Mr. G.B.B. 
 
 
     It would furnish an argument for progress that 
even politicians can understand. 
 
      It would be flexible and would avoid injustice 
to States that are really trying to meet their res- 
ponsibilities. 
 
      It would take the teeth out of opposition on the 
grounds of "States -rights". 
 
      It would i-a no wise prevent the Forest Service 
and Biological Survey cooperating actively with the 
States in the management of game on such Forests 
remaining in State control. 
 
      It would leave the question of ultimate outcome 
 squarely up to the States themselves. If they deliver 
 results, they will keep jurisdiction. If they fall 
 down, they wtll lose the Forest game and can blame 
 nobody but themselves. 
 
      It would benefit game management outiside the 
 Forests.   TZhe Sheldon plan might injure it. 
      The saue idea might be applied to areas pur- 
ahasei by the Federal Government under the Puublic 
Shooting Grounds bill.    If the State is competent, 
let it operate these areas in trust, after the Fed- 
eral Government has bought them. 
      Of course, this hits only the high points. 
 If jyou are interested in further detail, I will 
 try and supplj it. 
 
                    Very sincerely iours, 
 
                           ..               , Secretary, 
 
                    NEi M1ýXICO GAMS PROTLCTIV ASSOC IATON. 
 
P.S. Can you please let me have a dozen extra copies 
      of the Sheldon Policy?