain in private ownership. As might be
expected, timber harvest figures reflect a similar breakdown. From a
total harvest of 96 million board feet in 1969, 73 million board feet
were removed from federallands and 20 million board feet from private
land. From a harvest of 3 million board feet, the state received
$20,000 for timber removed from its land.

The division employs 10 foresters, 16 fire fighters, and 2
administrators and operates on an annual budget of $200,000 which
reflects a breakdown of $42,000 for forest management and $158,000 for
fire fighting. The division also utilizes prison labor to fight forest
fires and participates with landowners in soil testing and surveying
programs.

‘Qage

The Game Section of the Fish and Game Division of the Department
of Natural Resources operates on three major program segments: (1) big
game and furbearers, (2) upland game, and (3) waterfowl. All three
segments are comprised of planning/programming, management, and research

functions. The Game Section employs two administrators, two management

special is ts ,
annual budget
revenue and f
allocations:
10.3 per cent
management ar

The Game
reestablishm
of areas inc
big game rel
elk Preducti
Pagular Pest
levels are c

License
Big Game Cor
(all Other S
Hunting 11“
agents, Usu;

included 35

 

 

54

specialists, 13 research personnel, 26 field people and Operates on an
annual budget (1969-70) of $1.3 million which is derived from license
revenue and federal funds. The budget provides for the following
allocations: 5.2 per cent for administration, 17.1 per cent for research,
10.3 per cent for habitat development, and 69.4 per cent for maintenance,
management and land acquisition.

The Game Section's research program is directed towards the
reestablishment of native game species and applied research in a number
of areas including browse revegetation for winter deer range, livestock/
big game relationships, antelope productivity and range relationships,
elk productivity and band-tailed pidgeon distribution studies. A
regular pesticide monitoring program is not practiced although pesticide
levels are checked occasionally.

License and fee schedules are established by both the Board of
Big Game Control (big game species) and the Board of Fish and Game
(all other game animals) based on recommendations of the Game Section.
Hunting licenses are sold through section offices and local license
agents, usually retail sporting goods dealers. License totalsfor 1969
included 35,800 resident small game, 700 non-resident small game,

67,300 resident big game, 15,100 non—resident big game and 91,000
combination resident licenses, i.e., small game, waterfowl, big game,
and fishing licenses. Anyone over 16 years old can purchase a deer
hunting license which entitles them to one deer of either sex. This
license is the base license to qualify the hunter for application
privileges for other big game species. A quota is set on the number
of permits for moose, buffalo, bighorn sheep, antelope, and anterless

elk. Non-residents can purchase a deer license but are not allowed to

hunt other bi
Game pop
2,000 antelO]
on herd flucr
cover and tax
are made to <
Informs“
by a separat.
Game Divisio,
department.
Wise: (1969-
and Game bud‘
the Sale of
The j[ &
Primary fOCu
gaining acce
and atterupts,

Public.

MOSt Of

televiSiOH
9

 

 

55

hunt other big game species.

Game populations in Utah include: 300,000 mule deer, 5,000 elk,
2,000 antelope, 200 sheep, 100 buffalo, and 300 moose. Deer are managed
on herd flucuations in relation to proper use of their food supply,
cover and range conditions rather than numerical counts. Aerial surveys
are made to determine population sizes of other big game species.

Information and Education

 

Information and education services are provided to the public not
by a separate division, but rather by an I & E section of the Fish and
Game Division which provides services for all six divisions of the
department. This section operates with a staff of ten and has an annual
budget (1969-70) of $175,000, approximately 3.5 per cent of the Fish
and Game budget. All revenue expended by this division is derived from
the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.

The I & E program is directed towards resident sportsmen with a
primary focus on the issues of improved sportsmen landowners relations,
gaining acceptance and approval for management programs and policies,
and attempts to foster a greater ecological awareness on the part of the
public.

Most of the information is disseminated through state newspaper,
television, and radio media via a weekly newsletter and special releases.
Educational material is also prepared for use in conservation education
programs throughout the state. Other services include a hunter safety
program, in-service training offerings, and research in I & E approaches.

The section does not publish a magazine for the department.

Lav Enforceme

 

While no
Department of
program withi
officers and
at times by d
rangers provi
In some cases

In 3 tr;
internship,
relations or
Used for Vet

UndEr a

into 54 dist

diStrlct. 0

. _ ||
individUal a
“med by thtj

work. Apprg

981,61. Ce“ Ii

at a]

regulatiORS i

Semi CBS for

 

56

Law Enforcement

While no separate law enforcement agency exists in Utah's
Department of Natural Resource, these services are provided through a
program within the Fish and Game Division which uses 58 conservation
officers and two administrative personnel. These forces are supplemented
at times by department employees from other divisions, e. g., park
rangers provide law enforcement services in the state's park system.

In some cases citizens are commissioned to make arrests.

In a training program which consists of an eight week on-the—job
internship, primary focus is attached to conservation and public
relations oriented work. A yearly two day in-service program is also
used for veteran personnel.

Under a regional law enforcement concept, the state is broken down
into 54 districts with one officer assigned to a 1600 square mile
district. Officers are not regularly rotated to different districts.

All officers drive identified, state-owned cars and accumulate an
individual average of 29,000 miles annually. Three light aircraft
owned by the Game and Fish Division are available for law enforcement
work. Approximately 28 citations are issued yearly by each officer with
98 per cent of the arrests resulting in conviction.

In addition to those enforcement officers used by the Division of
Fish and Game, an additional law enforcement group of 45 officers is
employed by the Parks and Recreation Division. This unit provides
services for park areas and enforces state boating and water safety

regulations.

The Park
Resources adci
managers, 10
P90ple reaper
total acreag.
size of over
of 3200 Squa'
located With
“all? havin

With a
'98 and a $7
in 1968-69 0
Permit Sales

7.300; an ap

ing Year . L

only for grc

In addi
Parks

forests Wit}

 

57

Parks and Recreation

The Parks and Recreation Division of the Department Of Natural
Resources administers the state's 40 parks utilizing a staff of 27 park
managers, 10 administrators, 2 planners and 20 operations and maintenance
people responsible for the orderly Operation of the park system. The
total acreage of the system exceeds 43,000 acres with an average park
size of over 1000 acres. Each park averages ten campsites having a size
of 3200 square feet per site. Eighty per cent Of the state's parks are
located within 30 to 100 miles Of an urban center with each park gen-
erally having areas for both overnight and day uses.

With a park entrance fee schedule providing for a $1.00/car daily
fee and a $7.00 annual permit, park attendance reached 2.3 million users
in 1968-69 over a season stretching from May to October. Daily park
permit sales reached 79,000 in 1968-69 with annual permit sales totaling
7,300; an anticipated 25 per cent increase was expected for the follow-
ing year. Under its existing permit system, reservations are accepted
only for groups with a size greater than ten.

In addition to the parks in the state system, Utah has 14 national
parks, recreation areas, or national monuments andeight national
forests within its boundaries.

The division does cooperate with local units Of governments in
developing and maintaining parks in or near urban areas, but does not
have any plans for becoming directly involved in urban recreation.

There is no functional separation between park and recreation
activities in the Natural Resources Department; park and recreation res-

ponsibilities are carried out by a single division.

 

Data on the Lands Management Division is included in the tabular
analyses section of this report.

Having a pc
are distributed
the rate of 51.3
square miles of

The manage
through a numbe
responsible for
well as managem
agehcy, the Dep
managing food 8
fishing industr

is charged with

deposits, agric

eSourCe oarc
governor :

Pub 11c L d3
1

58

Washington

 

Having a population of 3.4 million people, Washington's residents
are distributed over the state's 66,700 square miles of land area at
the rate Of 51.1 people per square mile. The state also has 1,480
square miles of inland water area.

The management Of the state's natural resources is administered
through a number of agencies. A Department Of Game, for example, is
responsible for wildlife management, protection, and propagation as
well as management of Washington's sport and game fisheries. A separate
agency, the Department of Commercial Fisheries, is responsible for
managing food species and the regulation of the state's commercial
fishing industry. A third agency, the Department Of Natural Resources,
is charged with managing the state's forest and land resources, mineral
deposits, agriculture and grazing, and the state's shoreline areas.
Finally, park and recreation areas are the responsibility of a Parks
and Recreation Commission.

Both the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of
Game receive policy direction from boards or commissions composed of
public Officials, resource professionals, or lay citizenry. The Natural
Resources Board, for example, is composed of five members including the
governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Commissioner of
Public Lands, the Dean Of the College of Forestry (University of
Washington) and the Director of the Institute Of Agricultural Sciences,
Washington State University. Members of the State Game Commission, on
the other hand, are private citizens appointed by the governor to
staggered terms of Office who develop department policy, establish game

and sport fishing regulations and seasons independently of the legislature.

 

 

59

The Game Commission also appoints the department's director and has
the authority to remove him. The director is responsible for the
Operation and general supervision Of the department including 430
full time employees and an annual budget of $10 million (1969-70).

Fish

 

Washington's fish resources are managed through the operations of
two agencies, the Fishery Management Division of the Game Department
and the Department Of Fisheries. Both departments are independent of
each other, Operate on different budgets, and are responsible for
managing different areas Of the state's fish resources.

The Fishery Management Division of the Game Department is respon—
sible for programs relating to sport and anadromous species. Its
program segments include habitat management and protection, water
quality, and hatcheries. The division employs six administrators, one
researcher, twelve field technicians, 90 hatchery personnel and Operates
on an annual budget (1969-70) Of $1.6 million. Of this, around
80 per cent is allocated to the hatchery program.

Thehatchery program consists Of 26 cold water facilities with a
combined capacity Of 40 million fish. While much work is done in the
area of anadromous species (especially steelhead), over 35 million
trout Of various species were planted in 1968. A private program of
approximately 70 cold water hatcheries also exists in the state.

Research is conducted by the staff in management techniques and
studies Of hatchery fish survival rates. A pesticide monitoring program
is used for the analysis of chlorinated hydrocarbons is also underway

in certain areas.

 

In 1969 over
were sold by V81";
generated throug'i,
fund.

Washington' 5
Fisheries, manage
steelhead, and w':
Fishery Manageme:

gram segments inf.

research, engine.

fisheries patrol
3C0!)e of these p
fisheries of the

AS SuChs the (18;.}

Sport SPeCies.
The departm

and 270 field re

outlay bUdget of
The departs.

Program which no

Columb

Z |
ero pestiCide al

Research On the H

 

60

In 1969 over 437,000 residents and 33,000 non-residents licenses
were sold by various license agents throughout the state. Money
generated through license sales returns to the Game Department's general
fund.

Washington's other fish management agency, the Department of
Fisheries, manages all marine and anadromous species except trout, char,
steelhead, and whitefish which are under the jurisdiction of the
Fishery Management Division. The department Operates under seven pro—
gram segments including administration, purchasing, management and
research, engineering and construction, fish hatchery management,
fisheries patrol, stream.improvements, and planning/coordination. The
scope of these program extends to both the salt water and anadromous
fisheries Of the state to manage all food fish species and shellfish.

As such, the department's focus is primarily on commercial rather than
Sport species.

The department employs a staff Of 59 administrators, 97 researchers,
and 270 field technicians and operates on a combined Operations/capital
outlay budget of $6 million (1969—70).

The department's research staff conducts a pesticide monitoring
program which monitors young salmon at irregular intervals on the
Columbia River. A similar program conducted on oysters over a period
of two and a half years throughout western Washington revealed mostly
zero pesticide amounts with only traces noted in three locations.
Research on the impact Of environmental changes on salmon, bottomfish

and shellfish is also conducted.

61

The department Operates 25 salmon hatcheries which in 1969
produced 113 million salmon to be planted in state waters.

All food fisheries, whether commercial or sports, are regulated
by the Department Of Fisheries. Revenues generated from commercial
fisheries in 1969 amounted to $600,000 based on license sales to
5000-6000 fishermen. Compared to other renewable resource industries
in the state, commercial fishing ranks third. In 1969 the state sold
850,000 pounds of salmon to commercial canners for human consumption
and 1.2 million pounds for animal fOOd.

Forestgz

Washington's forests cover over 19 million acres and are owned
by three major parties - privately owned forests (9.1 million acres),
federal forests (8.2 million acres), and state forests (1.7 million
acres). Forest lands owned by the state are managed by the Forest
Land Management Division, an agency Of the Department of Natural
Resources. The division employs a staff of 261 foresters, 729 seasonal
fire fighters,* 33 administrative personnel, and 264 sub-professionals
and Operates on a biennial budget of $6.5 million while $7.9 million
is allocated biennially for forest fire protection.

Of the seven billion board feet of timber removed annually from
Washington's forests, timber from state lands accounts for 766 million
board feet Of the total figure. In 1970 the estimated value Of timber

removed from state lands was $35 million.

 

*The Department Of Natural Resources has a separate Fire Control
Division and each district has a fire control staff-the result being
a funCtional separation between forestry management and fire fighting
within the department.

In addition
reaponsibilitie:
trail construct
also assists pr
spraying operat
Gait?

Programs op
management SEgm
the Operation 0
PhEaSants and e
administrators ’
time employees_
were expended f
3 per Cent), ha
Same farm SySte

1111968, 90'

resident genera

 

62

In addition to its management duties, the division also has
responsibilities in the areas Of land appraisal, easement evaluations,
trail construction and wilderness camping facilities. The division
also assists private landowners by furnishing seedlings and conducting
spraying operations.
§_a_me_;

Programs Operated by the game department include a big game
management segment, an upland and migratory bird segment, as well as
the Operation Of game farms which are intended mainly for raising
pheasants and exotic game bird species. Game personnel include five
administrators, three researchers, 38 field personnel, and ten part
time employees. Operating on a $946,000 budget in 1969—70, funds
were expended for administrative purposes (9 per cent), research
3 per cent), habitat development (15 per cent) and management Of the
game farm system (74 per cent).

In 1968, 900 authorized license agents sold 392,000 resident/non-
resident general hunting licenses as well as 370,000 big game tags, a
six per cent increase over 1967. While general hunting licenses can
be Obtained directly from a license agent, special hunts Often require
Specific animal permits distributed on a lottery principle, i.e., hunters
selected from a "pool" of registrants. Revenues generated from license
sales are deposited in the Game Department's general fund.

Washington's big game populations include a three species deer herd
(mule, white tail, and blacktail deer) Of more than half a million
animals, 22,000 black bear, 40,000 elk, and 7,000 mountain goat. Annual
harvest figures are determined by mailing a questionnaire to ten per

cent of the licensed hunters and projecting kill trends on the basis

of this samplt
W

The Speci
of the Game Dr
their own I &
0ftvo deparm
staff functiov
wide signific.
department pr.
Sportsmen Pro:
ibility 0f th
lab assiStant
responsibilit:
division also
largely in the

Most publ;
Hm diviSion 1

phot° file.

63

Of this sample.

*
Information and Education

 

The Special Services Division provides services for all divisions
Of the Game Department although all divisions also perform many of
their own I & E services. The division is administratively under one
of two department assistant directors. Most work is viewed as a
staff function and is generally confined to I & E matters of state-
wide significance. Besides information and education services,
department program evaluation, firearm safety training, and farmer—
sportsmen programs. Strict I & E functions are largely the respons~
ibility Of two information officers, a photographer, and a part time
lab assistant. Public relations, as separated from I & E, is more the
responsibility of the department's Administrative Division. This
division also provides assistance to other divisions in I & E matters,
largely in the preparation of publications or news media relationships.

Most publication and photo Operations are largely in-house projects.
The division takes and develops its own pictures and maintains a
photo file. Motion pictures are also produced and edited by the
division as is artwork and layout design. The division's quarterly
publication, GAME BULLETIN, is produced from material written by

division personnel and has a circulation Of 18,000.

 

*The information contained in this section refers to the Special
Services Division Of the Department of Game, an agency responsible only
in the areas of game fish, birds and animals. Commercial fish Species
come under another state department, as do parks, forestry, lands and
other functions. These agencies, Operating programs independent of
those of the Game Department, provide their own I & E services.

64

Law Enforcement

 

Enforcement Of fish and game regulations is provided by the Law
Enforcement Division of the Game Department; the force consists Of 100
officers and three administrative personnel and Operates on an annual

budget of $2.3 million annually.

New Officers are assigned to a ninety day classroom training
program which is supplemented with an additional ninety day field
program under the supervision of a training officer; an in-service
training program is also conducted for veteran Officers.

The state is divided into ten enforcement districts with ten
officers assigned to each district; each officer patrols a 680 square
mile area. In addition to the enforcement of fish and game laws,
Officers drive identified state-owned vehicles and individually
accumulate an average mileage of 20,000 miles. The division also
owns two light aircraft which are used for enforcement and patrol
duty.

Water Pollution

 

The principal agency responsible for maintaining the quality Of
the state's water resources is the Water Pollution Control Commission,
an independent agency which shares its pollution abatement respons-
ibilities with the Department of Water Resources. The Water Pollution
Control Commission employs a staff of four administrators, 22 engineers,
4 planners, and 28 testers. In addition to its $2.7 million annual

budget a $2.5 million bond was authorized in 1968.

CHAPTER III

ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS:
STATE NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES

In his history of a nation's misuse of its natural resources,
Stewart Udall alludes to the early pristine condition of the North
American continent:

Superlatives alone could describe the bewildering

abundance of flora and fauna that enlivened its (the

American continent's) landscapes: the towering red-

woods, the giant saguaro cacti, the teeming herds of

buffalo, the beave , and the grass were, of their

kind, unsurpassed.

The incredible opulence of all resource types fostered a "myth of super—
abundance" which was, of course, soon punctured as the new nation became
increasingly developed, populated, and industrialized. In the wake of
resource devastation came efforts from both federal and state governments
to promote a more prudent use of natural resources. In the case of
state agencies, these efforts were manifested in the establishment of
a few small resource agencies or through attempts at resource management
*
by the state law makers via direct legislation. Historically, the
separate state agencies either maintained their autonomy as separate
departments managing less than all of the resource functions found in

the state, e.g., fish department, game department, forestry department,

etc., or eventually consolidated into a single comprehensive department.

 

1Stewart Udall, The Quiet Crisis, (New York, 1964), pp. 15—16.

 

*

The Michigan legislature, for example, passed the state's first
hunting regulation in 1859 (banning deer hunting for the first seven
months of the year), long before the establishment of an official game
agency.

65

 

 

f0

ma

3!

in

re

ch

h.

R.

66

While the preceding chapter presented verbal summaries of the oper-
ations, staff and programs of the states involved in the study, the '
following is a discussion of the manner in which states organize their
natural resource agencies. Although two major organizational formats
are presented, it should be recognized that while all states will fall
into either of these two categories, the different territorial sizes,
populations, political climates and other factors among the states will
result in variations within the two categories. Also included in the
chapter is a view of the commission form of decision-making and its
application to both types of organizational patterns.

Single Comprehensive Natural Resource
or Conservation Department - Type A

 

 

An initial organizational framework encountered in the study's
survey was one in which all natural resource functions were consolidated
under and administered through one agency, i.e., a consolidated depart-
ment. Fully 46 per cent of the state's have organizational patterns of
this nature and those undergoing reorganization during the late '60's
and early '70's exhibited a trend towards this organizational format.

The services offered by a comprehensive department are generally
focused on the management of the state's natural resource base. Tradi-
tionally, this base has been divided into the recognizable components
of fish, wildlife, forest and waters, parks, etc. Within the compre-
hensive department, these resources are managed individually or in
combination by administrative sub-units or divisions of the department.
Recently, however, these reorganizational efforts have reflected
attempts to include apparatuses within the department to provide for

environmental quality management as well. New York's Department of

67

Environment Conservation and New Jersey's Department of Environmental
Protection, for example, are both organized to provide for the develop-
ment of a body of knowledge and management skills to assess the impact
of modern technology and social patterns on the environment in addition
to managing the resource base.1

A natural resource agency organized under a comprehensive frame-
work will receive administrative direction and policy guidance from
two services, a chief executive and a board or commission* consisting
variously of 3-12 members appointed by the state's governor.

In terms of policy formulation and development, the latter generally
plays a more crucial role largely as a result of its authority to
establish departmental policies, programs, and objectives. Natural
resource commissions receive this authority based on specific legislative
acts which delegate to them regulatory powers over natural resource
functions. The effect has been to allow these boards to act in a quasi-
legislative manner in the establishment of hunting/fishing regulations,
seasons, methods of take, etc. In those states which have a comprehensive
natural resource department, this authority has usually been extended to
cover additional regulatory functions in the areas, for example, of oil,
gas, and mineral production, water quality control, water safety, etc.
Similarly, these commissions are empowered to exercise fiscal control
by governing the financial policies of the department through budget

approvals, supervision of expenditures, and the approval of allocations

 

1"Governor's Program Bill Memorandum” (Albany, 1970), mimeo.

*

The terms "board" and "commission" will be used interchangeably to
mean that group which determines official policy for a natural resource
agency.

68

for all programs. This is not to suggest, however, that the state
legislature has removed itself entirely from the area of the department's
finances. In all instances it is the legislature which provides the
appropriations requested by the department.

In addition to a major policy board most natural resource agencies,
despite the nature of their organizational framework, have the services
of various advisory groups attached to the official structure of the
department. Lacking any regulatory authority and composed of lay
citizenry or officials from appropriate public agencies, these boards
serve as vehicles to provide additional expertise or public informational
inputs in the development of programs or policies. Michigan, for example,
has six advisory groups in the areas of environmental quality,cil and gas,
recreation, research, Great Lakes fisheries, and historic preservation.

Although policy duties are installed in the natural resource or
conservation commission, the implementation of these policies is
charged to the department's chief executive.* 0f the 23 states which
have single comprehensive departments, the chief executives in 9 of
them are appointed by the governor with the remainder being selected by
the department's policy board, i.e., commission. Whether he is referred
to as Director, Secretary, or Commissioner, the chief executive serves
as the agent who is responsible for the supervision and management of
all department personnel. A further duty of the chief executive is to

act as a communications link between his staff and commission/board

 

*
There are, however, four states in which the chief executive acts

as the major policymaking agent of the department. In these instances
the natural resource commission spoken of earlier acts in an advisory
capacity.

69

members. Performing in this capacity, he prepares recommendations in
those areas over which the commission exercises control, i.e., budgetary
matters, policy, programs, and other apprOpriate activities.

While the official interaction between the chief executive and the
commission suggests a subordinate-dominant relationship, the department's
director functions in anything but a subordinate capacity. He is in most
instances a professional with substantial experience in the resource
field whose recommendations are solicited by commission or board members.
His stature is reinforced by the fact that many of the statutes empower-
ing commissions with legislative prerogatives specify that policy
decisions are to be reached only after consultations with the department's
director, i.e., chief executive.

Although the working relationship between the chief executive and
the policy board is a close one, interpretations vary as to the role of
each in the agency's operations. Some states, for example, make a
strong distinction between the policy functions of the commission and
the administrative duties of the chief executive. In these instances,
any attempts by commission members, either singly or as a group, to
assume administrative duties is viewed as an encroachment upon the
executive powers of the director with the results having negative
implications for maintaining a coherent chain of command. 0n the other
hand, however, the commissions of a number of states consider the
issuance of administrative orders within their purview.1 Although this

issue is at times left to be resolved by the two parties, specific

 

1"Iowa Conservation Commission", mimeo., undated, p. 2.

70

guidelines are generally provided by the state legislature.

While the department's chief executive and policy board are
responsible for providing overall direction and administration of the
agency, they are, of course, supported by a staff assigned different
roles within the organization. Under the type of organizational frame-
work being discussed, i.e., a single comprehensive department, there
exists a definite system of working relationships in which one individual
has at least one supervisor from.which he receives orders. The result
is a scalar or hierarchical organization in which the working relation-
ships of the employees form a pyramidal arrangement based on differing
ranks.1 (See Figure A)

This hierarchical design is further modified by the specialization
of activities or responsibilities within the organization. Certain
activities are defined on the basis of their integral relationship with
the main function of a natural resource department. Such a department
exists, of course, for the management and protection of the state's
wildlife, forests, parks, etc. Consequently, sub-unit specialization
is based upon the department's purposes, e.g., wildlife division, forestry
division, park division, etc. These divisions or sub-units within the
department are recognized as the "line" functions of the organization.

Further modifications within the basic hierarchy occur through the
existence of additional operations which serve all other units in the
department. All line divisions, for example, might at some time demon-

strate the need for information, purchasing, personnel, or engineering

 

1Comstock Glaser, Administrative Procedure, (Washington, 1941), p.10.

71

 

>ozwo< u>.mzwxwmn:200 Unto—5m

25:5 uqzofiquzqomo .4. ma:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m mmuomm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hzmzmomfizm muomaofim I J
ozimmzazm 34.. mziqz 20.2238”.
dzzommma zomqwmum $33.3 I 8.5; 1
20.588 >m>m3m I I
20.25.82. 43.00.63 .5: £5me
H
#23284 #23...” $4 532...“? 545.34
misnomxm m2»: mxm masomxm ”12.50me
_ m _
_
misomxm
“Bio
293.228
638

 

 

mozmu>oo

 

 

72

services. In effect these units buttress the processes of administration1
by providing support services to both the executive and line or field
branches of the resource organization. Activities which are arranged
according to particular tasks are designated as staff functions.

While executives of both staff and line functions will maintain
a base of operations at the central offices of the resource agency, the
scope and geographical distribution of a state's natural resource base
requires, in most cases, the establishment of regions or areas in which
field offices representing the major operational functions of the
department are located. Depending on the size of the resource agency,
the field staff will be responsible either directly to the executive
office at the agency's headquarters or, more likely, to a regional
officer who coordinates all of the resource activities and programs
under his jurisdication and in turn serves as an intermediary between
the executive office and field operations.

A final characteristic of this pyramidal framework is noted in the
dimensions of its functions, that is, its comprehensive approach to
natural resource management from an organizational point of view. Under
such an arrangement, all resource management responsibilities are charged
to a single agency. Theoretically, such an organizational pattern pro-
vides opportunities to establish formal avenues of communication and
information processing not only in a vertical sense - field + staff +
executive - but in a horizontal capacity between divisions or bureaus.

Because these communication mechanisms exist, the chances for coordinated

 

11bid., p. 19.

73

planning and management activities are improved. Furthermore, the
executive/staff/line trilogy is characterized by a linear relationship

which operates in two directions. The policy board and the executive

branch are dependent on the staff/line functions below it to implement

policy and programs. Yet staff and line personnel not only act in that
subordinate capacity, but they also serve as sources of data upon which

the policy process is dependent. With all natural resource functions

placed in a single department, decision-makers theoretically have access to all
related information on a given management problem.

Functions Separated by Departments - Type B

 

The second recognizable natural resource agency pattern represents
an organizational framework in which each function is established as a
relatively autonomous unit which is as self-sufficient as possible.
Figure B illustrates that each unit has department status, each
ultimately responsible to the state‘s chief executive. Under this
pattern, the directors of the respective departments are gubernatorial
appointees who conduct the agency's activities based upon programs set
forth by the governor.

Since the individual departments are largely independent of each
other, there exists no single board or commission which formulates
policy for all natural resource functions. Each department will have,
in most instances, its own advisory board to provide consultations on
policy matters. However, any such boards attached to the separate
departments, with the exception of fish and wildlife commissions, are
generally authorized to perform in only an advisory capacity. Fish and
game commissions, with little exception, receive a statutory grant of

authority to regulate fish and game functions in the same manner as those

74

25:5. 4429252430 ..m.. mat

mtz: 952029—54

m 55on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m:

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20.2.58”. muomaommm
3.2.: “=sz T >533... 1 cubic .:om
~65me
hzszEmo
2923.328
mxm<a mqmm<
T a
«05:5 mummmfiemmr mosses
.Euo muomaommm FzszEma
$335-12“. 9E3...

 

 

 

wmakdjmamm

 

 

 

 

/

mozmm>oo

C

 

 

 

 

\

 

75

commissions found in a comprehensive natural resources department.

Within each department are found all services necessary to provide
self sufficiency. Information and education activities, for example,

would be provided individually by each department which felt it desirable
for their programs. Similar individual efforts would have to be made
in the areas of purchasing, personnel services, accounting, and the like.

It becomes evident at this point, perhaps, that the Type B
organizational format differs from Type A not so much in internal design
but rather in the relationships between individual natural resource
functions. Basic organizational structures are quite similar in both
types. Both have executive levels, staff/line principles, and advisory
or policy boards. The difference occurs in the fact that Type B pro-
vides a series of autonomous departments, each department being responsible
for one or more natural resource areas, linked to the state's chief
executive instead of having all functions combined in a single agency.

A variation of the Type B framework approaching a cabinet form of
government appears in a few states. When this occurs, the governor
appoints an individual to be responsible for the efficient operation of
the various departments having natural resource management responsibilities.
The agencies will continue to be largely independent of each other yet
are responsible to an executive who oversees the operations of all
departments. California, for example, has a Resources Agency which
consists of five separate departments - Conservation, Fish and Game,
Navigation and Ocean Development, Parks and Recreation, and Water Resources.
In addition a State Water Resources Control Board also operates under a
department status. Although each department develops its own programs

and activities for a specific resource, they are nevertheless responsible

76

to the agency's chief executive, the Secretary, who serves as a means
of coordination and communications between departments as well as pro-
vides recommendations to the departments to promote more efficient
operation. Consequently, although the Resources Agency resembles the
type B organizational framework, decision-making processes and inform-
ation exchanges closely approximate that of a single comprehensive
department.

Commission Form of Decision-Making

 

As has been illustrated in the preceding, policy bodies designated
as commissions or boards are common to both organizational patterns A
and B with commissions usually having a broader scope of authority in
former pattern. In either circumstance the principal characteristic of
the commission body is the plenary powers they have been granted to
regulate natural resources in the area of their particular jurisdication.
One may assume that the origin of these powers resulted from the recogn-
ition by lawmakers of the impracticality in concerning themselves each
year with the technicalities involved in setting bag and creel limits
based on a flucuating game supply.1 Unique not only in the sense that
lawmakers are generally cautious of their legislative prerogatives and
therefore hesitant to delegate them to others, but that once accomplished,
this delegation of authority to natural resource/game and fish commissions
allows their promulgations to carry the weight of law. As was suggested

earlier, these regulatory functions have extended to other natural

 

1John R. Owens, A Wildlife Agency and Its Possessive Public

(Indianapolis, 1965), p. 6.

77

resource activities as the scope of a particular agency has broadened.

Although it is a unique feature, the quasi-legislative role which
most natural resource commissions maintain is not their sole distinguishing
characteristic. As far as decision-making processes are concerned, the
fact that these commissions function as a group has implications for
policy formulation. Since the late 19th century and early 20th, social
thinkers and philosophers suggested that the interaction between the
individuals of a group, based on discussion, the exchange of ideas or
perhaps even conflict, produces results which are somehow sounder and
more encompassing then would be had the individuals acted separately.

Whether one subscribes to this view or not, the results of this
study suggest that the commission form of natural resource government
fulfills this function not only because commisSions imply group action,
but because the commission form provides a vehicle through which
additional inputs enter into the decision process. The medium through
which this occurs is the prublic meetings and public hearings over
special issues authorized by the commissions. Of the commissions which
responded to this study, 88 per cent were authorized to hold public
hearings on particular issues. The result is to provide a forum through
which the public, special interest groups, and various sources of
expertise can make their views known.

In terms of democratic processes, the above principle may not
appear as a major innovation, yet it presents a crucial aSpect of
natural resource policy development. One reason for its importance is

that natural resource agencies have very vociferous public.

 

1Owen, pp. 9-11, 13-18 and Lewis W. Moncrief, "Analysis of Hunter
Attitudes Toward the State of Michigan's Antlerless Deer Hunting Policy",
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Dept. of Resource Development, Michigan
State University, 1970), pp. 54-57.

78

At least one reason for the public's sensitivity to natural resource
issues is the charge, either directly or indirectly, which is usually
levied on the user of a state's natural resources in the form of license,
camping, or entrance fees. Since it was their money which financed new
game areas, parks, access sites, and the like, they are justified, it is
argued, in their demands to be included in the decision process.

While there are not data to indicate the precise relationship between
the input provided via testimony at a public meeting and the final policy
outcome, the information regarding the individual composition of a com-
mission provided by the study suggests the need for commission groups
to rely on informational inputs from both the public as well as department
staff. Almost without exception the individuals who fill commission
posts are gubernatorial appointees (Two states elect commission members.
In New Jersey, three of eleven members of the Environmental Protection
Board are elected by federated sportsmen clubs throughout the state
while commission members in Nevada are elected on a county basis.)

Since members are paid on a per diem basis when they meet as a whole,
most appointees are supported by other income sources; many are well-to—
do businessmen or practicing professionals. No expert knowledge of
conservation matters beyond an active interest in various forms of
outdoor recreation, i.e., hunting and fishing, is expected of commission
members. About the only requirement imposed collectively on the com«
mission is that there be a semblance of geographical representation on

the board. Similarly, a "packed" commission is usually avoided by

79

*
guidelines requiring bipartisan representation of political parties.

Because commissions are characterized by a lay citizenry composition,
their tendency will be to consider all presentations made by interest
groups and specialists in the field in an actual decision situation.

For if the department is blatantly pursuing a wrong course of action,

or perhaps taking no action at all, these inputs provide a gauge of how
acceptable a particular program is. In this respect, commissions function
as "blank tablets" in the policy process on which are recorded inputs

from public and staff information systems, as well as certain subjective
criteria - ideas, values, observations, experiences. The commission's
responsibility is to weigh all of the factors and then to decide on a
policy appropriate to the situation being considered.

Organizational Tendencies

 

A cross section of the natural resource agencies throughout the
states in 1970 suggests that many have as their raison d'etre the
management of hunting and fishing resources. In twenty states the major
resource agency has been installed with game and fish management respon-
sibilities. In most instances these fish and game departments have their
counterparts within the state governmental structure which also have
department status, e.g., parks department, forestry department, water
resources department, etc. There are, however, a few agencies in this
category whose responsibilities go beyond fish and game management. The

Montana Fish and Game Department, for example, also operates the state's

 

*While these requirements are applicable to a commission attached
to a single comprehensive natural resources department or fish and wild-
life department as found in Type B organizational framework, there are
instances where certain expertise is required when boards are set up to
regulate certain health related resource functions or to set environmental
standards. In these situations, members are generally professionals from
other departments or members of the academic community.

80

park facilities and has a division of environmental resources. Similarly,
Texas and Kansas have fish and wildlife agencies whose duties extend to
forestry, and, in the case of Texas, parks.

Those departments which manage only a single resource are limited
largely to the areas of forests, parks, or water resources. Fourteen
states have, for example, charged management responsibilities to separate
departments whose duties are limited to forestry. Additionally, seven-
teen states have made similar provisions in the area of park/recreation
responsibilities. Table 2, however, shows that few states have seen fit
to designate fish or game resources as separate functions. Pennsylvania
is the only state to have delegated fish management responsibilities to
one single agency and game management to another.* Although both
Oregon and Washington are listed on Table 2 as having separate game
departments, they are in effect departments having responsibilities in
areas beyond game management. Washington's Department of Game and-
Oregon's Game Commission are both charged with managing their state's
sport fishing as well.

The attempt to distinguish between resource agencies based on
differences in their functions is at times further complicated by
problems of semantics. It was noted earlier in this chapter that one
type of natural resource organization pattern has all functions consoli—
dated under a single agency, Type A. Invariably, these comprehensive
agencies are entitled "Department of Natural Resources," "Department of

Conservation" or variations thereof. Departments bearing these names,

 

*It should be noted, however, that the above refers to separate
sport or game fishing agencies. A number of states having significant
commercial or marine fisheries have established separate agencies (not
included in Table 2) to manage these resources.

States

Single
Agency
Separate
Fish
Agency

81

Table 2. Major Characteristics of State

Separate
Game

Agency

Natural Resource Agencies

Consolidated

Fish 5
Game

Separate

Forestry

Separate
Parks/

Recreation

Combined '

Forests/
Parks

Separate
Nat.

0!

Res.

Conserv.Dept.

Director

Develops
Policy

 

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado

- Connecticut
Delaware
Florida.
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Ihode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

Utah

Vermont
Virginia
Whehington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

"yo-ing

x Consolidated

Resource Agency
1

”MN”

NH

’1

”N

NNNN

>1

NNNx

82

however, are also found under the Type B organizational framework.

There are eight such agencies of the type described above whose
scopes of activity differ. Missouri's Department of Conservation
conducts, for example, management programs in the areas of fish, wild-
life, and forest resources and thereby reflects the comprehensive
features of the Type A pattern. A separate State Parks Board, however,
administers the state's park system. Washington's Department of Natural
Resources, on the other hand, is charged with managing the state's forest
and land resources, mineral deposits, shoreline areas, and has respon-
sibilities in the areas of agriculture and grazing. The state also has
four additional resource agencies which suggests a wider distribution
of natural resource management responsibilities than found in Missouri.
A third variation occurs when agencies of the type described above have
within their jurisdiction the development of programs which do not deal
directly, although related to, natural resource management. A case in
point, Virginia's Department of Conservation and Economic Development,
has responsibilities in developing tourism resources and overseeing
mined land reclamation projects in addition to the management of forest,
park, water, and mineral resources. As was the situation with Washington's
and Missouri's agencies, Virginia's Department of Conservation and
Economic Development functions in relationship to other state resource
agencies and therefore is also included in the Type B pattern.

As a separate category then, those natural resource/conservation
departments within the Type B framework differ in two respects. Because
some are responsible for strict natural resource management and others
for economic development, different areas of responsibility are

suggested . A second and related point is raised by the presence of a

83

separate natural resource department within a Type B framework tends to
broaden the scope of management responsibilities beyond traditional
game, fish, and forestry functions.

Table 2 also indicates, under the column, "Director Develops Policy,"
that four states have natural resource agencies in which departmental
policies and programs are formulated by the chief executive. Alluded to
earlier, this type of agency acts without the provision of a board or
commission which has been delegated policy authority by the state legis-
lature. Any boards which do exist are advisory in nature. This
arrangement occurs only when all natural resource functions are placed
within a single agency, i.e., Type A.

Finally, it is noted on Table 2 that the most frequently encountered
agency is that which is listed in the first column, "Single Consolidated
Agency." Since this is the Type A organization discussed earlier, the
only remaining issue to be pointed out is that the trend in this
direction is likely to grow. Of six states, for example, which were
undergoing reorganization when initially contacted for this study, all

had reorganized under a single department.

Conclusion

 

At the outset of this chapter efforts were made to distinguish
between two organizational forms prevalent among the natural resource
agencies of the states. Furthermore, it was indicated that one type,
the single consolidated agency, represented a more recent trend whereby
the outlying resource functions were united under one department. This
development serves to underline the advantages which a comprehensive
department holds for natural resource functions. Among these are the

opportunities the comprehensive department presents for specialization.

84

Figure B, for example, illustrates that there are certain service
oriented divisions which would provide specialized support for the
entire department. The personnel division then becomes responsible for
all departmental hiring; purchasing for all supplies of the department;
research for all inventories, surveys, etc. Each of the autonomous
departments in Figure B, however, must provide these services for theme
selves which, at best, results in duplication. At worst, the staff will
be spread thinly as they attempt to do justice to a number of jobs. For
example, information and education services for a separate fish and game
department will in all likelihood have to be performed by field workers
or law enforcement people taking time off from their regular duties.

Secondly, the relationships between the autonomous departments in
Figure B indicates the absence of formal lines of communication. There
are no data provided by the study to draw conclusions about the effect
which this absence has on the overall coordination of natural resource
planning functions. Presumably, however, the existence of all natural
resource agencies under a single department, linked to each other by
staff executives having authority over a number of resource functions,
is predicated upon the existence of communicative channels. These
avenues of communication can provide the degree of interaction necessary
for long range planning between functions. Similarly, on a smaller
scale the exchange of new ideas and techniques has value for all units
within the department.

This is not to suggest that all states can operate efficiently or
effectively under a single natural resources department. Although the
trend has been for states to go from a Type B framework to Type A,

organizational theorists, however, suggest that the reverse occurs in

85

the developmental processes of industrial or business firms. Fledgling
organizations start out with an organizational structure which is modular
in form, i.e., all the work that must be done is grouped into major
functional departments or divisions.1 Control for coordinating the
departments is centralized in one decision-making figure or body. Since
it is a young agency:

the natural thrust is on operations rather than management

because the immediate problem and the need to get things

done seems more pertinent and immediate than planning

for tomorrow. The best vehicle for this type of opgration

is a functional (modular) organizational structure.

Once a young organization has overcome initial problems and begins
rapid growth, on the other hand, a centralized management might find it
difficult to exercise control over its operations resulting from
excessive centralization and delays in decision—making. The manner in
which the preceding disadvantages of large monoliths are overcome is to
divide the organization into smaller, more flexible units. Under this
system, the resulting units achieve a high degree of self sufficiency.
Accordingly, each new sub-unit can be managed at the periphery of the
original organization in much the same manner as a modular unit. As an
example of the latter organizational form, the divisions of General
Mbtors Corporation suggest a classic illustration.

The size of a single agency, then, can be one factor in explaining

the necessity for not consolidating all resource dependent on a number

 

1Louis A. Allen, "Functional and Divisional Organization" in
Management and Organization,l958, p. l, mimeo.

21bid., p. 3.

{aflwji ii...

 

 

86

of variables, one of which is the scope and geographical distribution
of the resource to be managed. California's Department of Parks and
Recreation maintains over 800,000 acres of state—owned or leased park
lands which attract 36 million visitors annually and Operates on an
annual budget of $24.5 million. To combine this department with the
remaining resource departments in California, which approximate the
size of Parks and Recreation, into a single department would possibly
render it unwieldly and inefficient.

Similarly, Table 2 notes that fourteen states have separate
forestry departments or agencies. Most of these have forest holdings
which require such large amounts of personnel and funds to manage the
resource that separate departments have been necessitated.

Final commentary is addressed to the role of the commission form
of natural resource government, a form common to both Type A and B
organizational frameworks. It is recalled that commission members are
not natural resource professionals. The only information available to
them in the decision-making process is that which they have acquired
during their term of office or that which they received from agency
staff. Another key feature is the "public" nature of commissions, i.e.,
the ease of access which the public has in reaching the commission. As
a result, decision-making by the commission form reflects a participatory

principle which can involve many parties representing different interests

 

In some instances tradition seems to be the only manner in which
one can explain the continuing existence of separate agencies. In
Oregon the state park system is administered and managed by the State
Highway Department, a possible throwback to the CCC and WPA era when
work crews developed park lands which were than maintained by state or
local highway departments.

 

5V

 

87

in the decision process. In this pluralistic context the participants
attempt to influence eath other through bargaining or the building of
alliances. The result is a policy process which is a function of social
dynamics rather than an intellectual exercise in which one or a group

of decision—makers conceptualize all of the possible alternatives to a
problem and then choose the correct solution. Since policy formulation
by commissions is a social process, it is necessarily slow moving.

While this is acceptable, inordinate lengths of time used for negotiations
or bargaining can impair the ability of the agency's chief executive

to administer programs effectively.

A final consideration of the commission form is related to the
manner in which they assume office. Appointed in most instances by the
governor, one assumes they are sympathetic to the governor's programs.
Yet commissioners are individual souls, however, and the possibility
arises that they will proceed their own ways ideologically and thereby
frustrate the efforts of the state's chief executive to implement his
own natural resource program. From the chief executive's standpoint

then, the potential for obstruction by the commission form is considerable.

CHAPTER IV

SNOWMOBILING IN MICHIGAN STATE PARKS:
A POLICY ANALYSIS

An initial consideration for this case study involves a look at
various approaches to the study and analysis of policy. As is the case
for any topic subject to study by students of various disciplines, a
number of attitudes have developed concerning interpretations of the
subject matter. Illustrative of this point is J. L. Pressman's article,
"Decision-Making and Public Policy: The Perils and Possibilities of
Fragmentation,"1 which, in part, presents a number of policy constructs
ranging from a rationalistic model to more heuristic models of "disjointed
incrementalism" and "satisficing". Whatever the relative merits of these
approaches, they all reflect a common raison d'etre, that is, their
purpose is to determine what the environment of particular body politic
will be. As such, they are descriptive or explanatory models which
attempt to account for differences in policy outcomes. The assumption
is that such endeavors will aid decision-makers by informing them of,
or at least helping them to understand, the forces brought into play
once the policy process has begun. '

It is this approach, the application of an explanatory model, which

will be used in this case study. Further explanation of the term,

 

1J. L. Pressman, "Decision-Making and Public Policy: The Perils and
Possibilities of Fragmentation," in Elements of Outdoor Recreation
Planning, ed. B. L. Driver, (Ann Arbor, 1970), pp.273-298.

88

89

decision situation, will be arrived at as the chapter progresses. As
a point of clarification, however, decision situation can be defined
as one situation among various policy processes in which a fairly
rapid decision is necessitated by virtue of attendant circumstances
usually characterized by some sense of urgency.

Since this study utilizes the case study methodology, it is
advisable to comment on the difficulties this approach presents.
Assuming one of the objectives of this study will be to assess the
response of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to the
inputs of clientele groups in policy determination, it becomes a
difficult task to select the one case most representative of the above.
An analogous problem is faced by the statistician when he attempts to
draw a representative sample from a heterogeneous population. Not only
will each case present a different situation, but each situation will
have a different set of parameters to which it reacts. Secondly, it
is characteristic of a particular case to become meaningless when taken
out of context, a situation which requires historical research to accuw
rately place the case study in its proper perspective.

The Case: Snowmobiles in State Parks

While the use of motorized vehicles for purely recreational pursuits
is a recent phenomenon, its rate of growth has been such as to present
land managers with problems of truly outsized proportions. For areas
with a suitable mix of temperature and precipitation, the problem is
Usually defined in terms of snow machines. Michigan, long recognized
as a prime winter recreation area in the Lake States region, has also
lied to reSpond to problems presented by the use of snowmobiles. In

Ilarticular, this study records the efforts of one agency, the Parks

90

Division of Michigan's DNR, to manage for snowmobile use.

Briefly, the Parks Division's history in regulating snowmobile
use goes back as little as five years ago when the division first
perceived the growing recreational use of snowmobiles and initiated a
program to "establish temporary trails in Michigan State parks and
recreation areas."1

As an initial management gesture, it soon became apparent that
these first trails, laid out simply by signing trees along a designated
route with flagging tape, fell short in meeting the growth rate of the
activity. Not only were these trails inundated by early affictionadoes,
but problems of law enforcement, trespass on private lands, and indic-
ations of possible ecological damage were also encountered by DNR
field personnel.

Within a few years, however, a number of permanent and semi—
permanent trails had been developed throughout the park system. Although
this trail system was supplemented by additional trail networks pro-
vided by other agencies, e.g., the Forestry Division of the DNR and the
U.S. Forest Service, user demand was heaviest in the southern tier of
Michigan's lower peninsula where state park lands received the brunt
of snowmobile use.

Until the middle of the 1970-71 season, the procedures governing
snowmobiling on state park lands had reflected a "trails only" rule as

established by the Parks Division. Specifically, the regulation stated:

‘

1"Snowmobile Report Following 1970-71 Use Season," Park Design Section,
Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, p. 1.

2Ibid., p. 2.

ii a “the. . PM“!

saw .v

91

1. Snow travelers may be operated only upon designated trails
or areas. Such trails or areas will be properly signed for
such use.

Yet once again, there were indications that the existing park
regulation was not adequate to cope with the demands of the snowmobiling
public. As of October 1, 1971, there were 208,000 snowmobiles registered
in Michigan as required by the state's "Snowmdbile Law" (Act 74, P.A.
1968), an act which established regulation, equipment, and operation
requirements.2 Yet figures compiled by the Law Enforcement Division,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, indicated that 2,273 violations
of the above law occurred during the winter of 1970—71, a non-compliance
figure of 15 per cent. When projected over the state's 200,000 snow-
mobilers, this non-compliance figure indicates a total of 30,000
violations.3

Similarly, the 1968 legislation made no reference to the relation-
ship between climatic conditions and snowmobiling. Although Michigan's
automobile license plates proclaim the state to be a "Water-Winter
Wonderland", the lower third of Michigan's lower peninsula receives an
average seasonal snowfall of approximately fifty inches and has a much
shorter snow season than the state's snowbelt areas which have an annual
snow season of 100 days or more. Consequently, concern was expressed

from a number of sources over those parks in southern Michigan which

were receiving snowmobile use.

1"State Park Policy #23, Motorized Snow Traverlers," Parks Division,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

2A new snowmobile law was enacted in November, 1971, which pro-
‘Vided for greater stringency in the areas indicated above.

3Frank Opolka, "Snowmobile Policy on State Forest Lands" (unpub-
Jdlshed graduate paper, Michigan State University, Park and Recreation

Reesources, 1971), p. 8.

92

The Department of Natural Resources' reaction to what was approaching
a crisis situation resulted from a meeting at the department's Region
III (Southern Michigan) headquarters on January 18, 1971. Called for
by the deputy director of field operations, the meeting was also
attended by the Region III supervisor, park and related supervisory
personnel.1 The participants agreed that the snowmobiling in the parks
issue was being compounded by unclear registration figures and Region
III's climate conditions.

At the regional supervisor's request, a staff meeting was planned
for the following day at the department's Lansing offices to attempt
a policy resolution of the problem. The meeting would be attended by
the remaining two regional supervisors, the deputy directors of field
operations, recreation, resource management, and administration, and
staff personnel of the Parks Division, Lansing office.2 At that
meeting a decision was made to remove the trails—only emphasis of the
present policy and thereby open all state park lands to non-competitive
snowmobiling across Michigan. No additional policy statements were
issued. Instead, new emphasis would be given to the existing park
regulation. Because of the manner in which the original regulation
was worded, a major policy change was implemented simply by allowing
"designated areas" to apply to areas beyond the original snowmobile

trails.

 

er. W. W. Shapton, Deputy Director, Field Operations, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, personal interview, 12-5-71.

2Ibid.

93

Information Systems in the Decision Process

The organization of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources is
characterized by tendencies towards centralization. 0n the one hand
its broad purposes are defined by putting all functional work of one
kind into one organizational component, i.e., a division structure.
The divisions are generally operations oriented and, as administrative
units, are responsible to one of five deputy administrators (deputy
directors) in the areas of recreation, resources management, field
operations, administration, or water management. A relatively large
department, the deputy administrators serve as administrative, communi-
cations, and coordination links between the operational divisions and
the department's chief executive. Especially noteworthy as a feature
of centralized decision-making authority is the Natural Resources
Commission, the department's major policy making and problem solving
organ. (A more detailed account of the latter's role in the decision-
making process is provided in another section of this study.)

The intent of the above is to characterize the nature of the
DNR's organizational structure so that inputs of existing information
systems can be traced in the decision-making process. In order to
establish policy, the policy body must have access to an information
systemiwhich provides data in a usable format. Such information is
needed not only to set objectives in an initial policy decision, but
to evaluate the impact of the decision once it is implemented as well
as to determine its efficiency. The information system serving the
DNR is its own staff-line organizational components.

In following traditional staff-line principles, line supervisors

are assigned the responsibility for personnel, funds, equipment,

94

buildings, and programs assigned to them. The fourteen district offices
of the department are the "outposts" from which DNR line personnel
supervise activities and programs. Land managers within districts,
e.g., state forest supervisors and park managers, serve in a line
capacity reaponsible for the activities of their units.1 From a
communications standpoint, line personnel have considerable input in
program plans and directives. Serving as the primary focus of public
contact, field personnel act as a monitoring system which gathers and
communicates information about public reactions to a particular program
or policy to the appropriate line supervisors. As would be expected,
initial inputs about the snowmobile problem in Michigan parks originated
with park managers receiving comments at their parks from snowmobilers.2

Staff personnel function as the administrative arm of the DNR.whose
primary responsibilities are to assemble, analyze, and provide super-
vision for projects in the name of the appropriate deputydirector.3
Since staff recommendations for policy changes depend heavily on
information received from line personnel, a system of interaction
between the two types of personnel has evolved around information
exchanges under formal and informal circumstances. This system is
characterized by periodic staff visits to the regional offices, meetings
of staff and line personnel, and written reports submitted by line

personnel to staff offices.4

 

1"Reappraisal of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources,"
Wildlife Management Institute, 1970, p. 5.

2"Snowmobile, op. cit., p. 2.
3"Reappraisal., op. cit., p. 12.

Personal interview with Mr. Paul Rearick, Parks Division,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 11-16-71.

95

This system is supplemented by a more formal channel of communication
in which a field order serves as the chief communicative link. The pro-
cedure for issuing field orders requires the signatures of the deputy
director originating the order (usually issued from requests for aid by
a field unit), and the deputy directory for field operations.1
Theoretically, the field order originates at the deputy director level,
proceeds to the appropriate division, and then to line personnel for
implementation. As such, it reflects a staff function, but the content
of a field order calls for activities which could only have been pre-
scribed after receiving information from line personnel about the
problem or activity in question. It should also be noted that field
orders are used to proscribe new activities rather than for routine
Operations which are defined in policy manuals compiled by each division.
These manuals contain procedural guidelines which cover most of the
daily operations incurred by the various divisions.

As it applies to the snowmobile issue, both the main and secondary
lines of communication acted as feeders to the department's information
system. Actual implementation was accomplished via the field order
procedure. Data contributing to the final decision was relayed along
more informal lines involving written and verbal communications between
individuals in the department.

Extra-Departmental Inputs

 

Any decision, whatever its scope, does not occur in a vacuum. In
the decision to allow unrestricted snowmobiling in the parks, inputs to

the information system were not limited to DNR personnel.

 

1"Reappraisal..,op.cit., p. 13.

96

Possessing a good deal of autonomy and having an image of not
being a pawn of political machinery, the DNR is nevertheless subject
to pressures from the state legislature. Such pressures are largely
applied through the politics of budgetary review or, more drastically,
by legislative encroachment of DNR discretionary powers.1 An example
of the latter as it applied to the case being studied was observed in
the attempts of an upper peninsula senator to open the Porcupine Mountains
State Park to snowmobiling. Submitted before any DNR action had been
taken on present snowmobiling regulations, passage of the senator's
bill would have pre—empted the Natural Resource Commission's legislative
role in the regulation of snowmobiling areas.2 Whether or not the
senator's actions spurred the DNR to act on snowmobile policy when it
did is academic, but historically, the department has established a
tradition of acting to prevent inroads on its own policy powers by
state lawmakers.*

Given the impact of the department's ruling, one would suspect
that it would have gone to greater lengths to secure formalized inputs
from the public sector prior to its decision. The fact remains, however,
that data inputs were largely internalized through staff-line inter-
actions. This internal information system was being "fed", though,

through day to day contacts with the public by field and park personnel.

 

lRearick interview.

Always a controversial issue, a moratorium on anterless deer hunting
during the 1969—70 hunting season was proclaimed by the Natural Resources
Commission in the face of public outcry after a poor deer season the year
before. The commission did so reluctantly only after it appeared that the
legislature was about to act in its stead.

97

Yet the Parks Division continued to rely heavily on its own observations
of snowmobile use to arrive at its liberalized ruling.1 Letters from
the snowmobiling public were received and informal contacts with legis-
lators interested in regulation revision were maintained. Groups who
would later show opposition to the ruling, however, remained largely
reticent, probably under the assumption that the status quo would be
maintained, i.e., snowmobiling would be restricted to trails only.
The Commission--Its Role in the Decision

The members of the five man body which serve as the policy making
board of the DNR, the Natural Resources Commission, are appointed by the
governor with approval of the senate. Although it is composed of lay
citizenry, i.e., non-civil service appointees, the members of the
commission are selected on the basis of training or experience related
to one or more of the activities pursued by any of the department's
divisions.2 As the principle decision-maker, the commission's chief
role is to effect policy rather than to act in an administrative capacity.

The key feature of the commission in its policy making role is the
degree of autonomy it possesses in establishing policy for the conser-
vation and development of the state's natural resources. While the
powers of the commission are somewhat restricted in certain areas, those
involved with setting regulations and establishing basic policies for
the department are quite broad.3 These powers are shored up by the

transfer of legislative power to the commission to the effect that any

 

lRearick interview.

2"Michigan's Commission of Natural Resources: Its Roles and Goals,"
Department of Natural Resources mimeo. (1971), p. 2.

3"Report to the Governor's Special Conservation Committee on the
Michigan Department of Conservation," Wildlife Management Institute
(1963), p. 33.

98

of its pronouncements within the boundaries of its discretionary
authority carries the weight of law.

This authority is specifically defined in two state acts, Discre—
tionary Power Acts of 1925 and 1955, which provided the commission with
broad powers to regulate commercial fishing and to establish hunting
and fishing seasons, bag limits, and methods of take. The commission's
authority receives greater specificity when new legislation names the
commission as the enforcing agent of the rules and regulations needed
to administer the new act.

At monthly commission meetings, policy issues are decided through
a majority rule procedure in which each man casts one vote. Decisions
which must be reached in this manner include land sales and exchanges,
approval of mineral and oil leases, and the like.

Separate from such functions, however, is the quasi—autonomy of
each division within the department to establish such procedures and
practices necessary to carry out their programs. (see page 89 )
Generally, these procedures are referred to as "policies", but they
should not be confused with the broad decision-making authority afforded
the Natural Resources Commission. It is this divisional autonomy which
allows the Parks Division to establish regulations governing park use.
In this manner the Parks Division is able, for example, to implement
regulations similar to Park Policy #23, the regulation authorizing

snowmobiling in designated areas, without receiving express and specific

 

1State of Michigan, Laws Relating to Natural Resources, compiled
by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Lansing, 1968), pp.
41—44, 107, 149.

 

99

consent from the commission.

This does not mean, however, that division level staff is able to
establish operational policies without being responsible to the exec—
utive branch of the department since a seemingly routine regulation may
have implications far beyond its original intent. Since a new divisional
park policy represents an addition to the extant "canon" of park regu-
lations, it must be implemented through the field order procedure
(see page 93) and therefore must be authorized by the appropriate deputy
director. When the scope of a new operational policy is deemed to be
subject for additional consideration by either the department's director
or the Natural Resources Commission, it is referred to the appropriate
level.

In the snowmobiling issue decision-making authority of the come
mission was applied indirectly since it was within the scope of the
Parks Division's operational procedures authority to change the regu-
lation. Because the Natural Resources Commission had certain prerogatives
in the regulation of motor vehicles, its members were notified during the
January, 1971, conferences held by staff and field personnel relative to
the snowmobile problem. And although no formal group action by the
commission was taken, the effect was to give consent to proceed with the
formulation of a new ruling to liberalize snowmobiling restrictions in
state parks.1 The commission's role does not end here, however. When—

ever special interest or lobby groups seek a reversal or change in

 

1Rearick interview.

100

existing policy, the commission is recognized as having final authority
and therefore is subject to pressure from advocates of change in any
evaluation a particular policy might undergo.

Poligy Evaluation

 

A decision to open up the parks to snowmobiling beyond the trails-
only restriction had been formalized via the field order procedure in
January, 1971. An evaluation, of sorts, of that decision's effects had
begun shortly after. It reflected both a continuation of an evaluation
conducted by the Parks Division regarding the snowmobile issue as well
as a departmental assessment of public reaction to the new ruling.

Recreationists, as clientele of public land management agencies,
are as desirous as any special interest group to participate in decision
processes which affect them. This participation is likely to be
characterized by an atmosphere of conflict.1 The above was typified at
the monthly Natural Resource Commission meeting of February 11, 1971.
Aside from the public hearings which the commission is authorized to
hold, the monthly meetings represent an opportunity for the public to
make presentations on an issue. The majority of the presentations
before the commission are made by an individual associated with a
conservation or recreationist group. The appearance of the group's
representative before the commission poses an opportunity for the
interest group to perform a service for their constituencies. There
is some doubt, though, that the expressed opinion of the group's

representative making the presentation would be the same had one been

 

1Rdbert N. Twiss, "Recreationists as Decision Makers," in
"Proceedings of the 57th Western Forestry Conference" (Portland, 1966),
p. 42. .

101

able to poll the membership as a whole. The presentations tend to be
polemic in nature and probably function more to clarify the issue at
hand rather than their need to get the support of their membership.1

At the February meeting, objections to the DNR's actions were
voiced by the Sierra Club, Michigan Natural Areas Council, and the
Michigan Parks Association. Support was registered by Senator Joseph
Mack, Michigan International Snowmobile Association, and the Michigan
Snowmobile Distributor's Association.2 While the influence of the
specific presentations on the commission might be negligible, collect-
ively they served to elicit reactions from within the DNR in support
of the new program. Notable was a statement from the deputy director
of field operations which pointed out the extent to which the Parks
Division had gone to assess the environmental impact of snowmobiles on
park lands.* Similarly, be emphasized that the new rules would enable
an evaluation of snowmobiling in open areas of the state as opposed to
the results under previous trails-only regulations.

The deputy director's comments implied an awareness of varying
sets of criteria in policy evaluation. Since a formal evaluation pro-

cedure occurs infrequently in the DNR, ongoing patterns of policy

 

1Twiss, op cit., p. 42.

2Notes taken from a Natural Resources Commission meeting,
February 11, 1971.

3"Proceedings of Michigan's Natural Resources Commission", February
11, 1971, pp. 278-279.

*A season before the new ruling was implemented, the Parks Division
had set up three test areas in southern Michigan to evaluate the effect
of machines on groundcover. The three test areas differed in topography
only: Proud Lake, flat; Waterloo Recreation Area, rolling; and Dodge #4
State Park, "manicured" turf. Where a four inch snow base had been
maintained, no damage to groundcover could be determined. It was largely
on the basis of this experiment that Parks personnel were convinced of
the advisability of unrestricted snowmobiling.

102

"adjustment" is usually the accepted standard. The evaluation process
alluded to in the deputy director's remarks suggests that it consists
of sequential activities involving policy application, public response,
and forthcoming adjustments. For example, at the beginning of the
snowmobile era, the first policy called for the provision of marked
trails. Subsequent evaluation showed public reaction was in favor of
additional areas. The concommitant adjustment resulted in the applic-
ation of a new or adjusted policy--unrestricted snowmobiling. Further
evaluation may result in additional changes. The above may be

diagrammed in the following flow chart:

Policy APPLICATION (1) % EVALUATION (2)
+
PUBLIC RESPONSE (3)
+
ADJUSTMENT (4)

 

REAPPLICATION (5) 4=% EVALUATION (6)
+
PUBLIC RESPONSE (7)
+

 

? (8)

To operationalize its own evaluation of use and user impact, a
DNR interoffice communication was sent by the deputy director-field
operations to the regional managers. It contained instructions to
record snowmobile use for the 1971-72 season, a list of areas not
required to report (no snowmobiling allowed), and a use reporting

procedure.1

 

1Michigan Department of Natural Resource Interoffice Communication
from Deputy Director-Field Operations to Regional Managers, 11-5-71.

103

Conclusions and Discussion

 

An original concern of this paper was to identify some elements
of policy formation in a decision situation which differed from more tradi—
tional forms of policy making by virtue of the time element involved.
In either process, however, both processes are initiated by the mani-
festation of some public problem, some human need for which relief is
sought and which transcends individual problems and affects whole
segments of the public. When this occurs, problems may enter the
governmental sphere to be resolved. The rationale for governmental
action is described by one author in terms of breakdowns in the social
construct:

Society is a group, an organism whose functions

usually operate in an orderly fashion, but like

any organism, breaks down at times into various

stages of disruptiveness. It is at this point

that society's leaders attempt to restore order.

The nature of the problem, the extent of its size,

and the effect of its disruptiveness on various

publics will determine whether government, as

representative of society's leaders, will enter

into the problem.
Because so much snowmobiling occurs on public lands, and because the
influx of recreationists with snow machines on public lands resulted
in crowding, trespass, and accidents, the resulting breakdown was
sufficient to warrant a response by a governmental agency to what was
basically a social problem.

Once the problem enters governmental systems, the decision-making
machinery will turn out a finished produce, i.e., a policy, to resolve
or assuage the issue. In many instances this process is discernible

¥

1Charles 0. Jones, An Introduction to the Study of Policy,
(Belmont, California), p. 21.

104

as a number of steps or functions.1 First, the perception of the need

 

for change in policy is accomplished either through information systems
within a bureau or by elected legislators or officials. This step
fleshes out the alternatives which are perceived and thus focuses on the

dimensions of the problem. The next phase, interppetation, determines

 

the initial objectives behind which the power of the bureau will be
mobilized. It is in this stage that the supporting issue of budgetary
implications has to be considered, as do program and course-of-action
strategies. This level also assesses whether pressure for change in
the existing policy should be resisted in favor of a wait-and-see
posture. The process enters a third stage when decision makers attempt
to procure support to sustain the course of action decided upon. This
includes smoothing over inter-agency disputes about a particular course
of action, forming alliances with other agencies for policy implement-
ation, and enlisting support from clientele groups which the policy
purports to serve. The final phase in the evolution of a decision is
formalization which may entail legal authorization from another group,
budgetary and personnel changes, and formal communication of the new or
revised policy to appropriate offices or personnel.

This model describes a process through which decisions evolve with
each phase being built on the phase which precedes it. It is dynamic
in nature but only to the extent that the preceding stages form a

foundation for the next. It proceeds through well defined channels,

 

1William J. Gore, "Stages in Decision-Making" in Policies, Decisions,
and Organizations, ed. Fremont J. Lyden, et. al. (New York, 1969), p. 292.

105

requires large information inputs, and relays interaction with other
agencies and clientele groups. Consequently, the role of communications
and information processing rather than delegated decision-making
prerogatives assumes a larger role in the policy process. And although
the Natural Resources Commission's legislative discretionary powers

may prove advantageous in terms of efficient policy making in the
natural resources field, it is the lack of formal group representation
which thrusts major responsibilities on the DNR to seek out public inputs
to the policy process. If, theoretically, the commission remains
separated from influences or the state legislature, it is in the same
manner separated from a formal public constituency.

In reality, of course, the DNR has definite clientele groups who
are inclined to be extremely vocal in their reactions to policies or
programs. Yet the animated response at the February commission meeting
of the conservation groups in their efforts to damn the liberalized
snowmobiling ruling carried implications that no outsiders were con-
sulted by the department regarding the issue. Direct charges were made,
in fact, by the Sierra Club to the effect that the commission did not
seek public inputs prior to reaching a decision. Indeed, the reaction
of some of the commissioners, apologetic chagrin, furthered the impression
that they were hearing concerned public viewpoints for the first time.1

This breakdown in the information flow process points out another

issue of the case being studied. The constraints of a decision

 

1Notes from Natural Resources Commission meeting, 2-11-71.

. up,
hr!

106

situation are characterized, as indicated earlier, by a sense of
urgency raised in the face of a pressing public problem. As a result,
there is often little time to define explicit objectives, procure
sufficient data, assess alternatives, or to undertake any of the
approaches suggested by a rationalist model to decision-making. As
such, there may be a tendency for policy to suffer with regard to clarity,
comprehensiveness, and operational effectiveness. More importantly,
policy will tend to be formulated through channels and patterns other
than the officially accepted ones.1 Thus the decision situation pro—
motes circumstances which allows for the formation of broad policy by
sub-units. In this case a policy was implemented by a purely admini-
strative unit in a manner which limited the role of the traditional
policy making body of the DNR.

The remaining question is what role does the decision situation
play in the historical context of policy making. From an operational
viewpoint, it was suggested that the decision situation is not hampered
by tradition, power structures, and formal divisions of work which
characterize the public bureaucracy. It capitalizes on the structural
modes of organizational pattern, though informally, to pass on and
process the data and information related to the issue. As such, agency
resources are concentrated to meet acute problems. The result is that
the decision situation lends itself to flexible approaches to a problem,

a quick initial response to the problem, and efficiency in the short run.

 

1Yehezekel Dror, Public Policpraki g Reexamined, (Chicago, 1968),
p. 21.

 

107

But what of long term considerations? While the initial reflex-
like response to an issue assures sensitivity of public needs, it can
also be interpreted as an attempt to minimize risks and achieve a
defensible posture.1 This is especially true since the process des-
cribed contains no provisions for comprehensive planning. Planning
by itself, of course, does not assure that problem areas will be anti-
cipated before they are encountered. However, the absence of the planning
element smacks of a decision process which is reactionary and erratic
rather than progressive and purposeful.

Yet the decision situation is not without progress or growth. For
in the case studied, policy had evolved to its present status through
three levels. This cumulative growth resembles Lindblom's model of
incremental decision-making in which a central authority exercises
initiative in directing the policy growth. Additionally, a lack of
planning usually means that most of the agency's available resources
will have to be concentrated on the problem at hand while other aspects
of the agency's programs may be neglected.

In many respects policy evolution through a decision situation
process seems to be a very human exercise. A problem arises, actions
are taken and resources are expended to deal with it, and the resulting
situation is observed to see how successful the actions have been in
removing the problem. Yet this approach fails in two areas--perception
and creativity. Because pro-

blems aren't perceived before they arise, an agency has to act under

 

11b1d.,.p..21.

108

the constraints of present oonditions--1imitations of time, funds and
manpower. Under these limitations, the paths available to action are.
reduced which therefore hampers broad application of an agency's resources

to meet the issue.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Administrators of Public Policy, The. ed. M. D. Reagan. Glenview,

Illinois, 1969.

Albrow, Martin. Bureaucracy. London, 1970.

 

Appleby, Paul Henson. PolicyrAdministration. University of Alabama,
1949.

Benson, Oliver Earl. Political Science Laboratory. Columbus, 1969.

Bingham, Alfred Mitchell. The Techniques of Democracy. New York, 1942.

 

Boyer, William W. Bureaucracy on Trial} Indianapolis, 1969.
Brewster, Wallace. Government in Modern Society. Boston, 1958
Brown, Ray E. Judgement in Administration. New York, 1966.

Charlesworth, James Clyde. Contemporarerolitical Analysis. New York,
1967.

Dahl, Rdbert Alan. Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 1970.

Dror, Yehezkel. Public PolicyMakipngeexamined. Chicago, 1968.

Easton, David. Framework for Political Analysis, A. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 1965.

Eulau, Heinz. Micro-macro Political Analysis,_Accents of Inquiry.
Chicago, 1969.

 

Francis, Roy G. Service and Procedure in Bureaucracy. Minneapolis,
1956.

Gawthrop, Louis C. Bureaucratic Behavior in the Executive Branch.
New York, 1969.

Glaser, Comstock. Administrative Procedure; A Practical Handbook for
the Administrative Analyst. Washington, 1941.

Jacob, Charles. Policy and Bureaucracy. Princeton, 1966.

 

109

110

Jensen, Clayne R. Outdoor Recreation in America. Minneapolis, 1970.

Joiner, C. A. Organizational Analysis. East Lansing, Michigan 1964.

 

Jones, Charles 0. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy.
Belmont, California, 1970.

Kessel, John Howard, et a1. Micropolitics: Individual and Group Levels
Concepts. New York, 1970.

 

Lasswell, Harold. Power and Society; A Framework for Political Inquipy.
New Haven, 1950.

Lutbeg, Norman R. Public Opinion and Public Policy; Models of Political
Linkage. Homewood, Illinois 1968.

 

Merriam, C. E. Political Power. New York, 1964.

 

Millet, John D. Organization for the Public Service. Princeton 1966.

 

Mitchell, Joyce. Political Analysis and Public Policy. Chicago, 1969.

Mouzelis, Nicos. Organization and Bureaucra_y. Chicago 1967.

 

Owens, John. A Wildlife Aggncy and Its Possessive Public. Indianapolis,
1965.

 

Policies, Decisions and Orggnization, ed. Fremont J. Lyden et.al.
New York, 1969.

PolicygAnalysis in Political Science, ed. Ira Sharkansky. Chicago, 1970

Political Research and Political Theopy. ed. Oliver Garceau, Cambridge,
1968.

Powell, Norman JOhn. Responsible Public Bureaucracy. Boston 1967.

 

Public Administration and Policprevelopment. ed. Harold Stein. New York,
1952.

Reading§_in Modern Political Analysis. ed. Robert Dahl and Deane
Neubauer. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968.

Rourke, Francis Edw. Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. Boston,
1969.

Snyder, Richard Carlton. Roots of Political Behavior. New York, 1949.

 

Studypof Policy Formation, The. ed. Raymond A. Bauer. New York, 1968.

Udall, Stewart L. The Quiet Crisis. (Discuss Edition), Chicago, 1970.

 

111
Vickers,Geoffry.. The Art of Judgement; A Study of Policy Making. London,
1965.

Wengert, Norman. Natural Resources and the Political Struggle. 4th
Edition. New York 1967.

Wiseman, Herbert Victor. Political Systems, Some Sociolcgical Approaches.
New York, 1966.

Wootton, Graham. Interest Groups. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1970.

 

Young, Oran R. Systems of Political Science. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1968. -
Periodicals and Articles

Clark, Dennis. "The Politics of Protracted Conflict", Transaction,
Volume 7, (March, 1970), pp. 22-40.

 

Etzioni, Amitai. "Why Task Force Studies Go Wrong," Wall Street Journal,
July 9, 1968, p. 18.

 

Eulau, Heinz and Eyestone, RObert. "Policy Maps of City Councils and
Policy Outcomes", American Political Science Review, March,

Olson, Mancur. "An Analytic Framework for Social Reporting", Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
March, 1970, pp. 112-126.

Pressman, J. L. "Decision-Making and Public Policy: The Perils and
Possibilities of Fragmentation", in Elements of Outdoor
Recreation Plannipg, ed. B. L. Driver, pp. 273-298, Ann Arbor
1970.

 

Rothblatt, D. N. "An Approach to Public Policy Evaluation," Land
'Economics, Volume 47 (August, 1971), #3.

Sturm, A. L. and Craig, J. B. "State Constitutional Commissions", State
Government, Winter, 1966, pp. 56-63.
Public Documents

Annual Report of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, 1966.

Budget for the Department of Recreation and Parks 1968-69. A publication
of the California Resources Agency, Sacramento, 1969.

California State Park System. A publication of the California Resources
Agency. Sacramento, California 1969. .

112

Conservation Policy. A publication of the Illinois Conservation Advisory
Board, Springfield, no date.

 

Constitution of the State of Alabama. Amendment No. 35.

Game, Fish and Parks Commission Regulations. A publication of the
Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Commission. Denver, 1969.

 

Iowa Conservation Commission. A publication of the Iowa Conservation
Commission (department), undated.

 

Michigan's Department of Natural Resources Working For You. A publication
of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources, 1969.

Minnesota Department of Conservation. A publication of the Minnesota
Conservation Department, undated.

Missouri State Parks and Historic Shrines. A publication of the Missouri
State Pafkaoard, Jefferson City, 1968.

 

Statistical Report for the Department of Parks and Recreation 1968-69.
A publication of the California Resources Agency. Sacramento,
1969.

State of Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Biennial Report.
1964-1966. Tallahassee, 1966.

 

 

State of Michigan Natural Resources Laws. Compiled by the Department
of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan 1968.

 

State of New York Department of Health Pure Waters Program Report.
Albany, 1969.

Wildlife in North Carolina - Biennial Report Issue. Volume XXXI, No. 1,
pp. 24-27.

Other Sources

 

Guenther, Charles. Executive Secretary, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. Personal interview, February 16, 1971.

Mainville, Frank. "Snowmobile Bill Ready for Action", The State Journal,
November 11, 1971, p. 1.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Interoffice Communication. From
W.W. Shapton to Regional Managers, November 5, 1971.

"Michigan's Commission of Natural Resources - Its Roles and Goals"
Mimeographed paper from.the Executive Offices, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.

113

Moncrief, Lewis W. An Analysis of Hunter AttitudeaToward the State of
Michigan Antlerless Deer HuntingLPolicy. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Department of Resource Development, Michigan
State University, 1970.

Notes taken from.Michigan Natural Resources Commission meetings,
February 11, October 7, and November 4, 1971.

Opolka, Frank. "Snowmobiling on State Forest Lands", unpublished
graduate paper. East Lansing, 1971

Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Mbtorized
Snow Travelers, Park Procedure #23-P, January 16, 1970.

 

Motorized Snow Travelers. Park Procedure
#30—P, March 7, 1968.

 

 

Motorized Snow Travelers, Park Policy #23,

 

 

January 16, 1970

Snowmobile and Bicycle Trails, Park Policy #30,

 

March 7,1968.

Snowmobile Use Reporting Procedure. December,

 

 

9, 1969.

"Reappraisal of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources,"
Wildlife Management Institute, September 1970.

Rearick, Paul. Head: Programs and Policies, Parks Division, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Personal interview,
November 16, 1971.

Report to the Governor's Special Conservation Committee on the Michigan
Department of Conservation. Wildlife Management Institute,
Lansing, 1963.

Shapton, Warren. Deputy Director: Field Operations, Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Personal interview, November 24, 1971.

Snowmobile Report Followingll970-7l Use Season. Parks Design Section,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1971.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

TABULAR ANALYSES

APPENDIX I

TABULAR ANALYSES

Included in the following appendix are eleven tables
containing data relevant to the appropriate table heading.
Located in the upper left hand corner of each page, the table
headings are: chief executive, conservation commission,
fish, forestry, game, information and education,lands
management, law enforcement, parks, recreation, and water
pollution control agency. These tables provide supplementary
information to data presented in the text. The table headings
only indicate a specific resource function; the title of the
agency responsible for managing the resource indicated in
the table heading can be located in Chapter II. Information
which needed clarification or could not be presented in
tabular format has been footnoted and can be found in a

section immediately following the tables.

114

APPENDIX I
AGENCY DATA: A DIVISIONAL BREAKDOWN

The following tables present data as reported in the
questionnaires used in the study. Each table reflects the
same functional breakdown as reported in Chapter II: chief
executive, conservation commission, fish, forestry, game,
information and education, lands management, law enforcement,
parks, recreation, and water pollution control.

Data contained in the tables includes information about
the staff, budget, and programs of the agency responsible
for that particular resource indicated in the table's head-
ing - fish, game, parks, etc. Although the tables do not
reveal specific agency titles, this information is provided
in the verbal summaries of Chapter II.

Data provided by an agency in response to a particular
question which could not be reported in the tabular format
is footnoted and appears in a section which follows the tables.
This is particularly true for multiple license sales cate-
gories and agency jurisdiction. Additionally, all salaries

are reported as yearly figures unless otherwise indicated.

115

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel Under Types of “nip-ht
5 Civil Service Leased
.. 3 " 3 i '
n
i 3" 2 E s =
. 3 3 s a n. g i E i
is! 13 i 15 I? =3 s" =~ " " ~ 2 5
ii" ‘ ' ""15 ‘EiHr-‘Wii
525.... z is: 313! ii 1 gust-.131
"11 Part
I I ‘11- 1’1-
“ 5,666 66 . 7 50, 951 756 105 0, 150 576 15 Yes Yes Yes Yes I I
m' 500 .51 566,600 55,000 0,990 170 650 Is Yes Yes Yes I I I I I I
mt 1,111 15.6 155,565 166 0 6,117 166 )0 Yes Yes Yes Yes I
WI 1,915 57.5 51.561 1.000 0 6,776 171 50 lo Is Is In I I I
mm' 19,955 117.5 156.5“ 1.100 1.105 10,000 1165 Yes Yes Yes Yes I
m 1,107 11.7 106,167 0 9,000 500 115 Yes Yes Yes Yes I I I
moor 5.051 600 m 696111.118
m 566 115.1 In AVAIMI-I
m1“ 6, 789 115. 7 56, 136 7 , 700 16 , 717 011 150 In Yes Yes Yes I I
m 5,590 77 m "nuns
m" 769 115.6 6,626 15 750 6,099 618 I” Is Yes Yes Yes I I
I“ 713 6.5 01.7“ 609 0 5.159 160 50 Yes Yes Yes Yes I I
1mg 11,116 191 56.600 910 71 Is Yes Yes Yes I
mun 5,196 166 so: aurusu
in 2,615 50. 1 56 .190 196 0 7 , 396 666 500 Yes Yes Yes Yes I
m' 1,167 17 61,166 10,0002 0 3,000 no 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes I I
m' 1,119 60 60,595 6,551 170 65 Yes Yes Yes Yes I I I
W181“: 3,661 61 65,177 3,566 6,951 I,” 719 15-50 Is Yes Yes Y. I
‘1- 992 51 31.011 1,103 1,500 6,000 160 60 Yes Yes I. Yes I I
m 5,911 595 9,076 703 J, 190 16, 561 1055 600 Is Yes Yes Yes I
mm 5,609 701.6 6,095 155 1,960 7,000 600 1600 lo Is Yes Yes I I I
MICIIGAI 0,075 155.7 57,011 1,196 1,168 56,500 1156 675 Is Yes Yes Yes I I I
mg 1.005 66.7 05.000 6.000 160 17,119 1160 550 Is In Yes Yes I I
“Imm‘ 1,117 66.6 ”I I'm In D b I. I
ll“! 6,677 67.1 69,666 1,111 0 11,” 595 1% Is h D h I I
m' 696 6.5 165.605 1.535 0 5,565 176 100 Is la b Is I I
M 1.60) 19.6 76,663 719 0 9,817 550 169 Is ls la Is
”an: 669 6.5 109,769 751 0 1,000 99 65 Is Yes Yes Yes
fl WI! 750 79 so: unusu
'l .IIIIY 7,166 955.6 7,509.66 117 66,600 use 7W0 Is Yes Yes Yes I I
- moo' 1,016 0.5 111,511 115 0 1,675 171 19 D Yes Yes Yes I I
- “I 10,157 379.7 67,636 1,761 659 60,“ I661 woo D I. I. Yes I
are m 5,061 105.7 m "nuns
m m' 616 9 70.665 1,106 0 1,161 75 10 I. b I. Is
one 110,651 so: ”nuns
m 1.559 37 69,051 166 0 5,5” 160 10 la b h b I
m' 1,091 11.7 960,” 666 619 7,000 519 119 Yes Yes Yes Yes I I I I I
alums-11' 11,796 160 I7! 69611.6” 695 1“ Is Yes Yes Yes I I I
I“ I" 967 799.7 In AVAIUILI
sun cam-1' 1,591 66.5 ”.109 513 1,176 1,150 175 115 Is Is h b
sssn neon 666 0.6 77,067 1,1W 6,” 115 as) Is Is ls Is
mus-s 5,916 91.9 61.166 070 10.0” 11,956 15“ moo la la b Is
ill“ 11,197 61.7 161,” 5,” 317
m 1,059 11.6 06,916 1,1” 1” 10.” 610 75 Is Yes Yes Yes I I I
m ‘ 666 67.9 9,176 555 0 1.9“ Is Yes Yes Yes I I
nan-u 6,6. 116.1 60,000 976 7,537 561 ms Yes Yes Yes Yes I
m 5,609 51.1 66,709 1,605 10,” 6” 50 Yes Yes Yes Yes
.Y nacuu 1,766 II mm”
nms 6,610 00. 7 56 , 705 17 .079 810 58.11!) 1661 696 D Yes Yes Yes I I
m 331 3.6 97,181 635 0 6,107 165 N h Is h b I I

 

 

 

117

Administration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dept.
Conservation Heed
Conservation Dept. Dept. Need I Services
lined Selected by: ‘Issponsibls to:l (or: Salary Range
2 ‘63“

#5 s g h .5. , 5.
Chis! i 3 3 g n 3 .- i: a.“ I
been: in 3 3 I: 8 Conservation Dept. Assistant Ilead Line and Sta” Chiefs Division Chiefs
W... 1 5 s 1! 11 s 3 .3 .... l .. ,,.. ,, .,_ , I

a hen Yo
m I I I 19,300 11,” 10,056 17,199 11,056 17,199
um I l l x 27.500 2.069/I-o 2.253;.» 1,655/- 2.235;»
saunas I I I 16.000 15,870 17,665 11,501 16,605
m: I I I 12,500 0,960 11,9;6
«um I I I 1,291/no 1,706/no 1,066/- 1,357/- 1,616/- 1,605/- 1,795/-
m I I I 1,571/- 1,057/- 1,118/- 1,512/- 975/- 1,506/-
WICUT I71 AVAIIAILI
saunas nor AVAILAI‘LI
MIDI I I I 28,000 16,000 17,000 19,000
mu m AVAILAIIJ
mu I I I 17,500 16,115 11,500 17,676 15,056 10,566
1“ I I I 16,671 17,716 11,906 16,671 10,011 15,110
Hill)" I I I 20,000 16,000 969- 1,511- 1,171- 1.00Y-
1'01“ 101' AVAIIAILI
[M I I I 17,500 12,510 17,610 11,910 16,700 9,560 15,011
nun I I I 15.500 9,516 11,916 0,092 11,516
men I I x 16,000 11.1.10 15,500 10,)“ 15,550
W10“ I I I 16,500 1,000/no 1,600/no 000.; 1,100-
”. I I I 16,500 10,660 16,170 9,951 13.1“ 9,696 11,696
um- I I I 35,000 50,000 21,000 15,000 10,500
M ‘
puma. I I I 25,500 15,600 11,600 26,700 17,000 11,700
arm I I I 13,000 10,500 17,500 17,000
111801801"! I I I 17,000 10,500 7,560 10,900
1000”! I I I 15.000 11,000 19,000 10,000 16,091 17,116
m I I I I 1,550- 1,561.5 1,150.,
um I I I 11,100 19,900 11,560 15,160 11,600 16,100
um I I I 19,650 16,250 9,971 11,735 15,000 16,510
'9 Mlllll so: AVAIIAILI
u JIIIIY I I I I 50,000 16,600 50,900 16,600 10,900 10,500 15,000
a nation I I I ”Was 1,500/- 9007- 1,105/-
- m ' I I I 37,175 16,057 51,500 11,650 16,550 15,775 16,561
soars mm! In AVAIIAIIJ
“I" ma . I I I 13,000 10,000 10,500
one In AVAIIAILI
manna I I I 11,000 17,000 11,075 16,617 10,995 15,596
moss I I I 1,500/- 1,6707- 1,106/- 1,500/- 9107- 1,106/- 1,075/- 1,575/-
MYLVAIIA I I I 17,059 15,915 15,567 10,619
In 181‘- an Inna-u
sum “1‘ I I I 10,1!)0 11,” 10,” 10,000 16,000 10,000 16.000 10,000
m users I I I 1.050/- 1,515/- ”ll- 1,151/- 050/- LOU-
ran-sass I I I 1,666/-‘ 1,165I- 1,610/- 0157- 1,610/-
m an 69611.6”
m I I I I 15,756 11,000 15.01!) 11,000 15,011)
"I I r r 11.000 10.000 15,000
"sum I I I 15,000 17,100 10,500 11,500 17,100 11,670 10,500
mm I I I 11,500 11,500 15,556 19,591 11.611 16.909
III “scum an avaxusu
'1“!- I . I I 21,600 17,070 21.6” 17,070 15,166 19,7“) 19,6“ 25,160
won: I : I I I 15,“ 1,157/- 1,510/- 1,05)/- 1,606/- 1,05)/- 1,606/-
1

 

 

 

118

Finance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uorkinx budget 1 0! Budget ReQuest Sources 51 5611 mensrated
For 1909-70 (H) Actually Appropr ialed Revenue- (34)
A I
v ' a
8 <
I = e
H U
u C d
0 I u l u 0 >
3 3 8 3.; .1 3 3‘6 . B 4 3
a . 2 I a a a " ‘3. ' : .1 m .
0 B u g l O I O I 06 z u at 1 a 0 c ... .
a c u dd “ as u C 1: C I 1.. v- I O
= a "2 :2 3- 5- :. :“: :25 .g :5 :
an: - c 3. _ :2 : .° .° :2. age 5:: :. a: s
“an“. a a :2 = . 3. :§ suleu a"; ~=° =~4 “v m3 °
(warm-d) 8 E 11 : E 2 3 z .2 3 :7 2."? :11? a: I ‘5 {‘2
3:: as; : s 6; :8 281:2 :3. 62; s Its 13 5 11s [1
AM no 5,938 1,339 80.6 I 72.9 2,003 33 53.502 .01 3,.- 0 65.3
Ausu 6,692 1,370 1,666 165 115 l x 15.23 1,370 100
ARIZONA 0 3,161 1,069 67 116 ‘ I 5.5 1,761 95 167 5
AMSAS 0 6,777 .00 0 16 ' I 100 3,635 75 71-17
0111701111111 23.Poo 2.200 2,200 80 t x 100 15,000 71 5 (.00 21.
com 1,017 9,661 1,967' 232 x 76.1 9,078 93.6 260 2.7 90 .9 1:5 3.9
wmcncm um AVAILABLE
11.1.7111"! 1001’ AVAILABLE
rwnm 16,766 11,169 9,169 0 50 x 15 1,666 25 1,665 15
(10mm 1101 AVAILABLB
2
HAHAIX 3,195 101 600 93 335 I 0 r9 1.8 31 1.0 65 1.1 1.971 96.1
106110 0 3,966 1,113 183 166 I 60 3.600 96 100 2
XLLIIOIS 33,367 9,301 1,291 961 100 I 10 6,576 6,0 667
111mm NOT AVAILABLE
IOHA 2,156 3,687 1,555 191 I 50 1, 55 75 167 8 BE 1.3 150 6
IAISAS 1,9«6 600 60 I 96 1
IIHTUCIY 3,151 500 I 100 100
110111516116 7,396 800 65 I 90 985 13 6,556 67
"All! 3,000 500 300 100 100 1,300 71
mm 6,113 6,566 1,093 710 60 1,911 35 1,060 19 1.076 10 1.631 16
NASSACHUSETTS 1,000 I 33 1,250 ‘i 150 11
1110116.”! 16.106 16,661 1,065 673 93 x 61' 9,600 17.6 3,600 5.9 1,215 3.5 1,997 56
HHHNESOTA 9,976 11,539 860 6,‘76 65 I 66 9,117 75 911 6 709 5 1,691 16
KISSISSIPPI 3.169 66.8 I 100 1,173 69 115 5 -71 16
MISSOURI 965 8,005 1,667 100 I .5 6,660 85 0 60: 10.1 539 66
mm 150 6,135 . 1,150 136 155 I 76 6,100 85 3515
IBM“ 1,771 6,610 1.636 300 I 50 6,370 93 300 t 30 1
NEVADA 1,506 97 108 196 I 6.6 60 57
EU 1111103111111 1101' AVAIUBLI
Iii MP! 15,000 5,500 1,600 13,500 50 I 10 1,300 1,0.‘5 1,800
SH 1.1100 0 1,198 676 0 10 I 11.1 1,019 75 7 1,650 61
Ill you 53.760 10,000 7 000 35,000 I 66 9.000 ll. 00
norm CAROLINA m AVAILABLE
11mm W16 0 800 600 so 60 x 66 7110 00 oo 10
0810 NOT AVAILABLE
mum 6,100 17 100 70 15
moon 6,030 1.750 100 I 77 5,1100 60 100
PENNSYLVANIA 0 10 1 6 I 55 11,700 11‘ 1,100 13
”no: ISM IDT AVMUBLE
301m! CAIOLIM 0 1.150 500 0 0 100 1.7100 9»- 600
SOUTH “IOTA 1,000 1,500 500 500 I 60 1.1165 360 5 110
""5!!! 11,368 1,669 706 O 81 I 11 1,101 65 366 15
um um AVAxunu
171611 2.900 5,300 1,500 o 78 x 55 3,600 66 100 2 650 11 160 16
VIIHDIT 0 1,155 113 191 100 I 90 100
V1Ic1l16 5,661 1,676 13 166 I 0
1165mm 1,197 7,130 1,188 685 100 I 61 77 6
11st VllcnuA m AVAxust
VISCOISII 31.600 11.100 3,700 513 177 I 36 11,500 51 1,3(0 6 665 3 a 600 32
wanna 0 6,761 1,665 100 76 6,539 252

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119

Co-tulonorl

Servo:

Co-tnlonor
III-y Sacco“
III-u l I

r.- 1, lo

 

gluon van-col:

I

3 2.93:0qu

 

332 8!: 8. IN

35.50: .32.:-
2: =1.— Goa-3'8

you

 

0:2 0h .08
.9.qu 33.3.0

 

soar-non k
0:2 38. II
0... 53.553 u
0!. Goa-3'8 Y

 

3333-3 h
3 281.138 1
:38 on! on u
03¢ 53:! v.

 

Arena In Hatch Cmorvatsoa

Co-tu Ion m Coat rol:

Co-lu 100'. An Huh.

“I! Dcocnbod Al:

'3»!
:3 “25:33 :4

'33-

guzus

 

:3 “as... .3...

3.33.: I.—

.C u .93;

 

l

ash-u

 

I8

 

so:

 

3.9358

0289333335

«39033 fun-I935...
S acacia-alas you
332 :33 I. .305

m AVAIIAILI

Advisory Only

now AVAHAIIJ

um AVAILAILI

m AVA! LAN—I

m1“ AVAI ”All

In AVA! LAN-l

m AVAIIAIJ

m AVAIUILI

m AVA! MALI

 

go :3. 9.3.5.:
3 139—068 :38

Comorvu too

Co-Iu loo

aura-u

MI“

I“

tux-013

IIDIAIA

"HA

“I!!!”

HI.

“m

”CHIC-AI

”WA

muxuxm

“MR!!!
mm

“man

an "‘1'“

mm"

Camus inner
Appolntmenl'
Confirmed By:

Hunting and Fishing
Regulations Set By:

120 _

Hunting and Fishing
Fees Set By:

Hunting and Fishing
Seasons Set By:

 

 

 

 

 

U : g g E 9 g g 0 ‘0: ‘9: I O

:5: :5 i: z E :2 :2 z E :E :2 z 3
222.3323?“ .. 3 E E E3 E E E E 3 2E EE EE 3 EE EE E: E 333:5”:1331,
°””““ §§ 5 iii 5E 35 RE i EE ii EE i EE 5% ii i 0wrmwnnw~

a; E 33; as 88 as 3 80 as as 3 so as as 3 muu=
Yes I No

ALABAMA NOT AVAILABLE
ALASKA X X X X X X
ARIZONA X X X X X
ARKANSAS X X X X X
CALIFORNIA X X X X
COLORADO X X X X X
CONNECTICUT X X X X X
DELAWARE X X X X X
FLORIDA X X X X X
GEORGIA X X X X
HAHAII X X X X X
IDAHO X X X X X
ILLINOIS NOT AVAILABLE
INDIANA X X X X X
ICNA X X X
KANSAS X X X X X
KENTUCKY X X X X X
LOUISIANA NOT AVAILABLE
MAINE X X X X X
MARYLAND NOT AVAILABLE
MASSACHUSETTS NOT AVAILABLE
MICHIGAN X X X X X X X
MINNESOTA NOT AVAILABLE
MISSISSIPPI X X X X X
MISSOURI X X X X X
PDNTANA X X X X X
NEBRASKA X X X X X X
NEVADA X X X X X
NEH HAMPSHIRE X 1 X X
NEH JERSEY X X X
NEH MEXICO X X X X X
NEH YORK NOT AVAILABLE
NORTH CAROLINA N01 AVAILABLE
NORTH DAKOTA NOT AVAILABLE
OHIO MT AVAILABLE
OKLAHOMA X X X X X X X X
OREGON X X X X
PENNSYLVANIA NOT AVAILABLE
RHODE ISLAND NOT AVAILABLE
SOUTH CAROLINA X X X X X
SOUTH DAKOTA X X X X X
TENNESSEE X X X X X
TEXAS X X X X X
UTAH X
VERI‘DNT WT AVAILABLE
VIRGINIA X X
HASHINCTON X X X X X
"EST VIRGINIA KIT AVAILABLE
WISCONSIN X X X X X X
HYOHINC X X X X X X X

 

 

 

121

 

 

 

 

Fuh Dhnlon 1'00. lutonal
Concept Huh Held mtuou
quoyoou and Salary Range 1n lad: Rouion
No I".
a I »
E 3 EE‘. 2!: 2==
2: :: .r r: p 3 3<5 335
3% £5 3% E5 ‘55 313 iii
< m u m h- m A. n F: u ‘ a h. a a
0L". [To 0 [Fro- 120 O Fro. [To 0 ll’rm [To You i 340 lYou ”I No You 1
m 1 10.036 13.923 11 7.800 11.692 3 4.1.4.0 7,375 o 6.666 x x
ml 6 1,312/Io 2.235/Io 31 757/.» 1.666/m 42 soc/no 830/m x x
Alum 3 2 x 1
MA! 6 bOO/Io 750/.0 38 300/Io 700/.) X X
mum 12 666/Io 1.626/Io 13 664/00 holes/no 3 863/.0 LOAN-o 20 615/” 502/.0 X 1
common 5 6.000 16.000 10 7.500 16.000 6 7.500 10,000 6 1.200 2.200 X X
WICUT 6 9.601 13.700 I 9,601 11,827 22 5.029 11.827 6 5.029 X I
um um AVAILABLE
MIN X X
CINCIA 3 0 26 18 X X
HAHAII 1 13.836 21.680 10 7.3404 19.488 6 5.1086 11.308 1 5.760 6.928 X X
IDA!” 7 6 65 X X
ILLImIS 2 NOS/IO 1,560/Io O 30 661/.0 1.035/no 10 2.02/hr 2.16/hr X X
IIDIAIA 3 7‘ 5/no 1.115/no 3 6OO/Io 860/30 5 600/Io 860/no 29 300/Io 660/” X X
INA 6 F.906 13.152 7 8.076 10.826 6.106 9.816 322/” X X X
EARS“ ”1’ AVAILABLE
KENTUCKY 3 710/.) 1.21M.) 11 530/” 906/” 17 308/.0 765/” 3 376/83 583/.) X X
LOUISIANA 1 750/.) 1.050/m 13 600/m 990/.) 17 275/30 boo/no 8 1.50/hr X X
HAIII 2 9.698 13.208 6 7.358 12.896 12 6.422 11.180 0 6,690 X X
HAIYLAID NOT AVAILABLE
mmmszm 3 175/II hSO/vk 6 ltd/vi 200/vl 12 125/wk I70/vk 10 125/vi ISO/wk X X
RICHIGAII 3 760/” 1.766/Io 18 680/.» 1.288/m 170 626/.) 1.268/m 16 ZZZ/Io 270/30 X X X
'1!“er 6 7.692 15.600 16 2.692 13.872 197 5.600 12.336 50 2.69/11! 3.02/hr X X
31351551"! 3 775/.) 050/” 12 675/” 750/I-o 23 660/1) 725/.0 X X
"1880081 5 6.766 16.896 21 6.536 16.616 51 3.732 11.668 50 X X
mm 5 920/.0 1.1011.) 1 11 1.60/hr 6.60/1“ X X
IIIIASXA 6 605/.0 1,150/30 63 375/Io BOO/D 30 1.65/hr 2.25/11! X X
IVADA 2 10.500 12.702 261 6.159 11.596 X X
a mum 3 9.755 16.268 7 7.726 10.563 6 5.309 6.681 5.309 6.681 X X
m JERSEY 2 12.603 19.916 5 8.530 11.092 62 6.908 11.092 5 X X
m KXICO 3 750/30 1.205/Ia 3 525/00 960/.) 2 525/” 960/.) O 310/Io 333/.) X X
n m 10 9.925 19.690 26 6.075 15.110 192 6.075 13.635 215 2.25/1“ 3.00/hr X X
m mm 5 11.300 15.050 6 8.568 12.668 9 8.568 12.666 30 1.60/hl’ 2.00/hr X X
mu WA ”'1' AVAILABLE
one 3 7.000 16.000 10 6.000 16.000 65 6.000 11.300 X X
M In AVAILABLE
CI!” 10 1.129130 1.373/Io 30 35W.) 1,200/Io 68 517/.) 975/” 30 625/.0 6601-0 X X
man 53 6.121 23.915 18 6.551 16.978 315 6.329 16.978 0 X X
M nun 1 9.152 12.926 lo 7.930 9.562 13 6.900 9.562 5 6.9“) 6.200 X X
soon mm ”‘1' AVAILABLE
soon WA 5 6 11 18 X X
m m AVAIIAILI
TEXAS 1m AVAIIAILI
UTAH 5 l35lm 1.170lm L3 570/.) 919/m 65 626/.) 919/.) 30 356/” 516/.) X X
m 1 11.“ 16.000 7 8.500 16.000 10 5,500 7.000 X X
VIICIIIA um AVAIIAIIJ
mum 6 13.260 16.1“ 1 10.896 12 9.620 12.012 2 6,372 X X
'81 "ICIIIA 5 6.0“) 12.500 12 7.6% 12.000 30 6.000 0.“)0 10 1.60/11! 2 OO/hl' X X X
VISCO‘II 9 7.500 10.“ 203 6.500 12.(XJO 67 100/m 660/” X X X
wan-c 2 975/.) 1.60“.) So. "F1014!" 26 571/.) 1,206/Io 12 375/no 668/.) X X

 

 

 

 

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huber of Nah Hauherha
1: Source of Operating Budget Allocauona
3 Budget: uuhxn DIM-10m Han: Hater Cold Hater Anadro-oua
u
g 3 -< o c
u u: a g 3% u g E 1.. g a; "E . i? 2" = ’7
3* 3* :.2 = a a a: 5: a . z .3 .3 :3
5;. 1: Egg! 1.: :3 z: 3.. a a : . ~= . z: . a:
usu 8.23 4: of. “:3 J.“ 38 .83 3 3 “ “ ' .. ' 01- “’
'“h :3: 1:: 31:2 ‘22 :3 '2 3‘ a - 3 § 2 i: 2 1a i ‘1
CNN“ eon-n <11.» tau-4a. and a: 3< was < 3 i o r 5» z 3:;-
Lloa [Io Yca Ilo You '80 1 1. 7. H I. 1. ‘1. 1 III 101 m
61AM X X 660 2 2.12
mu X x x 100 1 .203 10 65 15 30 0 o 1
AIIZOIA x x x 100 600 15 70 I5 1 2 .2 16a.
AXXAISAS X x x 100 500 13 66 61 3 5 o 0
aura-nu X X X 100 1.225 23.8 27 7 68 5 2 6 [3 25 6 100
W X X X 100 1.800 5 12 75 8 1.5 25 17.5 21 I 6
W1C!” X X x X 600 8-10 15-20 35 35 3
flaw-nu
FLORIDA X X X 100 1.233 7 26 9 60 2 3
GEORGIA X X X 100 3 27.3 69.7 7 9 2 .315 1 [o
mu X X X 30 8 62 317 0 0 0
IDAHO X X X 100 1.566 12.68 31.66 62.25 13.6 1!. 1
ILLIlDIS X X X 100 1.000 20 10 70 2 ,5 0 0
111mm x x x 100 2 . 500 5 30 20 55 o z .16
101A X X X 100 1.100 5 15 25 65 6 3 o
m 3 3 O 1 5
XXIITUCXY X X X 100 8 68 6 60 1 5 o o
mum x x x 100 600 15 6O 15 30 3 3 o 1 5
lux- X X X 100 300 10 20 70 10 2
mm
W3 X X X 100 600 I5 30 35 20 5 1.2 1
11101qu X X x 100 2.600 I 2 7.5 s 3.1 1 .s
IOWA X X X X X 3,000 100 10 500 6 2
111881881"! X X X 100 500 10 35 0 55 l
KIWI X X X 100 2.000 3 15 30 52 6 2.5 5 .75 0
m X X X 100 1.200 3 51 66 0 0 8 0
IIIAIXA X X X 100 5811 6 30 67 17 3 2
mm X X X X 659 10 20 60 10 6
u mm“ X X X 100 700 10 30 6O 3 2
m mu x X x 100 509 6 6o 36 1 .006 1 .35 o
m DIX‘ICO X X X 100 560 8 16 69 7 o 6 4._9 o
'3 max X X X 100 2.600 3 16 2.5 0
m CAROL!” X X X 0 100 0 619 10 20 63 27 z 2 .5 1 100
m DAKOTA 2.5 3.5 60 56
01110 x x x ' 719 10 ‘0 20 30 6 1o 1 .01 o
m 1
moon )1 x x 75 6.000 10 9 35 b6 0 11 20 I. 6
".8an X X X 100 5.000 8 7 38 67 5 25 5 I. 1 _15
m "up X X X 581 652 9 17 23 51 1 2 .05
sou-nu CAIOIJIA
sum m; X x x 100 300 16 18 33 33 1 1
mm
TXXAS
um: I x x 100 o 1.915 3.5 a 65 23.5 o 12
m x x x 100 335 a 25 oo 7 s z
VIXGIXIA
lamina! x x x so 50 o 1. 600 9 10 so 1 o 9 35 15 s
“51’ “ICINIA X X X 2 98 0 861I 8.3 20.2 27 66.52 2 l b ,5 o
insects"! x x x 1.21.0 1.86 o 21.4. so.) 2 as 16a.12 .1. 11...
wanna X X X I“) 1.318 5.3 15 79 .7 o u [5 o
4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spec1ee and Quant1t1u of

123

ExIatance of Private
Hatcher1as In State

I of Annual FuMng L1cenaea Sold'

 

 

pt.“ Hatchery Produced Flah:
(on! ”med ,

Other Other No Yea Non-

Cnld Hana Icaident ReaIdent

Hater Hater Hera Cold Non- Trout and Traul and Hlfe Can Fieh on

Irout Sal-on Iaaa Spectea Spec1ee Hater Hater Other leatdent Resxdent Sal-on SaI-on fluaband‘a [.(.q..
184 m 101 104 HH 9 I O H H H H Yea 1 So

AUIAHA .120 2.9 15 2 650 .62 x
ALASKA 1.5 2 1.3 I 63 37 X
ARIZONA .2 .025 1 x
ARKANSAS .60 .90 3.5 X 616 190 x
CALIFIXINIA 21 18 .1 116 35 27 1.866 29 11,9l 1
COLORADO 21 6 15 16 300 167 X
CONNECTICUT .6 6 .01 .03 2 I60 6 X
DELAHARZ
FLORIDA .15 1.7 1 681 28 X
GEORGIA .315 .5 11 569 16 X
HAHAII .09 X 6 .012 X
IDAHO 20 X
ILLINOIS .25 .25 6 700 25 X
INDIA!“ .08 .08 .15 .15 0 3201 31 16 X
101A .21 .05 10 0 600 20 16 X
XAISAS
unucn .5 271 311 X
LOUISIANA 1 2.5 x 600 16 X
HA1!!! .8 5 .231 3 137 91 X
HARM
MASSACHUSETTS 1.3 6 11 2 163 5 X
MICHIGAN 3 5.6 .123 7.5 6 30 9252 177 292 28 X
KIMSO’TA 1.8 180 I 295 95 20 1. 100 360 X1
MISSISSIPPI 265 105 X
MISSOURI 1.65 .3 2.2 50 12 X
MONTANA 6.9 6.9 .015 56 167 68 2 X
IIIASXA .036 .090 .211 17.2 9 7 3 1612 113 X
mm 1.95 .01 l 67 76 x
1.! M10881“ 1.7 3 .066 .06 1 80 35 116 1.9 X
m .1!!le .356 .003 2 I I
II FIXICO 3.99 .307 .622 1 2 86 38 X
m you: 6.3 .5 326 6 35 803 59 X
“T11 CAXOLINA .6 .585 13.8 3 I8 270 51 62 33 X
”T11 DAXOIA
0110 06 .25 .2 30.9 850 23 X
alum
ouoon 17.9 6.8 X 6182 8.5 X
"HIS“.VMIA 6 .150 1.2 26 62 56 651 36 X
um I!“ -9 1 20 I
311711! CAIOLIXA
$01!"! MIRA -06 20 10 121 85 X
TXIIISSIX
TXXAS
U‘IAII l 0 5 0 132 66 X
rum 7 o 1 36 11 x
VIICII‘IA
“film 35 0 70 637 33 X
1331 VIIGIIIA 5 .28 .01 0 2 201 20 X
BISCUISII 2.7 6 .03 2 76) 600 1200 696‘ 321 X
Inc-(1m 16 78 97 X

 

 

 

 

124

  
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proceeda of Flahlng Seaaona 6 LL-1ta fiahlng Regulationa
Luz“. 5.1": sf! ”T [Named 5,: 51" o! Nah Planttua
i a a s s
.. 1 a. a. ‘3 . 5 . . 5 a s 5 3 5
'1' I: 3 8 a u a 3 3 1'. ‘3 3 3. C 3 '3 .. 3 I
“'“m E: o... 2.. E E}? ‘2 E 3': :3 g 3 253; Size of annual c 8! 3:
.1: :g :E 1; .a' a. 3 2 Eg 3E _: E :51- FlaMna Induetry g g : £1 .52
! 1'3 38 55 g 3, g! 5 f3 BEE gg g 1! 53‘! lavenue O of LIcenaad. 1: :1 a ' 3 ‘fl
Generated I‘lahemn 1969-7 1969-70 1969-70 1969-70 1969-70
1 ‘L '1 7. ‘ Yea No __fll) 7 91L H H _ 1| 1| ll
mm 56 66 x x x 10.0 2
11413111 100 x x x 019 1,091 1,230 1.200
1121201171 100 x x x .002 um...) 251115..)
W 100 x x x 60 2 1.000 3.000
011110011111 100 x 1 1 2111.0002 9.5
cowuno 100 x x x 25.000 6,000 100 15,000
came-11cm 100 x x X 1 1.200 900 00
newnu
11.001111 38-8 61.2 x x x 62.2 3.7 150 1.700
(10110171 100 x x x x .006 000 500
1001111 100 x x x x 3.500I 1.2 90
101010 100 x x x
1LL11101: 7s 25 x x x 500 .350 22 9 200 2011
1110111111 100 x x x 1.2 1 32 so so 150 150
1017.1 100 x x x x x s 2
was
unucn x x: x x 2 7 660 691 7,006
1.001511» 100 x x x 2.1120l 41.12 500
10111: 100 x x x x 000 500 231
mmum
mssacuuszns 100 x x x x 1 _009 .125
111011101111 100 x 11 x 35 .250 2,901. 5.625 12) 7,010
111111125011 X x x x 500 .290 2,000 225 225 249.205
1113511131121 100 x x x x 2.2
1115300111 100 x x x .900 1.650 300 2.200
101mm 100 x x x 100 .001 1.927 1.919 15
namu 100 x x x 1.7 .171
nvm 100 x x x
1111 1111015111111: 100 x x x x 1 .150
IE nun 100 x x x 10 150 150 6
III 111100 100 x x x .001 1.121 107
m m 100 X X X X 135 1 5.956 3“ 21 0 335.152
m M!“ 100 X X X X1 000 586 10.500
100111 07010111
qua 100 X X X .563 95 95 600 ”1
mum
mm 100 X X3 X
Kaufman 100 x x x X X .aoo .020 1.050 110 1.100 ”.100
m 13“” 100 X X X 1 105
30011! CAMIIIA
sou-111 man 100 I x x 010
“mu .010
um
urn 10° . X X X 1
vmon 1°° i I X
vucuu
mantras 100 x x x 5
11151 1111011111 55 ‘5 X 2 x
VISCOISIII 10° x x x .663 2.100 170 86 15.500
woman 100 x x x x 10.000 .157

 

 

 

 

 

i
1

Acres of Ioteats

125

 

 

 

In State:
.
1 '5 1 5? [uployeea and SaIary Range

Foreaf ry : v o u g a

J’- 2 Z S 1: 2

its 5 5 i 5 Inreatera Fire Fightera Adminxnlratlvr

Salary Salary Salary

H H H 0 l Fr>m 1 To J ‘ [From Tn C .1 From 1 la
ALABAMA 20,741. 202 - 799 38 7,527 14,534 T7 100 3,185 Y 4.440 19 5,711 14,334
ALASKA 400 3,400 24,400 11 848/00 1,570/00 \ o 0
ARIanA NOT AVAILABLE 1
ARKANSAS 10.535 19 3.480 201 5,100 8,100 E 315 3,204 4,080 7 7,470 9,700

.

CAprognxA 8,100 91 9,132 79 717/00 1,273/00 '3,452 359/00 959/00 41 717/00 970-00
COLORADO 8 300 I4 117 0.000 14,500 2 13,500 18,500
CONNECTICUT 1,793 152 3 I 17 8 000 17,500 : 715 5,000 7,500 20 7,000 11,000
1317141111121: 330 18 2 2 0 , 000 9 , 500 8 3 , 000 6 .000
FLORIDA 17,300 540 1.000 #50l
LEORLIA NOT AVAILABLE
HAHAII 1,089 451 9 15 0,000 13,830
IDAHO 3,000 940 11,817 38 0,972 8,472 31 5,730 10,290 13 0,040 10,000
ILLINOIS 3,521 121 229 27 7,500 12,420 1 23 4,932 7.524 7 9,000 18,.20
INDIANA 3,725 130 145 20 000700 1,310/00 ’ 12 420/00 525/00
100A 2,558 24 13 14 0,972 10,824 2 0,904 13,812
KANSAS 2 000 0 13 9,000 12,000 3,1001 0 13,000 19,000
KENTUCKY NOT AVAILABLE
LOUISIANA 15,153 108 710 45 7,200 20,000 423 3.700 0,100
MAINE 10,953 041 77 35 0,422 10,000 222 4,790 10,100 13 0,130 10,952
MARYLAND 2,090 1441 14 32 7,170 10,300 23 0,459 11,090 0 13,789 10,085
HASSACHUSETTS NOT AVAILABLE
MICHIGAN 12,800 3,800 2,600 {121 6,660 15,513 6 13,258 20,759
MINNESOTA 7,523 3,304 3,819 1071 509700 1.300/00 1.50/01 2.09/01 48 010/00 1,520/00
MISSISSIPPI 15,100 1.71 1.119
MISSOURI 13,000 200 1.300 50 7,392 17,730 120 1.924 8.550
MONTANA 5.300 700 10,300 24 7,008 10,740 22 7,008 10,740 7 10,200 15,000
NEBRASKA ‘ NOT AVAILABLE
NEVADA 77 13 32 4 7,850 14,000 18 5,850 10,500 4 8.052 14,000
NEH HAMPSHIRE 4,210 118 5.9 5 8,078 10,103 12 0,890 8,019 7 9,755 10,500
NEH JERSEY 1,750 347 I7 18 8,124 18,910 38 4,750 12,225 37 4,524 18,970
NEH MEXICO . 1,733 103 3,839 10 400/00 1,200/00 9 315/00 0007-0 1 800/00
NEH YORK 13,389 3,290 101 88 7,705 13.035 138 0,115 10,475 19 14,020 27,005
NORTH CAROLINA 18,300 307 1,400 94 7,344 18,876 354 3,444 13,470 2 8,412 10,000
NORTH DAKOTA 3,558 032 110 7 7,000 11,000 4 5,200 7,000 I 10,000 11,000
OHIO 0,329 108 121 431 0,490 10,328 18 5,990 7,420 I? 0 490 11.523
OKLAHOMA NOT AVAILABLE
OREGON 10.100 920 15,400 1141 599/00 1,373/00 72 302/00 884/00 18 332/n0 1,009 no
PENNSYLVANIA 13,500 3,000 500
RHODE ISLAND NOT AVAILABLE
sorTN CAROLINA NOT AVAILABLE
sorTH DAKOTA 430 05 1,039 8 550/00 900/00 375/00 650/Io o
TENNESSEE NOT AVAILABLE
TEXAS I4,R3o 44 030 40 7,200 15,000 200 3,000 5,400 8 8,400 22,500
UTAH 352 280 3,400 10 0,210 15,408 10 6,268 0,528 2 4,452 7,890
VERMONT 3,940 I31 224 55 3.530 14.300 8 4,420 9,404 4 ,1 B I‘,0Bo
VIRGINIA 14,137 235 1,437 120 7.032 15.075 108 7,032 15,075 25 7,032 10 (m
HASHIHfiTON 9,110 1,050 8,213 101 015/00 1,479/00 729 295/.0 0781.0 33 8245-0 I.-P“'-n
UESI VIRrINIA 10.353 153 83 48 540/00 1,215/00 30 410 .0 I,o05/00 5 5 0700 745-00
NISCONSIN 10,1001 541 1,900 2
1170111311: .959 III 3.0-"! 0 M! m 90131-0

 

 

 

126

 

§
2
as:
8 Ij§
_.£.4
1 3. 5
331:,“ 3:43;: and 39199, 999.9 09:31:?“ oi :9.
801997 9414:, 9. 8 l
' ".21 l 49 ' ESL LL17 3911—0"
41494414 30 3.390 7. 193 193 1.19/0: 1 .9970: 9
414994 1 545/00 055/00 4 949/00 1.029100 9
4992994
49949949 32 3.300 4.470 7 1.71/0: 2.50/0: 9
9419799914 100.9 395/00 517/90 10 490/00 530/-0 9
91949499 4 4.490 7.170 14 4,990 9.095 9
19999991999 9 4.500 7,090 2 2,500 4,000 9
99249999 1 3,000 4,000 9
9109994 9
9999914
949421 4.090 5.494 4.090 9
19499 25 3,510 0.972 309 2.25/0: 13.90/0: 9
11119919 11 4,429 7.092 20-00 2.02/0: up 9
1991494 9 3457-0 soc/:0 72 1.05/0: 2.30/0: 9
1994 2 3.904 0.030 151 5.190 9.070 9
941-49 4 4.509 0.500 30 1.00/9: 2.50/9: 9
99999999
199191494 20 3.590 13,990 0 9
79m 15 3.790 7.359 91 1.93/0: 2.11/0: 9
99994.7 9 4,451 9.497 90 1.25/11: 1.90/0: 9
9499499999999
91991949 24 5.304 7.412 50 4,593 7.039 9
711.9994 ‘5 302/.) 616/I7 62 3701-3 5“,.) I
91991991991 9
111990191 9 3,924 0.094 30 290/40 350!- 9
79191494 13 4. 200 0 .999 109 2 .30/11: 4 .9010: 9
99994994
999494 3 5,999 7,999 13 5.909 7.199 9
.7 90999199 5 4,004 4.922 25-35 2.00/11: 2.30/91- 9
999 299999 10 4.514 10.599 2.505 1.09/9: 2.52/0: 9
.9 799190 5 339/00 750/90 29 3151-0 5501-0 9
999 9999 79 4.200 9.410 1.000 9
99999 94991994 33 4.090 7.099 499 1.30/0: 2.99/9: 9
99999 949994 1 4,500 5.999 4 1.00/0: 9
9999 22 3.744 4.992 124 3.744 4.019 9
99149994
999999 49 2997-0 990/40 9 9
999999194914 9
99999 191499
99999 94991194
99999 949994 4 250/uo soc/.0 375/90 450/90 9
999999999
99949 19 3.300 9.490 9 9
0949 2 3.704 9.594 2 3.192 4,452 9
9999999 9 4.904 7.309 9
99992914 34 3.999 4.720 45 4.512 9.794 9
m 197 342/00 749/:- 9
.9 99991924 3 300!- SNI- 0 9
919999919 9
IIIIIIB 1 S‘lllo GOD/II 6 390/Io 762/.0 !

 

 

 

09—99191 Iberia
(loud Foot)

Tottl Volun- of

3199 of 11494491 Ind.“ and

[1999910991 Iranian - 1969-70

 

 

 

 

5
,3, 400041
3 Budget
.29. T‘
1.291 3.114 170
909 102
1.922 2.403 137
5.344 43.050 2.100
300 590 230
32 1,404 1.004
75 94
325 9.419 1. 790
0 1.049 950
1,090 3.0351 795
15o 1,200
232 1,132 400
75 349 133
29 913 402
50 4.033 153
050 2.910 903
297 1.042 945
923 2.219 1,939
129 5.759 4.579
4.1003
495 2.390 790
1,300 1.549 373
5 049 102
172 592 230
54 1.249 239
225 399 94
.54 9.954 3.074
1.499 9.599 553
2 120
399 2.597 1.399
9.729 4.999 2,471
929 5.952 2.477
114.500 375 255
1.799 1.999 219
99 209 42
2.992 999 050
1.990 3.970 729
7.119 25.577
999 1.599 342
2 (40:40) 12.2093 4,209
739 119 44

3,556

2.326
30.380
115
676
19

6.700

835

260

171

1,9501

3,307

2,013

797

1,179

1.600

300

1.00!

25‘

1,071

#16

6,319

3.275

120

1.100
15.

2,355

707
2.000

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Han-I ll
Uhlch htvuo Lull-
Foroou GUI-n “III!“
Land. an In th- rolls-IQ:
Agutro‘:
3" . =1
=5 a a }=
lava-n Inn-nod to I: -- g u g d !
:‘ti‘li? 29:22.: 2'23! [Icon-IN!!!“- onou nub" an...“ an In. ‘-' ' 3 E 3 ' g”:
a a u o ’ 3 3
'otoolry I- u... of III”: . g 1 Protocuoo: s i g .— f .. . "
Cont land not. laden! 3" :2 a Blunt-u ' E c 3 '5‘ E 5 gig
9.. 1::- u. :3: =31: iiiw '33:. “8 u. Ziflmm. '33:“. " 3 3 ‘ 3 "' ‘1"-
un ll kn II Yul In In 1 In You i In Ya. In , Ya In You I In 1 7 ‘l. I 1001!:
mm o o I I I I I I 0 so so I I I
mu 0 o no I ‘ I I I I I ‘ I I a I
mm '
m z I I I I I I 100 I ' I
mucuu I.” u I I I I I I 90 2 I I
m o 0 .2s 1.7“: I 100 I I I
(an-uncut 961 I I I I I I 0 cs Is I I I I
M I I I I I I 99 1 I I
mun .90 27s I I I I I I so 60 I I I I
mu
man I I I I I I I I
[MD I I I I I I 1 I
tumors In I I I I I I too I I I
mum l I I I I I I as Is I I
ma 1 I I I I I I 95 s I I
m o o I I I I I I I I I I
m
mum I I I I I I I I
ma I I I I I I I I I I I I
mum u o o I I I I I as as I I I
mun-II
lumen .20 300 .09 no I I I I I I so 20 I I
lama MI I I I I I I u 3 09 I I I
muuum 3 I I I I I I 100 I I
Inna-I .xs 1 I I I I I I o 95 as I I I
mm .25 6.000 I I I I I I 100 I I
Inna
In» 0 o I I I I I I 100 I I I
II mm I I I I I I so so I I
II In" .10 I I I I I I I I I
.1 men 0 o I I I I I I ‘ I I I
I! m I I I I I I )0 cs s I I I
m mu 0 o I I I I I I too I I I
m mum o o I I I I I I 90 I I I I I
no I I I I I I 99.9 .01 I I
M
m 3 ’ I I I I I I n u n I I
mvuu .Io )9: I I I I I I o 9. a I I
II. Isu-
can mm
awn m o o I I I I I I as I I I
I"
Inn .1. sn I I I I I I too I I I I
vu- I I I I I I I I I I I
"I .3: .rs I I I I I I o 90 I0 I I I
m Lot I I I I I I to so to I I
um I I I I I I I... 1.7 o I I I I
an "lulu I I I I I I too I I I
um:- Jo Isl ‘ I I I I I I so 12 u I I
mu: 0 o I I I I I I o 0 0I I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 3
i a
s 3;.
5.51 g ..
o I- x. c:
3‘ 3 8' 8:
a u s a
Employ.“ and Salary Ian.“ ‘2 £3;
0- Ad-lnlau'atlva lanaarch Plald Part-{lune 3 g 153
Salary Salary Salary Sal-r ‘ ‘n "’
I. "2 J To 0 1 "on To 0 L Fry; 1 To 0 Pro: 1 To You You
Am I 11.120 17.199 9 9.321 12.266 9.321 11,692
m 11 1.312/U 1.059/I) 12 903/D 1,096/no 30 060/.) 1.666/D 5-10 060/m 903/” 6
68120“ 6 095/” 1.255/D 16 6 760/” 1.035/Io 3l 500/m 705/.) 3
W m 69611.60“
mxmu ; 10 522/” 1.626/m 33 615/” 1.273/m 00 615/” 1.273/ID 33.9 395/” 505/” 7
001mm 0 10.600 22.066 21 7.536 12.900 130 5.620 11.700 20 3.996 9.160 3
MIC!!! 1 11.209 13.701 5 0.623 11.027 6 0.623 10.723 6-17 2.00/hl' 6.00/11! 3
m 1 2 712/” 1,200/ID 1 712/” 960/m 17 665/” 960/” 6 376/.0 6001-0
MIN . 2 10.600 16.560 0 9.100 12.660 27 5.300 10.100 2 3.600 6.200 6
awn , 10 BSOIU 1.500/U 2 blip/m BOO/m 60 6l6/m GOO/In 2
WI ' 1 1.153/U 1.700/U 9 709/” 1.626/I) 10 616/U 969]” 6 616/D 663/" 6
I“ . 6 0.672 13.120 0 6.636 0.906 13 6.636 9.0“ 25 3.192 5.736 6
ILLIDIS ' 3 753/” 1.560/m 75+ 623/” 911/.) 50+ 6
1'01“ : 6 7 69 6 3
I“ :m AVAILAILI
um i 6 557/” 1.02”” 0 557/0 056/” 30 202/.) 613/n 5 202/” 622/” 5
am 1 5 6.615 16.556 1 7.716 10.072 55 6.000 10.072 10 2.700 6.” 7
W181“ nor AVAIIAILI
M1. 2 766/I: 926/m 6 696/Io 902/.) 20 366/” 902/” 25 366/” 616/m
mm 2 5.650 16.805 7 5.658 15.3“ 63 6.251 11.537 6 2.00/11: 2.99m: 3
“3mm 2 10.150 12.500 5 0.977 11.060 6 7.035 9.713 16 5.600 6.065 3
Elana. 16 11.066 22.759 0 79 5.326 “.000 25 5.326 7.037 3
IOWA 5 650]” 1.250/U 15 661/” 1.112/D 79 660/.) 900/” 75 2.69/6! 3.02/15! 6
"1331331"! 2 10.200 11.000 10 7.200 9.600 35 5.520 9.600 6 3.600 1.200 5
[133”! 7 9.900 16.092 12 0.160 12.626 36 6.536 10.392 325 120 6.620 3
mm 3 30 10 50 0
INS“ 2 10.560 16.200 13 7.320 12.000 5 1.65/hl' 2.50/hr 3
IV“ 2 13.633 16.750 5 11.156 12.261 31 5.930 11.156 7 5.661 6.666 6
.u Milli! 1 10.307 12.926 9 7.162 11.201 3 1.00/1" 6
a m3! 3 10.007 10.970 10 0.126 12.225 33 6.900 9.126 6 2.25]!!! 3.25/hl’ 6 I
u mm 0 6.900 16.660 12 6.300 11.200 29 5.760 11.200 5 3.6“) 3.960 11 I
u m 5 5.600 16.6“) 39 5.000 16.000 176 5.000 17.900 60 «.000 7.200 6
m mm 3 3 50 60 7
m “”16 m 6'61“!“
mo 15 7.626 16.120 1 3.770 ‘ 12.996 so 1.071 0.01
m 9 5.976 12.662 6 6.701 9.167 60 6.606 9.600 0 3
m 5 086/.) l.373/Io lo 510/.) l.lZ9/Io 90 517/m l.l06/m 5 625/.) 570/” 6
“TINA.“ 35 13.301 23.915 16 9.159 16.100 290 7.177 16.100 206 2.11/19! 7
m 13” 1 9.152 10.966 3 6.890 9.512 12 1.391 9.0“ 2 1.120
m m!“ 2 10.200 16.960 5 7.600 10.905 62 10.905 10 1.60/hl' 3.00/1" 12
30m m 5 660/” 050/69 5 SSS/Io 785/” 16 620/- 755/” 2
mm 6 900/" l.190/-o 6 290/.) 060/n 06 290/u 060/.9 35 LID/hr 1.7S/hr 6
m 13 11.000 13.000 57 71
UTAH 6 797/” 1.170/- 13 557/” 797/” 26 627/D 077/” 92 322/” 620/- 3
m 1 173/Ii 230/“ (5 162/196 cublnad)
Incxm 1
mxm 5 10.300 16.1“ 3 7.752 12.012 30 5.706 12.012 10 6.106 7,752 3
m1 vxmm 6 6.” 11.000 11 5.000 12.000 65 5.000 9.(I)0 6
”m1. 6 10.000 19.690 033 6.N0 11.900 35 5.300 7.300
mm 6 763/- 1.129/D 75 670/- 067/” 362/.) 660/.0 6

 

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lodge: Allocatlona Nunun. Seasons 6
Source of . H11h1n the 011110101: 11.11- Enabluhod by:
“Operaung M1101: ‘8‘ E h 3
o 22 o u
i I o ' ! c 1 '8' 3
-§ 3‘ .31 Ca- Dlvlolon U000 Io tonal (out 8.5} g E ; 5 5
.. ., ., , _ I on _ ... c . 9 a
c.- if: a :5 um. 11.14 0111:. 111 loch legion: 3 I 8 z __ 8 5 3 8 .
.. . 3 .2 7 . o .. . .. .. ._
Col-11M ~§ 3.3 :§ Io '0 3%; E E E '1: 3‘ g = 3
£5 32 is fro: 26.73:“ (5:: :0“::::::ry A: 3 8110 0! Annual 3 5 3 g 3 E E 5
Dloulcu '3 M201. 1969-7O 4! g g 70
1 7- 2 Yea L 11o In L lo Valle 11 7. 2 1 7. U U 3
W 100 I I I s.oa9 12 s2 11 15 I
own ' I I I 1.970 2 I
12120101 I I I I 507 I
W
01117001111 100 I I I 3.919 5 1s ss 15 I
001mm I I I I 3.000 7 1s a s9 I
councncvr 100 I I I s70 15 15 so 10 I I
02mm so 70 I I I 1100 5 s 25 s5 I
nouns sol I I I 1.000 s 20 so 25 I
(201011 100 I I I 000 10 so so I I
10111111 100 I I I 24.5 10 so 5 55 11
1041110 100 I I I 1,055 I
11.111101: 100 I I I 1.7110 10 1o 20 so I I
1110111111 100 I I I 2.500 1 1s 20 I I
10111
um 100 I I I sss 1o 20 70 I
III'mcn 100 I I 7115 o 1 20 75 I
msuu
null 100 I I I 500 s 15 05 11 I
11am l°° I I I 700 10 25 s2 4. I I
mausxm 100 I I I 759 2 10 20 so I
“CHIC-Al 1°° I I I 1.737 I I
““80“ 100 I I I 2,s7o s 10 20 s7 I
“159188"?! 99 M I I I 700 s 9 u 1 I I
1mm: 100 I I 1.000 22 19 4.1 211 I
warm I I I I 1.250 s 15 so 10 I
lawn 100 I I I 254» 10 90 I
mm 100 I I I 900 10 25 4.0 25 I
.11 Imam: 100 I I 210 I
III JIIIII 100 I I 5 so so 5 I
n1 sumo 100 I I I 630 5 so so 15 I
am 100 I I I s.soo 2 ss ss 9 I I
m colon-l1 65 35 0 I I I 1.000 s 5 01 o I I I
nu 11mm
01110 100 I I I 1.710 21 1s ss I
m 100 I 050 10 10 so 20 I I
anon 100 I I I 2.700 19 7 os s1 I
"1'1.va 100 I I I 7.5 1.0 «.0 57.2 I
I“ nulls 100 I I 200 10 20 s5 5 I I
own mun 100 I I I s00 20 10 so 10 I
000111 11mm 100 I I I s00 I
m ss 21 41s I I I 1.200 0 s 7 41 72 12 s I I I
III» 100 I I I 2.012 I I
m 100 I I I 1.521 s.2 17.1 10.3 119.1 I
m I I I I no 12 70 10 I I
"001m 100 I I I 1.514.1 1 2o 70 s I
mm 100 I I I 94.7 o 5 2 5 1s 71 I
an vnctm 2 50.0 I I I 1.009 7.2 21.5 57.1 7.1 I
11150013111 93 7 I I I 3.900 ss 15 ss I
wanna ’0 I I I 1,s00 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

 

 

 

 

 

I
I:
vi
1:
3.
, 3
lProceeds of Hunting . S O of Hunting Llcemeo Sold
Llcenoe 50100: 1'; .3 in 1909:
| v-l
E > I: o
I I S " :: 5—11 1113
I u n. a 5 Gate Turkey (.0.
’3 : g z ‘8 g 8 A u u u
1 g: z .2 I: I B s 5 2
LG. I: U: 3‘ 3 - u g u 3 a 3
G.- I 3 3 .1. g : 3 g E g g g = s = 013 C830 Anlll1l 6 Approxiuze Nulbcrl:
. -' 'I 1- |- h o v 1- v 1- 11 5- D
(201111011001 5.... 49 01 I o 0 a v4 1 .0 u .0 1 001' But
.I > 6 I: 0 c I: o o 1: a a I ll '
:7; 3 3 3 8 5 “ g " 3 6 3 0 3 o 0 Uhne
. o “ V‘ “ 3 " 2 H1110 Tail OIhcr Black brovn CIlIIly
7. 7. 7. '1 YuJNo 14 11 11 9 11 11 11 11 11 11 n 11
mm 100 x 1 500
ALASKA 100 I 3 200 20 12
ARIZONA 100 x 2 220 35 1 5
“KANSAS x
1
CALI FORNIA 100 I 1 _ 300
COLORADO 100 I 352 2.0 .8 10 157 15 I I I I
CONNECTICUT 100 x 70 .001 21 .001 0
00141114111: 00 20 x 5
111.011an 100 I 223 2.3 4.50 1
caoncu I
WM! 100 X 8.360-conblned .65
1011110 100 I l 4.00 no
111119015 I 390 7 o 0 so 0
1110141101 100 I 4.57 3.2 57 .177 4.00
101171
1111115115 100 I 190 19.s o o 12 o 7.5 27.5
nnucxv I I so
10015141101
1111114: 100 I l 275 15
mm 100 I 175 0.3 so
MSSACHUSBTTS 100 I 1 10
1001107111 100 I 5711 .5 5.2 s09 14. 050 7
1111111250111 100 I 3021 1.4. 290 500 0 so
russwsun 1 99 I 1 275 .050
1415300111 100 I 301 0.9 0.0 07 109 s I .100
1011111101 100 I 67 .7 1.5 105 117 15
1121111715101 100 I 199 20 1 7 s9 20 2.5 4.0 ss
11mm 100 I .0 o 0 35 3.7 150
1
14:11 1111105111111: 100 I 4.5 1.1
NEH JERSEY 100 I . 15s 2.s o o o o 50
111511 1¢I1co 100 I 13 1.0 100 0.9 300 15 3
NEH 1101111 100 I ‘ 200 34.5 550 20 500 s
' 1
11011111 01111011101 100 I 152 1
11011111 morn
01110 100 I 4.02 1.7 .9 29 22
011mm 100 I 107 2.0 5.4. 07 .7 s so
00110011 100 I ‘ .25 4.00 1 350 11
1
PEIIISYLVAIIA 100 I 050 1 .5
"100! 15121110 100 I 13 13 1 2.5
501ml anon» 100 I 212 10.5 270
sou-r11 anon 100 I 100 10.9 s 203 2.9 53 05 130
nmssu 100 I 257 10 75 100 2 3
nus 100 I 090 0.1. 170 3.050 .05
01-111 100 I 30 .7 s7 15 300
1
VIM 100 I 103 1.2 4.1 177 2
vucnlu 100 x 381 15.6 200 12,000 200 l
1
1051111101011 100 I 105 70 24.5 22
HIST 171110111141 60 90 I 220 20 137 .00
vxsconsxu 100 I 4.20 s 5 0 o 4.94. 9.3 500 0
1010111110 NO I l 250 50 2 5 05

 

 

 

 

131

 

 

U
i
I
I D
I. 5 u 1.
"“3 3i :3 2
32: “- :2
1: z 3 ‘- 3 g o a: 1: ‘0 3
‘ g u g 0 -' '9 '5 2 a 8 I:
3 u a u o a a o .. c
—o O i C d o 1.1 - a
= _. a .511- :1 a n. .3 c < x
01. 00- 0111-1- 1. [manna-1. g . .. “‘i _ 3E3 _ 1.
GI. MnConthuod: {.3 gig g. '“.: '0'
Continued 5 .‘J I ‘- 8.3L“ 8 3
1111 [0111011111. l smloum
H H H H You [lo YuJIo Y" lilo 1'00 1 lo You 1110
300 —"
ILA-11110 Turhoy X I I I
I.
mu 1.2 37.5 I x x x ,1
17
”120101 9 11 .3 Javcum I x x x x
m0:
3
mnoxuu 3.7 2.9 3.9 111111 P130 I I I I I
111. 00.10!
001011000 I I I 11011. X I I I I
00111120110171 I I I I I
00mm x I I I I
110-100 (a
HORIDA Uild Turkey/Ho; X X X X X
atoncu I I I I
3 00
114111111 .2 1.3 sou/171g X I I I
3 1.0
11111110 95 6 2.5 con/11°01. I I I I I
ILLINOIS X x x
11:01AM X I I1
101111
.0
1111113115 .00 .35 Turkey X I I I
111111170111 X I I
10015111110
1!.
MI. Moon X X X X X
11110qu X I I I
mssmfluszns X I I I I
.020
11101110011 2 H000. x I I I I
7
11111110011 .0231 Moon I X X X X
1115510511171 I I I I
11155011“ I I I I I
110nm I I I I I
112011110“ 11.5 I I I I
mm .200 3 2.5 111. Llon I I I I
11:11 11011110111“ 1 I I I I
11:11 30113“ X I I I I
25 2
11:11 1111100 12 10 0 Turkcy/Jovcllu 3 I I I I
11:11 m X I I I I
1100111 00.01.1101 ! I I I I
11011111 110mm
3.5
01110 Turkey 3 I I I
mum 5 .3 I I I I
.075
0010011 50 10 .15 can t I I I I
nmnvuu I I I I1 I
111101: 10m X I I I
0017111 mun I I I I I
.3
sum 0mm 2 20 .02 111. Goat I I I I I
2
nmsn 11110 11o. I I I I I
111 1.5
nus 11 12.0 7 “nun/Io“ I I I I
.3 .
UT”! 5 1 1 boon/Moon X X I l l
um I I I I I
1110011110 .0 I I I I I
110511111010- 00 .75 .3 7 I I I I I
00
1151 17100111111 Tutkoy I I I I I
Insomau X I I I I
l 1
name 55 110 3 soon I I I I

 

 

 

 

 

Divisions leceivin;
lnfornet ion end

132

Progr-s
Di rec t ed
Toeerde:

 

Conservet ion Depert-ent Megee ins

 

 

:. .3.
I‘mt ion Services: e .. i U E
a gs: a g =
Internet ion 3 l a i: 5 i 3 «.0 . :3:
w “ a I“ .. § 3. a a
[duet ion : i ‘ z .- 3 3 3 Ml M‘ut i . d . u .
~ g a o = . E. a "69! 70 n 3 3 3 wiuhscription lo
M M Fee Title Frequency Megeeine
AIM X I 65 X X 26 lone Aleb-s Conservation Ii monthly
m X 5 55 X X X
“I“ ll MO X X X 26 lone Hildlife Vines Ii-Ionthly
mm X X 6 90 X X 15 lane Ark. G- 6 Fish Querterly
mum X X X 6 250 X X X 26 LOO/yr Outdoor Celifornie lid-onthly
m 27 679 X X 56 Coloredo Outdoors Ii-mnthly
mm X X 2 31 X X X X
m X 2 30 X X 6 None Deleeere Conservetioniet Querterly
norm x‘ x 12 no at x Floride imam. Monthly
crown X X 13 315 X X )2 LOO/yr Georgie c. 6 Fish Monthly
Ml!
"IND X X X l5 262 X X 27 None ldeho Hildlife Revie- Ii-nonthly
ILLIDII 10 X X X
IIDIAIA 6 X X X 25 3.00/yr Outdoor Indiene 10 per yr
1M 15 268 X X 68 1.00/2 yre love Coneervetlonist Monthly
mus 6 too 26 None lenses fish a Gene Querterly
mm X X 8 160 X X
WlIlAIA l0! AVAILABLE
‘1' X X X ll 115 X X 16 2.50/2yrs Melne Fish a Cue Querterly
mm 7 X X X X
W X X 5 X X 63 None Mess. Hildlife Ii-nonthly
MXCIIGAI 37 622 X X X 62 2.00/yr Mich. leturel Ieeources li-nonthly
mm ll. 20!: 65 None Conservetion Volunteer Ii-noethly
Bfllfllm x x a 120 x x 32 None Miss. c- t. rm: li-nonthly
III”! 33 560 X X 135 None Conservetioniet Mthly
mu 1 x x 23 «00 x x x 20 None Montene uuam. Querterly
M m AVAILAXLX
a“ X X X 6 67 X X X 2.5 2.00/7: lends Outdoors Querterly
. mall X X 6 90 X X X 5.2 lone II. II. Ieturel Resources 2 Tines Yeer
.U m nor AVAILAILI
ll moo X X ll 199 X X LOO/yr I. Mexico Hildlife Ii-nonthly
u we: 60 950 X X 130 2.00/yr l. X. Conservetionist Ii-eoethly
"1" mm X X X 8 250 X X 103 LOO/yr Hildliie in I. cerolins Monthly
m WA 6 65 X X 25 1.50 Iorth Dekote Outdoors Monthly
«no em AVAILAIL!
m l} 300 X X
m X X lo l60 X X 55 lone Oreyoe St. c- COns. Bulletin Monthly
"EVA!“ 26 750 X X Ill LSD/yr Pen. 6. lens Monthly
III. "MD 3 X X l lone AgleCon Qurterly
sour! mm m AVAIMIIJ
soon menu 6 l6) X X 60 lone 8. Delete Conservetion Digest Ii-eoethly
m x r r s 60 x x 1
run 38 671 X X 55 None Tenne Perks e mum. Montth
If“! X X X 10 110 X X X
W x x x 3 r x x x
necxm X X 12 200 X X 50 lJO/yr Virginie Hildlfle Ibnthly
mum 5 75 X X ll lone c.- lullet in Querterly
.81 "Elm IO 97 X X X 27 LOO/yr Honderiul U. Virginie Monthly
nemesis I7 156 X X 100 lone Coeeervetion Iullerie Ii-eoethly
MIC 17 300 x x x 60 2.00/yr eye-m. uncut. Monthly

 

 

 

 

Inlet-st ion
end
lducet ion

133

Amount 0! Budget Expended 0n:

 

 

Continued Motion
Motion Picture
lovepeper Megetine Other Photo Pic ture Connervet ion Loen
Servicee Services Publicetions Services Redio TV Production Educetlon Other Service
a J 7. n 7. n 7. n 2 H4 7. n l 7. n 1 7. H 1 7. n L 7. u 1 7,
ALABAMA l7 0 o
my 60 20 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 20 10 6O 20 30 15 30 15
ARIZONA 8 22 15 1 1 25 0 30 35 1
ARKANSAS
CALIFOIUIIA
COLORADO 30 12.5
CONNECTICUT
DEMHARZ
FLORIDA 63 10 108 25 22 5 6 3 1 22 5 21 5 15 8.6 2 66 5 15 129 30 8.6 12
(IORGIA 1.5 5 78 26 23 7.5 11 3.5 1 .3 8 2.6
MAHAII
IDAID 15 19 15 8 6 5 2 15 80 2
ILLINOIS 26 10 2.6 1 50 25 20 10 1.2 05 5.2 2 .30 69 15 6
INDIANA
1011A .6 10 0 0 5 20 8 20 7 15 20
KANSAS 20 20 30 30 20 20 10 10 5 5 2 2 0 5 5 6 6 2 2
KENTUCKY
WISIANA
MAINE 1.2 2 1 20 36 8 16 6 7 1 1 2 3 5 IO 18 9 16 2 15
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS 10 35 20 2 10 5 5 ' 3 10
MICHIGAX 37 6 82 13 50 8 37 6 12.5 2 37 6 37 6 155 25 136 22 63.5 6
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI 8 25 15 5 3 10 5 10 17 2
MISSOURI .3 116 293 50.9 13 3.5 .9 5.13 1.3 1.65 .6 18 5 151 1215 32 37 \5
10mm ‘
NEBRASKA
[EVAN
m HAMPSHIXX 5 5 12 15 3 3 10 15 1 1
III! JERSEY
18H MEXICO 37 16 5.5 16.6(conbinod) 0 0 0 0
NEH you 80 200 100 20 25 300 200 20
[BITE WOLIIA
WI! DAKOTA 6.2 5 22 25 6.2 5 8 6 10 8 6 10 8 6 10 8 6 10 6 2 5 8 6 10 8.6 10
01110
alum
0|:sz 10 15 10 5 5 5 5 15 20 10
RIBSYLVAXIA 320 95 25 0 15 20 150 0
11m 181A!) .28 2 2.1 15 .28 2 .28 2 .7 5 10 76
SM“ CAROLIIA
SOU'I'M DAXO'I'A 6 50 10 66 2 3 5 5 60 2
TENNISSXI
TEXAS
UTAH
VINO!!! 2 0 36 2 5 3 2 5 O
VIRGINIA
HASHIIICTQ 6.3 8 10 13 .2 13 2 1 5 2 3 6 2 3 1.7 2
HIST VIRGINIA 1.5 60 5
VISCOKSII
wanna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

134

 

 

 

 

l‘nits oi Lend
Reverting to Locetion of Reverted Funding Sources
Stste Units: 3 g a
“”u’ . 3 z 3?. 2 '3 _. E 5'
. _- E 2533 313 3g 2: s 3:
i :5 : “HI-3.. E25 2;; 2'5 :: 3'5
Lennie 1 5g 5 g: g 3 2:53; :EE :2; 5E. 35 3E TotelAcres Tots] Acres
1 n e ‘A u 3 « .- 3: .. .5. ... 1.: Eu :2 Oi Stete m Federelly
Mensee-snt 55 i h 5:; : :3 1: g 31§§§ .323 35:; “no“ it: :5 3% Owned Lend OwnedfllJnd
~“ ° 3 2’: s “a = = ““ ”“5 2° 33:. ‘ “‘ 4‘ "
2: 2 a 3:3 . I. 3 2 ~
YesL No Yeslflo Ytll No H 7- 1
mm x x x 76 20 so I
ALASKA '05 5 I x x x 131 100 26.000 661.000
AIIZOIA X X X 100 9.250
ARKANSAS 7m AVAIUBLI
auroruu X X X 1.750 100 2.319 «7.202
compo 7m AVAILABLE
CONNECTICUT 0 5 100 100 X X X 105 100 I90 7
otuumu: n01 AVAIunu
norm 7201' AVAILABLE
amen 7701' AVAILABLE
HAHAII 6-8 75 25 x x
rum 0 x x x x 100 2.930 34,195
ILLquxs nor AVAxuau
17mm nor AVAtuau:
mu 0 0 34.000 100 100 x x as 100 160 222
was nor AVAIIAILX
armcu not AVAxuuu:
Lomsxm nor AVAILAeu
mm nor AVAILAnu
mwuo 7m Avumu
mum nor AVAILABLE
lacuna»: 6,000 10 250 1 15 s so at x x 500 100 M300 3.300
romeo“ 125 ‘0 100 x x x 100 6.638 3.392
””1“"?! nor AVAILAnu
"1550‘“ nor AVAILABL!
mm o o o ‘ x x 202 100 9.123 27.662
awn x 1 90 w x x x on 100 1.600 665
In» x x x 2 60,723
new mum 7m AVAIusu:
'5' "*3" nor AVAquu
'5' puma not AVAIqu
'5' m m Awuuum:
ma W1“ nor AvAxmu
sum W0“ rm AvAxuuu
0'10 701' Autumn
m not Avnunu
“100' o o 0 3-10 100 x x x no 100 815 ”.130
umruum ‘ 1-150 100 x x x 202 3,010 no
em nun nor AVAxunu
m mm m Awuunu
salml me o o o so 100 x r x 230 100 no
more nor AVAIIAILX
I'm 99 x I
one o o r x x x x 200 x 1.500 30,000
m nor Avuusu
neat-u In Arum
mm In unusu
In vtectm In Arum
“m1! 01 1,000 ecres 60 99 l X X X X 886 1.636
wanna o o s so so I x x 166 100 1,55) 28,986

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Len-do
Meneaenent
Con t lnued

.1“...

Ad-inistret ive

Se1eiy

To

. l

135

Emloyees end Seler iee

Lend Apprsisers

Se1 y
Fro. T

To

J

Legel Ste”
Selery
Fro-

I'o

Pen or in

Selery
0 Fro. L Io

 

AIIZOMA

AllXAIISAS

CALIFORNIA

COW

CONNECT 1 CUT

”WA”

71.03““

(ZORCIA

HAHAI 1

IDAK)

ILLIIDIS

INDIANA

INA

KANSAS

KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA

MAINE

MARYUMD

MASSACHUSETTS

MICHIGAN

M1 NMESUIA

MISSISSIPPI

MISSOURI

m HAMPSHIRE

MD! RISEY

m mxxoo

NIH “RX

”RIM CAROLINA

WITH DAKOTA

W10

“LAID“

ouoon

HMMSYLVAMIA

[MOM ISIAM'D

SOUTH CAROLI IA

SOUTH DAXO‘T A

nmssrt

VIRGINIA

HASMIMGM

“ST VIRGINIA

VISCCHSII

WWII:

 

2

116

20

12

20

5.667

670/.0

900/.)

12.500

10.000

386/.0

350/no

6.661

11.700

16.000

600/Io

750/.0

2697-:

15.158

2,000/Io

1.6001-0

17.500

12,000

1.680/Io

1.075/Io

17.600

16,700

17,000

1,250/no

1.118/no

 

16

3

6.591

981/Io

700/m

11.000

8.200

7,000

626/.)

666/lo

615/.0

9.150

3501-0

616/Io

8,957

1,219/Io

1,200/m

13,500

10.000

9.500

1.366/no

913/m

770/.0

11,700

550/.0

1.036/m

6

1

 

11,500

900/.0

16.131

ISO/no

16.556

1,500/Io

25.00/hr

1.036/eo

 

9

2.10/hr

2601-0 350/eo

2.00/hr

20 00
6.7

20 00
dey

136

 

 

Lev Emponeee end Selery Henge
Enforcement

Enforcement Officers Adninistretive CIericel Inn-um

L SeIery J Selery ' Selery J Selen-

I From 1 To fl :1 From 1 To 1'1 From 1 To 11 From To
AMEN-1A 110 6.305 13.312 6 5.667 7,163
ALASKA 36 785/1110 1.660/1110 8 1,050/1110 2.300730 9 500/1n0 1,000/no 100 58011:.) NOD/no
ARIZONA 9 10.260 2 9.666 15.620 3 6.886 6.168
ARKANSAS 122 5.126 6.866 2 6.996 11.976 1 6.106 5.508
CALIFORNIA 230 700/1120 869/1110 65 886 1.626 9 657/1110 651/130 0
coumno 2l 727/1110 1.30m» 1 727/1110 975/1110 a 625/1n0 570/1110 1 2.02/11:
CONNECTICUT 38 6.655 9.736 5 8.623 13.701 1 5.196 6.306
DELAHARE 10 6.506 8.316 2 7,176 9.180
FLORIDA 125 6.552 12.660 i 26 10,606 16,560 2 3.360 6.860 0
GEORGIA 692.50/m 1.131.50/1110 $91.50/mo 1.036.50/no 363.50/1110 668.50/1110 12.00 18.00
dey dey

HAHAII 23 6.660 11.388 1 9.372 16.532 6 6,286 8.508
IDAIR) 66 553/B0 762/1110 10 673/1110 1.096/1110 2 360/1110 527/1110
ILLINOIS 130 689/1110 666/1110 5 5 0
INDIANA 116 660/1110 575/1110 10 510/1720 750/1no 6
IOHA 63 6.300 8.600 5 7.320 12.528 1 6.706 6.026
KANSAS 60 685/1110 613/1110 7 676/1110 1.077/ns 2 336/1110 663/1110
KENTUCKY 121 657/1210 663/1110 11 710/1110 1.231/1110 1 615/1110 998/30 0
LOUISIANA 200 380/1110 BOO/1110 880/1110 1,280/mo 275/1110 580/1110 1.5/hr
MAINE 120 672/1110 780/1110 3 680/1n0 1.026/1110 5 292/1110 516/010 0
MARYLAND 60 6.659 11.000 5 9.286 16.235 1 5.300 7.000 0
MASSACHUSETTS 68 162.10/1111 216/1111 3 196.20/vk 296.65/1-111 6 97.60/uk 166.75/uk 0
MICHIGAN 168 6.827 10.857 20 10.129 20.666 6 5.300 8.686 0
MINNESOTA 166 569/1110 1.028/1110 8 661/1110 1.300/1110 9 362/110 913/1n0 6 362/111 616/11:0
MISSISSIPPI 166 375/1110 600/1110 2 625/1110 829/1no 2 628/1110 665/1110 0
MISSOURI 131 6.386 11.668 3 7.392 17,736 2 3.386 1.086 0
MONTANA 60 551/1n0 818/1n0 3 761/1110 898/:10 21 662/1110 57911-0 3 19.50 dey
NEBRASKA 67 6.360 10.320 6 10.560 16.280 2 5.600 7.800 0
NEVADA 36 593/1110 876/210 1 876/30 1.065/1eo 1 603/90 689/1110 2 603/30 689/1e0
NEH HAMPSHIRE 60 7.666 9.616 1 10.520 13.161 1 5.389 7.076 0
NEH J’ERSEYl 66 5.699 9.577 18 8.126 16.151 1.60/hr 3.00/hr
NEH MEXICO 1 1
NEH YORK 233 6.115 7.560 16 8.630 10.675 21 6.615 7.135 20.00 dey
MRTH CAROLINA 162 6.700 11.660 2 11.100 15.560 2 6.650 5.860 16 50/Ieo 300/00
NORTH DAKOTA 23 650/1110 600/1e0 l 835/.0
01110 112 5,990 9.962 9 8.570 16.120 8 6.826 6.968 0
OKIAHOMA NOT AVAILABLE
011.8le 90 570/Ino 862/.0 2 1.075/no 1.265/m 2 302/.) 625/.0 0
PENNSYLVANIA 162 7,177 9.618 17 8.721 16.170 10 6.551 6.716 0
RMODE ISIAND 65 5.200 6.812 1 10.062 12.066 2 3.900 5.696 120 2.39/hr
SOUTH CAROLINA HUI AVAILABLE
SOUTH DAKOTA 69 625/.0 736/1eo 6 650/1110 1.052 1 565
TENNESSEE 119 530/.) 650/00 3 900/uo 1.325 3 620/.) 530/no 20 330/30 330/1110
TEXAS 297 500/no 768/n0 26 763/30 1.302/no 30 1160/no 590/.)
UTAH 58 SIB/no 797/.0 2 835/30 1.170/no l 356/no 696/.0
1.1100111 63 5.798 9,666 1 11.566 2 5.122 6.812 96 1.93/11!
VIRGINIA 116 5.880 7.680 2 9.600 13.728 1 6.512 5.660 1 2.00/11!
HASNINCTON 100 586/no 712/n0 3 1.051/no 1.360/n0 2 5061-0 615/.0 0
BEST VchINIA 89 390,’n0 510/.) 0 9 0
insconsm 162 0027-: 1.10971» 5 1.069/n0 1.661 12
H'YIHINC

 

 

 

 

L‘ee of AuxIHery Force-
to Supple-ant Roguler

 

 

 

137

 

Of 1 Iccrl:
Yes
0 3 3‘
§ § :2

=5 5: 3315:3133... °‘
Ln 53 E E f: : 1:1n1n2r0m211:
52333" 3; :f :g

. ° 3 "‘ f. ‘ 0 of

as : 5 z 5 mm 1. of n-

8 C 3 3 S 5. Clothes Devoted to

No Veer No Officers Yen TreInIn

AMMMA X X
AMSXA X X X 100
ARIZONA X X
ARKANSAS X X
CALIFORNIA X X X X 90
COLUMN X X X X 20
CONNECTICUT X X
DELAHARE X X
FLORIDA X X X X X 60
GEORGIA X X X 6
HAHAII X X X X 20
IDAHO X X X X 15
ILLINOIS X X
INDIANA X X
INA X X X 60
KANSAS X X X 15
KENTUCKY X X
LWISIANA X X 3
M!!! X X
MARYLAND X X X 50
MASSACHUSETTS X X X 10
MICHIGAN X X
MINNESOTA X X X 15
MISSISSIPPI X X X 25
MISSOURI X X X 25
WANA X X X 90
NEBRASKA X X
mm X X
NEH HAMPSHIRE X X X 100
NEH JERSEY X X X 25
NEH IEXIOO X X X
ICU YCXIX X X X
”8TH CAROLINA X X X 20
NWT“ DAKOTA X X
01110 X X X 50
OXLANM
OREGON X X X 70
PENNSYLVANIA X X X 2 X 100
111101! ISLAND X X 3 X 20
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA X X X 10
TENNESSEE X X
TEXAS X X X 100
UTAH X X X X
VERmNT X X X 100
VIRGINIA X X
UASNINCTON X X 2 X 251
VEST VIRGINIA X X
VISCONSIN X X X 1 X 90
“MING X X

 

 

 

 

E =
a .1 :«1
3 o i. 8 Prluerv Focuo o! IreInIng ‘0
S 1. 3 . v.3 15.. S Progrem (Renked In Order 0
C 8 :5 5?: O 3 01 Importance) 3‘ 0
E55? 523E £52,
EEEE 5:535 Conecr- Puh11c 332:
85:23: £323 Pollcc veuon Relellon- : 'c 1... 1°.
Ortcnlcd Orlcnted Oriented ‘ '7 H A'
No Yen [No M10111“ 1 2 3 71 2 J 1 2 3 vol 1N0
X X 60 X X X X
X 37.5 37.5 X X X X
X X 60 60 X X X X
X X X
X 60 60 X X X X
X 60 100 X X X X
X X 35 X X X X
X X 37.5 37.5 X X X X
X 65 85 X X X X
X X X
X 60 60 X X X X
X 60 60 X X X X
X X 60 X X X X
X X 68 56 X X X X
X 50 X X X X
X 68 X X X X
X X X X X X
X X 60 X X X X
X X X X
X 60 60 X X X X
X 60 X X X X
X X 60 60 X X X X
X 60 60 X X X X
X 60 60 X X X X
X X X X X
X 60 X X X X
X X 50 X X X
X X 60 60 X X X X
X X X X X
X 60 X X X
X X 60 X X X X
X X 60 60 X X X X
x 60 60 x x x X
X X X X X X
X 60 X X X X
X 60 60 X X X X
X X X X X
X 35 X X
X 60 58 X X X
X X X X X X
X 68 X X X X
X 60 X X X X
X 59 evcrego X X X X
X X 68 X X X X
X 60 60 x X X X
X X 26 hr cell 1 X X X
X 60 X X X X
X X X

 

 

 

 

Lav
Enforce-on:
Continued

Officers

Rotated Regularly

to Different

Geographic Areal:
No

 

12
mm x
mu x

mum x
mm x
cauroam x
cowuno x
comcncm x
new 1:
FLORIDA x
cannon x
mu 1:
IDAHO x
ILLINOIS x
mum x
10m x
was It
nnucu x
LOUIsuM x
mm: x

mm "
MASSACHUSETTS X
manual x
mama“ x
mssxssxnt x
mssoun x
mm x
unusu x
mm x
mm mum X
m nus" x
In lance x
m you x
m CAIOLIIIA x
mm anon X
00:10 x
ovum

moon x
nmnvuna x
am 13ml: x
301ml mm

sown! mum x
‘flflllSSlI X
TIXAI

on: x
VIIHDIT X
nacxm X
mum x
Inst "mm x
Hum—III x
9mm: x

 

Portion of Fore.
Trained in

 

Control Technique

Yea No

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
.X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

138

Specific Areas 0!
Responsibility for

Enforcement Oiiicorl:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(more than one may :
be checked) v a
s ‘3 g: h
I! '3 . 3 2
E : g 2 5 Oificara Required
2 2 . =22; 3.222;: 2;:
f. 3. 3 t E z t s : Aniaala:
33:25::cmm' Approx. 51:. of i i E a g 5 g E: :1 3 . of
Coincide Hith Filh Area Covered x: 3 E x 8 t: 5E5; Ant-ah
and Ga-a Regiona: by Each officar g 3 I3 h i; :1 T: “and Up
1'; "° §_‘1' F" "' "' i " ‘ a 1:! J No Yes Yearly
X X x X
X X X X 180
X X X X x x 300
X X X X X X X 600
X 1,000 X X X 6,000 X
X 1,111 X X X
X 200 X X X X X 250+
X 360 X X X X x
X 675 X X X X X
X X X X X X
X 200 X X X 0 X
X 1,305 X X X X X X 700
X X X X 2.¢DOO
X ‘00 X X X X X X X X 850
X 1.200 X X X 1,200
X X X X X X 1,000
X 33b X X X X 300
1‘ x x 750
X 360 X X X X 1,100
X 500 X X X X X
X 200 X X X 990
X 576 X X X 6.500
X 635 X X X 3,500
X 500 X X X X 300
X 571 X X X X X 1,600
X 3,000 X X X X X X
X 1,638 X X X X X X 1,529
x 3.000 x x x x 150 X
X 300 X X X X X X 5‘9
X x x x 30
X 5,200 X X X X X X 600
x 250 x x x l x
X 380 X X X X X ‘50
X 3,000 X X X X X
X 650 X X X 1,800
X X X X 1,002
X 350 X X X 22.000
X 50 X X X 75
X 1,500 X X X 500
X 315 X X X X X 578
X 992 X X X
X 1.576 X X X X 1,500 X
X 250 X X X X X 3,200
X 350 X X X X X 3,000
X 680 X X X 95
X ‘50 X X X 100
X 900 X X X 13,000
X X X X X X

Lav
[alone-en:
Cont inued

XLGIIDA
(IMGIA
W11
[DMD

ILL! U013
INDIA“
1%

“AS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIAIA
M1.
mum
msmcm
KICHIGAI
mmon
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI

mm

.9 man:
a um
I“ KXICO

IV m

“1" mm

WW5

nununu
am nun
awn mm

m ”A

m
VXXCIIIA
mum
an vucxm
“MIX

MI:

9 A mega: ive teapoue does an! neeeaeariiy nan that

 

 

All Officer.
Drive State
timed Vehicles:
X 36
X
X 230
X
X 3!
X
X 125
X
X 23
X
X 135
0
X
X 60
0
160
X
X
X 55
X
X
X 168
20
X 76
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
155
X
X 5‘
19
X 31‘
X 60
X
X 116
90
X
X 162
X

 

139

 

Lav Enforceuenl Division
0am Aircrail:
A
:1 2 P: 2’
Yea I- a o ..
Fri-ary Use 3 : E 2 3 E E 3 2
All Ofiicera Average Fire Aria § g :2 g E: : ,2 I c
Drive Identified Annual luued to u u : a u § 3. 5 o 1. 3 3
U 0 I .1
Vehicles: Mileage Officer“. ' a :9: _ E .. . E c I. 3 o 3
Drivenby I : 5.0;. i..« a». :2
a O V‘ 3 O U ‘5- >2 <
Office": 9 '3 " uuo 00>; eo—- O
8 .. 3 ‘6 8 2 3 U C ‘ a 2 .. " ‘6 °
u A u -- I: - o ) o 3 I:
a g 8 Yelluo Cu“ 0»; (hr sv-
H Ye. lo I E O Yealh'o Yes No 1 1
25 X l 0 x X X 60 92
X 20 X 8 X X X X )0 96
X 28 X 2 X X X X X 60 961-
X 23 X X X X 69 97
X 30 X A x x X X 15-500 97.
X 22 X I. ‘ X X X 30 2
X )0 X X X X 16 95
X 32 X X X X 70 96
X 25 X 6 X 2 X X 80
X 35 X 2 X X X X 85
X 10 X X X X X 15 70
X 22.7 X X X X X 27.1 98
X 18 X X X X 50 97
X 2!. X X X X X 30 96
X 36 X X X X 68 99
X 35 X X X X X 51 90
X 18 X X X X X 50 86
x as x x X 1 ‘0 9°
1 22 x 5 x X 3 3° 95
' 25 x x x X X 50 93
x 25 x x x 1‘ 1: 1° 95
x 20 , , x x x‘ u 96
X 25 X l. X X X X 38 99
X 2‘ X X X X X 60 90
X 21.3 X X X X X 51.7 98.7
X 25 X ’0 X 1 X X 60 90
X 60 X 2 X X X X X ‘0 99
X 2'3 X 1 X X X X 23 96.6
X 30 X X X X X 12 99
X 5 X 12 12 X X 5 85
X 25 X X X X X 60 90
X 20 X X X X X 20
X 25 X la X X X X 81 97
X 35 X 1 X X X 60 99
X 2‘ X X X X X 66 99.6
X 30 X X X X X 119 96
X 25 X X X X X 55 90
X 30 X X 1 X X 10 90
X 35 X X X X X 20 97
X 21 X 1 X X X X X X 68 92
x 23 x b x x X l 67 96
x 23.9 x J x x x I I 1' ”M
X 28 X X X X X )0 95
x 25 x 1 x x x I 69-7 ’4»
x 20 x 2 x x x x I 51 ’0
x 30 x x x I I 30 95
x n x s x x x x I 65 97
I )0 X X X X X 25 95

 

 

 

 

 

oiiicera are mar-ed.

 

 

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

Enforce-en: Division'-
Type 0! Valid“ ion Leul Service: Obtained
In qued to g Fro-.-
Licenee For : 3
Arlee-en: to Big I '-
i. . - v
r... I v‘ o O
s 5 a 3:
L- .1 I I
Enforce-eat a g. g .3». I:
Continued 5 2 : 8 .
a < :3 s f
'- v- » a ‘ < 3 ~;
.0 3 a 3 ‘- a O I u
g 1 d \- u > in
u g 3 n n a o 3 w .
_ I e. 8 1909-70 . .. a t: .
MAM X 1.261 X
AIM“ X X 1,558 X
“120“ X 215 X
W X X X
CALIFOIJIIA X 5.605 X
COLORADO X 157 X
COMCTICUI’ 666 X
mm X X
PLORXDA 1,601 X
GEORGIA X 2,321. X
WI! X 256 X
1mm X 968 X X
ILLINIS X X 2,681 X
INDIA“ X 1,300 X
1M X 789 X
KANSAS X 760 X
KENTUCKY X 1.270 X
LOUISIAIM X 2.831 X
"A!!! X 1,553 X
mam X 680 X X
mssacuusans X 700 X
HICHIGAI X 3,083 X
MINNESOTA X 2.375 X X
HISSISSIPPI X 1,269 X
H1850“! X 1,568 X X
man» 1 X
EMU X 968 X
mm X 265 X
I" MRI“ X 62‘ X
m JIISXY X X
IIH moo X 60 X
I“ m X X X 2.538 X
m CAROL!“ 1.800 X
”Ti! WA X 276 X X
“10 X 789 X
m
moon X 1.386 X
8”“.va X 2,519 X
um I!” X 650 X X
8001'“ mm
80!!" m X X 535 X
nmsn X I,b78 X X
“MS X 3,900 X
UTAII X 767 X
VIM X X 700 X
vucuu X 1,267 X
“mm X 2,100 X
HST VIRGINIA X 811 X
HISCGBII X 2,“ X X
Wilt“. X X

 

 

 

141

Lu Enforce-ant
m Parks louponn-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lbtluy 0!: (Hon
man on my 5. Proportion o! ScH- hoporuon of llpcnduuro
Check“) generated Hovcnuco: for Part Develop-m
: Budget
3 Sourcu .
I o
M! of ”1070.. a 3 2 t u
g . O H t .- ' g C ‘
. ,. 3 3 g o I u ' o 3 3 I 3
g . .. .. .. a: a a i z s 2 ~ o . .
u "‘ 2 “ I- I- a. o 3. "‘ '
U 2 § U 3 a a . h
3 ’ l t E . 2 z
Pork. " U . Z" = “ ll 3 3 0 Z 8 o n
3 g g in U 5 .I a . U E
f. g _ .. g g g E .1 5. I 3 a 2 1 s z
8 a. i a. a I- u n 8 .3 n.- i 3
, , l I 1 7L 7. 7. 1 1 I
LIAM m A'Almu
m 5 6 3 5 0 I I 100 0 0 O 0 6 50 2B [6
Him 2‘ 8 l l 7 I IN 20 25 55
m 2‘ 5 l Ill 60 I I I 37 63 0 70 30 0 10 75 I5
mlm 370 167 I.“ 301 1,350 I I I 100 O
m 2‘2 ll 9 ll 16 I I 15 85 53 I 26 13 2 30 59 9
MIC" 35 25 I 117 576 I 60 60 21 l“ 2.6 [5 ‘2 56 9
I
“m 5 23 2 ‘8 2 I 1
m1“ 5‘3 8 22 25 I 56 54 31 60 I 5 M 6 38 12
“man 57 27 9 57 229 I I 50.3 59.7 0 25 0 2‘. 0 7. 5.1 20.2
M" 7 5 79 I I [m 0 0 0 100 20 60 15 5
1mm ”1’ AVAIUM
"LINK, I55 22 12 510 200 I 100 B5 10
1mm I!!! AVLIUILI
I” ‘0 5 0 35 125 I l‘ 86 0 12.7 0 2.3 0 0 .0 20
um 10 u to 53 21 x «31 51‘ 79 1 s 31 so 11
mm ‘0 I25 10 350 l,l10 I I 55.9 “.1 0 8.6 O 1.6 2 97. 0 .5
m3!“ ”2 "Alum
m. I 5 5 I2 I50 I I I I 51.‘ 58.6 62.6 56.‘ .6 2.6 .0 20 63.‘ 56.6
m m avuwu
mm m “Alma
“Imu- 2’7 51 10 522 60““ I 13 67 0 92 0 2 25 25 ‘3 2
“ml ”1' Avum
“I‘lulm m “Alum
“I”! 9 551 5 101 .0 I I I I 20 80 0 6. 0 32 15 35 )5 [5
mm ‘5 2 5 105 I 25 75 70 25 5 10 3O 50 [0
“M“ ”2 "null:
”A“ ‘1 U 7 6 2. I I 3.9 96.1 .0 20 5 55 )5 27
.1 MI!" "I A'ulm
In J!!!" 63‘ n 13 us one x 100 o o o o u so n
It! um "I I'll“
I! m m "null:
m Ml“ a 21 2 5 97 I I 15 I5 0 ‘0 2 5.
m m‘ 5 5 2 51 50 I I I“ 55 2) 0 ‘2 IO .
mo ‘ 1 mo 0 o o o so 20
m "I ”nu-J
unan- m u 7 I» 215 x x lo 90 11.. .4. u u 29 0'
“11.va bl . 60 5 550 I I I I IN 20 5| (5’)
I“ II“- ”I L'AIU”
m an!“ 5“ lo 7 5 225 I I I 5. .2 0 ‘0 0 0 0 50 7 ‘5
m m ‘5 5 2 25 I25 I I I I 20 .0 W 0 0 l0 [0 25 55 [0
m 51 12 [2 W .50 I 60 60 0 0 0 O 5 95 0 0
m 220 55 5. ‘W I I0 77 o w 0 I5 2 5° 5 )6
m 27 lo 2 20 5, I [2 II 0 2 5| )7 IO
M U 7 5 2‘ I” I .0 20 I 50 0 25 0 0 )0 70
"‘2'“ m ”nu-1
mm m ‘VUI‘ILI
IIST '2mm 2. )0 .9 2l5 I I 0 5 0 6 0 0 62 5.
“3“" M A'Ilmu
MK )0 l2 2 .5 250 I I 50 50 ”.5 5) 5.. I. )1 l] I?

 

 

 

 

 

142

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proxlnily Facilities Availnble in Average
02' Park to State Park:
. Prulimlly of Parks to Highway.
. .. 3 Urb-n Are-I >. .
A o a '1 a .. . g
I u m x A u l I
I " H h H I I e I 1-
.. u m I n u I I: 0 II :- - as u < I
3 . ... 2 a“: 2 .. u n. z a o I: .3 a I : ‘5 E g 3 an E n
I u.- 2 o v 5 u .1 o 0 -‘ I 8 I m I o n w a 3: ~— 0 d I —«
H O S .l H u *4 0 O -‘ .0 m D v-d .: I n a I B- .1 u '4 I
Park. an» In on '04. II 1:».- Hu v» .4 vegan ‘0 I Ev: I « u
I I I I o n. n u < i :3 o-a :> 8 x: .4 .4 g. a u I a I: o I
Cantu...“ u: .1 «,3 un- ~40) O O o c :1: a O 1:; .c I I .4 I: L; —- u
o u u u 01 I- o v. I In P" C I“ u ~ u I u m o a I m I c; I o I- .. I
I u I I I u c I o o .c u. u 1‘. 5: u 5 m -- < a 0 ~
I a- < n. I a. I u I I I a r: .o c: c: [-4 r: o c h I =6 u I t- d
m I w u u H i.- v-t I I .4 I I n ~< «a v" I: ( :l u I u I O
—I ~- Io an Im II .52) :0. £01 00: a: 1:1 I! " " U " U :- 6'-
a? '9 nu In L- h. u u—«o u-«o h—‘U ui «I I-0 a u u —- u c -4 I
3° :2 :3 3a a: g: :3 3;: 5;: £2: 3. s: 2: a ' - a s a e 3 :
l~ 5 I- m < a: +- —a 4 n. < m u 8 3 a u 9.. |- u. A.
L IL 51 LL
ALABAMA
AMSXA 60 60 1 588 9.8 5.625 11 21 7 61 95 1.5 5.5 X X X X
ARIZONA 10 20 236 25 800 100 95 5 X X X X X X X X
ARKANSAS 28 18 660 2 9O 8 9O 10 X X X X X X X X
CALIFOth 186 760 7.733 900 50 1.0 8 2 80 10 10 X X X X X X X X
COLORADO 23 61 2.000 600 50 3.500 20 60 15 5 60 20 20 X X X X X X X X
CONNECTICUT 87 29 250 1.858 75 1.600 90 10 3S (.0 25 X X X X X X
DILAHARZ 10 6 50 50 100 X X X X X X X
FLORIDA 83 177 2.135 2.826 80 700 65 35 0 0 56 13 18 X X X X X X X X
GEORGIA 65 39 833 2.000 60 300 50 50 53 65 2 X X X X X X X X
HAHAII 39 9 225 100 I“) X X X X X X
IDAI'K)
ILLIMIS 72 70 800 9.000 150 50 5 85 10 80 10 10 X X X X X
INDIANA
INA 91 M 373 66 100 1.500 5 7O 20 5 20 75 5 X X X X X X X
XAHSAS 18 26 1.000 5.926 loO- 2.600 35 65 100 60 60 X X X X X X X X
1,100
KENTUCKY 36 30 l 1.711 80 3.600 30 70 0 0 66 56 0 X X X X X X X X
LOUISIANA
HAIR! 28 267 1.000 1.050 100 800 10 70 10 10 60 60 20 X X X X X X X
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN 75 207 2.566 13.671. 206 2.500 60 60 0 0 91 6 3 X X X X X X X
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI S6 80 1.000 3.600 120 2.500 5 30 50 15 85 10 5 X X X X X X X X
PDHTAHA 60 19 682 7-800 20-25 1M. 90 10 75 15 10 X X X X X X X X
IcrI
RIMS“
EVADA 10 65 170 19 19 550 60 6O 60 3O 10 X X X
EU HAMPSHIRE
m JERSEY 32 227 7.090 1.125 58 1.200 25 75 0 0 85 10 5 X X X X X X X
m FIXIOO
I!" YORK
IDRTH CAROLINA 17 56 3.200 381 22 25.000 5 90 5 0 10 70 20 X X X X X X X
NIT“ WA 10 5 506 215 50 ‘ 3.600 90 10 5O 60 10 X X X
OHIO 57 136 2.600 7.273 200 2.500 85 15 50 65 5 X X X X X
W
01:00:: 221 80 360 6.011 80 2.500 80 15 5 0 96 2 2 X X X X X
PENNSYLVANIA 66 118 1.706 5.393 175 3.600 25 50 25 0 25 50 25 X X X X X X X X
moon ISLAND
8001'“ “801-1“ 29 52 1.786 900 50 920 100 10 10 80 X X X X X X X X
SOUTH DAKOTA 50 87 250 800 8.000 25 75 0 X X X X X X X
nmssu 26 170 2.000 100 2.800 100 100 X X X X X X X X
TEXAS 67 6] 3.119 X X X X X X X X
UTAH 60 M 300 667 10 3.200 40 so 10 0 so 35 15 x x x x x x
VIM 65 120 200 2.100 60 2.000 20 70 IO 0 50 65 5 X X X X X X X
VIRGINIA
HASHIIGTON
HIST VIRGINIA 27 60 2.000 619 30 2.000 15 85 15 35 50 X X X X X X X X
WISCONSIN
“(MIN 56 1.106 3.565 6-563 2.000 1.1 59 49 1.7 6 X X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

143

 

 

Parka
Continued O of People Using State
Parka Each Year: Approximate Approximate I 0! People
he on Major Turned Away Each Year
Average Holiday (Exceae Capacity):
Camping Day Uae: Vacation Uae: weekends-
Daya Per M Day Use Vacation
Camping Seaeon Year ¢ 1 7. O 1 l of People M O of People ,5 oi" People
AIABAMA
ALASKA Entire Year 105 2
ARIZONA Entire Year 1,008 21
ARKANSAS Entire Year 180 6.000 60 6.000 60 3 0 0
CALIFORNIA Entire Year 365 32,535 89 3.973 11 810 215.656 596.632
COLORADO Entire Year 180 20 O
CONNECTICUT June l-Sept. 5 200 7.000 500 250 25.000
DELAHARE Entire Year 120 3.208 88 286 12 162 0
FLORIDA Entire Year 365 6.259 86 1.175 16 75 0 129.760
GEORGIA Entire Year 275 6.375 85 1.115 15 O
MAHAII Entire Year 360 6.200 0
IDAHO
ILLINOIS Entire Year 120 20 Million Combined 900 300.000 cofiined
INDIANA
101M Entire Year 180 0 0
KANSAS May l—Oct.l5 260 6.1 Million Combined
KENTUCKY Apr. l-Oct. 31 120 63 37 0
LOUISIANA
MAINE Apr. l5-0ct. 15 100 1.500 86 300 5.000 50.000
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN Entire Year 120 13.692 72 5.665 28 800 229.156 302.108
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI Entire Year 180 89 1 o o
KIN'IANA May l-Sept. 30 100 660 75 156 25
NEBRASKA
NEVADA My l-ch. I 160 £69 95 66 5 l9 0 0
NEW HAMPSHIRE
m JERSEY Entire Year 100 6.775 1.750 75
NEW [EXICO
NEW YORK
MR1“ CAROLINA Apr. - Nov. 120 2.500 100 0
NOXTN DAKOTA Entire Year 365
(lilo Entire Year 250 27.872 90 2.672 10 378 0
(Hum
OREGON Apr. - Oct. 150 18.000 70 1,600 23 0 60.000
PENNSYLVANIA Apr. - Oct. 180 100 50 350 0 13.000
RNOM ISIAND
SOUTH CAROLINA March - Dec. 225 70 30 250 0 0
sou'ru won Nay - SCI", 73 °
TENNESSEE Entire Year 175 350 0
11m Entire Year 365 90 10 600
mu! 5., - on. 150 2.300 no 0 0
VIEW May - Oct. 80 500 50 500 50 60
VIRGINIA
“ASKING?“
“51' "mm“ Apr. - Oct. 150 2.928 86 615 16 75 0 510-000
WISCONSIN
wanna 2mm Year 100 7.390 as 865 12 236 b 13.575

 

 

 

 

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O of National Recreation
and Hildltie Areaa in
State
1:
O
‘8.
= a
2 n: I h
a <
31'. 3 3
3 a ._ Availability or CaIpin;
“ 3 : :0. 2 Facilitiea in Hilderneaa
: 3 = z .1 .4 ‘X“.1
Pu" Fee Schedule 3» 3 3
Continued 0 ”j 3'- ° Yea
O a
Daily Park Permit J Annual park remit 3"- fl “ "’ 0 0! O oi
Xeaidenthon—Reeident Reaident lNon-Reaident Yea : 1 ! Areal CaIpaitea , Io
MAM
MIA 0 0 0 0 X l 2 18 x
1
AIIZONA X 1 1 0 x
ARKANSAS X 6 2 5 X
CALIFMIA 1.00 1.00 X 5 17 6 1 67
comm 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 x a u 0 325 6.6282
come-nem- 1.00 1.00 X 0 0 0 x
nemm o o o o x o o 1 ‘ x
FLORIDA .25 .25 10.00 10.00 X 6 3 7 1 15
(ZORCIA O O 0 0 X 0 2 0 X
NANAII 0 O 0 O X 3 0 0 X
IDAHO
ILLIDXJIS 0 O 0 0 X 0 1 O X
INDIANA
INA X 0 0 O 3 150
KANSAS 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 X X
KENTUCKY 0 0 0 0 X 3 1 1 2
LOUISIANA
1
HAIR 1.00 1.00 10.00 10.00 X 1 1 1 307 921
mm
WWW!
magma] 1 00 2.00 3 00 5.00 X 1 6 2 2 629
MINNESOTA
KISSISXIm
mason: 0 0 O 0 x 6 2 1 8
mm 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 X 2
IMXA
IVADA 7.00 7 00 X 2 2 0
III Minn
Ill JERSEY 25 X 3 0 6 2
U! FIXIOO
u “I!
new mourn 0 0 0 0 I O 0 0 !
moan ma 1 l 1 4-
onto 0 0 X l l
W
ouana ’ o o x 1 n u x
mnvma 1.25 1.25 0 0 X 6 1 15 0
m nun
sour: mm 0 0 0 0 X 1 I
soon WA 0 0 LN LN X 6 2 5 X
MIX 0 0 0 0 X 1 1 8
run ‘ x 1 6 e x
IRA. 1.00 ‘ LN 1.00 7 00 X 16 8 0 X
m .25 .25 5.00 5.00 X 1 X
VIICIIIA
mum
RSI "ICIIIA 0 0 O 0 X 2 I
VISCGSII
"mutt 1.00 I oo 1.00 3 00 x [o 2 ) r
l

 

Recreation

145

Employees and Salary Range

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUpervisorV Administrative Maintenance Prieon Labor Part-time
Snlarv Salary Salary Salary Salary
9 1 From Io S From I 10 6 Alifrom 1 IO 0 417 Fran 147 To 9 I From _1 T0

ALABAMA NOT AVALLARLL:
ALASKA
ARIZONA 8.000 11.400 8.900 10.000 5.4.00 7.062 7 6.500 5.600
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT NOT AVAILABLE
DELAHARE 1 10.410 10.000 2 7.008 9.500 F
FLORIDA 1
GEORGIAl 1/2 10.500 20 1.50/hr 3.75/hr
HAHALL 6 3.500 12.500 10 5.000 18.500 73 0.000 11.000 1
IDAHO NOT AVAILABLE
ILLINOIS l 200 2.02/11:
LNDLANA a 10,000 13,000
IOWA NO RECREATION DIVISION
KANSAS
KENTUCKY 7 530/.) 676/010 1 663/1.) 3027.0 0 0 17 285/00 308/90
LOUISIANA NOT AVATLALLE 0..
MAINE 1 10.000 12.000
MARYLAND 1 12.300 16.800 2 10.000 15.200 0 o o
MASSACHUSETTS NOT AVAILABLE
MICHIGAN 1 16.365 15,541 2 6.180 14.190
MTNNESOTA NOT AVAILABLE
MISSISSIPPI NOT AVAILABLE
MISSOURI
10mm 3 900/” 1,100/m 16 760/.0 920/Io 11 510/1110 bBO/no 110 350/Io 660/1110
NEBRASKA NOT AVAILABLE
NEVADA NO RECREATION DIVISION
NEH HAMPSHIRE NOT AVAILABLE
NEH JERSEY 1 14.590 18.970 2 10.369 13.477 0 o 2
NEH MEXICO NOT AVAILABLE
NEH YORK Nor AVALLABLE
NORTH CAROLINA1 10 9.860 12.668 7. 11.300 16.600 0 o 0
NORTH DAKOTA NO RECREATION DIVISION
01110 9 9.300 17.000 21. 7.626 10.150 600+ «.000 7.1.20 0 700+ 1.90/11: 2.02/hr
OKLAHOMA NOT AVATLABLE
OREGON 3 boo/no 1,130/no 10 BBS/mo 1.186/nm
PENNSYLVANIA 7s 7.401 19.666 20 8.580 15.387 335 «.551 10.956 0 0
RHODE ISLAND NOT AVA1LABLE
SOUTH CAROLINA 2 6.185 12.790 12 lOO/vk
SOUTH DAKOTA NOT AVAILABLE
TENNESSEE
TEXAS NO RECREATION DIVISION
UTAH 30 853/1110 919/1110 17 266/1110 1.1701130 15 350m: 518mm 0 0 0 91 1.56/hr 356/130
VERMONT 2 3.328 7,306 2 7.878 14,300 0 o 0
VLRCLNTA NOT AVAILABLE
HASHINGTON NOT AVAILABLE
NEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN l
WOMINC NOT AVAILABLE .

Racraation
Continued

ALABAMA

ARIZONA
ARKANSAS

CALIFORNIA

COIIECTICUT

FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAHAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY

LOUISIAIA

MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAI
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI

MONTANA

ll" IIIIOO
ll" YUM!
IOITM CAIOLIIA

IOITM DAIOIA

PIIIBYLVAIIA
IMODI ISLAID
SOUTH CAIOLIMA
800T“ DAIOIA

VIIGIIIA
HASHINCTOI
HIST VIIGIIIA

WISCONSIM

i

U"

 

Availability of Staff

Spocialiain; in Urban

Bacraation Sarvicou:

Stata Cooparatou With
Local Unita in novalopina
State Park Facilitiaa in
or float Urban Araaa:

-¢
0
O

 

8

State Bonded For
Recreation

146

The Following Ara Part of The State'a Recreation Program:

 

 

 

 

Progra-n: Iatura Hiking Bridal Bicycle Motorcycle Snow-obila Functional
Yaa Io Traila Trail. Traila Trails Traila Traila Separation Between
(Annunt) Total Total Total Total Total Total Parka Division and
L ill I Milo. 0 Milan 0 Milan 0 Milan OJ Mi lea O 1 Milan Recreation Divla ion
.9 0 0 10 66 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 Ho
5 10 5 IS 0 0 0 0 0 0 O No
1‘ as No
150 x 4.6.9 x 317.2 x 333.0 0 o No
X No
X 3 7.6 Yon
2° 7.467 7.467 Yea
X 15 l2 10 30 3 20 O O
X x x No
X 22 6o 50 150 I. 17 21 o 7 55 lo
I 8 S 90 212 10 76 50 l 2 Yaal
x 6 10 la 27 0 0 0
X ls ll No
X 6 12 lO 150 l S O 9 30 No
X Yon
100 S 33 15 338 9 89 0 27 700 You
I 80 100 80 100 10 25 O 0 No
X No
7.5 666.7 628.0 262 37.6 Yaa
X 0 O 0 0 0 Van
100 ‘7 8.5 228 1,006 68 112 237 O 0 l 3 No
x 5 2.5 122 No
270 31 75.2 68 668.5 16 67.5 60 225.8 Ya-
x 30 50 2 6 2 l6 0 o No
X 76 78 5 l7 3 0 0 lo
2 2 6 0 O 0 0 Mo
10 You
19,658 2 6 50 108 7 67
56 15 IS 265 3 60 117 0 190 lo

Hater Pollution
Control Agency

State the Single Agency Charged Hith Protection 0! Hater ReaOurcea:

147

No
Reaggnaibility shared With;

 

 

 

State Dept. 01 Health 6 Natural Reaourcea

Land 6 Natural Reaourcea/Dept. of Health

State Dept. at Health 6 Natural Reaourcea 6 Straa- Pollution

u Dept. Health 6 LA Strea- Control 0)..

Hater leaourcea Coaittee

Diviaion oi Hater Reaourcea/Dept. Public Health

MI Dapta. of Health 6 of Agriculture

Depta oi Conaervation 6 Health

See "NEBRASKA" - Verbal Su-ary

Diviaion Health/Dept. riah 6 Gene Dept. Conaervation
and Natural Reaourcea

State Dept. of Conaervation 6 Econoeic Develop-at

3d of Health 6 Dept. of Hater 6 Air Reaourcea

oi Reaourcea. Agriculture. lnduatriel Relationa

Streae Pollution Control. Hater Qual. 6 Rea.. Dept. Conaer.

Dept of Hater Reaourcea

Yea
ALABAMA X
ALASKA
ARIZONA 1
ARKANSAS X
CALIFORNIA X
COLORAM X
CONNECTICUT X
BEWARE. X
FLORIDA X
GORCIA X
HAHAII Dept.
IDAHO State Reclaaation
ILLINOIS m AVAIIABLE
INDIANA

Control Board

INA
KANSAS NOT AVAILABLE
KENTUCKY X
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND X
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI X
MISSOURI X
MNTANA
RURASKA
NEVADA
NEH HAMPSHIRE X
m JERSEY
m IEXICO X
NEH YORK NT AVAILABLE
“TH CAROLINA
FDRTH DAKOTA X
OHIO Dept .
OXLAHGIA
OKEOON X
PENNSYLVANIA X
I“)! ISLAND X
SW11! CAROLINA X
SOUTH MOTA X
TENNESSEE
TEXAS X
UTAH NOT AVAILABLE
VENOM X
VIRGINIA 1
HASHING'I'ON
WEST VIRGINIA N01“ AVAILABLE
HISCONSIN X

WOMI NC

 

 

 

 

Source of
E 3 SEZZZE‘"‘
5 ‘a’ u ‘u’ .c .. ...
E a. 1'. 6" 5 3 2
§: 35.32 25%
ES :3 EE :5:
A“ Size of QE 3 E :‘E 55
8 z Annual H o a o u e L- a
:25 Budget :- 3- ; a .2 ‘a’ B":
‘0 l969-70 82 3% 5 35:3.
Yfll'fl. AMEN H 7- 7. 7. Yea I No
X 351 x x X
X 57 X X X
X 152 X X X
X 270 X X X
X 3,600 x X
X 255 X X X
X x x
X 600 x X
X 1,000 X x
X 601 X X X
180 X X X
X I20 X X X
X 706 X X X
X 526 X X X
X 600 X X X
X 315 X X
Ul- x x
x 1.6001 x x
X 626 X X X
X 1.606 X X x
X 675 X X
266 X X X X
X 627 X X
X l83 X x
X 69 X X
X 350 X X
X 739 X X x
x 113 x x x x
x 776 x x x
X 70 X X X
X 1,000 X X X X
X 656 X X
X 650 X X X
x 906 x x
X 272 X X X
X 525 X X X
X 90 X X X
X 630 X X X
X 2.300 X X X
X X X X X
x 1.623 x x x
X 2,700 X X
x 2.500 x x
X 50 X X

 

 

 

Hater Pollution
Control Agency

148

Employees and Salary Range

 

 

 

 

Continued i
Administrative Engineering Planning Testing Clerical
Amount Anon t Amunt Aaount Amount
I Frau 1 To I. 1 Fl! '1 To I I-‘rg 1 To 0 Fri 1 To O 30: I To
ALABAMA 2 13.900 18.800 6 8.900 15.800 8 6.000 12.700 3 6.000 7.100
ALASKA 3 983/no 1.770/II0 1 5186/.) 706/30
ARIZONA 1 15.166 19.338 . 7 8.262 17.665 1 9.691 12.072 1 8.968 11.169 3 3.852 5.620
ARKANSAS 6 7.000 12.000 2 8.000 11.000 2 5.000 9.000 15 5.000 10.000 2 3.000 6.000
CALIFORNIA 12 16.000 26,000 E 76 16.000 25.000 11 16.000 25.000 37 6.000 9.000
COLORADO 2 13.536 21.000 18 9.168 15.672 3 7.920 11.136 3 3.816 7.536
CONNECTICUT
DELAHARE 3 15.000 18.000 2 11.500 16.000 9 5.500 7.500 5 6.200 5.200
FLORIDA 6 6
GEORGIA 3 9.888 22.200 16 8.976 17.768 10 6.992 13.268 9 3.720 8.976
HAHAII 2 17.000 6 12.000 3 9.000 2 6,000
IDAHO 1 15.000 6 9.000 16.000 2 6.000
ILLINOIS
INDIANA Combined staff of 66 employees with salary ranges of 3.780 - 28.200
IOHA
KANSAS 1 12.300 17.200 8 6.800 13.600 91 3.500 12.900 7 3.500 5.800
KENTUCKY 2 17.000 20.000 8 9.000 18.000 6 6.000 12.000 8 6.000 6.000
LOUISIANA 2 10.000 16.000 1 10.000 1 8.000 3 9.000 2 6.000
MAINE 2 10.000 20.000 12 6.000 19.000 6 6.000 11,000 6 300/uo 660/no
MARYLAIID 8 11.000 25.000 16 11.000 19.500 1 11.000 13.000 0 16 6.600 9.200
MASSACHUSETTS 6 162/!“ 672/wk 35 136/wk 363/0111 16 105/VI: 168/111:
MICHIGAN 6 9.900 26.700 29 11.600 20.700 9 12.200 18.500 6 7.500 11.500 17 6.300 8.500
MINNESOTA 5 9.000 21.000 28 9.700 12.800 0 5 5.600 11.000 15 6.000 6.800
MISSISSIPPI 2 12.000 18.000 6 8.600 15.000 3 10.600 12.000 5 6.000 12.000 7 6.200 8.600
MISSOURI 3 boo/no 1.586/no 11 630/no 1.266lno 6 572/uo 863/.0 8 305/Io 572/00
MONTANA
HEBRASXA 3 600/no 1.500/no 6 500/Iao 1,000/no 1 1,000/Io 6 boo/no 1,000/no 2 300/Io 1.25/no
NEVADA 1 17.000 21.000 1 10.000 12.000 1 8.600 10.900 2 5.000 6.700
m HAMPSHIRE 3 12.500 21.000 13 8.600 15.000 3 12.500 21.000 22 5.200 8.250 8 6.200 6.365
m JERSEY 30 8.957 18.970 18 5.699 11.665 10 6.281 7.508
NIH EXIOO 1 6.900 9.620 5 9.000 16.000 3 7.200 9.860 3 6.320 6.300
m was '
WITH CAROLINA 7 12.660 20.200 15 10.800 16.600 26 6.500 13.700 11 3.800 9.800
WITH WA 1 17.000 22.000 2 10.000 15,000 2 5.700 9.600 1 5.600 6.900
(1110 60 6.000 22,000 10
OKLAHGIA
082M 3 9 6 6 5
"816an 10 8.580 16.978 60 9.011 23.915 10 8.163 16.978 66 6.551 16.978 66 6.121 10.956
am ISLAND 1 15.000 17.000 7 8.000 15.000 7 6.000 12.000 6 6.000 6.000
SOUTH CAROLIIA 3 9.000 22.000 9 9.000 15.000 1 11.000 26 6.000 11.000 12 5.000 7.000
SOUTH DAKOTA 1 12.600 16.100 6 7.500 16.200 1 11.100 16.200 3 3.600 6,100
““588! l 1.670/ao 1,670/no 9 755/” 1.510/ao 13 685/.0 1.190/ao 6 330/ao 530/ao
TEXAS 9 6.500 22.500 35 6.920 16.628 2 13.268 13.692 25 7.080 10,872.. 67 3.780 7.560
UTAH
VERMONT 3 10.000 16.000 12 10.000 16.000 2 10.000 12.000 6 8.000 10.000 3 6.000 5.000
VIRGINIA 6 9.168 17.660 25 5.660 12.512 0 37 6.128 11.672 15 3.936 5.880
assume-ma 6 865/30 1.278/no 22 908/.0 1.631/no 6 558/.0 1.3-62].: 28 SSS/no 1.278/ao 12 37‘lao 712/.)
RSI VIICINIA l
HISCOISII 25 602/.0 2,100/Io 65 560/.) 1.500/no 5 765/.) 1.500/ao 10 6001-0 1,100/Io 26 379/.) 568/.0
mouse 0 3 11.00 16.000 0 1

 

 

'0

 

149

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Alaska

1Information in this table refers only to Alaska's Fish
and Game Department, not all natural resource functions.

Arizona

1Information in this table refers only to Arizona's
Game and Fish Department, not all natural resource functions.

Arkansas

1Information in this table refers only to Arkansas'
Game and Fish Commission (Department), not‘all natural
resource functions.

California

 

1Information in this table refers only to California's
Department of Fish and Game.

Hawaii

1The amounts listed as self generated revenues are
deposited directly in the state's General Revenues Fund
and are not controlled by the Department of Land and Natural
Resources.

2Amounts in this category include:

Timber sales - $89,000

Land fees - $24,000

Land Rentals - $2.8 million

Water Sales - $152,000

Kansas

1Information in this table refers only to the Forestry,
Fish, and Game Department, not all natural resource functions.

2This figure indicates acreage, not square miles, and
consists largely of man made impoundments.

Kentucky

1Information refers to the Department of Fish and Wild-
life Resources, not all natural resource functions.

 

150

Louisiana

1Information refers to the Wildlife and Fisheries
Department, not all natural resource functions.

Maine

lInformation refers to Department of Fish and Game,
not all natural resource functions. r+~

Mississippi 2

l . ‘
Information refers to the Game and Fish Department,
not all resource functions.

Montana

 

lInformation refers to Fish and Game Department, not a
all resource functions.

Nevada

lInformation refers only to Fish and Game Department,
not all natural resource functions.

New Mexico

 

1Information refers only to Game and Fish Department,
not all resource functions.

North Dakota

lInformation refers only to Game and Fish Department,
not all resource functions.

Oregon

1Information refers only to the Oregon State Game
Commission, not all resource functions.

Pennsylvania

1Information refers only to the Pennsylvania Game
Commission, not all resource functions.

South Carolina

1Information refers only to Wildlife Resources Department,
not all natural resource functions.

151

Virginia

1Information refers only to Department of Conservation
and Economic DeveIOpment, not all natural reSource functions.

 

Alaska
1Information
Arizona
1Information
Arkansas
1Information
California
lInformation

Connecticut

 

1Information
Game.

Florida

1Information
Commission.

Georgia
1Information
Kansas

1Information
Commission.

Kentucky

1Information
Commission.

Maine

152

CONSERVATION COMMISSION

refers

refers

refers

refers

refers

refers

refers

refers

refers

to the Board of Fish and Game.

only

only

only

only

only

only

only

only

to

t0

to

to

to

to

to

to

Game and Fish Commission.

the Game and Fish Commission.

 

Fish and Game Commission.

the Board of Fisheries and

Game and Fresh Water Fish

Fish and Game Commission.

Forestry, Fish, and Game

Fish and Wildlife Resources

1Information refers only to Fish and Game Commission.

2Commissioners' appointments confirmed by Governor's

Council.

153

MaEyland

1The Maryland Department of Natural ReSources has no
legally constituted body to determine official policy.

Mississippi
1Information refers only to Game and Fish Commission.
Montana FT;
1Information refers only to Fish and Game Commission.
Nevada

1Information refers only to Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources.

 

New Hampshire

1The state legislature establishes hunting regulations
although fishing regulations are set by the Fish and Game
Commission.
New Jersey

1Information refers only to Fish and Game Council.
Seventeen additional councils serve New Jersey's Department
of Environment Protection but only in an advisory capacity.
New Mexico

lInformation refers only to Fish and Game Commission.
Oregon

1Information refers only to Game Commission.
South Carolina

1Information refers only to Wildlife Resources Commission.

Utah

1No single comprehensive commission exists; each divi-
sion has its own citizen board which establishes policy

relative to its specific function.

154

Virginia

lAdditional areas of control include state travel ser-
vices, mined land reclamation, and_geological survey.

 

155

FISH

Alaska

1Information in this table applicable only to Division
of Sport Fisheries. Data about the Division of Commercial
Fisheries can be found under ALASKA in Chapter II.

California

 

lFigure refers to three day Pacific Ocean license rather
than resident trout and salmon.

2Figure refers to value of product at the consumer level.
Hawaii

1This figure represents market value, revenue to state
government not available.

Indiana

1Other license categories include combined hunting and
fishing (317,000) and 14 day non-resident fishing.

‘ 2Only two licensed commercial fishermen can be classified
as earning a full time living from commercial fishing.

Kentucky

 

11968 figures do not include 77,000 combination hunting
and fishing licenses.

2Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Resources Department.

Louisiana

 

1Figure reflects market value for fresh water species;
salt water commercial fishing revenue had a value of $37.5
million.

2Does not include 10,800 salt water commercial fishermen.

156

Michigan
1Funds allocated in following categories:
Administration and technical staff - 26%
Cold water management - 27%

Warm.water management - 20%
Anadromous management - 27%

2Figures from 1968 data. F.

Minnesota 1

 

l . . .
Minnesota, however, does have a husband/Wife combina-
tion license.

Montana
1The division also employs the following: h
26 management personnel ($658/month to $920/month)
27 hatchery personnel ($455/month to $818/month)

 

2Included in resident and non-resident license figures.
Nebraska
lBudget figure based on 1968 data.

2Figures do not include 56,600 resident combination
hunting and fishing licenses.

3Does not include 14,100 five day non-resident licenses.
Nevada

1"Field" category includes 19 hatchery personnel.
North Carolina

1Commercial fishery regulation is the responsibility of
a separate division.

Oregon
1Remaining 25% of budget derived from federal grants.

2Data based on 1968 figures.

3Fishing regulations enforced by a special game division
of the Oregon State Police.

157

Rhode Island

 

1Remaining 42% from federal grants.
Utah

1See "Number of Fish Planted."
Vermont

1No commercial fishing industry exists in state.
Wisconsin

 

1Data reflects 1968 budget.

2Sub-categories under "other" category:
Fish removal - 11.2%
Habitat management - 6.3%
Investigations - 16.7%
Capital outlay - 10.1%
Land control - 22.8%
Miscellaneous - 7.8%

3Figure does not include three million muskellunge and
76 million walleye fry.

4Does not include 46,700 husband/wife licenses.

 

 

158

FORESTRY)

Alaska

1Alaska's forest lands acquired through a federal grant
of 103 million acres.

Arkansas

lForestry staff also includes seven communications
($5988 - 8000), and nine nursery ($3528 - 4992) personnel.

2The state returns 25% of net state forest (cutting
permits) receipts to local units.

. 1.!» ~ low-e emu: fnh H-Lw

Florida

 

1Forestry personnel include approximately 800 employees,
including 550 foresters or related field personnel. The
remainder includes administrative personnel, skilled and
unskilled laborers, etc.

Idaho

1This figure represents the entire budget (1969-70) of
the Department of Public Lands. Additional figures besides
timber management and protection costs include administration
and services - $342,000; administration of state lands -
$253,000: and slash disposal - $900,000.

2All of the state's forest lands were granted to it
under the federal Admissions Act.

Indiana

115% of net amount is returned to counties on all stump-
age sales while 25% is returned to counties from sales on
federal lands.

Iowa

 

1Represents "other" employees rather than part-time
personnel.

Kansas

1Only 10% of this figure are salaried, the remainder
serve on a voluntary basis.

159

2These funds are supplied by the counties within the
state.

Maine
1Does not include 75,000 acres of municipal forest land.

Maryland

 

1Does not include 31,000 acres of municipal forest land.
Minnesota

lFigures do not include 72 forest technicians.
Mississippi

1Does not include 651,000 acres of Sixteenth Section
Public Lands.

2Biennial figure.

3All income from Sixteenth Section Timber Sales are
returned to counties in which sales are made.

Missouri

10.5. Forest Service returns 25% of receipts from sale
of timber and grazing permits to local units.

 

New Mexico

1Most forest land in New Mexico was acquired by grant
from the federal goverment. of four school sections per
township.
Ohio

lAdditional staff includes 87 maintenance personnel
and 57 laborers.

Oregon

1Additiona1 staff includes 46 technicians, 43 specialized
laborers, and 25_general laborers.

2The State Forest Department enforces statutes requiring
permits to Operate power driven vehicles, slash disposal,
fire equipment, burn permits, etc.

160

3Based on timber sales reVenue figures, the state returns
$3. 01 million annually to local units while the federal
Igovernment returns $55. 9 million (1969). '

Washington

1The remaining 72% was received through federal grants.
All percentages reflect only those lands held by the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources - does not include parks, game FL“
lands, or highway lands. '

 

Wisconsin

 

1Figures include 2.6 million acres of county forests.

2Included in this figure is a $5.2 million annual parks
and recreation budget.

3The federal government returns 25% of timber sale
receipts to local units.

 

!L

4Division of Forestry and Recreation personnel:
Forest Management 190 Permanent-($6084-12,312)
63 Seasonal—($5316-7332)
10 Administration-
, ($11,328-15,864)
Fire Control 140 Permanent—(same as above)
200 Seasonal—-(same)
8 Administration—(same)
Parks and Recreation 115 Permanent-(same as above)
97 Seasonal-(same)
10 Administration~(same)

wyoming

1State forest lands acquired through common school,
institution,and other land grants.

Alabama

161

GAME

lAlabama licenses were sold in 1969 in the following
categories:

Alaska
1

Resident county hunting - 84,145
Resident state hunting - 235,983
General (non-reSident) - 4,950

State monies from license sales in addition to matching

Pittman-Robinson are the principal sources of operating revenues.

2

Funds allocated in following areas:

Federal Aid Activities (research,

survey, and inventory coordination) - $1.6 million
State management activities - $260,000

Sea Otter Transplant - $58,600

3Licenses were sold in the following categories in 1969:

Resident hunting - 48,800
Non-resident hunting - 10,500
Non-resident big game tags - 11,100

4Additional big game species and herd sizes include:

Arizona

Bison - 350,400
Caribou - 500,000
Mountain Goat — 15,000
Moose - 120,000

Musk Oxen - 375

Wolf - 5,000

Figure refers to "project assistants" rather than
"part-time" personnel.

2Licenses were sold in the following categories:

General resident - 93,000
General non-resident - 10,300

Resident turkey - 17,150

Resident hunting and fishing - 161,500
Non-resident hunting and fishing - 175,390
Resident big game -

Non-resident big game - 163'600

 

162

California

11968-69 California license sales:
General hunting - 683,550
Non-resident general hunting - 1,533
Deer tags - 382,700
Non-reSident Deer Tags - 620
Pheasant tags - 137,000
Bear tags - 32,800

 

 

Junior hunting license - 73,500 LL
Colorado 3
1Include 115 wildlife conservation officers. 2
2Hunting license figures are for 1968.
Connecticut 1.
1Figure refers to bow and deer permits.
Florida
1

Remaining 50% from Pittman-Robertson monies.

Idaho

1Hunting licenses were sold in the following categories:
Resident hunting - 178,489
Turkey tags - 69
Non-resident bird tag - 5,000
Non-resident big game - 15,000

Indiana

1Antlerless deer hunted during bow season and with fire-
arms in certain designated areas for herd control.

Maine

lLicense sales in 1968 amounted to 169,000 resident and
38,000 non-resident licenses of various categories.

Massachusetts

1Sales include 131,000 resident and 1,600 non-resedent
licenses which are valid for all species.

163

Michigan
1Figures reflect 1968 data.

Minnesota

 

lFigures based on 1968 data.
Mississippi ma

lLicense categories include general resident (231,000),
resident turkey and deer permits (132,200), non-resident
general license (10,200), and non-resident turkey and deer
(7,100).

 

Nebraska
1Research conducted by separate division. e_l

New Hampshire
1In 1968 licenses were sold in the following categories:
Resident hunting - 30,000
Resident combination - 37,100
Non-resident hunting - 26,300

North Carolina

lHunting licenses (1969) were sold in the following
categories:
Resident combination
hunting and fishing - 162,000
Resident hunting - 113,800
Non-resident hunting - 4,850
Non-resident six day hunting - 2,600

Oregon

lLicenses were sold in the following categories in 1968:
Resident hunter - 359,000
Resident deer - 286,100
Resident elk - 64,300
Non-resident hunter - 4,760
Non-resident deer - 1,900
Non-resident elk - 800

164

Pennsylvania

lLicenses were sold in the following categories in 1969:
Senior resident - 895,100
Junior resident - 148,700
Archery - 142,600
Non-resident - 17,700
Antlerless deer - 303,300
2Bear are generally hunted although there was no Open ,__i
season in 1970-71.

Vermont

1One license valid for both big and small game.

 

Virginia

1Game employees include 32 management personnel ($5,400 -
12,000), 15 biologists ($9,600 - 13,500), and assorted
specialized personnel ($5,400 - 8,000).

’ T L

Washington

lLicense sales in 1968 amounted to 342,000 general hunting
licenses and 370,000 big game tags.

Wyoming

1 Licenses sold in the following categories:

Resident small game - 16,000
Resident bird - 28,000
Resident deer - 52,000
Resident elk — 35,600
Non-resident deer - 64,300

165

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION

Florida

1This agency provides services for the Florida Game and
FreShwater Fish Commission, not all natural resource agencies.

166

LAND MANAGEMENT

Alabama

1Although the total number of state owned acres is
unavailable, the State Lands Division managed 50,000 acres
of surface land and 525,000 acres of subaqueOus land.

Connecticut FTTI

1Additional employees include seven land agents ($8500 -
11,000), one land purchaser ($10,000 - 12,000), and two
clerks ($5500 - 7000).

Michigan

1Units acquired through purchase and exchange vary in
size up to hundreds of aores while platted lots averaging m——'
40' x 120' repreSent the bulk of parcels which become state
owned prOperty through tax reversion.

 

Nebraska

1The administration and management of state lands is
the responsibility of the Board of Educational Lands and
Funds. These lands total 1.6 million acres and were pro-
vided under a federal grant for the support of common schools.

Pennsylvania

 

1All tax delinquent lands revert to counties, not the
state.

2Remaining funds from land sales and other sources.
Wisconsin

1Tax delinquent lands revert to counties rather than the
state.

 

167

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Colorado

 

1Personnel who provide conservation law enforcement
services but are not attached to this division include 100
game wardens and 15 area supervisors.
Michigan

1Officers can accept bond money when authorized by
immediate supervisor by radio, phone, or personally.

New Jersey

 

1This information refers only to park rangers and their
enforcement responsibilities: enforcement services for fish
and game functions are provided by the Fish and Game Division.

New York
1Fish and wildlife officers are responsible for patrolling

only two park areas - the Adirondack and Catskill Forest
Preserves.

Oregon

1Conservation law enforcement services are provided by
a special division of the Oregon State Police.

168

PARKS

Arizona

1Fees included a $1.50/night camping charge and a
$.50/person day use fee.

Alaska
LAverage sizes of: wayside parks - 73.8 acres; recre-
ation - 11,907; and historic sites - 61 acres.

2Combined day use and camping visitation - 288,000.

Colorado

1Other park personnel-—11 park managers and three
Land and Water Conservation Fund administrators.

2These areas are provided by the U.S. Forest Service
and the N.P.S.

Delaware

lAlthough budget information was not available in the
form requested, the following state park commission budget
information was provided (1968-69):
Self-generated revenue - $140,000
Land Acquisition - $686,800
Park Development - $483,000

Illinois

1The following amounts were reported as being expended
for park development: land acquisition and development -
$35 million: maintenance and administration - $8 million.

Kansas

1The state legislature must apprOpriate all funds to the
agency; no expenditures can be made from fee revenue
without legislature consent.

Kentucky

1Average size of Resort Park — 1400 acres; Day Use
Park - 800 acres; Shrines - 10 acres.

 

169

Mass.

1These areas provided by the Maine Forestry Department.
Missouri

1Does not include 65 park maintenance supervisors.

New Jersey

 

1Duties largely restricted to law enforcement work;
park rangers are graduates of the New Jersey Police Academy.

Ohio
1See personnel figures in ”Recreation" table.

Oregon

lAdditional categories include planning (4%) and
Willamette River Parks System (4%).

2Although fees are not assessed for day users, over-
night camping fees range from $1-3 per campsite.

Texas

1Because of many permit types, a breakdown was unavail-
able. Total fee receipts, however, were $618,800 (1969).

 

170

RECREATION

Florida

1Although separate park and recreation functions were
provided for under Florida's 1969 state government reorgan-
ization, the agency responsible for recreation had not yet
been funded (and consequently was not operational) when this
study was being conducted.

Georgia

lInformation applies to recreation services provided
by Parks Department on Park Properties. In addition a
Georgia State Recreation Commission, separate from the Parks
Department, provides advisory services to local units.

Illinois

1The State Parks Division is responsible for the Opera-
tion of Indiana's parks while the Division of Outdoor Recrea-
tion provides planning and consultant services.

North Carolina

1Recreation services are provided by the Department of
Local Affairs, Recreation Division.

Wisconsin

1See personnel figures listed in "Parks" table.

171

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

Arizona

1The AriZOna state agencies having responsibilities for
water resources management are: the Department of Health,
Game and Fish, the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the'
Interstate Stream Commission, the State Land Commission,
and the Highway Department.

Kansas

1Water quality specialists rather than "planning” or
"testing" personnel,

Maryland
lBudget figure for fiscal year 1970-71.

Virginia

1Agencies sharing water pollution control responsibilities
include the State Water Control Board, the Department of
Conservation and Economic Development, and the State Health
Department.

Wyoming

1The principle water pollution control agency is the
Department of Health, Division of Health and Medical Services.
However, the following agencies are also involved in pollution
control programs: Engineering Department, Department of
Economic Development, and the Game and Fish Commission.

 

APPENDIX II

QUESTIONNAIRES USED IN FACT FINDING SURVEY

 

Itrr-rzngt -. A} .~

 

-ilVV'1'

172

FACT FINDING SURVEY
by Senator Gordon Rockwell, Chaiman, Michigan Senate Conservation Camittee

QIESTICNNAIRE FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARIMENI' 0F COBERVATICN 0R NA'mRAL
WES OF THE STATE OF

W58

 

O

Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your denarmcnt.

GENERAL INFORMTIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 1. Population
.,...__
2. Population Density - per square mile
3. Total Land Area _ square miles
4. Total Inland Water Area ' sqmre miles
5. Total Ocean or Great Lake Shoreline miles
6. Total Annual Conservation Budget l

 

AMINIS'IRATIm
1. By M is the head of the catservation department selected?
a. Cmservation Cannissicn
1:. Governor
c. Legislature
d. Cmpetitive Exanination

 

2. To when is the head of the Cmservation Deparonent responsible?
a. Conservation Commission:
-- 4:. Governor
c. Legislature

 

 

3. Does the head of the department serve for a fixed term or at the pleasure of
the selection bodv?

 

4. Mint is the salary range of the following officials?

 

a. Head, Conservation Department Fran to
b. Assistant Head Fran to
c. Line and Staff chiefs Fran to .

H!

d. Division Chiefs Fran to

 

173 ~

QIESTICNNAIRE PM. THE HEAD OF THE COVSERVATIM WPAR'MENT continued.

PERSGNEL

1. How many pennenent avlployees does the conservation department have? _9 *_

a. How many seasonal or part-time employees?
75-100 in summer months

 

2. Do you have a central personnel file?

 

3. Are all personnel wider civil service?

 

a. Executive personnel
b. Adninistrative personnel
c. Research personnel

l||l1

' d. Field personnel

4. Please indicate the qualifications required for division chiefs.
Education L ' I

 

 

Experience __

 

 

5. How are your division chiefs chosen?

 

 

6. Are your key personnel training successors at this time?
If not, why not? _

 

 

 

7. What seans to be the most effective method of recruiting critical personnel?

 

 

 

8. What is the prime incentive used to retain personnel in all divisions?

 

 

173 -

QIESTICNMIRE PM THE HEAD OF THE (INSERVATICN DEPARTMENT continued.

PERSONNEL
l. lbw many pemenent enployees does the conservation department have? _y

a. Hm many seasonal or part-time anployees?
75-100 in summer months

 

2. Do you have a central personnel file?

 

3. Are all personnel under civil service?

 

a. mecutive personnel
F! .

b. Aaninistrative personnel
c. Research personnel

L :1. Field personnel

4. Please indicate the qualifications required for division chiefs.
Education - . .

 

 

Experience __

 

 

5. How are your division chiefs chosen?

 

 

6. Are your key personnel training successors at this time?

If not, why not? w

 

 

 

7. Mat seans to be the most effective method of recruiting critical personnel?

 

 

 

8. that is the prime incentive used to retain persomel in all divisions?

 

174

QUESTICNNAIRE FOR THE HEAD OF IIIE CONSERVATION DEPAIUMEN’I‘ continued.

FINANCE

1. What is your working budget far this year?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. General Fund Appropriation S
b. Self-generated Revenue 3
c. Federal Fmds S_
d. Other 3
MAL
2. What is your estimated budget for next year? 5
3. By how much has your budget increased in the last 10 years? %

 

4. How successful is your depath in having your budget request appropriated?

a. Appropriation is 90%-
b. " " sot-90s " "
c. " " 70%-804 " "
d. Iwropriation is less than 70% of request

100% of request

llll

5. What percentage of your total budget is self-generated? %

6. Please list your sources of self-generated revenue.

 

 

a. Hunting and fishing license sales 3 _ _
b. Park fees (camping and entrance) 3

c. Special service area use fees 3

(1. Seafood, Game & Fish, Lands, 3

e. Forest_ry, Water Safety 6: Parks 3-

 

miscellaneous IICenses, fees, taxes and fines

7. Please list your contemplated new sources of revenue?

b.

I
I

 

 

C.

H1 LLLLL

 

PUROIASIm
1. Please indicate instances

arment. __

MAL ESTIMATED I NCRE‘SE

of successful antanation installations in your dep-

F my;

 

 

175
QJETIG‘INAIRE FOR THE HEAD OF THE C(NSERVATIm DEPARNE‘IT cmtimled.

2. Please indicate types of equiment which your department leases.

:1. Automobiles :1. Business machines
b. Trucks e. Data processing equip.
c. Aircraft ‘ f. Duplicating machines

3. Please briefly outline your general purchasing policy.

 

 

4. Mat is the limit for purchases made by a division without authorization ?

 

5. What types of outside services can be authorized by your department?

 

 

 

PLANS AND GENERAL POLICIES
1. Do you encourage autonany in your divisiaxs within the framwork of department
policies? _ L

 

_' i

2. Does your present table of organization allow maximun efficiency of operation?

3. Are any changes in the organizational stmcture frat department to division being
caitauplated? If so, please describe.

 

 

 

 

Reason for the cmtmialated change?

 

 

 

, 4. What is the greatest single problem in your department at this time? L_

 

176

QESTIWNAIRE FOR THE HEAD OF THE CONSERVATIIN DEPARIWNI‘ continued.

plans?
5. What types of 1mg range! are being undertaken? .

'—

f

6. What is the most critical problem facing your state now other than finances?

 

7. What is your most valuable resource at the present time?

 

8. Which resources must be protected and conserved to the greatest extent at the
present time? fl;

.-l"ffl'a Ls‘l-l

 

 

 

 

9. Are there any outstanding features or aspects of natural resource management in
your state which you would like to point out at this time?

 

 

 

177

FACT FINDIm SURVEY
by Senator Gordon Rockwell, Chairman, Michigan Senate Conservation Camittce
RETURN m: 9.0. Box 240, Capitol Building, Lansing, Michigan, 48902

CMiSTIClNAIRE FOR THE MSERVATION CONISSION OF THE STATE OF

m5

 

 

r

 

Please attach a copy of your organization chart.

1. Do you have a legally constituted supplementary body to determine official policy
or provide advice regarding policy?
'2. Which of the above two functions most adequately describes the activities of the
mission?
a. Develop and enunciate policy for implanentation by director of department __

 

b. Review and approve policy generated by executive staff of department
3. Does the mission have control of all conservation functions? L
4. In which areas does the mission have control?

 

a. Fish __ e. Law enforcement __
b. Gale __ N f. Water pollution __
c. Perla __ g. Recreation __
d. Forestry __ h. Other _ __.

 

5.;How much control does the omission have over the budget of the conservation
department? f
6. Howuuch control does the camission have over the rules made by the departnent

I

concerning the operation of the department? -

 

7. Is the camissian able to make conservation policy independent of the legislature?

 

 

8. Does the omission have the authority to hold public hearings on matters of

concern to it?

 

9. 'Are emission neetings Open to the pnblic?
10. Are the minutes of the omission meeting required to be made public?

 

 

11. Do all cauuissiotners serve concurrently, or are their term staggered?

 

12. May a camissioner succeed himself?

 

13. Are there any specific qualifications for camnissioners?

 

 

1‘ .l‘, ”1". F uni ...| 95“

178
QIBTICNNAIRE FOR THE (INSERVATIW COMISSION continued.

14. If appointed, are comissioners subject to confirmation by the legislature?

a. Senate - House

 

 

15. Is the authority of the connission clearly spelled out, or is it left to

interpretation? . n

16. Does the comission have actual adnninistrative authority?

 

 

17. Who sets the hunting and fishing regulations, fees and seasons?
agency regulations fees seasons
a. The Conservation Connission
b. The Conservation Department __

c. The Department Director
d. The Legislature

18. Does the legislature have approval authority over these regulations?
19. Does the camission have its own budget? . __

20. Does the legislature have approval of this budget?

 

21. Does the covmission serve as a liasion between the conservation department and

the special interest groups in the state? _ p-

 

179

FACT mem SURVEY
by Senator Gordon Rockwell, Chairman, Michigan Senate Conservation Connittee

RETURN TO: P.O. Box 240, Capitol Building, Lansing, Michigan, 48902
QESTIGINAIRE FIR TIE FISH DIVISION OF TIE STATE OF

 

AIDRESS

_.__._._ +__ A

Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your division

DIVISICN ADJINISTRATION
1. How many personnel are onployed by the fish division in the following categories?

 

 

a. Adninistrative Salary range _ to
b. Research Salary range to
c. Field Salary range to
:1. Part-time Salary range to

 

 

2. Is your division organized into prograa segments such as habitat management,

species managonnent, etc?

 

a. Haemanyprogran sementsdoyouhave?

 

b. please list md briefly outline the function of eadn seguent.
1.

 

 

 

3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.

 

 

3. Does operation planning and progrm direction cane froln the central division staff
or is the staff used for planning only? ' Please explain

 

 

4. Are there any areas where the fish division has significant autonony fran Department

adainistration in decision-making?

 

i 180

QESTICNNAIRE FOR 'IHE PIS-l DIVISICN continued.

5. Does the fish division have its own engineering staff or do you nae Deparonent
or State engineers for design and construction of projects?

 

#;

6. Do you have a regional concept in fish management with field offices in each
area?

‘ A A

a. Are fish districts the sane as gas districts?

 

b. Are fish districts the sane as forestry districts?

7. Do you have a salt-water fishery in..your state? Please describe

 

 

8. Do you have an anadronous fishery in your state? Please describe

 

 

9. Does the fish division conduct an information and education progran to help create
a favorable public response to fish Mt? Please explain

A

 

10.?0nere does the operating revenue for the fish division cone fron?

a. Department budget appropriation %
b. Self-generated revenue t
'c. Legislative appropriation t

 

11. How large is the annual budget of the fish division? *

7*— _vv——

12. How is the money allocated within the division?

a. Aduinistration __3
b. Research _%
c. Hatcheries __.-t
d. Other _%

 

181

 

QBSTIGJNAIRE NR THE FISi DIVISION continued.

RESEAK}!
1. How large is your fish research staff?‘_ ~

a. Biologists Salary range
h. Adninistrative Salary range to
c. Clerical Salary range ‘ to

 

2. Mnat are the educational requirements for fish biologists?

 

 

 

3. Do you monitor pesticide concentrations in various species of fish in your state?
Explain briefly the progran '

 

 

 

 

4. Please briefly outline the focus of your research progrn-in the fisheries division?

 

 

 

5. Is your division considering introducing new species of sport and gone fish into
to waters of your state? ' '

 

mmes
1. To what extent do you conduct hatchery prograns to:
a. Stock state waters
b. Introchnce new species
c. Other

8—

 

 

 

 

2. Do you feel the state hatchery program is adequate to keep state lakes and streans
stocked?

 

 

 

182

QIESTIGNAIRE FOR ‘IHE FISH DIVISICN contimnd.

3. how many fish hatcheries do you have presently?

 

a. Warm-water Capacity per year fish
b. Cold-water Capacity per year fish
c. Anadronom. Capacity per year fish

d. Salt-water Capacity per year fish

4. What species and in what quantities are fish being produced in your state

 

 

hatcheries?
a. Trout M fish
b. Salmon fish
c. Bass fish
d. __ fish
e. I fish

 

5. How many fish were planted by your state in the last two years?
1

 

 

 

967 1968 1969-70
a. Trout _ .
b. Salmon
c. Bass
d.
c.

 

6. Is there a private hatchery progran in your state?
a. How many hatdneries?

 

l . Warm-water Capacity
2. Cold-water Capacity
3. Capacity

uonsnc
1. Please attach a copy of your fishing license fee schedule.

2. How many regular annual fishing licenses were sold last year?
a. Resident
b. Non-resident
c. Resident trout and salmon
d. Non-resident trout and salmon

3. May a wife fish on her husband's fishing license?

 

 

15" if Chi
h. .

183 .

QESTIONNAIRE NR THE FISH DIVISION continued.

4. What happens to the revenue generated by fishing license sales?
a. Remains in the fish division __t
b. Goes to the Department general fund . __t

c. Goes to the State generalfund __t

d. Other _%

 

5. What system does your state we to handle fishing license sales? *

 

 

6. By whoa are the fishing seasons and limits established?
a. Conservation Department
b. Conservation Counission
c. Legislature
d. Fish Division

7. Who is responsible for the enforconent of fishing regulations?
a. Conservation officers
b. Special fish officers
c. Local sheriff's
d. Township officials

WIN. FISHIM}

1. Does the fish division have control of comercial fishing in your state?
Explain

 

2. How large is the cornercial fishing industry in your state?
a. Revenue generated
b. Nnnnber of licensed fishermen

 

c.Rank conpared to other industry in your state

3. Can your state sell harvested fish to connercial canners?

 

 

FACT nrmnxc sows? 134
By Senator Gordon Rockwell, Chairman, Michigan Senate Conservation Committee

RETURN TO: P. O. Box 260, Capitol Building, Lansing, Hichigan, 48902

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE FORESTRY DIVISION OF THE STATE OF

 

moan-:35 _

__.—w fi'w‘v r—w ‘r W‘ “V

Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your division (P.Y. 1969-70)

' l. how‘many acres of forests are there in your state?

a. Privately caned

 

b. State owned <+

c. Federally owned

 

2. How many employees does the forestry division have?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Foresters Salary range ______ to __+#___
b. Fire fighters Salary range to
c. Administrative Salary range to __
d. Clerical . Salary range to ___
e. Other non-prof. ____;___ Salary range __~_ to
to

3. Is there a functional separation between forestry and fire-fighting in your

division? Explain

 

 

 

4. How large is the operating budget for the forestry division?

a. forest management

 

b. fire-fighting ;

5. Does the forestry division control commercial timbering in the state?

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. What is the volume of the timbering industry in your state? - _; Bd.Ft.
' a. Private fl Pulpwood’ BDFT
. b. State __, Veneer ___ _. 80??

c. Federal ‘_, - Staves ‘ .BDPT

 

 

7. Dov much revenue is generated by timber harvesting on state-owned lands per _

year?

8. Howwmuch revenue does the state and the federal government return to local units
of government in lieu of taxes?

. a. State per acre ' per year

 

b. Federal per acre per year

 

 

185
QUESTIONNAIRE son THE Fonssrnr DIVISION continued.

9. Is your state divided into regions for timber harvest regulation? .

10. Do you use the same units for forestry as for fire-fighting?

 

11. Are timber management and production self-supporting_operations in your state?
12. Does your division have responsibility beyond timber management and fire-pro-
tection?

a. Land appraisal

 

b. Easement evaluation

 

c. Surveying

 

d. Trail construction

 

a. wilderness camping facilities

 

13. How was the forest land owned by the state acquired?

a. Tax reverted 1
b. Purchased
Received as gift 2

14. Do you use prison labor to maintain forests and fight fires?

 

15. Do you assist private landowners with any of the following?

a. Soil testing

 

b. Furnish seedlings

 

c. Spraying

 

d. Surveying

 

186
FACT FINDIhG SURVEY -
by Senator Gordon Rockwell, Clnainnan, Michigan Senate Conservation Connittee

mm m: P.O. Box 240, Capitol Building, Lansing, ‘iichigan, 48902 ~
QIESTIGWAIRE FOR lliE OMB DIVISION OF ‘IHE STATE OF ‘

 

 

ADDRESS

 

Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your division.

DIVISICN AIMINISTRATIm

1. How many personnel are employed by the game division in the following categories?

 

 

a. Administrative Salary range to

b. Research Salary range

c. Field __.... Salary range to +
d. Part-time - Salary range ' to . .

2. Is your division organized into program sements, such as habitat management,
species managonent, etc?

 

a. How many program segments do you have?

 

h. Please list and briefly outline the function of each segment.
1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Does Operation planning and program direction cone fron the central division

staff, or is the staff used for planning only? Please explain.

 

_—
w

4. Are there any areas where the gane division has significant autonony from Department

. adninistration in decision-making?

 

187
QIESI‘IONNAIRE FOR THE GAME DIVISIf'N continued.

5. Does the game division have its own engineering staff or do you use Department

or state engineers for the design and construction of projects?

 

w

6. Do you have a regional concept in gone management with field offices in each
area?

#4

a. Are game districts the sane as fish districts?

 

b. Are gene districts the sane as forestry districts?

 

7. Does the gane division conduct an information and education program to help create
Explain

 

a favorable public response to gene management?

 

8. “here does the operating budget of the gone division cone fron!

a. Department budget appropriation % '
b . Self- generated revenue ' t
c. Legislative appropriation %

9. How large is the annual budget of the gone division?

 

10. How is the money allocated within the division?
a. Adninistration
b. Research
c. Habitat development
' d. Other_

Won
1. How large is your game research staff?
a. Biologists
b. Adninistrative

c. Clerical
d. Field ,

 

 

2. Hhat ate the educational requirements for game biologists? ‘4 '

 

 

i _. ,7..-

1i;5mlplidl1fl~.fléffi1 I‘I‘

188

QIES'I'IINNAIRE FOR DIE CM DIVISION continued.

 

3. Do you monitor pesticide concentrations in various species of gone in your

state? Explain briefly the program

 

 

 

4. Please briefly outline the focus of your research progran in the game division.

 

 

 

5. Is your division considering introducing new species of gone animals into your

state? Explain L

C
_. -
O

 

 

‘

 

HINI‘Im
Please.attach a schedule of hunting license fees and seasons.
1. By whon are the seasons and the hunting limits established?
a. Gene division
b. Conservation director
c. Conservation cannission

d. Legislature

2. Are the reconmendations of the game division sought and utilized in establishing

the seasons and the limits?

 

3. What system do you use to handle sales of non-big game licenses?

 

 

4. How many hunting licenses were sold last year in the following categories?
a. Resident small game Non-resident small game
b. Resident turkey Non-resident turkey

c. Resident big game Non-resident big gone

189

QESTIGNAIRE FOR 'IIIE GAME DIVISION continued.

 

5. What happens to the revenue generated by hunting license sales?
a. Stays in game division
b. Goes to Department general fund
c. Goes to State general-fund
d. Other -

6. What methods_do you use to determine wildfowl and small game populations?

 

 

BIG GIME mm
1. Please identify the‘big gone animals which you have in your state and give their
approximate nunbers.
a. Deer Mule White tail Other

 

b. Bear Black _ Brown Grizzly
c. Elk

 

d. Antelope
e. Sheep
f. Other

 

 

 

2. hhat methods do you use to determine big game populations, especially deer?

 

 

3. What system do you use to distribute big gone hunting licenses?

 

 

 

.4. lb you require a specific animal permit as well as a hunnting license?

 

5. How are these permits distributed?
a. First cone-first served
b. By a drawing

c. Other '

6. What system do you use to detenmine the nunber of animals killed in a season?

 

_‘

 

190

QIESTIONNAIRE non THE GAME DIVISION continued.

 

7. Do you have a large enough deer herd in your state to permit a hunting season? .

8. How large is the deer herd?

 

a. Does and farms

b. Bucks

 

9. Do you permit the hunting of does in your state?

 

. 10. Do you have a large enough bear pOpulation to permit the hunting of bear?

11. How large is the bear population in your state?

 

12. Do you permit the use of dogs while bear hunting?

' 191
FACT FINDIm SURVEY
by Senator Gordon Rockwell, Chairman, Michigan Senate Conservation Carmittee

RITIURN 10: P.O. Box 240, Capitol Building, Lansing, ‘fichigan, 48902
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR 'llIE LANDS MANAGE‘TENT DIVISIFN OF THE STATE OF

 

ADDRESS

 

Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your division.

1. How many units of land revert to your state each year? -
a. For nm-pament of taxes .
b. As gifts
c. Other

 

2. What is the average size of these units?

 

3. Where are these units usually located?

*

a. in rural areas

 

b. in small towns and cities

c. in large cities

(1. in metropolitan areas
4. Does your state pay local property taxes on these units of land? _

S. If not, does the state make "in lieu of taxes" payments to local units of
govermnent? If so, how much? per

6. Briefly outline your procedure for disposing of tax-reverted land.

 

 

 

7. Are you allowed to make trades or sell state-owned land for privately owned land

in order to consolidate holdings? Please explain

 

 

8. How many people are employed by the lands management division?

 

 

 

a. Mninistrative Salary range to
b. Lend appraisers Salary range to
c. Legal staff ' Salary range to
d. Part-time Salary range to

 

 

9. Does you division have control of dnanneling, dredging and other such activities

192

onesrromrmz ma nae 1.55m meow DIVISION continued.

 

10. Does your division handle oil and mineral leasing for the state?

 

if not, who does?

 

11. How large a budget does the lands managanent division have?

 

12. Where does your funding cone fron?
a. Department budget apprOpriation _____%
b. Revame fran land sales _%
c. legislative budget appropriation __t

13. How many total acres of state-owned land is there in your state?

 

14. How many total acres of federally-owned land is there in your state?

 

193

PAC!‘ FINDIM; SURVEY
by Senator Gordon Rockwell, Chairman, Michigan Senate Conservation Connittee

RE'IURN TO: P.0. Box 240, Capitol Building, Lansing, Michigan, 48902
onesrrowme FOR me _L_n_nw_ momma nrvrsron or THE some on:

ADIRBSS

 

 

LA

Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your division.

Persorunel

1. How many people are ennployed by the enforconnent division?

 

 

 

 

a. Enforcement officers Salary range ,_to
b. Aduinistrative Salary range _to
c. Clerical Salary range , to
d. Part- time Salary range 'to

 

2. Do you me auxillary forces to supplement regular officers?

 

a. department employees fronn other divisions

 

b. citizens conmissioned to make arrests
c. citizens with less than arrest authority

3. Do you use non-paid assistant area conservation people?

 

Are they reimbursed for their expenses?

 

4A Are all of your enforcement officers uniformed?

 

If not, how many plainclothed officers do you have?

5. Do you have a lav enforcement training officer?

 

How much of his time is devoted to training duties? 8

6. What are the required qualifications for cmservation officers?
Age g Marital status
Education 9 '
Bnperience

 

 

,7. Do your canservaticn officers cone under civil service?

 

8. How long is the training period before the new officer is put into the field? __

9. Do you have a regular internship or onn-the- job training progran under a regular
officer? How long?

 

194

quarrowwns porn nun-z m ENFORCEMENT nrvrsmu continued.

 

10. What is the primary focus of your training program? (Please rank in order of
.. importance)
a. Police-oriented
b. Conservation-oriented
c. Public relations-oriented
11. What are the minimun and maximurn working hours of a conservation officer?

per week

12. Do you pay for over-time or do you allow your officers to take time-off in
periods of relative inactivity?

13. lb you have an in-service training program to keep officers informed and up
to date?

 

14. Are your officers regularly rotated to different geographical areas? 2 A
How often?

 

15. Are your officers trained in riot corntrol tednniques?
a. Is riot control training planned?

RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

1. Do you have a regional concept in law enforcement, with districts for each officer

or group of officers?

 

a. How many districts?

 

b. How many officers per district? .

2. Do your law enforcement districts coincide with fish and game regions?

 

3. Approximately how large an area does each officer cover personally? sq.mi.

4. Indicate specific areas of responsibility for enforcement officers?
a. Gare laws ' (1. Marine safety
b. Fish laws a. Park service

c. Forest fire protection - f. All conservation law enforcement

 

5. Are your officers responsible for patrol of state parks and other state areas?

6. Are your officers required to pick up all big game animals killed or injured by

vehicle collision?

 

a. How many total animals picked up each year?

 

195

qnmsrrowuma Fonz me any ENFORCEMENT DIVISION continued.

 

7. Are your officers responsible for the protection of department-owned equipnent,

and for prosecution of violators? '

EQUIPMENT
1. Do your officers all drive state-owned cars?

a. How many do?

 

 

b. If personal vehicles are used, are officers reimbursed for mileage?

Is there a limit to the nunber of miles paid?

 

2. Do your officers all drive identified vehicles? How many do?
3. What is the annual average mileage driven by an officer? _ miles

4. Are enforcement officers issued sidearms?

 

5. Does the law enforcement division own aircraft? Nnnher?
' “.-
‘I’ype? ' : Primary use?
Helicopters? Nunber Uses?
* “-

 

 

6. Can your officers issue written citations to appear in court? .
hhat is the procedure? ' '

 

7. Do your officers have authority to accept bond or fine money in the field? .
Please explain

 

8. What is the average nunber of citations issued per officer per year? __
9. What percentage of arrests result in conviction? %

10. What type of validation tag is issued to licensees for attachment to big game?
a. metal tag
I). Paper tag
c. Plastic tag
d. Other

NH

11. Does your division have access to autonated bookkeeping and record-keeping equin-

ment and techniques?

 

196

QESTICNNAIRE FOR THE _ILNJ INFORCB‘II‘NI' DIVISION continued.

12. How large an Operating budget does the enforcement division have?
1969- 70 S

1968- 69 S

 

1967-68 3

13. How does the enforcement division obtain legal services?
a. Staff attorneys assigned to the division
b. State Attorney's staff

I

c. Private lawyers hired to permanent staff

197

PACT FINDING SURVEY
By Senator Gordon Rockwell, Chairman, Michigan Senate Conservation Committee
RE‘IlIRN ‘10: P.O. Box 240, Capitol Building, Lansing, Michigan, 48902

 

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PARKS DIVISION OF THE STATE OF

ADDRESS___
Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your division.

1. How many persons are employed by the entire parks divihion?
a. Park rangers
b. Administrative
c. Planning
d. Heintensnce

e. Part-time

lllll

2. Are personnel given the opportunity to upgrade themselves through training

and examinations?

 

3. What are the qualifications for park rangers?

 

e. Education __

b. Experience

 

 

u. Who is responsible for law enforcement in state parks?
a. State Highway Patrol
b. County Police
c. Conservation Officers
d. Park Rangers

5. What is the total budget of the parks division?
a. Self-generated %

b. Appropriation b By whom

 

6. Please indicate the approximate proportions of self-generated revenue.

 

 

a. Park entrance fees %
b. Camping fees 9
c. Boat launching fees 8
d. Concessions %

7. Please indicate the approximate percentage of expenditure for park development.
a. Land acquisition ~ 9

b. Park development b

19E!

QUESTIONNAIRE POR THE PARKS DIVISION Continued.

c. Maintenance

”‘-
*‘

d. Administration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACILITIES
1. What is the total number of state-owned parks in your state?
2. How many total acres of state parkland do you have? acres.
3. What is the average size of a state park in your state? acres.
u. What is the total number of campsites in your state parks?
5. What is the average number of campsites per state park?
6.. What is the average size of a campsite in a state park? sq. ft.
7. Please indicate, in approximate figures, where your state parks are located
in relation to urban areas and major highways.
Location:
a. Within 30 miles of urban areas t
b. Within 30-100 miles of urban areas t
c. Within lOO-lSO miles from urban areas $
d. More than 150 miles from urban areas %
- Proximity to highways:
a. Within 5 miles of a major highway 8
b. Within 5-15 miles of a major highway %
c. More than l5 miles from a major highway %
8. Please indicate which facilities are present in an average state park in your
state. .
a. Camping sites f. Picnic areas
b. Dost access points g. Tables and grills
c. Dost ramps h. Plush toilets
d. Public swimming areas i. Pit toilets
e. Concession stands ____
9. What percentage of state parks are designated for the following useage?
a. Day-use %
b. Vacation t
10. What are the limits of your camping season? From __ to .

 

 

e.‘ How many good camping days are there in the average year?

 

199

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PARKS DIVISION Continued.

11.

12.

13.

1“.

. 15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

How many people use your state parks each year?
a. Day-use _g V‘_}
b. Vacation C

Now many people on average use state parks on major holiday weekends. For

example Memorial Day or Labor Day.

 

Now many people are turned away from use of state parks per year?

a. Day-use

 

b. Vacation

 

Fee Schedule
a. Daily park permit resident $ non-resident S
b. Annual park permit resident S non-resident 5

How many park permits were sold last year?
a. Daily park permit resident non-resident
b. Annual park permit resident non-resident
Now many park permits do you anticipate selling this year?
a. Daily park permit resident nonpresident
b. Annual park permit resident non-resident

Do you accept reservations for campsites in your state parks?

 

Please explain your procedure

 

How many National Parks, Forests and Game Areas do you have in your state?

a. National Parks

b. National forests
c. National Game Areas
Are camping facilities provided for wilderness areas?

a. Number of areas

 

b. Number of campsites

FACT FINDIm SURVEY
by Senator Gordon Rockwall. Chainnan, Michigan Senate Conservation Comittee

RETURN TO: P.O. Box 240, Capitol Building. Lansing, Michigan, 48902
QIESTIG‘NAIPE FOR THE RECREATION DIVISION OF THE STATE OF f

 

ms_

200

Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your division.

1. Is there a fimctional separation between the parks division and the recreation

division in your state?

__.—f

Please explain 7

—A_‘

 

2. How many people arepnmloyed by the recreation division?

3. Do you have personnel specializing in urban recreation services?

a. Supervisory
b. Adainistrative
c. Maintenance

d. Prison labor
e. Part-time

 

 

 

 

Salary range to
Sslarv range to
Salary range to
Salary range to
Salary range to

 

 

4. Does the state cooperate with local units of government in developing and main-

taining state park facilities in or near urban areas? __ Explain

 

7.

 

Does your state have any plans to beoane involved in urban recreaticm services?

 

 

Has your state bonded itself for state recreation progress? _
If so, for how mach? :

Please indicate which of the following are a part of the recreation progran in

your state.
a. Nature Trails

b. Hiking Trails

c. Bridal Paths

d. Bicycle Trails

e. Motorcycle Trails
f. Slnmobile Trails

mflaer
masher
nuaber
umber
nuaber
nuaber

total miles
total miles
total miles
total miles

total miles
total miles

 

 

 

 

 

 

201

FACT FINDING SURVEY

by Senator Gordon Rockwell, Chairman, Michigan Senate Conservation Calmittee
RETURN '10: P.0. Box 240, Lansing, Michigan, 48902

QIFSTIONNAIRE FOR THE WATER POLLUTION C(NTPOL AGEMIY OF THE STATE OF

ADDRESS

 

Please attach a copy of the organization chart of your agency

1.

2.

3.

6.

7.

Does your state have a single agency charged with the protection of the state's

water resources?

 

If not, how is the responsibility shared and with whan?

 

 

 

Is the water pollution control agency independent fran other state agencies?

If not, under which state agency does water pollution control cane?
a. Department of Conservation
b. Department of Health
c. Other

 

How many people are employed by the water pollution control agency?
a. Administrative Salary range

 

b . Engineering " "
c. Flaming
d. Testing

e. Clerical " "

 

H H

 

 

How large is the amual water pollution control budget?

 

Frau what source does the water pollution control budget cane?

a. Department budget apprOpriation

 

b. Legislative budget appmpriation
c. Other _‘

 

 

Has your state undertaken a public bonding progran to finance water pollution

control?

 

Is such a program being considered? -

 

 

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293103960005