I —-jSSSS^STvx^a^X^j^— jftl fWrON^NIVAOLij — ^r^lVIV/M^ tf^ ^^^E h5i^^fSll^^^^*'''**''^i^W^^ ?^ 1®^ '\S ?^virii^i^7y/fe>8ee€l.o^A^ P m S^MCJM m /'m i3^^^^^ ^S^Ssvl i^©€©© II ikJ^ ^^^W^ ^ra; \ % ^/f/^^^^p\l ^1 i /i'/'fefO^i 1^^;^ _^/|| .P^^^AOA^, \ lil BOSTOISI PUBLIC UBRT^RY MARINE MAMMALS HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSEKVATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS— FIKST SESSION ON H.R, 690, H.R. 4370, H.R. 4733, H.R. 6554, H.R. 6558, H.R. 6801, H.R, 6804, H.R. 7217, H.R. 7229, H.R. 7431, H.R. 7463, H.R. 7477, H.R. 7530, H.R. 7555, H.R. 7556, H.R. 7638, H.R. 7706, H.R. 7794, H.R. 7861, H.R. 7891, H.R, 7952, H.R. 8105, H.R. 8183, H.R. 8255, H.R. 8391, H.R. 8526, H.R. 8804, H.R, 9041, H.R. 9356, H.R. 9409, H.R. 9557, H.R. 9917, H.R. 10420, H.R. 10569, H.R. 10803, H.R. 10814, H. Con. Rs. 77, and H. Con. Res. 173 Legislation for the Preservation and Protection of Marine Mammals SEPTEMBER 9, 13, 17, 23, 1971 Serial No. 92-10 Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries MARINE MAMMALS HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS— FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 690, H.R. 4370, H.R. 4733, H.R. 6554, H.R. 6558, H.R. 6801, H.R. 6804, H.R. 7217, H.R. 7229, H.R. 7431, H.R. 7463, H.R. 7477, H.R. 7530, H.R. 7555, H.R. 7556, H.R. 7638, H.R. 7706, H.R. 7794, H.R. 7861, H.R. 7891, H.R. 7952, H.R. 8105, H.R. 8183, H.R. 8255, H.R, 8391, H.R. 8526, H.R. 8804, H.R. 9041, H.R. 9356, H.R. 9409, H.R. 9557, H.R. 9917, H.R. 10420, H.R. 10569, H.R. 10803, H.R. 10814, H. Con. Res. 77, and H. Con. Res. 173 Legislation for the Preservation and Protection of Marine Mammals SEPTBIMBER 9, 13, 17, 23, 1971 Serial No. 92-10 Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 67-765 O WASHINGTON : 1971 COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Maryland, Chairman LEONOR K. (MBS. JOHN B.) SULLIVAN, Missouri FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan ALTON LENNON, North Carolina THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia JAMES A. BYRNE, Pennsylvania PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky JOHN M. MURPHY, New York JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California SPEEDY O. LONG, Louisiana MARIO BIAGGI, New York CHARLES H. GRIFFIN, Mississippi GLENN M. ANDERSON, California ELIGIO DB LA GARZA, Texas PETER N. KYBOS, Maine ROBERT O. TIERNAN, Rhode Island JAMES V. STANTON, Ohio Ralph E. Casey, Chief Counsel ROBEET J. Mcelroy, Chief Clerk Ned p. Everett, Counsel Frank M. Potter, Jr., Counsel Richard N. Sharood, Minority Counsel THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, California CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio JAMES R. GROVER, Jr., New York HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania WILLIAM G. BRAY, Indiana PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, Jr., California JACK H. MCDONALD, Michigan M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky ROBERT H. STEELE, Connecticut EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey PIERRE S. (PETE) DU PONT, Delaware WILLIAM O. MILLS, Maryland Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation ALTON LENNON, North Carolina THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California SPEEDY O. LONG, Louisiana MARIO BIAGGI, New York GLENN M. ANDERSON, California ELIGIO de la GARZA, Texas PETER N. KYROS, Maine ROBERT O. TIERNAN, Rhode Island JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, JR., California JACK H. MCDONALD, Michigan WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, California PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey (U) ir \v CONTENTS Hearings held — 'Page September 9, 1971 1 September 13, 1971 139 September 17, 1971 311 September 23, 1971 399 Text of— H.R. 690 3 H.R. 4370 3 H.R. 4733 3 H.R. 6554 4 H.R. 6558 4 H.R. 6801 4 H.R. 6804 7 H.R. 7217 4 H.R. 7229 4 H.R. 7431 4 H.R. 7463 7 H.R. 7477 4 H.R. 7530 4 H.R. 7555 4 H.R. 7556 4 H.R. 7638 7 H.R. 7706 4 H.R. 7794 4 H.R. 7861 4 H.R. 7891 4 H.R. 7952 4 H.R. 8105 4 H.R. 8183 10 H.R. 8255 3 H.R. 8391 4 H.R. 8526 4 H.R. 8804 4 H.R. 9041 4 H.R. 9356 4 H.R. 9409 4 H.R. 9557 4 H.R. 9917 4 H.R. 10420 13 H.R. 10569 20 H.R. 10803 20 H.R. 10814 13 H. Con. Res. 77 23 H. Con. Res. 173 23 Reports from — Commerce Department •^4, 27 Civil Service Commission 33 General Services Administration o^'qc 07 00 Interior Department ','^I'?o Justice Department 39,40,41,42,43 Small Business Administration 46 Smithsonian Institution 46 State Department 47,49,51 Transportation Department ^1 Treasury Department 52, 53, 54 (m) IV statement of— P^Ke Alaska Delegation to Congress 311 Amory, Cleveland, president, the Fund for Animals, New York City. 77 Baring, Hon. Walter S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada 328 Begich, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska 312 Blow, Stuart, Department of State 181 Blowers, Jay, Department of State 181 Buchanan, Hon. John H., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama 334 Burns, John, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 440 Callison, Charles H., executive vice president, National Audubon Society 394 Conte, Hon. Silvio O., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts 332 Denney, Richard N., wildlife field consultant, the American Humane Association 372 Dreisin, Eugene, American Fur Merchants Association 356 Felando, August, American Tunaboat Association 344 Garrett, Tom, wildlife consultant. Friends of the Earth 519 Gravel, Hon. Mike, a Senator in Congress from the State of Alaska 315 Greenberg, Dr. Herbert, president. Marketing Survey & Research Corp 106 Hansen, Henry, Department of the Interior 151 Harris, Miss Laura, daughter of Senator and Mrs. Fred Harris of Oklahoma 106 Harry, George, Department of Commerce 210 Hartman, Daniel, Ph. D., Paradise Point Nature Center, N.H 129 Hecht, Irving, executive vice president, Associate Fur Manufacturers Association 356 Herrington, Miss Alice, Friends of Animals, New York City 88 Hessel, Fred, American Fur Merchants Association 356 Horstman, Robert L., Sea Mammal Motivational Institute, Ocean Reef Club, Key Largo, Fla 383 Hoyt, John A., president, the Humane Society of the United States 376 Jackman, David, assistant attorney general. State of Alaska 440 Johnson, Raud, Department of Commerce 210 KarUner, Miss Susane, of Nassau, N.Y 104 Kimball, Thomas L., executive director National Wildlife Federation. _ 65 Kirkness, William, Department of Commerce 210 Lenzini, Paul A., Counsel, International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners 460 Linduska, Dr. Joseph P., Associate Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior 151 Long, Hon. Clarence D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland 328 Losick, Victor, cameraman and film editor. Friends of Animals 88 McCandless, Robert C, counsel, Friends of Animals 88 McKean, John W., International Association of Game, Fish, and and Conservation Commissioners 460 McKernan, Ambassador Donald L., Coordinator of Ocean Affairs and Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Secretary of State. 181 McMahon, Frank, director of investigations, the Humane Society of the United States 376 Medina, Joe, skipper of tunaboat Queen Mary 344 Norris, Dr. Kenneth S., Marine Mammal Council 399 Obey, Hon. David R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 327 Pankowski, Ted, director of environmental affairs, Izaak Walton League of America 516 Perrin, Dr. William, Department of Commerce 210 Pollock, Howard W., Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 210 Poole, Daniel A., Wildlife Management Institute 503 Poser, Joseph, Fur Conservation Institute 356 Statement of — Contiaued Pryor, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of Page Arkansas 80 Ray, Dr. G. Carleton, program director, Marine Mammal Council 399 Regenstein, Lewis, Washington coordinator, Fiiends of Animals 88 Rhodes, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona 329 Rvan, Hon. William F., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 337 Salmon, WilUam, Department of State 181 Schevill, Wilham E., Marine Mammal Council 399 Schwartz, Walter, member of the Fur Conservation Institute 356 Sharp, James, representing the Fur Conservation Institute of America. 356 Stevens, Hon. Ted, a Senator in Congress from the State of Alaska 317 Stevens, Mrs. Christine, secretary, Society for Animal Protective Legislation, Washington, D.C 473 Talbot, Dr. Lee, senior scientist. Council on Environmental Quality.- 139 Terry, William, Department of Commerce 210 Train, Russell E., Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality 139 Vandevere, Judson E., biological investigator, Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford Universitv, Pacific Grove, Calif., on behalf of Friends of the Sea Otter, Big' Sur, Calif 122 Walker, Theodore J., Ph. D., research biologist (retired), Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, Calif 132 Walsh, John C, field oflBcer, International Society for the Protection of Animals 389 Whitehurst, Hon. G. William, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia 330 Wilson, Cynthia, National Audubon Society 394 Wolff, Hon. Lester, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 104 Wyler, Miss Gretchen, World Federation for the Protection of Animals 85 Additional material submitted by — Burns, John, statement of the State of Alaska 440 Council on Environmental Quality, suggested amendments to H.R. 10420 142 Commerce Department: Advertising media used by Fouke Co 267 Amount of total advertising cost allocated by Fouke to U.S. Government-owned skins 267 Annual report of sealing operations, 1970, Pribilof Islands, Alaska 272 Brief description of MNFS fur seal research for fiscal years 1968 through 1972 232 Conflict with H.R. 6554 and H.R. 6558 217 Development of process for marketing female fur seal skins 284 Distribution of amount received from sale of Alaska fur seal skins, 1960-70 --- 262 Economic impact of the prohibition of importation of marine mammal products to the United States 290 Example of a scientific permit for non- Government individuals- - 244 Five-year cost estimates 234 Index of whaling scientific permits 236 Investigations and experiments pertaining to fur seal slaughtering methods 225 Justification for Fouke advertising 264 Marine mammal funding for fiscal years 1968 through 1972 231 Marine mammal hunting 250 Marine mammal research 234 Marine mammal resource program — March 1971 228 Material supplied by NMFS to International Whaling Com- mission, 1966-71 .--- 247 National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska fur seal program obliga- tions for fiscal year 1970 260 vr Additional material submitted by — Continued Commerce Department — Continued "National Trust Will Kill 3,000 Seals on Fame Island," an article Pasre from the Daily Telegraph by Clare Dover 289 "Occurrence of Pesticides in Whales," an article by Allen A. Wolman and Alfred J. Wilson, Jr 302 Papers prepared for International Whaling Commission meetings. 246 Photos of tuna fishing vessel with a purse seine 215 Photos to demonstrate the purse seine 214 Population goal of fur seal management program 285 Porpoise research 233 Proposal for a scientific permit to take sperm whales 237 Publications on cetaceans by NMFS staff 245 Report on questions raised by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on marine mammals 221 Residues found in seals 296 "Residues in Fish, Wildlife, and Estuaries — Organochlorine Pesticides in Fur Seals", an article by Raymond E. Anas and Alfred J. Wilson, Jr 298 Sample of a whaling permit for the marine mammal biological laboratory 244 Scientific permits to take whales 239 Summary of scientific permits to take whales issued to non- Govemment individuals or institutions 244 Taking of polar bear, walrus, and sea otter on the high seas 251 Tariff schedules of the United States, annotated (1971) 291 U.S. progress report on whale research 247 Whale research 233 Grouse, Carl N.: Certification of enrolled enactment in the Legislature of the State of Washington 472 Killer whale permit 471 Managed marine mammals protected 471 DingeU, Hon. John, memorandum of September 7, 1971, from Frank M. Potter, Jr., to members of Subcommittee of Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation on marine mammal protection 55 Dreisin, Eugene. "The Hunting of Fur Seals" 364 Garrett, Tom, Whales of the World and Friends of the Earth," a report 525 Greenberg, Dr. Herbert, letter from Jimmy Berenholtz 109 Herrington, Miss Alice: Affidavit of Thomas S. Bywaters 117 Annual report of sealing operations, of 1968, Pribilof Islands, Alaska 115 Factsheet on the Pribilof Seal "Harvest" 115 Fisheries No. 617, "Fur Seal Investigations, 1968" 116 Fur seal investigations, 1968 113 Years, counts, and estimates of the number of fur seals born on the Pribilof Islands 102 Interior Department: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife needs for expanded research program for marine mammals 161 Five-year funding levels for research on marine mammals 159 Native population 180 Recommendation of taking of walruses and polar bears 168 Research activity on the polar bear 175 Research on marine mammals now being conducted by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 173 Sea otter studies 174 The polar bear 170, 175 The sea otter 178 The walrus 172 Layne, James N., game management and hunting activities 537 Library of Congress, memorandum to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee 451 Marine Mammal Council, questions submitted and answers 438 vn Additional material submitted by — Ck)ntinued Miscellaneous material on marine mammals : . Ax About To Fall Again on Fur Seal, an article by Lewis i'age "R PCTGIlStjGill — " O 4 O Baby Seal Hunt in Canada, an article from the St. Louis Post- Dispatch 570 Chart of Alaska fur seal population oU New York seal data sheet ^^9 Sea otters ambushed :;-;iT-- V"7" VnVr Students for Environmental Quality, letter of March 1, 1971, to Congressmen '^^^ Tables of births, deaths, and kills of Alaska fur seal 577 The Bering Sea Massacre, excerpt from an article by Georg Gerster_ 578 The Manatee Eats 'Water-Hyacinth, So It Must Be Saved, an article from the Washington Post 575 Miscellaneous material on polar bears: Chart of polar bear kill in Alaska, 1966-69 __- 550 Excerpt from statement prepared for Board of Fish and Game_. 557 International Conservation of the Polar Bear: A Report on Progress, an article by Richard A. Cooley 564 Letters from: „„ t^ -^i. tt McKeman, Donald L., of March 27, 1970, to Keith H. MiUer ;--^t V'-^--^ McKnight, Don, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, of July 27, 1 97 1 , to Berry Kowalski . . - - - - ----- - - - 553 Miller, Keith H., Governor of Alaska, of May 8, 1970, to Dr. Donald L. McKeman ------ 559 Noerenberg, Wallace H., of July 13, 1971, to Gordon W. Watson 5" Weberg C. A., Alaska Department of Fish and Game, letter dated July 29, 1971 - - 553 Memorandum of July 1, 1971, from Jack W. Lentfer with proposed management policy for Alaska T--"r — New Law Encourages Rational Use of Wildlife, an article from the WildUfe Society News ~ V " S -xirT^Vf' ' " i?^ Research activity of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.- 551 Revised classification of rate and endangered forms, 1969, from lUCN red data book -^48 Tables on age, derivation, and kill 551 The Fur Seal Convention : A Working Management Program 568 Norris, Dr. Kenneth S., International Conference on the Biology of Whales *28 Poole, Daniel A.: _„q Harvest of the Pribilof seals V"V ">/f " Opposition to- Ocean Mammal Protection Act, speech ot Mr. Stevens from the Congressional Record of June 29, 1971 508 Status and management of marine mammals 511 Pospr TosGoh* "Bid To Save Seals by Slaughter," an article from London Daily Mail _ _ -- - ^ "Britain'Pla'ns" To" Kill 3,000 Seals on Fame Isles," an article from the New York Times ^^^ Conservation and the fur trade ^^° Memorandum to Members of Merchant Marine Committee re marine mammal protection - ---.----^---- 55 "North of the Arctic Circle Disposing of Dead Walrus, an article from Anchorage Daily News 45b Testimony from hearing on other legislation i»o Prepared statement of: _ , , r Trr-uif rioi Boardman, Walter S., on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife- - 531 CrandeU, Harry B., director of Wildemess Reviews, the Wilder- ness Society, Washington, D.C 534 Davies, Brian D., International Fund for Animal Welfare, lnc__ b6b Dobell, A. M., of Chambly, Quebec, Canada-- J^i Drummond, Ronald B., Capistrano Beach, Calif ----------- ^^o Grandy, John W., administrative assistant. Wildlife at tne National Parks and Conservation Association __---- o6Z Intemational Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Gom- ^^^ missioners vin Additional material submitted by — Continued Prepared statement of — Continued ^*^^ Kimball, Thomas L 65 Rienow, Dr. Robert 531 Small, Dr. George L., Richmond College, City University of New York, Staten Island, N.Y 527 Sierra Club 528 Silva, Mr. and Mrs. Edward, of Oakland, Calif 120 Towell, William E., executive vice president, the American Forestry Association 529 Sharp, James: Age of South African sealskins pro cessed 370 Data provided by Fouke Co. of Greenville, S.C., relative to sources and destination of fur sealskins sold at Fouke Co.'s auctions 365 Export data — Total dressed seal fur skin exports, including fur seal, rock seal, and hair seal 366 Quantity of baby Canadian sealskins used 368 "Seal Faces Death— Seal Hunt Will Kill Thousands," from the Houston Post 370 Suggested changes in H.R. 10420 as submitted by the Fur Conservation Institute of America 366 State Department, marine mammals control 185 Stevens, Hon. Ted: "A Thriving Herd," by John A. Guinan 323 Conclusions on methods used in harvesting seals 320 The truth about the U.S. fur seals 325 Veterinarians' views on fur seal harvest 322 Stevens, Mrs. Christine: Material from the National Whaling Policies 493 'Songs of Humpback Whales," an article by Roger S. Payne and Scott McVay 475 'Youths Ride Whale Herd to Safety," an article from the Washington Evening Star 488 Vandevere, Judson E., "Our Environment — The Sea Lions' Warning", an article by Stewart Udall and Jeflf Stansbury 127 Woods, F. G., Department of the Navy, Annoted bibliography of publications from the Navy Marine mammal program 539 Wyler, Miss Gretchen: Open statement of Ashley Montagu 85 Statement from the World Federation for the Protection of Animals 86 Communications supplied by — Abshire, David M., letter of September 20, 1971, to Hon. John D. DingeU 202 Aleut Community Council, letter of May 19, 1971, with enclosed resolution 319 Colton, Araby, Canadian and American wolf defenders, open letter of September 1, 1971 544 Crouse, Carl N., director, Washington Department of Game, letter of September 3, 1971, to Hon. Thomas N. Pelly 470 DeBus, Bemi, American Cetacean Society, letter of September 6, 1971, to Hon. David Pryor with enclosed petition 83 DingeU, Hon. John D.: Letter of August 4, 1971, to Maurice H. Stans 220 Letter of August 17, 1971, to Christian Herter 200 Letter of September 3, 1971, to William P. Rogers 201 Letter of September 15, 1971, to Dr. Joseph Linduska 165 Dittrich, Donna, letter of August 5, 1971, to Hon. Don Edwards 548 Egan, William A., Governor of Alaska, letter of September 10, 1971, to Hon. John DingeU 440 Gaither, Judith A., letter to Representative Garmatz 547 Kruse, Thomas E., Fish Commission, letter of March 9, 1971, to Mrs. A. Burkholder 113 Layne, James N., American Society of Mammalogists, letter of Sep- tember 17, 1971, to Hon. John D. DingeU 536 "i 11^ DC Communications supplied by — Continued Lenzini, Paul A., attorney for the Fouke Co., letter of September 29, P»ee 1971, to Hon. John Dingell 268 Marston, M. A., Assistant to the Director, Department of the In- terior, letter of October 5, 1971, to Hon. John D. Dingell 166 McLeod, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas K. letter of June 5, 1971, to Presi- dent Richard M. Nixon 318 Monahan, William F., Marineland of the Pacific, Inc.: Letter of September 16, 1971, to Hon. John D. Dingell 545 Letter of Mav 28, 1971, to Hon. Fred R. Harris 545 Poole, Daniel A., letter of June 9, 1971, to President Richard M. Nixon from himself and others 515 Prescott, John H., memorandum of September 15, 1971, to William F. Monahan 546 Pry or, Hon. David, letter of September 22, 1971, to Hon. John Dingell 83 Richardson, David T., letter of September 22, 1971, to Frank Potter, Jr 537 Schulman, Paul, Fur Brokers Association of America, Inc., letter of September 22, 1971, to Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation 545 Sharood, Richard N.: Letter of December 30, 1970, to PhiUp M. Roedel 256 Letter of February 1, 1971, to John W. Townsend, Jr 258 Stans, Maurice H.: Letter of September 7, 1971, to Hon. John D. Dingell 221 Letter of September 24, 1971, to Hon. John D. Dingell 228 Stevens, Hon. Ted, letter of June 7, 1971, on S. 1315 318 Symmes, Harrison M., response to letter of August 17, 1971, of Hon. John D. Dingell 201 Townsend, John W., Jr.: Letter of Januarv 12, 1971, to Richard N. Sharood 257 Letter of February 23, 1971, to Richard N. Sharood 258 Vandevere, Judson E.: Letter of September 24, 1971, to Hon. Glenn M. Anderson 127 Letter of September 24, 1971, to Hon. John D. Dingell 126 Woods, F. C., Department of the Navy, letter of September 15, 1971, to Hon. John Dingell 538 MARINE MAMMALS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1971 House of Representatr^s, Committee of Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Washington^ D.C. The subcommittee convened at 9 :30 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell, chairman of the subcommit- tee, presiding. Mr. Dingell. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair announces that we have a very extensive witness list, and a very limited amount of time, and because of the pendency of legislation on the floor this afternoon in which this committee is very directly interested, that is the ocean dumping legislation, it will be necessary for the committee to proceed expeditiously as possible. For that reason, the Chair prays the indulgence of the membership in reducing the amount of time and number of questions for each witness. I am sure the membership will cooperate as fully as possible. The schedule of witnesses and the time of their appearance is be- fore each member. The first witness was to be our distinguished chairman, the Honor- able Edward Garmatz, who is detained elsewhere in another meeting, and as soon as he has concluded that matter, he will be here. I would like to say at the outset of these hearings that this sub- committee approaches the subject of marine mammal protection with open minds and no preconceptions as to the best way to deal with the problems which these animals confront. That there are problems I think no one can deny. For years men have been killing whales and other marine mammals "as though there were no tomorrow," and while the evidence to support this theory may from time to time appear impressive. I think we must assume that tomorrow will happen and that we cannot continue to invade our biological capital without exposing ourselves to risks which we would be better advised to avoid. The range of animals comprehended by most of the legislation before this committee includes whales, seals, walruses, sea otters, polar bears, and the sea cows, the largest species of which known to man has already been hunted to extinction. These animals are found on the high seas, in territorial waters and on U.S. lands. Their current pro- tection varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from species to species. Federal interest in these animals varies widely as well. With the single exception of the Alaska fur seal, our research efforts to leam (1) more of these animals has been, to put it charitably, very limited. The committee will be very much interested to learn from the witnesses just what they feel the level of funding should be, if we are to develop the knowledge that we must have in order to deal fairly and adequately with these animals, some of whom may be at least as intelligent as man — and what should be done to protect them in the interval before this research has been completed. In these hearings we will attempt to develop the best available evi- dence as to what is happening to these species, and what additional protection they may require beyond what they may already have — if any. In many cases hard evidence will be lacking, which is itself in- dicative of present inadequacies of research and perhaps even pro- tection. Critics of present programs relating to marine mammals argue that the killing of any animals for any purpose ultimately involves moral or ethical questions. I would suggest that such questions become far more acute where this killing can be shown to be inhumane or where there is any possibility that it may produce irreversible consequences on animal species or important population stocks. In these cases we must act cautiously indeed. In the course of the recent International Conference on the Biology of Whales, the suggestion was made that the burden of proof that any given rate of harvesting a species or stock will not damage that species or stock must rest with those who would benefit from that harvest. This strikes me as a rational and defensible principle upon which to base any scheme for the protection of marine mammals, and I com- mend it as a possible common thread of understanding to be kept in mind as these hearings proceed. Once destroyed, biological capital cannot be recreated. This, it seems to me, argues irresistibly for prudent, responsible action on the part of everyone. There are many bills presently pending before the committee which deal with the protection of some or all species of marine mammals. Some provide research authority only — H.R. 6804 by Mr. Whitehurst ; some deal with only certain types of marine mammals — H.R. 7463, by Mr. Anderson of California ; some are directed at the humane or inhumane methods of taking — House Concurrent Resolution 77, by Mr. Ryan and others; and H.R. 4370, by Mr. Helstoski. Mr. Pryor has introduced, with some 100 cosponsors, a bill which would impose an absolute ban upon the taking of all such mammals — H.R. 6558 and others--and Mr. Anderson and several others have introduced an al- ternative which would impose such a ban, but would permit the Sec- retary of the Interior to issue permits for the taking of marine mam- mals, after full public review — H.R. 10420. Time is very limited, and I will not use any more of it here. We have an impressive group of witnesses before us, and we look forward to hearing from all of them. Because time is so limited we have taken the unusual and very dis- tasteful step of limiting the time for testimony. The committee staff has been in touch with all of these witnesses and their representatives, and I am sure anything they wish to say can be submitted in writing, and may be done in complete detail as they wish, and to ask that they summarize their oral testimony as succinctly as possible. My colleagues and I will be sparing in questions at this time and it may be that some of the witnesses may be called back for more ex- tended discussion at a later time, or there will be requests for submis- sions by correspondence. For that reason, it is requested that all of our witnesses this morning make sure they have given the staff their address so that the committee may as necessary, communicate further with them. The Chair asks the indulgence of all in the request elucidated, and I am sure we will have not only a successful hearing but the coopera- tion of everyone. (The bills and departmental reports follow :) [H.R. 690, H.R. 8255, 92d Cong., first sess.] BILLS To require the Secretary of the Interior to make a comprehensive study of the polar bear and walrus for the purpose of developing adequate conservation measures \Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior, in coopera- tion with the States, shall make a comprehensive study of the polar bear and the walrus, taking into consideration, among other things, the distribution, migrations, and population of these mammals and the effects of hunting, disease, and food shortages on them, for the purpose of developing adequate and effective measures, including appropriate laws and regulations, to conserve such mam- mals on the high seas. The Secretary of the Interior shall submit, through the President, a report on the study, together with such recommendations, including suggested legislation, that he deems appropriate, to the Congress no later than January 1, 1976. Sec. 2. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, there is here- by authorized to be appropriated the sum of $100,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for eachi of the three succeeding fiscal years. [H.R. 4370, H.R. 4733, 92d Cong., first sess.] BILLS To amend the Fur Seal Act of 1966 by prohibiting the clubbing of seals after July 1, 1972, the taking of seal pups, and the taking of female seals on the Pribilof Islands or any other land and water under the jurisdiction of the United States Be it enacted by the Senate a/nd House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act shall be known as the "Humane Seal Protection Act of 1971." Section 1. Section 104 of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 is amended by adding at the end of subsection (a) thereof the following new subsections : "(b) The killing of seals by clubbing shall be prohibited after July 1, 1972. "(c) The taking of the skin of any seal under one year of age, and of any female seal, shall be prohibited." Subsection (b) of the Act shall be redesignated subsection (d). Sec. 2. Section 109(d) of the Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following : "by any means, except after July 1, 1972, by clubbing,". Sec. 3. Section 404 of the Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following : "Whoever knowingly transports in interstate commerce, or knowingly sells subsequent to such transportation, any package containing any sealskin, or any product manufactured, made, or processed, in whole or in part, from such seal- skin, which has been taken in violation of any provision of this Act shall be fined not more than $2,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and the gross revenue derived from any such sale of any such illegally taken skin shall be confiscated by the Secretary of the Interior and deposited into the Pribilof Island fund in the Treasury." Sec. 4. Section 405 of the Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following : "The Secretary shall initiate or contract for research on alternative means of killing seals, with the end of replacing the currently used method of clubbing. On the basis of such research, he shall determine which killing technique is 4 maximally painless to the seals, and shall, not later than April 1, 1972, adopt regulations requiring that after July 1, 1972, such technique be the only per- missible method of killing seals. "The Secretary shall, moreover, initiate or contract for research on shortening the seal drive from rookery to hauling ground, and on minimizing the stress upon seals during that drive." [H.R. 6554, H.R. 6558. H.R. 6801, H.R. 7217, H.R. 7229, H.R. 7431, H R . 7477, H R. 7530, H.R 7555, H.R. 7556, H.R. 7706, H.R. 7794, H.R. 7861, H.R. 7891, H.R. 7952. H.R. 810o. H.R. 839l! H.R. 8526, H.R. 8804. H.R. 9041. H.R. 9356, H.R. 9409, H.R. 95o7, H.R. 9917, 92d Cong., first sess.] BILLS to protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assemUed, That the following Act may be cited as the "Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971". TiTLB I — Findings and Declabations of Policy FINDINGS Seo. 101. The Congress finds that ocean mammals are being ruthlessly pursued, harassed, or killed, both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations of the world. The Congress further finds that many ocean mammals will become rare, if not extinct, unless steps are taken to stop their slaughter. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY iSec. 102. (a) It is hereby declared tx) be the public policy of the United States to protect all ocean mammals from harassment or slaughter. (b) It is hereby declared to be the further public policy of the Ignited States that negotiations should be undertaken with foreign governments and through interested international organizations with a view to obtaining a worldwide ban on the further slaughter of ocean mammals. Title II — General Prohibitions DEFINITIONS Sec. 201. For the purposes of this title — (a) "ocean mammals" means all seal, whole, walrus, manatee or sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, ix)lar bear, porpoise, and dolphin ; (b) "Person" includes individual, partnership, corporation, association, and federal and state agencies ; and (c) the terms "take" or "taking" or "taken" mean to harass, pursue, hunt, sflioot, dynamite, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, dynamite, capture, collect or kill. PROHIBITIONS Sec. 202. (a) It is unlawfiU, except as provided in section 203 of this title or in title III, for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in the taking of ocean mammals either on the high seas or on lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, or to use any port or harbor or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States for any purpose connected in any way with such taking or for any jjerson to transport, import, offer for sale, or possess at any port or place or on any vessel, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, ocean mammalvs or the parts of ocean mammals taken after the enactment of this Act, including but not limited to. raw. dressed, or dyed fur or skins. (b) The i>ossession of ocean mammals or any part thereof by any person con- trary to the provisions of this Act shall constitute prima facie evidence that that ocean mammal or part thereof was taken, purchased, sold, or transported in violation of the provisions of this Act or the regulations issued thereunder. EXCEPTION FOB INDIANS, ALEUTS, AND EBKIMOS Sec. 203. (a)) Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who dwell on the coasts of the North Pacific or Arctic oceans are permitted to take ocean mammals (except polar bears) for their own use but not for sale: Provided, however, That such taking must be done in accordance with customary traditions and as an adjunct of the native culture. (b) The authority contained in this section shall not apply to Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who are employed by any person under the provisions of the Pur Seal Act of 1966 or title III of this Act for the purpose of taking ocean mammals, or who are under contract or agreement to deliver the skins to any person- EXCEPTIONS FOE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEABCH AND FOE MUNICIPAL AND/OE OTHEE NONPEOFIT ZOOS Sec. 204. (a) Nothing herein shall be considered to be a prohibition against municipal and/or other nonprofit zoos from obtaining written consent from the Secretary of Interior to humanely capture a representative number of the ocean mammals herein defined or replacement for deceased or otherwise ailing members of these species in these zoos. (b) Further, nothing herein shall be construed to be a prohibition against the humane capture of a select number of these species of ocean mammals for certificable scientific and/or medical research. (c) Regulations shall be promulgated by the Secretary of Interior for the purposes of subsections (a) and (h) above as to who shall be granted permission and for what purposes. Further, methods of capture, supervision and transpor- tation shall be subjects of said regulations by the Secretary. FOBFMTUEE Sec. 205. (a) Every vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that is employed in any manner in connection with a violation of the provisions of this title, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenance, cargo, and stores shall be subject to forfeiture and all ocean mammals or parts thereof, taken or retained in violation of this title or the monetary value thereof shall be forfeited. (b) All provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of a vessel, including its tackle, appared, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and remission of mitigation of such forfeitures shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this title, insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this title. enfoecement Sec. 206. ( a ) Enforcement of the provisions of this title is the joint respon- sibility of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Transpor- tation. In addition, the Secretary of Interior may designate officers and employees of the States of the United States to enforce the provisions of this Act, which relates to persons or vessels subject to the jurisidiction of the United States. When so designated, such officers and employees are authorized to function as Federal law enforcement agents for these purposes, but they shall not be held and considered as employees of the United States for the purposes of any laws administered by the Civil Service Commission. (b) The judges of the United States district courts and the United States Commissioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation, showing probable cause, issue such warrants or other process, includ- ing warrants or other process issued in admiralty proceedings in Federal district courts, as may be required for enforcement of this title and any regulations issued thereunder. (c) Any person authorized to carry out enforcement activities hereunder shall have the power to execute any warrant or process issued by any officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of this title. (d) Such person so authorized shall have the power — (1) with or without a warrant or other process, to arrest any person com- mitting in his presence or view a violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder; 6 (2) with a warrant or other process or without a warrant, if he has reason- able cause to believe that a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any person on board is in violation of any provision of this title or the regulations issued thereunder, to search such vessel and to arrest such person. . . ,. ,. (e) Such person so authorized may seize any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo and stores, used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder or which it reasonably appears has been used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued here- under. •, „ (f) Such person so authorized may seize, whenever and wherever found, all ocean mammals or parts thereof taken or retained in violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder and shall dispose of them in accordance with such regulations. Sec. 207. The Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Trans- portation are authorized to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of this title. Sec. 208. Any person violating the provisions of this title or the regulations issued thereunder shall on the first offense be fined not more than $5,000 or im- prisoned not more than one year, or both ; on conviction of second and subsequent offenses, the violator shall be fined not more than $10,000 or jailed for not less than one nor more than three years, or both. Sec. 208. Title III ("Protection of Sea Otters on the High Seas") of Public Law 89-702 is hereby repealed. Title III — North Pacific Fub Seals TEBMINATION OF NORTH PACIFIC FUB SEAL CONVENTION Sec. 301. It is the sense of the Congress that the North Pacific Fur Seal Con- vention, signed on February 9, 1957, should not be continued after its current termination date in 1975, and that the said Convention should be permitted to expire in 1976. Further, it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should immediately notify the other parties to the Convention that the United States does no intend to extend its life beyond 1976. Further, it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should im- mediately initiate negotiations with the parties to the Convention and any other interested States for the purpose of obtaining an international agreement or agreements to ban all killing of North Pacific Fur Seals whether at sea or on land. INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS Sec. 302. (a) After enactment of this Act, no further North Pacific Fur Seals shall ibe killed to fill the United States "quota" (70 per centum) under the terms of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention ; all skins or parts thereof of the Alaskan Fur Seal shall be banned from import into the United States or in interstate commerce between the States ; any agreement under Section 104 of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 for the processing of skins in any State other than Alaska shall be terminated. (b) To honor our treaty provisions, between the enactment of this Act and the expiration of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, Japan and Canada will be given the option of taking the average dollar value (over the last five years) of the 15 per centum of the kill to which they are entitled or to take nine thousand skins each, to be shipped directly from the Pribilof Islands to those countries. If Japan or Canada elects to take the skins, the killing in the Pribilofs shall be done in the most humane manner and as close to the shore as possible. Further, to the extent practicable, such killings shall first be of old or crippled bachelor seals and second of old or crippled female seals ; no seal under one year of age shall be killed. ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIBILOF SE14.L ROOKERY Sec. 303. The Pribilof Islands shall be designated a National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary under the Department of Interior ; and the native Aleuts shall be given the Opportunity to be the Rangers and guides for this pur- pose, and they shall be given whatever training necessary for these jobs. PRrBILOF ISLANDS COMMISSION Sec. 404. The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a Commission to help in the transfer of the Pribilof Islands from a place of killing into a preserve, to help promote tourism, and to develop an economy on the Island for the Aleuts to take the place of their participation in the slaughter of the seals. The commission shall be comprised of a number of Pribilof Aleut natives, and it shall include the Secretaries or their designates from the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Governor of Alaska, and two independent scientists in the fields of ocean biology and ecology. RF.PRAT.F.R Sec. 405. Such provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 which are inconsistent herewith are hereby rei)ealed. [H.R. 6804, 92d Cong., first sess.] A BILL To require the Secretary of the Interior to mai^e a comprehensive study of the polar bear, seal, walrus, and cetaceans for the purpose of developing adequate conser- vation measures Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior, in coopera- tion with the States, shall make a comprehensive study of the polar bear, seal, walrus, and cetaceans, taking into consideration, among other things, the distri- bution, migrations, and population of these mammals and the effects of hunting, disease, pesticides and other chemicals, and food shortages on them, for the purpose of developing adequate and effective measures, including appropriate laws and regulations, to conserve such mammals on the high seas or on land, and to insure humane treatment in all cases. The Secretary of the Interior shall sub- mit, through the President, a report on the study, together with such recommen- dations, including suggested legislation, that he deems appropriate, to the Con- gress no later than January 1, 1976. Sec. 2. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $100,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for each of the three succeeding fiscal years. [H.R. 7463, H.R. 76S8, 92d Cong., first sess.] BILLS To protect seals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following Act may be cited as the "Seal Protection Act of 1971". Title I — Findings and Declarations of Policy FINDINGS Sec. 101. The Congress finds that seals are being ruthlessly pursued, harassed, and killed, both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations of the world. The Congress further finds that seals may become rare, if not extinct, unless steps are taken to stop their slaughter. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY Sec. 102. (a) It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the United States to protect seals from harassment or slaughter. (b) It is hereby declared to be the further public policy of the United States that negotiations should be undertaken with foreign governments and through interested international organizations with a view to obtaining a worldwide ban on the further slaughter of seals. Title II — General Prohibitions DEFINITIONS Sbx;. 201. For the purpose of this title. (a) "Person" includes individual, partnership, corporation, association, and Federal and State agencies ; and 67-765 O— 71 2 L 8 (b) the terms "take" or "taking" or "taken" mean to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, dynamite, capture, kill, or attempt to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, dynamite, capture, or kill. PBOHIBITIONS Sec. 202 (a) It is unlawful, except as provided in section 203 of this title or in title III, for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in the taking of seals either on the high seas or on lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, or for any person to import, ofEer for sale, or possess on any lands or waters, subject to the jurisdiction of the ITnited States, seals or the parts of seals taken after the enactment of this Act, including but not limited to, raw, dressed, or dyed fur or skins. (b) The possession of seals or any part thereof by any person contrary to the provisions of this Act shall constitute prima facie evidence that seals or part thereof was taken, purchased, sold, or transiwrted in violation of the pro- visions of this Act or the regulations issued thereunder. EXCEPTIONS FOR INDIANS, ALEUTS, AND ESKIMOS Sec. 203. (a) Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who dwell on the coasts of the North Pacific or Arctic Ocean are permitted to take seals for their own use but not for sale : Provided, however, That such taking must be done in accordance with customary traditions and as an adjunct of the Native culture. (b) The authority contained in this section shall not apply to Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who are employed by any person under the provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 or title III of this Act for the purpose of taking seals, or who are under contract or agreement to deliver the skins to any person. EXCEPTIONS FOB MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, AND FOE MUNICIPAL and/or other nonprofit zoos Sec. 204. (a) Nothing herein shall be considered to be a prohibition against municipal and/or other nonprofit zoos from obtaining written consent from the Secretary of Interior to humanely capture a representative number of seals for replacement for deceased or otherwise ailing members of these species in these zoos. (b) Further, nothing herein shall be construed to be a prohibition against the humane capture of a select number of these species for certifiable scientific and/or medical research. (c) Nothing herein shall be considered to be a prohibition against any per- son in the discharge of his duties if such person is employed by, or is an author- ized agent of, or is operating under license or permit of, any State or the United States to administer or protect or aid in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, or livestock. (d) Regulations shall be promulgated by the Secretary of Interior for the purposes of subsections (a), (b), and (c) above as to who shall be granted permission and for what purposes. Further, methods of capture, supervision, and transportation shall be subjects of said regulations by the Secretary. forfeiture iSeo. 205. (a) Every vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that is employed in any manner in connection with a violation of the provisions of this title, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, shall be subject to forfeiture and all seals or parts thereof, taken or retained in violation of this title, or the monetary value thereof shall be forfeited. (b) All provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary and judicial for- feiture, and condemnation of a vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, for violation of the customs laws, the disposi- tion of such vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and remission of mitigation of such forfeiture shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this title, insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this title. 9 ENFOECEMENT Sec. 206. (a) Enforcement of the provisions of tliis title is the joint respon- sibility of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and Trans- portation. In addition, the Secretary of Interior may designate oflBcers and em- ployees of the States of the United States to enforce the provisions of this Act, which relates to persons or vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. When so designated, such officers and employees are authorized to func- tion as Federal law enforcement agents for these purposes, but they shall not be held and considered as employees of th United Stats for the purposes of any laws adminlstred by the Civil Service Commission. (b) The judges of the United States district courts and the United States commissioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue such warrants or other process, in- cluding warrants or other process issued in admiralty proceedings in Federal district courts, as may be required for enforcement of this title and any regula- tions issued thereunder. (c) Any person authorized to carry out enforcement activities hereunder shall have the power to execute any warrant or process issued by any officr or court of comptent juisdiction for the enforcement of this title. (d) Such person so authorized shall have the power — (1) with or without a warrant or other process, to arrest any person com- mitting in his presence or view a violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder ; (2) with a warrant or other process or without a warrant, if he has rea- sonable cause to believe that a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any person on board is in violation of any provision of this title or the regulations issued thereunder, to search such vessel and to arrest such person. (e) Such person so authorized may seize any vessel subject to the jurisdic- tion of the United States, together vdth its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurten- ances, cargo, and stores, used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder or which it reasonably appears has been used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder. (f) Such persons so authorized may seize, whenever and wherever found, all seals or i>arts thereof taken or retained in violation of this title or the regula- tions issued thereunder and shall dispose of them in accordance with such regulations. Seo. 207. The Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Trans^ portation are authorized to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of this title. Sec. 208. Any person violating the provisions of this title or the regulations issued thereunder shall on the tirst offense be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both ; on conviction of second and sub- sequent offenses, the violator shall be fined not more than $10,000 or jailed for not less than one nor more than three years, or both. Title III — North Pacific Fur Seals TERMINATION OF NORTH PACIFIO FUR SBL&^L CONVENTION Sec. 301. It is the sense of the Congress that the North Pacific Fur Seal Con- vention, signed on February 9, 1957, should not be continued after its current termination date in 1975, and that the said convention should be permitted to expire in 1976. Further, it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should immediately notify the other parties to the convention that the United States does not intend to extend its life beyond 1976. Further, it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should immediately initiate negotiations with the parties to the convention and any other interested states for the purpose of obtaining an international agreement or agreements to ban aU killing of North Pacific fur seals whether at sea or on land. 10 INTERIM ABBANGEMENTS Sec. 302. (a) After enactment of this Act, no further North Pacific fur seals shall be killed to fill the United. States "quota" (70 per centum) under the terms of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention ; all skins or parts thereof of the Alaskan fur seal shall be banned from import into the United States or in interstate commerce between the States ; any agreement under section 104 of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 for the processing of skins in any State other than Alaska shall be terminated. (b) To honor our treaty provisions, between the enactment of this Act and the expiration of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, Japan and Canada shall be given the option of taking the average dollar value (over the last five years) of the 15 per centum of the kill to whidh they are entitled or to take nine thou- sand skins each, to be shipped directly from the Pribilof Islands to those coun- tries. If Japan or Canada elects to take the skins, the killing in the Pribilofs shall be done in the most humane manner and as close to the shore as possible. Further, to the extent practicable, such killings shall first be of old or crippled bachelor seals and second of old or crippled female seals ; no seal under one year of age shall be killed. ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIBILOF SEAL ROOKEBY Sec. 303. The Pribilof Islands shall be designated a National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary under the Department of Interior ; and the native Aleuts shall be given the opportunity to be the rangers and guides for this pur- pose, and they shall be given whatever training necessary for these jobs. PEIBILOF ISLANDS COMMISSION Sec. 404. The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall ap- point a Commission to help in the transfer of the Pribilof Islands from a place of killing into a preserve, to help promote tourism, and to develop an economy on the island for the Aleuts to take the place of their participation in the slaughter of the seals. The Commission shall be comprised of a number of Pribilof Aleut natives, and it shall include the Secretaries or their designates from the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Governor of Alaska, and two independent scientists in the fields of ocean biology and ecology. bepealer Sec. 405. Such provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 which are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. [H.R. 8183, 92a Cong., first sess.] A BILL To protect ocean mammals, and for other purposes Be it enacted lyy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assenibled, That this Act may be cited as the "Ocean Mammal Protectwrn Act of 1971". Title I — Findings and Declarations op Policy FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF POLICY Sec. 101. (a) The Congress finds that ocean mammals are being ruthlessly pursued, harassed, and killed, both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations, and further finds that many ocean mammals will become rare, if not extinct, unless steps are taken to stop their slaughter. (b) It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the United States (1) to protect all ocean mammals from harassment or slaughter; and (2) that negotia- tions should be imdertaken with foreign governments and through interested international organizations with a view to obtaining a worldwide ban on the further slaughter of ocean mammals. 11 Title II — Protection of Ocean Mammals DEFINITIONS Sec. 201. As used in this title — (1) The term "ocean mammals" means all seal, whale, walrus, manatee or sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, and dolphin. (2) The term "person" includes individual, partnership, corporation, associa- tion, and Federal and State agencies. (3) The term "take" or "taking" or "taken" means to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, dynamite, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, dynamite, capture, collect, or kill. PBOHIBITIONS Sec, 202. (a) It is unlawful, except as provided in section 203 of this title or in title III of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971, (1) for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in the taking of ocean mammals either on the high seas or on lands or waters under the jurisdic- tion of the United States, or to use any port or harbor or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States for any purpose connected in any way with such taking, or (2) for any person to transport, import, offer for sale, or possess at any port or place or on any vessel, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, ocean mammals or the parts of ocean mammals taken after the effective date of this title, including but not limited to. raw, dressed, or dyed fur or skins. (b) The possession of ocean mammals or any part thereof by any person con- trary to the provisions of this title shall constitute prima facie evidence that ocean mammal or part thereof was taken, purchased, sold, or transported in vio- lation of the provisions of this title or the regulations issued thereunder. exceptions fob INDIANS, ALEUTS, AND ESKIMOS Sec. 203. (a) Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who dwell on the coasts of the North Pacific or Arctic Oceans are permitted to take ocean mammals (except polar bears) for their own use but not for sale ; except that such taking must be done in accordance with customary traditions and as an adjunct of the native culture. . ., . (b) The authority contained in this section shall not apply to Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who are employed by any person under the provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 or title III of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971 for the purpose of taking ocean mammals, or who are under contract or agreement to deliver the skins to any person. exceptions for medical and SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND FOB CERTAIN ZOOS Sec. 204. (a) Nothing in this title shall be considered (1) to prohibit any public or private nonprofit zoo from obtaining, with the written consent from the Secretary of the Interior, an appropriate number of ocean mammals to replace any which are deceased or diseased, if such replacement ocean mammals will be humanely captured; or (2) to prohibit the humane capture of a select number of ocean mammals for scientific or medical research. (b) The Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe sux^h regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subsection, including methods of capture, supervision, and transportation of ocean mammals. FORFEITURE Sec. 205. (a) Every vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that is employed in any manner in connection with a violation of the provisions of this title, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores shall be subject to forfeiture and all ocean mammals or parts thereof, taken or retained in violation of this title or the monetary value thereof shall be forfeited. ^ . ,. . , - (b) All provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary, and judicial tor- feiture, and condemnation of a vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores for violation of the customs laws, the disposition 12 of such vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and remission of mitigation of such forfeitures shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this title, insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this title. ENFORCEMENT Sec. 206. (a) Enforcement of the provisions of this title is the joint responsi- bility of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and Transi>orta- tion. In addition, the Secretary of Interior may designate officers and employ- ees of the States or of the United States to enforce the provisions of this title. When so designated, such officers and employees are authorized to function as Federal law enforcement agents for these purposes, but they shall not be held and considered as employees of the United States for the purposes of any laws administered by the Civil Service Commission. (b) The judges of the United States district courts and the United States commissioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation, showing probable cause, issue such warrants or other process, in- cluding warrants or other process issued in admiralty proceedings in Federal district courts, as may be required for enforcement of this title and any regula- tions issued thereunder. (c) Any person authorized to carry out enforcement activities hereunder shall have the power— (1) to execute any warrant or process issued by any officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of this title ; (2) with or without warrant or other process, to arrest any person committing in his presence or view a violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder ; (3) with or without warant or other process, if he has reasonable cause to believe that a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any person on board is in violation of any provision of this title or the regulations issued thereunder, to search such vessel and to arrest such person ; (4) to seize any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, which is used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder or which it reasonably appears has been used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder ; and (5) to seize, whenever and wherever found, all ocean mammals or parts thereof taken or retained in violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder and ^hall dispose of them in accordance with such regulations. Sec. 207. The Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and Trans- portation are authorized to issiue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. Sec. 208. Any i)erson violating the provisions of this title or the regulations issiued thereunder shall on the first offense be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both ; on conviction of second and sub- sequent offenses, the violator shall be fined not more than $10,000 or jailed for not less than one nor more than three years, or both. Sec. 209. Title III (Protection of Sea Otters on the High Seas) of Public Law 89-702 is hereby repealed. Title III — Nobth Pacific Fur Seals TERMINATION OF NOBTH PACIFIC FTTB SEAL CONVENTION iSec. 301. It is the sense of the Congress that the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, signed on February 9, 1957, should not be continued after its current termination date in 1975, and that the Convention should be permitted to expire in 1976. Furthermore, it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should immediately (1) notify the other parties to the Convention that the United States does not intend to extend its life beyond 1976; and (2) initiate negotiations with the parties to the Convention and any other inter- ested states for the purposes of obtaining international agreement to ban all killing of North Pacific fur seals both on land and sea. 13 INTEnilM ABBANGEMENTS Sec. 302. (a) After the effective date of this title, (1) no North Pacific fur seal may be killed to fill the United States quota under the terms of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention; (2) no skin or parts thereof of any such fur seal may be imported into the United States or introduced into initersttate com- merce; and (3) any agreement under section 104 of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 for the processing of fur seal skins in any State other than Alaska shaU be terminated. (b) To honor our treaty comimitments, for each calendar year after the effective date of this title and before the expiration of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, Japan and Canada shall each be given the option of receiving an amount equal to the average annual dollar value of 15 per centum of the fur seal kill made during the most recent five-year period ; or taking nine thousand skins to be shipped directly from the Pribilof Islands to that country. If Japan or Canada elects to take the skins, the killing in the Pribilofs shall be done in the most humane manner and as close to the shore as possible Further, to the extent practicable, .such killings shall first be of old or crippled bachelor seals and second of old or crippled female .seals and no .seal under one year of age shall be killed. ESTABLISHMENT OF PBIBILOF SEAL EOOKEmY Sec. 303. The Pribiof Islands are hereby designated the National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary and shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the laws relating to national wildlife refuges; and the native Aleuts shall be given the opportunity to be the rangers and guides for this purpose, and they shall be given whatever training necessary for these jobs. PBIBILOF ISLANDS COMMISSION Sec. 304. The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall ap- 'point a Oomjnission to help in the transfer of the Pribilof Islands from a place of killing into a preserve, to help promote tourism, and to develop an economy on the island for the Aleuts to take the place of their participation in the slaughter of the seals. The Commission shall be comprised of a number of Pribilof Aleut na- tives, and it shall include the Secretaries or their designates from the Depart- ments of State, Treasury, and Commerce, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Governor of Alaska, and two independent .scientists in the fields of ocean biology and ecology. BE3>EALEB Sec. 305. Such provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 which are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. [H R. 10420, H.R. 10814, »2d Cong., first sess.] BILLS To protect marine mammals ; to establish a Marine Mammal Commission ; and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971". FINDINGS AND DECLABATION OF POLICY Sec. 2. The Congress finds that — ( 1 ) certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of disappearance as a result of man's activities ; (2) such species and population stocks should not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they can maintain that equilibrium at which they may be managed on an optimum sustained yield basis, and measures should be immediately taken to replenish any species or population stock which has already diminished beyond that point ; (3) there is inadequate knowledge of the population dynamics of such marine mammals and of the factors which bear upon their ability to re- produce themselves successfully ; (4) negotiations should be undertaken, as soon as i)Ossible to encour- age the development of international arrangements for research on, and conservation of, marine mammals ; and 14 (5) marine mammals have proven themselves to be resources of great international significance, esthetic and recreational as well as economic, and it is the sense of the Congress that they should be protected to the great- est possible extent commensurate with sound policies of resource man- agement. DEFINITIONS Sec. 3. FV)r the purposes of this Act — (1)1 The term "^marine mammal" means any seal, whale, walrus, dugong, manatee, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, or dolphin. (2) The term "population stock" means a group of interbreeding marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrange- ment. (3) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior. (4) The term "take" means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal ; but such term does not in- clude the taking of marine mammals which occurs as an incident to commercial filing operations. (5) The term "waters under the jurisdiction of the United States" means — (A) the territorial sea of the United States, and (B) the fisheries zone established pursuant to the Act of October 14, 1966 (80 Stat. 908, 16 U.S.C. 1091-1094). Title I — CoNSiaivATioN and Proteotion of Marine Mammals PROHIBITIONS Sec. 101. Except as provided in sections 102, 107, and 109 of this title, it is unlawful — (1) for any -person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal on the high seas ; (2) for any i)erson or vessel to take any marine mammal in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States or on land appurtenant thereto; (3) for any person to use any port, harbor, or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States for any purpose in any way connected with acts prohibited under paragraphs (1) and (2) bf this section; and (4) for any person to engage in any of the following acts with respect to marine mammals or parts of marine mammals (including raw, dressed, or dyed fur or skins) taken in vit>lation of this section after the effective date Of this title : (A) possess any such mammal or part thereof. (B) transport, sell, or offer for sale any such mammals or part thereof in interstate commerce, and (C) import any such mammal or part thereof into the United States. LIMITATIONe ON TAKING OF MARINE MAMMALS Sec. 102. (a) The Secretary, after notice and opportunity for public hiring, shall prescribe such limitations with respect to the taking of each species of marine mammal (including limitations on the taking of individuals within popu- lation stocks) as he deems necessary and appropriation to insure that such species or population stock vrithin waters under the jurisdiction of the United States — (1) is not threatened with extinction, disappearance, or undue attrition whether by natural or manmade causes, and (2 ) can be managed on a substained-yield basis. (b) The limitation prescribed under subsection (a) of this section for any si)ecies or population stock of marine mammal may include, but are not limited to, restrictions with respect to — (1) the numiber of animals which may be taken in any calendar year pursuant to permits issued under section 103 ; (2) the age, size, or sex (or any combination of the foregoing) of animals which may be taken, whether or not a quota prescribed under paragraph (1) of this subsection applies with respect to such animals; (3) the season or other period of time within which animals may be taken ; and (4) the manner and location in which animals may be taken. (c) Before prescribing any annual quota under paragraph (1) of subsection 1-5 (b) of this section, the Secretary shall, in addition to any other requirements imposed by law with respect to agency rulemaking, publish and make available to the public — (1) a statement of the existing levels of the species and population stocks of the marine mammal concerned ; (2) a statement of the expected impact of the proposed quota on such species or population stock ; and (3) any studies made by, or for, the Secretary or the Marine Mammal Oomimissian which relate to the establishment of such quota, (d) Any limitation prescribed pursuant to this section shall be periodically reviewed, and may be modified from time to time in such manner as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. PEBMITS Sec. 103. (a) The Secretary may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, which authorize the taking of any ocean mammal. ( b ) Any permit issued under this section shall — (1) be consistent with any applicable limitation established by the Secretary under section 102, and (2) specify — (A) the number and kind of animals which are authorized to be taken, (B) the location and manner (which manner must be determined by the Secretary to be humane) in which they may be taken. (C ) the period during which the permit is valid, and (D) any other terms or conditions which the Secretary deems appropriate. (c) The Secretary may modify, suspend, or revoke in whole or part the terms and conditions of any permit issued by him under this section — (1 ) in order to make any such permit consistent with any change made after the date of issuance of such permit with respect to any applicable limitation prescribed under section 102, and (2) in any case in which a violation of the terms and conditions of the permit is found. Any modification, suspension, or revocation of a permit under this subsection shall take effect at the time notice thereof is given to the permittee. The permittee shall then be granted opportunity for expeditious hearing by the Secretary with respect to such modification, suspension, or revocation. (d) Any permit issued under this section must be in the possession of the person to whom it is issued ( or an agent of such i)erson ) during — ( 1 ) the time of the authorized taking ; (2) the period of any transit of such person or agent which is incident to such taking ; and (3) any other time while any marine mammal taken under such permit is in the possession of such person or agent (e) The Secretary shall prescribe such procedures as may be necessary to carry out this section, including the manner and form in which application for permits may be made and the information which should accompany with an application to enable the Secretary to review and evaluate the proposed taking. PENALTIES Sec. 104. (a) Any person who violates any provision of this title or any regulation issued thereunder may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary or not more than $5,000 for each such violation. No penalty shall be assessed unless such person is given notice and opportimity for a hearing with respect to such violation. Each violation shall be a separate offense. Any such civil penalty may be compromised by the Secretary. Upon any failure to pay a penalty assessed under this subsection, the Secretary may request the Attorney General to institute a civil action in a district court of the United States for any district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts business to collect the penalty and such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide any such action. In hearing such action, the court may review the violation and the as- sessment of the civil penalty de novo. (b) Any person who knowingly violates any provision of this title or any regulation issued thereunder shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. 16 FORFEITUKE Sec. 105. (a) Any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that is employed in any manner in connection with a violation of the provisions of this title, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, shall be subject to forfeiture and all marine mammals or parts thereof, taken or retained in violation of this title or the monetary value thereof shall be forfeited. . ., • ^- • , ^. (b) All provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary, and judicial for- feiture, and condemnation of a vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, for violation of the customs law, the disposi- tion of such vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and remission or mitigation of such forfeitures shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this title, insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this title. ENFORCEMENT Sec. 106. (a) The Secretary shall enforce the provisions of this title. The Secretary may utilize, by agreement, the personnel, services, and facilities of any other Federal agency for purposes of enforcing this title. (b) The Secretary may also designate officers and employees of any State or of any iwssession of the United States to enforce the provisions of this title. When so designated, such officers and employees are authorized to function as Federal law enforcement agents for these purposes, but they shall not be held and considered as emt)loyees of the United States for the purposes of any laws administered by the Civil Service Commission. (c) The judges of the United States district courts and the United States commissioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation, showing probable cause, issue such warrants or other process, in- cluding warrants or other process issued in admiralty proceedings in Federal district courts, as may be required for enforcement of this title and any regula- tions issued thereunder. (d) Any person authorized by the Secretary to enforce this title may execute any warrant or process issued by any officer or court of competent jursdiction for the enforcement of this title. (e) Such person so authorized may — (1) with or without warrant or other process, arrest any person com- mitting in his presence of view a violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder ; (2) with a warrant or other prtocess or vpithout a warrant, if he has reasonable cause to believe that a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any person on board is in violation of any provision of this title or the regulations issued thereunder, to search such vessel and to arrest such person ; (3) seize any ves'sel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to- gether with its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder or which reasonably appears to have been so used or employed; and (4) seize, whenever and wherever found, all marine mammals or parts thereof taken or retained in violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder and shall dispose of them in accordance with regulations pre- scribed by the Secretary. exceptions Sec. 107. (a) The provisions of this title shall not apply with respect to the taking of any marine mammal by Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos who dwell on the coasts of the North Pacific or Arctic Oceans if such taking (1) is done solely in accordance with customary traditions as an adjunct of the native culture, and (2) is not done for purposes of direct or indirect commercial sale or resale. The provisions of this title shall apply to Indians. Aleuts, and Eskimos who are employed by any person for the purpose of taking marine mammals, or who are under contract or agreement to deliver the skins of any marine mammals to any person. 17 (b) (1) Nothing in this title shall prohibit any person deemed qualified by the Secretary from obtaining written consent from the Secretary to capture on his own account and in a humane manner any marine mammal for (A) public dis- play or educational purposes, or (B) for legitimate scientific or medical research. (2) The Secretary shall by regulation specify the methods of capture, super- vision, and transportation applicable in the case of marine mammals captured under the authority of this subsection. (3) Any person authorized to take a marine mammal under this subsection shall be required by the Secretary to furnish a report on his activities pursuant to such authority. Such report sihall be made to the Secretary as soon as prac- ticable after the close of any exi)edition made for the purpose of such taking, whether or not any marine mammal was taken during such expedition. INTERNATIONAL PEOGBAM Sec. 108. The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and other appropriate Federal oflicers and agencies, shall develop an international pro- gram for the protection of marine mammals and shall take every possible step to encourage the adoption of international arrangements which would be appro- priate for effectuating such program. COOPERATION WITH STATES Sec 109. The Secretary is authorized and directed to develop cooperative ar- rangements with the appropriate officials of the several States for the conserva- tion and protection of marine mammals. Such arrangements shall prescribe the circumstances under which marine mammals which pass through or reside within the territorial waters of any State may be taken, and any marine mammal taken within the scope of such cooperative arrangements shall be deemed to have been lawfully taken within the meaning of this title. NORTH PACIFIC FTJE SEAL CONVENTION Sec 110. The Secretary shall undertake an immediate review of the current activities involved in the taking of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands for the pur- pose of determining whether such activities are consistent with the purposes and policy of this Act. If, as a result of such review, the Secretary determines that such activities should be significantly curtailed or terminated, then during the time commencing with the date of such curtailment or termination and ending on the date of the expiration of the International Convention for the Conserva- tion of North Pacific Fur Seals, Japan and Canada, for each annual period oc- curing within such time, shall each be given the opportunity to select one of the following options in lieu of receiving the fur seal skins to which such country would otherwise be entitled — (1) the average dollar value (based on the average dollar value received for fur seal skins during the five-year period immediately preceding such date of curtailment or termination) of the fur seal skins to which such country would otherwise be entitled during the annual period concerned ; or (2) Nine thousand fur seal skins, to be shipped directly to such country from the Pribilof Islands. In any case in which Japan or Canada elects to take the skins, imder clause (B) of the preceding sentence, the killing of the seals shall be done in the man- ner prescribed by the Secretary, taking into account the desirability of preserv- ing and improving the genetic stock of the Pribilof herd of seals. This section shall be interpreted so as to give maximum effect to such Convention. REGULATIONS Sec 111. The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this title. APPLICATION TO OTHER LAWS AND CONVENTIONS Sec 112. The provisions of this title shall be deemed to be in addition to the provisions of any other law, treaty, or convention which may otherwise aK>ly to the taking of marine mammals. 18 APPBOPBIATIONS Sec. 113. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be neces- sary to carry out this title. EFFECTIVE DATE Sec. 114. This title shall take effect one hundred and eighty days after the date of its enactment. Title II — Mabine Mammal Commission ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION Sec. 201. (a) There is hereby established the Marine Mammal Commission (hereafter referred to in this title as the "Commission"). (b) The Commission shall be composed of three members who shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the President. The President shall make his selection from a list, submitted to him by the Chairman of the Council on En- vironmental Quality, of individuals knowledgeable in the fields of marine eco- logy and resource management. No member of the Commission may, during his period of service on the Commission, hold any other position as an oflBcer or employee of the United States, except as a retired officer or retired civilian em- ployee of the United States. (c) The President shall designate a Chairman of the Commission (hereafter referred to in this title as the "Chairman") from among its members. (d) Members of the Commission may each be compensated at the rate of $100 for each day such member is engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Commission. Each member shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in Government service employed intermit- tently. (e) The Commission shall have an Executive Director, who shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission and shall be paid at a rate not in excess of the maximum rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code. The Executive Director shall have such duties as the Chairman may assign. DUTIES OF commission Sec. 202. (a) The Commission shall — (1) undertake a comprehensive review and study of the activities of the United States pursuant to existing laws and international conventions re- lating to marine mammals, including, but not limited to, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the International Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, and the Fur Seal Act of 1966 ; (2) conduct a continuing review of the condition of the stocks of marine mammals, of methods for their management, and of humane means of taking marine mammals ; (3) undertake or cause to be undertaken such studies as it deems necessary or desirable for determining the need for additional measures for the protec- tion and management of marine mammals ; (4) recommend to the Secretary and to other Federal officials such steps as it deems necessary or desirable for the protection and management of marine mammals ; (5) recommend to the Secretary such revisions of the Endangered Species Last, authorized by the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, as may be appropriate with regard to marine mammals ; and (6) recommend to the Secretary, other appropriate Federal officials, and Congress such additional measures as it deems necessary or desirable to further the policies of this Act, including provisions for the protection of the Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts whose livelihood may be adversely affected by actions taken pursuant to this Act. (b) The Commission shall consult with the Secretary at such intervals as it or he may deem desirable, and shall furnish its reports and recommendations to him, before publication, for his comment. (c) The activities of the Commission, and the reports and recommendations Which it makes, as well as all comments and correspondence in regard to such 19 reports and recommendations, shall be matters of public record and shaU be available to the public at all reasonable times. The Commission shall furnish to the Council on Environmental Quality copies of any such reports, recommendations, and related comments that are made by Federal, State, or local agencies. (d) Any recommendations made by the Commission to the Secretary and other Federal oflBcials shall be responded to by those individuals within ninety days after receipt thereof. Any recommendations which are not followed or adopted shall be rereferred to the Commission together with a detailed explanation of the reasons why those recommendations were not followed or adopted. COMMITTEE OF SdENTIFIC ADVISOBS ON MABINE MAMMALS Sec. 203. The Commission shall establish, within ninety days after its establish- ment, a Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals (hereafter referred to in this title as the "Conmiittee" ) . Such Committee shall consist of nine scien- tists knowledgeable in marine ecology and marine mammal affairs apjKtinted by the Chairman with the advice of the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Chairman of the National Academy of Science, and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. The Commission shall consult with the Committee on all studies and recommendations which it may propose to make or has made, and any recommendations made by the Committee or any of its members which are not adopted by the Commission shall be transmitted by the Commission to the appropriate Federal agency and to Congress with a written explanation of the Commission's reasons for not accepting such recommendations. COMMISSION REPORTS Sec. 204. The Commission shall transmit to Congress, by January 31 of each year, a report which shall include — (1) a comprehensive description of the activities and accomplishments of the Commission during the immediately preceding year ; and (2) all the findings and recommendations made by the Commission pursu- ant to section 202, together with the responses made to its recommendations by the appropriate Federal agencies. COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES Sec 205. The Commission shall have access to all studies and data compiled by Federal agencies regarding marine mammals. With the consent of the appro- priate Secretary or Agency head, the Commission may also utilize the facilities or services of any Federal agency and shall take every feasible step to avoid duplication of research and other efforts in carrying out the purposes of this Act. ADMINISTRATION OF COMMISSION Sec. 206. The Commission, in carrying out its responsibilities under this title, may — (1) employ and fix the compensation of such personnel ; (2) acquire, furnish, and equip such oflSce space ; (3) enter into such contracts or agreements with other organizations, both public and private, including the Committee ; and (4) incur such necessary expenses and exercise such other powers, as are consistent with and reasonably required to perform its functions under this title. Financial and administrative services (including those related to budgeting, accounting, financial reporting, personnel, and procurement) shall be provided the Commission by the General Services Administration, for which payment shall be made in advance, or by reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the Chairman and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. AUTHORIZATIONS Sec. 207. There are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year in which this title is enacted and for the next two fiscal years thereafter such as may be necessary to carry out this title, but the sums appropriated for any such year shall not exceed $1,000,000. 20 [H.R. 10569, H.R. 10803, »2d Cong., first sess.] BILLS To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following Act may be cited as the "Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971". Title I — Findings and Declarations of Policy FINDINGS Sec. 101. The Congress finds that ocean mammals are being ruthlessly pursued, harassed, and killed, both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations of the world. The Congress further finds that many ocean mammals will become rare, if not extinct, unless steps are taken to stop their slaughter. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY Sec 102. (a) It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the United States to protect all ocean mammals from harassment or slaughter. (b) It is hereby declared to be the further public policy of the United States that negotiations should be undertaken with foreign governments and through interested international organizations with a view to obtaining a worldwide ban on the further slaughter of ocean mammals. Title II — General Prohibitions DEFINITIONS Sec. 201. For the purpose of this title — (a) "ocean mammals" means all seal, whale, walrus, manatee or sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, and dolphin ; (h) "person" includes individual, partnership, coriwration, association, and Federal and State agencies ; and (c) the terms "take" or "taking" or "taken" mean to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, dynamite, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, dynamite, capture, collect, or kill. PROHIBITIONS Sec 202. (a) It is unlawful, except as provided in section 203 of this title or in title III, for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in the taking of ocean mammals either on the high seas or on lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, or use any port or harbor or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States for any purpose connected in any way with such taking, or for any person to transport, import, offer for sale, or possess at any port or place or on any vessel, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, ocean mammals or the parts of ocean mam- mals taken after the enactment of this Act, including but not limited to, raw, dressed, or dyed fur or skins. (b) The possession of ocean mammals or any part thereof by any person contrary to the provisions of this Act shall constitute prima facie evidence that ocean mammal or part thereof was taken, purchased, sold, or transported in violation of the provisions of this Act or the regulations issued thereunder. EXCEPTIONS FOR INDIANS, ALEUTS, AND ESKIMOS Sec 203. (a) Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who dwell on the coasts of the North Pacific or Arctic Oceans are permitted to take ocean mammals (except polar bears) for their own use but not for sale: Provided, however. That such taking must be done in accordance with customary traditions and as an adjunct of the native culture. (b) The authority contained in this section shall not apply to Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who are employed by any person under the provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 or title III of this Act for the purpose of taking ocean mammals, or who are under contract or agreement to deliver the skins to any person. 21 EXCEPTIONS FOR MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC BESEAECH AND FOB MUNICIPAL AND/OB OTHEE NONPROFIT ZOOS Sec 204. (a) Nothing herein shall be considered to be a prohibition against municipal and/or other nonprofit zoos from obtaining written consent from the Secretary of the Interior to humanely capture a representative nvimber of the ocean mammals herein defined for replacement for deceased or otherwise ailing members of these species in these zoos. (b) Further, nothing herein shall be construed to be a prohibition against the humane capture of a select number of these species of ocean mammals for oertifi- cable scientific and/or medical research. (c) Regulations shall be promulgated by the Secretary of Interior for the purposes of subsections (a) and (b) above as to who shall be granted permission and for what purposes. Further, methods of capture, supervision, and transporta- tion shall be subjects of said regulations by the Secretary. FOBFEITtJBE Sec. 205. (a) Every vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that is employed in any manner in connection with a violation of the provisions of this title, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores shall be subject to forfeiture and all ocean mammals or parts thereof tak'en or retained in violation of this title or the monetary value thereof shall be forfeited. (b) All provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary, and judicial for- feiture, and condemnation of a vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such vessel, including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, or the proceeds from the sale thereof and remission of mitigation of such forfeitures shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this title, insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this title. ENFORCEMENT Sec 206. (a) Enforcement of the provisions of this title is the joint respon- sibility of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and Trans- portation. In addition, the Secretary of Interior may designate oflScers and em- ployees of the States of the United States to enforce the provisions of this Act, which relates to persons or vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. When so designated, such officers and employees are authorized to function as Federal law enforcement agents for these purposes, but they shall not be held and considered as employees of the United States for the purposes of any laws ad- ministered by the Civil Service Commission. (b) The judges of the United States district courts and the United States com- missioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or aflBrma- tion, showing probable cause, issue such warrants or other process, including war- rants or other process issued in admiralty proceedings in Federal district courts, as may be required for enforcement of this title and any regulations issued there- under. (c) Any person authorized to carrj- out enforcement activities hereunder shall have the power to execute any warrant or process issued by any oflScer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of this title. (d) Such person so authorized shall have the power — (1) with or without warrant or other process, to arrest any person com- mitting in his presence or view a violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder ; and (2) with a warrant or other process or without a warrant, if he has rea- sonable cause to believe that a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any person on board is in violation of any provision of this title or the regulations issued thereunder, to search such vessel and to arrest such person. (e) Such person so authorized may seize any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder or which it reasonably appears has been used or em- ployed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder. 22 (f) Such person so authorized may seize, whenever and wherever found, all ocean mammals or parts thereof taken or retained in violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder and shall dispose of them in accordance with such regulations. Sec. 207. The Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and Trans- portation are authorized to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of this title. Sec. 208. Any person violating the provisions of this title or the regulations issued thereunder shall on the first offense be fined not more than $5,000 or im- prisoned not more than one year, or both ; on conviction of second and subsequent offenses, the violator shall be fined not more than $10,000 or jailed for not less than one nor more than three years, or both. Sec. 208. Title III (Protection of Sea Otters on the High Seas) of Public Law 89-702 is hereby repealed. Title III — Treiaties and Conventions NEGOTIATIONS FOR PROTECTTVE TREATIES Sec. 301. It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State should imme- diately initiate worldwide negotiations for the purpose of obtaining an interna- tional agreement or agreements for the protection of all ocean mammals as eniunerated in section 201 (a) . TO OUTLAW KILLING Sec. 302. Such treaties or conventions should seek to outlaw all killing of these mammals for any reason. REPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE Sec. 303. The Secretary should report in full his efforts xmder this title twelve months from the date of enactment of this bill. Title IV — North Pacific Fur Seals TERMINATION OF NORTH PACIFIC FUR SEI4.L CONVENTION Sec. 401. It is the sense of the Congress that the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, signed on February 9, 1957, should not be continued after its current termination date in 1976. Further, it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should immediately initiate negotiations with the parties to the convention and any other concerned States for the purpose of obtaining an international agreement or agreements to ban all killing of North Pacific fur seals whether at sea or on land. Such a treaty would take the place of the present convention and would take effect immediately upon its signing. INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS Sec. 402. And until such treaty can be successfully negotiated, no further North Pacific fur seals shall be killeki to fill the United States "quota" (70 per centum) under the terms of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention ; all skins or parts thereof of the Alaskan fur seal shall be banned from import into the United States or in interstate commerce between the States ; any agreement under section 104 of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 for the processing of skins in any State other than Alaska shall be terminated. (b) To honor our treaty provisions, between the enactment of this Act and the expiration of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, Japan and Canada shall be given the option of taking the average dollar value (over the last five years) of the 15 per centum of the kill to which they are entitled or to take nine thousand skins each, to be shipped directly from the Pribilof Islands to those countries. If Japan or Canada elects to take the skills, the killing in the Pribilofs shall be done in the most humane manner and as close to the shore as possible Further, to the extent practicable, such killings shall first be of old or crippled bachelor seals and second of old or crippled femiale seals; no seal under one year of age shall be killed. 23 RENEWAL OF PRESENT CONVENTION Sec. 403. If such treaty cannot be siic?cessfully negotiated prior to the expiration date of the existing North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, nothing herein shall preclude the renegotiation and renewal of said present convention, and in fact, to preclude the possibility of a return to pelagic sealing, such present convention should be renewed on or before its expiration date. HUMANE METHODS Sec. 404. If the only recourse is to renew the convention as stipulated in section 403, every effort shall be made to see that those seals killed under the provisions of this Act shall be killed by the most modem, rapid, and humane methods of rendering the seals unconscious. bepobt of secbetaby Sec. 405. The Secretary of Commerce shall report his findings and efforts under section 404 to the Congress within six months of the application of section 404. establishment of pbibilof seal bookeby Sec 406. The Pribilof Islands shall be designated a National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary under the Department of Interior ; and the native Aleuts shall be trained and employed for any jobs to be created thereunder. PBIBILOF islands COMMISSION Sec. 407. The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall ap- point a Commission to help in the transfer of the Pribilof Islands from a place of killing into a preserve, to help promote tourism, and to develop an economy on the island for the Aleuts to take the place of their participation in the slaughter of the seals. The Commission shall be comprised of a number of Pribilof Aleut natives, and it shall include the Secretaries or their designates from the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Governor of Alaska, and two independent scientists in the fields of ocean biology and ecology. bepealeb Sec. 408. Such provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 which are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. [H. Com. Res. 77, H. Con. Res. 173, 92d Cong., first sess.] CONCUBBENT RESOLUTION Whereas the Congress recognizes that an international convention between the United States, Canada, Japan, and Russia regulates the harvesting and number of Northern fur seals in the Bering Sea ; and Whereas the Congress recognizes that such convention has succeeded in main- taining a stabilized balance of Northern fur seals ; and Whereas the Congress recognizes that such convention has thereby prevented the extinction of the Northern fur seal ; and Whereas the Congress further recognizes that the present harvesting is con- ducted in a brutal manner by the clubbing of the seals, which renders the seals unconscious but not dead : Now, therefore, be it Resolved hy the House of Representatives {the Senate concurring) , That it is the sense of the Congress of the United States that the Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe and shall implement with all possible speed and urgency regula- tions for the harvesting of Northern fur seals which insure that the seals are quickly and painlessly killed before skinning. Further, that appropriate and effective penalties be prescribed by the Secre- tary of the Interior for violation of the regulations which he shall prescribe and implement in accordance with this resolution. 67-765 O - 71 24 General Counsel of the Department of Commerce, Washinffton, D.C., September 30, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 6554, a bill "to protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes." Our comments on this bill also apply to H.R. 6558 and H.R. 8183, and to H.R. 7463, a similar bill which applies only to seals. H.R. 6554 would prevent the taking of any marine mammals by U.S. citizens ; or the transportation, import, or offer for sale of ocean mammals or parts thereof. Section 203 would exempt Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos of the North Pacific and Arctic who could take marine mammals (except for polar bear) for their own use but not for sale, provided this was done in accordance with cus- tomary traditions and as part of the native culture. Section 206 addresses itself to the enforcement of the act and the penalties for violations. Title III deals specifically with the North Pacific fur seal and the present Interim Convention on the Conservation of the North Pacific Fur Seals. Section 301 states that it is the sense of Congress that the treaty should be permitted to expire in 1976 and that the United States should immediately notify the other signatories that it does not intend to extend the treaty and that the Secretary of State should open negotiations for a new treaty to ban all killing of Northern Pacific fur seals. Section 302 provides that the United States would no longer kill fur seals for its 70 percent share of skins under the treaty and between the enactment of the bill and the expiration of the convention would either make a cash payment to both Canada and Japan for their respective 15 percent of the harvest or would harvest that many seals for those countries if they preferred to receive the skins. Section 303 would designate the Pribilof Islands as a national seal rookery preserve and bird sanctuary under the Department of the Interior, and would provide that the Aleuts would be given the opportunity to be the rangers and guides. Section 404 would provide for a commission to help in promoting tourism and developing an economy for the Aleuts in place of the seal harvest. We recommend against enactment of H.R. 6554. We do not believe that a blanket ban on the taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens and on the importation of marine mammals or their parts is either needed or a wise approach to the conservation of the animals involved. However, we recognize the legitimate concern of citizens for the proper conservation and management of all the species. Accordingly, in a separate report to your Com- mittee on H.R. 10420, we have addressed the need for augmentation by statute of existing research and regulatory authority in this area. Also in that report, we have recommended that a comprehensive review and study of policies regarding marine mammals be undertaken by an independent Commission, which would make recommendations to the responsible Federal agencies. Except for the Pribilof Islands fur seals, marine mammals off the coasts of the United States are actually little utilized by U.S. citizens. Few products of marine mammals are imported into the United States. In fact, fur sealskins, which at one time were used primarily in the United States, have found a greater acceptance in Europe and in recent sales over 80 percent of the skins were bought by European buyers. (The United States does import a quantity of whale prod- ucts, but these imports are scheduled to cease by the end of 1971 under the provisions of the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969.) The relatively small take of marine mammals in the United States that does occur is primarily in Alaska. According to our information about 300 polar bears are taken annually by big-game hunters. Some walruses are taken by the Eskimos for food, skins and sale of carved ivory, and some hair seals are taken for food, clothing, and the sale of skins, or clothing (such as mukluks) made from the skins. The State of Alaska also conducts a small annual harvest of sea otters in some overi^opu- lated colonies. A few whales are taken by the natives of Alaska for their own use and about 5,000 sea lions are harvested each year. The Secretary of Commerce announced on April 19, 1971, that whaling from the United States for species of whales on the Endangered Species List vpould be stopped as of December 31, 1971. Further sea mammal protection is ahso con- tained in the Fur Seal Act of 1966 which not only provides for management of the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands, but also provides for total protection of sea otters on the high seas beyond the territorial waters of the United States. Laws 25 of the State of Alaska prevent the taking of sea otters inside the territorial waters, except for the State controlled program. A very small number of marine mammals are shot by fishermen who are protecting their catch and gear. While it is true that a few are shot by irresponsible individuals, in violation of either Federal or State laws, we believe the solution lies in improved enforcement of the existing laws rather than the enactment of legislation banning the taking of all marine mammals. In all these instances the numbers of animals involved are insignificant in terms of total populations. Some marine mammals are taken incidentally during commercial fishing operations. We believe that further re- search is needed to determine the significance. The enactment of H.R. 6554 would : 1. Prevent the Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians of several States, but primarily Alaska, from following their present practice of selling both the skins of hair seals and polar bears, and the carved walrus ivory which are excess to their immediate needs, for a cash income. In many cases this cash income is a large part of their total income. 2. Prevent the State of Alaska from conducting the State controlled harvest of the presently overpopulated colonies of sea otters. A number of Aleuts gain yearly employment during this harvest in catching, skinning, and giving primary treat- ment to the skins. This harvest has been carried out for about six years in vari- ous areas of the Aleutian Islands where research has shown that overpopulations of sea otters and resultant large dieoffs of these animals have occurred. 3. Prevent the protection by commercial fishermen of their catch and gear from the depredations of hair seals and sea lions. In several localities in Alaska and the Northwest, hair seals and sea lions often do considerable damage resulting in economic loss to fisherman by removing or damaging fish in their gear and by tearing large holes in fishermen's nets. 4. Prevent the harvest for food and profit of marine mammals, primarily harbor seals, by the non-iaboriginal inhabitants of small coastal communities in Alaska and the Northwest. Historically all peoples living in these areas have made use of the local fish and wildlife for part of their subsistence and for a small cash income. 5. Negate the power of the several coastal States to regulate and manage marine mammal species which reside primarily in State waters. These species include sea otters, sea lions, and harbor seals. 6. Probably result in the resumption of high seas sealing for northern fur seals by several other countries thus reverting back to the unselective and de- structive method of sealing which was utilized prior to the 1911 convention. Title III of the Act addresses itself entirely to the Pribilof fur seal and the Aleuts who reside there. The northern fur seal has been the subject of the world's outstanding example of international cooperation in conservation of living resources (Interim Convention on the Consei^ation of North Pacific Fur Seals, 8 UST 2283, effective October 14, 1957). Under the auspices of the convention first signed in 1911 the Pribilof fur seal herd has been brought from near ex- tinction (less than 200,000 animals) to the present near optimum population of about 1.3 million. This recovery was the result of scientific management of the fur seal herd by prohibiting the harvest at sea (pelagic) and controlling the harvest on land. On land it is possible to follow specific scientific recommendations and procedures to maintain the fur seal population at its optimum level. At present, only 3-5 year old male seals excess to the reproductive needs of the herd are taken. At sea this kind of selectivity is not possible. There is no way to deter- mine the age or sex of seal when it is swimming in the ocean. If a female seal, with a pup back on the islands, is killed in the ocean, her pup will also die because no other female seal vrill take care of it. Also many seals are either wounded (to die later) or killed and not recovered from the ocean during the pelagic sealing operations. This bill, if passed, would end this outstanding international conservation ef- fort, and probably lead to the decimation of the fur seal herd itself. If the Con- vention is permitted to expire in 1976 (as the bill provides) and the fur seal herd is not fully utilized (as the bill provides) other countries might very likely resume high seas (pelagic) sealing in order to supply the world market for fur sealskins. Japan, for instance, is not likely to agree to a world ban on killing fur seals when the European market can use the skins. Other nations. North and South Korea, for example, which have not been involved in sealing might consider it if the international pressure against it is gone by virtue of the Con- vention being abolished. 26 Although this bill does not directly address the issue of humaneness, we be- lieve one of the underlying rationales for its introduction was alleged brutality in the harvest of fur seals. This issue has been met. The method of killing fur seals, a single blow on the fragile skull immediately followed by sticking, has been criticized by many groups. The present killing method fully conforms to the Humane Slaughter Act and compares favorably with the methods used in slaughtering livestock. Over the years, questions con- cerning killing methods have been raised not only by Government scientists, but also by representatives of leading animal protection societies. However, after a visit to the Pribilof Islands in 1968, Dr. Elizabeth Simpson of the World Federa- tion for the Protection of Animals rei>orted : "In conclusion, I find that from my observation of herding and killing methods and from post mortem findings, that the Pribilof fur seal harvest is at present being carried out in a reasonably humane fashion, which could however be im- proved by attention to a few details. The method of killing the 4 and 5 year old fur seals, that of club'bing, is a primitive method, and one which is subject to human error, but the safeguards of using only experienced men to do the clubbing, of supervising them closiely, of limiting the length of time they work, of pay- ment by time and not by piece, and the fact that the killing takes place on land and at temperatures of about 50° F, appears to result in the method being used effectively. The finding of only 1.9 percent unfractured skulls is a measure of this. The fact that the skull of the immature seals harvested is relatively thin, in com- parison with the enormous bony development of the occipital region of the ma- ture bull, malies clubbing practicable. Of other methods of killing large numbers of animals presently available, for example the captive bolt pistol, electrical stun- ning and COz stunnning prior to sticking. I feel that, given the situation of the fur seal harvest, and the safeguards presently applied to the method of clubbing, followed by eflBcient sticking, this method is probably the best. Any method in- volving more handling of the animals would, I feel, be a step in the wrong direction." Notwithstanding our belief, based on available data, that clubbing is the most humane method of killing fur seals, there was established in 1968 a Task Force to examine alternative methods and to review all harvesting practices on St. Paul Island of the Federal agency responsible for the management of the fur seals. At that time the Federal agency concerned was the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in the Department of the Interior. (The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries was abolished by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970. The functions of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries are being carried on by the National Marine Fisheries Service as part of the newly created National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. ) The Task Force included representa- tives from the former Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Universdty of Minnesota (National Science Founda- tion nominee), the Humane Society of the United States, and the Department of Agriculture. A representative of the International Society for the Protection of Animals was present as an observer. Consideration was given to asphyxiation, electrocution, shooting, concussion bolts, drugs and tranquilizers during the tests. At the conclusion of exploratory studies, the Task Force reported that none of the alternative methods proposed were then feasible for use in the fur seal harvest. In response to recommenda- tions of the Task Force on driving conditions and animal stress, driving dis- tances have been reduced by about 50 i^ercent, obstacles liave been removed from drive paths and additional clubbers have been added to the crew. Research conducted in 1960 and 1970 by the Virginia Mason Foundation for Medical Education and Research on the present and alternative killing methods has confirmed earlier studies that the present method — a blow on the cranium by a club, followed by immediate sticking of the heart and subsequent bleeding, results in the most rapid death onset of all body tissues. Nevertheless, the De- partment of Commerce is continuing its research efforts to develop alternative means of killing the animals. Representatives of the American Veterinary Medi- cal Association's Panel on Euthanasia observed the 1971 seal harvest on the Pribilof Islands to evaluate present harvesting techniques in all their aspects and to make recommendations as appropriate. Their report, a copy of which was sub- mitted to the committee, states in part, "clubbing followed by exsanguination constitutes painless, humane euthanasia." In addition, we are planning for new contract research seeking other methods of conducting the harvest. Section 303 of the bill, in addition to establishing the National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary states that the native Aleuts should be given 27 the opportunity to become rangers and guides for the preserve. Since March 3, 1869, the islands of St. Paul and St. George of the Pribilof Islands have been a "special reservation for government purposes." The entire group of islands (St. Paul, St. George, Walrus, Otter, and Sea Lion Rock) was included in this reservation on April 21, 1910. This status of a special reservation is stiU in effect. Section 404 calls for the establishment of a Pribilof Islands Commission which, among other things, is to help promote tourism. It is difficult to imagine that even througli the work of the Commission, a large enough tourist industry could be created on the Pribilof Islands to make the ranger and guide proposal feasible as an alternative source of income for the Aleuts. Even if by some means a large tourist industry could be created, the demand for rangers and guides would be so minimal that only a few Aleuts would be thus employed. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the seals, presumably the main tourist attraction, are on the islands only a few months each year. During the remainder of the year, the seals are out in the Pacific Ocean and the islands offer very little, if anything, to attract tourists. We believe the net result would probably be that most of the Aleuts on the Pribilof Islands would be forced to either leave their homes on the islands to seek employment elsewhere, or go on welfare. In summary, in our opinion, passage of so drastic a measure as a total ban on the taking of marine mammals is not needed since regulatory authority over many mammals already exists. However, as noted above, in those cases where adequate authority does not exist, we have requested additional r^ulatory and research authority in our report on H.R. 10420. Further, this bill would have a depressing economic effect on certain small segments of our population, and would be catastrophic for the Aleuts of the Pribilofs. Finally, passage might well cause the resumption of i)elagic hunting for fur seals with probably disastrous results to the very animals that the bill is intended to protect. We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this reix)rt to the Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, WnxiAM N. Letson, General Counsel General Counseh. of the Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., September 10, 1911. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- tives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for comment on H.R 10420, a bill "to protect marine mammals ; to establish a Marine Mammal Com- mission ; and for other purposes." This Department believes that regulations imixxsed on the taking of marine mammals should be based on data from careful studies of the population dynamics and other aspects of such mammals. We believe that with appropriate amendments, H.R. 10420 could provide for such study and at the same time grant the appropriate regulatory authority. To this end we enclose a revised version of the bill incorporating our suggested changes. Set forth below are some of the major problem areas we see in the present version of H.R. 10420 : ^ This Department takes exception to the assignment of program responsibility in section 3(3). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce is charged with a variety of responsibilities relating to the marine environment and the utilization and conservation of living marine resources pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 4, October 3, 1970 (84 Stat. 2090). The allocation of authority over marine mammals embodied in this Plan should be maintained until such time as the proposal of this Administration for the creation of the Department of Natural Resources has been acted upon. Accord- ingly, the revised bill defines "Secretary" in section 3(g) thereof so as to retain the present allocation of authority between the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior. 1 All references in the following discussion are to H.B. 10420 as introduced unless ex- pressly stated otherwise. 28 Section 3 defines the term "marine mammal" in an artificial and undesirably narrow way. Section 3(1) should be more inclusive. The specific reference to an exotic species found only in the waters of Southeastern Asia, the dugong, which is related to the manatee, seems unnecessary. Similarly, there is a redundancy in the listing of whales, porpoises or dolphins since porpoises and whales are both cetaceans, and the term "dolphin" is used either in referring to the bottle- nosed porpoise of North America, or any one of several European species of porpoise — or a game fish of the genus Coryphaena. The definition of marine mammals should be more precise. The exception to the meaning of the term "take" in section 3(4; is overly broad, since it would apparently prevent any limitation on incidental catch of mam- mals. If studies, which we believe should be undertaken, indicate that some provisions to control such taking be instituted it would be advisable to have appropriate statutory authority to do so. Accordingly, in our revised bill we have changed the definitions of "marine mammal" and "taking" to accommodate the aforesaid criticisms. See sections 3(a) and 3(e) of the revised bill. Section 3(5) (A) would provide for Federal control over marine mammals in territorial waters. The political ramifications of modifying the explicit grant of jurisdiction over living marine resources in the territorial sea granted to the States by the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1301), must be very carefully evaluated. One would have to inquire whether any extension of jurisdic- tion such as this bill contemplates would be politically advisable or would eflS- ciently utilize Federal and State resources. Moreover, section 3(5) (A) appears to be unnecessary. Those States with resident populations of marine mammals already have in effect appropriate regulations governing the utilization and con- servation of those mammals. In addition, they have the resources to implement these regulations on a sound scientific basis. The State of Alaska, for example, has a staff of biologists trained in marine mammal work which is second in size only to that of the National Marine Fisheries Service. On the other hand, section 102(a) limits the Secretary's authority to promul- gate regulations by confining the purpose of such regulations to the protection of marine mammals within the jurisdictional waters of the United States. We believe that this limitation is undersirable and that the Secretary should also have authority to issue regulations which would, to the extent feasible, effectuate the conservation and management of marine mammals found in both the con- tiguous fishery zone and the high seas. In view of the foregoing, our revised bill has been amended to authorize the Secretary to issue regulations which would promote the conservation and man- agement of marine mammals in both areas either by directly limiting the taking thereof or by regulating the importation into the United States of such mammals as well as dealing in such mammals within the United States. Our revised bill would also authorize regulation of dealings within the United States in, or the importation into the United States of, any other living marine resources the taking of which affects the conservation and management of marine mammals. See section 5 of the revised bill. The procedures outlined in the subject bill with respect to the issuance of permits appear to be exceedingly cumbersome, and could lead to unnecessary litigation. From a procedural point of view, the Secretary could be required to hold three different hearings in a single case : (a) A hearing under section 102 for the purpose of fact-finding and rule-making within the scope of his delegated authority ; (b) A hearing under section 103 in advance of the issuance of permits enabling the permittee to lawfully harvest marine mammals ; and (c) An additional hearing in the event of a modification, suspension or revo- cation of an outstanding permit. We believe that hearings of the type mentioned in (a) above are appropriate and advisable at this time. However, we submit that hearings of the type referred to in (b) and (c) not be a mandatory requirement and that the Secretary be given discretion to institute such administrative procedures as he deems advis- able under the circumstances to protect individual rights. Our revised bill there- fore retains only the first type of hearing. See section 6(a) of the revised bill. Although section 107(a) provides exceptions for aboriginal taking of marine mammals, it contains a requirement that such takings must be non-commercial thus eliminating a cottage industry based on ivory carving and fur sewing which plays a vital economic role in the lives of those people. This is a fragile economy at best and should not be discouraged. Although the Natives of the Bering Sea 29 and Arctic Ocean coasts, whose sole source of income derives from the marginal seas adjacent to their historic homes, could certainly qualify for permits imder the provisions of section 102, the hearing procedures required in that section would militate against effective participation as a practical matter for a people with only limited contact with civilization or, for that matter, with the English language itself. We believe that existing State game management programs when supplemented in federally controlled areas by appropriate regulations (which can only be issued after sufficient study) would be the most satisfactory solu- ton. Accordingly, our revised bill places no express limitations on Natives, as opposed to other persons, and section 6(b) directs the Secretary, in issuing regulations, to take account of the traditional activities of Natives. Section 109 poses much the same jurisdictional problem which has already been discussed with respect to section 3(5) (A). It would be much more appro- priate to authorize the Secretary to "seek" cooperative arrangements with the States and our revised bill so provides in section 11. Section 110 poses serious problems. If the Secretary were to follow the pro- cedures outlined in this section, he would almost certainly abrogate the existing fur seal convention. This in turn would probably result in the resumption of high seas sealing for northern fur seals by several other countries thus reverting back to the unselective and destructive method of sealing which was utilized prior to the 1911 convention. Our revised bill provides in section 6(a) that the Secretary must (*tain the concurrence of the Secretary of State in issuing any proposed regulations and further directs the Secretary of State, in section 12, to undertake the necessary steps to enter into new international arrangements and revise existing ones to conform with the purposes of the Act. The Department supports the concept of a citizen-commission. However, such a commission should be of limited duration with a provision for statutory exten- sion. A permanent commission could result in duplication of effort and might unnecessarily compete for management and research money. We submit that the purpose of a commission is to fill the short-term goal of reviewing existing policies and practices. In addition, the Department does not believe that the President should be limited in his selection of commission members, either through the nomination process, or as a result of limiting criteria in the subject legislation. The Department would suggest that the commission be enlarged and that the qualifications for membership be deleted so that the commission could be more broadly representative and section 9 of our revised bill so provides. In summary, for the foregoing reasons we would favor the enactment of H.R. 10420 in the revised form enclosed. We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there would be no objection to the siibmission of our report to the Ck)ngress from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Kael E. Bakke, Acting General Counsel. Department of Commerce proposed amendments of h.b. 10420 Strike all that follows the enacting clause and insert the following : Section 2 (a) The Congress finds that — (1) Marine mammals have proven themselves to be resources of inter- national significance, recreational, esthetic and economic ; (2) While substantial information has been obtained concerning certain species of marine mammals, there is a requirement for additional knowledge w4th respect to the population dynamics of marine mammals and the factors which bear upon their ability to reproduce themselves successfully ; (3) Negotiations should be imdertaken, as appropriate, to further encour- age the development of international arrangements for research concerning management and conservation of marine mammals. (b) The 'Congress declares that — (1) It is the public policy of the United States to provide for the conserva- tion and management of marine mammals in order to achieve an optimum ecological, recreational, esthetic and continuing economic benefit, and to assure that no species of marine mammals become threatened with extinc- 30 tion. and to take measures to restore the populatioBS of marine mammals which may be siibstantially depleted or threatened with extinction. (2) It is the sense of Congress that there be exercised by the Federal Govermnent such regulatory authority as may be found to be necessary to advance the policy expressed herein. It is further the sense of Congress that such regulatory authority be exercised consonant with Federal concern for the livelihood and well-being of Natives, recreational and economic factors, the authority and responsibility of the several States for the con- servation and management of marine mammals, and for implementation of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. Section 3 For the purposes of this Act : , r. , • n (a) "Marine mammal" shall mean any mammal which is morphologically adapted to the marine environment, including members of the orders Pinnipedia and Cetacea, sea otters, and manatees and any mammal which primarily inhabits the marine environment such as the polar bear, or any part, products, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. (b) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, joint ven- ture, joint stock company, unincorporated association, or other organization subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (c) "High seas" means the waters seaward of the territorial sea of the United States. (d) The term "taking" shall mean wounding, capturing or killing or hunting or pursuing with on intent to wound, capture or kill. (e) "Natives" shall mean any Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos or other aborigines traditionally deriving their subsistence or livelihood, in whole or in part, by taking marine mammals. (f) "Secretary" shall mean the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior as appropriate in the context and as related to their functions with respect to the marine mammals over which they exercise regulatory authority as provided in section 4 hereof. Section 4 (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall exercise the regulatory and other authority granted by this Act over all cetaceans, seals, and sea lions. (b) The Secretary of the Interior sihall exercise the regulatory and other authority granted by this Act over all other marine mammals. (c) The authority granted in this Act shall be in addition to other authorities relating to marine mammals exercised by the Secretaries, and, in the exercise of such other authorities for the conservation and management of marine mam- mals, the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior shall take into account the policies expressed herein. Section 5 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, vessel, airplane or other conveyance to take any marine mammal on the high seas in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person, in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act, knowingly (i) to possess, transport, sell, offer for sale or process in the United States or (ii) to deliver, carry, import or receive into the United States any marine mammal taken on the high seas. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person, in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act, knowingly (i) to possess, transport, sell, offer for sale or process in the United States or (ii) to deliver, carry, import or receive into the United States any living marine resource (or any portion or product thereof) if in the taking of such resource any marine mammal is taken on the high seas. (d) No person shall fail to keep such records or to make such reports as may be required pursuant to regulations issued under this Act. (e) No person shall (i) refuse to allow a duly authorized enforcement officer on board and inspect a vessel, airplane, or conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in Order to enforce this Act, or (ii) in any other way interfere wtih enforcement of this Act. 31 Section 6 (a) As sot>n as reasonably practicable following the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and after notice and opportunity for public hearing, shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. Such regu- lations may include, without limitation, (i) provisions for the issuance of general and particular licenses or permits for the conduct of activities de- scribed in section 5 of this Act; (ii) such limitations on the taking of any species of marine mammal as the Secretary deems necessary for the con- servation or management of said species, including the taking of marine mam- mals incidental to commercial fishing operations; and (iii) provisions for con- trolling the use of vessels, airplane, and other conveyances in connection with the taking of marine mammals. In issuing such regulations the Secretary may, in addition to such other procedures as may be specified by law, con- sult and cooi)erate with the interested States. (b) In issuing regulations under subsection (a) hereof, the Secretary shall take into account (1) the findings and purposes expressed in section 2 of this Act; (ii) whether or not affected species of marine mammals are threatened with extinction, or substantial depletion by natural or man-made causes; (iii) whether or not affected species of marine mammals can be managed on a sustained-yield basis; (iv) the results of studies, research and development undertaken pursuant to this Act: (v) the need for taking marine mammals for medical, scientific, and education purposes: (vi) traditional activities of Natives; (vii) economic factors; (viii) whether or not regulation would be effective because of the activities of persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; (ix) recreation factors; and (x) such other factors as may be relevant to the conservation and management of marine mammals. Section 7 (a) Any person who commits a violation specified in section 5 hereof (other than violations referred to in section 7(b) below) shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 by the District Court of the United States for any district in which such person is found, resides or transactions busi- ness, enforcement of such penalty to be instituted by the Attorney General at the request of the Secretary. (b) Any i)erson who knowingly commits a violation specified in section 5(a), and any person who commits a violation specified in section 5(b) or (c), shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of up to $10,000. (c) Any vessel, airplane or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States that is employed in connection with a violation referred to in section 7(b) hereof including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, shall be subject to forfeiture and all marine mammals taken or re- tained in violation of regulations issued pursuant to this Act and all living ma- rine resources (or i>ortion or product thereof) jwssessed, transported, sold, of- fered for sale, processed, delivered, carried, imi)orted or received in violation of regulations issued pursuant to this Act or, in either case, the monetary value thereof shall be forfeited. (d) All provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary, and judicial for- feiture, and condemnation of a vessel, airplane or other conveyance including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and .stores, for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such vessel, airplane or other conveyance including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appuretenances, cargo, and stores, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and remission of mitigation of such forfeitures shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this Act, insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. (e) Each violation of any regulations issued pursuant to this Act shall consti- tute a separate offense. Section 8 (a) This Act shall be enforced by the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, Treasury, and the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating. The Secre- taries may utilize, by agreement, the personnel, services, and facilities of any other Federal agency for purposes of enforcing this Act. (b) The Secretaries may also designate officers and employees of any State or of any possession of the United States to enforce the provisions of this Act 32 When so designated, such oflScers and employees are authorized to function as Federal law enforcement agents for these purposes, but they shall not be held and considered as employees of the United States for the purposes of any laws admin- istered by the Civil Sen^ice Commission. (c) .The judges of the United States district courts and the United States com- missioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affir- mation, showing probable cause, issue such warrants or other process as may be required for enforcement of this Act and any regulations issued thereunder. (d) Any person authorized to enforce this Act may execute any warrant or process issued by any officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforce- ment of this Act. i(e) Such person so authorized may — (1) vpith or without warrant or other process, arrest any person com- mitting in his presence or view a violation of this Act or the regulations issued thereunder ; (2) with a warrant or other process, or without a warrant or other process if he has reasonable cause to believe that a vessel, airplane or other con- veyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any person on board is in violation of any regulation issued pursuant to this Act, search such vessel, airplane or other conveyance and arrest such person ; any person arrested pursuant to this provision shall be immediately escorted to the near- est place at which sits a District Court of the United States for arraignment ; (3) seize, whenever and wherever foui»d, all marine mammals taken or retained in violation of any regulation issued pursuant to this Act and shall dispose of them in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. (f ) Any Customs Officer may refuse entry or require the exportation of any marine mammal whose entry into the United States is prohibited by regulations issued pursuant to this Act. Any person may appeal such refusal of entry or order of exportation to the Supervisory Customs Officer for the Customs District in question. Section 9 (a) There is hereby established a Marine Mammals Commission (herein- after referred to as the Commission.) The Commission shall be composed of seven members who shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the President. The President shall designate a Chairman of the Commission from among its members. (b) The Commission shall meet in Washington, D.C., at least once every year, and shall meet at other times at the call of the Chairman. Thirty days after the third anniversary date of the establishment of the Commission it shall cease to exist unless otherwise extended by Law. (c) Subject to applicable laws and regulations, the Commission shall have access to all studies and data compiled by Federal agencies regarding marine mammals. (d) Members of the Commission, other than government employees, may each be compensated at the rate of $100 for each day such member is engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Commission. Each member shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in Government service employed intermittently. (e) The Oomimission may establish such staff, hire such consultants and con- tract for such studies as it deems necesary to carry out it functions. (f ) The Commission shall have an Executive Director who shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission and shall be paid at a rate not in excess of the maximum rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code. The Executive Director shall have such duties as the Chairman may assign. Section 10 (a ) The Commission shall : (1) Undertake a comprehensive review and study of the activities of the United States pursuant to the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the Whaling Convention Act of 1949, and report its findings and recommendations to the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior and State no later than June 1, 1972. 33 (2) Conduct a review of the condition of the species of marine mammals, and of humane methods for their management. (3) Review and make recommendations regarding studies of marine mam- mals for the purpose of determining the need for conservation and manage- ment of such marine mammals. (4) Recommend annually, or more frequently as appropriate, to the ap- propriate Federal agencies such additional measures, legislative, regulatory, or programmatic, as it deems necessary to further the policies of this Act. Thereafter such recommendation shall be made public. (5) Consult with Natives with regard to formulation of Commission recommendations which affect them. (6) Recommend to the Secretary of State appropriate policies regarding existing international arrangements for the conservation and management of marine mammals, and suggest appropriate international arrangements for the conservation and management of marine mammals. (7) Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior revisions of the Endan- gered Species List authorized by the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 pertaining to marine mammals. (b) The Commission shall submit annually a report to the President, for transmittal to Congress, summarizing its activities, findings and recommenda- tions. (c) Copies of recommendations made pursuant to paragraphs 1, 4, 6, and 7 of subsection (a) of this section shall be furnished by the Commission to all appropriate Federal agencies. Section 11 The Secretary is authorized to seek cooperative arrangements with the appro- priate oflScials of the several States for the conservation and management of marine mammals. Section 12 The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries, shall undertake steps when appropriate to revise existing international arrangements, or to establish new international arrangements for the conservation and management of marine mammals consonant with the purposes of this Act. Section 13 The Secretary is hereby authorized to institute such programs of research and development as he may deem necesisary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. Section H The invalidity of any portion of this Act shall not affect any other portion. Section 15 There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. U.S. Civn. Service Commission, Washington, D.C., September 16, 1971. Hon. Edwabd A. Gaematz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in further response to your request for the views of the Civil Service Commission on H.R. 10420, a bill "To protect marine mam- mals ; to establish a Marine Mammal Commission ; and for other pairposes." The comments in this report are limited to recommendations for improving and clarifying certain personnel provisions in the bill. Section 201 of H. R. 10420 establishes a Marine Mammal Commission which will be composed of three members appointed by the President Each member will be paid $100 a day when he is engaged in the actual performance of duties of that Oommislsian and will be reimbursed for travel expenses under the statu- tory provisions generally applicable to intermittent employees. An Executive Director will be appointed by the Chairman of the new Commission and paid at a rate not exceeding the rate for GS-18 (currently limited to $36,000). 34 The OLvil Service Oommission would not oppose the $100 a clay rate for mem- bers of the proposed Commission. However, it should be notetl that in recent legislation the daily rate or maximum rate for such intermittent services is generally expressed as the daily equivalent of the rate for GS-18 ($138.48). Use of a General Schedule rate, rather than a fixed dollar amount, provides greater flexibility by hiavLng the pay for the members adjust automatically when salaries for most regular full-time employees are changed. With reference to the compensation for the Executive Director of the Marine Mammal Commission, there is no apparent justification for not applying the job evaluation and pay p' risions of the General Schedule system which is generally applicable to Federal employees. AVe therefore recommend that the first sen- tence in section 201(e) be amended by deleting the i>art relating to compensation. This deletion will have the effect of making the General Schedule pay system applicable to the position of the Executive Director. Section 203 of H. R. 10420 requires the Marine Mammal Commission to estab- lish a Committee on Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals which will consist of nine specially qualified scientists. There is no indication in the bill as to whether these scientists will serve on a full-time or on a part-time basis. If they are full-tame employee, their salaries will be determined under the General Schedule job evaluation and piay provisions. If they are to serve on a part-time basis, the bill should so state and should include language about whether they are to be comipensated and if so, what the per diem rate or maximiun limitation is to be. 'The OfBce of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report By direction of the Commission : Sincerely yours, Robert E. Hampton. Chairman. General Services Administration, Washington, D.C., September 17, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : Your letters of August 10 and 17, 1971, requested the views of the General Services Admini^ration on H. R. 6554, H. R. 6558, H. R. 7463, H.R. 10420, and H.R. 8183 relating to the protection of ocean mammals. GSA defers to the agencies more directly concerned as to the merits of the proposed bills, but does offer the following technical comments on H. R. 10420. 1. It is not clear whether appointments to the Oommission (Sec. 201 (e) and Sec. 203) are to be made in accordance with or without regard to Civil Service rules and regulations and the Classification Act. 2. If the Commission is to employ experts and consultants, the following language should be added to See. 206 : "(5) May procure services of experts or consultants or an organization thereof as authorized under Section 3109, Title 5, U.S.C, but at rates for individuals not to exceed $ per diem." The OflSce of Management and Budget has adrised that, from the standpoint of the Administration's progr'am, there is no objection to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely, Harold S. Tammer, Jr., Assistant Administrator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C, September 9, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- tives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : "We respond to your request for comment on H.R. 690, a bill "To require the Secretary of the Interior to make a comprehensive study of the polar bear and walrus for the puropse of developing adequate conservation 35 measures", and H.R. 6804, a similar bill "to require the Secretary of the Interior to make a comprehensive study of the polar bear, seal, walrus, and cetaceans for the purpose of developing adequate conservation measures". We recommend the enactment of H.R. 690, if amended as suggested herein. H.R. 690 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the States, to conduct a comprehensive four-year study of the polar bear and the walrus for the purpose of developing measures adequate to assure conservation of these species on the high seas. A final report of the study, together with rec- ommendations for further action, would be made through the President to the Congress no later than January 1, 1976. The factors to be studied would include distribution, migration, and current populations, as well as the effects of hunt- ing, disease and food shortages. To fund these studies, there would be authorized an annual appropriation of $100,000 for fiscal years 1972-1975. H.R. 6804 would provide similar authority for studies of seals and cetaceans, in addition to the polar bear and walrus, and require that such studies consider the need for "humane treatment in all cases". nr^ntw As the Committee is aware. Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (84 Stat. 2090) transferred to the Department of Commerce "all functions vested by law in the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries . . . together with all functions vested by law in the Secretary of the Interior which are administered through that Bureau or are primarily related to the Bureau". Thus, our Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has retained primary Federal responsibility for the polar bear, walrus and sea otter. For reasons discussed in our report on H.R. 10420, including the consolidation of program authorities anticipated by this Administration's pro- posal for establishment of a Department of Natural Resources, we recommend against assignment to this Department of responsibility for those species of marine mammals, other than polar bear and walrus, identified by H.R. 6804. Pursuant to the general authority for wildlife research contained in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1119; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.), this Department, in cooperation with interested States and other Federal agencies, has already undertaken studies of the polar bear, walrus, and sea otter not unlike those contemplated by H.R. 690. Within limits prescribed by the availability of funds, personnel of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have sought to obtain information about the polar bear, walrus and sea otter that could help to assure their preservation within an increasingly hostile environment. Cooperative wildlife research units in Oregon, Alaska and Arizona have initiated studies of the sea otter, which include an evaluation of attempts to introduce sea otters along the Oregon coast, the ecology and behavior of sea otters in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and an investigation of the effects upon sea otters of natural and imposed stresses at the nuclear test site, Amchitka, Alaska. Current research on the walrus is confined to surveys in the Bering Sea, where aerial reconnaisance has revealed certain patterns of distribution, and that ice conditions influence abundance. The growing scarcity of the ribbon seal and previous experience with walrus depletion indicate that additional research will be needed as the basis for conservation in international waters. In recognition of the need for reliable information upon which to base a man- agement program, the Department published in 1959 a preliminary study con- cerning the status of the polar bear. In 1965, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife convened the first international meeting devoted to conservation of this great white Arctic bear. Current studies by a Bureau biologist, working in con- junction with a colleague from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and wildlife biologists representing Canada, Denmark, Norway and the Soviet Union, have resulted in an accurate assessment of the Arctic harvest. A reliable esti- mate of the regional population remains diflScult to obtain, however, due to sparse distribution of the individual animals, shortness of the season for field work, and the frequency of violent weather. Enactment of H.R. 690 would provide specific authority to extend the scope of those studies now being conducted and a realistic deadline for their comple- tion. The knowledge gained prior to submission of a final report in 1976 should enable this Department, and the Congress, to implement a sound program for the conservation and management of these species. Because it is difficult to esti- mate in advance the annual cost of such studies, and because the extent of re- search required may not be known until completion of preliminary studies, we suggest deletion of the limit on annual appropriations contained in section 2 of H R 690 We recommend, further, that H.R. 690 be amended to vest in the Secretary- authority to regulate the taking by American nationals of polar bear and walrus 36 on the high seas. Such authority is already available for the protection of sea otters under tiUe III of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1006; 16 U.S.C. 1171) and -would, we believe, contribute significantly to the conservation of polar bears found beyond the territorial sea of the United States. Our proi>osed amendment would make it unlawful, except as provided by regulations issued by the Secre- tary, for any i)erson subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take polar bears or walrus on the high seas, or to possess, transport, sell or purchase polar bears or walrus, or parts thereof, taken on the high seas. We recommend the addi- tion of a new section 3, as follows : "Sec. 3. Section 301 of the Pur Seal Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1096; 16 U.S.C. 1171) is amended by inserting the words ', polar bears, or walrus' or the words ', polar bear, or walrus', as appropriate, following the words 'sea otters' and "sea otter' wherever they appear." The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program- Sincerely yours, Harrison Loesch, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C., September 8, 1911. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine amd Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This responds to your requests for comment on H. Con. Res. 77, expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Interior prescribe and implement regulations for the harvesting of Northern fur seals; H.R. 4370, a bill "To amend the Fur Seal Act of 1966 by prohibiting the clubbing of seals after July 1, 1972, the taking of seal pups, and the taking of female seals on the Pribilof Islands or on any other land and water under the jurisdic- tion of the United States" ; and H.R. 7463, a bill "to protect seals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes". As each of these bills pertains to program responsibilities now vested in the Department of Commerce, we defer to its judgment concerning the advisability of enactment H. Con. Res. 77. H.R. 4370, and H.R. 7463 all purport to regulate further the taking of North Pacific fur seals under a program administered by the Federal Government pursuant to the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151, et seq.). H. Con. Res. 77 would urge the implementation of regulations "which insure that the seals are quickly and painlessly killed before skinning". H.R. 4370 would amend sections 104, i09, 404 and 40.5 of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 to prohibit the killing of seals by clubbing after July 1, 1972, the taking of the skin of any seal under one year of age, and the taking of the skin of any female seal. It would further direct the Secretary of Commerce to initiate research on alternative means of killing seals, and to adopt regulations which reflect the results of such research. Subject to exceptions for research, public display, native uses and continued implementation of the Interim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, H.R. 7463 would prohibit the taking, importation, sale and possession of seals or parts thereof. It would express the sense of Congress that the Convention not be extended beyond the expiration date of 1976, and direct the Secretary of State to initiate negotiations for obtaining a substitute agreement that would ban all killing of North Pacific fur seals. H.R. 7463 would also provide for administration of the Pribilof Islands by this Department as a National Seal Rockery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary, and for the establishment of a Pribilof Islands Commission. [Bach of these bills adopts the premise that management of the Pribilof fur seal herd pursuant to the Convention and the Fur Seal Act of 1966 is inhumane and/or has caused the depletion of this resource. The Department of Commerce, to which this program responsibility was transferred by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, can best assess that premise in light of recent data. During our administration of the program, exhaustive research failed to support the con- 37 elusions of those who seek to end the fur seal harvest. To the contrary, available evidence indicated that international cooperation had resulted in a larger, more healthy herd. Commenting to the last Congress on legislation identical to H.R, 4370, we noted that : discontinuance (of the fur seal harvest) would have serious biological and economic effects. The Aleuts living in two communities on the Pribilofs would be deprived of employment. The State of Alaska would no longer receive its 70 percent share of the proceeds from sales of Alaska sealskins. The limited support capacity of the Pribilofs would be overtaxed causing a substantial loss of pups due to parasitism, injury, and malnutrition. Japan and Canada would be denied a share of the land harvest as promised by agreement and might well resort to the wasteful killing of fur seals in the open sea. The OflBce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, W. T. Pecoea, Under Secretary of the Interior. U. S. Depabtment of the Intebiob, Office of the Secretakt, Washington, D.C., Septemier 9, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Gabmatz, Chairman, C(mimittee on Merchant Marine ami Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.G. Deab Me. Chaibman : This is in response to your request for our comments on H.R. 6554, H.B. 6558, and H.R. 8183, similar bills to be cited as the "Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971". Consistent with a Congressional declaration that ocean mammals, including seals, whales, walrus, manatee, sea otters, sea lions, polar bears, porpoise and dolphins, are being "ruthlessly pursued, harassed, or killed" and may therefore become rare or extinct, these bills contain provisions that would greatly enlarge Federal responsibility for conservation of such animals, regardless of their status as endangered si)ecies. Specifically, H.R. 65.54 would (1) with certain limited exceptions, make un- lawful the taking of ocean mammals on land or sea by vessels or persons subject to jurisdiction of the United States; (2) express the sense of Congress that the Interim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals not be con- tinued upon its termination in 1975 ; (3) provide that, pending termination of the Convention, the United States not harvest its quota of North Pacific Fur Seals, and that the quotas of Japan and Canada be honored either by in lieu payments or direct shipment of skins; (4) establish a Pribilof Islands National Seal Rookery Reserve and Bird Sanctuary to be administered by this Department; and (5) direct the appointment of a Pribilof Islands Commission to assist in the development of a substitute economy for the Pribilof Islands. In addition, H.R. 6554 would repeal relevant, but inconsistent, provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16U.S.C. llTlef segr.). We defer to the Departments of State and Commerce concerning effects of this legislation upon efforts to regulate by international agreement the taking of pelagic mammals. As the Committee is aware, primary responsibility for im- plementation of the Convention and for administration of the Pribilof Islands was transferred to the Department of Commerce by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970. We offer comment, however, based on experience with implementation of the Convention and our interest in effective management of wildlife resources. It is clearly a basic premise of H.R. 6554 and related bills that an absolute unilateral prohibition against the killing of all ocean mammals will assure their protection, and that such cessation of the harvest is a sound objective. We do not agree. To meet a legitimate public concern for preservation and protection of endangered species, the Congress has enacted legislation that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program for conservation of animals so classified. Further, the Secretary has exercised regulatory authority to prevent the importation of species foimd to be threatened with extinction. We refer, of course, to the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926), as amended by the En- 38 dangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 668aa et seq.), for which your Committee was largely responsible. The list of species threatened with worldwide extinction now includes several species of whale, the Dugong (sea cow), and Florida Manatee. Other species named by H.R. 6554 are neither threatened with extinction, nor subject to ruthless harassment, as the bill would find. Some of the subject species, notably fur seals and whales, are protected to some degree by international convention. Others are protected by State regulation. We recognize that some species not now threatened with extinction will become endangered in the absence of effec- tive international regulation. H.R. 6554 is unsound in other respects. With some exceptions, individual States, and not the Federal government assert jurisdiction for management of resident birds and mammals, including seals, the manatee, sea otter, sea lion, walrus, and polar bear. Enforcement under section 206(a), diffused among five Departments, would be unwieldy, if not entirely unworkable. The substitute economy envisaged by section 303, for the Pribdlof Islands would fail, we be- lieve, because the season is too short, the climate too severe, and transportation too expensive to attract tourists in numhers suflicient to supi>ort the native population. If the fur seal industry were terminated, as H.R. 6554 proposes, it would be necessary to relocate all or most of the Aleut inhabitants. A sound approach to management of ocean mammals requires further research and strengthened international regulation of those practices which threaten species not already classified as "endangered". This approach would serve to reaflBlrm our concern for the worldwide protection of wildlife. We think it im- portant to strengthen, rather than abolish, the existing international institu- tions which make such protection possible. The OflSce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, Habeison Loesch:, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. U.S. Depabtment op the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C., September 8, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Gaematz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This responds to your request for comment on H.R. 10420, a bill "To protect marine mammals ; to establish a Marine Mammal Com- mission ; and for other purposes". H.R. 10420, which would be cited as the "Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971", contains a declaration of congressional purpose relative to the conserva- tion of marine mammals, and would direct that the Secretary of the Interior undertake a comprehensive program for the regulation of taking all such animals on the high seas, within the territorial sea of the United States, and within the contiguous fisheries zone. Title I provides more si)ecifieally for the establishment of limitations on the numbers of each species which may be taken consonant with a need for its preservation, for the issuance of permits as a prerequisite of any taking, except by Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos under certain circumstances, and for cooperative arrangements between the Secretary and the States that "prescribe the circmnstances under which marine mammals which pass through or reside within the territorial waters of any State may be taken". The Secretary would also be directed to review management of the fur seal harvest on the Pribilof Islands and to provide an alternate means for satisfaction of obligations imder the International Convention for the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, if he determines that the Pribilof harvest should be curtailed or ter- minated. Title II would establish a Marine Mammal Commission composed of three members appointed by the President, and would, in turn, require that the Com- 39 mission ai^point a rdneimeinber Oommittee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals. In consultation with its advisory committee, the CJommission would conduct a general survey of authorities and practices pertaining to marine mam- mals, advise the Secretary of such matters, and furnish to the Congress an annual report of its activities. There would be authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Title I, and such additional sums, not to exceed $1 million annually for two years, as may be needed to finance activities of the Commission and its advisory committee under Title II. This Department recognizes the need expressed by H.R. 10420 for a coordinated approach to the protection, conservation and management of marine mammals, and agrees that additional regulatory authority would, if properly conceived, contribute to the preservation of those species subject to a variety of natural and man-made incursions. As the Committee is aware, we now have Federal program responsibility under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 for only the polar bear, walrus and sea otter of those species identified by H.R. 10420. Re- organization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (84 Stat. 2090) transferred to the Department of Commerce those authorities formerly exercised by this Department through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. These include management activities and research related to fur seals, whales and sea lions. Enactment of this Administration's proposal for a Department of Natural Re- sources, now pending in the House of Representatives as H.R. 6959, would effect a consolidation of existing authorities relative to marine mammals. Thus, we recommend against the partial realignment of program responsibilities con- templated by H.R. 10420. and urge prompt action to establish the Department of Natural Resources. With respect to those provisions of H.R. 10420 which most directly affect its conduct of programs assigned by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, we defer to the Department of Commerce. That Department is best able to discuss, for instance, the impact of H.R. 10420 on its management of the Pribilof fur seal harvest pursuant to the Fur Seal Act of 1966. We have addressed the need for research and additional regulatory authority to strengthen our polar bear, walrus and sea otter programs in a separate report on H.R. 690. The OflSce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, W. T. Pecora, Under Secretary of the Interior. Office of the Deiputy Attorney General, Washington, B.C., September 17, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 4370, a bill "To amend the Fur Seal Act of 1966 by prohibiting the clubbing of seals after July 1. 1972, the taking of seal pups, and the taking of female seals on the Pribilof Islands or on any other land and water under the jurisdiction of the United States." The bill would add new provisions to the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151-1187) to prohibit the killing of seals by clubbing after July 1, 1972, and the taking of the skin of any seal under one year of age or of any female seal. The Secretary of the Interior would be directed to initiate or contract for re- search on alternative means of killing seals and to adopt regulations prescribing more painless techniques. Transportation in interstate commerce, or sale after such transportation, of seals or skins of seals killed or taken in violation of the added prohibitions would be punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Whether this legislation should be enacted involves questions as to which the Department of Justice defers to the Department of Commerce, to which administration of the Pribilof Islands was transferred by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970. 67-765 a— 71 4 40 The OflSce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, RiCHAKD G. Kleindienst, Deputy Attorney General. Ofbiob of the Deputy Attorney Generax, Washington, B.C., September 11, 1971. Hon. EIdwabd A. Gabmatz, Chadrman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- tives, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in resijonse to your i-eqeust for the views of the Department of Justice on H.B. 6554, a bill "To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes." Title I of the bill expres^s a finding by the Congress that ocean mammlals are bedng pursued, harassed, or killed both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations, and that many will become rare if not extinct unless steps are taken to stop thedr slaughter. The Congress would declare it to be the public policy of the United States to protect all ocean mammals, and to negotiate with foreign governments and through interested intemational organizations to obtain a worldwide ban on their slaughter. Title II ooaiitains broad prohibitions with respect to the taking, transportation, or possession, by any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any ocean mammals or parts of ocean mammals (defined as all seal, whale, walrus, manatee or sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, and dolphin). Exceptions would be made only for Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos dwelling on the coasts of the North Paciflc or Arctic oceans, who would be per- mitted to take mammals other than polar bears for their own use in accordance with traditions, and in accordance with regvilations of the Secretary of the Interior for municipal and other non-profit zoos and for medical and scientific research. Vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States employed in a violation would be subject to forfeiture. Provision is made for issuance of regula- tions by the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Transporta- tion to carry out the purposes of the title, for enforcement of the title and regula- tions thereunder, and for a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, for the first offense, and of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years, or both, for subsequent offenses. Title III would provide for notification by the Secretary of State to the other parties to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention that the United States does not intend to extend its life beyond its current termination date in 1975, and for negotiation by the Secretary of international agreements to ban all killing of North Pacific Fur Seals. Interim arrangements are made for honoring treaty provisions. The Pribilof Islands would be designated a National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary. The bill would repeal (section 208), Title III ("Protection of Sea Otters on the High Seas") of Public Law 89-702 and (section 405), such provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 as are inconsistent with it. Provisions of the present bill are largely patterned after the legislation which is to be repealed. However, title III of Public Law 89-702 (16 U.S.C. 1171 et seq.), as its title implies, is directed specifically to the taking of sea otters on the high seas, and the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is directed largely to carrying out the obligations of the United States under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. We perceive the likelihood of some problems in determin- ing which provisions of the latter statute would be affected by the repealer language of the present bill, but defer to the Departments of State, Commerce and the Interior as to whether a different approach should be taken on this matter. The Department of Justice perceives no constitutional or other legal objec- tions to enactment of this bill. However, whether the bill should be enacted in- volves policy considerations as to which the Depart;ment defers to the Depart- ments of the Interior, Commerce and State. We do wish to point out that the sections in the bill after 303 are designated 404 and 405 instead of 304 and 305, that on page 5, line 23, the word "relates" should be changed to "relate", and that on page 6, line 7, the word "Commis- 41 Sioneirs" should be changed to "Magistrates". Also, two successive sections have been designated as "Sec. 208". The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, RlCHAED G. KlEINDIENST, Deputy Attorney General. Office of the Deputy Attobney GENEBAii, Washington, D.C., September 17, 1911. Hon. Edward A. Gabmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. Deab Mb. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 6558, a bill "to protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes." Title I of the bill expresses a finding by the Congress that ocean mammals are being pursued, harassed, or killed both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations, and that many will become rare if not extinct unless steps are taken to stop their slaughter. The Congress would declare it to be the public policy of the United States to protect all ocean mammals, and to negotiate with foreign governments and through interested international organizations to obtain a world- wide ban on their slaughter. Title II contains broad prohibitions with respect to the taking, transportation, or possession, by any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any ocean mammals or parts of ocean mammals (defined as all seal, whale, walrus, manatee or sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, and dolphin). Exceptions would be made only for Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos dwelling on the coasts of the North Pacific or Arctic oceans who would be permitted to take mammals other than polar bears for their own use in accord- ance with traditions, and in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Interior for municipal and other non-profit zoos and for medical and scientific research. Vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States employed in .a violation would be subject to forfeiture. Provision is made for issuance of regulations by the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and Transportation to carry out the purposes of the title, for enforcement of the title and regulations thereunder, and for a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, for the first ofEense, and of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years, or both, for subsequent offenses. Title III would provide for notification by the Secretary of State to the other parties to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention that the United States does not intend to extend its life beyond its current termination dae in 1975, and for negotiation by the Secretary of international agreements to ban all killing of North Pacific Fur Seals. Interim arrangement are made for honoring treaty provisions. The Pribilof Islands would be designated a National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary. The bill would repeal (section 208), Title III ("Protection of Sea Otters on the High Seas") of Public Law 89-702 and (section 405), such provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 as are inconsistent with it. Provisions of the present bill are largely patterned after the legislation which is to be repealed. However, tiUe III of PubUc Law 89-702 (16 U.S.C. 1171 et seq.), as Its title implies, is directed specifically to the taking of sea otters on the high seas, and the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq-) is directed largely to carrying out the obligations of the United States under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. We perceive the likelihood of some problems in determining which provisions of the latter statute would be affected by the repealer language of the present bill, but defer to the Departments of State, Commerce and the Interior as to whether a different approach should be taken in this matter. The Department of Justice perceives no constitutional or other legal objec- tions to enactment of this bill. However, whether the bill should be enacted involves policy considerations as to which the Department defers to the Departments of the Interior, Commerce and State. 4!2 We do wish to point out that the sections in the bill after 303 are designated 404 and 405 instead of 304 and 305, that on page 6, line 3, the word "relates" should be changed to "relate," and that on page 6, line 11, the word "Commis- sioners" should be changed to "Magistrates." Also, two successive sections have been designated as "Sec. 208." The OflBce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, RiCHABD G. Klehndienst, Deputy Attorney General. Office of the Deputy Attorney Genebai., Washington, D.C., September 17, 1971. Hon. Edwabd A. Gabmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. iDeab Me. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 7463, a bill "To protect seals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes." This bill is patterned after H.R. 6554 but would protect only seals, while H.R. 6554 and the similar bill H.R. 8183 would extend protection to other types of sea mammals as well as seals. H.R. 10420, a bill also relating to sea mammals, provides for control, rather than elimination, of their taking. Reports on H.R. 6554, H.R. 8183, and H.R. 10420 have already been submitted by the Department. Section 201 of H.R. 7463 does not define the terms "take", "taking", and "taken" to include "to collect", as does section 201 of H.R. 6554. Section 202 of H.R. 7463 prohibits certtain acts of "persons" subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, while section 202 of H.R. 6554 prohibits acts of "persons or vessels". In both cases, the language of H.R 6554 appears to be preferable. Like H.R. 6554, the bill H.R. 7463 would provide in Title III for notification by the Secretary of State to the other parties to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention that the United States does not intend to extend its life beyond its current termination date of 1975, and for negoitiation by the Secretary of international agreements to ban all killing of North Pacific Fur Seals. Also, interim arrangements are made for honoring treaty provisions, and the Pribilof Islands would be designated a National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary. H.R. 7463 would provide for repeal of such provisions of the Fur Seal Actt of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151. et seq.) as are inconsistent with the new legislation. It should be noted that this provision may create some problems in determining which provisions of the Act would be affected by the repealer language. Whether the bill should be enacted involves considerations as to which the Department defers to the Departments of Commerce and State. However, we do wish to point out that the sections in the bill after 303 are designated 404 and 405 in^ead of 304 and 305, that on page 6, line 2, the word "relates should be changed to "relate", and that on page 6, line 10, the word "commissioners" should be changed to "magistrates". The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Richard G. Kutindienst, Deputy Attorney General. Office of the Deputy Attorney Genebai,, Washington, D.C, September 14, 1971. Hon. Edward A, Garmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 8183, a bill "To protect ocean mammals, and for other purposes." 43 The bill is similar to H.R. 6554, on which we are also submitting our views, differing mainly in some section designations and minor terminology. Title I of the bill expresses a finding by the Congress that ocean mammals are being pursued, harassed, or killed both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations, and that many will become rare if not extinct unless steps are taken to stop their slaughter. The Congress would declare it to be the public policy of the United States to protect all ocean mammals, and to negotiate with foreign governments and through interested international organizations to obtain a worldwide ban on their slaughter. Title II contains broad prohibitions with respect to the taking, transporta- tion, or possession, by any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any ocean mammals or parts of ocean mammals (defined as aU seal, whale, walrus, manatee or sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, and dolphin). Exceptions would be made only for Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos dwelling on the coasts of the North Pacific or Artie oceans, who would be permitted to take mammals 6ther than polar bears for their own use in accordance with traditions, and in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Interior for municipal and other non-profit zoos and for medical and scientific research. Vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States employed in a violation would be subject to forfeiture. Provision is made for issuance of regulations by the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and Transportation to carry out the purposes of the title, for en- forcement of the title and regulations thereunder, and for a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, for their first offense, and of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years, or both, for subsequent offenses. Title III would provide for notification by the Secretary of State to the other parties to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention that the United States does not intend to extend its life beyond 1976. and for negotiation by the Secretary of international agreements to ban all killing of North Pacific Fur Seals. Interim arrangements are made for honoring treaty provisions. The Pribilof Islands would be designated a National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary. The bill would repeal Title III ("Protection of Sea Otters on the High Seas") of Public Law 8^702 and such provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 as are inconsistent with the new legislation. Provisions of the present bill are largely patterned after the legislation which is to be repealed. However, Title III of Public Law 89-702 (16 U.S.C. 1171 et 8cq. ) , as its title implies, is directed specifically to the taking of sea otters on the high seas, and the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is directed largely to carrying out the obligations of the United States under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. We perceive the likelihood of some problems in de- termining which provisions of the latter statute would be affected by the re- pealer language of the present bill. Whether the bill should be enacted involves policy considerations concerning which the Department defers to the agencies concerned. However, we do wish to point out tbat on page 5, line 24, the word "commissioners" should be changed to "magistrates". The OflSce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, RiCHABD G. Kleindienst, Deputy Attorney Oeneral. Office of the Deputy Attorney Genebal, Washington, D.C., October '1, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Gabmatz, Chairman, Committee rni Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Repre- sentatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 10420, a bill "To protect marine mammals ; to establish a Marine Mammal Commission; and for other purposes." This bill would protect specified species of marine mammals by prohibiting their taking except as authorized under permit of the Secretary of the Interior. The prohibition would apply to all persons and vessels subject to the jurisdiction 44 of the United States on the high seas and to anyone in waters under the juris- diction of the United States or land appurtenant thereto. It would also establish a Marine Mammal Commission to review United States activity pursuant to existing laws and international agreements relating to marine mammals and make recommendations on additional measures for their protection. As written, the provisions of H.R. 10420 would be administered by the Secre- tary of the Interior. Section 1 of Reorganisation Plan Number 4 of 1970 trans^ ferred the functions of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries to the Secretary of Commerce. The protection of fisheries resources, including certain mammals, generally falls within the domain of that Bureau's successor, the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is therefore recommended that Section 3(3) of H.R. 10420 (page 3, lines 4-5) be amended to reflect the present allocation of authority between the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior. Section 103 of the bill would require notice and an opportunity for public hearings prior to the issuance of a permit to take mammals. This requirement might result in a significant administrative burden. Many Alaskans, for example, make items for the tourist trade from seal skin. Presumably they would not be exempted imder Section 107(a) of the bill because of this commercial sale and the necessary permits, and potential hearings, could run into the thousands. Section 102 of the bill would provide for notice and an opportunity for public hearing prior to the Secretary's determination of how many mammals of each species could be taken each year, when, and how they could be taken. This hearing would appear to provide a sufficient opportunity for persons to be heard and avoid the necessity of having a hearing on each permit. Section 109 of the bill (page 13) would direct the Secretary to develop arrangements with the several States for the protection of marine mammals. It also would provide that mammals taken pursuant to such arrangements would be deemed to have been taken lawfully within the meaning of the bill. This policy appears to be desirable, since most marine mammals spend a majority of their time in state waters and have traditionally been managed by the States. However, the bill does not specify that the protections provided in its other sections should be applied to the state arrangements. Under the present wording the Secretary and state oflScials apparently would be free to set limits and seasons and issue permits without the public hearing that would be required if the Federal Government approached the problem alone. If this is the bill's intent it should be more clearly stated ; if not, the language should be changed. Section 110 of H.R. 10420 (pages 13-15) would require the Secretary to "un- dertake an immediate review of the current activities involved in the taking of fur seals in the Pribilof Islands for the purpose of determining whether such activities are consistent with the purposes and policy of this Act." If he decided that they were not, the bill would give Canada and Japan the option of taking, in lieu of the skins to which they would be entitled under the International Convention for the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, either the average value of such skins, or 9,000 seal skins. The Convention entitles Japan and Canada 15% of the annual harvest of skins. The bill's inconsistency with that treaty obligation involves a foreign policy question as to which the Department of Justice defers to the State Department. Section 201(a) (page 15, lines 20-22) would establish a Marine Mammal Com- mission composed of three members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The second sentence of section 201(b) would require the Presi- dent to make his selection from a list, submitted to him by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, of individuals knowledgeable in the fields of marine ecology and resource management. As a matter of policy we do not be- lieve that the President's discretion is selecting appointees should be limited to those on a list prepared by a subordinate officer in the Executive Branch. Under Section 202(c) (page 18, lines 12-19) all of the Commission activities and papers in its files, including those from other governmental officers and agencies, scientists and specialists in private life, and the public at large would be matters of public record. Thus, for example, the Commission activities on purely internal "housekeeping" matters, such as personnel actions, and papers and correspondence from another governmental agency or a scientist or specialist in private life in regard to the reports and recommendations pursuant to section 202(a) and (b) would be matters of public record. Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, codifies the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is applicable to any federal agency, such as the Commission would be. That section prescribes the informa- 45 tion on the agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings whicli shall be available to the public, and provides for judicial aid in enforcing its provisions. Section 552(b) excepts from public disclosure nine categories of information, including, for example, personnel files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and inter-agency memoran- dums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. We question whether there are adequate grounds for substituting for this statute of general applicability to any federal agency the provisions of the first sentence of section 202(c) of the bill in the case of the proposed Commission. It may be that 5 U.S.C. 552 would not require that all reports and recom- mendations which the Commission might make should be matters of public record. If so, and if they should be, the first sentence of section 202(c) may be amended to provide generally as follows : "The reports and recommendations which the Commission makes shall be matters of public record and shall be available to the public at all reasonable times." Section 202(d) of H.R. 10420 (page 18, line 20 et seq.) would require the Secretary and other federal oflSeials to respond to any Commission recommenda- tions within 90 days after receipt thereof. This might well result in requiring priority in responding to Commission recommendations on comparatively minor matters, over other matters that might be more important in the public interest. Accordingly, it may be advisable to modify this requirement. The second sentence of section 203 (page 19. lines 8-13) would provide for a nine-man advisory scientific Committee to be appointed by the Commission Chairman "with the advice of" the specified oflScials. This might raise a question as to whether all of them must concur in any such appointment. To avoid any such question, we suggest that for the quoted words on page 19, line 10, there be substituted such words as "after consultation with". We also note tliat section 203 does not specify the term of office of a Committee member. We suggest that section 203 be amended to si)ecify the tenure or method of removal of Committee members. Under the third sentence in section 203, any recommendations made by the nine scientists constituting the Committee of Scientific Advisers "or any of its members" which were not adopted by the Commission should be transmitted by it to the appropriate federal agency and to Congress with a written explanation of the Commission's reasons for not accepting such recommendations. We ques- tion whether the Commission should be subject to such a requirement in the case of a recommendation of any member of the Committee in which a majority of its members do not concur. However, this presents a policy question as to which we defer to the Department of Commerce. We also suggest the following specific amendments to the test: In Section 3(1) (page 2, line 24), after "dolphin" there should be added "(family Delphinidae)" to avoid any confusion with the finfish dolphin, family Coryphaenidae. We would amend the first line of section 101 (page 3, line 20) to add section 103 to the list of sections covering excepted situations. We recommend that Section 101(2) be redrafted to avoid the apparent am- biguity as to antecedent and the uncertainty as to the scope of the words "appurtenant thereto." In Section 103(e) the word 'with", following "which should accompany" on page 8, line 9 of the bill, should be omitted. In Section 105(b), "remission of mitigation" on page 9, line 22, should be "remission or mitigation." Section 106(c) should be amended by substituting "magistrates" for "com- missioners" on page 10, line 17 of the bill, in accordance with Pub. L. 90-578, 28 U.S.C. 631-639. In Section 106(e), for "auhorized" on page 11, line 3, should be "authorized" and "of on page 11, line 5, should be "or". Whether this legislation should be enacted involves considerations as to which the Department of Justice defers to the Departments of State, Commerce and the Interior. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Richard G. Kleindienst, Deputy Attorney General. 46 U.S. GrOVEBNMENT, Small Business Administration, Washington, B.C., August 19, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- tives, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your letters of March 30, April 28, April 30, May 11. and August 10, 1971, requesting the views of the Small Busi- ness Administration on a number of bills (H.R. 6554, H.R. 7463, H.R. 6558, H.R. 8183, and H.R. 10420) which, in various forms, call for total or partial bans on the taking of ocean mammals — that is to say, animals in the categories of seal, whale, walrus, sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise or dolphin. There is reason to believe that the availability of products derived from the described animals is of prime importance to a substantial number of small con- cerns. Clearly, a significant reduction in this availability, such as might flow from the proposed prohibitions or limitations on takes, would have adverse ef- fects on these concerns in the immediate future. On the other hand, the fear is widely expressed that a continuation of hunt- ing on the present scale will lead to the eventual extinction of the animals. In the long view, therefore, the imposition of suitable restrictions might be to the best interests of the firms in question. However, we do not have sufiicient factual knowledge to make a proper evalu- ation of the issues presented by the subject bills. Accordingly, we will not venture an opinion as to their merits. It is our understanding that hearings will soon be held on this legislation. We look forward to the resulting information. Sincerely, Thomas S. Kleppe. Administrator. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, B.C., September 22, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairm4in, Comm,ittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon H.R. 10420, a bill "To protect marine mammals ; to establish a Marine Mammal Com- mission; and for other purposes." Essentially, the bill provides for the issuance of permits under the close supervision of the Secretary of the Interior for the collecting or hunting of various marine mammals. Collection of certain marine mammals for scientific purposes may be had upon proper application for waiver. The bill also provides for the establishment of a Marine Mammal Commission, the duties of which would include undertaking a comprehensive review and study of the activities of the United States pursuant to existing laws and international conventions relating to marine mammals. Members of the Commission would be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the President. The Commission would be required to establish within three months of its inception a committee of scien- tific advisors on marine mammals. The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, in addition to the Director of the National Science Foundation and the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences, would recommend to the Chairman of the Commission the names of nine scientists to serve on a committee of scientific advisors. The scientists must be knowledgeable in marine ecology and marine mammals affairs. Of course, the Smithsonian Institution will make its expertise available to such a Commission, and the Secretary of the Smithsonian would be pleased to assist in making appropriate recommendations for membership on a committee of scientific advisors. With respect to the most effective means for attaining the ohjectives set forth in H.R. 10420, the Smithsonian Institution defers to the views of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and the Depart- ment of State. Smithsonian scientists have been in touch on a working basis with each of these Departments regarding the bill. Their views will be reflected to a certain degree in the reports of these Departments. The OflBce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report to the Congress from the standpoint of the Ad- ministration's program. Sincerely yours, S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary. 47 Depaetment of State, Washington, D.C., Septembers, 1971. Hon. Edwakd A. Gabmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Deab Mr. Chaibman : The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letters of March 30 and April 30 requesting respectively the Department's views on H.R. 6554 and H.R. 6558, identical bills "To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes." H.R. 6554 proposes that the Ck>ngress make a finding "that ocean mammals are being ruthlessly . . . killed . . . [and] that many ocean mammals will become rare, if not extinct, unless steps are taken to prevent their slaughter." On this basis, the bill would declare it to be the public policy of the United States that all ocean mammals should be protected from slaughter and that negotiations should be undertaken with a view to obtaining a world-wide ban on the further slaughter of such mammals. Further, the bill would express the sense of the Con- gress that the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, 1957, should be permitted to expire in 1976 and that the Secretary of State should initiate negotiations with the other parties to the Convention and any other interested states for the purpose of obtaining international agreement to ban all killing of North Pacific fur seals, whether at sea or on land. The Department recommends against the enactment of H.R. 6554 and H.R. 6558. The United States has consistently demonstrated by its actions, both domestic and international, that it stands ready to take positive measures, and to seek agreement of other nations to such measures, for the protection and conservation of marine animals and other wildlife. We have negotiated a number of treaties and agreements relating to the protection of living marine resources, including two treaties specifically addressed to certain species of ocean mammals. These agree- ments have been based on the concept of conservation, one definition of which is to be found in the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Re- sources of the High Seas, adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 1958. Article 2 of that Convention states : "As employed in this Con- vention, the expression 'conservation of the living resources of the high seas' means the aggregate of the measures rendering iwssible the optimum sustainable yield from those resources so as to secure a maximum supply of food and other marine products." Thus, in terms of these agreements we have been dealing with marine animals as renewable resources to be used for the benefit of man. The United States has also been moving forward with measures for the pro- tection of those species of wildlife which, on the basis of scientific evidence, are deemed to be endangered or rare. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-135) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to protect in various ways species which he finds, on the basis of scientific evidence, to be threatened with worldwide extinction. Included with in the latest list of species prepared pursuant to the Act are certain species of whales, the Mediterranean monk seal, dugongs and the West Indian manatee. Further, the United States exijects, dependent upon the appropriation of funds, to convene a world conference on protection of wildlife either in the fall of 1971 or the spring of 1972. A major objective of the conference will be to conclude a convention on this subject. For that purpose, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (lUCN) has prepared, in consultation with some 60 Governments, including that of the United States, a draft of such a convention which divides wildlife to be given .special protection into two categories, those species which are threatened with extinction and those which are not yet so threatened but which require special measures to prevent "undue exploitation incompatible with their survival." No ocean mammals are listed in the first category ; all species of otters, seals and sirenians (manatees, dugongs, etc.) are listed in the second category. The draft convention provides for additions to or amendments of the lists, based on the findings of competent scientists. The Department has serious doubts that the evidence available supports the findings proi>osed by H.R. 6554. Giving full weight to the present findings of the Secretary of the Interior and the lUCN, it appears that at present manatees and dugongs, one species of seals and some species of whales are endangered and that other species of seals and sea otters need special measures of protec- 48 tion From this, it mav l>e inferred that most species of ocean mammals are not threateneii or in danger of becoming so. though the Department must obviously disclaim auv si^ecial scientitic competence in the matter. Since "there appears to be no sound, scientitic Ivisis for a total ban on the killing of all marine mammals, we believe it quite unlikely that ^>ther Govern- ments would be preivireking to agreements to cover such circumstances. On the other hand, whatever may be the ethical merits of the c-oncept that a blanket prohibition on the killing of iKesin mammals is a desirable end in itself, we believe that few. if any. other nations woiUd at the present time be prewired to accept this wncept as a kisis for negotiations. In ivissing. we might note that the taking of five of the eight si>ecies of whales on the endangered fist publisheil by the Secretary of the Interior has lieen pro- hibited for some vears under regulations of the International Whaling Commis- sion, of which the United States and the major whaling tx>untries are members. The United States is continuing to seek more effective measures by the Com- mission for the conservation of the remaining three s^^^ies. Further, the killing of northern fur seals is controlled through the North Pacific Fur Seal Com- mission. Conservation of the harp and hood seals of the northwestern Atlantic Ocean is among the responsibilities of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries- • t^ ^ , The 1957 Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific inir fc>eals, the parties to which are the United States. Canada. Japan and the Soviet Union is the successor to the 1911 treaty on this subject l>etween the four coimtries In the vears prior to 1911 the fur seal herds had been decimated by indiscrimniate t>elagic sealing— the killing of seals at seii. Since it was not possible to determine beforehand the sex or age of the animals, many females and immature seals were killed. Many animals were lost through wounding or sinking Bv the time of conclusion of the 1911 treaty the herds on the Pribilof islands had been reduced to perhaps 200,000 animals ; the herds under Russian jurisdiction faced extinction. The 1911 treaty forbade pelagic sealing to the nationals and vessels of the four parties. In exchange, the taking of fur sealskins was shared in such a way that the countries controlling the rookeries retained 70 per cent of the skins and dis- tributed 30 per cent among the others. The treaty was highly successful in restor- ing the seal populations, so much so in fact that the Japanese Government as early as 1926 suggested a conference for modification of the convention on grounds that the seals had become too numerous. No conference was held, however, and the treatv continued until 1941 when it was terminated by notice given by Japan, in connection with which it was alleged by that Government that both direct and indirect damage had been inflicted on the Japanese fisheries by the increase of the fur seal populations. The present Convention retains the prohibition on pelagic sealing and the basic features of the sharing formula. It also provides for research and for coordina- tion of research and management plans through the North Pacific Fur Seal Com- mission, composed of one member from each inirty. The killing of the ftir seals on the Pribilofs and the taking of the skins is conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Department of Commerce, according to the management plan, which is addressed to the objective of bringing the herds to the level of maximum stistainable productivity and maintaining them at that level. We understand that the Pribilof population now numl>ers about a million and a half, with perhaps another half million from the Soviet rookeries. Termination of the 1957 treaty would expose the fur seals to the possibility of resumption of the wastefiU practice of pelagic sealing and consequent over- exploitation. It is not certain, of course, that other countries would permit the resumption of the hunting of these animals at sea. It appears very doubtful, how- ever, that other Governments, for example, that of Japan, would be prepared without any tangible quid pin quo to restrain their nationals from taking the seals for their valuable furs, particularly when these animals have been accused of causing damage to the fisheries. Moreover, we believe that the existence of an international conservation agreement, generally regarded as highly successful, constitutes a significant deterrent to additional countries which are in a position to engage in pelagic sealing. Termination of the treaty would remove this deter- 40 tent Tbns, the actions proposed by H.R. 6554 migtit well lead to a situation di- rectly opposite trj that desired by the proixjnents of the bill. The Department considers it highly unlikely that an international agre«nent or agreements to l^n all killing of North Pacific fur seals at sea or on land c-ould be successfully negotiated- In addition to the considerations cited above, which pertain to countries not possessing rookeries, the Soviet Union is interested in bringing the herfis on its rfx^keries to. and maintaining them at. the level which will provide the maximum .stLStainable yield of fur sealskins. The commercial kill by the Soviet Union on its ro^^keries was 16,306 seals in ItfTO and 15.648 in 1969. Accordingly, we have no reas^^n to believe that the Soviet Government would be amenable Uj a proix^.sal to prohibit all killing of fur seals. With resi^ect to the interim arrangements regarding fur seals which are pro- po.sed Ijv H.R. 6551, a major objective of the 1957 Convention is to bring the fur seal pofjulations to and maintain them at "the levels which wiU provide the great- est harvest year after year. . . ." To maintain maximum su-stainable productivity requires the elimination of certain numbers of STirplus animals from the herds. Therefore, it is our understanding that an arbitrary limita*' 'he kilL such as is proix/sed by H.R. 6554 as an interim measTire. would c - a failure by the United States to c-arry out its treaty obligations. In nummary, the Department believes that this legislation should not be en- acted l>ecau.se other national or international means are more appropriate for the conservation and protection of over-exploited or endangered - - that some provLsions of the legislation are imixj.ssible of .successful implen. n. and that the ijrovLsions regarding fur seals would Likely create a .situation c-ounter to that desired by the bill's proponents and would moreover require violation of United States treaty obligations. The Department therefore recommends against enactment. The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, David M Abshiee, Assistant Secretary for Crmore^^f/nni Relatiorus. Depaktmest of Stabe, Wasshington, D.C., September 9, 1971. Hon. Edwa£D a. Gaematz. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine Fisheries, Housse of Reprefientativei, WoJihington, B.C. Dear Mb. Chaibma^: Tour letter of August 10. 1971 requested the Depait- ment's comments on H.R. 10120 "To protect marine mammals; to establish a Marine Mammal Commission : and for other purposes." The Department is in sympathy with the motives underlying H.R. 10420. In particular, we believe that the .statement of findings in Section 2 provides an excellent basis for the further development of .such international arrangements as may be neces.sary or desirable for the effective conservation and management of marine mammals. In connection with the Section 2 (4) of the bill, the Department notes that the bill takes cognizance in Section 202 fa) Q i of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the Interim Convention on the CotLservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, both of which contain provisions for research and con- servation. In addition, the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries provides for research on and conservation of harp and hood seals in the northwest Atlantic, the provisions of the Convention having been extended to cover these marine mammals by the Protocol of July 15. 1963. It may also be of interest that the Department will convene in Washington. D.C., next April, in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, an international plenipo- tentiary conference for the purpose of concluding a c-onvention on the conserva- tion of rare and endangered .sp^ecies of the world's wildlife. The basic working document of the conferenc-e will be the draft Convention on the Export. Import and Transit of Certain Species of Wild Animals and Plants, prepared by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The pre.sent draft convention would prohibit the import and export of all sp)ecies of Sirenia < dugongs. manatees, etc. » exc-ept for scientific purposes and would regulate trade in ix>lar bears, see otters, the Guadelupe fur .seal and the walrus by requiring export permits. 50 Section 101 (2) of H.R. 10420 would make it unlawful, except as provided in Sections 102, 107 and 109, for any person or vessel to take any marine mammal in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, which waters are defined by Section 3 (5) (B) to include the nine-mile fisheries zone establisheartment anticipates no unusual administrative or enforcement responsibilities which those Depart- ments, together with this Department and the Department of Transportation, would not be able to fulfill cooperatively. The Department anticipates that the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the proposed legislation, if it is enacted, involving dispositions of violating vessels, cargos and related property, would place certain enforcement responsibility on the Bureau of Customs, adding additional duties to the existing enforcement workload of Customs officers. The Department has been advised by the OflSce of Management and Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, Samuel R Pierce, Jr., General Counsel. The General Counsel of the Treasury, Washington, B.C., September 9, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, Chairman, Camtnittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- tires, Washington, D.C. Deiar Mr. Chairman : Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R 7463, "To protect seals from being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes." 53 Title II of the bill would make it unlawful for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in taking, transporting, im- porting, offering for sale or possession, seals or any part thereof. Certain excep- tions are made for Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, medical and scientific research uses and for municipal and/or other nonprofit zoos. Vessels and their equipment used in violation of the proposed law, as well as seals or the monetary value thereof, would be subject to seizure and forfeiture as for violation of the Oustoms laws. The bill would also impose criminal liabili- ties of fine or imprisonment, or both, for convictions of first and subsequent offenses. Enforcement of Title II would be the joint responsibility of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Transportation. The bill would author- ize them to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of Title II. To avoid the question of whether joint regulations are intended, we suggest if the bill is to be favorably considered that the Committee report include a statement that each Department is to issue regulations in its respective area of responsibility. Title III of the bill would terminate the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and ban the importation of all skins or parts of the Alaskan Fur Seal. This Title would also establish, as a preservation measure, a Pribilof Seal Rookery under the Department of the Interior and a Pribilof Islands Commission, on which would serve the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate. This Department has no comment on the merits of the bill. The primary administrative and enforcement interests would seem to be in the Departments of the Interior, State and Commerce. The Department anticipates no unusual administrative or enforcement responsibilities which those Departments, together with this Department and the Department of Transportation, would not be able to fulfill cooperatively. The Department anticipates that the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the bill, if it is enacted, involving dispositions of violating vessels, cargos and related property, would place certain enforcement responsibility on the Bureau of Customs, adding additional duties to the existing enforcement workload of Customs ofl5cers. The Department has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., General Counsel. The Genebal Counsel of the Tbeasuey, Washington, D.C., September 9, 1911. Hon. Edward A. Gabmatz, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- tives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 8183. "To protect ocean mammals, and for other purposes." Title II of the bill would make it unlawful for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in taking, transporting, import- ing, offering for sale or possession, ocean mammals or any part thereof. Certain exceptions are made for Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, medical and scientific research and for public or private nonprofit zoos. Vessels and their equipment used in violation of the proposed law, as well as ocean mammals or the monetary value thereof, would be subject to seizure and forfeiture as for violation of the Customs laws. The bill would also impose criminal liabilities of fine or imprisonment, or both, for convictions of first and subsequent offenses. . ^ ^, ^ 4. • * Enforcement of Title II would be the joint responsibility of the Secretaries ot State Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Transportation. The bill would authorize them 'to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of Title II. To avoid the question of whether joint regulations are intended, we suggest if the bill is to be favorably considered that the Committee report include a statement that each Department is to issue regulations in its respective area of responsibility. Title III of the bill would terminate the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and ban the importation of all skins or parts of the Alaskan Fur Seal. This Title would also establish, as a preservation measure, a Pribilof Seal Rookery under 54 the Department of the Interior and a Pribilof Islands Commission, on which would serve the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate. Thia Department has no comment on the merits of the bill. The primary ad- ministrative and enfbircement interests would seem to be in the Departmenits of > the Interior, State and Commerce. The Department anticipates no unusual ad- ministrative or enforcement responsibilities which those Departments, together with this Department and the Department of Trtansportation, would not be able to fulfill cooperatively. The Department anticipates that the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the bill, if it is enacted, involving dispositions of violating vessels, cargos and related property, would place certain enforcement responsibility on the Bu- reau of Customs, adding additional duties to the existing enforcement workload of Customs officers. The Department has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget thiat there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. iSincerely yours, Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., General Counsel. The Geneeal Counsel of the Treasuet, WasMnffton, B.C., September 11, 1971. Hon. Edward A. Gaematz, Ghavrman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Hotise of Representatives, Washington, B.C. Deab Mr. Chairman : Reference is made to your request for the views and recommendations of this Department on H.R. 10420, la bill "To protect marine mammals ; to estahlish a Marine Mammal Commission ; and for other purpioses." iSection 2 of the bill would find that certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of disappearance as a result of man's activities ; since marine mammals have proven to be resources of great interna- tional signifieanice, it would declare it to be the sense of Congress that they should be protected to the greatest possible extent Commensurlate with sound policies of resource manlagement. Sections 101-103 of Title I of the bill would make it unlawful, with certain exceptions, for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal, use places under United States jurisdiction in violation of the bill, or for any person to possess, transport, sell, or offer for sale in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any marine mam- mal or part thereof. Certain limitations on, and i^ermits for, the taking of ocean mammals would be prescribed and issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Ex- ceptions w^ould be made for traditional, non-commercial taking by Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos. The Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to con- sent to the capture of marine mammals by qualified iiersons for public display or educational purposes, or for legitimate scientific or medical research, as well as under cooperative arrangements with States. Section 104 of the Mil would provide for personlal violators a civil penalty which may be compromised by the Secretary of the Interior; criminal liabili- ties of a fine or imprisonment for knowing violators are also provided. iSection 105 would provide that vessels and equipment used in violation of the proposed law, as well as marine mammals or parts, or the monetary Value there- of, shall be forfeited, as for violation of the Customs laws. Section 106 would provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall enforce the provisions of Title I and states that "any person authorized by the Secretary to enforce this title" may execute any pertinent warrant or process or make relevant arrests, searches or seizure. In addition to directing the development of an international protective pro- gram, the bill would direct a review of current activities under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. Title II of the bill would establish a Marine Mammal Commission which would study the marine mammal situation generally, make appropriate recommenda- tions, and coordinate activities with, and use facilities of, other Federal agencies. This Department takes no position on the merits of the bill. The primary ad- ministrative and enforcement interests would seem to be in the Departments of the Interior, State, and Commerce, although officers of the Bureau of Customs 55 would assist at ports of entry. The Department anticipates no unusual adminis- trative or enforcement responsibilities which cannot be fulfilled in cooperation with the other interested Departments. Similar bills (H.R. 6554: H.R. 6558; H.R. 7463; H.R. 8183; S. 1315), would identify a joint responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury, among others, with resi^ect to enforcement measures. Since Treasury (Customs) officers have considerable search, seizure and arrest powers under existing tariff and related laws, we suggest that the Committee consider a reference to the joint respon- sibility of the several Departments likely to be involved, and include the language "in addition to any other authority" when referring to persons authorized to en- force the bill's provisions. It is sugge.sted that section 111 of Title I of the bill be extended so as to author- ize regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in fulfillment of the Department's enforcement resi>on.sil)ility. The Department anticipates that the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the bill, involving Customs dispositions of violating vessels, cargos and related prop- erty, foreseeably will add to the existing Customs enforcement workload. The Department has l)een advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, Roy T. Englert, Acting General Counsel. Mr. DiNGELL. I would like to insert a memorandum on the general subject of marine mammals, prepared by Frank Potter, counsel to the subcormnittee. As an accommodation to the membei-s of the com- mittee, the memorandum will be inserted at this point in the record. (The information follows :) U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, B.C., September 7, 19^1. To : Members. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. From : Frank M. Potter, Jr., counsel. Subject : Marine mammal protection. There are many bills presently pending before the Committee which deal with protection of some or all si>ecies of marine mammals. Some provide research authority only (H.R. 6804 by Mr. Whitehurst). some deal with only certain types of marine mammals (H.R. 7463, by Mr. Anderson of California.), some are directed at the humane or inhumane methods of taking (H. Con. Res. 77, by Mr. Ryan and others; H.R. 4370. by Mr. Helstoski). Mr. Pryor has intron the oceans for their survival, and the evidence before the Committee has been that the oceans are becoming more polluted, hence increasing the biological stress upon all animals in it. This suggests that we should be far more conserva- tive in our projections of what level of "cropfidng" or management any given species can take without severe attrition. Barring better and more information, it would therefore appear to be wise to adopt a cautious attitude towards the exploitatiion of marine mammals. This approach was strongly endorsed at the recent mtemational conference on the biology of whales ; one of the scientific working groups stated clearly that those who wish to use a given species or i)opulation stock of animals should carry the burden of demonstrating that the rate of killing will not endanger that species or stock. Comments on PAirrictrLAE Types of Mabine Mammals THE WHALE (OBDEB CETACEiA) Whales are generally classified as belonging to one of two groups: baleen whales and toothed whales. The baleen whales (as might be expected from the categories) have no teeth, but instead feed on plankton and tiny animals, strained through plates of baleen or whalebone which act as sieves. The baleen whales tend to be larger in size, and are far scarcer than the toothed whales. They have been more heavily himted and killed than most of the toothed whales, some to commercial and perhaps even to biological extinction. Seven of the eight species of whales on the endangered list are baleen whales: the blue, grey, bowhead. right, fin, sei and hximpback whales. Also members of this suborder are the minke whales, which tend to be small in size, and which therefore until recently have been largely ignored by the whalers. There are indications, however, that hunting of minke whales is on the increase, and so it may just be a question of time before these too join the others on the list of endangered or extinct species. Scientists have expressed particular concern for the protection of the baleen whales, since these are highly efficient harvesters of small ocean life which cannot otherwise be effectively gathered. Thus, the reasoning goes, we would be well advised to preserve these animals, if for no other reason than their ability to serve as a source of food in the future. If these whales should be lost, a resource of tremendous potential value would be irretrievably beyond our grasp. The more numerous toothed whales include many .species of porpoise, and dolphins, as well as the sperm whale (the only toothed whale on the endangered list). The major traditional use of the sperm whale has been for oil and sper- maceti, although this use is now about to be terminated since products from whales on the endangered list may no longer l)e imported in the U.S. after De- cember, 1971. Few other members of the toothed whale suborder are taken deliberately at this time, although the U.S. tuna fleet is known to kill as many as 200,000 porpoises per year in the course of the operation of its purse seine fleet, and other nations may be doing the same. Porpoises are tied to the surface of the sea because they breathe air ; they feed with tuna, and this makes it a relatively simple matter for the tuna fleet to find where the tuna may be found : they just look for feeding porpoises and draw their seines around the feeding activity. Some effort is reportedly made by the fishermen to frighten the porpoises away by clierry bombs in the water and other methods, but these are far from successful. Although porpoises can and do leap above the surface of the water, when frightened they tend to dive, and they run into the nets. A biologist in the National Marine Fisheries Service is studying this problem, and an effort will be made to develop more information on the subject in the hearings. NMFS also grants scientific and other permits for the taking of whales by U.S. nationals. In recent years, this bureau, operating from various departments, 58 has issued up to 200 permits a year for the taking of whales of the categories listed as endangered (sperm and grey whales). The major fleets now engaged in whaling are Japanese (3 feets). Russian (3 fleets) and Norwegian (1 factory ship). In addition there are known to be "pirate" whaling operations, based in countries which are not signatories to the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling : what is not known is the extent to which these fleets are continuing to make inroads on sjiecies which even the IWC is walling to protect. The International Whaling Commission has been in existence since 1948, and many feel that it ha.s been very much less then successful. Although there is a body of scientists who sit as advisors to the Commission, the Commission has often failed to follow the advice of its advisors, invariably in the direction of catching more whales than the scientists consider wise. The Conservation community has been attempting for years to develop an international observer scheme, permitting representatives of other countries to be present on the whaling ships to ensure that only whales of permitted species, size and sex will be caught. The IWC has accepted the proposal "in principle" for a number of years without ever implementing it. The current U.S. Commis- sioner, Dr. J. L. McHugh, reports that "substantial progress" toward this ob- jective was made at the last meeting of the Commission in June of this year. Only time wuU tell if his hopes will be fulfilled, and no one can say how much time species such as the Blue Whale have left to them. Another sore point with international conservationists has been the existence of quotas for whaling fleets set by reference to the "Blue Whale Unit" (1 BWU = 2 fin whales 2% humpback whales or 6 sei whales). The imprecision inherent in this system is api>arent; the feeling is that future catches must be regulated by species and population stocks if these whales are to be protected adequately. The Commission did agree to set quotas by species at next year's meeting in London. The real problem confronted by the IWC is that it is essentially toothless. It must convince all nations of the correctness of its position, and any nation which dissents may in effect veto any position of the Commission. It has no police powers, a tiny budget, and no way to control nationals of countries which are not signatories to the Convention. Its defenders within the Departments of State and elsewhere have generally adopted the position that "They do the best they can" ; its opponents respond in the manner of the common law "demurrer" : "That may be true, but it is simply not adequate". Federal research on whales within the Departments of Commerce and In- terior is tiny — on the order of $80,000 per annum. It is clear that much more must be known about the world's whales, if they are to survive as significant elements of the world's oceanic ecosystem ; but it is also clear that stronger measures are needed to provide some assurance that the whales will continue to be in existence, when and as this information is gathered. It seems likely that the pressure on the remaining whales not yet listed as formally "endangered" will increase, both as a source of funds and as a source of food for a protein-hungry world. Riunors, not yet confirmed, are that some nations in the South Pacific are giving serious consideration to tooling up to catch porpoises and dolphins for food. Whether or not this is true today, it will probably be true at some time in the future, unless steps are taken today to prevent this. Most of these points were specifically taken up and discussed in detail at a recent international conference on the biology of whales, held in the Shenandoah National Park in the week preceding the IWC meeting. While the proceeding of the conference are not yet available, we have a copy of the reports of the working groups and a digest of the major conference conclusions, which will be available to the Conmiittee. The report itself bears careful reading. Other points made in the course of the conference were : Whale stocks at low levels should be encouraged to grow to higher population levels, as opposed to the maintenance of the status quo. A great deal more knowledge is required if whale species and stocks are to be effectively managed. Whales can be used as effective monitors of ocean quality, since they can be more easily observed than fish. The burden of proof should rest on the harvester to show that his activities will not endanger a species or stock. 59 THE EABED SE1AI.S (AND SEA UONS) Members of this family include the sea lions and the fur seals. The sea lions are not heavily utilized; several thousand are believed to be taken each year in Alaska from a population of perhaps a half million, for food and hides. In California, the sea lions are protected under state regulation. The major controversy as to this family concerns the Alaska fur seal, taken by the thousands each summer on the Pribilof Islands, in the Bering Sea. No one contends that the species is endangered ; although its population has fluctu- ated widely, from a reported 5 million to perhaps 215,000, the herd size today is estimated at 1.3 to 1.5 million, of which a substantial proportion is immature and not yet available for breeding. The fur seal was first commercially utilized by Russian fur traders, who made substantial inroads on the population of the fur seals in the 18th and early 19lh centuries. The United States acquired Alaska in 1867 for $7,200,000, and one of the major incentives for the purchase was the fur seal reserves. Perhaps the major reason for the heavy attrition suffered by the fur seal was the fact that it had been traditionally killed in the water, by pelagic sealing. This made it imix>ssible to distinguish between males and females; if a female was taken, it could mean the death of a fetus and an immature pup as well. The fur seal is polygamous by nature, and when they reach the rookeries in the Pribilofs, the mature females congregate in "harems" of up to 100, but averaging about 40 per bull. Since the sex ratio at birth is approximately equal, this means that a large number of bachelors are left with only their own company. A long- standing policy of killing only males was broken in 1955 to permit the killing of females as well ; the earlier policy was reinstated in the 1969 season and is in effect today. The kill of females in 1968 was 13,335. The process of killing the seals is not complicated : each morning a crew goes out to one of the areas in which the bachelors congregate, and then drives a number of these inland to a killing ground. Small groups are cut out from the herd, and then these are killed as promptly as possible by hitting them over the head with a hardwood club and then cutting a major artery. The clubbing is usually enough to kill them if it is done accurately. The number killed each year will vary some\Vhat; it is set not by quota but by the time within which killing is allowed. In recent years this has generally been the last week in June and all of July. Since the seals arrive in waves, be- ginning \\'ith the oldest, this is expected to ensure that enough males survive each year to carry on the propagation of the .species. Efforts are made to con- centrate on the 3 and 4 year-olds, and males do not usually reach breeding age until they are 10 or so. The word for the fur seal program is "management". Scientists have been experimenting for years with various procedures for selecting which .seals are and are not to be killed. There has been a continuing effort to develop "humane" ways by which these animals are to be killed, but the Department of Commerce (which inherited the program as a fimction of the Bureau of Commercial Fish- eries in the 1970 Reorganization) claims that clubbing and sticking is the most humane (and safe.st for the clubbers) method yet devised. There are approximately 600 inhabitants on the islands of St. Paul and St. George in the Pribilof group. These are descendants of people transported to the islands as slave labor by the Russians in the 18th and 19th centuries. Roughly % of the 176 persons employed in the annual taking of fur seals are from these islands the rest are from Alaska, the Aleutians and the "lower 48". The natives skin the seals and give the skins preliminary treatment before they are shipped to the mainland for ultimate processing. The Fouke (pronounced Fowk) Company of South Carolina has had a negoti- ated contract for several years with the Federal government to process these skins and then to sell them for the account of the United States. The Fouke Com- pany sends observers to ensure that the skins are handled properly before ship- ment. Fouke holds auctions each spring and fall for the sale of skins from the Alaska kill, and at these auctions skins are sold for the United States, Russia and Japan. The price of skins has been declining somewhat in recent years, perhaps in part as the result of expressions of concern by animal lovers. The Fouke share of the sale is tied to the sale price and computed by a complicated formula ; it is esti- mated that Fouke's share in recent years has run to as much as 40% of the sale price of the skins (averaging plus or minus $80). The proceeds of the sale, after deducting the Fouke share, are applied to the operation of the Pribilof islands eo and research connected with the fur seal operation. Any funds remaining go 70% to Alaska, and 30% to the Pribilof Fund. Last year there were no net profits, although in earlier times the state of Alaska received up to $1 million from this program in one year. There has been in existence since 1911, interrupted only by World War II, a treaty governing the taking of fur seals. This treaty, to which the United States, the USSR, Canada and Japan are signatories, governs the taking of fur seals by these nations. It provides, in effect, that seals may be taken only in their rook- eries on a commercial basis. Since these rookeries are U.S. and Russian, these countries are entitled to the lion's share of the skins. Canada and Japan, which had extensive pelagic sealing operations, have each agreed to forego these in return for a 15% share of the take from both this country's and Russia's opera- tions. The present treaty has been extended imtil 1975, and will terminate in 1976 unless further extended. Concern has been expressed that the termination of these treaties would mean a return to the old, wasteful methods of pelagic sealing, on a "catch as catch can" basis. If these concerns were to prove correct, it seems likely that the population of the fur seal herd would decline precipitously. While it is possible to point to deficiencies in the current program, it must also be said that current management practices assure that the fur seal herd is in no danger of disap- pearance. It appears that the herd is not growing as fast as we would like ; it may even be declining. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries had previously stated that it was attempting to stabilize the herd at the level of 500,000 pups born each year (see, for example, 1969 Annual Report of Pribilof Sealing Operations, page 1), but estimates are that only around 300,000 pups are currently being produced. It would appear, however, that policies of taking only "excess" males, if not changed because of the short-term advantages of overexploitation, should ultimately bring the herd to a larger level. Whether or not this is large enough is not clear. The annual take of fur seals in the 1970's was roughly 100,000 per year, although this level of killing could not be sustained by the herd at its present size. It also appears that the annual "take" of fur seals has been declin- ing in recent years, from a high in 1955 of 125,000 to just over 30,000 this year. There is, as might be expected, controversy between scientists and others as to how large the herd should be allowed to grow; others argue the question is essentially one of ethics or morality. This issue will certainly surface in the hearings. The letter to Members of the Congress from the hunting and conservation groups was accompanied by a document entitled "The Harvest of the Pribilof Fur Seals : A Fact Sheet". This document, with minor changes, is a replica of another with the same name published by the Department of Commerce. While the "facts" in this document are essentially correct, it should be recognized that it was prepared by the government to support a continuation of the status quo and should be read in that light. Other facts with equal relevance, but not sup- porting the same conclusion, were of course not stated. (See iip. 509-515.) The annual research program on the fur seal is approximately $250,000. There is virtually no Federally funded research on any other species in the family of eared seals. THE EARLESS (OE TRUE) SEALS Animals within this classification include the Harbor Seal, the Ringed Seal, the Harp Seal, the Grey (or Atlantic) Seal, the Monk Seal, Ross's Seal, the Sea leopard, the Hooded Seal, and the Sea Elephant. Few of these are endangered ; Interior lists only the Caribbean Monk Seal as endangered (it is probably extinct), and states that the Ribbon and Hawaiian Monk Seals are "rare". In this category the animal that has received the greatest public attention is the Canadian Harp Seal. This is the baby seal which is killed by the hundreds of thousands each Spring ; the annual killing for the past few years has been covered by journalists from all over the world. While the Harp seal may not be listed as endangered, it is surely in trouble. The size of the herd has been esti- mated at 1.3 to 1.5 million — roughly the same as the size of the Alaska Fur Seal — yet the number of baby seals killed last year was 240,000 — 6 to 8 times the number of fur seals killed in the Pribilof s. The St. Louis Post Dispatch carried a story on March 25, 1971, which indicated that the chief Canadian biologist for the Harp Seal program had indicated that the 1971 kill should not exceed 140,000, but that the official quota set by the Canadian government was 240,000. 61 There are a great many varieties, and species of eared seals ; they are mainly taken for their hides. No one appears to know the extent to which they are taken by U.S. citizens or within U.S. waters, or even imported. As far as is known, the only one of these species that is protected in any way by Federal law is the Hawaiian Monk Seal, which is protectable as a resident of the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. There is virtually no research funding in this area by the Federal government. THE WALRUS (FAMILY ODOBENIDAE) Together with many other marine mammals, the walrus suffered heavily from man's predation towards the end of the 19th century. There are indications that whalers turned to the walrus as the available whales decreased. The principal use to which the walrus has been put recently has been as a source of food and of ivory. Alaskan natives still eat and feed walrus meat to their dogs, but the demand for this meat is dwindling as the arctic dog teams are displaced by snowmobiles. State law regulates to some extent the taking of walrus by natives and trophy hunters. Little is known of a factual nature as to the size of the herd. There may be as many as 100,000 in the Bering Sea, and there may be only half that, or less. There are indications that Russia is looking into the possibility of taking walruses in the Bering Sea (BSFW, "Wildlife Research — Problems, Programs, Progress, 1969, p. 76). There is no international agreement in existence between this country and the U.S.S.R. governing the taking of walruses. A strong case can be made that this should be done, and soon, before resource utilization pressures build up. There does not appear to be any Federal Law on the taking of walruses, since the Alaska Statehood Act overrode an earlier Federal statute prohibiting the taking of walrus (55 Stat. 632). THE SEA OTTER The sea otter, as a species, was hunted almost to extinction by the end of the 19th century by a horde of unregulated fur hunters. In 1911 what remained of the population was given protection by Federal legislation, at least to the extent that it involved persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Fur Seal Act of 1966 con- tinued this regulation, as it affected animals beyond the three-mile limit ; this regulation is not particularly significant since .sea otters are rarely found in waters over 180 feet deep, which pretty well restricts them to territorial waters, except in the Aleutians, whicli are surrounded by relatively shallow water. The sea otter is found primarily in Alaskan and Californian waters — the Cali- fornian population is classified as "rare"' in Interior's "Redbook.'' The popula- tion size of the sea otters is not known ; perhaps the most knowledgeable Ameri- can scientist in the area is Karl Kenyon, who estimated in a 1969 publication (Interior Publication No. 68, "The Sea Otter in the Eastern Pacific Ocean," cited as ''Kenyon") that "(a) general estimate of the world population, presum- ing that some populated areas have not been ob.served. is about 32,000 to 35,000 animals." (p. 200). The hunting and con.servation group '"fact sheet" indicates, without evidence, that the population has grown to "about 40 to 50 thousand animals." This "fact sheet" also indicates a high rate of population growth for sea otter.s, and that they are "rapidly spreading into new areas." It concludes that "where populations are crowded the sea otter resource could easily be cropi)ed . . ." There is now in existence an experimental program in Alaska, involving the killing of some 300 sea otters iter year. Pressure upon the sea otter is almost certain to increase. Kenyon describes a sale of skins in Seattle in 1968, at which the average price per recently taken skin was $280 each, and where some skins sold for $2300 apiece, (pp. 41, 42). Contrast this with an awrage sale price of fur seal of .some $82 per skin and the nature of the demand becomes apparent. Kenyon also notes that the environmental deterioration of the sea otters' habitat unll preclude their reoccupying areas in which they used to thrive, and indicates that acute pollu- tion will affect their food supply (p. 281). For the sea otter this is a highly significant limiting factor, since they consume food in the amount of 25-30% of their body weight per day ( Kenyon, p. 126) . The sea otter also suffers from man's activities in other ways: California fishermen claim that the sea otters are comi>eting with them for abalone, and are known to kill them, in spite of their protected status under California law. 62 And then of course there are the people who shoot at anything that moves ( Ken- yon, p. 282). There is evidence, however, that the principal cause of the tindis- puted depletion of the abalone beds is, not sea otters, but too many fishermen harvesting a limited resource (Kenyon, p. 130). The annual Federal budget for research on sea otters seems to hover around $18,500. The AEO Milrow and Cannikin programs have augmented this budget in recent vears, since the center of the Alaskan sea otters seem to be in the area of Amchitka Island, where these nuclear "events" are taking place. We know of one $20,000 research project funded by the AEC, and there may be others. POLAR BEAR Of all the marine mammals covered by the bills before the Subcommittee, the polar bear {Ursus maritimtis) is the only one which can be said to be hunted as a "game animal." Its only natural predator is man and other bears ; it has been hunted for years by natives as a religious symbol and as a source of meat, and more recently, by natives and trophy-hunters, for its hide. Five countries own land in which the polar bear is found today : Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway. It is not believed to den in Alaska — the bears which are killed in this country are very likely Russian and Canadian in origin, altJiough no one is certain. Similar uncertainties pervade most of the discussions of facts relating to the polar bear. The size and composition of the polar bear population is not known. There is learned scientific discussion as to whether the polar bear is one general, circumpolar species, or whether there are two or more subsi>ecies within the general classification. There is no agreement. The size of the population is thought to be between 10 and 20 thousand, which seems a fairly large margin of error. The issue is complicated by a lawsuit presently pending in which Friends of Animals is seeking to have the Secretary of the Interior place the polar bear on the endangered species list. Interior has resisted, on the principal ground that the status of the bear is not yet known, it has placed the polar bear in the status of an animal with an undetermined status. This of course affords the bears no protection at all. There have been at least three international conferences on the polar bear. The first of these Was held in Fairbanks, Alaska in September 1965, and reached no conclusions other than general statements of concern. The Russian delegation attempted imsnccessfully to have a ban placed on the killing of bears, or barring that, a five-year moratorium until more facts were known. There is some evidence that the bears killed in the United States are principally Russian in origin, which may serve to explain the nature of their concern. "Why", they appear to be saying, "should we save the polar bear, and thereby forego a valuable source of income, simply to have the bears which we save shot by American trophy hunters?" Subsequent conferences were held under the auspices of tiie International Un- ion for the Conserv^ation of Nature and Natural Resources (lUCN) in Morge.sJ Switzerland, in 1968 and in 1970. A certain amount of research has been done by the coimtries affected, singly and in concert, and more information seems to be developing, although the basic questions appear to be as unresolved as they have ever been. The Alaskan delegation at the 1965 meeting indicated their position that himt- ing of the polar bear should be allowed to continue, in part on the basis that the annual take of bears contributed some $4.50,000 to Alaska's economy. If problems were later to appear, and it were to be shown that bear stocks were being over- exploited, then the U.S. delegation stated that regulations would be enacted to "limit tJie harvest within the annual recruitment." In support of their contention that polar bear stocks were not in danger, they developed statistics to show that the bears being killed were from a "large reservoir of adult males", and were not getting smaller in size. Had this been the case, this might indicate that the hunters were cutting into the breeding stock and were in fact overexploiting the resource. The picture has changed. The figures develoi>ed in Ala.ska from 1966 to 1969 and submitted at the 1970 lUCN conference showed that the average age of bears killed in Alaska declined from 7.7 years old in 1966 to six years old in 1969. This is, of course, not concluswc evidence, in the .scientific .sense, that the polar bear is in trouble, but it suggests strongly that U.S. practices should be closely and critically examined. 63 The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has taken the position since 1959 that additional regulations are necessary to prevent U.S. nationals from killing bears on the high seas, beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska. There has also grown up a strong sentiment in hunting and non-hunting circles alike, that the hunting of polar bears by airplane should be terminated. For many years the Alaska Department of Fish and Game resisted these pressures ; it has now indicated that it wall eliminate the hunting of polar bears by aircraft for the hunting season of 1973 (and presumably thereafter) "not because we feel it is required to protect the species, but rather because of public sentiment on methods of hunting these animals". (Letter of July 27, 1971 from the Acting Director, Division of Game, to the Office of Endangered Species, Interior). There are presently no Federal laws regulating the taking of ix)lar bears — all such regulation is handled by the State of Alaska. In part the new regula- tions prohibiting the hunting of these animals by aircraft was adopted as a de- liberate program to forestall the possibility of the imposition of Federal or international controls. The vast majority of bears killed in Alaska today are taken by this method, which typically involves the use of two airplanes, one to act as a "spotter", which then drives and herds the bear at top speed towards the otlier which has landed with its "hunter" aboard, who may then shoot the ex- hausted bear at his leisure. The State of Alaska has indicated that the disap- pearance of airborne hunters will mean the increasing use of hunting by dog- sled, possibly by boat, and (far more significantly) by snowmobile. This will certainly diminish the scoi)e of the area which the hunter can cover, and will presumably lengthen his stay or restrict the number of bears killed (or both). Whether hunting by snowmobile is significantly more sporting than hunting by airplane remains to be seen. The 1965 Alaska conference on the polar bear made the point that the prin- cipal threat to the polar bear arose from man's exploitation — that their habitat was "intact and relatively undisturbed by man". This is no longer the case. The scientists at the 1970 lUCX conference produced a release following that conference, which "noted the increasing economic development in the Arctic, and expressed general concern that serious ecological problems could arise as a result of oil spills, off-shore drilling and other economic activity." Ob-ser^'ers have also noted that grizzly bears and polar bears are suffering from increased predation by man near the drilling and other camps that have sprung up in recent times — these men are known to go out and shoot bears just to relieve the monotony of Arctic life (New York Times. May 7. 1970). An affidavit supplied to the Committee by the Department of the Interior, prepared in connection with the law suit already mentioned, appears to but does not, contradict these known facts. In describing the discussions as to whether the polar bear should or should not be classified as "endangered", the Depart- ment argues that "the perils of inimical factors represented by loss or change of habitat, over-exploitation, predation. comi>etition or disease, singly or com- bined, did not jeopardize the species." This may or may not be true, but the operative word in that sentence is species — if there is only one circumpolar spe- cies, then one could freely wii>e out every Alaskan polar bear without endan- gering that species, since the polar bear would continue to exist in other coun- tries. The Department's statement does and cannot take account of the plight of the polar bear in other countries, in none of which except Russia is the polar bear given complete protection. THE SEA cow (MANATEE, DUGONG) The only remaining species of sea cows in U.S. waters is found in Florida. It is there protected by state law; it is also on the U.S. endangered species list, and completely protected within the boundaries of the Everglades National Park by Federal law and federal officials. Manatees are shy by nature, and will not breed in captivity. There are indi- cations that it has suffered from man's activities to a great extent ; one species has disapi^eared within the last century (Steller's sea cow). The Florida species has been taken for meat, and possibly even for "sport." It is threatened by motor- boat operation and by wldescale use of herbicides, which destroy its food supply. It is herbivorous; a recent article in the Washington Post by Claire Sterling points to the possible importance of the sea cow as a consumer of the water hyacinth, which has been a source of considerable anxiety and expense to water resource managers, who have found that the water hyacinth tends to proliferate 64 in reservoirs, and to create massive ecological and esthetic problems (May 3, 1971). If the manatee survives, and if we are eventually successful at propa- gating it, we may ultimately find that its value to mankind is considerable. Questions to be Consideked on Marine Mammal Bills In considering the marine mammal legislation, the Committee will be looking into several specific questions, as these affect the marine mammals covered : ceta- ceans (including dolphins and porpoises), eared and earless seals, walruses, sea otters, polar bears and sea cows. These questions are : 1. What is the current status of species and important population stocks within these categories, i.e., are they growing, declining, or remaining constant? 2. What is happening to the environment upon which these animals depend? 3. What national laws and international treaties for management and pro- tection of these animals are currently in existence? Are these adequate and are they likely to be adequate, if demands increase? 4. How much research time and money is available and currently devoted to these animals within and outside the U.S. government? 5. What are the current and reasonably foreseeable demands, both U.S. and international, upon these ajnimals for food, clothing, display, research and/or sale of skins? The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971 The bill entitled "The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971" was drafted to provide comprehensive authority in the Secretary of the Interior to manage the taking of all marine mammals within the jurisdiction of the United States. The bill covers all marine mammals, including seals, -whales, polar bears, wal- ruses and other mammals which spend all or a good part of their lives at sea. The bill creates an absolute prohibition upon the taking of these animals, but softens this by providing the Secretary of the Interior with authority to issue permits for the taking of marine mammals. Before doing so, he is required to make an annual determination of quotas to be taken, subject to review by the public and by an independent Marine Mammal Commission. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violation of the law, as well as forfeiture of the animals. There is an exception to the Act for Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos, who may take marine mammals within their cultural tradition, if not for sale or resale. The Secretary is encouraged to develop cooperative arrangements with the gov- ernors of coastal states to cover the taking of mammals within territorial waters. Japan and Canada, who are entitled to a proportion of the annual take from the Pribilof Islands, are offered their choice of a fixed number of skins or a dollar amount, computed with reference to earlier seasons. The bill also establishes an independent three-man Marine Mammal Commis- sion, charged with an overview of the entire program, and authorized to review and to report on the progress of activities under the Act on an annual basis. The Commission is to be assisted in its responsibilities by a committ^ of expert scientific advisors. The activities of the Commission, its scientific advisory com- mittee and of the Secretary of the Interior are all to be matters open to public inspection and review. The Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971 The bill entitled the "Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971" declares a general policy that there Should be, as soon as possible, a worldwnde ban on the slaughter of all ocean mammals. It creates an absolute ban on the killing of such animals by U.S. citizens, or U.S. vessels, or by anyone in U.S. waters, or the importation of the same. Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos are permitted to take such mammals for their own use, but not for sale, or under contract to a commercial operation. Zoos and .scientists are permitted to take ocean mammals, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Violators of the Act are subject to criminal i>enalties and for- feiture of equipment used by their operations. The bill declares it to be the sense of the Congress that the existing Inter- national Convention for the Conservation of the North Pacific Fur Seals should be terminated at the stated termination date in 1975. In the interim, Japan and Canada would be entitled to cash payments or to nine thousand skins each, in lieu of their treaty entitlement. The bill also establishes a "Pribilof Seal Rook- 65 ery", and authorizes the estahlishment of a Pri'bilof Islands Commission, to worli on the problem of the Aleuts who would he put out of work, following enactment of the bill. Mr. DiNGELL. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Thomas L. Kim- ball, executive director, National Wildlife Federation, an old friend of the committee. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, if the chairman would permit, I would just like to say that unfortunately I have to chair a committee at 10 o'clock, so I cannot be here to hear all of the statements, but I will read them all. I am very much interested in them, and particularly I am very much interested m porpoises, because I have noticed we have a problem developing there as well. I think we do have a distinguished list of witnesses here and I regret that I cannot be here. I want to make this statement, and I am most interested in the legislation. Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kimball, we are happy to have you with us. STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mr. Kimball. Mr. Chairman, I might help you recoup some of this time, if I might have my statement inserted in full in the record at this point, and try to recapitulate it. Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, so ordered. (The full prepared statement of Mr. Kimball follows :) Statement of Thomas L. Kimball, on Behalf of the National Wildlife Federation Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas L. Kimball, Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation which has national headquarters at 1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W., here in Washington, D.C. Ours is a private organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. The Federation has independent affiliates in all 50 States and the Virgin Islands. These affiliates, in turn, are composed of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated three million persons. We appreciate the invitation and opportunity to make these comments. The National Wildlife Federation does not support any legislation calling for complete protection by law of all ocean mammals. Since H.R. 6554 is completely unacceptable to the Federation, we will not comment on its specific content. Our opposition is based on the fact that not all ocean mammals need protection if we are to assume that the wildlife resource is to be managed for the use and benefit of man. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, this Committee and then the Con- gress must determine whether or not it is in the overall public interest to man- age, guide, or manipulate wildlife populations in general or marine mammals in particular in such a manner as to provide the public with the greatest possible variety of uses and benefits obtained from this valuable renewable resource. One alternative to management is to give total protection to all species by Federal law and in so doing preempt the professional wildlife scientists from applying his knowledge and judgments and otherwise exercising his dominion and steward- ship over animal populations. The National Wildlife Federation is opposed to such an alternative preferring to support profes.sional wildlife management whose ultimate objective is to maintain maximum variety and optimum numbers of wildlife for the many and varied u.ses of man — to observe, photograph, study, and to harvest the surplus for food and/or wearing apparel. 66 At this point, I want to make it perfectly clear that the National Wildlife Federation is not opposed to complete protection of wildlife as a proper manage- ment tool. However, and this is the key point, protection is simply one of several techniques used by the professional wildlife biologists. Harvesting of surplus wildlife populations is an equally important management tool if the continuing long-range well being of an animal population is the ultimate objective. The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that any recommendation or decision concerning the proper handling of wildlife should be made within the frame- work of scientific management based upon factual research data and experience and on the restoratic . and maintenance of proper wildlife habitat — not on the basis of emotional, philosophical or moral judgments. The Federation feels that it is absolutely vit^il to world wildlife ix)pulations that we continue management efforts, as crude as they may be, that are built up on a solid foundation of scientific knowledge about the status and needs of vtdld- life. If we have inefiicient data we all should direct our efforts towards filling in those gaps in our body of knowledge. We need all management tools at our dis- posal including both protection and harvest to solve the complexities of contem- porary wildlife management. To do otherwise, in this enlightened age, would be an abrogation of our responsibilities to the fish and fauna of the world. No mat- ter how much we may desire it, we cannot return to pristine natural conditions of the Stone Age. Modern man, approximately five billion in number, has so dis- rupted our plant and ecological systems, poisoned and polluted the environment, that the only hope for much of the world's wildlife is for man to utilize his great powers of reason, science, technology and persuasion to overcome or minimize the adverse impact of his own instrustions into the plant and animal ecosystems. The worst disservice we could perform to any form of wildlife would be to abandon the principle of sound management. Because man has so complicated and disrupted the animal habitats there is little semblance of the balance of nature. If populations are not kept at levels that are supported by adequate food supply and by living and breeding space of their natural habitat, they ^ill die of starvation and disease as well as suffering a lack of procreation. In addition, the habitat must provide ample living space, not marginal subsistence, if healthy wildlife populations are to be maintained over extended periods of time. Re- covery to a normal balanced population following a starvation dieoff is a slow, inhumane and unnecessary process. In our view, the methods employed in re- moving surplus populations whether carried out by individuals representing sporting or commercial interests should be left to regulation by professional wild- life management experts as long as control is exercised to protect the basic brood stocks and the harvest is carried out in the most humane manner. I know that the record will clearly show that the National Wildlife Federa- tion has always vigorously supported legislation designed to completely protect rare and endangered species. Also, the Federation endorses the existing legisla- tion that provides Federal protection to certain species of birds. But again, the decisions that led to this legislation were made on a scientifically sound man- agement basis. And that is why, Mr. Chairman, the National Wildlife Federation can support H.R. 10420. While that bill contains — at least in our judgment — some deficiencies, it embraces the concept of resource management and sustained yield which is so vital to this issue. Accordingly, the Federation endorses H.R. 10420 subject to the following comments. Section 2. Findings and Declaration, is a good statement. We especially en- dorse the thought contained in subsection (2) that species will be managed on a sustained yield basis. This point is pivotal to the entire bill. However, we feel that the statement would be more meaningful and less vulnerable to subjective interpretation if the word "optimum" were deleted from line 2. page 2. Section 3. Definitions, appears to contain a loophole in (4) that could be exploited by commercial fishing interests. We recommend that everything fol- lowing the word "Mammal" on line 8. page 3, be deleted from (4). Also, we recommend that the term "scientific wildlife management" be added as subsec- tion (6) and defined substantially as expressed, in part, by Dr. Robert H. Giles, Jr., Associate Professor, Wildlife Management. Virginia Polytechnic Institute in his article entitled "Approach" in the 1969 edition of the book "Wildlife Man- agement Techniques" published by the Wildlife Society. (The words in paren- theses are additions of the National Wildlife Federation). "(Scientific) wildlife management is the science and art of changing the characteristics and inter- actions of habitats, wild animal populations, and man in order to achieve (a sustained yield) by means of the wildlife resource. (Techniques used to achieve 67 the sustained yield include, but are not limited to, humane harvesting and protection. ) " Section 101, Prohibitions, is satisfactory in its general thrust. However, it seems that Section 103 should be included on line 20, page 3 as an exception. Otherwise the issuance of permits becomes meaningless. Under Section 107, Exceptions, subsection (a)(2), page 12 needs to be re- worded or deleted to insure that Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos are permitted to continue the sale of native craftwork made from products of ocean mammals not listed as rare or endangered. At the same time, Section 107(a) needs to specifically prohibit the sale of native fishing and hunting rights to safeguard against possible exploitation. Section 108, International Program, should be revised to delete the word "pro- tection" on lines 6-7, page 13 and substitute the phrase "scientific wildlife man- agement including, but not limited to, protection and taking." The National Wildlife Federation heartily endorses the thrust of Section 109, Cooperation with States. However, we recommend that the words "conservation and protection" on lines 14^15, page 13 be deleted and in their place the words "scientific wildlife management" be substituted. Under Section 110, North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, it appears that subsec- tion (2) prejudges the outcome of the review that the Secretary of Interior is directed to make earlier in Section 110 and concludes that nine thousand fur seal skins each for Japan and Canada will not exceed the bounds of sound management. This subsection needs rewording to eliminate what could be a continued over-commitment of fur seal skins. The concept of a Marine Mammal Commission as outlined in Title II, Sections 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, and 207 of H.R. 10420 is acceptable to the Federation. However, we recommend that the direction of the Commission be changed to provide that the Commission in cooperation with the State Department seek to work out international agreements covering the scientific management of all marine mammals. Ideally, these agreements should be based on the same philosophy as that underlying the North Pacific Fur Seal Treaty. We feel that the Commission should first conduct research and fact finding studies and then determine and set limits for the taking and protection of all ocean mammals. The addition of a "Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals" as described in Section 203, constitutes, in our judgment, excessive bureaucratic layering which could accomplish little of a constructive nature. We recom- mend deletion of Section 203. Mr. Chairman, that completes my si)ecific comments on the contents of H.R. 10420. We feel that from the bill can emerge a piece of sound legislation that will accomplish the goals we all seek. In conclusion, we would point out that the greatest danger to wildlife in the world today is that opposition to hunting or commercial harvest of surplus ani- mals will be erroneously interi>reted and accepted by the uninformed as "con- servation". As long as hunting or harvest is conducted on a sound biological basis, "killing", as deplorable as it is to some, is not a conservation issue. It is a philo- sophical issue or a moral question that each person must decide for himself, and the National Wildlife Federation respects all philosophical viewpoints of indi- viduals whatever they may be. While sincere people on both sides of the philo- sophical question of to hunt or not to hunt or to harvest surplus or provide total protection, are preoccupied with quarreling over the moral issues involved, wild- life's real enemies — greed, avarice, environmental degradation, and loss of suit- able habitat — will continue to accelerate. The National Wildlife Federation is supported by representatives of the hunter and protectionist alike. We hope that these wildlife enthusiasts of different philosophical persuasions will unite in the continuing fight to conserve and enlarge wildlife habitat and to preserve the natural environment, the real key to wuldlife abundance, while respecting each others right to moral judgments. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. Background Information — Ocean Mammals 1. current status (including population) a. General: The marine mammals are a varied group of animals representing four orders of the class Mammalia ; Cetacea (the whales, dolphins and porpoises) ; Camivora (the sea otter) ; Pinnipedia (the seals, seal lions and walruses) ; and Sirenia 68 (the dugongs and manatees) . Most of the species are wide-ranging animals which travel extensively through international waters. Due to their extensive move- ments and distribution and their restriction to a marine environment, with many species breeding in the far north, research on this group has proven to be quite difficult. In recent years, however, there has been an intensification of research effort, with international cooperation in some cases, and man's knowl- edge of this group is now expanding. Management needs of the marine mammals vary with the species concerned, as would be expected. In many cases, management is complicated by the animals extensive movements within international waters. With resi)ect to these species, sound management, depends on international cooperation. b. Fur seal: The Pribilof Islands fur seal ix^pulation is about 1.3 million which is near the number which produces the greatest yearly surplus. These seals are taken only on the PribUof Islands under the direct supervision of the federal government. International treaty forbids the killing of fur seals on the high seas. The seal is a commercially valuable animal. Its furs are prized for coats; the meat is consumed both by hiunans and by animals. The annual fur seal har- vest on the Pribilof Islands is virtually the sole source of gainful work for the 600 Aleuts who live in its two communities. The seal herd of the Pribilofs today is thriving, its number estimated at 1% million animals. Its return from a dangerously low level of 200.000 in 1911 is a historic story in the annals of man's effort to conserve wildlife. ( See Attach. 1). c. Whales and other cetaceans: Estimates of the population size of the commercially utilized si^ecies of whales indicate that the populations are low and that they are being taken at near or over the maximvun sustainable level, mainly by countries other than the United States. Those previously utilized and which are now fully protected as endangered species are. of course, also at a low level. However, the federal government through the Departments of the Interior and Commerce has prohibited after December 1971, both the importing of products from whales and the taking of them by U.S. citizens. This is the ultimate unilateral protection possible by this nation. Additional protection must come from other countries. Other cetaceans such as the dolphins, porpoises, killer whales, and belugas ap- pear to be at about the optimum jwpulation size. They are little utilized by IT.S. citizens. Small numbers are being taken mainly for live display in aquariums or research purposes. A few beluga and bowhead whales are taken for local use by the Eskimos in Alaska. The approximate world population of whales, but based in some cases on limited data, are as follows : Blue, 8,000; Fin, 100,000; Sei, 120,000; Humpback, 4.000: Right. 2,000: Bow- head, 1,000; Gray, 11,000; Sperm, several hundred thousand: Killer. 10.000. The population size of dolphins and porpoises is not known but probably ranges from 10,000 to 1.000,000 for most species. d. Elephant seal and sea Uon: The northern elephant seal is thought to number about 20.000 while the Cali- fornia sea lion population is about 50,000. Neither of the.se .species is utilized except for the capture of a few sea lions for zoos and aquariums. The Steller sea lion numbers about 500,000 of which about 5,000 a year are taken by natives in Alaska for food and the hides. Sea lions are resident species under state jurisdiction. e. Hair seals: Pacific hair seal populations which include the ribbon, ringed, bearded, and harbor seal appear to have stable populations with the exception of the riblx>n seal which has decreased in number through excessive kills by the .seal fleet of the U.S.S.R. in the Chukchi Sea. Population estimates for the.se seals are: bearded— 30,000, ringed— 250,000, ribbon— 150,000 harbor— 200.000. It is estimated that about 25,000-30,000 hair seals are taken annually in Alaska for food and clothing and sale of pelts primarily by Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts. 69 /. Sea otters: In the early days of this century the sea otter population had been reduced by exploitation to scattered remnants (a few hundred) at a number of different islands. Under a policy of complete protection which began in 1911, the popula- tion spread and is today in a phase of rapid growth. Studies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the 1950's and early 1960"s showed that at that time they had increased to at least 25 to 30 thousand animals and were rapidly spreading into new areas. Aerial surveys have been continued by the State of Alaska, and today it is estimated that the population has grown to about 40 to 50 thousand animals. The rate of population growth in uncrowded areas as at least 10 percent per year. In crowded jwpulations there is approximately a 4 percent rate of increase and at islands where the populations exceed carrying capacity of the habitat (i.e. more than 10 to 15 otters per suarqe mile of habitat) a population decrease has been observed. Scientists believe that stress mortality such as starvation, as well as emigration accounts for the declining populations in such cases. The annual rate of reproduction is about 14 percent. Modern population surveys are in accordance with these findings. For additional information on the Sea Otter see Attach. 2. g. Walrus: While it is impossible to make any firm estimate of warlus numbers because they are widely scattered, aerial surveys indicate that there are at least 60 to 100 thousand in the Bering Sea population. Walrus are not yet overpopulated, but present evidence indicates that the populations are growing and that the walrus are repopulating areas from which they were extirpated. The Pacific walrus population occurs in international waters and in territorial waters of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. There are an estimated 25,000 Atlantic wal- ruses found principally in the East Arctic Atlantic. The Atlantic walrus is not found in territorial waters of the U.S. For additional information see Attach. 3. h. Hawaiian monk seal: Monk seals are the only tropical-water seals in the world. In the 1,000 mile- long chain of Pacific Islands on which it breeds (Kure Island to French-Frigate Shoals) the species was reduced by commercial exploitation in the mid-19th cen- tury to a very low level. The present population is not more than 1,50 animals. Since 1, when the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge was created, the monk seal has been afforded protection by the Federal Government. The monk seal today breeds on only four islands ; all within the confines of the refuge. There are indications that the monk seal populations on the refuge are declin- ing. Attrition by shark bite is quite high and this species will not tolerate human disturbance. Therefore, management consists of complete protection for this species, even to the exclusion of disturbances from visitors. The population is visited only about twice a year to determine current status. This species is presently classified as rare by the U.S. Department of the Interior. I. Polar bear: The distribution of the polar bear is circumpolar and coincides with the Arctic ice pack. This ice pack is in constant motion, circulating with the ocean currents and it is presumed that this motion affects movements of the bears. Due to the adverse climatic conditions present within the range of this species, research has been lacking. There has, however, been an intensification of investigations on this species in recent years. A cooperative study of polar bears cuxrently is being conducted by Canada, Denmark, Norway, the U.S.S.R. and the United States. This study was initiated following an international meeting held in Fairbanks, Alaska in 1965. Since then two working group meetings were held in Morges, Switzerland. Areas of needed research were outlined, agreements were reached on standardizing research methods and procedures and certain research problems assigned to individual specialists in attendance. A review of harvest data reported by the involved countries indicates the arctic- wide harvest of bears is now at least 1,250 annually. In 1969, the harvest by country included 128 for Greenland, 346 for Norway, 406 for Canada, 298 for the United States and a few for the U.S.S.R.. The harvest in Alaska is controlled by that State which restricts the nimiber of permits issued to 300. It is illegal to harvest females with cubs. For additional information see Attach. 4. 70 2. STATUS OP ENVIRONMENT UPON WHICH OCEIAN MAMMALS DEPEND At best, the environment remains basically unchanged (true, to date, for the polar bear). However, for most ocean mammals there has been a general, slow decline in the environment as the result of oil spills, ocean dumping, and the introduction of heavy metals and other forms of polluted stream runoff into ocean waters. Such migratory mammals as the fur seal are affected adversely by this. 3. LAWS AND TREATIES a. Fur seal: The open sea killing was halted by international agreement in 1911, when the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia concluded a convention (North Pacific Fur Seal Convention) for the protection of the North Pacific fur seal. In exchange for the ban on pelagic sealing, the United States and the Soviet Union, under the agreement, provide Japan and Canada each with 15 percent of the harvest from the Pribilofs and 15 percent of the harvest from those islands under jurisdiction of the Soviet Union. In addition to the conservation of the seal herd made possible by this agree- ment, there is now an economic gain for the State of Alaska, which by the Alaska Statehood Act obtains 70 percent of the net proceeds from the sale of Alaska sealskins. The majority of sealskins are presently utilized by the European market. A ban placed on the importation of seal pelts into the United States would have little, if any, effect on world seal harvests. In the United States, the Fur Seal Act of 1966 charged the Secretary of the Interior with management of the fur seals. This responsibility was trans- ferred to the Secretary of Commerce on Oct. 3, 1970. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service supervises the harvest of an average 50,000 fur seals each summer on the Pribilof Islands. The Fur Seal Act of 1966 prohibits the taking of fur seals in the North Pacific Ocean and all lands and territorial waters of the United States. An exception is made for Alaskan natives, Aleuts, and Eskimos. There are now seal rookeries under U.S. jurisdiction on Alaska's Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and St. George in the Bering Sea. on Robben Island, and on the Kurlle Islands in the Sea of Okhotsk, under U.S.S.R. jurisdiction. There is substantial intermixing between the herds of the eastern and western Pacific Ocean. b. Whales and other cetaceans: Estimates of the population size of the commercially utilized si)ecies of whales indicate that the populations are low and that they are being taken at near or over the maximum sustainable level, mainly by countries other than the United States. Those previously utilized and which are now fully protected as endangered species are, of course, also at a low level. However, the federal government through the Departments of the Interior and Commerce has pro- hibited after December 1971. both tlie importing of products from whales and the taking of them by U.S. citizens. This is the ultimate unilateral protection possible by this nation. Additional protection must come from other countries. The U.S. continues to hold membership in the International Whaling Com- mission (14 member nations) which has not been too successful. All member nations of IWC have agreed to ban killing of Blue, Humpback, Right, and Gray whales. However, only the U.S. has agreetl to stop taking the Sperm, Sei, and Fin whales, effective December 1971. c. Sea otter: Complete protection is given to sea otters where their populations are below the carrying capacity of the habitat and population growth can be expected. Covered by 19iO Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Fur Seal Act of 1966 provides against taking sea otter in high seas by any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction. (7. Walrus: The Pacific walrus population occurs in international waters and in ter- ritorial waters of the United States and the U.S.S.R. Proi^er management and regulation of the harvest of this species, therefore, is dependent on international cooperation. At present there is no international agreement governing harvest of walrus. 71 c. Hawaiian monk seal: The present population is not more than 1,500 animals. Since 1909, when the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge was created, the monlj seal has been afforded protection by the federal government. The monk seal today breepulations subjected to annual harvest. 2. Transplants of live otters have been made in southeastern Alaska, Washing- ton, Oregon, and British Columbia in areas having suitable habitat but presently lacking otter populations. There is evidence that some of the transplants in southeastern Alaska are being succe.ssful ; pups have been seen in these areas where otters previously were not seen. ALso, otters are still observed on the Washington coast a considerable period of time after release. More time is needed to fully evaluate the success of these attempts, however. Further trans- plants are planned as these attempts have the double benefit of reducing popula- tion pressure in tJie crowded areas from which the animals are taken and offer- ing the potential for re-establishment of the sea otter in areas from which it had been extirpated. Natural spread of the otter over its former range would take a very long time as this si)ecies does not emigrate to new areas until placed under considerable population pressure and natural mortality is occurring. Even then, natural dis'persiou is slow and limited. 3. Complete protection is given to sea otters where their populations are below the carrying capacity of the habitat and population growth can be expected. Management of the sea otter, at present, is under state jurisdiction, except where the otters occur on land within a federal refuge or where they occur on high seas outside the 3-mile limit. The sea otter now occurs on the California coast off Monterey, possibly in the transplant areas off Washington, Oregon and British Columbia, and primarily along the southern coast of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, Medny Island, Kamchatka, and certain Kuril Islands, the latter three locations being under the jurisdiction of the Soviet Union. History and Management of the Walrtts By the end of the 19th century, the walrus population was greatly reduced. This reduction was due to the fact that whalers, after reducing northern whale populations (the bowhead in particular), turned to walrus hunting, using Eskimo laborers and guides. When tlie populations of walrus became greatly reduced, around the turn of the century, commercial hunting of walrus ceased. The harvest of walrus today consists of those taken by natives for food and ivory and those taken by trophy hunters. It is estimated that 2 to 3 thousand walrus have been taken annually by the natives ; actually fewer are being taken every year. In 1970, the United States native harvest amounted to $1,304 and an additional 23 walrus were taken as trophies ; of these 850 were adult males. 74 374 were adult females and 103 were calves. The walrus also is under state jurisdiction. Alaska now limits the harvest by natives dependent on walrus for food to 5 adult females or subadults of either sex per season. There is no limit on adult males, and orphaned calves may be taken without contributing to the bag. The decline in numbers of walrus harvested by natives is primarily the result of two factors. The natives are moving into larger towns, such as Nome, and few return to hunt walrus. This trend will probably continue. In addition, non- natives are now permitted to take one adult male (trophy) by purchasing a $100 permit. Trophy hunters must be taken out by teams of native guides and the natives may not harvest walrus while accompanying trophy hunters. These teams, if harvesting walrus on their own rather than accompanying trophy hunters, might kill more than 100 male walrus i)er day. The trophy hunter will pay at least $2,000 for the services of these natives. Thus, trophy hunting has multiple benefits ; it reduces the annual harvest of walrus and at the same time permits economic utilization of the walrus resource by the native population. Management of the walrus in Alaska has consisted of the following measures : 1. The only major hauling ground regularly used by walrus in Alaska, Round Island of the Walrus Islands in northern Bristol Bay, has been designated, as a refuge and complete protection is provided there. 2. The annual harvest of walrus is controlled and the regulations governing the harvest favor the taking of adult males. Since the walrus Is polygamous, taking of adult males, within limits, is not detrimental to the population. Management of the Polar Bear Hunting parties originating in Alaska are required to submit all skins and skulls of polar bears to the Game Commission so that age data may be obtained. Data from bears harvested in Alaska show that the averge age of males has been declining since 1966. This means that younger and smaller bears are being taken, but not necessarily that the population has been harmed. The survival of young bears is thought to be enhanced by the removal of older males since they are known to be canibalistic. Consideration should be given to reducing the kill, however, in order to maintain a better balanced age ratio. Management of the polar bear is complicated by the fact that five nations have direct interest in this species. Individual bears range extensively over the arctic and it is not known whether any nation has truly a resident population of polar bears. Any management program, to be successful, must be based on interna- tional cooperation between the nations concerned. Mr. Kimball, Mr. Chairman, the National Wildlife Federation does not support any legislation calling for the complete protection of all ocean mammals. Since H.R. 6554 is completely unacceptable to the Federation, we will not comment on its specific content. Our opposition is based on the fact that not all of the ocean mam- mals, but certainly some, do need protection. If we are to assume that the wildlife resource is to be managed for the use and benefit of man, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this committee and then the Congress must first determine whether or not it is in the overall public interest to manage, guide, or manipulate wildlife populations in general, or in this case marine mammals in particular, in such a manner or as to provide the public with the great- est possible variety of uses and benefits obtained from this valuable resource. One alternative to management is to give total protection to all species by Federal law. In so doing, you will preempt the professional wildlife scientist from applying his knowledge and judgments and otherwise exer- cising his dominion and stewardship over animal populations. The National Wildlife Federation is opposed to such an alternative, preferring to support professional wildlife management whose ulti- 75 mate objective is to maintain maximum variety and optimum num- bers of wildlife for the many and varied uses of man, to observe, to photograph, to study, and to harvest these surplus for food or for wearing apparel. At this point, I want to make it perfectly clear the federation is not opposed to complete protection of wildlife as a program manage- ment tool. However, and this is the key point, protection is simply one of the several techniques used by the professional wildlife biologists. Harvesting of surplus wildlife population is an equally important management tool if the continuing long-range well-being of an ani- mal population is the ultimate objective. The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that any recommenda- tion or decision concerning the proper handling of wildlife should be made within the framework of scientific management based upon fac- tual research data and experience, and on the restoration and mainte- nance of proper wildlife habitat, not on the basis of emotional, philo- sophical or moral judgments. The federation feels it is absolutely vital to world wildlife popula- tion that we continue management efforts, crude as they may be, that are built upon a solid foundation of scientific knowledge about the status and needs of wildlife. If we have insufficient data, and you touched upon this in your tes- timony, Mr. Chairman, and I do think that we have inadequate data, we should direct our efforts toward filling in those gaps in our body of knowledge. We need all of the management tools at our disposal, including both protection and harvesting to solve the complexities of contempo- rary wildlife management. To do otherwise in this enlightened age would be an abrogation of our responsibilities to the fish and faima of the world. No matter how much we desire it, we camiot return to the pristine conditions of the stone age. Modern man, 5 billion in number, has so disrupted our planet and ecology, poisoned and polluted the environment, that the only hope for much of the world's wildlife is for man to utilize his great powers of reason, science, teclmology, and persuasion to overcome or minimize the inverse impact of his own intrusions into the plant and animal ecosystems. The worst disservice we could perform to any form of wildlife would be to aJbandon the principle of sound management. Because man has so complicated and disrupted the animal habitat, there is little semblance in the balance of nature. If populations are not kept at levels supported by adequate food supply, living and breathing space, many will die of starv^ation and disease, plus suffering tlie lack of procreation. Recovery to a nonnal balanced population following a starvation die-off is a slow, inhumane, and unnecessary process. In our view, the methods employed in removing surplus populations, whether carried out by individuals representmg sporting or com- mercial interests, should be left, to regulation by professional wildlife management experts as long as control is exercised to protect the basic broodstocks and the hai-vest is carried out in the most humane manner. 76 I think, Mr. Chairman, the oommittee will hear probably consider- aJble testimony about the metliods employed to take these mammals, and we would like to go on record as saying that if iuiy method used is inhumane, we would cei'tainly seek to develop, through tlie proper research and investigation, the most himiane methods of harvesting the surplus. I know that the record will clearly show that the National Wildlife Federation has always vigorously supported legislation designed tx) completely protect rare and endangered species. There are many of them iii the marine mammal categoi-y. Also, the federation endorses the existing legislation that provides Federal protection to certain species of birds, but again, the decisions that led to this legislation were made on a scientiiioally somid manage- ment basis. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we support H.K. 10420, and while the bill contains at least, in our judgment, some deficiencies, it embraces the concept of resource management and sustained yield which is so critical to tliis issue. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, we have made several sug- gestions. I would be happy to come back and go over these in detail if you would care to, or utilize the time in acknowledging or answer- ing any questions concerning our specific recommendations to this particular bill. Thank you. Mr. DiNGELL. The Chair will observe that I have noted with care the suggestions you made which appear in your excellent statement and that the Chair is going to direct the staff to consider these in the markup of any legislation. Mr. Kimball. Fine. In conclusion, we would point out, Mr. Chair- man, that the greatest danger to wildlife in the world today is that the opposition to huntmg or commercial harvesting of surplus animals will be erroneously interpreted and accepted by the uninformed as conservation. As long as hunting and harvesting is conducted on a sound biologi- cal basis, "killing," as deplorable as it is to some, is not a conservation issue. It is a philosophical issue or a moral question that each person must decide for himself, and the federation respects all of these philosophi- cal viewpoints of the individuals, whatever they may be, as most cer- tainly no one would be able to change them. While sincere people on both sides of the philosophical question of to hunt or not to himt, or to harvest surplus or to provide total protec- tion are preoccupied with quarreling over the moral issues involved, wildlife's real enemies — greed, avarice, enviroimiental degradation, and the loss of suitable habitat will continue to accelerate. The National Wildlife Federation is supported by representatives of both of these groups, both the hunter and the protectionist alike, and we hope these wildlife enthusiasts of different philosophical per- suasions will unite in the continuing fight to conserve and enlarge the wildlife habitat and to preserve the natural environmental while re- specting each other's rights to moral judgments. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Kimball, the Chair wishes to commend you for a very helpful and enlightening and valuable statement. 77 We are appreciative of your assistance to this committee. Are there questions? t • x. x Mr. Anderson. Mr. Kimball, I just want to say that I wish to com- mend you for your very fine statement, and particularly to thank you for your offer of support to the bill that I have introduced, H.R. 10420. We are aware that there are some deficiencies in it, perhaps, and we will take the suggestion that you make, and go through them pomt by point, because we do not consider it as a finished bill right as of now. It has some answers, and perhaps it is a step in the right direction. Thank you for your comments. i j v i . Mr. Kimball. Mr. Anderson, one of the suggestions I would like to make is that the legislation address itself to the international problem. Marine mammals are creatures of the open sea, and as such, the jurisdiction over their taking and use and management is between many nations. This is one of the real problems of protecting these particular mam- mals, and hopefully, the efforts of the United States could be directed toward developing some type of international agreement on the man- agement of these species. It would be based again upon factual research data. If we could pattern it somewhat after the Pribilof seals where nations have agreed upon the harvest of only the surplus, and it is done at a particular time and season so that the basic broodstocks are protected, this could be applied to the other endangered marine mammals. This would be the thrust of the U.S. effort to really help these particular mammals. Mr. Anderson. I noticed you had eight or 10 suggestions. Are they in written form. Mr. Kimball. Yes, they are. Mr. Anderson. They are covered in your statement ? Mr. Kimball. Yes. Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much. Mr. DiNGELL. Any further questions ? Thank you again, Mr. Kimball. Our next witness is Mr. Cleveland Amory, president, the Fund for Animals, New York City. STATEMENT OF CLEVELAND AMORY, PRESIDENT, THE FUND FOR ANIMALS, NEW YORK CITY Mr. Amory. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Cleveland Amory. I am president of the Fund for Animals, a national anti- cruelty society with offices at 140 West 57th Street, in New York, and I am here to testify for the Harris-Pryor Bill, H.R. 6558. There is one particular area of the matter that concerns us this morning to which I would like to address myself, if you will so permit. And that is how the public feels. I have had unusual opportunity to learn how it feels from three directions — first, from the letters I re- ceive from the magazines I write for ; second, from the letters I re- ceive from talks I have made on various radio and television sho\^; and third, at the grassroots level, by actually talking with people in more than 40 American cities so far this year. The organization of which I am president presently shares, with other major conservation organizations such as the National Audubon 78 Society, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, et cetera, a joint exhibit called the National Panorama for Conservation Action. Starting in Arizona, this huge panorama, more than 30 yards in length, has traveled from mall to mall across the length and breadth of tliis land, across Texas, into Florida, up the southern coast, through New England, and now back into the Midwest, heading towards its close in California. This week the exhibit is in Omaha, Nebr. Last week it was in Lincoln, Nebr. I assure you, Mr. Chainnan, there are not many ocean mammals in Lincoln, Nebr., nor in Omaha. But I also assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the people there care about ocean mammals. To our exhibit, for example, came thousands of schoolchildren. One of them pointed to our seal pictures. They show first the club- bing of the baby seals in Canada, then the clubbing of the adult seals in Alaska. Underneath is written, "Our country, too, clubs seals." One child, who could not have been more than 11 or 12 years old looked at the exhibit for a long time. His face clouded. Then, suddenly, there was hope in it. "My goodness," he said. "Mr. Amory, cannot you stop it? Through TV Guide?" Seriously, Mr. Chairman, let us thank God that that child had not yet grown up, that he did not yet know of man's infinite capacity to rationalize his own cruelty. Mr. Chairman, I have found in my mail, in my travels, and in person something I am sure you gentlemen have found far more, and far more accurately, than I have — something I dare say was directly responsible for these hearings, and this is something which I can only describe as a new wind blowing through our land. Only a few short years go, a very small number of people would have been at all concerned with what concerns us here today. Only a few voices were then raised against any animal abuses, pathetically few for abuses seemingly as far removed as those concerned with ocean mammals. But now those few voices have grown into an army. And it is a new kind of anny — the army of the kind. Two years ago the Fund for Animals started something off the west coast of California called the Wildlife Protection Patrol — the coun- try's first coast guard for animals, to prevent the ravishing and cruel abuse of sea mammals by so-called sportsmen and others. The Wildlife Protection Patrol, Mr. Chairman, had only one power — moral power. But that moral power has, time and time again, proved far more powerful than power power. And something else was proved by the Wildlife Protection Patrol — that, as our friends on the beaches of California learned more and more about our fellow crea- tures of the deep, an extraordinary bond was created. Mr. Chairman, the true horror of what we are talking about today is that some of these mammals are going to be extinct before we even have learned anything about them. Let me give you just one interesting case — the experiments of Dr. John Lilly with the dolphin. Dr. Lilly found that, in some cases, the bond between his researchers and dolphin became so deep that when the researchers were reassigned, or when it became clear to the dolphins that, no matter how hard they tried, they were not going to be able to establish real communication, the dolphins first appeared distressed and then, in some cases, they died. In fact, they literally committed suicide. Dr. Lilly then gave up his experiments. 79 But an even more important point may be at issue here. We .are, after all^ not just talking about extinction and endangered species here. The voice of the new army to which I have referred is loud and clear on this subject. It does not matter how many of an animal or sea mammal there is. What really matters is the total immorality and senselessness of taking any such creatures for such a frivolous pur- pose. For that great and noble creature, the whale, from which we get not one single product which could not be better gotten elsewhere, man has reserved one of the crudest deaths of all. That tiny, inoffen- ive creature, the baby seal, man chooses to club. And for what? Not even for a fur coat — for a fur lining. Mr. Chairman, I have stood in 30-degree-below-zero weather on an ice floe off the Magdalen Islands, in a 50-mile-an-hour wind. It was a wild, eerie scene, of quiet and white nothingness. A winter wonder- land so beautiful that the beauty, let alone the cold, took your breath away. The only inhabitants of that ice floe, and indeed of all the other ice floes for miles and miles around, were thousands upon thousands of seals. Two by two they were — a beautiful, gray-coated mother be- side her unbelievably appealing pup ; a fat, fluffy ball of solid white- ness out of which appeared three somber black blobs, two of them eyes, trusting and friendly, the third an inquisitive snout. The age of the pup ? Six days. And then the men from the sealing ships advanced. At the last moment a baby seal moved toward them. He seemed to think the first human being he had ever seen come close to him was something to play with, and in friendly, curious fashion, he wiggled forward — waggling, since he had no tail, his whole backside. Mr. Chairman, all that remains of him now is the lining of your glove, or perhaps of your jacket, or even your billfold. And all of this, of course, could be better made of something else. May I say in closing that the animal army of which I speak is today such an overwhelming majority that I venture to say you can- not find a single soul in this hall, in this building, in the streets below, or in the entire country, who does not want to do something about whales, about seals, and sea lions, unless, and I repeat, unless, it is someone with a vested interest in their persecution. And that, Mr. Chairman, is my final point here. Up until now, the U.S. Government has had a vested interest in this persecution, in one of the crudest busmesses on the face of the earth, the clubbing of seals. Sir, it must divest itself of this vested interest. It must divest itself, wash the blood from its hands, and stand in fair and new and fresh and decent judgment. Mr. Chairman, we ask of our Government in this matter, as so many people are asking in so many other matters, that it be not on the side of the angles, but on the side of the angels. The Government has two arguments. It says it has to kill seals because of a treaty. That is one argument. The other is that it has to kill seals because it is good conservation. Mr. Chairman, I am always suspicious of someone who has two arguments. If one of the arguments was really good, why w^ould two be necessary ? Not long ago I asked an official in the Bureau of Com- merical Fisheries if the seal killing would go on for conservation 80 reasons if there were no end product involved. He looked shocked. "Why no," he said, "not if nobody makes a profit." Last summer I sent to the Pribilof Islands a young lady named Margery Stockton, and asked her to write a report for me. She wrote : I am truly sick that my Govermnent makes $5 million each season from the killing of seals. From the "beginning, when the Aleuts beat on empty 5- gallon tins to awaken the seals who were asleep in thedr rookery which the De- partment of the Interior calls a "sanctuary" to the bitter end when, already exhausted by a lung-ibursting overland journey, they are bludgeoned to death, making last, feeble attempts to help each other, it is a barbaric, brutal business. And when one sees 1,000 to 1,500 seals bludgeoned to death per day, the words "sanctuary" and "conservation" become a mockery. Mr. Chairman, let us have an end to this mockery. Let us report out of this committee H.K. 6558 and send out a clarion call not only to our fellow citizens in this country, but to all the nations on this earth that this comitry will have no more of this bloody business, this exercise in hypocrisy, this traffic in torture. Mr. DiNGE[LL. The committee is grateful to you for a very powerful and helpful statement. Any questions of Mr. Amory ? Mr. Amory, we are grateful to you and thank you for your very helpful testimony. Our next witness is our very distinguished and able colleague, author of some of the legislation before us, the Honorable David Pryor. Mr. Pryor, we are privileged to have you before us. The Chair wishes to commend you for your outstanding interest in this matter and the distinguished work you have done in this area, We are happy t-o have you present. STATEMEin: OF HON. DAVID PRYOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Mr. Pryor. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a privilege for me to appear this morning before this committee on behalf of H.R. 6558, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971. This bill was introduced some 5 months ago, cosponsored by roughly 90 Members of Congress, and seeks to offer maximum protection for ocean mammals generally and endangered species specifically. Wliile it is a conservation bill a;t heart, it is truly much more than that. It is a bill which goes to the very nature of what our country ought to be. It glorifies life and rejects brutality. It speaks to the future by recog- nizing its past. In the 5 months since I introduced this legislation, I have received literally thousands of letters in support of this measure. If this com- mittee only had the time, the testimony of those thousands of letters would speak much more eloquently than I, of not only the need for this legislation, but the heart of it. Before beginning an extended discussion of the provisions of this legislation, and the annomicement of what I consider to be a major change in it, I would like for the committee to listen to the words of two experts who unfortunately could not be with us today. The first is addressed to the committee for humane legislation. It says in part : To me, to support the Harris-Pryor bill is a most obvious duty. Man has al- ready been responsible of too much destruction while technology at the service of wisdom could have made a paradise out of our planet, and protected the more 81 than 1,000 various species that we have already eradicated forever. The whales are of special interest, because they are the largest animals that ever existed, [>ecause they liave a highly developed intelligence, and that their study is ex- tremely meaningful for human physiology. Furthermore, the commercial interest involved in whales are completely archaic and have become most negligible. To act now Arigorously is a duty for mankind. It is signed "Jacques Cousteau." The second expert wrote some months ago in words so simple they cut right to the substance of wharti we are trying to do today. He wrote : Please be kind to the seals and do not let them kill any more. It is signed by a 6-year-old constituent of mine whose wisdom per- haps transcends all that of the experts which we will hear today. Mr. Chairman, my bill is not without its critics ; legislation of sig- nificance will always give rise to criticism. I have, however, been con- vinced during the period of the last 5 months that some of the criti- cism tliis bill has engendered is not only legitimate, but worth heeding. I am therefore planning to reintroduce H.R. 6558 later today and to incorporate within it major changes which will meet the well- intentioned objections wliich have been raised. Specifically, those sections dealing with the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention have been rewritten to meet the objections of those who fear that failure to renew the treaty would give rise to the reinstitu- tion of pelagic sealing. Under the provision of the new bill, the Sec- retary of State would be instructed by the Congress to initiate nego- tiation to obtain agreements with all nations to ban the killing of all North Pacific fur seals. In the event of failure to negotiate a new and more extensive treaty, however, the Secretary would, under the new bill, be instructed to renew the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. This will, at least, in- sure a minimum amount of protection for the fur seal. With the permission of the committee, I would like to briefly outline the remainder of the bill, section by section. Title I of the Harris-Pryor bill, section 101, contains the finding by Congress that ocean mammals are being ruthlessly hunted and killed. Most of these animals face a periodic suilering and brutality at the hands of man ; many of them have become rare, and others are in imminent danger of extinction. Section 102 of title I declares that it is the public policy of the United States to prevent further harassment and killing of these ocean mammals, not only by our unilateral actions, but also by negotiating protective treaties with other nations. The object of these etiorts is to obtain a worldwide ban on the killing of ocean mammals. Title II contains the general prohibitions against further killing of ocean mammals by U.S. citizens, vessels under U.S. jurisdiction, or upon any land or water under the jurisdiction of the United States. Section 201 of this title contains definitions of "ocean mammals" and other relevant terms. Section 200 makes it unlawful for any person or vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction to engage in the taking of ocean mammals either at sea or on land. It also flatly prohibits the import or export of the skins or other parts of ocean mammals in interstate or foreign com- merce, whether processed or unprocessed, and regardless of where the animal was killed. 82 Section 203 exempts from the provisions of the act those ocean mammals killed by Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts for their own use, as part of their native culture, or under the provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 or the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. There is, however, an absolute ban on the killing of polar bears by anyone, for these animals simply cannot bear any further depletion without the future existence of the species becoming jeopardized. Section 204 exempts from the act the humane capture of a reason- able number of these animals for medical and scientific research and for municipal and/or nonprofit zoos. Section 205 relates to forfeiture of vessels, skins, and other cargo in cases of violations of provisions of the act. Section 206 provides for enforcement of the act by the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and Transportation, and sec- tion 207 authorizes these Secretaries to issue enforcement regulations. Section 208 contains penalties for violations of title 11. Persons con- victed under the act for a first offense shall be subject to a maximum fine of $5,000, a term of imprisonment not to exceed 1 year, or both ; second offenses may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, a jail sentence of from 1 to 3 years, or both. Section 209 contains a repealer of title III of Public Law 89-702, "Protection of Sea Otters on the High Seas," since this law will be- come redundant after enactment of our legislation. Titles III and IV relate to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and the change as I indicated before. Mr. Chairman, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971 is a tough piece of legislation. In fact, it is the toughesit of all the meas- ures which are presently before this committee. Frankly, I am not ashamed of that, I am proud of it for these are the times which de- mand that strong hands take the helm. Herman Melville once wrote of the "great shroud of the sea which rolled on as it rolled 5,000 years ago." Today the legacy of that 5,000 years ago can be preserved and begim anew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Pryor, the committee is grateful to you for your very helpful and fine statement. The Chair wishes to commend you for your efforts in this area. Are there any questions for our colleague and friend, Mr. Pryor ? Mr. Potter. Mr. Pryor, as you may know, one of the problems that may be involved in the j^rotection of the Alaska fur seals is that the commercial fisheries which have developed in the Bering Sea tend, according to some information we have, to deplete the food on which the fur seals depend when they are up in the rookeries in the Pribilof s. If this is true, it suggests that the size of the herd is going to be tied to what is going on with the commercial fisheries, with the herring fleets and other fisheries in the Bering Sea. Do you feel that it would be useful to incorporate in any legislation to come from this committee a broader perspective, urging the Secre- tary of State to engage in a more comprehensive treatment of the problem, perhaps for the Bering Sea environmental system ? Mr. Pryor. I would think that the Secretary could engage in a find- ing of fact, a finding of the facts in establishing what actually is the true picture. i 83 I know there has been a ^reat deal of research in this field, and we see very contradictory numbei-s appearing constantly as to the popu- lation here, and of all of the ocean mammals. Basically, I do not know if I speak entirely for Senator Harris or the other very wonderful people who are instrumental in helping to draft, this legislation, but I think my basic instinct, and I believe would be now, that nature has worked its way over the centuries and the millions of years, and it is time to let nature work its way in this particular field. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. McCloskey ? Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question. You make an exception for municipal and nonprofit zoos. What is your feeling about a number of profitmaking institutions, such as the aquatic lands that we have in California and Florida? Mr. Pryor. We have no objections, Mr. McCloskey, to stretching this legislation and to treating this section to take care of what we would think a proper number of animals, for example, going to the Marinelands, and so forth, as may be the case in your own State of Cali- fornia, and certainly Mr. Rogers' State of Florida. I think that the legislation does have to be properly worded, but the intent of this basic legislation was not to deprive those particular institutions of bringing in a proper number of animals for the public use. Mr. McCloskey. Thank you. Mr. Dingell. Thank you very much, Mr. Pryor. Mr. Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The following was supplied for inclusion in the printed record:) Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., September 22, 1971. Mr. John Dingell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Longxvorth Building. Dear Mr. Chairman : I am forwarding for your attention and that of your Committee the signatures of more than 1100 people who have indicated their sup- port for HR 6558, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971. I recognize that space vn\\ not permit the inclu.slon of all these names in the Record, but I would be most grateful if the text of the petition and the receipt of the signatures could be duly noted in the Record of the hearings currently being conducted. With warm regards, I am Sincerely yours, David Pryor, Member of Congress. American Cetacean Society, Marina Del Rey, Calif., September 6, 1971. Hon. David Pryor, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. My Dear Sir : Enclosed are the signatures of more than 1100 people who vsdsh to go on record as backing H.R. 6558. (Previously we sent out the same kind of Petition of Interest on S. 1315 and have forwarded to Senator Harris almost 2,000 signatures. We recognize that there are some inequities in these companion bills, par- ticularly where commercial oceanariums are concerned. As a matter of note, the 84 San Diego chapter of the American Cetacean Society has voted against fur- thering either ball for that reason. However, we believe a platform of this sort from which to examine these problems is preferrable to finding that we have no problems because there are no longer enough animals left to create them. Amendments may be in order, but at least this is a start. If you have any suggestions for further action on our part, please let us know so that your Board may consider it. Yours truly, Bemi DeBus, Editor "Whalewatcher." Enclosure. petition of interest Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971 We, the undersigned, strongly support and urge passage of the Pryor-O'Hara bill, H.R. 6558, companion to the Harris bill, S. 1315, which would prohibit the killing or capturing of all whales, dolphins, seals, sea lions, otters, walruses, polar bears, and manatees, and which would ban the importation of any portion of them into the United States. [Signatures omitted.] Mr. DiNGELL. At this time we are very pleased to welcome the dis- tinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Edward A. Garmatz, for such statement as he chooses to give. The Chairman. Thank you very much. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that, during my 24 years as a Member of Congress, I have never before experienced the volume of mail I have been receiving on the subject of ocean mam- mals. During the past few months, a steady flow of letters and tele- grams has inundated my committee and congressional oiRces ; for the past few weeks, they have averaged 200 a day, and all of them express concern over the way which man is treating his fellow creatures of the earth — the ocean mammals. One of the most dominant themes of this mountain of correspond- ence relates to the controversial techniques used in killing the Alaskan fur seal on the Pribilof Islands. Almost everyone is aware that these seals are killed by a blow to the head, followed by a cutting of the artery. As a result of the furor raised by that method, the Department of Commerce formed a task force which conducted a study to determine if a more humane method of harvesting the seals could be devised. Just yesterday the Commerce Department held a press conference on the results of that study, and reported that the task force found the annual fur seal harvest is "humanely and efficiently conducted," but that a search for more acceptable methods would continue. I appreciate the Commerce Department's efforts in conducting this study, but I feel we should not close the door to outside experts. Ac- cordingly, I have asked Congressman Dingell — who will chair these hearings — to throw this entire subject open for close scrutiny and com- plete discussion. I think the committee should be relentless in its efforts to find the best possible solutions to the many problems concerning ocean mammals, and I know that Chairman Dingell will make certain that every bill pending before the committee will be given fair and thorough consideration. 85 Frankly, many of the problems reflected in the more than 30 bills pending before the committee are extremely complex ones; they will be difficult to cope with, and might take decades to resolve — even if everyone agreed to one solution. In the case of some of these mam- mals— such as whales and polar bears and others — the only ultimate solution lies in international agreements, if rare and endangered spe- cies are to be protected and preserved. But the fact that some of these problems are difficult and that others are even discouraging is no excuse for failing to make some honest effort to correct an intolerable situation. Man has already wasted too much time, and he has squandered too much of his heritage ; his brutality and stupidity and greed have left a sorry record, and resulted in the total elimination of many species. These hearings may be a small step, but they at least represent an honest effort to start giving, instead of taking, by developing a more intelligent and humane management of our world's li\dng resources. I do not envy the members of this subcommittee the formidable task they face in opening these hearings. But I do know that, if progress is to be made in protecting and conserving the world's ocean mammals, the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife is the appropriate com- mittee to lead the way in formulating a national policy that is sensible and practical. Thank you very much, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next witness is Miss Gretchen Wyler, World Federation for the Protection of Animals. STATEMENT OF MISS GRETCHEN WYLER, WORLD FEDERATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS Miss Gretchen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I would first like to read a statement from Ashley Montagu who, of course, is a world famed anthropologist, formerly regents professor of anthropology, Univer- sity of California, formerly head of professors of anthropology. Rut- gers University. He says, and I quote : To Whom It May Ooncem : May I add my voice in support of the Harris-Prj'or Bill. I am an anthropolo^st whose main interest has been the study of human nature, its origin, evolution, and present status. This has entailed the study of most living creatures. And from that stiidy I know that man is a part, an interconnected part, of the whole of animated nature ; that he is not superior to it, and that he was not created to preside over the lives of other creatures, but to live in harmony and under- standing with all of them. Any person who sets himself ahove any other creature, by that act diminishes his humanity, and becomes the kind of creature who thoughtlessly and vs-ithout feeling can take not only the life of another animal, but also that of another human being. The step is a very small one. Anyone capable of cruelty to animals is capable of cruelty to human beings. Brutality is brutality, and the more brutal when it is exhibited against defenseless animals than it is when exhibited against human beings who can, at least, defend themselves. To permit the senseless slaughter of animals is to encourage the dehumaniza- tion of man, to acquiesce in the growing callousness which permits one group of men to invest another group of men, and thus every man, with the qualities of an "animal," and without feeling to "waste" them. In this sense there are no "animals" in the .kingdom of animated nature, except the men who think and behave toward other creatures in so callous a manner. The plea I am making is not only for all other animals, and for seals in particu- lar, but also for all human beings. Now if I may, Mr. Chairman, I will read the statement from the World Federation for the Protection of Animals which is the largest international organization : In an age when even human life is not universally re.si)ecteect for non-human animals. However, in adding its support to this bill WFPA is expressing the will of 270 member societies in nearly 60 nations. The variety of wild animals which earlier generations took for granted will cease to exist in a short time if many species are not given wide protection from commercial and sports exploitation. The multiple pressures on animals, and their habitats, exerted by our technological and numerically exploding so- ciety cannot suddenly be stopped. While environmental scientists strive to modify and reduce the pressures, there is an imperative need to halt wanton and inten- tional destruction. Our American member societies will be reminding you of the nature of these pressures, and offering evidence of the mindless ways in which the animals un- der consideration are abused. It is not our present purpose to repeat facts which are mostly available to you at first-hand. Our intention is to underline the philosophy which lies at the root of this bill, and which is exactly in tune with the feelings of men of diverse cultures at this time. Although conservation is an obvious factor in the bill, the issues at stake are of infinitely greater import than the casual observer might realize. Beneath the widespread public outcries which increasingly attend the need- less and selfish killing of wild animals there is a "precious thread of sentiment." Sentiment is a word often dismissed as being worthless and irrational, but it is also the one expression of sensitivity which separates men from the absurd rationality of robots. A race of men which is devoid of sentiment for non-human animals is capable of destroying the world and all that lives here, without regret. The freedom to kill "wild animals," which are seemingly the property of no man, and yet the responsibility of all, is not an "inalienable right of man." This precept has been qualified to the extent that the killing shall be done in a manner which minimizes the degree of distress. It will be made clear that ocean mammals are not being slaughtered in ways which cause the "least possible distress." It will become equally clear, in the light of evidence from others, that in this age, practically no men need to kill the ocean mammals for their survival or their sustenance. Because these two criteria are not being met voluntarily, the Harris-Pryor bill has become es- sential to give legal substance to the moral indignation of all sensitive adults and young people. Some bills are too far ahead of their times and are rejected, until public opinion and science can make them seem "irresistible." Other bills, of which the Harris-Pryor bill is an example, may seem to be ahead of their time, but they concern events moving so rapidly as to deny the opportunity for more "lei- surely consideration" at a later date. There is a tide in the affairs of men, and as far as our relationship with wild animals is concerned, the flood is upon us. If this opportunity to exert a leader- ship over the minds and aspirations of men in America, and far beyond is missed, the initiative will either pass into other hands or the chance be lost forever. In 1966 the Soviet Minister of Fisheries, Alexander Ishkov, made the follow- ing statement, reported in Pravda. "The capture of dolphins is henceforth prohibited on the territories of the Soviet Union — I believe it will be possible to preserve the dolphins — ^their capture should be stopped in all the oceans of the world." So far, this appeal has fallen on stony ground and no government has given an lanswering caU. The Harris-Pryor bill is the first response to be put before any of the world's legislatures. It is a very able respon.se and worthy of a major ix)wer, for the bill provides for the protection of seals, \^hales, walruses, manatees, sea-cows, sea otters, sealions, polar bears land porpoises in addition to dolphins. The degree of protection required by this bill is equally audacious, because, although the measures will apply in the first instance to people, ships 87 and territory under the American jurisdiction, it will also prevent AmeriOan dollars from providing an incentive for killing elsew'here. Most significantly of all, the bill provides that negotiations should be under- taken with foreign governments to obtain international agreements to pro- vide a worldwide ban on the slaughter of ocean animals. All the benefits and opportunities afforded by the age of technology must be set at nought if those w'ho direct its course have not the wit nor the will- ingness to secure protection for a harmless and vulnerable section of non- human life. This bill does not aim to be fully comprehensive, and wisely con- centrates on animals occupying a particularly endangered habitat. It is, however, a very salutary beginning, and one which could inspire emulation by legislators in every advanced and developing country. Hear our plea, that the murder of ocean mammals, no matter how useful, be legally and morally banned. Surely compassion must accompany man's mastery over our fellow creatures. What a great step if this legislature could be responsible for the increase in virtue and decency, two very fine words, which unfortu- nately are seldom ever employed. Thank you very much. Mr. BiAGGi (presiding) . Mr. Keith ? Mr. Kefth. You represent a worldwide federation ? Miss Wyler. Well, I am a member of that, as I am with many others, yes. Mr. Keith. Ck)uld you describe the worldwide efforts that your federation has made, and what success you have had with other others. Miss Wyler. No, unfortunately, I cannot. I camiot list those things, Mr. Keith. They asked me to represent them today. I am a member of that, as I am a card-carrying member of about 12 animal welfare organizations. I am very active in humane work insofar as running an animal shelter and fighting on different fronts such as Federal spaying programs, humane slaughter, and so forth. I have been active in the W.F.P.A., but I am not familiar with the success of their efforts and perhaps someone else is. You might ask Miss Herrington from Friends of Animals, who asked me to represent the society. Mr. Keith. I think it would be helpful if we could find what other nations are doing. We do recognize interrelated problems, and our arguments to our colleagues on the floor would be greatly strengthened. Miss Wyler. If I may say, either on or off tlie record, that different groups say their only fear is if we stop, what will happen to all the other countries who will continue killing ? This is a personal statement, but I feel if the alternative is doing nothing, then I tliink we must take that first step. I think it simply is wrong for us to believe that there are no other comitries as humanely inclined as we. For us to take that first major step, I think is imjwrtant for us to consider. Mr. BiAGOi. Perhaps you can have your organization submit for the record the efforts you have made with this particular objective in mind. Miss Wyler. I will, and hopefuUy it will be an impressive record. Mr. Pelly. Will the gentleman yield ? 67-765 O— 71 7 88 Mr. KJETTH. I yield. Mr. Pelly. I tliink those of us on the committee who had a part in the legislation to protect the endangered species would like to have some sort of report back as to how effective it has been, and whether we are geitting the cooperation of other nations. I think it is hig"My important that we have this in the record. Miss Wyler. I am sure you shall have it by tomorrow. (The information referred to was not received by the committee at the time these hearings were printed. ) Mr. BiAGGi. Our next witness is Miss Alice Herrington, Friends of Animals, New York City. STATEMENT OF ALICE HERRINGTON, FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, NEW YORK CITY; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT C. McCANDLESS, COUN- SEL, LEWIS REGENSTEIN, WASHINGTON COORDINATOR, AND VICTOR LOSICK, CAMERAMAN AND FILM EDITOR Miss Herrington. Mr. Chairman, distinguished mem^bers of the committee. I have prepared a very voluminous document. I think it is pride of authorship and it warrants your reading it very carefully and with your permission, I would like to have it put into the record in full. Mr. BiAGGi. We will put it into the record as though you have read it, Miss Herrington, and you may proceed with other remarks. Miss Herrington. I would appreciate it since I have a great many scientific quotations and quotations from government reports. I have asked Mr. McCandless, our counsel, to join me here at the witness table in the event you have any questions about Mr. Pryor's amendment today which we feel should pull the rug out from under the criticism of this bill and let it go forward as an expression of the enumerology. Now with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will hand my state- ment to your reporter so that it may be included in the record. Mr. BiAGGi. The reporter is instructed to copy the statement into the record as though read. You may proceed. Miss Herrington. Miss Herrington. Thank you for this opportunity to speak for the mammals of the oceans, to plead for the protection offered them by H.K. 6558, the measure sponsored by Representative David Pryor and cosponsored by a fifth of the Members of this body, and to oppose H.R. 10420, the "management bill" introduced by Represent- ative Glenn Anderson. To get the negativism out of the way first, I wish to explain our opposition to H.R. 10i20. On its face, and admittedly, it is a "manage- ment" bill. It provides that we set up a new and expensive bu- reaucracy, to study, consult, and report to the old bureaucracy, the Department of Commerce, which would be authorized to issue "per- mits" for the "harvest" of the "managed" species. The large numbers of people for whom I speak are very clearly and very strongly opposed to "management" and "harvest." What we are for is very simple : We believe that the ocean mammals should be left alone. They should be neither harassed, killed, managed, nor harvegted. 89 Leonardo da Vinci is quoted as saying : "The time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men." This prediction was correct. That time has arrived ; the great mass of Americans, now aware of the brutality being inflicted upon innocent animals, have demanded that the laws of this country reflect this new morality of the people. The animals belong to all the people and that they are loved by the people was dramatically displayed just 3 weeks ago when 47 whales beached themselves in Boca Grande, Fla. A swarm of teenagers came to their rescue, lugged and coaxed them back into the waters, straddled their backs and guided them to safety in the Gulf of Mexico. Simultaneously, in the Pacific, an American whaling fleet, its ac- tivities licensed by Secretary of Commerce Stans, was, and is, engaged in the horror of planting bombs in whales by the hundreds, exploding them into cat meat. Three weeks ago, a fishery biologist for the National Marine Fish- eries Service told the Associated Press that an estimated 200,000 porpoises die accidentally every year in the nets of American tuna fishermen in the eastern tropical Pacific. May I note that 200,000 porpoise deaths is extremely high to be called "accidental" and say that it is unconscionable that our Government permits the use of these nets which are as much as i^-mile long and 300 feet deep. With the passage of the Harris-Pryor bill this "accidental" slaughter of por- poises will be eliminated. Four weeks ago a marine biologist for the Alaska Departinent of Fish and Game told the Associated Press that the decomposing car- casses of hundreds of walrus littering shores in northwest Alaska were some of the animals lost during the spring hunt. He said that of the an- nual slaughter of about 11,700 walrus, fully half are lost due in large part to the method of himting. He said some hunters fire at random into the herds. Wounded amimals sometimes escape but do not live long. I append a Canadian reporter's account of these senseless massacres of friendly, gentle walrus in the Bering Sea. The slaughter is done almost entirely for the ivory tusks and must be stopped. Another news story of 3 weeks ago is a shocker which I don't believe has appeared in U.S. papers. It was issued by the British agency, Reuters, from Christchurch, New Zealand. I should like to read ver- batim the account which appeared in the Montreal Star on August 23 : ■U.S. scientists will study seals and their iwpulation and migration patterns during the approaching research season in the Antarctic, according to the U.S. research program. The study is aimed at eventual seal-hunting in the Antarctic as seal popula- tions diminish elsewhere. D. B. Siniff of the University of Minnesota will con- duct a study of the seals October 28-January 28. Investigations by Siniff and his assistants will include the use of radio telem- etry and underwater televisian techniques at Hutton Cliffs, near McMuirdO Station. Tracked vehicles with receiving equipment will be used to pinpoint the posi- tion of seals which have radio transmitters attached to their flippers. Helicopters will also be used for tracking seals. While it may be refreshing to hear an official admission that the seal populations are decreasing, one must ask : Are animals nowhere safe from the monstrous ministrations of man ? Will we shortly be told that the purpose of this invasion of the Antarctic is to save the seals from starvation and disease resulting from overcrowding — ^the same 90 insiilting-to-the-intelligence justification given for the murder of the Pribilof seals and the Amchitka otters? Is there no end to the waste of the public's money — this one must be many, many millions — for such research boondoggles? The polar bear — an animal near extinc- tion— is accorded similar treatment and since 1968 half a million dol- lars of our taxpayers' money have been spent in harassing them. The animals are shot with anesthetizing darts from moving aircraft with high-powered rifles. Some are killed outright. Others are consigned to harassment or a slow death by the weight of the transmitters hung about their necks. The purpose of the exercise is to put out statistics to show that there are plenty of bears for trophy hunters to pursue. Tlie seals on the Pribilof Islands have been similarly harassed and it appears that so long as radio transmitters are manufactured you will have men who will hang them on some helpless animal, even though they proved long ago that the effect is death. The cost of all this in animal suffering is immeasurable ; the cost in taxpayers' money must be tremendous. We suggest the money, at least, be measured with an open accounting in the Congress of the type and purpose of all so- called research grants, with no money accorded to these animal- tracking projects. The harassment and murder of the oceans' mammals is an indict- ment of our Government and its policies. We are therefore grateful that your committee is now acting to change those policies. Whatever the final wording of the bill released by your committee, we ask — on behalf of the animals and the people of this country — that three principles be retained. They are : 1. A total ban on the importation into the United States of all prod- ucts, raw or finished, from any ocean mammal — sealskin coats, polar bear rugs, whale, dolphin, and porpoise meat for dog and cat food ; walrus tusks, suede leather from baby harp seals, and other such frivolous and unnecessary commodities. Such a ban would immediately remove much of the economic incentive for other countries to kill marine mammals since the United States is a major market for these products. 2. A ban on Americans killing ocean mammals anywhere in the world, including the "accidental" killing of porpoises by fishermen. There must be no loopholes allowing for the "taking" of any marine mammal in the name of "management." There must be no delegation of authority to any agency for the issuance of permits to kill for any purpose, since this would legitimize the present situation and condone in principle the further suffering of these intelligent and highly evolved creatures. 3. The third requisite of the bill which must be retained is the man- date of our State Department to vigorously negotiate a truly interna- tional treaty for a halt to the slaughter of ocean mammals. The State Department's opposition to this bill based on its reluctance to even try to achieve a new treaty is shocking to me and I should think to most Americans. We believe that our country is a major power capable of influencing other nations. However fine a treaty negotiated 60 years ago, in this period of rapid changes in the ocean environment and di- minishing wildlife, the State Department must be forced to do more, if future generations are to see animals outside of a museum for extinct species. 91 Jacques Cousteau, whose important endorsement of this bill was presented by Mr. Pryor, estimated on the basis of his own undersea observation that ocean life has decreased by 40 percent in the last 20 years. Commenting on this statistic, Dr. George M. Woodwell, an ecologist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, said, "We scien- tists are just about the last to come across any real proof. But my guess is that Cousteau is dead right." The pollution of the rivers with DDT, mercury, and other chemicals means that the oceans into which the rivers flow are fast becoming the final cesspool of most of man's activities. Dr. Cousteau says flatly, "The oceans are dying while so- ciety adopts an ostrich policy.'" Certainly the pollution and oil slicks are making survival for the oceans' mammals extremely difficult without adding to it the sense- less slaughter for commercial gain and "sportsmen's" pleasure. To those who subscribe to the outmoded belief that the animals are here solely for man's use, we suggest they preserve the mammals as a barometer of the ocean's viability much as miners use canaries to test air quality. Even the Department of the Interior suggests this with their new slogan, "When wildlife tries to tell us something we had better pay attention. That which pollutes the habitat of any living thing pollutes the environment of all living things." The relatively new field of ecology expresses a new humility, a will- ingness to admit that the interrelationships of all living things are so complex we cannot possibly know how many of any given species is needed. This is particularly true of the mysterious oceans, and yet the opponents of this bill — the National Rifle Association, the sports- hunters, and commercial interests, not to mention the multitude of bureaucrats involved in the research boondoggles and the massacres, put their argument on the side of "scientific management." While we will concede that biologists succeed very well in breeding some species of wildlife and stimulating the populations of other land animals — quail, turkey, elk, deer, and other so-called game species — their management abilities simply do not apply to ocean mammals. No one can breed a seal, a whale, a walrus — nor do anything to increase their populations — except to stop killing them. Man has not stopped the forces of nature. The inability to manage nature, even a single species, is found in this statement of a biologist employed in Com- merce's seal kill operation : Wildlife populations cannot be managed with the same precision as domestic populations. We have no direct control of natural mortality (which determines survival ) , from birth to the age of reproduction which is one of the most critical factors in managing a wildlife species. The full statement of this Government biologist is submitted to the chairman. It is highly interesting in that, after describing the failure of the kills on the Pribilofs to achieve maximum sustainable yield — maximum number of skins — he tries to get the exercise in mayhem out from under by describing it as an experiment in the population dynamics of fur seals. Then he pays token to nature's powers by saying that with a cessation of killing females an increase in the population should take place, but adds this chilling qualification, and I quote, "if environmental conditions are the same now as they were in the late 1920's." 92 We can but hope that the ocean mammal populations will revive again as they did following the 1911 treaty to discontinue pelagic seal- ing, the killing of seals in the open waters. But what brought the revival of this species was not only the cessation of their slaughter in the open waters, but also on land. For 7 years they were not killed commercially by the four nations involved in the agreement. A second respite was accorded ocean mammals, during the forced moratorium on their killing during the Second World War. As a result, not only did the whales, seals, and other ocean mammals revive, but the oceans recovered their health as evidenced by the vast increase in fish of all variety as well. This proportionate increase of fish and mammals suggests that when the mammals of the oceans are gone, there will be no more fish. No one knows why, but it is a fact that the salmon follow the Alaskan seals and are captured in the fishing nets of the Japanese and Koreans. The tmia follow the porpoise and both tuna and porpoise are caught in the nets of the fishermen. Again, the mammals are clearly needed to keep the oceans viable. It is only within the past few decades that man has interested him- self in the behavior patterns of species other than his own. And the scientists engaged in this field have found that the other animals too have close personal, family, and social relationships and structures. The porpoise caught in the net will not leave the side of a mate or infant even if prodded to do so ; a school of whales will follow one of their members harpooned by a whaling fleet and thus offer themselves, through family fidelity, to a wholesale massacre ; the mother seal stays by the skinned carcass of her baby for days at a time. The murder of any one of these sentient creatures leaves behind a wake of distress in the whole commune of the species. The slaughter of harp and Alaskan seals has been widely publicized because these highly organized massacres lend themselves most readily to documentary films and public exposure. The world is outraged over the slaughter of seals, both in the Atlantic and on the Pribilofs — and demands a halt to both. The baby seal, one of nature's friendliest and most appealing creatures, is the object of a gruesome massacre each spring in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Northwest Atlantic. Ask- ing you to look at this slaughter from the point of view of the seals, I would like to quote verbatim from an article in the New York Times last March. Since I stood next to the reporter, I can testify as to the accuracy of his account : A mother seal threw herself protectively across the body of her pup. When the man who had clubbed it returned to skin the pup, the mother stood fast, A second hunter, then a third, came up to within a foot or two of the mother. It maintained its protective position, resting on its front flippers, its head thrust up and forward, facing the danger. Finally, a man approached from the side. With a quick, darting motion he waved his club within inches of the mother's head, then jerked it back. The seal turned on the man. He backed away. The seal, using its flippers in a pull-push motion, moved slowly and awkwardly over the ice in pursuit. Meanwhile, two hunters had dragged the pup away. The mother turned and tried to give chase but again could not catch up. It stopped and watched the lost pup for a moment. Then it turned, crept to the edge of the ice, and dived into the water. The mother seals that are driven off bounce up and down in the water holes like a macabre ballet, watching helplessly the murder of their nursing babies. At the end of the day as the killers disappear from the scene the mothers crawl back on the ice, each to nuzzle the 93 bloody, lifeless carcass of her own pup. This year, in Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence, some 45,000 baby seals were killed in this manner. Nor do the adults escape the fury of the hunters in the Northwest Atlantic where both the Norwegian and Canadian icebreakers roam. They are clubbed, speared, and shot. In 1971, a gentlemen's agreement fixed the number to be dealt with in this way at 245,000 harp seals. But, to obtain this number many more were wounded or killed and lost under the ice. In pelagic sealing sometimes as few as one in five shot is recovered. As a matter of fact, the United States carried out its own pelagic sealing in the name of "research" in the Pacific in 1968. That year, employees of our Department of the Interior shot and captured 824 seals, primary females, ostensibly for the purpose of finding out what seals eat and certifying the pregnancy rates. But to obtain those 824 seals another 3,586 seals were shot, killed, or wounded and lost. There can be no doubt that our own country^ shares a great deal of blame for the senseless killing done by other nations. By providing a major market for sealskin coats and the suede leather obtained from baby seals, we have made the seal kill economically worthwhile and have encouraged this carnage. Arguments that the harp seals are killed to prevent overcrowding are nonsense. The press release from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Forestry which announced the opening of the slaughter last March admitted that there had been an overkill in the North Atlantic in recent years, and that the herd that arrived off Labrador was, and I quote, "seriously depleted." Canada's own figures indicate that the size of the herd has been reduced within the last 20 years from 5 million to li^ million — a depletion of about 70 percent. The South Africans also carry on a baby seal kill for the benefit of the LT.S. fur industry. An Associated Press article which appeared in many papers in August 1971, described how some 80,000 baby seals are "harvested." They are beaten on the head witli clubs, stabbed with a stiletto, and then skinned, presumably while their terrified mothers look on in helpless agony. According to the article, the baby seals are killed because their pelts bring some $1.4 million on the U.S. market, where they are later processed and sold as sealskin coats. The slaughter may still be continuing at this very moment wliile we sit here deliberat- ing our guilt. Not only does our country encourage other nations to kill seals, but our Government, I am ashamed to say, has its very own official seal- killing operation. In July and August, on the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea oif Alaska, tens of thousands of Alaskan fur seals are driven inland until their lungs are bursting and then clubbed to death by employees of the U.S. Government, formerly of the Department of Interior, now the Department of Commerce. In the summer of 1970, 1 spent 10 days on the Island of St. Paul, one of the Pribilofs. Accompanying me were two professional filmmakers,- Tom By waters and Victor Losick. On June 25, the island manager, Eoy Hurd, drove us to the Zapadni liauling grounds. From notes written while I was on the island, these are some of my observations : By our time of arrival at the hauling grounds (5:20 a.m.) virtually all of the seast me toward the water with blood streaming from the socket where an eye had been socketl loose. Tliis .same .seal had fish net embedded in its coat, which, I wa.s told, was the reason for not chasing it. The fur is not valuable commercially when it has been mangled with fish net. The terror of the seals during the long hours of waiting and watching the murder of their friends and relatives was pathetic, the ultimate in sadistic treatment. Mr. Hurd gave as the reason for driving the seals from the hauling grounds all at one time, the cost of employing more men to stand guard to pre- vent escape into the siea. At this point, may I briefly address myself to the Commerce Depart- ment's defense of their "sealing operation ?"' 1. They claim, first of all, that clubbing the seals to death is the most "himiane" way of killing them. To use the word "humane" in this context is a perversion of language and reality, but I do not wis!h to argue over how the seals are killed. The point is that there is no justi- ficaJtion for killing these intelligent, highly-evolved creatures: seal- skin coats are hardly a necessity to our society. '2. The Commerce Department continuously emphasizes that the size of the Pribilof seal herd has risen from 200,000 seals in 1911 to ap- proximately 1.3 million today. But to compare 1971 with 1911 is an entirely spurious size of the herd, and this is given in an official ac- count as exceeding 5 million. Encyclopedia Americana, volume 24, pages 480 to 485, article by Seton Thompson, Chief, Division of Alas- kan Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The same article gives an estimate for 1948, the period following the Second World War moratorium on killing, as about 4 million. Hence, if the herd today is 1.3 million, as Commerce claims, then the size of the Alaskan herd has decreased — not increased — by about 75 percent. It should be noted that the Russians have stated publicly that there is a "serious depletion in the once-huge herd." And since there is great intermingling, according to Interior's reports, between the seals which breed on the Eussian Islands and those which breed on the Pribilofs, it is clear that the Pribilof herd is also seriously depleted. But the bureaucrats employed in the Pribilof operation will be the last to admit this. Their tactics with the public — and the Congress^- bring to mind the old cliche, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." For example, the manager of the program, William Peck, on return- ing to the States after this year's kill, told a Seattle Times reporter, and I quote, "Births on the islands show no downward trend." He said this even though he knows very well that there has been a stag- gering 52-percent decrease in births over the past 10 years. I append the official statistics. The Seattle Times reports that "this year's take of fur seals in the Pribilofs totaled 31,847 skins, compared with 42,179 a year ago." 95 The number to be killed this year, announced by the Commerce in early June, was 40,000. This stimulated us to prepare a table, based on Government data, to show that if 40,000 seals are killed in this summer of 1971, 9,000 would again have to be female. We credit this circula- tion of this table with having spared the lives of females with pups in the breeding rookeries. In its publicity. Commerce assures the public that baby and mother seals are not killed, only "surplus bachelor males."' But in this once vast herd, now reduced to a pitiful remnant of its former size, there are, of course, no "surplus" seals. Moreover, mother and baby seals are killed by the tens of thousands. Victor Sheffer, the Interior Department biologist who used to super- vise the kill, states in his book, the "Year of the Seal" (p. 108) : "In a recent decade, 250,000 females of breeding age were killed on the Pribilofs." He also notes that their pups inevitably die of starvation. In 1968, in the face of a rapidly declining birth rate, the bureaucrats again sent the Aleuts into the breeding rookeries to kill 11,594 females, all of whom had pups, all of whom were pregnant. And then they have the audacity to tell the public that their purpose is to spare seals the suffering of disease and starv^ation. The purposes, patently, was to obtain more skins. And, given the fact that 42 bureaucrats are employed year-round in Seattle and another 50 or so full or part-time in Washington, D.C., whose salaries are supposed to be paid from the sale of sealskins, such a sacrifice of the animals for their own welfare should be anticipated. We are pleased to submit to the chairman photocopies of the Bureau of the Budget's detailed report showing that Pribilof expenditures exceeded income by over $2 million in 1970. The bureaucrats grow desperate over such a deficit. That the bureaucrats' claims to scientific management are pure pub- licity puffery and that the Alaskan seal herd is, as the Russians claim, "seriously depleted," is revealed by the disparities in their own data, quoted below. The photocopies of pages from Government reports, noted as exhibits, are appended to the copy of this report given the chairman. Keeping in mind that in July of this year 31,847 seals were killed on the Pribilofs, or as the bureaucrats would phrase it, "the maxi- mum 1971 yield was 31,847 skins," prior year's reports state variously : "Approximately 50,000 pelts from males and 10,000 from females are taken annually." (Exhibit J, June 1970.) "From 1970 to 1967 the herd has provided an average 58,758 male sealskins." (Exhibit K, published April, 1970.) The same report (exhibit L) states: "50,000 to 65,000 young males are harvested annually." ( Note males. ) The report on the 1968 kill, printed in December 1970, gives data as follows : Exhibit N: 44,292 males, ages 2 to 6; 1,333 young males, age unde- termined. Exhibit O : 13,335 females (all but 36 of breeding age)— pages 76-78. Exhibit P : 698 females taken pelagically, 126 males taken pelagi- cally. Exhibit Q : 3,568 seals wounded or killed and lost in pelagic sealing; 63,370 total, including pelagic sealing; 58,960 total, killed on Pribilofs (including females) ; 45,625 total, males only, killed on Pribilofs. 96 In any responsible compilation of population of ocean mammals, the numbers of seals of breeding age is vital. The inclusion of pups to pad a herd total is a deceptive practice since, again to quote Government data, the survival of pups is often as low as 15 percent. Therefore, to achieve a realistic estimate of herd size, we took Gov- ernment data on the headcount of adult males in 1968 and published it in the New York Times as follows : 7,924 harem bulls ; 4,383 idle males, 316,960 females of breeding age — an average of 40 per harem bull — total 329,960. This prompted Senator Kennedy to make an in- quiry of the Department of Commerce which responded that our ad- vertisement "contains many misstatements and distortions regarding the condition of the Pribilof Islands seal herd" but simultaneously admitted that the breeding population is about one-quarter of their estimated 1.3 million herd total. One-quarter of 1.3 million is 325,000 seals of breeding age. Our published figure, then, was deceptive only in being high by about 5,000 seals. However, that was 1968 data and obviously the number of mature seals has decreased significantly during that 3-year period, following the trend which I quote here from the 1968 year report : The total number of adult males counted on the Pribilof Islands in July, 1968, has decreased annually since 1961. [exhibit G] . . . the number of harem and idle males counted in 1968 represents 63 percent and 37 percent, respectively, of the number counted in 1962. [exhibit G.]. Another ploy by which these bureaucrats attempt to support their positions as "scientific managers" is "managed pup production." Since it is done by slaughtering breeding females, it is also termed a "manipulation of the population". Its expressed purpose, and I quote from Commerce's letter to Senator Kennedy, is to "achieve the level of abundance that will provide the maximum sustainable yield" — ^the yield being skins. Gentlemen, I repeat that this is a gross prevarication of the most despicable sort. The bureaucrats have been aware for a long time that the herd is in trouble. Their slaughter of breeding females was solely to obtain more skins. For a time their reports gave this new embar- rassing information : iBy the time the United States purchased Alaska, the Pribilof herd had re- covered to the point it sustained an annual harvest of 100,000 males for many years, [exhibit H.] That this statistic of 100,000 skins is embarrassing to them is found in a report to the Honorable John D. Dingell (exhibit EE) , where the figure is expressed only as several thousand. It is many, many years since their "managed pup production" produced a "maximum sustain- able yield" of 100,000 male sealskins. In 1971 their proven abiliti^ produced 31,847 skins, some of which were certainly females. May I also point out that in our Government's seal massacre, wliich the Conunerce Department describes as a model of conservation, it is not the old and the diseased seals that are killed, as nature provides for in its law of survival of the fittest. Rather, the healthiest seals are killed, those whose pelts will make the most attractive, unblemished sealskin coats. Commerce also defends the seal kill on the basis of employment for the Aleuts. But the Harris-Pryor bill would give them an oppor- tunity to develop the Pribilofs as a tourist attraction. 97 To emphasize the reality of this proposal, I should like to read a comment I received a week ago from no less an authority than Lars-Eric Lindblad, organizer of extraordinary tours to places like the Arctic, the Amazon, Darwin's Galapagos, and many others: Wildlife everywhere in the world is increasingly becoming a big money earner — not as furs or as meat, but as a target for photographers and nature- lovers of which there are millions. The Aleut natives would benefit to a much greater extent from the tourists who could be induced to come to the Islands than they would from being butchers of these beautiful fur seals. How many women will buy coats and other garments made of the skins of wild animals in years to come? It is definitely becoming unfashionable to wear furs. It is time for the Department of the Interior to switch the economy of the Pribilofs from killing the seals to making a fabulous tourist attraction. It is not difficult to do and within a few years 'the Government could stop or reduce their subsidies to the Aleuts. Mr. Linblad's point that now is the time to examine other employ- ment for the Aleuts, tourism or otherwise, is one which should be transmitted to the appropriate agencies. Certainly, these people orig- inally sent as slaves to the Pribilofs by the Russians should no longer be forced to do their demeaning work. Another justification for the slaughter, subscribed to by many simple fishermen and the U.S. Department of State, is the fact that seals eat fish, fish which are wanted, mind you, for the profit of fish- ermen, even though they may be discarded as was the case, by the ton, last summer in Alaska. We will certainly concede that seals eat fish, but again we point to the lack of knowledge of the interrelationship of living creatures and cite again the fact that the salmon follow the seals to their breed- ing grounds, which must surely indicate that with the disappearance of the ocean mammals, there may well be no more fish. Even the De- partment of the Interior is willing to admit a certain humility in this field, and I quote from an official report : Considering the volume and frequency of occurrence of commercially im- portant fishes found in fur seal stomachs, and our limited knowledge of the ocean environment and its ecology, we believe the effects of predation on food species with economic value are impossible to assess with any degree of con- fidence. [Exhibit Y.] News of this limited knowledge of the interrelationships of seals and fish should be the subject of a massive educational campaign with fishermen, particularly those in Alaska, where the hair seal, which has a limited economic value, is the object of a sustained effort to eliminate it through such methods as dynamiting and shooting. Harbor seals around the coasts of our mainland are accorded similar treatment, and at least one State — Oregon — employs a man to shoot all seals on sight. This brutality and lack of respect for nature and her creatures must be brought to an end, and only the Harris-Pryor bill will do it. An animal very much endangered due to its persecution by fur hunters and fishermen is the charming sea otter. It is so rare now off the coast of California that the abalone fishermen who formerly killed it on sight have occasion to regret tlieir black deeds. With the disappearance of the otter, a voracious eater of sea urcliins, the latter population has exploded so as to consume the giant kelp, mainstay of abalone and other fish. Now, human deep sea divers are employed in an unsuccessful effort to replace the sea otters in killing the urchins. 98 On Amchitka Island in the Bering Sea where the sea otter popula- tion revived following a ban on their slaughter — and where they may again be decimated if the October atomic test takes place — our Federal Government is again conducting what they call "an experimental harvest" using the same worn excuse that it is for the benefit of the otters. Are these biologists so simple they are unaware that when an animal population 'becomes too large in one area, a process of migra- tion begins — and that the migration of these otters to other areas is desirable? Frankly, such simplicity is doubted. It is evident once again that our Government cannot resist the dollars that this friendly animal's pelt brings. Nor can the Federal biologists resist the opportunity — given by the same dollars — to "experiment*' with killing these animals for the sake of making perfectly spurious tables of birth and death rates. Most people are aware of nature's generosity — that she increases the birth rate when there are too few of a species, and that she also decreases the rate when there are sufficient for her purposes. The magnificent whale, for example, which has no natural enemies — man being an unnatural enemy — has a built-in birth-control system which is pure perfection — except for this speeies' inability to survive in the face of man's greed. Unless drastic and immediate action is taken, several of the larger species of whales will soon be reduced in numbers to a point at which their extinction will become less inevitable. Eventually, if the pres- ent whale hunting trend continues, most other whales, including the porpoises and the dolphins, may also disappear. This impending tragedy can and must be prevented. Whales are among the most intelligent and highly evolved of all the world's crea- tures, in some respects very much like their fellow- human mammals. Many of these warm-blooded, air-breathing mammals are monoga- mous; they nurse their young and usually bear a calf every 2 years. They "cry" in agony when they are wounded by a harpoon; and the "song" that the humpback whales sing is so beautiful and intrica,te that it has inspired a symphony and been made into a j^wpular record album. There have been many incidents in which a whale has been har- pooned or captured by a boat, and its family has followed it or waited offshore for its return for days and weeks at a tinie. Whalers have taken advantage of this protective and highly social characteristic by harpooning baby whales, towing them into the whaling station on shore, and then butchering the entire family or even the herd which faithfully follows along. According to history and legend, man's relationship with whales has, until comparatively recent times, been a quite friendly one. The prophet Jeremiah made reference to these "monsters of the sea" and the whale, which the Bible tells us swallowed Jonah, not only did him no harm, but also saved him from drowning. Paintings and woodprints from early seafaring peoples show ancient sailing ships followed and surromided by playful, friendly whales. Countless sea legends abound in which dolphins are credited with sav- ing the lives of drowning people. 99 Naturalist Tom Garrett has described how primitive peoples living in coastal areas and along large rivers have traditionally utilized whales as part of their culture, using cooperative dolphins to herd fish into their nets, or even to protect them from dangers such as piranha fish. Historical accounts describe this relationship as being so close that the native peoples have violently resisted efforts of scientists to obtain dolphin specimens. Of all the whales now disappearing, perhaps the most tragic loss is that of the mighty blue whale — ^the largest creature ever to inhabit the earth. The blue whale is so closely related to man that it has a nearly identical body temperature and a remarkably similar brain, eye, and circulatory system. Since these whales have vestigial hipbones which are unconnected to the rest of the skeleton, there has been speculation that its ancestors once inhabited the land, returning to the sea in pursuit of food, or, ironically, protection. It is difficult to conceive of the enormity of this "leviathan," but Asso- ciated Press writer John Barbour describes its size in graphic terms : Nothing on earth has ever matched its size. It is larger than 30 elephants; larger than the combined size of three of the largest dinosaurs that ever lived. It weighs more than 2,000 people, a small town. Its heart weighs 1,200 pounds, its liver a ton, its tongue more than one-third ton. The Blue Whale calf nurses for seven months, taking in as much as 1,000 pounds of milk per day. Yet, this gentle creature has a throat so small that it cannot swallow any fish larger than a sardine. At the beginning of this century, the blue whale population was over 1 00,000. Today, a mere few hundred at most survive worldwide — some estimates go as high as 3,000. There is serious doubt that enough males and females will be able to find each other over the great expanse of the ocean to enable the species to breed and perpetuate itself. At the present time, other whale species which are gravely threat- ened include the humpback, sei, finback, bowhead, sperm, gray, and right whales. The asiatic gray whale population has apparently disappeared ; and the largest known colony of nominally protected southern right whales was wiped out "to the last mother and infant" in 1962 by a whaling fleet off Tristan da Cunha. The state of depletion of the ocean's whale population was vividly demonstrated during Sir Francis Chichester's recent voyage around the world, during which he saw only one solitary whale. A few years earlier, almost daily encounters with these curious and friendly crea- tures would not have been unusual. Our Government is clearly implicated in this tragedy. As a major importer of whale meat — used for dog and cat food and on muik farms — and whale oil, used in paint, transmission oil, tanning leather, and cosmetics, the United States has helped to generate the demand for whales and thus encouraged their indiscriminate slaughter. While Japan and the Soviet Union account for most of the world's whaling, the United States consumes almost a third of the take. Walter Hickel's last act as Secretary of the Interior was to place the eight large whale species on Interior's endangered species list, thus 100 banning the import of their products into this country. This action, unfortunately, came too late to have much of an effect. In praising this gesture, the New York Times pointed out : The magnificent Blue whale may already have passed the i)oint of no return and he headed irreversibly towards extinction. The rare Grey, Humpback, and Bowhead whales are also gravely threatened — and all in the interest of such vital products as cat food. If whales had been placed on the Interior Department's endangered list a few years earlier, it is probable that whales would not be in the tragic situation they are in today. Such a step would have been consistent with the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, the intent of which is to prevent such con- ditions before they occur. It should be emphasized that at the present time, only eight species of whales are banned from import into the United States. The remaining 80-some varieties may continue to be hunted, killed, and imported, presumably until they, too, reach the brink of extinction. The whaling industry is already anticipating the day when there will be no more large whales left to "harvest." They will be replaced by dolphins and porpoises — among the most friendly and intelligent species of whales — which are already being killed in extraordinary numbers. Last year, the Japanese are estimated to have "taken" some 200,000 dolphins and porpoises, with perhaps an equal or greater number being caught in nets and inadvertently killed by Japanese and American fishermen. According to Prof. Kenneth Norris, director of the Oceanic Insti- tute at the Makapuu Ocean Center in Hawaii, these creatures will soon face the same danger of extinction as the larger whales, since they can be used as a substitute for traditional types of whale meat in dog and cat food. Our current attitude toward dolphins contrasts sharply with man's cooperative relationship with them in the past. Pliny the Elder has described how the ancient Greeks used dolphins to lead them to schools of fish and then shared their catch with these friendly cetaceans. Ac- cording to Pliny, the dolphins even waited in the area until the follow- ing day to be rewarded for their efforts with bread dipped in wine.. The practice of modern tuna fleets is similar, except that the dol- phins are picked up by the nets, along with the fish, and killed. The real tragedy of this situation is that whales are being killed quite unnecessarily. As Senator Fred Harris pointed out when he introduced our bill to protect whales and other ocean mammals : For the sake of money — primarily the American dollar — these animals are subjected to massive brutality and slaughter. There is no product from any of these creatures which is essential for human survival or welfare. Each has a readily available substitute. The informational organization which has the responsibility for regulating whaling and setting quotas which will not deplete the species is the International Whaling Commission, IWC. This body, however, has been so dominated by the commercial interest groups that it has allowed whales to be slaughtered far beyond any reasonable limit. The IWC has often been charged w4th greed and shortsighted- ■ 101 ness in allowing the primary source of income of its members to be wiped out rather than adopting the sustained yield concept. Lately, however, a new theory has gained credence wiiich does, in fact, make more sense, namely that the whaling interests which control the IWC decided some time ago that it would be more profitable for the whaling industry to kill off the world's remaining \Vhales and take a short-term gain rather than to kill a limited number every year over an indefinite period. The conclusion that such a decision was intentionally made is almost inescapable : It does not seem possible that the IWC could have been unaware of what effect its quotas were having on the whale herds. We are now presented with the opportunity to help save the world's remaining whales, but we must act quickly. If we do not promptly take the lead in providing protection to these unique and awe-inspiring creatures, they will soon vanish from the seas forever. Another ocean species which is gravely threatened is the polar bear. According to the authoritative red data book of endangered species, the worldwide polar bear population in 1966 was between 5,000 to 1 0,000, with about 1,300 a year being killed. Even though the polar bear is rapidly disappearing, Alaska's Fish and Game Dej)artment still permits its hunting by airplane. According to Jack Lentfer of Alaska's Fish and Game Department, "airplane hunting amounts to one plane driving the bear to another plane and the hunter." By the time the hunter is ready to shoot the bear, it is completely terrified and exhausted. The Soviet Union, which has the main denning areas of the bears, has protected them since 1957, and blames the United States for hunt- ing this magnificent animal practically to the point of extinction as it migrates from Russia to Alaska. We certainly deserve the charge of killing off the bears which Russia protects. Conservationists have long urged the U.S. Department of the Interior to place the polar bear on its Endangered Species List. Earlier this year. Friends of Animals, Inc., brought a suit to force its listing. Interior has refused to do so, and gave the court as its reason this mind-boggier: The Russians are so assiduous in protecting the polar bear that there remain plenty for American "sportshunter" to kill. Therefore, the Harris- Pryor bill is now the main hope of survival for the polar bear. Mr. Chairman, we can no longer plead ignorance. We all know what is happening to the ocean mammals, and we must all share a portion of the blame for its perpetuation. A decade ago, the great naturalist and humanitarian, Joseph Wood Krutch, wrote an article entitled "Human Life in the Context of Nature," which I request be printed in full. I should like to quote here one passage very relevant to your favorable report on the Harris- Pryor bill : The wisest, the most enlightened, the most long-seeing exploitation of resources is not enough for the sample reason that the whole concept of exploitation for man's use alone is false and is so limited that in the end it will defeat itself. The earth will have been plundered under that form of conservation and laid waste, no matter how s 104 . 191f> 117 . 1917. 128 . 1918 143 _ 1959. 778 1919 157 . 168 . 1960. 1961 643 544 1920. 438 1921. 177 1962. 477 362 1922. 186 . 1963. 443 343 1923. 1964 421 370 1924. 208 . 1965. 387 347 1948. 592 1966 437 388 1949. 550 1967 1434 1950 1968. 1951. 570 1969. 304 1952. 616 1970. 306 ' Estimate is based on recoveries through age 3 only. Source: Attachment to a sworn affidavit of Ancel Johnson, wildlife research biologist employed by the National Marine Fishereis Service, National Oceanica nd Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1 , 1971. Miss Herrington. As effective as the first seal treaty was in 1911, that is a great many year's ago, and I do not think I was even born then and, as Jacques Cousteau has said, within the past 20 years the life in the ocean has decreased 30 percent to 40 percent. We must admit it is very difficult for the ocean mammals to survive on the pollution, the oil spills, the senseless killing that we add on top of it for their skins or for the f ri vality of it. Mr. Keith. You made a reference to opposition by the State Department. What is your authority for that statement ? Miss Herringtox. May I ask Mr. MCandless to answer that? Ml'. Keith. She said they were opj^osed to a new treaty. I would like to know : what is the authority for that statement? 103 Mr. McCandless. Mr. Congressman, I would not say that the State Department would be the sole opposition. We met with employees of the State Department as we were trying to draft comprehensive legislation on the matter, and we were im- pressed then, and subsequent to the introduction of the Harris-Pryor bill with their rather adamant position that this treaty with the signa- tory nations was almost divinely inspired and that state could see no way in the world if this treaty were allowed to lapse in 1976, that it would be possible to ever get another treaty or to get one as good as the one that they think they had. Mr. Keith. I am not an attorney, but it does seem to me that Miss Herrington said they oppose a new treaty. I would appreciate it if she could document that statement or if you could. Miss Herrington. Did I not say they opposed the Harris-Pryor bill on the ground that a new treaty — well, Louis Regenstein can speak, who is our Washington coordinator. He feels he would like to have a word on that subject. Mr. Regenstein. Thank you very' much, Mr. Chairman. We have had numerous conversations with officials of the State De- partment concerned with this area. Let me mention the one man who is directly concerned with it, Mr. Stewart Blow. He is the assistant to the oceanic coordinator in the State Department. He has stated to me numerous times that he opposes the Harris- Pryor bill and opposes any tampering with the Pribiloif Fur Treaty. Mr. Dingell. (Presiding) the Chair would like to observe in order to have an orderly record it would be well for you. Miss Herrington, to be sure that the committee has the names of both gentlemen at the table and, if you have not already done so, to let our reporter know who they are. Miss Herrington. At this time, I believe I could continue. Mr. Dingell. I want to be sure we have the names of the two grentlemen. Miss Herrington. We will certainly submit them. Mr. Regenstein. I am Louis Regenstein, Washington coordinator for the committee. Mr. McCandless. I am Robert McCandless, attorney for the Com- mittee for Humane Legislation, Inc. Mr. Keith. I think, really, Mr. Chairman, that your observation that the State Department opposes a new treaty on this matter is some- thing for the State Department to make, not for an individual to comment on as vou did or as your associate did. You are talking about a subordinate in the State Department. That is quite different from the State Department positions. The State De- partment will have its chance to be heard if there is a new treaty proposed. I think we should be looking to you for arguments that would ad- Aance the cause of the new treaty rather than a statement to the effect that the Department will oppose any new treaty. Miss Herrington. Thank you, sir. We shall be only too glad to look to the State Department to express a positive position. I think perhaps I should take up the issue here and face it head-on. and refer at that time to the alternate bill, H.R. 10420, which is a 57-765 O - 71 - 8 104 management bill, and which would create a new superstructure, a commi^on. I think we should say at this time we do not need more study of the poor animals in the oceans to consult and review while we permit the issuance of permits to kill animals by the Department of Interior which is really avoiding the issue which is quite simple. We should stop killing the animals. The only way to peace is to stop this war on the animals now. They should be neither harvested, killed, managed for harvest. I think perhaps I might call on one of our young people who has worked so very hard for the animals at this point, Miss Susane Karliner of Nassau, N.Y. I believe her representative, Mr. Woljff, would like to say something to you. STATEMENT OF HON. LESTER WOLFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Wolff. Thank you very much, for permitting me to introduce this young lady, Mr. Chairman, and for the opportunity of appearing before you. Mr. DiNGELL. The Chair is happy to welcome you, Mr. Wolff. Identify yourself fully for the record. Mr. WoLj'F. I am Representative Lester Wolff, a Democrat, Third District of New York. As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be here on two counts, one in support of the Harris-Pry or bill, as a cosponsor of the bill, and second, to introduce a young lady who has some firsthand observations for you. In these times of great stress and trouble, it is very heartening to see young people take an interest in things such as the protection of our dwindling natural resources. I might say while ^tting here and listening to the previous testi- mony, being a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the colloquy that just took place relative to the State Department, we have observed, the State Department does seem to have a confused position on a lot of things. However, I would like to introduce to the committee Miss Susane Karliner, a 15-year-old sophomore. She became interested in the pres- ervation of ocean mammals this year and circulated many petitions for their protection. STATEMENT OF MISS SUSANE KARLINER, NASSAU, N.Y. Miss Karliner. My name is Susane Karliner and I am a student at Syosset High School in Syosset, N.Y. In March of this year I spent almost a week on the Magdalene Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I was one of four students sponsored by local ecological groups and we were there to witness the beauty and purity of the ice floes and its population of harp seals before the annual slaughter began. Each day we were set down by helicopters. With quiet words and gentle motions we could calm mother seals into letting us stroke and pet their youn^. The baby harp seal is a white puff of fur with dark, teary eyes and it looks as if we were designed by Walt Disney for all 105 the children of the world. It is truly impossible for me to miderstand how any human being can bring himself to kill them. Their slaughter is more than just bloody, it is unnatural. I did not stay for the kill but this is the way Oscar Hartzell, another student who did witness the kill, described it : At dawn, "landsmen" the citizens of the coasts and island — stream across the ice on foot, snowmobile and even by car. All day airplanes scour the ice spotting herds for the commercial ships. Hunted from land, sea, and air, a white puff of fur is a pitiful disquise. One day I walked out on the ice with the landsmen, who dress for the hunt in overalls, rubber boots and carry a club thirty inches long and three inches thick. By the end of the day, boots, overalls and club were blood red. The men stopped frequently to warm their hands in blood and smear it under their eyes. Seals are friendly to man and just as they allowed us to approach to pet their bahies, they allowed the hunters to approach. They usually went to the nearest open water and bobbed up and down, looking bewildered as their babies were clubbed. Each mother has one pup and knows him from all others, even when he is nothing but a carcass. With cruel accuracy one biologist has given the period of mourning as four days. At the end of the day when the hunters have gone and the ice is covered with "bodies, the searching females with their beauti- fully shaped heads look like a tragic chrous of madonnas. The hunter tries to hit the baby seal squarely on the head with the first blow of the club. Sometimes he misses. I saw a man club a seal twice, kick it over on its back and start to cut it. All the time, the animal was jumping and crying. The man looked up at me and clubbed it again quickly. A native of the islands told me himself that the seal hunters "don't want to take the time to make sure the seals are dead." This is what Oscar saw of the hunt. One official from the Ministry of Fisheries excused the hunt as "the Easter and Mardi Gras rolled into one for people whose life is uneventful." What a waste of life for just a holiday. To me it is a final irony that when the last seal is killed and the last hunter returns home from the ice, he can stop at almost any of the stores of the Magdalene Islands and buy a foam and nylon baby seal for a child who may never have a chance to see a real one. Mr. Wolff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Wolff. Miss Herrington, do you wish to continue ? Miss Herrington. Thank you, Susane. Of course, the kill of the baby seals in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and the Northwest Atlantic by the Canadians and Norwegians is a true horror, one which has moved our country and the Harris-Pryor bill would do a great deal to stop that kill by removing the economic incentive for it by banning the importation of this particular sealskin into the country. . . We can hardly, though, castigate other countries for their immor- ality when the blood of the Pribiloffs is so thick upon our own hands. I am so pleased that you have given us the opportunity at this time to show you just what the Alaskan fur seals are like and just what the management of them concerns. Possibly you gentlemen would be able to see the screen better if you moved to the other side. [Film shown on the clubbing of seals.] Miss Herrington. Gentlemen, our time is growing short and I would like to introduce the daughter of Senator Fred Harris, this beautiful young lady is Laura Harris. Mr. DiNGELL. Young lady, we are happy to welcome you to the committee. 106 STATEMENT OF MISS LAURA HARRIS, DAUGHTER OF SENATOR AND MRS. FRED HARRIS OF OKLAHOMA Miss Harris. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to represent the children of the United States. A lot of my friends and I are worried that when we grow up and have children of our own, there will not be any more sea mammals for us to see. We think that people should quit killing sea mammals. We hope you will stop this killing. As a Comanche Indian I would not like to put the Aleuts out of business, but people do not need sealskin coats. They can use other materials and I hope you will help the Aleuts get started in other jobs. Mr. Chairman, I have a list of names of people in my neighborhood and class who feel the same way I do about saving the seals and other sea mammals. Mr. DiNGELL. Young lady, we are grateful for you to be with us. Thank you for your very helpful statement. Let me ask how old you are. Miss Harris. Ten. Mr. DiNGELL. You have done a fine job. Miss Herrington. Thank you, Laura. I will then ask Dr. Greenberg, a very noted psychologist, to make a few comments. Mr. DiNGELL. Dr. Greenberg, you are recognized. STATEMENT OF DR. HERBERT GREENBERG, PRESIDENT OF MAR- KETING SURVEY AND RESEARCH CORP. Dr. Greenberg. I appreciate it and I would like to have my wife with me and perhaps respond with me. She has stuck with me in mar- riage and our work for the past few years. Mr. DiNGELL. Would you give your full address? Dr. Greenberg. Yes, by way of identification, I am Dr. Herbert Greenberg, president of Marketing Survey and Research Corp. in Princeton, N.J. We are at least, sometimes we think only theoretically in the profit- making business, so that I am not here to attack the profit motive or put it down, but what we do, we have been in the business of doing for 14 years, the studying of human personalities and applying our studies to human effectiveness, placing people in the right jobs and trying to understand what makes them tick and how to use it, to tap the great human resource that unfortunately is still very untapped in the world today. The reason Miss Herrington asked us to speak to this committee is not really to talk about in a funny way the seals or the whales or other mammals because I think the morality and the horror involved in the killing of these animals has been very amply stated earlier this morning. I think it would be only redundant for us to repeat it. What I would like to comment on for just a couple of minutes is the impact that all this has on the human being because this is our work. 107 I hope we know something about it. I have also, before we got into the business that we are in, I did teach college for 6 years and directed a testing and counseling center and in our work we have had the opportunity to test perhaps 8,000 or more young people so that some of the comments that I will make are based on scientific fact and not mere emotionalism. I think what most importantly must be said here is that we fre- quently pay a great deal of lipservice to the question of what is the prdblem with youth, why is there the alienation, why is there the drug problem, why is there the so-called generation gap, the over-30, under-30 nonsense, and so on. I think there is no simple answer to this except that the one world alienation perhaps sums it up. There is an increasing, and I have noticed since my days as a stu- dent which seems like 4,000 years ago, but really was not that long ago and through my teaching career and my business career, there is an increasing feeling on the part of young people that our words and our actions are very simple, that our words, our national symbols, our rea- sons for being, our society, our purposes have been slipping. What we say and what we do are two different thmgs and so what we say to our kids sometimes lacks credibility. For example, someone commented just the other day on the radio that how interesting it is when we sit down and give our youngsters a lecture on the evils of marihuana and other drugs, and the very lec- turer is seen by that child waking up to a pep pill, popping three diet pills during the day, having a couple of tranquilizers to get through the day, the two or three straight-up martinis at 5 :30 and the sleeping pill to go to sleep. These are not drugs, you see. These are the adult versions of pharma- ceuticals. It becomes very hypocritical on the part of the youngster when we say do not use your drug, whether marihuana or LSD, but it is OK for us to use ours, but you cannot use yours. In the same way, we say you shall not kill, but go ahead butchering animals and fighting wars and doing all the other things that seem naturally hypocritical to the youngster who has not worked out all of the rationalizations that we adults have managed. What has this got to do with the Harris-Pry or bill ? Very simple and rather obvious. At some point, and I do not know what this point is, whether you members of this subcommittee and the full committee will grasp this opportunity to make this a point or not, I have no way of knowing, I can only hope but at some point if we are really to turn the situation around, if we are really serious about recapturing the Anierican dream, about recapturing our young people, about again bringing imity and integration into our society, and I do not mean integration in the nar- row sense, I mean in the total sense, we have just got to begin some place. We have got to begin to show by actions, not by great words, that we really are serious about some of the things we say so that the yoimg people can begin to identify with those things we do. What a great beginning right here, because would it not be a nice thing if we can say at one point, "Look, it is not the American Govern- 108 ment's policy to protect a Specific profit motive at the expense of the total morality, but rather we are even willing to possibly give up a particular source of profit for a particular small company or a par- ticular small group of people in order to really live by the concepts that this country was founded on." We are really willing, if I may use a colloquial phrase, we are really willing to put our money where our mouth is. This is the kind of thing that young people can get behind, can un- derstand, because butchering animals to have somebody put on a seal- skin coat cannot be justified by any young person or thinking older person, their sense of morality if he at all believes in the Judeo-Chris- tian ethic. We wonder, we look at the newspapers and see the butchery, and in the Harrison, N.Y., zoo, the children's zoo, a few days ago, what did these children do ? They are now in Grasslands undergoing psy- chiatric examination. But, if you were to talk to them and ask them for the defense of their action, I wonder if you could really argue with them that they are wrong. WTiat they said is this — or what they could say if I were their at- torney or their psychologist ; I would say it like this : It was okay for us to trap the muskrat and trap squirrels and other small animals because, after all, our parents shoot them and trap them and kill them. We are just trapping and killing. Nobody bothered us about it. We kill the wood- chuck all the time. So, -wliat we did, we felt like doing something else, and we went into the zoo and we hacked up 11 rabbits and some pigeons and some chickens, and we took our tokens, you know, the rabbit ears, and the various other parts of the animals, and we wear them as our badges in the same way as our adult models have animals heads on the mantle and wear fur coats as a status symbol, and spend thousands of dollar^, and say, look, I, too, symbolize an animal that was butchered. Gentlemen, this may be rough to accept, but the morality is no different. Psychologically, I can tell you, and I will stake my reputation on the fact, that psychologically there is no way to separate the two moralities. There is no difference in butchering seals or in butchering rabbits in a zoo, or butchering people. There is really no moral distinction that can be drawn and no ability that anyone can bring to psychologically draw that distinction. So, to say that these children were horrible, and they were, and they were absolutely horrible, and please do not misunderstand me, but to say these children were horrible and need psychiatric treatment, be- cause of what they did in the Harrison, N.Y., children's zoo, if you are going to say that, you have got to say that it is equally horrible, equally immoral, equally illegal, equally psychologically and morally destructive to butcher helpless seals in the islands, not the oceans. There is no distinction. You are taking about atrocity, you are talking about the lust to kill, you are talking about man over animals and the right to sway over the animals. If you try to separate and make these distinctions, you are only going to further alienate our youth. I say to you, and I do not want to prolong this because I know there are other witnesses who can talk much longer and much more knowl- 10& edffeable than I in terms of the process of butchery and the horror of l)utchery, and the question of endangered species and so on. I will not go into these areas where I know much less than Miss Herrington and others. But, as a psychologist, I will tell you this, as someone who has worked with thousands of individuals, who has counseled them and tested them and run groups of training programs with them, I will tell you that in this bill you have far more at stake than you do the saving of animals. You have a great deal at stake in the saving of our society right here in the United States, not worrying, gentlemen, about what other countries do, because I do think they will come along. I do think we can exert leadership and get them to come along, but this is a step less important than stating our own society's affirma- tion of what we believe in, that we genuinely do not believe in kill- ing; that we genuinely are willing to put our money where our mouth is, and we are willing for once to say it is policy, it is the law to do the right thing. We are willing to say we are going to back it up with the muscle that the Harris-Pryor bill has to back it up with. This will do more than all the drug lectures, the pious speeches, all the speeches and articles on tJie generation gap ; this little action, I can guarantee, will do more than solve some of our basic youth Eroblems than any direct assault on these youth problems ever did, ecause kids are looking for reality, not words. Thank you very much. Mr. DiNGELL. We are very grateful to you for this very helpful statement. Dr. Greenberg. Mr. Chairman, may we, for the record, introduce a letter which I will not take the time of the committee to have read, but there is a letter from a 14-year-old boy that I think ex- presses this very strongly. (The letter follows:) Before we lived on the face of this earth, plants and animals coexisted in peace. It is true that nature was ugly at times, and yet there was never any suffering without purpose, without that ultimate purpose, survival. No animal killed out of greed or lost, none killed unnecessarily. And then there was man, who broke all the traditional rulesL He killed for personal gain, and would flaunt animal skins as status symbols, to show he was king of the beasts, he could conquer all, he was the best, (because he had invented the gun, holding in his hands the veir power to decide whether an animal should live or not. Actually, this was a sign of mans weakness, because he would never dare face an animal alone without his sacred weai)on) . Man is very thick-headed in that he is not quick to learn from past experience. He must be shown over and over again before he realizes that he has made a mistake. This unfortunate characteristic becomes quite api>arent when man kills cer- tain specie's of animals frequently, and then looks back to the horrible realiza- tion that there are no more left, (none left "to kill"). Once a species is extinct, there is no way you can ever bring it back. When I see seals and other fur-bearing creatures being killed off in masses ; when I see over a thousand polar bears being murdered each year, (even though there are only 10,000 left), I just can- not sit back and let this cruelty and insanity continue. I know what the ultimate destiny of these creatures must be if something is not done immediately. Isn't it obvious by now, or must we again show our ignorance by continuing to sup- port this barbarism? I certainly hope not. I do not believe it is right to kill an animal unless it is a question of survival. Certainly people do not need fur coats to survive. The only one, in this case, who could not survive without killing animals is the Fouke Fur Company, be- 110 clause they live off dead seals. They are even responsible for the death of baby seals, although they refuse to admit it. When a baby seal is left motherless, it dies of starvation. How could anyone be so cruel? Seals have feelings, they love their babies, they care ; but they're slaughtered. How would you feel if your family, your Children, were slaughtered before your eyes? Hitler did it for his girlfriend Use Koch. And it's still being done by Human Hitlers, (or should I say inhuman Hitlers) who order and support the slaughter of nature's creatures. There is no difference, I swear, there just is no difference. The Fouke Company has accused us of acting purely on emotion, instead of using logic. Don't believe it. We use both. The Pribilof Islands could be made into a wildlife sanctuary, with the Aleuts employed to protect the seals, rather than to murder them. And then there are Fouke's figures on seal population. Actually, the population has increased very little, if any, since 1911. And not only that; in the last ten years the birthrate has dropped 52%. Then the Fouke Company says the Harris-Pryor bill will leave the fur seal to open sea killing. Another falsehood. The bill calls for an international treaty ending the killing of ocean mammals, and bans importation of seal coats into the U.S. where the main market lies. And to top it all off, we were forced to pay two million dollars last year to support this barbarism, and this year we may have to pay even more. So much for not using logic. As far as the polar bear goes, killing it is immoral, completely unnecessary, and foolish. If we go on like this, we'll only be adding another name to the long list of animals gone extinct at the hand of man. This reasoning applies to all ocean mammals. So now it's up to you. You've been given some power to help change this world. Are you going to use it? Or are you going to show your foolishness again by supporting big business, and forgetting about what's right and what's wrong. Just put yourself in the animals' position, and imagine how you would feel if you were the ones being slaughtered. By JiMMT Berbnholtz (age 14). Mr. DiNGELL. The Chair will announce at this time, because of the shortness of time, that we will afford everyone an opportunity to make additional insertions in the record, and the record will remain open for the period of time necessary to have that done. Miss Herrington. I would thank particularly Mr. Pryor for his great leadership and his firmness in holding to what is a real symbol of the new morality which must take place in this country. I sincerely hope that this committee will report this bill out. You know, we are not stuck on the particular wording of it, but the principles, the firm principles it must retain are the ban on the killing of ocean mammals by Americans, individuals or corporations, a ban on the importation of all products, raw or finished, from these creatures so as to remove the incentive for all other countries to kill. Third, we take the leadership perhaps; maybe we are second with regard to some of these animals since Russia has protected the polar bear and porpoise since the mid l&50's. Through all powers, which we have a great many, let us get the Har- ris-Pryor passed and into law. Thank you. Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you very much. Mr. Pelly. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question, or offer a comment ? I am not rising up in support of the State Department. I do not know whether the State Department has ever received much in the way of praise from me, but I am concerned that if this treaty expires there will be a vacuum, and in that vacuum, nations like Japan who have no regard for conservation will step in and deplete the seal herd. And, therefore, I would simply ask you, Miss Herrington, to consider possibly changing your position to extending temporarily a treaty during the interval that we might be negotiating a new one, because I know what has happened with these nations which are not conserva- Ill tionists when, in their g^-eed, they go out under international freedom of the high seas, and they just slaughter. Miss Herrington. Well, as I understand the amendment Mr. Pryor is introducing today, and we support that fully, the current treaty with Japan and Canada under which they get this 15 percent of our skins expires in 1976, and I believe Mr. Pryor's amendment now will say that in the absence of a new treaty with these countries to halt en- tirely the slaughter on land and at sea, then the current treaty shall be extended. We do support that. Mr. Pelly. The point is we cannot pass a law to stop the Japanese from taking seals on the high seas and, therefore, extreme care should be exercised, I think, in stating a position in order that there be some protection in the interim. Miss Herrington. Yes, we certainly do agree with you, that the killing of these animals in the open water is a very, very bad thing. I do not know how many people are aware of it, but our Govern- ment does a great deal of pelagic sealing. In 1968, they managed to capture about 830 seals in the open waters. But, to achieve that, they shot, wounded or killed and lost over 3,000 seals. We do agree that pelagic sealing is a disastrous thing. Mr. Pelly. Thank you. Mr. Dingell. Mr. Goodling? Mr. Goodling. Thank you. I realize we are short on time. Miss Herrington, you supplied this committee with a whole volume, and I can tell you quite frankly the committee will not have time to digest this, but the staff will. You have cited a lot of facts and figures to support your conclusions. If you have not already done so, and I do not know whether you have or not, I think you should provide this committee with the source of your information to back up your figures that you have given us. Miss Herrington. Yes, sir ; I believe I have ready for the chairman of the committee further copies of all the comments referred to in my testimony, photocopies from Government reports, everything that I have quoted. Mr. Goodling. One other thing, Mr. Chairman. The thing the committee will be interested in, I believe, is this : I refer to a letter that you wrote on June 11, 1971, to my friend, Bob Bell, editorial writer 'of the Pennsylvania Game Commission News. I want to read the last paragraph of that letter, and I know the com- mittee will be interested. It reads : Let us tell it like it is. Hunters are not only paranoid, they are miserable cowards. Do you still support that statement ? Miss Herrington. Let us put it into context. This letter was in response to a charge in that magazine that, by having stopped a deer hunt, we had consigned the deer to starvation and death. Mr. Goodling. This was not taken out of context. This is the last paragraph of your letter. I submit to you that if that statement is correct, very few members of this committee are capable of conducting a fair hearing. 112 I do not believe we are that type, frankly. Miss Herrington. I think even man is a little bit under the gun — maybe that is a good word — in the face of man's modem weapons. It is not what you really call fair play. It is not a sport to kill animals with weapons. Mr. GooDLiNG. I have a few more questions I would like to ask, but I will yield at this point. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. McCloskey ? Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Herrington, there is one problem that bothers me, the morality issue that has been raised by the witnesses. Will you comment on the difference between the killing of seals as we have seen in this very impressive film and what is almost a national ethic in this country of having 4-H clubs raising little lambs to be killed at slaughter? What is the di ff erence ? Miss Herrington. One difference is while we have made captive slaves of livestock for our own survival purposes, I think everyone is probably a meat-eater. We do need these animals for our protein diet, at this time. You cannot justify the slaughter of a seal. No one can eat it, not even the native Aleuts, with the mercury in their liver. These are strictly frivolous products. No one needs the sealskin coat. While we can breed at will livestock in a variety of so-called game animals, no one in the world can breed a whale, sea otter, or any of these other creatures. Our morality has to do with our own survival, the interrelationship of all lives and the ocean. If we want to concede our right to eat fish, no one can say the vi- ability of the oceans is not dependent upon her mammals in sufficient numbers. It is a fact that the salmon follow the seals to their breeding ground, and when the North Koreans fish close to the Russian islands, the Russians complained this should be stopped. They are disturbing the seals. They are undoubtedly taking seals and salmon in their nets. The porpoise follow the tuna. Mr. MoClosky. I do not think you understand my question. Is the killing of animals, or the exercising of domain over them immoral ? And, therefore, does the law need to be changed ? Miss Herrington. In this distinction, we are attempting to stick with the ocean mammals. Mr. MoClosky. You do not raise the moral issue ? Miss Herrington. This is the whole basis of our point, the immor- ality of brutality, the slaughter for frivolous purposes, which is ren- dering these animals extinct. Mr. MoCrx>SKEY. That is the true point of your testimony, is it not, the slaughter for the purpose of skins that is not justified? Miss Herrington. It is not justifiable ecologically because we do not know enough about the life of the oceans. Mr. McCloskey. No further questions. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Potter ? Mr. Potter. Two very brief questions, and you do not need to re- spond to them right now. 113 On page 10 of your testimony, you indicate that the pelagic sealing by Interior involved the shooting and capturing of 824 seals in 1968, and another 3,586 were lost. Would you supply the committee with the documentation of that? Miss Herrington. I have the photocopy of the report with me. Mr. PoiTER. The other has to do with the statement on page 19. You indicate that the State of Oregon employs a man to shoot all seals on sight. I would very much like to have whatever evidence you can supply to the committee on this point at your convenience. Miss Herrington. We will be glad to do so. Mr. Potter. That is all. (The information referred to follows:) Fish Commission, Portland, Or eg., March 9, 1971. Mrs. A. BUEKHOLDEB, Portland, Oreg. Dear Ms. Bubkholdeb: You recently wrote to Tis concerning the seal control program of the Fish Commission in the Columbia River. This program is author- ized by ORS 506.341. This statute requires that the commission shall pay as bounty not less than $5 nor more than $25 to any person who delivers to it within 60 days evidence of a seal having been killed. It also provides that the commission may enter into an agreement with any person for the purpose of taking seals. In 1970 the Fish Comimission at a public hearing acted to reduce the bounty payment to $5, the minimum amount that can be provided consistent with the law. It did not at that time attempt to change a contract with the seal hunter which had earlier been awarded. This contract provides that the commission pay $40 per day to an individual to himt seals and harass them in the Columbia River so that they leave the river during commercial fishing seasons. The public meeting on February 22 was to consider awarding a seal hunting contract for 1971. At the meeting no individuals appeared to oppose the killing of seals. Because the commissioners were concerned about the attitude of the pub- lic, they delayed making a decision at this meeting. No contract has been awarded to date. Thank you very much for sending us your comments on the seal control program in the Columbia River. We will bring your letter to the attention of the commissioners. Sincerely, Thomas E. Kbuse, Assistant State Fisheries Director. Exhibit Q — Dbi'Abtment of Commebce Special Scientific Report — Fishebies No. 617 "FuB Seal Investigations, 1968" Published Decembeb 1970 We saw considerable numbers of seals in the Bering Sea along and outside the Continental Shelf from Unalaska Island east to Unimak Pass from 1 to 15 August. The following surveys are not shown on any of the figures : Direction and locality Seals seen (number) Date Distance Km. Miles St. Paul to St. George 56 km. (30 miles) south of St. George to 111 km. (60 miles) northwest of Cape Cheerful, Unalaska Island (just off the Continental Shelf between Pribilof Islands and feeding grounds near eastern Aleutian Islands) Along Continental Shelf between Sanak Island and Shumagin Islands... Past Chirikof Island.. Toward town of Kodiak.. _ Eastward from Kodiak Southeastward in Gulf of Alaska 137 km. (74 miles) west of Cape Edgecumbe 20 Aug. 12 93 23 5 8 0 0 1 Aug. 15 Aug. 18 Aug. 19 Aug. 20 Aug. 22 Aug. 23 Aug. 24 64 (40) 55 (30) 230 (124) 185 (100) 148 (80) 185 (100) 222 (120) (1003 185 114 ABUNDANCE The numbers of seals sighted, collected, woxinded and lost, and killed and lost were 1,078, 374, 39, and 26 off Washington and 1,509, 456, 27, and 78 in Alaska waters. Tables C-12 and C5-13 give numbers and percentages of seals in these categories for 1958-68. Tables C-14 to C-17 show the number of seals seen and collected off Wash- ington and in Alaska waters in relation to effort by 10-day periods. Seals were seen in groups of one to nine animals off Washington (table C-18) and in groups of one to five in Alaska waters (table C-19), Seals travel alone more frequently in the spring and summer in Alaska waters than in winter off Washington. Incomplete data on six seals taken in Alaska waters are not included in any of the following tables. AOE AND SEX Seals collected at sea are considered to have passed into the next higher age group on 1 January (Standing Scientific Committee of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 1963). The ages of seals collected in November and December 1967, however, were increased 1 year to permit comparisons with seals taken after 1 January 1968. Thus, seals of the same year class were given the same age in all tables in this report. Table 42 gives the age and sex of seals collected off Washington and Alaska in 1967-68. About 50 percent of the females killed were from 1 to 7 years old. Seventy-four yearling seals (1967 year class) were collected January-February 1968 for continuing studies of these animals during their first year of life, a period when fur seals siuffer the greatest mortality. For example, general body condition was appraised by measuring the subcutaneous layers of fat at their thickest points over the sternum and ventral to the pelvic region (table C-20). Additional information on these yearlings is given elsewhere in this report. TAG RECOVERIES In 1968, we took 7 males in ages 2 to 16 years and 31 females between the ages of 1 and 16 years that had tags or other marks (table 43). No Soviet tags were found attached to seals collected in 1968. LENGTHS AND WEIGHTS Mean lengths and weights are given for pregnant, post partum, and non- pregnant females collected in 1967-68 in tables C-21 to C-26, and for males in tables C-27 and C-28. Sex, length, and weight were not determined for two very small embryos, and the data have not yet been obtained for 17 fetuses on loan. Crown rump rather than total length measurments were taken from 24 male and 33 female fetuses because of their small size, and these fetuses were weighed in the laboratory rather than at sea because accurate weights could not be obtained on a rolling and pitching vessel. Table C-29 gives crown-rump length and weight after preservation in formalin. Table C-30 shows measurements of total length and of the weight of un- preserved fetuses. REPRODUCTION Table C-31 shows the reproductive condition of female seals collected by month in 1967-68. Five primiparous 4-year-olds were the yoimgest and one multi- parous 21-year-old was the oldest among pregnant seals collected in 1967-68. The pregnancy rates of fur seals collected in the eastern Pacific Ocean froan 1958 to 1966 were tested to see if they differed by area and year of collection. The largest numbers of seals were collected off California (36.5 percent) and in the Bering Sea (28.4 percent) . Mr. Dtngell. Miss Herrington, the committee is grateful to you for your very helpful presentation this morning. There was a great deal of work in your preparation and we are very grateful to you. Miss Herrington. Thank you for the opportunity to sipeak for the people. We have a group of petitions here in large numbers, perhaps in the thousands, and we would like to present them to the committee. 115 I also have numerous fact sheets and other statements in support of our position. Mr. Dlngell. Very well. If you will deliver them to the staff, the Chair will direct the staff to review those for purposes of possible insertion into the record. (The documents referred to are in the conmiittee files. A few rep- resentative items follow :) Factshbjet on the Peibilof Seal "BLabvest" 1. The Commerce Department claims that the size of the Pribilof seal herd has increased from 200,000 in 1911 to about 1.3 million today. It is aUeged that this is the herd's optimum size and that a much larger herd would result in overpopulation and starvation. In fact, the natural size of the herd is over 5 million, according to an oflicial account in the Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 24, pp. 480-85, written by Seton Thompson, Chief, Division of Alaska Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1948, this herd numbered about 4 million. Thus, the 1.3 million figure, even if accurate, represents a depletion of abouit 75%. There are also strong indications that the 1.3 million figure is grossly inflated, particularly since it includes hundreds of thousands of baby seals, 85% of which die before they reach 3 years of age. The herd is now in such serious trouble that this year the quota was vastly reduced from 60,000 seals in previous years to about 42,000. Still, only 32,000 seals were available for "harvesting". 25% below the quota's allowance. There seems little doubt that, with the Commerce Depart- ment's present management policies, the herd is headed for extinction. 2. Commerce claims that only "surplus" bachelor seals are killed and that females and pups are "not molested". This is constantly stressed in the Depart- ment's press and information releases. Actually, in recent years, close to a quarter of a million females were har- vested, almost every one of which was either pregnant or nursing a pup. When a nursing female is killed, its baby starves to death. Thus, 250,000 babies have also been indirectly killed. This is why the herd is presently in such a serious state of depletion. As late as 1968, some 13,000 female seals were killed, over 11.000 of which were known to be nursing mothers. (See attached documenta- tion from U.S. Dei>artment of Interior for 1968) . 3. Commerce claims that the Harris-Pryor Ocean Mammal Protection Act will mean the extinction of the Alaskan fur seal because the 4-nation treaty banning pelagic sealing will be abrogated by the U.S. Just the opposite is true. The Harris-Pryor Bill maintains the current treaty while giving the State Department the mandate to bring all other nations into a more extensive treaty which would protect not only the fur seal but all otlier ocean mammals as well. At the same time, the Bill gives special rec- ognition to our obligations under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and provides for Canada and Japan to continue to receive their 15% each of the annual quota, or a commensurate financial compensation. The only change is that the 70% "taken" for the U.S. market would not be killed. This can be done while maintaining the treaty intact until 1976, after which time it is scheduled to expire under the original terms of the agreement. Annual Report of Sealing Operations, 1968, Pribilof Islands, Alaska prepared by staff of marine mammal resources program, december 31, 1968 HARVEST OF FEMALE SEALS AND PRODUCTION OF FEMALE SEALSKINS St. Paul St. George Island Island Total Commercialized during regular season, June 2fr-Aug. 5 - 1,855 170 i?'2?n Commercialized during fall season, Aug. 6,-16. 8,469 2,m\ ^^"'" Total commercial female sealskins - ^^•lli ^'^on ^^'5*0 Rejected because of poor quality. 220 zo ^w Total harvest of female seals... 10,544 2,791 13,335 116 SE^ALSKIN CURING OPERATIONS At St. Paul 49 men were employed in the skin-curing plant and 6 on carcass dis- posal ; 17 performed both functions at St. George. Three blubbering beams were re- moved on St. Paul to install the experimental fleshing machine. Pre-season cal- culations indicated as large a harvest as the previous year. There was only one reduction in manpower on St. Paul but- a larger reduction on St. George from the previoiis year. Minor adjustments were made in employee assignments to ac- complish the skin-curing. Robert Booth, an employee of The Fouke Company, was assigned for a brief period to St. Paul as a technical specialist and quality control inspector. SOURCES OF RECRUITMENT FOR SKIN-CURING WORKERS 1964 1%5 1966 1967 1968 Pribilof Islands Aleutian Villages Mainland Alaska Contiguous 48 States Total 24 27 36 37 24 31 24 18 4 4 2 7 15 27 32 24 18 3 8 "12 81 76 72 78 72 > 2 were former Pribilovians now residing in Seattle. Exhibit O — Fisheries No. 617 "Fur Seal Investigations, 1968," Published December 1970 Ol — -~t— 3-YC4R-01.0 MALES — O— 4— VEAK OLD MALES I .TJLV 5. I AO'^J.M Figure 3. — Kill of 3- and 4-year-olrj male scols, St, Paul Island, 26 June to 2 August 1968. CH — JUNC — X" 3-YEAR-OLO MALES — O— 4~YEAR-CL0 MAuES 16 21 Figure A, — Kill of 3- and 4-year-old male seals, St. George Island, 26 June to 5 August 1968. * * * possible magnitude of error in the number of males of each age killed in 1968. Differences between adjusted and nonadjusted age compositions were about 1 percent each for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old males and 17 percent for 2-year-old males (table 2). The adjusted number of 2-year-old males was less than the 117 nonadjusted number. Adjusted numbers of seals killed are not used in any of the calculations in this report because the data are similar for ages 3, 4, and 5, and it is not known if the adjusted or the nonadjusted age composition is more rep- resentative of the true age composition. FEMAIiES The 13,335 females killed on the Pribilof Islands in 1968 were considered excess to the number needed to maintain the production of pups at the present level. St. Paul Island contributed 10,544 females, and St. George Island, 2,791. Right upper canine teeth from 30 percent of the females killed were used to estimate the age composition of the total kill (tables A-5 to A-12) . TABLE 2.-UNADJUSTED AND ADJUSTED KILL OF MALESEALS, PRI BILOF ISLANDS, ALASKA, JUNE 26 TO AUG. 5, 1968 Age (years) Unadjusted kill (number) Adjusted kill (number) Difference (percent) 7 2,106 1,802 23, 339 17, 099 1,923 ' 44, 162 . +16.87 3 23,149 -.81 4 16,959 -.82 5 1,948 +1.30 Total - - «44,162 >We did not include 130 6-year-old males taken on the Pribilof Islands June 26 to Aug. 5, nor 307 males killed on St. Paul Island Aug. 3 and 5 because the data for these seals were incomplete. TABLE 3.— NUMBER OF FEMALE SEALS TO BE KILLED AND THE NUMBER ACTUALLY TAKEN DURING A SPECIAL KILL OF FEMALE SEALS, PRIBILOF ISLANDS, ALASKA, AUGUST 1968 Island and rookery Quota Actual kill St. Paul Island: Northeast Point 2,129 Tolstoi-Zapadni Reef 1,022 Zapadni-Little Zapadni 1,874 Reef - 1,789 Lukanin-Kitovi 596 Polovina 1,107 Total.... 8,517 2,829 962 2,137 1,417 592 1,374 9,311 Island and rookery Quota Actual kilt St. George Island: Zapadni.. North East Staraya Artil 800 1,262 615 400 854 1,032 513 219 Total 3,077 2,618 The kill began about 6 a.m. Monday through Friday on St. Paul Island and about 9 a.m. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday on St. George Island. All females killed were taken from hauling grounds, and all females in the drive were killed regardless of age or size. When the kill of males ended 2 August on St. Paul Island and 5 August on St. George Island, 1,233 and 173 females, respectively, had been taken. The relative size of each rookery was used as a guide in killing the remaining 11,594 females needed to achieve a quota of 13,000 (table 3). A special effort was made not to exceed the quotas on Reef, Polovina, and Staraya Artil, three rookeries where females are extremely accessible. Table 4 shows the kills of females from year classes 1943-67. Affidavit In July of 1970 I, Thomas S. Bywaters, with Victor Losick went to the Pribilof Islands to record on film the seal slaughter which is carried out annually by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. We spent ten days on St. Paul Island, observing the horrible massacre and the life of the Aleut native colony on the Island. While on St. Paul, we filmed the brutal, inhumane killings, the rookeries where the baby seals are bom and the bulls and females breed, the town and the blubber plant. We were not allowed to film interviews with the natives nor with the Gov- ernment employees (although an NBC crew which came after us was given carte blanche to film anything and everything) . 118 THE SEALS Each morning during the killing season, the animals are driven inland for the kill. The men walk them a great distance. Great clouds of steam rise from their bodies. From time to time a seal falls in a quivering mass, exhausted. At the end of the long drive, the animals are broken into pods of 5 or 6. A man rattles a tin can. The seals raise their heads in panic. Crack, crack, crack. Other men smash their skulls. Despite Government claims that the animals are quickly rendered unconscious, time after time I saw the animals hit again and again because one blow had not been suflScient to stun them. Thte seals are smashed in the face, the flippers, the back. Byes pop out of skulls and the animals shriek in pain . . . flopping and twisting in the tundra for an excnici- ating amount of time until he is smashed, again into unconsciousness. The stickers come next. They plunge a knife into the heart area and often a still beating organ spills out of the body. Then the strippers attach heavy metal clamps and yank the skin from the steaming body. This goes on until the quota for that day is met. Some of the men who worked in the blubber factory told me that when we were not present at the kill the men killed much higher quotas, and also they killed a large number of female seals (although the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries claims that this does not happen) . THE NATIVES The Aleut Natives on the islands live in a ^tate of semi-slavery. The sealing season lasts only a short time each year (6-9 weeks). The remainder of the time the warm, friendly people are forced to simply exist on this barren remote island. They were originally brought to the Pribilofs by the Russians as slaves and, apparently, when the United States bought Alaska in 1867, we also bought the people. They told me that they had been warned not to hurt us because that would make their situation worse, but they were told not to appear in front of our cameras or to cooperate with us in any way. They are given a limited amount of beer (no liquor is allowed) and they manage to maintain a state of semi-stupor a great deal of the time. In the early morning on the kills, many of the man gag and vomit on the killing fleld. I was reminded of the Indian and the fire-water syndrome, where the si/ib- servient natives are kept in hand by keeping them slightly drimk. Several of the men told me that they did not want to kill the seals, but that they had no other way of making a living. They asked me why the United States Government didn't find something else for them to do, so that they could be employed year roimd and would not be forced to carry out their terrible task. They asked also why the Government shipped the skins half-way around the world to the Fouke Fur Company in Greenville, South Carolina, for the final processing of the skins when there were able men on the islands to do that work. One claim that the Government makes is that the Natives must kill the animals to eat them. In the ten days that I was there, I did not see one Aleut Native take one seal carcass home to eat. (The carcasses are ground up in a plant on the island to make food for mink ranches). There is a well stocked supermarket on the island with all of the frozen foods and merchandise that can be found in any small American town in the country. All of these foods are brought to the island and sold for money or food stamps. The young people I stpoke to said that they wanted to get out as fast as they could. They are all sent to the mainland (Alaska) for their secondary schooling, and none of those I spoke to wanted to come back to live in St. Paul. From any standpoint — moral, pragmatic or financial — there is no reason for the Federal Government to maintain or pennit this operation. The slaughter of the seals is horrible enough, but the degrading exploitation of the Aleut people is intolerable. I have film of the seal slaughter which I would very much like to make avail- able for viewing whenever it might be needed. Signed: Thomas S. Bywatebs. Statement of Ronald B. Dbummond, Capistbano Beach, Cauf., in Suppoet of THE Ocean Mammal Peotection Act (S. 1315, H.R 6558) One early morning, forty years ago, I found, washed ashore on the beach. a wounded mother sealion and her baby. The mother had l>ee(n blasted right in the face with a shotgun. Her eyes were torn bo shreds and of course she was 110 totally blind and would have a long lingering suffering death. Fortunately I was ahle to very quickly end her misery, and I adopted the baby. I have never known a more delightfully intelligent and affectionate little friend. He became the mas- cot of the Los Angeles lifeguards and was known and admired by thousands of people. He loved to surf with me, and when I body-surfed large waves he would fall on the curling breaker and ride it all the way to shore right beside me. Periodically ever since then, I have been finding dead or wounded seals and sealions and their sad and tru.sting babies. This may sound incongruous for a 230 pound ex-amateur wrestler, but I have definitely found that if I softly sing Brahm's lullaby and make no sudden motions while I drift very slowly in my canoe toward all sorts of wildlife, I can usually drift right up to them and make friends. However, the following experience is an example of why I have been deprived of this sort of pleasure. I was paddling a kayak through the kelp beds off Salt Creek, in Southern Cali- fornia, when, a quarter of a mile away, I noticed a bump on a log that was float- ing in the thick kelp. Soon I saw that the bump was a very young baby harbor seal. In le.ss than half an hour I had slowly drifted in a very light breeze to the log, and the baby seal, that had slid into the water, was nuzzling my hand, and I was scratching its head. These baby harbor seals have such cute faces, with the black circles around their eyes, and their sweet affectionate expressions, that you can't help falling in love with them. It was playful and swam around my hand in the water, and finally slid up on the d^ck of my kayak right in front of me where it enjoyed having me pet and scratch it. Then suddenly a large harmless California Gray Whale came up and loudly blew, about fifty feet away. They are curious and often come close to investigate and sometimes swim right under me — six inches from the bottom of my kayak. I suppose the seal's instinctive fear of killer whales caused it to take off like a torpedo in a series of porpoi.se dives along the surface straight toward .shore. I lost sight of it and figured I would never see it again, and paddled farther up the coast, surfed in my kayak for an hour and then on my back paddled along- side the log. Two feet down in the clear water I saw a large rare bright green crab on a stalk of kelp and decided to take it home and photograph it to add to my color movie on local sea life. With my hand in the water I was surprised to .suddenly have it nudged again by the baby seal. I played with it again and finally paddled along the coast for home, and the baby seal must have been lonesome for its mother, for it followed me. I shall never tame another seal, because it gives them confidence in the kind- ness of humans, and they swim near yachts and commercial fishing boats. I found the baby seal's body next morning on the beach with a bullet hole through its side. This is only one of hundreds of such cases of ignorance and cruelty. Firearms are carried on almost all commercial fishing boats and many yachts. There is no valid rea.son for this. I have done commercial fishing and it is annoying when seals interfere, although I don't consider their interference suflBciently important to warrant the murderous ethics of the fishermen. I was almost always the first one to reach the gun, and the others couldn't understand why I always came so close, but never managed to hit a seal. The shot always frightened them away, and I believe a stone thrown at them would be just as effective. Yachtsmen have no reason to have firearms aboard. They are used only to sadis- tically shoot any living creature just for the fun of killing. San Juan Rock, near where I live, would normally have many sealions on it, but you seldom see more than two or three young ones that haven't learned to fear man. I often see the rotting bodies of sealions, pelicans, cormorants, seagulls, etc., on the rock — shot just for fun by passing yachtsmen and commercial fishermen. Intelligent killer whales have never been known to harm a human being. One once playfully tossed a skin diver out of the water just as they do with their own calves. Of their own free will they have aided humans in their work. A baby killer whale was shot and killed from the bridge of a tuna clipper. The mother charged and rammed the clipi)er. Can you blame her? I would as soon shoot my gentle intelligent Nevpfoundland dog. The skipi)er of a tuna clipper I fished on delighted in shooting iwrpoises as they played so beautifully in front of the ship. Bang and the graceful motion stops dead ; and the body sinks slowly in the clear blue water in red clouds of blood. It has been my experience that the more study and mature understanding a man has of wild animals, the more sympathy and consideration he has for all wild life. Often puhlicity misrepresents wild animals. I have slowly approached and petted absolutely wild skunks. After spending several years in Africa making moving 67-765 O - 71 - 9 120 pictures of almost all the larger African animals, the wanton and cruel slaughter of these wonderful animals disgusted me. Would you like to see a man try out his new elephant gun by shooting at a dainty gazelle, and see both its front feet shot off, and then it bounding away on the stumps? Or see a baby zebra following its wounded mother whose intestines were dragging on the ground? Imagine the suffering of badly wounded intelligent elephants. I often ate my lunch beside a picturesque hipi>opotamus pool deep in Portuguese East Africa and watched a happy family of one big bull hippo, three cows and three playful calves. Can you imagine calling a hipix) frolicsome? The three calves played tag and leaped clear out of the water over the backs of their parents. I felt that I knew each hippo by its first name. '1 approached this pool one day and met a newly arrived customs oflScial who proudly boasted that he had just shot seven hippos. In the small pool they couldn't hide, and lie had blasted the heads of all seven when they hiad come up to breathe, and simply left them there to rot. When I got home a Hollywood film producer wanted me to go with him to film African animals. He said, "We'll get so far away from any game wardens by heli- copter that we can just slaughter all the animals we want to our heart's content." After living continuously out of the United States for five years I experienced a wonderful feeling of patriotism and close comradeship toward all my fellow Americans. It was bitter to soon realize that ibecause of lack of training and discipline in all the various phases of good character, the United States had be- come a much less pleasant place in which to Uve. Selfishness and greed are among our worst characteristies. The lust for more and more money does away with preserving our precious natural environment which includes the wildlife of forests, our beautiful natural rivers and seashores. Statement of Mr. and Mks. Edward Silva, Oakland, Calif., in Support of THE OCELAN MAMMAL PROTECTION AcT (S. 1315; H.R. 6558) Our nation of television viewers have been shocked at the Pribiloff seal mas- sacres. They saw and heard the clubs crack on helpless seals as they were bat- tered. Hundreds of thousands of school children ('as well as adults) , have seen this! They watched with tears streaming down their faces (even teen-age boys considered "tough"), and they care so much they asked what they could do to help. They told their teachers they wanted to do something to stop this. Can we comprehend that what we viewed in a few minutes, takes place all day long from June well into August? That as many as 2.500 are killed in any given day? That the torture-skinning takes place while some are still alive, hearts still beating? Who would i)erTnit his own children to see the bludgening of the gentle seals and still wonder how they would want one to vote on a law that can help them? Regarding whales : a reporter who saw a whale-ship-killing turned her memory back to the sighit, and told the television audience : "They cry." Yes, they suffer as we would, with, a harpoion through our body. Merciful death does not always come soon. Dr. H. R. Lillie, a physician who worked with the British wlialing fleet said the method still used in killing whales today is horrible. He witnessed where five hours, and nine harpoons, were required to kill a female Blue Whale in advanced pregnancy. Three species of whales are being killed in our ovsra waters by Whaling boats operating from Richmond, California, and all three are on the "endangered species list." Are we generally aware that seals, whales, otters, walrus, and the others, serve man by making our waters viable — livable — by keeping the food chain in balance? This is a vital service to everyone on earth. Mammals do not deserve mass extinction by man, yet they are being exter- minated, mercilessly. Many will vanish forever if we do not halt the killings without delay. In addition to this, inflicting agony on these creatures — the brutality involved in the maiming and killing — ^has shocked the country, and this shock is growing. Overwhelming response to television documentaries on this subject also tell of the widespread desire to end this slaughter. Will vou help to end this by giving your "yes" vote to the Harris-Pryor Bill No. S. i315; H.R. 6558? Will you speak out for it, and help it become a law? We are deeply concerned. It may be of interest to know that it takes ten years to produce one siperm Whale. Male and female whale each reach maturity at about age 9. A female 121 in the North Hemisphere may give birth one year and four months later. Slie then nurses her calf for two years. Consider ! Over ten years for one si)erm whale birth ! And this is only when favorable conditions prevail to let a male and female of maturity, meet in the vast seas, in sipite of the mass slaughtering of whales. There must be nine years in which male and female escai)e slaughter if they are to BEGIN the cycle for a single calf -whale to be bom ! This is wliy every killing is a potent threat to the survival of this great mammaiL The author of "The Year of the Whale", Victor Schefifer, gave this information in this book. He worked primarily with mammals, and was 31 years a research biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, receiving the Department of Interior's Distinguished Service Award. He has commented in his book : "The problem of "hiunaneness" in the chasing and killing of whales troubles me." It troubles so many of us ! Finally, there is a way that can help ! Please help this Bill to become a law. Statement of A. M. Dobell, Chambly, Quebec, Canada The Ministry of Fisheries of Canada has appointed a "Committee on Seals & Sealing" in order to enable members of the general public to make their views known on the subject of the annual slaughter. Presumably the committee's findings will either cause the Government of this country to stop the annual butchery of newborn seals, or, alternatively allow it to continue due to lack of public demand for its cessation. It follows, therefore, that the committee must satisfy itself on the prime question of whether or not this annual organized slaughter of helpless, newborn seals would constitute an unacceptable outrage in the minds of a majority of Canadians, were they all, h5T)othetically placed in the position of on-the-spot observers of the slaughter in all its detail within their own country. The second factor which they will presumably consider is whether or not the annual slaughter results in the fulfilment of any essential requirements of Canadians. Obviously, for instance, the consumption of meat and poultry is considered essential, hence the appropriate domestic animals are bred, fed and hopefully, humanely killed, so that a case could not easily be made to outlaw the abatoirs. Contemplation of question #1 affords quite an exercise for imagination in the realms of the hypothetical. Imagine some 20 million Canadians assembled in grandstand fashion, somewhere in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or in the Canadian Arctic, in April ; There is a colony of seal families — hundreds of the mother seals ministering to their helpless, fuzzy newborn offspring in a manner su^estive of the similarity with which nature endows most of her more intelligent creatures, including hu- mans, with that protective mother instinct. It may be that many in the large audience begin to warm to these pleasant, harmless seals, as they appear to rejoice, as seals do, in their own kind of domes- ticity and freedom. Some, in the grandstands might even sense a sort of sym- pathetic identification with these creatures as having been given life from a source common to their own, and common instinctive emotions, albeit on a lower scale. These works of nature, thus manifested might incline others in the audience to a realization that they, being supposedly higher on the scale of nature's heir- archy, might have been intended more to protect and preserve rather than to loot and pillage and mindlessly extinguish. Rarely does the regular artificial urban existence of the majority give rise to such enobled thinking being applied to a herd of seals, but many in the audience might at this point find pleasure in the thought that within their country in its vastness, there are still creatures such as these — free and graceful, and contributing in their own way to nature's balance and thus to the general well-being of all creatures, humans included. And while in this enobled state of mind, the sound of an approaching spotter aircraft is hardly welcomed ; even less welocme might be the sight of the sealing ships disgorging men armed with clubs and knives, advancing menacingly to- ward the peaceful seal families — the adult seals showing apprehension and alarm. What happens next might be carried out in a hurry, but still not fast enough ever to erase from the memories of the observers the sickening sight of the now frantic adult seals and their helpless newborn in the midst of the savagery of an attack by what are evidently brutish, mindless killers. The mother seals dart this way and that in frenzy ; they are not able to defend their young which 122 are being bashed, skinned while still writhing and whimpering, and left quivering, blood-soaked, on the ice. The killers withdraw with skins and return for more. The rightful owners of the skins 'being reduced to grotesque heaps of gore, are still recognized as their own by the mothers, who, eventually, when the coast is clear of killers, emerge from the blood-red water and turn the corpses over in instinctive hopes that there might be some life left. If this audience can be persuaded to remain in their seats for an hour or so longer, they might contemplate the mother seals, with their noses caressing the gory remains of their young in an agony of anguished grief. Here, once again many of the watchers might identify with the stricken seals in a sensation familiar to many — ^bewildered, anguished grief. Can it be possible, many might wonder that our human species can thus rape nature without nature's retribution in some form or other? And what small percentage of these Canadians would in the opinion of the Committee on Seals & Sealing come down off their grandstand with anything other than a colossal loathing of the entire disgraceful i)erformance, and, possibly a sense of guilt at having been, for so long, blissfully disinterested in the total implication of cnielty on so monstrous a scale vdthin their own country. There will always be the small percentage of unaffected . . . the ignorant, the moronic and simple minded — who exist smugly under the delusion that animals other than humans, no matter how high on nature's intelligence scale, have no feelings, and hence are unworthy of protection from outrage or ex- tinction ; any such concern for animals being, by some twisted logic of their own, construed as a denial of the need to assist human beings anywhere afflicted in mind, body or estate. "Not interest in animals as long as there is a single starving human being" — and worse "All the animals in the world are not worth a single human life." These frantically foolish cliches show an obvious ignorance of the disastrous ultimate doom which would soon be inflicted on their precious "human only" world if nature were to get so far out of balance. Considering the second question of what "benefits" arise from tlie scenes described above, the primary beneficiaries must presumably be the killers them- selves ; after all they must undergo considerable risk and discomfort in order to bring about a club to face contact with a newborn seal. The answer seems to be that these people derive enough money from the sale of the skins to the non- essential luxury fashion market to augment the inadequate incomes obtainable from their other pursuits — mostly fishing. Can the problem be that simple? If we can pay farmers not to grow wheat in the interests of price stability, cer- tainly we could pay fishermen not to bash baby seals to pulp in front of their parents, in the interest of "humanity". Mr. DiNGELL. Our next witness is Mr. Jiidson Vandevere, Friends of the Sea Otter, Big Sur, Calif. STATEMENT OF JUDSON E. VANDEVERE, BIOLOGICAL INVESTI- GATOR, HOPKINS MARINE STATION OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY, PACIFIC GROVE, CALIF., ON BEHALF OF FRIENDS OF THE SEA OTTER, BIG SUR, CALIF. Mr. Vandevere. I have submitted my testimony to your reporter, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. We will see that your testimony is placed in full into the record, as though you had read it. We recognize you for any additional comments you wish to make. Mr. Vandevere. I have studied the behavior of the southern sea otters in the course of my naturalist's duties during eight summers at Point Lobos State Reserve (1959-66). Research grants to the Uni- versity of California at Santa Cruz and Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University have enabled me to continue my studies through- out their range on weekends from October 1968 to July 1969, and from then almost daily to the present time. The California Department of Fish and Game has counted only 1,040 in the southern sea otters' very limited 160-mile range; the 128 only naturally occurring sea otter population in the Western Hemi- sphere south of Alaska. Only 33 years after its exciting rediscovery, the rare southern sea otter, opening its polluted shellfish with pop bottle, rock, or beer can for tool, is faced with new threats to its survival. In the southern portion of their range, otters are occasion- ally shot and, with increasing small craft traffic, more are being fatally injured in boating accidents. The City of Monterey, Calif., expects to quadruple its accommoda- tions for boats, thanks to $300,000 in Federal assistance, thus greatly increasing the threat of boating deaths. From my analysis of the data concerning 111 recovered carcasses, fatal boatmg accident injuries appear to be the greatest single cause of death. Female sea otters continue to bear pups within sight of oil tankers whose frequency of passage and potential for spills increase yearly. Completion of the controversial Alaskan pipeline will compound this threat. One of the sea otters killed by the three commercial aibalone divers, who were sentenced last year, contained in its fat 33 p.p.m. total DDT residues. Although they were nearly exterminated for their furs, not their meat, analytical data from many otters reveal that their tissues greatly exceed the 7 p.p.m. considered unfit for human consumption. The fate of the California and Florida brown pelicans is well known. Large numbers of aborted California sea lions were dis- covered in May 1970.^ Karl Kenyon of the Fish and Wildlife Service reported 1,200 p.p.m. DDT in one sea lion pup on San Miguel Island.^ Recent studies have indicated that DDT can cause reproductive dam- age in newborn mammals.^ Recent public health awareness of chlorinated hydracarbons, such as DDT, and heavy metals, such as cadmium and mercury, appear- ing in many species of marine life has resulted in great economic losses to some affected commercial fisheries. For example, the jack mackerel fishery in southern California was condemned in 1969 because of high DDT levels and 89 percent of the swordfis'h were condemned this year because of high mercury levels, as well as approximately 2 percent of the tuna. At the present time, Dr. John Martin and George Knauer at Hop- kins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, Calif., are determining heavy metal levels in plankton, surface and midwater fishes, cephalopods and marine mammals inhabiting the central and southern California cur- rent regions. Sea otter livers and kidneys from recovered carcasses have been tested for their cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc con- tent. All these metals can be toxic to mammals, and three of them, cadmium, lead and chromium^ — especially chromium with a valence of six — are well known cumulative poisons. Of the three elements, cadmium is by far the most potentially dan- gerous, as it is responsible for several known harmful conditions in mammals. These include decalcification of human bones, degenera- ^Odell, D. 1970. Premature pupping in the California sea Hon, Proc. Seventh Ann. Conf. Biol. Sonar and Div. Mamm., Menlo Park, Calif., Stanford Research Institute, pp. 185-190. ' Kenyon, K. W. 1970. Personal communication to James A. Mattlson, Jr., M.D., 506 East Romie Lane, Salinas, Calif. 93901. » Heinrich, W. L., et al. 1971. DDT administered to neonatal rats induces persistent estrus syndrom. Science, vol. 173. Aug. 124 tion of the testes, and hypertension. Hypertension can be induced in rats when renal molar cadmium to zinc ratios exceed 0.35. Two nor- mal otters tested had ratios close to this value, 0.32 and 0.35, which suggests that this condition may be common in the otter herd.^ These extremely high cadmium concentrations, 4.2 to 16.1 p.p.m. in their livers and 12.0 to 43.3 p.p.m. in their kidneys, have prompted us to begin a search for its source. In testing for mercury, six adult or near-adult sea otters were analyzed for comparison with California sea lions.- Although brain and kidney levels were similar, sea lion liver values were an order of magnitude higher than those found in the otters (42 versus 4 p.p.m.). The range in sea otters was 0.78 to 7.35 p.j).m. Whether this discre- pancy is a reflection of the otters' diet — primarily mollusks,^ which are not as high in the food chain as the fish diet of sea lions — or a basic physiological difference, remains to be seen. The accumulation of toxic levels of pesticides and other environ- mental poisons may eventually cause such a reduction in the number of sea ott«rs as to make the efforts of Alaska's sea otter harvesting pro- gram and attempts in California to set limits on their population seem ludicrous. Testifying in Sacramento against control of the southern sea otter population on April 6, 1970, Dr. Robert T. Orr, associate director of the California Academy of Sciences, and curator of its departments of ornithology and mammalogy, said, in part : "Wliat will (this Califor- nia bill) do? It proposes to curb sea otters which are barely past the danger point. Why ? So that a small group of market hunters who are commercializing on something that belongs to all of us can continue their exploitation to produce a gourmet item." Attempts of some commercial and sportsmen's groups to encourage legislation that would "manage" the sea otter so as to avoid "resource conflicts" prompted Dr. John H. Phillips, director of Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University, to testify that this California Senate bill presents a simplistic answer to the abalone decline by using the otter as a scapegoat. He further testified that legislation is needed to increase chances for survival of otters, as well as our declining abalone industry. Karl Kenyon has reported more than 40 food species from the stomachs of Amchitkan sea otters,^ and I have observed southern sea otters eat more than 25 different species. The red and black abalone are but two of these. Abalones and spiny lobsters are disappearing in south- ern California and among the Channel Islands, where no sea otters exist. The excessive human take appears to be causing the decline in these fisheries. If the sea otter can survive an environment which is becoming in- creasingly polluted, it may eventually extend its range. Should it re- occupy its former haunts in southern California, it would improve our 1 Martin, J. H. and G. A. Knauer, Cd. Cr, Cu, and Zn concentrations in tlie southern se.a otter. Manuscriot in preparation. 2 Martin, J. H., G. A. Knauer, and B. H. Robison. Mercury in the pelagic food web. Manuscript in preparation. 3 Vandevere, J. E. Feeding behavior of the southern sea otter. Proc. Sixth Ann. Conf. on Biol. Sonar and Diving Mammals, Menlo Park, Calif.. Stanford Research Institute. p. 87-94. 1969. * Kenyon. K. W.. 1969. The sea otter in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. North American Fauna. Number 68. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. p. 117. 125 marine resources by reducing sea urchin populations, thereby enhanc- ing kelp growth, which, in turn, supports rock fish nurseries. Because repeated attempts will be made to change State laws to per- mit reductions in our small precarious marine mammal populations, which are subject to increasing jeopardy from environmental degrada- tion, survival of the southern sea otters would be enhanced by a strong bill to protect marine mammals. H.R. 10420 and H.R. 6558 are worthy attempts to preserve the marine mammals associated with the shores of the United States. These ani- mals, as I have indicated, are in jeopardy not only due to their exploita- tion but due to pollutants that are causing a general deterioration of our marine environment. Strong legislation is essential to the survival of these animals. Mr. Vandevere. I would like to show a 2-minute film to introduce you to the southern sea otter of California. Mr. DiNGELL. Very good. (Showing of film.) Mr. Vandevere. The only place where sea otters occur naturally in the continental United States is a 160-mile stretch of California's coast. They were thought to be extinct like many marine mammal species. Mature females give birth to a single pup no more often than once every 2 years. Marine mammals do not bear more than one young at a time. Life is just too harsh. My observations have shown the southern sea otters to feed primarily on molluscs, arthropods, and echinoderms. Mothers take care of their pups for almost a year. They show great concern and interest for each other when faced with danger — ^the danger of man — and will alert each other and dive to get out of man's way. On the 26th of this month, Jacques- Yves Consteau will begin his new television series with an hour-long docimientary on the sea otter, the first quarter will be on the Alaskan sea otter. He is using some of my footage and I appear in the film as well. I was his scientific adviser for this documentary. In 1959, acting Governor Glenn Anderson, who is a member of this subcommittee and the author of bill H.R. 10420, signed into law a bill which extended the reserve of the sea otter from the Carmel River to the city of Cambria. Now, the California Department of Fish and Game and some sport and commercial abalone interests are wrongly contending that the reserve created by his signature was intended to confine the sea otters to the area between the Carmel River and the town of Cambria. They charge that the sea otters have ecsaped from this zone of protection and are occupying areas north and south of their 1959 expanded refuge. It is my understanding that something has happened to the Pribilof fur seal population this season which the wildlife managers are unable to account for; there has been a great drop in the Pribilof fur seal population. I am also concerned as to the fate of the porpoises which fall victim off Chile to the tuna fishermen. They use these porpoises to discover the schools of tuna. The fisherman accidentally kill the porpoises 126 along with the tuna, especially the female and baby porpoises, the babies cannot make it over the net to escape and their mothers will not leave their babies. With a high rate of porpoise deaths, we are in danger of losing this resource and our fishermen are in danger of losing their one good method of finding the tuna. Wildlife managers are employed by our Fish and Wildlife Service and by State departments of game and fish. These men are influenced or their superiors are influenced by the commercial and sports inter- ests and often their research is skewed. Our California Department of Fish and Game is supported entirely by sport and commercial license revenues. No conservation money, no general funds are given to them at all, so the wildlife managers are unfortunately politically motivated or influenced because of the nature of their support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Vandevere, the committee is very grateful to you for your very helpful statement. The gentleman from California, Mr, Anderson. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Mr. Vande- vere for his remarks and particularly in reminding me that I did sign the sea otter bill into law. Thanks again for reminding me. Although it is now ancient history, it was a needed law. (A letter was received by the committee from Mr. Vandevere, fol- lowing his appearance. The text of his letter follows:) Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Orove, Calif., September 24, 1971. Hon. John D. Dingell, House Office Building, Washington, D.G. My Dear Mr. Dingell : Chief Clerk, Robert J. McElroy has been sent the cor- rected copy of my testimony before your Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wild- life Conservation on September 9, 1971. To prevent repetition, I have recom- mended that he delete more than 130 lines of my additional comments for this information appears in my prepared testimony. I would like to apply for insertion of the following approximately 14 supple- mental lines, on page 122, after line 18 : "H.R. 10420 vphich provides that the fate of all marine mammals shall be decided by three commissioners 'Knowledgeable in . . . resource management' is therefore disturbing as is the fact that they are charged with managing all marine mammals. '. . . on an optimum sustained yield basis.' The commissioners should be knowledgeable in marine ecology and marine mammalogy, not resource exploitation. "Also, the provision in H.R. 10420 which permits *. . . any marine mammal (to be captured) for public display or educational purposes . . .' should be qualified to prohibit their display in all zoos and shows other than the major facilities of the world which employ marine mammal veterinarians and have proper accom- modations for these unfortunate marine mammals." I was impressed by your opening statement and by your interest in the testi- mony of the scientists whom you had the wisdom to invite before your subcom- mittee. I understand that you have requested information on the status of the sea otter. I have forwarded such data to you through the Humane Society. I enclose a copy of a letter I have addressed to the Hon. Glenn Anderson in which I recommend complete protection for all marine mammals until the bio- logical effects of increasing levels of cumulative poisons can be determined. Yours very truly, JuDSON E. Vandevere. Enclosure. 127 Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, Calif., September 2Jf, 1911. Hon. Glenn M. Andeeson, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Anderson : Many thanks for your letter of 16 September. As you remarked, I commended acting Governor Glenn Anderson for signing into law in 1959 a bill which quadrupled in size, the reserve of the southern sea otter. Men- tion of this expansion appears on page 526 of the October 1971 issue of National Geographic. It is my understanding that something has happened to the Pribilof fur seal population this season which the wildlife managers are unable to account for, and there has been a great drop in the Pribilof fur seal population. Wildlife managers are employed by our Fish and Wildlife Service and by State departments of game and fish. These men are influenced or their superiors are influenced by the commercial and sports interests and often their research is skewed. Our California department of fish and game is supported entirely by sport and commercial license revenues. No conservation money, no general funds are given to them at all, so the wildlife managers are unfortunately politically motivated or influenced because of the nature of their support. H.R. 10420 which provides that the fate of all marine mammals shall be de- cided by three commissioners "Knowledgeable in . . . resource management" is therefore disturbing as is the fact that they are charged with managing all marine mammals ". . . on an optimum sustained yield basis." The commissioners should be knowledgeable in marine ecology and marine mammalogy, not resource exploitation. Also, the provision in H.R. 10420 which permits ". . . any marine mammal (to be captured) for public display or educational purposes . . ." should be qualified to prohibit their display in all zoos and shows other than the major facilities of the world which employ marine mammal veterinarians and have proper accom- modations for these unfortunate marine mammals. The world's populations of marine mammals are in jeopardy from : over ex- ploitation ; accidental man-caused traumatic death ; legal and illegal cropping to prevent resource conflicts ; larger and more numerous oil spills ; the Cannikin blast on Amchitka ; and the increasing levels of cumulative polychlorinated biphenyls, heavy metals, and chlorinated hydrocarbons in their tissues. Because of these problems and our fear that devastating reproductive failure, such as some bird species are experiencing, may next be recognized in marine mammal populations, legislation to promote the management of marine mam- mals ". . . on an optimum sustained yield basis . . ." is in error. Today's hard pressed remnants of our once healthy marine mammal popula- tions should be given complete protection until the biological effects of increas- ing levels of cumulative poisons can be determined. Yours very truly, JuDSON E. Vandevere. (The following column on the matters raised by Mr. Vandevere was received after the close of those hearings. For the information of those concerned, the material follows :) Our Environment — The Sea Lions' Warning (By Stewart Udall and Jeff Stansbury) On California's rugged channel islands, we Americans may be entering the saddest phase of our long love-hate affair with pesticides. Scientists have dis- covered a stunningly high correlation between levels of DDT in the female sea lions that inhabit the islands and the alarming rate at which they are now abort- ing their pups. This discovery is so recent that the backup studies will not be published for several weeks. But if the link between DDT and abortions is sustained, it will be the flrst time it has ever been documented in a wild population of mammals — the biological order to which man himself belongs. 128 Here's how the latest pesticide disclosures came to light. In 1968, a young zoology student, Daniel Odell, observed a large number of aborted sea lion pups strewn across the beaches of San Miguel and Santa Barbara islands. Odell, now ^ is a UOLA ecologist investigating the population dynamics of California sea lions and elephant seals. He learned that abortions among the channel island herds had been reported as early as 1949 — but never in their present high numbers. Two years ago, Odell began making monthly surveys of the 10,000 to 12,000 sea lions on San Nicolas Island southwest of Los Angeles. Breeding begins there each June, and the pups are bom during the spring. "Aborted" young ac- tually emerge alive, but they are premature and quickly die. In 1969, Odell counted 135 aborted pups from January to mid-May. The follow- ing year the number rose to at least 550, then fell off to 389 this spring. What about the young who survived? There were only 2,300 in 1970 and sub- stantially more — 3,500 — this year. From a population of at least 7,500 aduit females, however, neither baby crop was impressive. Odell thinks many more pups were aborted at sea. Evidence strongly implicating DDT in this drama has now been brought for- ward by three West Coast researchers, William Gilmartin, John Simpson and Robert De Long. Last spring, they examined six female sea lions who had just aborted their yoimg and four who had borne healthy pups. They found no signifi- cant age differences between the two groups. They fo\ind no differences in viral, bacterial or stress diseases. What they did find was a striking disparity in the levels of DDE — the main breakdown product of DDT. The aborting females had 8^ times as much toxic DDT in their blubber as did the nonaborting females. "We could hardly believe it," says Gilmartin, a microbiologist with the Naval Undersea Research and Development Center in San Diego. "There was this dramatic gap in pesticide levels between the two groups — no overlap at all. The relationship between DDE and the abortions is so strong that it is probably causal, though we won't really know without more research." De Long, a biologist with the Commerce Department's National Marine Fish- eries Service in Seattle, points out that the aborting sea lions also had high levels of mercury and very high levels of PCBs — toxic chemicals that are in- creasingly being used in paints, insulation and plastics. "In combination with DDT," he says, "the PCBs may have had a doubly grave impact on sea lion reproductivity. Those animals were really hot." The work of Odell, Gilmartin, Simpson and De Long raises some tantalizing questions. Why, for instance, do female sea lions from the same island show such striking differences in DDT and PCB concentrations? "The answer may lie in the migratory and feeding habits of the herd," says Odell. "Many of the San Nicolas females seem to winter off the coast of Mexico, but some hang around the islands. Very possibly they're the ones picking up most of the pesticides in the squid and fish they eat Around Ventura, there's lots of agricultural runoff into the sea, and in Santa Monica bay the Montrose Chemical Corp. is known to have dumped DDT." The crisis of the sea lions comes amid growing evidence that pesticides and PCBs are threatening entire bird species — especially the pelicans, peregrine falcons, bald eagles and Massachusetts sparrow hawks. In 1969, for instance, a breeding population of over 600 brown i>elicans on California's Anacapa Island produced only five fledglings. A related brown pelican population in South Caro- lina withered away from over 5,000 breeding pairs in 1960 to only 1,250 in 1969. In all these cases, DDT or PCBs severely deranged the birds' calcium processes^ Females lay eggs so thin-shelled they are crushed in the nests. The few pelican eggs that survived contained over 15 times as much DDT as eggs found in one successfully breeding population. But of all the recent developments, the threat to the sea lions is most ominous. Ocean mammals are everywhere threatened, and legislation to save them (the Harris-Pryor bill) has been attacked by the Nixon Administration. Considering the likely new menace of toxic chemicals, isn't it time we halted the commercial killing of sea mammals? Finally, the ultimate question : Sea lions are mammals. So are we. If DDT and the PCBs are inhibiting the reproduction of sea lions, what are they doing to us? (Copyright 1971, Newsday. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate.) i 129 Mr. DiNGELL. Our next witness is Dr. Daniel Hartman, Paradise Point Nature Center, N.H. Will you identify yourself for the record and then we will be pleased to hear from you. STATEMENT OF DANIEL HARTMAN, PH. D., PARADISE POINT NATURE CENTER, N.H. Dr. Hartman. My name is Daniel Hartman. I am here to testify on behalf of a rare and little known group of mammals called siren- ians. The group is represented in the United States by a single species, the Florida manatee or sea cow. Recently, I had the pleasure of studying the natural history of this animal for a year and a half. My research was sponsored by the Na- tional Geographic Society and presented as a doctoral dissertation to Cornell University. There are but four species of sirenians. All are immediately threat- ened with extinction, a fate which has already befallen their cousin, Steller's sea cow. Discovered in 1741 off two islands in the Bering Sea, this toothless 25-foot leviathan was ruthlessly killed for meat by fur sealers. The last one was harpooned and clubbed to death a mere 27 years after their discovery. At the turn of the century, the Florida manatee was on the thresh- old of extermination. Formerly ranging along the coast from the Carolinas to Mexico, the animal was slaughtered in all but the most sequestered backwaters. Manatee steaks were, and still are, considered a delicacy. The manatees were soon reduced to a few relict populations scattered along the Florida peninsula. Since then, their status and distribution has changed imperceptibly, if at all. The Florida manatee is protected "by State law. There is a $500 fine for killing or molesting a sea cow. This penalty is rarely en- forced. The law, furthermore, has little relevance today. It was origi- nally designed to protect manatees from poachers, but poaching is no longer a serious threat. Instead, manatees face new dangers. In several areas, notably around Tampa and in the St. Johns River, water contaminated by herbicide spraying, dredging, and/or industrial effluents has destroyed the vege- tation on which the animals feed. Still more hazardous to their survival, indeed the chief source of manatee mortality, are the whirling propellers of speeding power craft wthich overtake the animals unaware at the surface. To adequately protect the manatee, therefore, new legislation must be enacted, legislation that is directed toward pollution abatement and reducation of boat speeds in manatee habitat. In every nation where sirenians occur — other than tihe United States — ^their numbers are dwindling fast. In this country, the manatee is apparently holding its own, for the moment anyway, but its status is tenuous. We do, however, have an opportunity to bring them back, perfiaps to set an international precedent. I suggest this because it appears that manatees are on the increase, at least on the central west coast of Florida where I conducted my study. Their recovery in the area parallels a recent eruption of in- troduced aquatic "weeds." 130 The actual focus of my research was the source of the Crystal River where limpid spring-fed waters prs Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, Calif. Will you please identify yourself fully for the purposes of the record ? < STATEMENT OF THEODORE J. WALKER, PH. D., RESEARCH BIOL- J OGIST (RETIRED), SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, LA JOLLA, CALIF. Dr. Walker. My name is Theodore J. Walker. From 1948-69, I served as Research Oceanographer, Scripps Institution of Oceanog- raphy, La Jolle, Calif. Since that time, I have produced a film for the National Parks Service documenting gray whale behavior; writ- ten the article on the gray whale for the National Geographic, March 1971 ; participated in two Jacques Cousteau specials, "The Desert Wliale" and "The Elephant Seal," and have just completed "Alaska- Wilderness Lake" which will be shown on national television this fall. The scientific and popular writing on whales has created such an abundance of fact and folklore that it becomes very difficult to jus- tify any point of view with finality. However, I would like to go on record that we stop killing all whales and, in fact, virtually all marine mammals. My reasons follows : It is my feeling that we should leave the natural world in as good condition as we found it. It is evident that in the 20th century, whaling has become so ef- ficient that all whales will reach near extinction in a few more years. Population experts will quibble over when this will happen. It is more important to stop short of catastrophe. The yields which a mai^ine mammal can provide and still meet the vicissitudes of its environment are not known. It is evident that man's exploitation of the renewable marine resources of the sea has proceeded J by trial and error. The whaling companies have invested a small per- * centage of their profits and made available their facilities to whaling scientists who were and are charged with judging what the catch should be. These scientists owe their livelihood to the whaling companies, and it should not be embarrassing to them to acknowledge their bias to- ward whaling. They have achieved a tremendous body of whaling statistics which is derived primarily from measurements and observa- tions of whale carcasses. Virtually all of our know^ledge of the biology of whales has been derived by these scientists; however, these studies do not encompass the living whale. Such studies would provide much greater apprecia- tion of the animal and its problems engendered in its daily living. I have, myself, pioneered in such studies on the California gray whale and, although my findings are far from completely elucidating the full reality of the gray whale, I find much contradiction with the findings of the whaling scientists who work in whaling stations. In the evolution of marine mammals into the sea, species have evolved which stand at the peak of the food chains. 133 Various specializations have been evolved, which parallel the op- erational needs of the navies; for example, underwater communica- tions and underwater location. It is safe to say that man has much to learn about these remarkable specializations. I would argue the preservation of the whale on an esthetic basis. Whales have figured largely in the romance of the sea ; that is, Mel- ville's "Moby Dick," Victor Sheffer's "Year of the Whale,]' et cetera. In the 20th century, man has taken much joy from seeing whales lolling and blowing along the California, Oregon, Washington coast, and whale watching is very much in vogue. Second, whales need to be preserv^ to maintain the normal eco- logical relationships in which they figure prominently. Third, whales should be preserved for the mysteries which they will afford new generations of scientists to unravel. Finally, when the whale populations have recovered to their orig- inal levels, it would be possible to probe normal population fluctua- tions which the environment places on them. Coupling this informa- tion with the full knowledge of the daily and season stresses experi- enced by whales, one should be able to establish a reasonable estimate of the catch which the whale species could afford from year to year instead of making a wild guess and having to wait for the population to climb back to its optimum productive level- Turning now to an example, the California gray whale population is presently restricted to a Califomian herd which calves primarily in California. In the 1920's and before, the California gray whale also calved off Korea. This population is now extinct. Examination of whaling logs of the New England dealei-s, who first whaled the California gray whale in 1846, finds a rather abrupt decline in the overall population in a period of not more than 10 years, and by 1870, the species was virtually extinct. Further studies of the efficacy of whaling in those days reveals the intensity of whaling to be extremely low, probably not more than one whale per day per boat and, in spit^ of this inefficient limited catch, the whales became so reduced as to be unprofitable to whaling. Attempts by man in the 1920-34 period, employing the predecessors of modem whaling fleets, brought whaling stocks into near extinction by 1934. It is curious that the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries employs a whaling scientist whose responsibility is to probe population levels of whales exploited off central California by two whaling companies whose products enter into pet food and fur-farm animals. It should be stressed that the population sampling techniques are those standard for the industry and are dependent on the operation of those whaling companies. Ostensibly, the international whaling industry awaits the results of their population analysis of the California gray whale which is presently being harvested solely for this study. This brings me around to my main complaint with the International Whaling Commission and the population studies which they finance. I think the rapid decline and the bankruptcy of whaling companies speaks for the inability of these people to harvest whales with a con- tinued sustained yield. In fact, unless international pressure can be 134 brought to bear on the culprits, all major whales will vanish from this globe. The possibility of this happening is real enough, as evidenced by the loss of the Korean herd of California gray whales and the ex- tremely limited stocks of bowhead whales and their near relatives, the right whales. These species, which figured so prominently in 17th and 18th centuiy whaling, have failed even today to come back, notwith- standing the fact that they are presently banned from whaling (1937) . I would like to go on record as pointing out that the population scientist, the International Whaling Commission, and those employed in various governmental agencies throughout the world, have beauti- fully mirrored the decline of whaling stocks and have hastened the eventual ill health of the whaling industry by rapid finding, killing, and butchering of whales. They have, also, pursued these limited re- searches to the point of absurdity. Such studies would not gain or warrant publication in truly competitive scientific journals. I introduce this evidence, not to censure their basic findings, but to establish their repetition and wastefulness and failure to develop meaningful studies based on the living whale. Insofar as other marine mammals, exploitation principles should depend on, first, having adequate study of the living animal and its ecological relationships, so that sound management practices could ensue. I cannot, in my own conscience, see the need to adorn the human body with wild pelts when we can do better with synthetics. In this connection, there is new information developing in Cali- fornia on the interconnection of the sea otter in its role in maintaining the natural beds of kelp which fringe the rocky shores from Alaska to Baja California. The kelp has undergone considerable decline in areas of abundance, and this is believed to be due to the overpopula- tion of sea urchins which destroy the new kelp plants. Extensive manipulation of the ecological system involving pesti- cides for sea urchins has proved to have many deleterious effects of other inhabitants of the kelp, and it now appears that the sea otter provided nature's method of control. I believe that I would like to also go on record as pointing out that a moratorium on the slaughter of animals should not be construed as the final solution to these problems. It is most important that the United States, through enactment of this legislation, set an example throughout the world. It has been my philosophy that we cannot save anything that we do not experience. My testimony today has been directed in a slightly different way than I think you would expect a scientist to react. I have become increasingly disenchanted with the fact that we scientists become so specialized that we bury ourselves in a hole and never look out and essentially communicate only with each other in a very technical way. I have spent approximately 6% months living alone developing a documentary on the ecology of streams and lakes in southeast Alaska. In the process of doing this, I began for the first time to look out 135 and see some of the shortcoming of science, and I feel that the case of the whale is a particularly good one. The reason I am going to be here testifying is that I have always felt the scientists who are involved in what we might call management of the whale resources are essentially well-meaning scientists, and they have done a tremendous job. There is a tremendous literature they have accumulated, but it is to no avail because the people for whom they work are the whaling interests and they have continued to whale above and beyond the amount they should. The result is that gradually the whaling interests are dropping out one by one and at the present time we are down to three nations that are whaling, four if you want to consider our whaling station at Richmond, Calif. Mr. DiNGELL. Do we not also have some outlaw whalers? Dr. Walker. Yes. I feel very strongly that this legislation is a must. We must endeavor to go on record as being opposed to whaling at the present time and we owe it to future generations to preserve whales. Whales have figured tremendously in the mystique of the sea, the literature of the sea. Everyone identifies strongly with whales. Whales are animals of mystery and animals whose ability and agility to keep out of our way leaves us, as researchers, in an em- barrassing position. We cannot do the research on them that we want. If we are intent on maintaining a population level of human beings at the present level or at some larger level, it is obvious that we are going to have to turn to the sea for food. I feel a little unhappy about this thought and we have already been living out of the sea, but if we are going to do it we are going to have to somehow give the species a chance to come back. At the present time we have seven whale species that are available for commercial whaling and of these seven, three are in rare condition. We have the gray, the bowhead, the rake and now the humpback whale and, of course, the blue and if we are going to give these creatures a chance to come back, the 10-year moratorium is not enough. We are talking about populating tremendous volume of a vast sur- face of the globe, approximately 70 percent of the ocean which is available to the whales and I just somehow feel that the committee should consider this an overpowering necessity to somehow see the right moral and the right conservation practice so that the whales do have a chance to come back. The bowhead whale and the right whale have not been whaled prop- erly for over a hundred years and in spite of the fact that they are not being whaled, they have not come back. There is a strong feeling that maybe when an animal gets down to a certain level with the volume of the ocean and the problem of whales getting together to mate, that they just cannot do it. There is also some impression that gregarious animals, social ani- mals, when they are put into population situations which are too few, 67-765 O - 71 - 10 136 are under stress and because they are under stress, they do not perform properly. I think I have stressed the idea that there is the essential possibility of using these animals again at some future date. I do not think it would be 10 years. I think it is much closer to 100 years. Mr. DiNGELL. As a matter of fact, the lifespan being what it is, it might be less than that. Dr. Walker. Yes. I think we have to do additional research on the whales. I get a little embarrassed here because I feel the areas in which we should be putting our research money are in areas where we are building things that are more immediate to man. I think that the whales are in an environment which will be the last to go. I do not subscribe to the idea that the oceans are going to be immediately converted into cesspools, but there are obvious close con- nections between whales and all the other members of the food chain. I do not think we can willy-nilly go along and assume if we tamper here with the ecological system that there will be no repercus- sions elsewhere. I know time is short, but I just feel so desperately about this, that scientists should not be fighting among themselves about what level we should allow" to be taken. I think we should arbitrarily say at the moment it would be to our real advantage to stop, and with that I will stop. Thank you very much. Mr. DiNGELL. Doctor, you have been very gracious and informative to the committee to come such a great distance and we want to tell you to feel comfortable. I am sure you have other things you would like to say and for that reason, the Chair will hold the record open for such additional inserts as you may wish to make. The Chair is advised that you did have a brief film that you would like to show us. Dr. Walker. This is on one of my favorites, the gray whale. I would like to identify the problem of the gray whale. The gray whale has not been taken commercially since 1934. The gray whale has been protected during this period of time and has gradually recovered to some degree, the degree it has recovered is op>en to argument. 'The whaling station in Richmond, Calif, is viewing this resource very eagerly. They would like to augment their brief whaling season by taking the gray whale as it migraites along the California coast, both down and up migration. In addition, the Russian and Japanese fleets of the North Pacific are operating during the summer months when the California whale is in the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. Mr. DiNGELL. Are they taking the gray whale ? Dr. Walker. We do not know. There is every reason to suspect they are because there are no observers aboard those vessels. It is strictly a gentleman's agreement among themselves. 137 Once a whale goes aboard a whaling ship and goes through the ijrinding wheels and the butchering, it is finished and there is no way to tell a gray whale from any other whale. My feeling is that the gray whale population has leveled off and it may very well be that there is some sort of, what I guess you would call, piracy of these species. Mr. DiNGELL. Can you give us an idea of the population level of these different species ? Dr. Walker. I have some notes here. Again these vary. The estimate for the blue whale is somewhere between 600 and 3,000. The estimate for the finback supposedly is around 100,000. The sei whale which another is closely related to these two I suspect may be 75,000. The sperm whale is the only whale species that has any real hope of continuing to the 21st century because essentially whaling can be con- fined to the male population which is supemumary. The humpback whale is around 2,000. The gray whale istetween 6,000 and 10,000. The bowhead whale, as I reported, in the l7th century fisheries of Holland and England was very abundant but now it is estimated between 20 and 200. The right whale is 20 to 250. The small estimates are completely out of order. They may be quite a bit more. A whale comes to the surface to breathe every so many minutes. Statistically, it is very difficult to census them in this way. The best census is really based on catch statistics. Well, this film is a film showing how the whalers operate. I would like to point out that whaling is a nasty business. There is no easy way to kill a whale. I cannot argue the point. There have been a number of experiments attempting to figure out the way of killing whales and the way now is to shoot them and explode a bomb in their body. This film deals with the killing of blue whales. Let's stop it there. I am very much against seeing anything slaugh- tered if it is alright with you. I have at least made my point. I do feel the whale is a heritage we must pass on to future generations and there is only one way to do it and that is to get with it. Mr. DiNGELL. Doctor, the committee is grateful to you for your pres- ence and your very helpful statement. The Chair observes one more witness was scheduled, Mr. Tom Gar- rett, of Friends of the Earth. The Chair announces at this time that further hearings will be held at which time Government witnesses will be called in. Witnesses from Alaska, California, and also from other conservation organizations and private citizens will be heard at a time later. The Chair does advise it is the intention of the subcommittee to move forward as rapidly as possible toward a good, solid bill to protect marine mammals. The Chair does announce that the next set of hearings will take place September 13, at which time the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Interior will be heard. 138 The Chair does also announce that at that time we will be hearing from Assistant Secretaries or Under Secretaries, persons who are able to address themselves to the polic}^ questions involved here. There is the probability that Friday of next week will also be a day for hearings and possibly sometime around the 23rd there will be fur- ther hearings, which will be announced as soon as the subcommittee has been informed that those dates are satisfactory. If there is no further business to come before the subcommittee, the subcommittee will stand adjourned pending the call of the Chair. The Chair does thank all witnesses who have made their time and efforts available for a successful and informative hearing. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12 :20 p.m. the subcommitee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.) MARINE MAMMALS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1971 House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant ]VL\rine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Washington^ D.C. The subcommittee convened at 10 :10 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. Dingell. The subcommittee will come to order. This is a continuation of the hearings by the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation on H.R. 6558 and related bills to provide for the protection of marine mammals. The witnesses this morning are Dr. Lee Talbot, Senior Scientist, Council on Environmental Quality; Dr. Joseph Linduska, Acting Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior; Dr. Donald McKernan, Special Assistant to the Secretary, Department of State ; and Mr. Howard Pollock, Deputy Administra- tor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. Dr. Talbot, it is a pleasure to see you. The Chair would request that you identify yourself fully for the purposes of the record and if you choose to have any of your associates with you for purposes of counsel or to testify, please feel free to call on them. STATEMENT OF DR. LEE TALBOT, SENIOR SCIENTIST, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Dr. Talbot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Lee Talbot, Senior Sci- entist of the President's Council on Environmental Quality. Chairman Train regrets that he is unable to be here this morning. He has a longstanding commitment to present testimony elsewhere this morning and consequently, he requested that I represent him by presenting his prepared statement and that I be prepared to respond to any questions that you may have, sir. I do not have anyone appearing with me. Chairman Train's statement reads as follows : STATEMENT OF RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY— AS READ BY DR. LEE TALBOT Dr. Talbot (reading) . Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to present to you our comments on H.R. 10420, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971 and other bills before the committee. (139) 140 You have also invited comments from the several Federal depart- ments that would be involved in the execution of a marine mammals act. In their statements to you, the representatives of these depart- ments will address specific provisions of H.R. 10420 and suggest amend- ments from the standpoint of their individual responsibilities. I ^hall not cover the same ground, but rather, shall address myself more gen- erally to some of what we consider to be the most important aspects of '.he act. Ameiica has led the world in the development of the principles and practice of scientific wildlife management. Depending on the status of the wild species involved, the condition of its habitat, and the objectives of management, a variety of management techniques or methodologies may be used. In addition to habitat protection and manipulation, man- agement techniques required to assure the survival of a species may range from provision of total protection through culling or harvest, and these requirements may change from time to time. It is basic to scientific wildlife management that while total protec- tion may be necessary to have a species at one time, it may prove detrimental to the species at a subsequent time. The rigid policy of total protection, as is called for by H.R. 6558, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971, represents a reversion away from scientific conservation and management which is basic to our national and inter- national endeavors in wildlife conservation. Consequently, we are not in favor of H.R. 6558. However, H.R. 10420 appears to be based on the principles of scientific management. The objective of H.R. 10420 is to achieve more effective management of marine mammals, in order to assure that they are not threatened with depletion or extinction, and that their esthetic, recreational, and economic values to human welfare be realized. The provisions of the act recognize the need to base effec- tive management on adequate scientific information, which in some cases does not now exist ; the need, in some cases, to extend our regu- latory authority beyond the present limit of the territorial seas ; and the need to seek more effective international agreements for manage- ment of some of the marine mammals in international waters. We strongly support this objective and endorse these principles. Mr. Chairman, you and your committee have a long and distin- guished history of effective environmental concern. It is only relatively recently that this concern has spread to the American public, in general, and indeed, to the peoples of the world. The past several years have witnessed an extraordinary growth of national and international envi- ronmental awareness. With this has come a recognition of the finite — and even fragile — nature of many of our living resources, and of the urgent need to manage them in a responsible manner on the basis of scientific knowledge and scientific management principles. There is also a growing recognition that many of our past ap- proaches to management of these living resources were based upon a relatively narrow concern with their immediate value to man as prod- ucts. We are now coming to recognize that they play a much broader and more vital role in human welfare. These living resources are integral parts of the ecosystems in which they are found. As such, they contribute to the stability and health of our environment — ^the life support system on which our survival and welfare depend. In the case of wildlife, we are also coming to recognize that in addition to 141 the ecological considerations, recreational and esthetic values must be g-iven weig:ht along with the traditional direct economic values. Therefore, we have come to a much broader concept of the objectives for management of our living resources. As a result, in some oases, revision in our approach to this management is required. This prin- ciple is particularly evident in the case of some marine mammals, such as whales. When the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was developed following World War II, a paramount consideration was the health and welfare of the whaling industry which had been seriously affected by the war. Associated with this was the concern that maximum economic yields of the products of whales be obtained. The net result of whale management under this convention has been the drastic reduction of whale populations to the point where this Grovern- ment has placed all commercial species on the endangered species list. This action will have the effect of withdrawing the United States from all whaling activities or commerce in whale products at the end of this year. Although the situation may have bettered somewhat in recent years, it is clear that effective management of the whales has not been obtained under the convention. A significant revision in the convention may be required to provide the base for effective management of whales as a continuing and productive part of the marine en\'iron- ment. Section 202(a) (1) of H.R. 10420 addresses this need for review of the whaling convention. While we recognize an urgent need to improve some of our manage- ment of marine mammals, and to increase the knowledge base upon which some management depends, we also recognize that some effective research and management has been accomplished at both a State and Federal level. For example, from the information available to us, it appears that the operation of the fur seal convention has been one of the few successful examples of intemational management of a liv- ing marine resource, which has resulted in an increase of a formerly depleted population and in continued economic and biological productivity. Some marine mammals are truly international, spending much of their lives outside of the territorial waters of the United States. Ef- fective management of these species requires that the Government have adequate authority to regulate the taking of- these animals on the high seas beyond the waters under American jurisdiction. Such authoritv at present exists for the management of fur seals and sea otters under the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1096 ; 16 U.S.C. 1171) . However, it does not extend to some of the other marine mammals such as polar bears and walrus. Although section 101(1) of H.R. 10420 refers to taking marine mammals on the high seas, section 102 (a) limits the authority granted under the act to protection of marine mammals within the waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. We would recommend that the act be amended to extend authority, as appropriate, to the taking of marine mammals by persons under U.S. jurisdiction on the seas beyond the territorial waters of the United States. Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (84 Stat. 2090) transferred to the Department of Commerce those authorities formerly exercised by the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Commercial 142 Fisheries. In the case of marine mammals, this induded management activities and research related to fur seals, whales, and sea lions. In section 3(3) of H.R. 10420, responsibility for all marine mammals is placed in the Department of the Interior. The need for such a coordi- nated approach for the protection, conservation, and management of marine mammals was recognized in the proposal of this administra- tion for the creation of a Department of Natural Resources. Since such consolidation is anticipated in that proposal, we would urge speedy action on the Department of Natural Resources proposal, and in the interim, would not favor such consolidation by other means, as proposed in H.R. 10420. H.R. 10420 would establish a Marine Mammal Commission which would conduct continuing reviews and studies, and make appropriate recommendations to the Federal Government, relative to effective con- servation and management of marine mammals. We endorse the con- cept of such an independent citizen commission, and we consider it to be of high importance to the success of such a body that it have effec- tive access to the best available scientific expertise from both within and without Government. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. This concludes Chairman Train's prepared statement and since Chairman Train cannot be present, I will be happy to try to respond to any questions that you may have. Mr. DiNGELL. Dr. Talbot, the Chair wishes to first express a high regard to you and also to Chairman Train who is most distinguished and effective and dedicated. Your reading of Chairman Train's statement has been most help- ful to the committee. It has been a most excellent and helpful statement. Before I recognize my good friend and colleague, Mr. Felly, I would like to request that you submit to us such amendments to the legisla- tion as you would deem appropriate and as you have suggested to us in your testimony. I believe it would be most helpful for us to have those cast in appropriate legislative forms, and I instruct you at this time that they are to be received by this committee as a drafting service and are not to be cleared through the Bureau of the Budget. (The information follows :) Suggested Amendments to H.R. 10420 Two specific amendments to H.R. 10420 were suggested in the testimony : The first was to change the definition in Section 3(3) to include the Secre- tary of Commerce. For specific wording, reference should be made to Section 3(f) and Section 4(a) and 4(b) of the Department of Commerce Proposed Amendments of H.R. 10420 submitted as an attachment to the Department of Commerce Report of September 10, submitted to Chairman Garmatz. The second amendment was to extend regulatory authority to the high seas. For specific wording, reference should be made to Section 5(a) and the regu- lations issued under Section 6 of the previously noted proposed amendments of the Department of Commerce. Mr. DiNGELL. I yield to my good friend, Mr. Felly. Mr. Felly. I want to apologize for being a little late. It was unavoid- able, but I have had a chance to glance through the first part of Mr. Train's statement that you have presented to the committee. 143 Do I understand that you have a feeling that the proper approach would be to provide authority for protection of all species, and that the appropriate agency of our Government, I should say, would have authority to protect species where needed rather to get into any specihcs as provided in this legislation ? . Wliat, in general, do you feel about total protection? ^ ^ tv/t Dr Talbot. If I may take the second part of your question hrst, Mr. Pelly total protection is a necessary tool of management when the obiective of management is as we have described it, the broad main- tenance of the balance, the stability of the environment, and the avoid- ance of the depletion or extinction of species. , There are a number of situations where total protection lor a time and in some cases perhaps relatively permanently is required, but because environmental conditions are dynamic, it is frequently nec^es- sary to subsequently apply some other form of management m order to assure our original objective. We have a number of situations on land where total protection ot some species, for example, of the deer, has resulted m what amounts to a population explosion of that species, which has adversely attected its own environment and that of many of the other organisms, plants, and animals, with the ultimate damage to the species we were trying to protect. What I am saying is that total protection is a very important man- agement technique, but it is not the only management technique. Mr. Pelly. You want a flexible system of protection, is that it ? Dr. Talbot. Yes, sir; based on adequate scientific knowledge of the situation and of the principles of management. , ., . , Mr. Pelly. How about that flexibility ? Could it be built into the so-called Anderson-Pelly bill approach? • • u -i* Dr. Talbot. Yes; it would appear to me that it could ; that it is built into it through the mechanism of assuring a continuing scientific re- view of the status of these marine resources and of the means and method for their management as necessary. Mr. Pelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Anderson ? Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Dr. Talbot, I want to thank you for your comments. I am almost afraid to ask any questions for fear you might upset the state- ment you made in support of H.R. 10420. I was looking at your recommendation on page 6 where you say : We would recommend that the act be amended to extend authority, as appro- priate, to the taking of marine mammals by persons under U.S. jurisdiction on the seas beyond the territorial waters of the United States. What problems do we have in extending jurisdiction beyond our ter- ritorial waters. Dr. Talbot. Mr. Anderson, I am afraid I do not have any training in legal matters, in constitutional and international law. I would be very happy, however, to seek the answer to that ques- tion from appropriate authorities and submit it to the committee subsequently. Mr. Anderson. That would be all right. I would like to know just where we stand if we do extend it, what our problems would be, and what our jurisdiction actually would be in that area. 144 Tlie second question I have is on the next portion where you recom- mend the cx)nsolidation to be delayed i>ending tlie completion of the Department of Natural Resources. I was wondering what the timing was on tliat. Where are we in the Department of Natural Resources? Is it mak- ing any headway at this time? Oan we expect that to be formed shortly ? Dr. Talbot-. Well, Mr. Anderson, that is anoither area where I am not tilie best authority ; and again, I would be happy to find out and submit the answer to you all. Mr. Anderson. I oan readily see that, if the Department of Natural Resources is seriously on its way and is going to be active this year, then I think your suggestion is absolutely right; but if it is not mov- ing fast, then I think our suggestion might be beitter, and that is the reason for the question. Tliank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Kyros. Mr. Ktros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Talbot, I welcome you to the committee. In your testimony you favor Mr. Anderson's legislation for scien- tific management, H.R. 10420. Has your department considered the possibility of having a mora- torium on the killing of all these a,nimals for a couple of years while you make a complete study, which apparently has not yet been made ? Dr. Talbot. This alternative, Mr. Kyros, has not been considered specifically. The question has been raised particularly in connection wiih. the other bill. Mr. Kyros. You mean H.R. 6558 ? Dr. Talbot. Yes. Mr. Kyros. And the related bills ? Dr. Talbot. Yes, sir; at present there is in effect a moratorium on some of the marine marmnals, those which are generally regarded to be those most seriously depleted. I have mentioned the moratorium that we have placed on the formerly commercial species of whales, for example. As I understand H.R. 10420, one of the first priorities for the duties of this Commission would be a review of these various other species with the aim of rec- ommending whatever action would be needed as quickly as necessary. I believe it specifically refers to the whaling and the fur seal con- ventions. At present from some of the information that has been provided it could be argued that an immediate moratorium was not necessary for the fur seals. Mr. Kyros. Why ? Dr. Talbot. But admittedly there are widely differing reports and opinions, and it is clear that a very careful review of the whole situa- tion is needed and needed urgently. Mr. Kyros. Well, one of the things that I have noted is that there is a wide difference of opinion. I know, for example, that in Booth Bay Harbor, Maine, you can talk to a Maine lobsterman and say : 145 "What about the seals out there, they look so pretty and cute." The lobsterman will say, "Their teeth are like steel and they cut up my nets; it bothers me and I would just as soon knock them in the head." Then you find other people on the Maine coast 'who say that the seals should not be touched. My point is, have you looked economically or otherwise at the effects of an absolute moratorium on most of these animals, while you are doing these studies? You apparently have not. Dr. Talbot. We have not looked into the full implications of that. Mr. Ktros. Let me ask you this question : Do you know whether the Soviets have expressed any concern over our killing of polar bears? Do you know anything about that ? Dr. Talbot. Yes, sir, it is my understanding that the Soviets have expressed concern about this on several occasions. There is a polar bear group which met first some years back, at the invitation of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife I believe, and has been continuing under sponsorship of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. I held discussions with the president and director general of the lUCN last month specifically about the question of polar bears. There is to be another meeting of the representatives of this work- ing group in February of next year. They include representatives of all the nations which have polar bears in their waters or territories. The lUCN is requesting that they at that time be prepared to make specific recommendations for the type of measures, national and inter- national, that would be required. As I understand it, the argument which the Russians have pre- sented is that many of the polar bears which are harvested by the United States are bears which have been born, denned, on Russian territory, and they also point out that most of the rest of the bears which the U.S. harvests come from Canada. Their argument, therefore, is that we are depleting their resource. The Russians say that they have stopped all polar bear hunting be- cause apparently they have badly overharvested them in previous years and they complain that why should they impose a ban on their people "when we are profiting from it. Mr. Kyros. Incidentally, why do we harvest the polar bear ? Wliy has the polar bear not been put on the endangered species list ? Do you know the reason ? Dr. Talbot. It was not on the endangered species list because the biologists believe, both from the State of Alaska and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife who had been studying the bears felt that the total numbers and the status of the population was such that they did not deserve to be on the endangered species list. Mr. Kyros. Did we count the Russian bears as our own in that study I wonder ? Dr. Talbot. I suspect we must have counted Russian and Canadian bears as our own because in effect, if you identify bears born elsewhere as not our own, then almost none of the bears we harvest are our own. There is a counter argument made and that is that if the bears do come down on the ice to our waters during part of the year, that we are supporting them part of that year and therefore, we are not really harvesting somebody else's bears. 146 It would appear that clearly we are dealing with an international resource which must be treated and approached on an international rather than a national basis. Mr. K-iT^os. Could we trade off some rights we want to the Russians, to engage in the killing of whales as against the bears? Is that possible ? Dr. Talbot. This has been suggested in various international forums and the idea has received a great deal of support. Mr. Kyros. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Kyros. Mr. Potter. Mr. Potter. Dr. Talbot, without getting into the question of where the responsibility should lie, these animals are almost certain to be "managed" in one form or another. Would you not agree that when there is a Department of Natural Resources that it will make sense to treat all marine mammals within one coordinated program ? Dr. Talbot. This would appear exceedingly logical and my under- standing is that this "was basically part of the original aim of the pro- posal for the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Potter. In point of view of good management of living re- sources, in what circumstances is it desirable to cull or kill certain members of a given herd or species ? Dr. Talbot. Well, Mr. Potter, "desirable" is a slightly loaded word, perhaps. Looked at from the standpoint of the survival of the species and the maintenance of the balance of the environment, then it would be desirable or necessary to cull or harvest individuals of that species when the numbers of the species got to the point where they were hav- ing an adverse effect on the environment, particularly when they were, in effect, overgrazing or overusing and they had passed the carrying capacity of the environment for that species. Mr. Potter. This ties in to the question that Mr. Kyros asked you having to do with a moratorium. Looking at the Anderson-Pelly bill, it occurs to me that within the context of this kind of legislation it would be quite possible to have what amounts to a de facto morato- rium, particularly when you consider that when there is a doubt as to whether we kno^w enough about a given animal. In this case the burden of proof should be — and you I think will agree — on the person who wants to harvest the animal to show it is not going to do any bad things to the species or the stock. Does this not seem to you to be an opportunity for whoever manages these animals to declare what amounts to a de facto moratorium on their taking? Dr. Talbot. Yes. My reading of the bill is that a moratorium would be one of the management options that could be recommended and acted upon under the terms of this bill ; and, indeed, in some cases it might very well be one that would be. Mr. Potter. Are you suggesting that the criterion by which you establish what harvesting, if any, is going to be permitted, should be not what would make the most money for the harvester, but what w^ould be best for the herd ? Dr. Talbot. What -will be best for the herd and the environment. 147 I feel this is exceedingly important because it is possible to manage a wild species for a maximum sustained yield under conditions which may alter or make less stable other parts of the environment. Therefore, the maximum sustained yield in some cases may not be necessarily the yield level at which the optimum environmental bal- ance and perhaps optimum yield of various other species may be maintained. Therefore, coming back to the first part of your question, the ob- jective of management, as we see it, should not be purely economic gain in the short or the long term, but environmental balance and economic gain consistent with that. Mr. DiNGELL. Would you yield at that point? Mr. Potter. Yes. Mr. DiNGELL. I note that is a A-ery admirable point and I am not satisfied that the provisions of H.R. 10420, or, indeed, the other bills before us, necessarily exemplify that kind of philosophy in precisely that way. I do not want you to answer this question at this particular moment. Dr. Talbot, but, if you have an opportunity to reflect, would you indicate to us whether you feel an amendment could accomplish that particular point to H.R. 10420 or any of the other bills before us; and, if so, would you give us your counsel as to how that can be accomplished ? Again, I am requesting drafting service from the counsel to the committee without clearance through the Bureau of the Budget. Dr. Talbot. Be happy to try. (The information follows :) Suggested Amendments to H.R. 10420 Section 2 (2). Should be changed to read a.s follows (the addition is under- lined, the rest of the words remain unchanged) : "such species and population stocks should not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they con- tribute effectively to the health and stability of the marine ecosystem, and consistent vnth this major objective, they should not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they . . ." Section 2 (5). Insert the word "ecological" in the second line between the words "significant" and "esthetic". Following the word "management" at the end of the paragraph, add the fol- lowing: "and that the primary objective of their management should be to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. Wherever it is con- sistent with this primary objective, a secondary objective may be to obtain an optimum sustained yield." Mr. Potter. From what you tell me I gather that you are suggesting that it would be appropriate and desirable in some cases to develop fairly rigid controls on the killing of any given animals from a herd or species before that herd or species becomes formally "endangered" within the language of the Endangered Species Act. Dr. Talbot. Absolutely, Mr. Potter. If we wait until animals are formally endangered it may be too late to save them and it frequently means that difficult, expensive, and questionable methods must be followed to attempt to save them. The objective in my view should be to seek to avoid undue depletion and to keep them from getting on the endangered species list rather than to treat them once they are there. Mr. Potter. The last question I have to ask you is, Are you faniil- iar — and I know you are because I asked you before the hearing — with 148 the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, where, in the context of that convention, they define the term "conservation of the living resources of the high seas" as "the aggregate of the measures rendering possible the optimum sus- tainable yield from those resources so as to secure a maximum supply of food and other marine products." Do you consider that this is an entirely adequate definition of the concept of conservation within the environmental concerns that we now recognize? Dr. Talbot. No, I do not, Mr. Potter. I feel that while that was adequate at the time it was formulated for the concepts that existed at that time, we now have a very much broader approach and we are concerned with the broader environmen- tal stability. We recognize that by dealing with one species in one way we may be having eiffects far beyond the pont of our management or far beyond this one species. As I indicated earlier this morning, it may be possible to manage one species for the optimum sustainable yield for maximum economic gain on a sustained basis in a way which will harm or have various types of adverse effects on other parts of the environment. Therefore, that definition in my view must be broadened to meet today's environmental awareness and understanding. Mr. Potter. Thank you. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Rountree. Mr. RouNTREE. Just two questions. Dr. Talbot, I would like to ask you your opinion or the opinion of the council if you have analyzed this legislation from the standpoint of exactly what would be the future role of CEQ assuming enactment of H.R. 10420 or legislation in this area — what leadership or guidance role will you take within the administration ? Dr. Talbot. Well, Mr. Rountree, I would not be in a position to give you a very definitive statement on this beyond indicating that I do not believe this would alter the responsibilities which the Council has under the National Environmental Policy Act and subsequent Executive orders and legislation. This "would be one of the areas of environmental concern for which the Council would, I believe, maintain an overview and coordination responsibility. Mr. Rountree. My specific point is that under the Federal agency reports that have come up to us from the respective agencies, it appears that we are going to have, at least in your recommendations, a dual responsibility and authority between the Department of Commerce and the Department of Interior based upon a delineation of the type of mammal being protected or regulated. I ani just wondering whether or not you feel the Marine Mammal Commission or whether the Council will be in a position to resolve conflicting interests or try to obtain some type of a comprehensive broad thrust overview to insure that any future program is coordi- nated and developed adequately. I assume this would be the possible role of CEQ in this area. Dr. Talbot. Yes; I believe the responsibility you have described would be that of CEQ. 149 Mr. EouNTREE. Now, following up your comments in regard to NEPA, do you see any problems in any of this legislation in regard to the future administration of NEPA ? Would the Marine Mammal Commission or the independent scien- tific committee contemplated under H.K. 10420 necessarily have to comply with the requirements of NEPA or would they be exempt from filing statements and provisions under section 102 and 103 of the act ? Dr. Talbot. Well, again, this is a legal question which I am not very well qualified to answer. I know of no reason at this point why they would be exempt. Mr. RouNTREE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Dr. Talbot, I wish to commend you for a very fine statement and helpful assistance that you have given this committee. Your good work at CEQ and before you went to that agency are well known to this committee and you are held in high regard by this subcommittee. Just briefly could I ask a couple of questions. I believe it can be taken as axiomatic in scientific knowledge that the current state of informa- tion on ocean mammals, populations and so forth, is grossly inade- quate ; am I correct ? Dr. Talbot. Yes, sir; in fact I would state it considerably more strongly. Mr. DiNGELL. Could you give us if you please, either at this time or later an adequate 5 -year program for gleaning the information neces- sary to know enough about population stocks and population dynamics for a good management conservation program in this area ? Dr. Talbot. We will be very happy to try to obtain these data and to present them to you. Mr. DiNX5ELL. We would need this information in terms of cash money, in terms of numbers of personnel and examples of the kind of programs necessary, both for individual species management and for the whole population of marine mammals together. It may be that you will want to call on other agencies, the State Department perhaps and perhaps the Commerce Department and perhaps Interior for participation in providing the information I am asking for. I have the feeling I can say to you that none of the bills before us have an appropriate mechanism for triggering a really adequate re- search evaluation program in this area ; your help to this committee in generating that kind of information for the marine mammals pro- tection bill that -we will come forward with will be greatly appreciated. Dr. Talbot. I will be pleased to try. (The following was submitted in reference to the above :) Given the nature of the program information requested, it has not been pos- sible to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations in the limited time available. However, consultations have been held with representatives of the Department of Interior and Department of Commerce, and we understand that they are submitting separately to the Committee data which applies to their areas of responsibility. Mr. DiNGELL. I recognize we have the State Department with us here today but my rather limited association with the International ^Vlialing Commission has led me to believe this is a grossly inadequate mechanism for protection of the whales. 150 Are you able to ^ive us any comment on that particular point, sir ? Dr. Talbot. I think that the past record speaks rather clearly for itself. Mr. DiNGELL When they brought these species to the brink of extinction, one must wonder if they have been awake or if they have been in existence, or if they have carried out their fundamental responsibilities. Dr. Talbot. My impression, Mr. Dingell, is that because the inter- national whaling convention emphasized the welfare and health of the whaling industry rather than that of the whales and their environ- ment, and because, therefore, the makeup of the Commission from most countries, not necessarily ours, has been from leaders of the whaling industries of these countries, it has not been the most effective possible instniment to look after the health and welfare of the species and its environment. Mr. DixGELL. They certainlj are not conservators. I have a feeling they are either executors or executioners. I am not quite sure which description they should bear, but I have a feeling that the protection of the whale species and marine mammals lies not in national action, but in international action. In your view, does H.R. 10420 or any of the other bills before us have in it appropriate mechanisms for triggering an adequate inter- national response and adequate international conference on the prob- lem of conserving the whales, particularly the more endangered species ? Dr. Talbot. Well, in my opinion. Mr. Chairman, they exhort and provide the opportunity to the State Department to seek such inter- national mechanisms. Mr. Dingell. We are not giving the State Department a return date, so to say, that they are to do so and so within such a fixed date. We have tried that before with unsatisfactory results. We gave them strict instructions in regard to the endangered species to return to us within a fixed date for an international conference, and we have, as usual, been disappointed in the labors of the State Department in that particular. I wonder if we should consider an action of that kind should bear to the policy statement and the findings and declaration of policy in the bill. Can you give us any guidance on that point ? Dr. Talbot. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a point where I am not really qualified to comment. ]Mr. DixGELL. Now, can you give us a statement as to what would be an adequate Internationaf Whaling Commission in the sense of both the numbers of people, the powers, the responsibilities, and the duties of the Commission ? It is pretty obvious to me the Commission is not adequate in numbers, powers or personnel, or orientation, and perhaps you cannot give us an answer at this particular point, but it is something that would be very helpful to the committee, and I am sure it would be appropriate that you could draw on whichever of the executive agencies that you would so desire with regard to this particular point. Frankly, I have the feeling that before the w^hales can be saved, we must first save the Commission or, at least get one set up. And your help in this particular will be appreciated. 151 Mr. Goodling ? Mr. Goodling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions. Mr. DiNGELL. Doctor, it is always a pleasure to have you before this committee. You have been here many times, and in each instance, something good has come from you. Thank you. Dr. Talbot. Thank you, ^Ir. Chairman. Mr. DixGELL. Our next witness is an old friend of the present occu- pant of the chair. Dr. Joseph Linduska, Acting Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior. Doctor, if you have any member of the staff that you would like to have present with you for today for comment or assistance to the committee, please bring them to the table with you. STATEMENT BY DR. JOSEPH P. LINDUSKA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY HANSEN Dr. Linduska. Mr. Chairman, I have with me ]Mr. Henry Hansen, who is Assistant Chief of our Division of ^lanagement and Enforce ment. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Hansen, we are happy to welcome you this morning. Proceed, Doctor. Identify yourself fully for the record. Dr. Linduska. J am Joseph P. Linduska, Associate Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, those of us who long have been involved in the conservation of natural resources welcome the increasing degree of public awareness of the monumental problems we face in resolving the very real and very pressing problems of our environment. The unprecedented, worldwide expression of concern over the plight of the sea mammals is especially encouraging and speaks well for the possibility of increasingly mature and responsible environmental husbandry. Since most of the members of this group of hitherto obscure animals spend much — or in some cases all — their lives on the high seas, they are truly an international resource. As such, their welfare — with some exceptions — has been everyone's responsibility and, unfortunately, as is too often the case in such situations, no one's. As a result, some of these animals, such as some of the whales, presently face the possibility of becoming extinct. Others, such as the northern fur seal, have fared much better as the result of work- able agreements between the governments involved, in their manage- ment and of the application of and adherence to scientifically devel- oped and time-tested principles of wildlife management. We are optimistic enough to believe — given the legislative authority and the necessary resources — that these principles can be applied to other sjDecies of ocean mammals so that the outlook for their future will be brightened. We are not opposed to the concept of complete protection in those cases where such action is warranted. 67-765 O — 71 11 152 Pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, for instance, this Department has exercised every avaihible authority to protect the jrreat wliales. Total protection, however, is not always an effective solution in itself. . Populations of wild creatures are not and cannot be isolated trom other elements of the environment under the assumption that such isolation will insure their continued existence. On the contrary, wild animal populations are living, dynamic entities which act and react with each other and with their environment. As ecologists, we would like to endorse the much quoted expression, "Let Mother Nature have her way." However, as 20th century realists, we know that to do so would be grossly irresponsible and would greatly decrease the likelihood of the survival of these animals. Man's altera- tion of the world's ecosystems and the increasing potential of tech- nology to further alter them carries with it an obligation to apply these same technical skills to the task of helping these creatures survive the results of our other technological blunders. Marine mammals should be conserved and managed to achieve the optimum ecological, esthetic and economic benefit to mankind. We support legislation which will achieve this objective. These thoughts and our guiding philosophy are reflected in the Department's written reports on bills now pending before this committee. A number of bills have been introduced pertaining to marine mam- mals, ranging in scope from absolute prohibition on the taking of all species to increased authority for study of selected species. We would like to comment on these proposals and to provide our recommendations. H.R. 690 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the States to conduct a comprehensive 4-year study of the polar bear and to the walrus for the purpose of developing measures ade- quate to assure conservation of these species on the high seas. A final report of the study, together with recommendations for further action, would be made through the President to the Congress no later than January 1, 1976. The factors to be studied would include distribution, migration, and current populations, as well as the effects of hunting, disease, and food shortages. To fund these studies, there would be authorized an annual appropriation of $100,000 for fiscal years 1972-1975. We recommend the enactment of H.R. 690, if amended, to delete the list on annual appropriations contained in section 2, and to pro- hibit the taking of polar bears and walrus on the high seas, except as may be permitted by the Secretary of the Interior. In this con- nection, the Department is now working toward an international agreement on the polar bear which would result in a sound program of circumpolar research and management. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would add that the provisions of H.R. 690 were discussed wdth the executive committee of the international just yesterday in Salt Lake City, where they are holding their annual meeting, and their executive committee endorses the provisions of H.R. 690 wholeheartedly. Mr. DiNGELL. That is the International Association of Game Fish and Conservation ? 153 Dr. LiNDUSKA. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. In recognition of the need for reliable information upon which to base management programs, the Department has initiated necessarily limited studies of the sea otter, walrus, and polar bear. While data on marine mammals generally is scanty at best, we do recognize that some species are in jeopardy as the result of environ- mental degradation. There is a need for regulatory authority on the high seas and for international agreements to afford increased protection and other conservation measures throughout the range of these animals. Enactment of H.R. 690 would provide specific authority to extend the scope of studies now being conducted. The additional regulatory authority proposed by our amendment would parallel identical au- thority now available for the protection of sea otters under title III of the Fur Seal Act of 1966. This Department recognizes the need expressed by H.R. 10420 for a coordinated approach to the protection, conservation, and man- agement of marine mammals and, as already noted, agrees that addi- tional regulatory authority would, if properly conceived, contribute to the preservation of those species subject to a variety of natural and manmade incursions. Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 transferred to the Department of Commerce those authorities formerly exercised by this Department, Interior, through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. These include management activities and research related to fur seals, whales, and sea lions. The Department of Commerce has recommended the enactment of H.R. 10420 with significant amendments. We concur in its recom- mendation for broadened general research and regulatory authority. It should be noted that these authorities would supplement more specific provisions contained in other laws now applicable to both Departments. H.R. 10420, as amended, would recognize the alinement of program responsibilities accomplished by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, and anticipates the establishment of the Department of Natural Resources. Because H.R. 6554 most directly affects the program responsibilities of the Department of Commerce, we have deferred to that agency concerning the advisability of enactment. It should be noted, however, that the provisions of H.R. 6554 which impose an absolute prohibition on the taking of all marine mammals are inconsistent with the rec- ognized principles of sound wildlife management. Termination of the Pribilof fur seal harvest, conducted pursuant to international agreement, would jeopardize the livelihood of Alaska natives on the islands. Likewise, we defer to the Department of Com- merce on House Concurrent Resolution 77, H.R. 4370, and H.R. 7463, all pertaining to the methods of harvest of the Pribilof fur seal. We have recommended that the committee defer action on H.R. 7240, which contains several amendments to the Endangered Species Con- servation Act of 1969. The bill purports to strengthen authority for the protection of species classified as being threatened with extinction and raises issues worthy of careful consideration. 154 As the result of our experience with administration of the endan- gered species legishition, we have undertaken a review of ways in which to improve enforcement of those acts, to supplement regulatory authorities provided therein, and to strengthen generally the statutory protection for species threatened with extinction in the United States and abroad. Draft legislation will be recommended to the Congress followmg consultation with the States, interested organizations, and other Fed- eral agencies. We would be pleased to answer such questions as you and members of the subcommittee might wish to pursue. Mr. DiNGELL. Doctor, the committee is very grateful to you. Mr. Pelly? Mr. Peli.y. Yes. I would like to ask Dr. Linduska, as far as the effect on another great i-esource, the salmon, which my area is greatly inter- ested in. As you know, only about 1 percent of the salmon, the little salmon that ever go to sea, ever get back into the rivers. And if we could increase them — in other words, the number that return, 1 per- cent, if we could increase them by that amount, we have doubled the amount of salmon and, more importantly, the amount of food that is going to be necessary to feed the increased population of the world. Well, as I understand, the predators that reduce the salmon are these same mammals and animals that we have been discussing. The other day, one of our colleagues. Representative Pryor, said that he would like to see the return to nature and get the balance of nature restored. That is the way I understood his testimony. I thought after liis testimony what would be the effect on the salmon, for example, if the seal and the otters and various other mammals are left free of any control at all. Would that not have a very adverse effect on our salmon ? Dr. Linduska. This relates back to the question posed to Dr. Talbot and I can only follow along behind him and say amen to his interpre- tation of events. I think without question that when we talk about optimum sus- tained harvest for one species we are not taking into account that this may not be an optimum situation for st i 11 other species. As far as salmon are concerned, I think it pretty much goes without saying that the fortunes of these fish have gone up ajid do\^Ti pretty much irrespective of the populations of some of the predators. I think there is a great deal more involved as far as salmon welfare is concerned than consideration of predators alone. At the same time I could not help but agree that to let nature take its course and allow these predators to increase without controls what- soever would probably cut more heavily into the salmon stocks. I do not think there'is any doubt about it. But even more to the point is that in the case of seals and others as well, they do arrive at a point of saturation and we have witnessed heavy die-offs from various types of parasitism and other causes. If they are not converted to some form of use through an annual harvest, a segment of the population is lost to other causes. Mr. Pelly. In other words, you strongly support, the proposal of flexibility in conser\'ation and protection of our animal resources? Dr. Linduska. I do, indeed. 155 Mr. Pelly. Well, I think some reference was made by Dr. Talbot to the economic resource. It is something more than that. When you talk about the salmon you are talking about the natives and their livelihood and their source of food and the danger of starvation. We have to have, it seems to mej some balance to this program and it must be on some scientific basis regulated in order to keep that balance that we are all hoping to restore in nature. Dr. LiNDUSBLA.. The inroads of man on habitat and on the environ- ment generally have been such that we are much too far down the road to turn back and allow nature to regulate as it will. Obviously through a great many developments we have impaired or at least altered the environment so it is hard telling what we would come up with if we allowed nature to establish balances in this day and age. Mr. Pelly. As you so well know, the salmon are a pretty good exam- ple of where you can have too many of a species. The salmon return to a river to reproduce and if there are too many fish they dig up their own eggs and as a result there is a tremendous loss rather than a growth in the number of the salmon stocks each year. Well, I think you have added a great deal to my thinking in this matter. I know we are greatly concerned with coming up with some legisla- tion, but I think it will have to be on the basis of an object, not neces- sarily economic, but the human values that are involved in keeping the balanced program and the only way I can see it is with some flexibility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Anderson ? Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Linduska, I notice in your comments on page 5 that you antici- pate the Reorganization Plan No. 4 that the Department of Natural Resources will be coming into being shortly. Is that legislation moving reasonably well in this Congress? Dr. Linduska. Mr. Anderson, yes, it is my understanding that it is under serious consideration and discussions are going on. Mr. Anderson. If it is not successful, do you feel H.R. 10420 as it is presently written prior to this suggested amendment is satisfactory to cover that situation or are there problems ? Dr. Linduska. I would have to orient that in space of time depend- ing on how long we are talking about. I would say if it is something unsure that it is likely not to occur for a good many years, why certainly some sort of stopgap legislation would be highly desirable. If it is something relatively imminent, a year or 18 months, we could live with the present circumstances until it comes about. Mr. Anderson. I have a question regarding sea otters. I am con- cerned and I am somewhat knowledgeable about them in California. We had a witness before us this last we^k that was testifying about the ])roblems confronting sea otters as a result of pollution and accidents from boating and thmgs like that in that area. Can you give us a capsule of what the problem and the situation is confronting the sea otters, not just in California, but wherever they may be? 156 Dr. LiNDUSKA. Well, of course, we are talking about two different sea otter populations, the southern population is in much shorter supply than is the northern sea ott«r population. I think that we know probably a little more about the northern herd. Along about the turn of the century, the date was 1911, they were brought under an aggressive management program, including complete protection. They were down to a mere nub, practically an endangei-ed species, and through prohibitions on takhig and an aggres- sive program of transplanting, they have grown from a relatively few to a herd that now numbers, as I recall, in the neighborhood of 50,000. Mr. Anderson. In what area now is the 50,000 located ? Dr. LiNDusKA. That is the northern herd, mainly off the Aleutians — Amchitka and eastward. An aggressive program of transplanting was done, and they in- creased rather remarkably, as a matter of fact, to a point where in some areas they have obviously reached the saturation point, and the rate of annual increment has stabilized at about zero rated increase. The State of Alaska has taken a harvest of about 500 animals a year for the last 5 or 6 years. Elsewhere, where they are newly introduced in a new habitat, the rate of increase has been running about 10 percent with a maximum poten- tial being about 14 percent. So it is a rapid growth, as you can see. Several States have participated in transplant programs. Both Washington and Oregon have introduced animals from Alaska, and British Columbia has also arranged for introductions. In summation, the northern herd is doing quite well. I am sorry that I cannot be more specific in response to your ques- tion about the southern sea otter population, the one off the California coast, but what you have mentioned, the effects on the environment and various disturbances, I understand present very much of a prob- lem to that group of animals. Mr. Anderson. Then you feel that perhaps there is a need for more attention to be given to the manner in which they are being handled in California, both by the Department and by the local State officials ? Dr. LiNDusKA. I am not fully competent to talk to this point, but I believe that population, least within our time frame, has always had a more restricted range; the opportunties for extending its range through transplants is not as great as it was with the northern herd. I would like to refer that to Mr. Hansen for any comments he might have. Do you know any more about that? Mr. Hansen. You have a very limited amount of habitat along the California coast for sea otters; and when we speak of a population of 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000 and upward in the north, I do not think by any stretdi of the imagination we can ever conceive of populations like that along the California coast. The habitat is not there. Mr. Anderson. What do you estimate the size of the present popu- lation of the southern sea otter? Mr. Hansen. I do not know what it might be. I have heard figures up to 1,000 animals, but I would not know. The California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over these animals, and they would have some pretty good population figures, as good as any available, but the iwtential m the northern 1&7 part of the range is real good, and the population has not yet been brought back to anywhere near what that will support up there. The ancestral range from Puget Sound northward clear out to the Aleutians could still support a lot more animals, and that is the pur- pose of the transplants that have recently been made, transplants which, incidentally, appear to be eminently successful. Mr. Anderson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr .Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Goodling? Mr. Goodling. Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. Doctor, you say the Department is now working toward an inter- national agreemeait on polar bear. With what countries are you working ? Dr. LiNDusKA. Russia, Norway, Denmark, and Canada. Mr. Goodling. How much jurisdiction does the United States have on the polar bear range? Dr. LiNDusKA. None at the moment. They come under jurisdiction of the State of Alaska out to the 3-mile limit ; and beyond that, there is no jurisdiction. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction what- soever at that point. Mr. Goodling. Are you having a reasonable amount of success and cooperation from these countries ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Yes; I think the international understanding is good. There is a very active interest in all nations concerned at the moment. What we have done as a Federal agency is to employ a full-time man, Mr. Jim Brooks, to study the polar bear in Alaska, a second biologist employed by the State is working on the same problem. Mr. Brooks has ben very active in the international considerations that have been given to polar bears, and we, of course, expect to con- tinue that in every way we can. At the moment, the dearth of knowledge that surrounds the polar bear is a real limitation on how we can manage the animal. We are not even sure, Mr, Goodling, whether we are talking about one homogeneous herd or whether there are two or three or more sub- species or physiological races involved, some of which appear off of the European Arctic as compared to what we have off our Canadian and U.S. waters. We have not even clarified that point at this time. Mr. Goodling. We originally passed a bill prohibiting the shooting of game by airplane. I do not believe many polar bear are shot from airplanes, but I know they shoot them from planes and then land, and it is rather simple to get your game doing that. Do other countries do the ^ime thing ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. It mainly occurs in hunting off Alaska. I might mention in that connection, the State of Alaska has legis- lation in the hopper which would prohibit the taking of polar bear by means of aircraft, beginning in 1973. If this happens, it will bring a lot more order and consideration to the taking of polar bears off our Alaskan coast, but I should say in addition to that, we still need Federal legislation to give tlie type of protection to the animal that it needs because of the inability of the State of Alaska to exercise their authority beyond the 3-mile limit. It is my understanding that some illegal kill is effected beyond that 3-mile limit and brought into this country. Since there is no existing law to cover it, there is nothing we can do about it. 158 Mr. GooDLiNG. Has Interior given any thought to placing polar l)«i.i"fl on the endangered species list ? Dr. T^ixDUSKA. It has been talked about, but here again we are l(K'ked in by provisions in the Endangered Species Act. We must abide by a fairly strict definition of worldwide endangerment. We cannot see the animal in that precarious a state at the moment, iind it would be stret-ching the fact, to do so. The provisions of the act pi-etty well prevent it. Mr. GooDLiNG. What is the estimated world population of the polar bear. Dr. LixDUSKA. I will have to have some help on tha/t. Mr. Hansen. Well, as you can well imagine, precise data concern- ing maritime species such as the polar bear are difficult to get, and that is one of the purposes of this five-nation study team. We have a reasonably good fix of the bear population off the coast of Alaska, numbering between 3,000 and 3,500 animals. We assume they are two distinct populations, one associated with the Wrangel Island denning area in Russia, and the other associated with the islands of northern Canada. If we draw a line from Point Barrow to the North Pole, the bears to the west would be associated with the Russian maternity area. The bears to the east are associated with the Canadian Archipelago. Mr. GooDLiNG. How much has that population declined in the last 15 or 20 years? Mr. Hansen. Our studies do not extend back that far. We have data that go back only to about 1966 or a little earlier. The figures we have put together today are essentially the same as those we had in 1966, but we have a great deal more confidence in today's figure. This may be little more than a coincidence, but we do have reason- able confidence in today's figures off the coast of Alaska. Worldwide, we consider the population of polar bears to be in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 animals, but there again, that is subject to a good deal of variation depending on who has accumulated the data and the accuracy of it. Mr. GooDLiNG. Has there been an alarming decline? Mr. Hansen. Apparently not off the coast of Alaska. We have some harvest data for 1969. The harvest by countries included 128 bear from Greenland, 346 from Norw^ay, 406 from Canada, 298 in the U.S.A. That is off the coast of Alaska. Of course, the season is closed in Russia. Last year the harvest in Alaska was approximately 200 bear, down from the year before, but Alaska controls the harvest by permit. They have only allowed 300 pei-mits for each of the past several years. That is the most bear that can legally he. taken. Mr. Dingell. AVhat you are saying, if the gentleman will yield, is that in this vast expanse in which polar hunting is going forward, the Alaskans are having about two out of thi-ee success undertaking of polar bear. Mr. Hansen. Having a w^hat? Mr. Dingell. About a two and three success. The hunters' success ratio is running alx)ut two out of three, about a 66 percent chance. Mr. Hansen. That is of the number of permits that are issued. There is a possibility that there may be several permits acquired that are not used. 159 As a matter of fact, the majority of polar bears now harvested off the coast of Alaska are by the hunters employing aircraft. It is illegal to shoot from the airplane, but they locate the bear and land to take it. This technique is so well developed many guides claim 100 percent success for their clients. Mr. GooDLiNG, One more question, Mr. Chairman. What has been the total amount of funds allocated for research on ocean mammals since fiscal 1970? Dr. LiNDUSBLA.. It runs about $124,000, Mr. Goodling, in total. I have a breakdown on that for fiscal year 1972; $84,000 goes to polar bears — I am sorry, $79,000 for polar bear, $3,000 to monk seal, a Hawaiian Island Eefuge species, $4,000 to the walrus and $38,500 to the sea otter. Mr. Goodling. Is that a sufficient amoimt ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Not by any means. Mr. Goodling. You could do a better job with more money? Dr. LiNDUSKA. We definitely need more money if we are going to get the type of information we need to manage marine mammals. Mr. Goodling. You are not unique in that respect. Dr. LiNDUSKA. I am sure of that. Mr. Goodling. That is all. Mr. DiNGELi.. Doctor, before I recognize Mr. Kyros I would like to have you submit to us the funds requested for management of all of the different marine mammals on a species-by-species basis for the last 5 years by your Department. Dr. LiNDUSKA. For the past expenditures ? Mr. DiNGELL. Yes, sir, for the last 5 years and the funds made available to you for management of the marine species for the last 5 years. I also would like to have the budget requests of your department for management of these different species over the past 5 years and I would like to have you also submit to us and again directly through the committee and directed to the committee without clearance through the Bureau of Budget, information with regard to what is an appro- priate level of management in terms of money and the number of personnel for an adequate program for research and management on each of these particular species so that we can perhaps arrive at some comparison as to what has been done, what is being done and what should be done. I specifically direct you not to clear that through the Bureau of the Budget. Dr. LiNDUSKA. Since your latter request is in duplication of what you asked Dr. Talbot Mr. DiNGELL. If you will cooperate with Dr. Talbot so we can have your judgment and his that would be very helpful. Dr. LiNDUSKA. Very well. (Information to be supplied follows:) Five-Year Funding Levels for Research on Marine Mammals The attached table shows funding levels for research on marine mammals for the past five years. The decreases shown for the Marine Mammal Station in Fiscal Year 1970 and for the Alaska Polar Bear Station in Fiscal Year 1971 were appropriated but unspent during the year on these activities due to vagaries in Arctic weather conditions. In 1968 funds in the amount of $160,000 were requested for Polar Bear Re- search. This request was trimmed to the $60,000 shown in the attached table. Otherwise no funds have been requested which were not appropriated. leo Funds spent by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife on marine mammal research, fiscal years 1968-72 1968 Marine Mammal Station (Kenyon) : «-,q nnn Sea otter ?1|' 9^ Walrus 3, 700 Monk seal 2- ^00 Total 25, 000 Polar Bear Station (Brooks) 60,000 Total - 85,000 1969 Marine Mammal Station: Sea otter 18, 000 Walrus ?. 700 Monk seal 2, 500 Total 25, 000 Sea otter (AEC— Amchitka) 60,000 Polar Bear Station 70,000 Cooperative Wildlife Research Units (Polar Bear— Montana ) 4,500 Total 159, 500 1970 Marine Mammal Station : Sea otter 17, 600 Walrus 3,500 Monk seal 2, 400 Total 23, 500 Sea otter (AEC— Amchitka) 60,000 Polar Bear Station 80,000 Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (Polar Bear — Montana) 4,500 Total 168, 000 1971 Marine Mammal Station : Sea otter 18, 800 Walrus 3, 700 Monk seal 2, 500 Total 25, 000 Sea otter (AEC — Amchitka) 60,000 Polar Bear Station 70,000 Cooperative Wildlife Research Units — Arizona (AEC) sea otter 2o! 000 Total 175,000 1972 Marine Mammal Station : Sea otter 20, 000 Walrus 4, OOo Monk seal 3^ OOO Total 27 000 Sea otter (AEC— Amchitka) _!___ 60000 Polar Bear Station ~ 79 qqq Cooperative Wildlife Research Units : Alaska— Sea otter 6,500 Oregon — Sea otter 12 000 Arizona— Sea otter (AEC) 20,000 Total 204, 500 161 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Needs for Expanded Research Program for Marine Mammals POLAR bear research The Bureau's polar bear research program was funded at $70,000 in F.Y. 1968. The original request was for $160,000 which would have included studies on daily and seasonal movements as well as studies of distribution, abundance and population composition. The program for F.Y. 1972 has increased to $79,000. Considerable work has been accomplished, as previously reported, m close co- operation with other countries and especially with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The current need is for expansion of the program, especially in the area of ecological studies, with emphasis on reproduction and population dynamics. . 11^.^4. At the present funding level it is possible to continue tagging, collect data on movements of tagged bears, and to study morphological characteristics and growth rates. All these data contribute to the understanding of whether there are discrete sub-populations of polars in the Alaskan Arctic region, and by in- ference whether hunting in the Alaskan area has a noticeable effect on popula- tions elsewhere. ^ ^ At the present funding level, it is not pos.sible to perfect and carry out promising censusing techniques which are further needed to asses the effects of hunting. . ^ ^ . . .. Still further, there is a need to conduct exploratory studies of certain pesticide and heavy metal residues in animals eaten by the Alaskan natives. An additional amount of $100,000 per year for polar bear research would permit progress in all these areas, and would likely reduce the time required to distinguish sub-populations of polar bears in the Alaskan area from about 8 to about 4 more years. With these funds, two additional biologists would be needed. WALRUS research Walrus research has been conducted in the past. Results are being prepared as a technical manu.script. There is need, however, to continue monitoring of walrus populations and particularly to expand the level of such surveys. Aerial surveys of winter populations walrus need to be conducted more frequently than in the past. Continued research with emphasis on reproduction and population dynamics is needed. Additional funds required for this expanded program would be $85,000 which would be used for one additional wildlife biologist and for additional aircraft charter. SEA OTTER RESEARCH With expanded range of the sea otter (through transplants to the coast of northwestern United States) and with iwtential environmental problems related to the expansion of development in the heart of the range of the sea otter (chiefly oil development) there is a continuing need for detailed information on populations of this species. Current levels of research on the sea otter could meaningfully be expanded by the addition of a full-time wildlife biologist to work specifically on iwpulation dynamics and trends. Additional funds in the amount of $35,000 would be required. BIOI N STRU MEN TATION For population trend information on all marine mammal species there is a significant potential for use of bio-instrumentation as well as for satellite track- ing. Some use of these tools has been made, notably of radio-tracking with polar bears. Our Bureau is cooperating actively with NASA on EROS and other satellite programs. Such expanded activity as related to polar bears, sea otters, and walrus as well as other marine mammals will depend upon development of technologies. Funds to support such activity, and to make full use of this potential would involve $25,000 (additional funding might be provided by NASA. ) MUSEUM STUDIES A much-needed contribution to the knowledge of marine mammals could be made by conducting detailed studies of the specimens of marine mammals avail- able in the National Museum, as well as in other collections. This approach would include studies of taxonomy, morphology, and distribution based on specimens 162 and .specimen records. These studies could lie accomplished with appropriate personnel added to the i)re.sent staff of the Hureau's Bird and Mammal Labora- tory housed in tlie National .Mu.seum. Additional professicmal (zoologist) and suiiport staff (technician, .secretary) would he recjuired because none of the current staff has exiK'rti.se with marine mammals. In addition, the collection of marine manunals in the National Museum is essentially uncurated. The estimated additional cost would be $35,000 per year. MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR MARINE MAMMALS Tlie research program above and management-related activities as di.scussed under item (5 below, would lead to development of management programs by 1976. I'ntil such time, additional funds would be required to accomplish en- forcement related to current regulations and management. Walrus $85, 000 Polar bear 100, 000 Sea otter 35, 000 Bioinstrumentation 25, 000 Museum 35, 000 Total needed 280, 000 ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR ADEQUATE MARINE MAMMAL' PROGRAM Management including Research enforcement — Total cost Personnel Cost Personnel Cost per year 19-C.Y 6 2$280,000 8 3 $423, 800 $703,800 19-C.Y.-M 6 295,000 8 222,000 517,000 19-C.U.-I-2 6 300,000 8 224,000 524,000 19-C.Y.-I-3.. 6 300,000 8 222,000 522,000 19-C.Y.-I-4 6 300,000 8 224,000 524,000 Total cost for 5 years 2,790,800 ' Program covers Polar bear, walrus, and sea otters. 2 Cost breakdown: Walrus, $85,000; polar bear, $100,000; sea otter, $35,000; bioinstrumentation, $25,000 and taxonomy, $35,000. * Includes cost of equipment (airplanes and boats). Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Kyros? Mr. Kyros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After the chairman's shattering request, Dr. Linduska, I hope you are able to answer the few questions I have for you. As I listened to you speak, I wondered if all the people in your De- partment, the scientists and others, are free to speak their own minds or are they constrained by what they think the Department might want them to say ? How do you feel about that, sir ? Dr. Linduska. We are a pretty independent lot in Interior, partic- ularly in my bureau, and if anyone ever fails to speak his mind, I am not aware of it. Mr. Kyros. I truly believe that from the people I have met from Interior. We have been talking about the Pribilof fur seal herd and there has been some mention of heavy metal and other pesticide poisoning in the area, causing the seals to abort and the herd to diminish. Is there any evidence of environmental pollution in the area causing the deaths of these seals? Dr. Linduska. People in the Department of Commerce would be closer to the problem and in a better position to comment on it. 163 I know that the heavy metal pollution problem is one that is crop- ping up in unexpected places. Whether or not it applies to the fur seal or not, I do not know. If so, it has not reflected itself in the population trend. Mr. Kyros. What about the California sea otter population? Is there any known effect of pollution on them ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Here again, we are talking about a species that has been studied almost entirely by the State of California. What Mr. Anderson has brought out, the matter of harassment and pollution, is in line with my understanding of it, but I cannot be much more specific than that. If it would be helpful to you, we would be glad to check that out with the State and insert it in the record. Mr. Kyros. As I understand your testimony this morning, you are in favor of scientific management of the herd. Is that right ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Right. Mr. Kyros. Is it not a fact that although the sea otter were ac- corded protection by the State of California and the State of Alaska, this particular otter has become virtually extinct because of the trade in luxury furs? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Well, the California herd has either remained fairly stable — or gone down — in the face of continued protection, but this is not the case with the northern herd. As I mentioned, beginning in 1911 a fairly aggressive program was developed for the northern herd which included complete protection and a program of transplant that came along in later years. This ani- mal has responded amazingly. It has gone from a relatively few hundred to a total herd population that numbers around 50,000 ani- mals and has increased to the point in some areas where they are ap- parently at the saturation point in terms of what the environment will accommodate. We have two different problems, really, and one has come along very well and the other has not. Mr. Kyros. As I understand it, scientific management is what the herd and environment will sustain. The second problem will be the economic demand for the particular animal. Have you consulted with the SBA or Commerce or anyone else be- fore making judgments? Have you considered the economic side of how to manage a partic- ular herd? Dr. LiNDUSKA. We have not. Of course, in connection with the en- dangered species legislation we were in close touch with a broad seg- ment of the fur industry and others and took into account their views. And I think in the course of testimony on that bill we pretty well con- vinced a lot of those folks who up to that point were inclined to go out and get the last spotted cat— we convinced them it was to their own long-term advantage to render some protection to the animals at this point, thereby perpetuating this resource into the future. There is no question economic incentive can give us a big leg up on the management of these animals. That was what occurred with the sea otter. This animal whose fur was extremely valuable was in very strong demand. It was a fur of royalty 100 years ago and economic considerations certainly were in 164 the direction of supporting management, to bring those animals back, to restore them. Unhappily, with the whims of the fur trade, now that we are at a point where a harvest can be made, the demand is— not nearly what it was when we started out. Mr. Kyros. Do you feel that we have an adequate, broadly based program for the research on marine mammals? Ik) we have one currently ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. No, we do not. Without exception, I do not think there is a single species about which we know enough to do an intelli- gent job of management. Mr. Kyros. In light of that statement, would it not be better to lean on the side of conservation and have some sort of moratorium on most of these animals until we get all the facts ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. That might apply to a few. I should qualify my response to that. In the case of the sea otter, the northern sea otter, while there re- mains a good deal to be learned about them, I think we know enough to do a fairly intelligent job of management and to declare a mora- torium on that animal at this point would not only be unnecessary in terms of the animal welfare, but could work to its disadvantage. Mr. Kyros. Some people have expressed concern to me that nuclear testing at Amchitka would have some damaging effects. What effect, if any, would that have on the sea otter ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. I am afraid I cannot answer. Mr. Kyros. No other department has asked you to comment on that? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Yes, the Atomic Energy Commission underwrote a fairly ambitious research program in hopes of anticipating what would occur. This included tests on confined sea otters as an example and while they have been fairly reassuring as to what might develop, I think it represents one of the unknowns. I do not think that anyone can really say. Mr. Kyros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Anderson ? Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one more question. On the moratorium that Mr. Kyros talked about here, a previous witness said that one of the good points of H.R. 10420 would be that the use of the moratorium would be a good tool to use. Now, you have stated the moratorium could be a disadvantage to the nortliern herd of the sea otter. Dr. LiNDUSKA. This would also apply to fur seals, the northern fur seals. Mr. Anderson. The northern fur seals, yes. Are there any other marine mammals to which the moratorium could be a disadvantage? Dr. LiNDUSKA. I think the sea otter have come along to a point where, if we did not continue a nominal harvest in some areas, we would be losing those animals to other causes and with that, there might be enough degradation of habitat as a result of overpopulation to work to the further disadvantage of the animals. 165 Those are the two that stand out in my mind. Mr. Anderson. The fur seal and the sea otter ? Dr. LiNDusKA. Possibly the walrus, Mr. Hansen says. Mr. Anderson. Plus the walrus? Mr. Hansen. Possibly. If I may interject a comment here, you speak of a moratorium on some of these northern mammals that are not entirely maritime, that are associated to a certain extent with the land. We must consider the welfare of the Natives, the aborigines of the arctic areas. These Natives utilize the animals and are highly dependent upon some of these for a livelihood, food, clothing, shelter, and for boat materials. Any moratorium would certainly have to provide for the welfare of the Natives. It would have to allow for harvest by the native pop- ulation. Otherwise, we could cause irreparable harm to the welfare of the Native people. Mr. Anderson. Are there any other marine mammals that would fall into this category outside of fur seals, sea otter, and walrus? Do you think we have covered the list fairly well there? Would the moratorium of 2 years that Mr. Kyros asked you about, be a disadvantage ? Dr. Linduska. I would like to think a little about that. Off the top of my head I would say that covers it pretty well. Mr. Dingell. Dr. Linduska, there was a very large reported wash- up on the coast of Alaska of dead walrus this year. Can you tell us how many were washed up and whether there was any investigation that took place, what the source of death was ? Dr. Linduska. I do not have the details on that, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether Mr. Hansen might be able to inform us on that point but, if not, we will be glad to insert it in the record follow- ing a complete check of the facts. (The following was supplied for inclusion in the record:) September 15, 1971. Dr. Joseph Linduska, Acting Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. Deiab Dr. Linduska : In the course of the marine mammal hearings on Mon- day, the subject of walrus protection came in for a fair amount of discussion, as I am sure you will recall. I enclose a clipping from the Anchorage paper last month which describes the hunt in some detail. I would appreciate your reviewing this article and providing comments on it to my Subcommittee, for inclusion in the record. I am particularly interested in any reaction that you may have to the description of the hunting technique, described as "random firing into the herds." Such hunting methods, if accurately described, would appear to be as wasteful as they are inhumane, and it seems to me that someone should have and exercise the authority to prevent this type of hunting by any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Your response will be appreciated. With every good wish. Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. 166 U.S. Department of the Intebiob, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C., October 5, 1971. Hon. John D. Dinoell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Dingell : This is in response to your letter regarding an article in the Anchorage Daily News about wasted walrus carcasses. We are aware of this problem w'hich results from traditional and admittedly inefficient methods of harvest. Under the Alaska Statehood Act of 1959. jurisdiction over that State's resident wildlife for the purpose of management and regulation was given to the State of Alaska. However, we would certainly favor regulations which would result in more humane and efficient harvesting of walrus. The improvidence of the Alaskan Eskimos in their harvest of the walrus is well known, and is a feature of their life way which seems to have been heightened as a consequence of their contact with the white man's technology. As you know, we have conducted research on walrus in Alaska. Despite the wastefulness of native hunting methods, total harvest, including unretrieved animals, appears to be well within proper limits. A study completed recently by the Alaska Fish and Game Department estimates the walrus population at a minimum of 90,000 animals, of which about 12,000 are taken annually by Ameri- can and Russian hunters. It pointed out that the Pacific walrus population is apparently increasing slowly. Alaska provides complete protection for the walrus along the coastal area surrounding Bristol Bay, but in other Alaskan waters and coastal areas walrus may be taken anytime. A resident is allowed one bull, except where he is depend- ent upon the walrus for food. In that case there is no limit upon the number of bulls he may take, and he may also take up to five adult cows or subadults (either sex) as well as orphaned calves to satisfy this need. It is our understanding that "random firing into the herds" is less of a prob- lem than the use of underpowered weapons. Wounded animals escape from ice floes and they are then lost. Thus the problem is not one of willful negligence but of insufficient equipment and/or expertise in harvest techniques. As previously stated, however, harvest regulations are considered to be within the province of State authority. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely yours, M. A. Mabston, Assistant to the Director. Mr. Dingell. Is walrus within your jurisdiction or within Commerce ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. That is in Commerce. Research management and enforcement actually rests with the State. Mr. Dingell. May be you want to give us a comment, Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen. I am not sure the number of walrus that may have washed ashore this year is any more or less than in any other year. This has to do with the native harvest, native utilization, their method of hunting. Now, as you know, they hunt these animals on the ice floe. The walrus follow the ebb and flow of the Arctic ice pack. The Eskimo hunts them on the edge of the ice, and for every animal they shoot, they hunt them with modern weapons, and for every one they shoot and are able to retrieve, unfortunately, there are animals that are shot and lost. They fall off the ice into the water and sink before the natives can get to them and retrieve them. These are the animals that subsequently bloat and drift ashore as tlie ice moves on northward. Winds out of the west drift them up onto the Alaska coastline. 167 Mr. DiNGELL. The story suggested that, it was on the order of thousands of these animals that drifted ashore this year. I saw the figure of 11,000. 1 think it was probably high. Do you know what the number was ? Mr. Hansex. No. I have not seen a figure. It could be more this year than normal but. unfortunately, it is a result of what is a normal native harvest of these animals. Mr. DiNGELL. It does not sound very normal when you are having this amount of waste. Mr. Hansen. It would not be normal if that number is true. I can- not believe the number would be nearly that great because the herd is not large enough to sustain that. Mr. DiNGELL. That does not necessarily mean it was not that large since the native is not considering sustained yield questions. Mr. DiNGELL. I am going to come back to that one thing. We have communicated with the Interior Department, and in the report from Interior, dated September 8, I would urge you to consider this report on H.R. 10420, signed by Mr. Pecora. He says additional regulatory authority, if properly conceived, would contribute to the preservation of these species, subject to a variety of natural and manmade in- cursions. And he goes on and says, we have a Federal program responsibility under the official Wildlife Act of 1956, not only for the polar bear, but for the walrus and sea otter. So, Interior does have jurisdiction over these s^^ecies. I want to get right down to the hard point about the amount of kill of these walrus. Now, if the natives are going out there and conducting one great big slaughter and retrieving one out of several, you people are going to have to come up with something to liold that wastage down. I do not know how you are going to do it, but if you can figure out a way, we will welcome it. What is the retrieval of these species, 1 in 5, 1 in 2, or do you know? Mr. Hansen. Unfortunately, we do not have particularly good in- formation. Mr. DiNGELL. You have jurisdiction of these species. Mr. Hansen. This is one of the areas in which we desperately need research. Dr. LiNDUSKA. We only have $4,000 a year. Mr. DiNGELL. It does not appear to me that it takes a Ph. D. to tell you the percentage of walrus recovered. All you have to do is ask the "Natives. You do it with deer and elk and other species. We are going to have to get some controls of this. What is the simplest program for finding out what the retrieval of walrus is and the wastage ? What is a simple program ? Mr. Hansen. Perhaps the most simple, direct method would be to have people that we could send out, live with the natives, and observe. Mr. DiNGELL. What about simply appointing a few natives to do this kind of chore for you ? You could do that fairly cheaply. Mr. Hansen. Yes, except it would probably be somewhat akin to asking the fox to guard the henhouse. 67-765 O - 71 - 12 168 Mr. DiNOETJv. That is common in government today. I have known about that for years. I am going to ask you to give us, if you please, the outlines of the program that will give us some intelligent idea of what the wastage of this species is. I want the outlines of an intelligent administrative program for that, and I want you to tell us if you have not got the authority neces- sary^ to do it, if you need legislative authority, or if you need an amend- ment to II.R. 10420 to accomplish that. And I direct you at this point to submit a mandatory language to derive the specific authority to manage the natives' taking of the walrus, if need be, to hold this wastage down. I have no objection to letting them take it, and if they are going out with snowmobiles and high-powered rifles, you had better do some modern management to see that this wasting of the walrus is stopped. You submit appropriate suggestions to this committee for adminis- trative action to reduce this waste, and also to specifically request any amendatory language to H.R. 10420. (The information to be supplied follow^s :) Recommendation of Taking of Walruses and Polar Belars Walruses are principally harvested on the pack-ice on the high seas, outside of territorial waters of the State of Alaska. If H.R. 690 is amended as recommended to give the Secretary of the Interior authority to regulate the taking of walruses and polar bears on the high seas, no additional legislation vrill be required. Mr. Potter. You said it might not be appropriate to have a mora- torium for adequate management of walrus and sea otter. What evidence do you have to support that ? Dr. LiNDusKA. As Mr. Hansen pointed out, the walrus is satisfying a genuine need among the native tribes. As far as the otters are concerned, the prospects of arriving at a point of overpopulation during a period of moratorium, and with it accompanying die off would not be the most desirable way of handling things. Mr. Potter. Do you have any evidence to indicate the walrus are anywhere close to the point that they would suffer problems of over- population ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. The question there is not so much overpopulation as it is the hardship it would offer natives during a time when we know them to be of satisfactory numbers. Mr. Potter. What do you consider satisfactory ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Well, just the observation that their populations are being fairly well sustained. For an absolute nose count, I could not provide that. Mr. Potter. Is there, in fact, any scientific evidence to indicate how many walrus there are ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. I am sure that there have been some studies made. Mr. Hansen, are you acquainted with that ? Mr. Hansen. Several years ago, there was an aerial survey made over the icepack. The Avalrus were in the Bering Sea before the ice had retreated up around the Arctic. As I recall a figure at that time, something between 150,000 and 120,000 walrus were sighted. 169 Now, how much of the total population this would have represented, I am not sure. I am not sure how complete and accurate the survey was. Mr. DiNGELL. Well, as a matter of fact, I am going to ask you to please, Mr. Hansen, give us the information as to population levels, age groups of the different species marine mammals, and also the age groups taken. And I will direct at this time, in order to save the time of the committee, that Mr. Potter, our counsel, be in communication with you in regard to the inf onnation we need in these particular areas. I will ask you also to submit to us information as to this particular study to which you are alluding. I do not think you want to sit there and tell me this was an adequate study as to the population levels of the walrus, the condition of the herd. It is not a comparison with regard to the ancestral population of walrus and what they were, nor does it give us a breakdown as to the age groups or aging, of the future prognosis of walrus population. Mr. Hansen. I am the first to adinit, as I have, that we desperately need infonnation in this area. Mr. DiNGELL. I want to tell you that I am impressed to know that you folks are coming in here and supporting the legislation we have before us with regard to survey of population of walrus and polar bears. I have, for years, been trying to get legislation through, and Inte- rior has always said we have plenty of authority and do not need it. I said if you have plenty of authority and do not need it, why are you not doing it. I never got an answer to that particular point. I do not think you have an adequate survey of populations of any species of these marine mammals, whether you are talking about polar bears, any of the fields of the walrus, or any of the other species now, do you ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. I would be inclined to take exception to that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. You do not have it on the walrus. Dr. LiNDUSKA, The walrus may be a possible exception. But I feel very confident as far as the fur seal and sea otter are concerned we are on safe ground. Mr. DiNGELL. That is two species. Can you name any other species on which you have adequate information ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. That is the extent of my unqualified statement. Mr. DiNGELL. And, as a matter of fact, there are some problems with regard to the fur seal. The number has actually declined signifi- cantly in recent years. Dr. LiNDUSKA. In terms of a moratorium ? Mr. DiNGELL. I am not talking moratorium. I am talking popula- tion levels and information with regard to population levels. I am not indicating a moratorium. That is one of the questions before the committee. The question I am getting to you is, do you have information with regard to the fact that the fur seal population has declined signifi- cantly during the last few years ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. I would have to defer to Commerce on that. Mr. DiNGELL. It shows a few years ago they let them take pregnant females. 170 Dr. LiNDusKA. That harvest was to preclude a die-off that related to overpopulation on the breedin^r ground. Mr. DiNGKLL. Well, I am going to recognize Mr. Potter again I want him to get some figures with regard to population, and I also want him to get some figures with regard to the age groups of population, like the polar bear which are being harvested. And I notice there is a striking decline in the age limit of the polar bears being harvested. Mr. PoTi'ER. To pursue this question of the age levels of the polar bears, have you seen any statistics coming from Alaska on this? Dr. LiNDUSKA. I know they reveal a declining size and an age ratio running more to young animals. Mr. Potter. Indeed they do. The average age of males killed m 1966, the first year for which we have figures, was 8.1. In 1969, the last year for which we have figures, it was 6.3. That is a bear with one and a half breeding seasons. The average age of females declined from 1966 when it was 6.4 years old to 5.4 in 1969. That is one breeding season. With permission of the Chair I would ask that this information be included in the record at this point. Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, so ordered, and the Chair would request that Dr. Linduska and the Interior Department submit to us at their earliest convenience comments as to the accuracy of the figures and any suggestions or comments that you care to make with regard to these particular matters. The Chair will direct the counsel to be in communication with our good friends in Interior so that they can have a full opportunity to make a satisfactory and adequate commentary on the matters alluded to. (The information referred to follows:) The Polar Beak Based upon degrees of longitude, less than 8 percent of the United Stales' territory fronts on the Polar Basin (Fig. 1), which is the home of the polar bear. The information presented in Mg. 1 also shows that this species is not known to den in Alaska (United States' territory). Polar bears nevertheless do occur regularly off Alaskan coasts. Those occurring off the Arctic coast seem to originate from dens located in the Western Canadian Arctic (Bank's Island) ; and those off the northwestern coast, abutting on the Chukchi Sea, from Soviet Siberia, notably Wrangel Island. Statistics are available concerning the Alaskan polar bear harvest from 1961 to 1969. They show for harvest and sex ratio: TABLE l.-POLAR BEAR HARVEST AND SEX RATIOS, 1961-69 Nonresidents Resident white All sport hunters Resident native All hunters Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Year Number male number male Number male Number male Number male 1961 70 93 59 57 129 77 23 52 152 73 1962 78 85 103 60 181 70 16 50 201 69 1963 106 88 57 68 163 81 22 68 189 79 1964 142 89 86 60 228 78 23 69 253 77 1965 159 89 116 64 275 79 21 50 296 76 1966 195 89 152 66 347 79 52 46 399 74 1967 124 97 42 69 166 90 25 50 191 80 1968 184 84 56 66 240 80 111 61 351 74 1969 227 76 44 63 290 69 27 56 298 72 Note: Table from Brooks and Lentfer, 1969. Polar Bear Research in Alaska, Paper No. 15, lUCN publ., new series. 171 Sport hunters are limited to one polar bear per permit and the number of permits issued is limited to 300. Cubs, and sows with cubs cannot be taken. The open season extends from February 1 to April 30. The Arctic-wide harvest for 1969 totaled 1,179 animals, of which in addition to the 298 shown in Table I for Alaska, 407 were taken in Canada, 128 in Green- land (Denmark), and 346 in Norway. The Soviet Union, which has no open season, but a few are taken from time to time for zoos and for scientific study. More younger bears are said to be taken presently than formerly. This view is based upon skull measurements and upon layering in the cementum of a premolar tooth. Table 2 (below) presents a summary of the data concerning skull size; and Table 3 (below) does the same for the estimation of average age based upon layering of the tooth cementum. /u t 1 1 1 ^.t^4-7'^'"^'V T (/iUi^>K Figure 1.— mstribution of polar bear core areas (important denning and cub- bing places) • (1) Northwestern Greenland. (2) Northeastern Greenland, (3) Eastern Svalbard. (4) Franz Josef Land, (5) Novaya Zemlya, (6) Sever- nava Zemlva. (7) Taimyr Peninsula, (8) New Siberian Islands. (9) Bear Islands, (lb) Wrangel Island, (11) Chukchi Peninsula, (12) Southern Banks Island (13) Simpson Peninsula. (14) Eastern Southhampton Island, (lo) Eastern Baffin Island, (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are of secondary importance.) Dots indicate weather stations. 172 TABLE 2 -AVERAGE SKULL SIZE ' IN INCHES OF POLAR BEARS TAKEN BY AIRPLANE HUNTERS BASED IN ALASKA, 1966-69 Nonresident Resident— White Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Hunting area Size N» Size N^ Size N« Size N^ Size N^ Size N^ ''"'&'"'■ 25.1 139 21.0 9 24.1 48 967 24.9 79 21.2 6 23.1 14 968'":':"::::::::. 25.2 121 21.3 12 24.5 24 1969 . 24.5 119 21.3 24 24.0 10 '^•=''l'=966""^ - 24.1 25 20.5 6 22.4 44 967 — 23.6 22 20.0 5 22.6 14 968'" 23.7 23 21.1 12 23.0 5 1969 23.4 20 21.2 20 22.5 10 21.4 22.1 19.1 21.3 19.9 19.9 19.7 20.0 20 4 4 3 26 7 10 7 24.8 24.6 25.0 24.4 23.0 23.2 23.6 23.1 187 93 145 129 69 36 28 30 21.5 21.6 20.8 31.3 20.0 19.9 20.4 20.9 29 10 16 27 32 12 22 27 1 Skull size Is greatest length without lower jaw plus greatest width. » N = Number measured. Source: Table from Brooks & Lentfer, 1969. As above. TABLE 3.-AVERAGE AGE BASED ON TOOTH CEMENTUM LAYERING OF POLAR BEARS IN HUNTER HARVEST, 1966-68 Male Female Airplane Ground Airplane Nonresident Resident Ground Arctic Ocean: 1966 1967. 1968.. Chukchi Sea: 1966. --. 1967 - 1968 - 10.1 (16) 7.7 (17) 8.1 (21) 9.1 (64) 7.0 (39) 8.2 (76) 7.2 (13) 6.0 (10) 6.4 (7) 7.0 (13).. 7.0 (7).. 5.8 (21).. 10.6 (4) 4. 5 (2) 5.6 (28) 6.6 (8) 7.0 (8) 5.8 (22) 7.2 (14) 6.0 (12).... 8.3 (8) 5.0 (6) 5.0 (2) 6.2 (23) 3.0 (1) '4:0"""(3) Note: Numbers in parentheses are numbers in sample. Source: Table from Brooks & Lentfer, 1969. As above. The time span covered by the data in Tables 2 and 3 is probably of too short a duration to show any conclusive trend. Concerning the matter of population, the real weakness continues to be the diflBculty of making a reliable census of the total Arctic population, or any of its regional (national) segments. The Walrus The walrus of the north Pacific has responded well to the protection it has received since the turn of the present century. This population presently is considered an underexploited and increasing one. Closely comparable counts of this animal are diflBcult to make, since most of them "haul out" on ice floes. Sometimes the massing of the floes is such that great numbers of walrus are congregated in a relatively small area. At other times, these animals are widely dispersed. Added to this are the hundreds of square miles in which no animals are seen at all. A Bureau biologist (Karl Kenyon) reported (by telephone) the results of four surveys made by himself and an associate. All the walruses seen in a 1- mile strip (one-half mile from each side of the plane used) were counted as were also the individuals seen beyond. Their results follow : Count Survey No. Time 1-mile strip Total 1. 2. 3. 4. Feb. 23-Mar. 2, 1%0 3,914 4,382 AprI 23-30, 1960 3,323 5,223 Mar. 20-30, 1961 4,929 5,475 Apr. lfr-23, 1968.. 4,666 8,547 173 The results of the first two surveys were adjusted to provide an estimate of density on a per square mile basis, which led to an estimated population of 60,000 to 100,000 walrus in the north Pacific. Management of the walrus is administered by the State of Alaska. Except in Bristol Bay, which lies to the northward of the Alaskan Peninsula, where no hunting is permitted, there is no closed season on walrus. A resident is allowed one bull, except where he is dependent upon this species for food. In this instance, there is no limit upon the number of bulls he may take ; and he may also take up to five adult cows or subadults (either sex) as well as orphaned calves to satisfy this need (Alaska Hunting and Guiding Regulations, 1970-71). The hunting bag is taken largely by the resident native population. The ice floes used by the walrus for hauling out provide most of the hunting sites. Insular coasts, used by the walrus for hauling out, provide additional hunting areas. Hunting by the native population has been considered wasteful, for so many of the animals shot are lost. This happens when shot animals are able to drop into the water. A real effort is made to retrieve these, but if an animal is still very much alive, it is dangerous. The hunters than must exercise considerable caution lest the wounded animal destroy their boat. Several years ago, a Bureau biologist reported on a study he made of walrus hunting at Little Diomede Island in the Bering Strait (Kenyon, 1960. Oryx, 5(6) 337) . He reported the hunting result thus : Walrus killed 245 Walrus taken (48 percent) 117 Walrus lost (52 percent) 128 More recently, a biologist of the Alaska Fish and Game Department reported (Bums, 1965. The Walrus in Alaska) : Year Walrus harvested Total kill 1959 1,153-1,453 2, 700-3, 600 I960 2,300 4, 500-4, 600 1961 1,201-1,486 2, 402-2, 792 1962 . . 1, 263-1, 353 2, 829-3, 064 1963 --- 1,594-1,725 3,443-3,713 It is plain from the harvest-kill statistics of these two reports that approxi- mately half of the walrus bagged are lost. Recently it was reported in the Alaska Daily News that some 260 walrus had been washed up on the beaches in the Kotzebue area. Concern was expressed about the stench from these rather than about the dead and wasted animals. Lost animals have been accepted as a characteristic feature of walrus hunt- ing. Persons who are hmnane and thrifty in their attitudes find this waste objectionable. In the interest of conservation it would be most desirable to seek to avoid tliis loss. Educational endeavor among the native peoples with conservative and efiicient hunting practices as a central concern has been one approach suggested. Despite the improvidence of traditional practices, it is believed that the walrus is increasing in numbers. According to the Alaska Fish and Game Department, the Pacific walrus population with a reproductive rate of 14 percent and a mortality rate of 13 percent, is slowly increasing. This, however, is not to be taken as justification for wasteful hunting practices, or for relaxing present protection of cows and calves (Burns, 1965, as above) . Research on Marine Mammals Now Being Conducted bt Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife bea otter Bureau personnel at the Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory in Seattle are carrying on the following studies of sea otters : Reproduction and growth An adult male sea otter has been held in captivity at the Point Defiance (Wash- ington) Aquarium since November 1965 and has been the subject of study by a Bureau biologist. On 31 July 1969, four more otters were brought from Amch- 174 itka Island, Alaska, to the aquarium. The new arrivals were an adult female, two subadult females, and a subadult male. It may now be possible to obtain additional information such as length of the gestation period and rate of growth and development of young. Hurcau studies have develoi)ed methods of transporting and keeping sea otters in captivity and have aided in the design of pools completed at the Point Defi- ance A(iuarium in Taeoma. Washington, which now has the only facility in the world built specifically for sea otters. The facility consists of two separate enclosures, each having a pool. The big pool is 20 feet in diameter and 5 feet deep, uith a capacity of H.OOO gallons ; the smaller pool is 14 feet in diameter and 4V-' feet deep, and holds 2,000 gallons. Eighty gallons of filtered sea water, partly fresh and partly recirculated, enters the two pools each minute. The enclosures are connected by a passageway with doors that are used to con- trol the location of the otters. The otters may be viewed from above or below the surface. The sea otter in California The number of sea otters in California is increasing, according to the best counts available, at a rate of about 5 percent a year. This rate is similar to that of certain Alaskan populations. Al)out 1,014 sea otters were in California in 1969. In future years, it seems probable sea otters will continue to spread into suitable habitat within their former range. If the commercial abalone fishing is to con- tinue at the present rate, the ix)pulation of sea otters will probably need to be controlled in certain waters. WALRUS Current research on the walrus is confined to surveys in the Bering Sea (in- cluding other marine mammals, also). Four aerial surveys of marine mammals have been conducted in recent years in the Bering Sea and to the north in a small southern portion of the Chukchi Sea. Results of the four surveys are being analyzed. In general, they reveal concentrations of the mammals in certain geographic areas in both national and international waters. There are other areas where marine mammals rarely occur. Within the large zones used by marine mammals, ice conditions influence local distribution and abundance. In recent years the U.S.S.R. has shown increased interest in harvesting seals and walruses on the ice floes. The growing scarcity of the ribbon seal and past experience with walrus depletion indicate that proper harvesting of these species will require additional knowledge and agreements between countries if they are to be con- served as a renewable resource in international waters. MISCELLANEOUS In addition to the activities named above, research personnel of the Bureau, located at the U.S. National Museum, are engaged in studies of taxonomy, dis- tribution, mori)hology, and reproduction of various marine mammals. Most of the specimens available for these modest studies are found stranded along the Atlantic coast. Bureau personnel are active in studies of the Monk Seal, an endangered species occurring in Hawaiian waters. Sea Otter Studies by Cooperative Wildlife Research Units BUREAU OF sport FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. — The Oregon Cooperative W^ild- life Research Unit has undertaken a study to evaluate the initial success of attempts to introduce sea otters into their former range along the Oregon coast. This study will attempt to determine the distribution of tlie otters released in 1970 and will monitor the post-release movements and behavior of the otters re- leased in 1971. Information will also be sought on reproduction, the habitats favored by otters, and the foods utilized. Funding : $11,928.00, Division of Wildlife Research. Alaska Cooperative WildUfc Research Unit. — The Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit has initiated a study on the ecology and behavior of sea otters in Prince AVilliam Sound. This study will gather information on the feeding behavior, diurnal and seasonal movements, activity patterns, and intraspecific competition of sea otters in Prince William Sound, a possible termination point of the Trans- Alaska Oil Pipeline. 175 Funding: $1,000.00, Division of Wildilfe Research; $5,500.00, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Funds, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Arizona Cooiwrative Wildlife Research Unit. — The Arizona Cooperative Wild- life Research Unit is conducting a study on the behavior and ecology of the sea otter at Amchitka, Alaska. A census of the otters is being conducted and detailed behavioral patterns are being documented. An attempt is being made to identify and determine the effects of various environmental factors and natural and im- posed stresses on the behav-ior and physiology of the sea otter. An evaluation will be made of various stimuli that might modify sea otter behavior to minimize mortality at the time of the proposed underground nuclear test. Funding : $20,000.00, Atomic Energy Commission. The Polar Bear research activity of the bureau of sport fisheries and wildlife Background.— ThQ great white bear of the Arctic, the polar bear, has long been known to mankind. Polar bears, Eskimos, and igloos together commonly are associated with the frozen reaches of the Far North. This bear has been exploited, mainly for food and fur, by the aboriginal peoples with whom it coexists geographically. This exploitation, however, appears never to have threatened the continued existence of the species. In recent years, notably since World War II, the polar bear has come to be much sought as a trophy by non-native hunters. The utility of small aircraft for hunting this bear far out on the Arctic ice floes, as well as increased affluence, has done much to stimulate this interest. The native peoples, concur- rently, have found a profitable market for skins for trophy puriwses. Increased exploitation has resulted, which in turn has aroused a concern for the welfare of the species. It quicklv became necessary to consider the application of conservation prac- tices directed to assuring the future of the species. Information basic to the achievement of this objective, however, was not available. For example, the size and structure of the population were unknown. So were the extent of the animals' travels, their use of food materials, and the duration of their repro- ductive life. These shortcomings in basic infomation emphasized the need for an increased effort in pertinent research. Research activity Objectives. — 1. Ascertainment of the number of polar bears using American waters ; 2. Age and sex composition of this population ; 3. Extent and pattern of travels ; 4. Population productivity ; 5. Extent of denning by pregnant sows on the American Arctic ice pack and along the Alaskan coast ; 6. Develop aerial methods for enumerating the population. Methods.~ln general, standardized methods are used in pursuing the research objectives. These include the immobilization of the bears with an appropriate drug so that thev may be handled for marking, weighing, and extraction of one of the vestigial premolar teeth. The marking, of course, individualizes an animal, and the tooth is used to ascertain age. . Infra-red scanning equipment was tested for utility for aerial censusing. This is a new development, which seems to offer some promise, but which also is expensive. Progress Early icorA-.— In recognition of the need for reliable information upon which to base a management program, personnel of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife published in 1959 (Trans. 24th North American Wildlife Conference) a preliminarv stiidv concerning the status and management of the polar bear. This study showed the known bag of this species for Alaska, whose territorial waters encompass the American segment of the circumpolar range of the species, to be 206 bears in 1957 and 128 for 1958. It also stressed the need for legislation providing for the control of American nationals (polar bear hunters) on the Later in 1965, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife convened the first international meeting devoted to polar bear conservation. Represented at this meeting, held at Fairbanks, Alaska, was a delegation from each of the 176 nation.^ fronting on the north polar basin, namely. Canada, Denmark, N"orway and the Soviet Union l)e.sides the United States. Ba.setl upon the combined effort of this Bureau and the State of Alaska, it now was possible to increase the definitiveness of information concerning this species. It was shown th*t this bear does not regularly come ashore in Alaska, which precludes regiilar denning and foraging in this land : that this species no longer occurred on St. Mattliew Island as it did in 1800; that the bag of 1965 of 202 bear.s contributed about .$450,000 to Alaskan economy : that the bag from 1960 to 1965 averaged about 75 percent males : that the average litter size in March and April since 1958 for cubs of-the-year was 1.86 individuals, and for cubs older than one year was 1.58 animals. With the engagement in December 1967 of a wildlife biologist intimately acquainted with Alaskan conditions, this Bureau began its first .specialized study of the polar bear. This biologist and another from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game work in a complementary manner, the Bureau biologist centering his attention on the bears of the Chukchi Sea region off the west coast of Alaska, and the Department of Fish and Game biologist centering his attention on the bears of the Beaufort Sea region off the north coast of Alaska. Their work, it should be noted, is being carried out cooperatively with wildlife biologists rep- resenting Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the Soviet Union, which in turn is beine coordinated by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources headquartered at Morges. Switzerland. This group has found that the Arctic-A\'ide harvest of po'ar bears is approxi- mately 1.250 animals annually. In 1969, the harvest by nation included 128 by Greenland (Denmark). 346 by Norway. 407 by Canada. 298 by the United States, and a few by the Soviet Union for zoos or .scientific study. The Soviet Union has otherwise had a closed season on this species since 1956. The bag in Alaska is controlled by that State which restricts the number of permits Issued to 300. It is generally illegal to bag cubs or females with cubs. Field work by the American biologists suggests that the bears taken by hunters in the Chukchi Sea region probably come from Wrangel Island as a natal area, and those taken in the Beaufort Sea region probably have as their natal area is- lands in the western Canadian seas. Their work shows also that the average age of the males bagged is decreas- ing .since 1966. This means that younger animals are making up more and more of the bag, but not necessarily that the population is being jeopardized. This is a trend, however, which needs to be closely watched with a view to altering the hunting regulations in favor of this bear when the need is indicated. Reaching a reliable estimate of the total regional population of this bear re- mains elusive. The sparse distribution of the individuals, the shortness of the .sea.son for field work, and the frequency of violent weather all contribute to this diflBculty. The Bureau's biologist recently tested an infra-red scanning system for making a count of polar bears. Application of the method is exi)en.sive and the result so far is not entirely satisfactory. It is believed, however, that the sys- tem is promising. Increased funding would facilitate the more rapid cumulation of data basic to good management. Mr. Potter. Dr. Linduska, the information I am talking about was derived from the proceedings of the various conferences held in con- junction with the ICUX's concern with polar bears. Coming back to the question we talked about, walrus and now sea otters, I think I have read all or most of the paners Karl Kenvon has written on sea otters and I see no indication there except possibly with regard to Amchitka that the population of .sea otters has reachecl their natural level any place in Alaska or in California. Are you aware of any information that I have not seen that indicates that thev are at this maximum population level ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Xo, I think your reporting is accurate, to my knowl- edge. Amchitka. by the slacking back of population increase, would cer- tainly suggest they are arriving at the saturation point, and this is one of the common phenomena that occurs as an animal reaches a point of saturation with its habitat. 177 Mr. Potter. There is an additional problem now and that is the question of environmental contamination which has a particular effect on sea otters because it tends to clog their fur and make the fur, in effect, permeable to water so that they die from chillmg. Is this not a possibility that the environmental deterioration, not the absence of adequate forage, is proving the limiting factor on the sea otters ? Dr. LixDUSKA. That could well be. The result is the same. Mr. Potter. They are dead — sure. The question we are asking now is would a moratorium for a year. 2 or 3, be appropriate, and it seems to me that if they are not dying out because of limitations on their habi- tat, that it is not appropriate to say that a moratorium might not be an appropriate management tool. Dr. LixDusKA. The point I am making is that irrespective of the environment with which they were originally provided, if, in fact, there is deterioration and we are losing more animals than normal, you would still gain nothing from a moratorium. You would merely save more animals to die within the same limited environment. Mr. DixGELL. Doctor, on the species like the sea otter which are rela- tively stable insofar as their geographic area is concerned, it seems to me that they ought to be moved around and transplanted to the limit of our ability and that we ought to use that form of harvest to restock other areas as opposed to trying to commercially harvest these species. Am I correct in that. Doctor? Dr. LixDUSKA. Both programs are going forth. There has been an ambitious program of restocking and there undoubtedly still may be habitats remaining which would be suitable for their occupancy. Mr. DixGELL. There are habitats up and down the California coast. There has only been modest restocking in Washington and Oregon. Dr. LixDrsK-\. Enough to establish the animals. I would not be prepared to say if the California coast would be a suitable environment for them. Mr. DixGELL. There is a native population there and Mr. Potter tells me it is rather broadly placed, the ancestral population that exists there. Whether or not the Alaskan species can thrive in California waters is another question, but that is a matter that should be explored and tried before we begin commercial harvestmg. Dr. LixDUSKA. Well, if the native population within that range is not prospering and is at a standstill level I do not know that put- ting new animals in the environment would avail us much good. Mr. DixGELL. We have the fundamental problem that we do not know the answer to that particular question. Dr. LixDFSKA. That is so, but I am not sure it would be desirable to introduce additional animals. There is a great reluctance on the part of professional people to introduce into the range of a native species or population one that may be foreigii to that range. You could very well wind up losing the native sjDecies or population. Tliat is one of the objections to introducing exotic creatures. Mr. DixGELL. Now, I would like to ask you a question. Is not one of the major predators of the sea otter in California, the illegal shooting that goes on from power boats because of their poach- ing on abalone and so forth ? 178 Dr. LiNDusKA. I have lieard that report. Mr. DixGMJ.. Has this Ijeen investigated by your agency? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DixGELL. Investigated by any other agency at the request of your agency? u I Dr. LixDusKA. I am sure the California fish and game people would I have information on that point. 1 Mr. DiNGELL. Would you inquire of them on that particular point at the insistence of the committee ? Dr. LixDusKA. I would be happy to. (The information follows:) The Sea Otter In California, tlie sea otter occurs presently in a coastal zone extending from Carniel to Cayucos. and for 100 miles seaward. This zone has been set aside by the State of California as an inviolate refuge for this species. In this area, it is estimated that there are 1,014 to 1,020 individuals. This population developed from the several animals present in the 1930's to its present level at an exponen- tial rate. i.e. in accordance with the classic sigmoid growth curve. It is believed that this population now has reached the saturation level, for some disijersal is occurring with the result that animals are establishing themselves elsewhere along the California coast. Rather than being a declining population, it has been a vigorous and increas- ing one. Its pre.sent stability in addition to active dispersion support this view. There is space in a fully occupied habitat for no further increase in density. Animal.s in excess of this are obliged to disperse. About two-thirds of the animals seen off California, are seen out.side the 100-mile refuge zone. This is one cause for friction with abalone fishermen- These fishermen contend the sea otter is depleting their fishery. Poaching by some of the fishermen is one result of this friction. Last September (1970) three were fined .$1,000 each for shooting and killing three sea otters. The California Fish and Game Department undertook a 3-year study of their sea otters and the abalone problem in 1968. One of its objectives is to acquire information to support recommendations to the State legislature on a manage- ment bill for the California sea otter population. In recent years, .sea otters from the Aleutian (Alaska) population have been translocated to coastal areas of southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. Each of these translocations appears to be successful. For several years the State of Alaska has been "han'esting" animals from the Aleutian population, where a condition of excess population exists. Car- casses of individuals found along beaches, upon examination were found to be emaciated and their stomachs contained remains of sea foods, notably sea urchins, which seem not to provide suflBcient nourishment to sustain their lives. These carcasses usually are of animals that either are young or have severely worn teeth. The more vigorous animals are able to catch fi«h. This is the situa- tion which leads Alaskan biologists to consider some of the Al?utian sea otter populations to be excessive for the supporting capacity of their habitat. Aleut Indians are engaged by the Alaska Fish and Game Department to do the harvest- ing, which is carried out under the .«:upervision of departmental biologists. (This information is largely from Karl Kenyon via telephone.) Mr. DixGELL. Mr. Rountree ? Mr. RorxTREE. Thank vou, Mr. Chairman. In order to comply with the provisions in our House rules I wonder if you could submit for the record a 5-year cost estimate for all the various nieces of legislation which the committee is considering now ? In addition, you have indicated that vour Department is involved in the preparation of some draft legislation pertainin.q: to additional authority and responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. If you are not able to do so now, perhaDS you could submit for the record exactly how these draft recommendations or draft proposals, 179 which supposedly are to be sent out to Congress at a later date, would either complement or be contrasted with any of the legislative pro- posals which this committee is considering now. Do you have any time frame as to when tlus draft legislation will be sent up? ■ ^ ^ Dr. LixDUSKA. It is in final process of review right at the moment. It is on my desk right now. Mr. RouNTREE. Are you able at this point in time to give us a gen- eral idea of what it is intended to do ? Dr. LixDUSKA. Yes; the main provision would be to relieve us of the locked-in situation that we now face wherein we can deal only with species at a point of endangerment. We would like to see that liberalized to the extent that we could begin to give consideration to all forms of wildlife when they are not only endangered but in a rare capacity. As Dr. Talbot mentioned in his testimony, it is highly desirable that we do this. If we wait until a point of actual endangerment we are working against tremendous odds whereas if we can recognize that an animal is in a bad plight sometime in advance of that final day, we stand a far better chance of doing whatever needs to be done to preserve it. That would be the main consideration. Mr. RouNTREE. I am a little bit concerned that in your agency reports commenting on each of these specific bills before the committee, the Department of Interior has supported the concept of a study whereas the Department of Commerce has supported enactment of H.R. 10420 with appropriate amendments. Is there any inherent conflict between the two positions of Interior and Commerce and. if so, how will they be resolved in any type of legislation this committee reports out ? Ostensiblv, vou would continue to have dual authority and dual responsibilities with Department of Interior under the Endangered Species Act in regard to all ocean mammal species, I assume, in addi- tion to your existing authority with the polar bear and walrus and, I believe,' the sea otter, whereas the Department of Commerce would have a responsibility for fur seals and other ocean mammals. How is this conflict to be resolved ? Is it a proi^er approach to take or should there be some comprehensive overall lead agency concept as opposed to a dual agency responsibility within two departments as envisioned in a number of these bills ? Do you have any comment on this ? Dr.' LixDUSKA.' First separating out marine mammals, i^er se, and then endangered species as a secondary consideration, I think there is no question that the responsibility in terms of management, investi- gation, and everything that goes with bringing proper recognition to management should be in one pocket. Presently, this is provided for as far as marine mammals are con- cerned, in the legislation which you mentioned. I do not see any opportunity for bumping heads too frequently with the endangered species being a separate consideration, but at t;he same time, this, of course, will all be resolved if the Department of Xatural Resources should come into being. 180 Mr. RouNTREE. So the position of the Department of Interior would be, in essence, to maintain somewhat the status quo as far as jurisdic- tional responsibilities are concerned over particularly ocean mammal sj^ecies, at least in this point of time, with the broad range look at the fact that, assuniing imi)lementation of the Department of Natural Resources, all this would be brought in under one umbrella. Dr. LiNDUSK.\. That is as I see it. Mr. RouNTREE. Thank you. Mr. DiNGELL. Doctor, the committee is grateful to you for your very helpful statement and we thank you and Mr. Hansen for being present with us this morning. Mr. Anderson. Could I make one last request that when you are getting the information on the herd size of the various mammals, will you also, in relation to your statement that the walrus is a genuine need of the natives, will you also give us the size and location of the native population that is dependent upon the walrus for food and clothing ? Dr. LiNDUSKA. Well be happy to. (The information follows :) Native Population Residents of the following 9 Eskimo villages seasonally hunt and utilize walruses as part of their subsistence living. The villages are all located along the west coast of Alaska in Bering Strait and the Chuckchi Sea. Number residents Village: (1970 census) Gambell 372 Savoonga 364 Teller 220 Brevig Mission 123 Wales 131 Diomede 84 Shishmaref 267 Kivalina 188 Point Hope 386 Mr. Anderson. That is all. Mr. DiNGELL. Doctor, I am sure you will see that the information requested is submitted to us. Thank you very much. The Chair notes our next witness to be Mr. Donald McKernan and also his associates, Mr. Stuart Blow and Mr. William Salmon. Gentlemen, the Chair is happy to comply with your wish. Would you like to testify now or return at 2 o'clock ? We will do whatever you would like. Let us terminate at this time then. The Chair will recess the hear- ing until 2 o'clock and Mr. McKernan, we will be more than happy to have you as our first witness at that time. The Chair will direct the staff to communicate with Mr. Pollock, the Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to advise him that we will be hearing him at approxi- mated 3 p.m. (AVhereunon, at 12:05 p.m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m. of the same day. 181 AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. DiNGELL. The subcommittee will come to order. This is a continuation of hearings on H.R. 6558 and H.R. 10420 and similar bills, the so-called Harris-Pryor bills and the Anderson-Pelly bills and on preservation of marine mammals. Our next witness is an old friend of the subcommittee, Mr. Donald McKernan, Special Assistant to the Secretary, Department of State. Mr. McKernan, we are happy to welcome you back for any state- ment you choose to give. The Chair notes that you are accompanied by two of your associates and if you wish, identify them and have them sit at the table with you or call on them as you desire for any statement. STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR DONALD L. McKERNAN, COORDINA- TOR or OCEAN AFFAIRS AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR FISHER- IES AND WILDLIFE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE; ACCOM- PANIED BY STUART BLOW, WILLIAM SALMON, AND JAY BLOWERS Mr. McKernan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Donald McKer- nan. I am Coordinator of Ocean Affairs and Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Secretary of State. With me I have Mr. Stuart Blow from my office, and Mr. William Salmon and Mr. Jay Blowers from the Bureau of Scientific Affairs in the Department of State. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you in connection with your con- sideration of various bills having to do with the protection and con- servation of marine mammals. Most of these bills call for action with respect to existing or new international arrangements for the conser- vation of marine mammals, and the Department of State has accord- ingly a very real interest in the progress of your consideration of legislation in this field. It is safe to say that the United States has been for years a leader in the development of international arrangements for the conservation of living marine resources. One of the very first treaties on the sub- ject—the Fur Seal Treaty of 1911— came into being largely as the result of U.S. concern over the very serious decline in the populations of northern fur seals. Since that time, the United States has negotiated a number of treaties and agreements relating to the conservation of living marine resources and has, in addition, undertaken discussions and exchanges of scientific data regarding other species of interna- tional concern, for example, walruses, ice seals, and polar bears. For the most part, our international arrangements have dealt with animals which are of actual or potential economic benefit to man. The basic concept imderlying these arrangements is that of conservation as defined in the convention on fishing and conservation of the living resources of the high seas which was adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 1958, and to which the United States is a party. Article 2 of that convention states : 182 \s omnloved in this ConvenUon, the expression "conservation of the living re.s(mm's of llu' hiRh s«>as" means the aggregate of the measures rendering pos- sible the (optimum sustainable yield from those resources so as to secure a maxi- nuun supply of food and other marine products. Ill addition, however, with increasing knowledge of and concern over the adverse impact of man's activities on his environment, there has come an increasing recognition of the need for protection of those species of wildlife which, though not commercially exploited by man in tlie usual sense, are endangered or rare. The United States is moving forward in this field as well. In addition to our domestic legislation for the protection of endangered si)ecies, with which you are familiar, the Department of State, in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, will convene in Washington in April an international pleni- potentiary conference for the purpose of concluding a covention on the conservation of rare and endangered species of wildlife. As a basic working document for the conference, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources has nreuared a draft convention on the export, import, and transit of certain species of wild animals and plants. The present draft, incidentally, provides for controls over a number of species of marine mammals. It has been our experience that other governments are generally receptive to proposals for negotiations looking to agreements either for the conservation for rational use of species of economic benefit to man or for the protection of endangered species — so long as a reasonable scientific case can be made that international measures are in fact needed. We do not intend to imply that the scientific evidence must be conclusive. It must, however, be sufficient to inspire concern in the minds of reasonable and knowledgeable men. Without facts to support them, such proposals as that which would place a complete prohibition on the killing of all ocean mammals would, we believe, find little acceptance among the international community. Of the various bills before you, one type would place such a total ban on the killing of ocean mammals, would have the Secretary of State seek worldwide agreement to this end, and would express the sense of the Congress that the existing fur seal treaty be permitted to expire. Another bill would ban the taking of all species of seals and contemplates international agreement to this effect. Still others would require that humane methods be used in the killing of fur seals and that no females and pups be taken. Finally, one of the bills would provide for selective management of ocean mammals by species and stocks and would seek negotiations to encourage international arrangements for marine mammal research and conservation. To the best of our knowledge, the scientific evidence is not avail- able to support a blanket prohibition on the killing of all species of ocean mammals or even all species of seals. However, H.R. 10i20 with appropriate revisions could provide for the necessary research and regulatory authority to afford a foundation for international negotiations as may be needed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions the committee might have. Mr. Anderson (presiding). Thank you, Mr. McKernan. I com- mend vou on a very fine statement. Mr. Pelly? 183 Mr. Pelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McKernan, a few days ago at these hearings one witness repre- senting a well-known organization indicated opposition to the fur seal treaty under which the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands are managed. They went on to say that they would like to see this treaty lapse and would rather have no treaty than to have the same treaty that we have. Of course, they wanted a new treaty to take its place. I expressed some concern as to the vacuum that would be created without any treaty that covered the control of pelagic sealing in par- ticular because I felt that, possibly, certain nations would start killing the seal indiscriminately off of the Pribilof Islands as they migrate. Would you comment as to what might be your opinion as to the danger to the seal herd if there was no treaty at all ? Mr. McKernan. I would agree with you, Mr. Pelly, I would have the same concern if there was not an effective treaty in being. The fur seal treaty in my judgment has been the most successful of any of the international conservation agreements, barring none, and it has been looked at by other nations in the world as an example of a successful conservation treaty. I can see no reason whatsoever for us withdrawing from such a successful treaty. It was started about 1911, and about this time according to the best estimates, which were not very good, the fur seal herd had been depleted to an alarming degree by pelagic sealing; that is, offshore sealing where a great many of the animals are lost, of course. I think there have been some estimates, as many as one-third sink, and so are not recovered, with pelagic sealing. By the way, there have been studies on this in subsequent years to indicate there is in fact a very substantial loss of females with young in them that are lost also. The fur seal treaty not only provides for cooperative studies be- tween the four member nations, the U.S.S.R., Japan, Canada, and the United States, but it also provides for land sealing, for harvesting the seals, the available surplus, on land. In this way, none are lost. Of course, in addition to this, contrary to a good deal of information that I see in the press, the harvest is never of infants, of the pups. That does not occur with Pribilof fur seals, and to the best of my knowledge never has. I have watched and observed the fur seal harvest for many years myself. They always take the young bachelors, 3- or 4-year-old bachelors that actually bunch up some distance from the herd itself and from the large rookeries, and these are driven inland a consider- able distance away from the herd, and there they are killed and skinned. There are surplus males because the animals are polygamous and one large bull fur seal has 10 or more females in its harem. At any rate, without the protection of the fur seal convention it seems to me that nations such as Japan and Canada or the Soviet Union, or perhaps other nations for that matter, could not be pre- vented from pelagic sealing, and this would be a very destructive and damaging thing, indeed. 67-765 O - 71 - 13 184 Tliis morninfr there was some comment about the fur seal herd's havinc declined. , . , , . , . x I confess not bein^ absolutelv up to date at the present time, but 1 know that in the mid-1960's the scientists of member countries had decided that the fur seal herd was too large and we deliberately re- duced the lierd, including deliberate killing of some females in order to bring the herd down to the level where it would produce the maxi- mum vi*eld of young, viable seals per year. In my judgment, the fur seal population will fluctuate from year to vear/but is under excellent management. A great deal is known about it, and some of the very best marme sciendsts this countn' has ever produced have worked on fur seals. Mr Pelly. In the' event of an absolute prohibition under mtema- tionai law, what might be the effect of overpopulation we will say of these herds and other marine mammals and the devastation that might be visited on other resources such as the salmon ? Mr. McKerxax. Well in the first place I do not belieA'e, and I do not accept the hypothesis that other nations would refrain from taking fur seals, particularly if the herd is in as good condition as the scien- tists say. . Therefore. I do not think that there would be a total ban even if the United States wanted it on fur seal hunting. Assuming that there was, it seems to me that we have had quite a lot of experience with fur seals, and as I recall the papers of the past 15 or 20 years, what happens is we have a vers' high pup mortality, and manv of the females are barren when the iwpulation gets too large- Xow the last information I had, this was not too well understood, but nevertheless it does occur, and by the way, it tends to occur in other animal populations where there is overcrowding, the fertility is decreased and mortality, particularly infant mortality, is increased. That has been the case, and scientific information has shown that to be the case with fur seals, as well. Mr. Pellt. ]My question had to do with the effect on the salmon. !Mr. McKerxax. I see. Mr. Pellt. As you know, you fly over where the salmon are all getting together and about to go upstream and you see the seals in great abundance, at least I am not sure thev are fur seals, but thev are seals in Puget Sound, and off the Fraser River. They certainly kill, and by just taking a bite out of a salmon de- stroys it, and I thought perhaps it would be detrimental to the salmon that is so important for food and the economy of the natives to balance these seal herds and to control them in a way so it is not too damaging to the fisheries. Mr. McKerxax. I agree with you. I think the point that Mr. Talbot made this morning is a valid one. One must try and provide some balance in nature, and if seals in particular and sea lions and some other mammals are not kept in some balance by appropriate reductions in their abundance, we may have problems. In my judgment it is best to appropriately and conservatively man- age the environment as a whole. In recent years, for example, the beluga, the small white whale that is circumpolar in occurrence has been in abundance. The natives, some of the natives in Alaska, no 185 longer use these to the same degree tliey did in past decades, or the last century, and this whale has become a \ery serious predator on 5'oung sockeye salmon coming down from the streams in Bristol Bay in the spring of the year, and they take thousands of young salmon migrating to the sea from the fresh water. So there is a predator problem. Mr. Pelly. I am not prepared to say that this is a terribly serious one. but it does indicate, in my judgment, the need to provide some kind of balance in the ecological system as mentioned by Mr. Talbot. Studies on fur seals show that as salmon congregate and concentrate in the spring of the year, one of the major foods of fur seals at that time is the salmon. Toothed whales and fur seals do feed on salmon but, of course, now that the population of fur seals is held in control. I think it is the view of the scientists that this predation on the important salmon stocks of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest by fur seals is not serious. ]Mr. Pelly. Would it be possible for you. with the permission of the chairman, to submit for the record a list of the various marine mam- mals, with your comments as to any danger to fishery resources, if they were not controlled under some suggested plan such as a flexible plan which Dr. Talbot suggested tliis morning ? ^Ir. McKerxax. I will be happy to cooperate with the committee. (The information follows :) Marine Mammals Control Almost all marine mammals are carnivorous. Many species, notably various species of seals and whales, including porpoises and dolphins, are known to consume some quantities of fish used for food by humans. We know, for example, that fur seals eat salmon although tlie major part of their food appears to consist of other, less desirable species. Hair seals also take salmon, and beluga wha'es take, in addition to maturing .salmon, .some quantities of salmon smolts in Bristol Bay during the outward migration of the smolts. Baleen whales, of course, usually subsist on smaller organisms not generally sought by man but which are part of the food supply for fish higher in the food chain. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge there is little evidence as to the physical quantities of useful fish that these mammals consume. As to controls over the populations, there are. of course, controls over fur seals and the larger, commercially exploited whales. The native population in Alaska takes walrus, some hair seals and a few of the smaller whales, like the beluga. Otherwise, the populations of these mammals, at least off the United States coast, are controlled mostly by the circumstances of their natural environment. In summary, it can only be said that marine mammals have some adverse effect on stocks of useful fish. The degree of this effect is not known, but it will obviously vary with the size of the populations of mammals. Mr. Pelly. Thank you Mr. DixGELL. ]Mr. Anderson ? Mr. AxDERSox'. Thank you. Mr, Chairman. Has the State Department tried to negotiate any other treaty simi- lar to tlie fur seal treaty of 1911 with respect to some of these other marine mammals like the walrus, the sea otter, and so on ? 186 Mr. McKernan. This Government is in favor of negotiating both an international agreement on polar bear and one includmg walrus and other ice seals. We have talked to other nations about this, and in particular with the Soviet Union. i , • The Soviet Union, of course, abuts Alaska, and there is every evi- dence that the ice seals, perhaps walrus as well, migrate between watoi-s of the two, and of course this moniing it was pointed out that ])robably polar bear do not recognize the boundaries that we humans do. So it will be necessary for us to resolve this by international means, and we are anxious to do so. , . . Now, we have had continuing, but I must admit, intermittent dis- cussion's with Soviet Union officials attempting to work out an inter- national agreement on these animals. I have talked with Soviet officials informally as recently as earlier this year, and I found them interested in such discussions, but some- what reluctant to comit themselves to formal negotiations which would lead to an international agreement. j • • We are continuing to press such arrangements, and it is my judg- ment that we wnll arrive at a meeting of the minds, and will within a few years be able to get the circumpolar nations to agree to an inter- national convention on these important marine animals. Mr. Andersox. You say you talked to them as recently as this year. How early have your talks been going on ? For example, in your remarks you refer to the fur seal treaty of 1911, and you say since that time the United States has negotiated a number of treaties, and have imdertaken discussions. It would appear since 1911 you have been mo\dng in this direction. Is it only recently that you have tried to develop an actual treaty? Mr. McKernan. Mr. Anderson, in my statement I was really refer- ring to some of our other fisheries teaties, such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention, the North Pacific Fisheries Conven- tion, and some of the other treaties. In connection with polar bear and walrus, to the best of my knowl- edge, our serious discussions concerning an agreement on these ani- mals began perhaps in the mid-1960's, although, Mr. Anderson, I could be wrong about that date. My own close association was in the mid-1 950's, and I do not recall any serious attempts earlier than that to get together with the Soviets and other polar nations to negotiate such an agreement. We have in recent years tried to work toward this, and as was men- tioned this morning, we have made some progress on polar bears. We have made some progress in terms of the ice seals and walruses by agreeing to, exchange scientific publications as a first step. In my judgment it is a small step, and not adequate. (Committee Note. — On September 20, in hearings on other legisla- tion pending before the committee, a representative of the State De- 187 partment provided additional testimony on the subject of treaties for the protection of the polar bear. The exchange between Mr. Alanson G. Burt, Special Assistant to the Office of Fisheries and Wildlife in the Department of State, and the committee, was as follows :) Mr. DiNGELL. Now, T wouM like to discuss with you your comments here, and I think that they have been very helpful to the committee in relationship to the marine mammal legislation we are considering, and I very much think it would be va'uable to discuss some of the points at this time from the standpoint of your verv he'rvfn' stntement Can you, if you please, give us some comments on the three points that I have raised with regard to the endangered species referring i>articularly to the I beMeve you are the expert in the State Department on polar bears, and have been conducting negotiations with the Russians ; have you not? Mr. BtxRT. I am familiar with the subject ; yes. Mr. DiNGELL. Perhaps in the light of this you might wish to give some com- ment to the committee with regard to the negotiations going forward with the Russians on this particular point. Perhaps, particularly from the standpoint of your testimony on H.R. 3616 you might wish to comment. Mr. BuBT. Well, in that connection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that under the terms of the present lUCN draft, the polar bears would be protected in what they call appendix II. As I mentioned before, there are two categories of wildlife that would be protected under the terms of that draft treaty. The first category is the en- dangered species, a very clear cut category. The other category is the less-than- endangered-but-in trouble category. On that list, the lUCN has placed the polar bears along vdth some 65 other species. We hope to invite the Soviet Union to the conference in Washington in April of 1972. My own view is that the Soviet Union will likely attend, as will Nor- way, Denmark, and Canada, the other states that have polar bear under their jurisdiction. At that time, I certainly hope that a full discussion will be given over to the subject of polar bears, in particular. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Potter, who worked with the committee, our counsel, would like to have some discussion with you on this point. Mr. Potter. Just a few questions, Mr. Burt. In the testimony a week ago on the matter of polar bears there was some concern that we had not been able to get agreement with a number of other governments, specifically including the Russians, on arrangements for the pro- tection of the polar bear. We were given to understand that there were differences, they were not even close to being resolved. What, if you please, are the major differences between the various five nations involved as to appropriate regulations of the polar bear? Mr. Burt. I think thp difference rests in the fact that there is insufficient evi- dence to show what the status of the polar bear really is. These five nations all belong to the polar bear research group, part of the lUCN, or under the auspices of the lUCN. In that organization's latest communication to us they said that although research on polar bears is underway, it is by no means completed, and that al- though present evidence does not show that polar bears are endangered or not endangered, in the meantime it would be very nice if restrictions were placed upon the taking of polar bears, in the event it proves they are in trouble. From the point of view of U.S. wildlife managers, based on my contact with them, this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, they tend to think in terms of obtaining more facts, more evidence upon which to base their management decisions. 188 I think the reason there is a difference of opinion, in other words, is primarily because there is no clear cut evidence one way or the other. Mr. Potter. The suggestion was made (I thought and I would have to go back and check the record) that the Americans were the ones that had been prt'ssiiic f-^r more restrictive arrangements, and the Russians have balked, which to me sounded odd, because the Russians had been trying to persuade us to adopt a ban on polar bear killing for at least 6 years. Are these differences still there, that is to say, are the Russians still pressing for a ban and the United States is still saying do not do anything until we have more information? Mr. Burt. I believe it is not only the United States, but Canada as well shares our view. I am not certain of the opinion of Denmark and Norway in this. Mr. Potter. That is very helpful. Another tiling that came up with respect to this, and perhaps your mforma- tion is more recent than mine, is that the Norwegians have recently imposed restrictions on the ki'ling of polar bears, either by set guns or killing in the water, both of which they used to do. Do you know what the status of polar bear hunting in Norway is? Mr. Burt. No, sir : I do not. I am aware that all governments of countries in which polar bears are found have imposed some restrictions on the taking of them, and this certainly in- cludes the United States. The taking of jxilar bears in the United States is regulated, of course. I am not aware of the precise restrictions applied by Norway. I do not believe there are a large number of polar bears on Norwegian terri- tories. Mr. Potter. There may not be a large number taken in Norwegian territory, but for a number of years for which we have information, and I am referring now to the proceedings of the 1965 conference in Alaska, and the two lUC'N conferences, one in 1968 and one in 1970, my impression is that the Norwegians, in most of the years covered killed more than any other country. As I say, set guns were probably the primary method of taking by the Nor- wegians, and a number of sportsmen felt outraged by this as a technique. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Anderson. Well, we have something similar in whales. We have the International Whaling Commission. What role does State play in that ? Mr. McKjernan. Well, the Department does essentially look after all of the international marine conservation conventions. We are a member of nine active commissions o*^ which the Whaling Commis- sion is one of these conventions. We request financing for the operation of the Commissions, not for research usually, but for operations of the Commission. We do work with the other interested Departments in formulating the U.S. ix>sitions where international relations are involved, and we have followed the activities of the "Whaling Commission and the others as well for many years. Mr. Anderson. Is the individual treaty, such as the fur seal treaty, a better vehicle than a whaling commission ? For example, in the report I have it says the l^Hialing Commission has not been too successful and then it identifies the fact that we have secured an agreement frm all the countries on some whales, but we are the only ones apparently recognizing the protection of certain whales. 189 Mr. McKernan. That is correct. The "WTialing Commission has put in a total ban on hunting five very important species of whale that are badly depleted. I must confess that I am very critical of the Whaling Commission, but I am not as critical as many people who ha^e apj^eared before this committee. I personally have followed the Whaling Commission for many years, and I have been disappointed almost every year in their actions, but I believe that the Whaling Commission has done a great deal of good, and continues to improve its record. Today, the regulations of the Whaling Commission, while not per- fect, provide reasonable control over the catch of most of the important species that are being taken commercially at the present time. Now, before the Commission really became active and became more effective, the great blue whale — one of the great tragedies of the cen- ury, in mv judgment^ — was very seriously depleted, and there is a question whether this whale will ever come back. In terms of the sperm whale, these whales are in relatively good abundance, and there is active control, and active work going on to try and improve the current management. Now, that Avas brought out by your chairman this morning and several other people. The amount of research done on whales is deplorable. It is in no way commensurate with the importance of these great animals. Most of the difficulties of the Whaling Commission have resulted from a lack of good information. The nations, including the United States, have simply failed to put up the money to carry out adequate, very expensive studies on tliese species. Japan and the Soviet Union, the two largest whaling nations, are most derelict in conducting adequate research. In my judgment, the Soviet Union and Japan had a responsibility some years ago to put up a great deal more money than they did, since they were the major whaling nations, and to gather more in- formation and they did not do it. Be that as it may, we have done very little in studying the popu- lations of whales ourselves. Mr. Anderson. We have the fur seal treaty of 1911. We have the International Whaling Commission. Do we have any other informal international agreements affecting marine mammals ? Mr. McKernan. No. Mr. Anderson. Those are the only two ? Mr. McKernan. Yes. There is an Antarctic seal convention that is being considered at the present time and may be agreed upon within the near future. There is the convention that I mentioned in my testimony dealing with the export, import and transit of certain species of certain wild animals and plants through the lUCN. That will also regulate certain of the marine mammals. It recog- nizes and identifies them in the two appendices as being on the one hand endangered, and on the othed hand, low in abundance and in some danger. 190 Mr. AxoERSOx. Currently we only have the two, the fur seal treaty and tlio Wlialing Commis.>ion. Mr. McKerxan. Mv collea«nie, Mr. Blow, reminds me the Inter- national Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries also re^fii- lates as part of its responsibilities, the harp and hood seals, which are taken primarily by Norway and Canada, but to some extent by Denmark. There is a panel of the Northwest Atlantic Commission dealing with these Northwest Atlantic seals. By the way, these are the seals that we have heard so much about recently. They kill the new-born pups during the white-coat phase. U e do not take any of those seals. Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Kyros? Mr. Kyros. Thank vou, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador McKefnan. on page 3 of your testimony you say that there has already been prepared a basic working document for an international conference that is going to come about in April 1972 the International I'nion for the Conservation of Nature, et cetera. "\Miat I would like to know is what, indeed, are the controls that are included in that document ? You say there is control over a number of species of marine mammals. Verv briefly, can you tell us what is in it ? Mr.' McKern.^n.' That convention would control the export, the im- port, and transit of certain species of wildlife and plants, and those wildlife and plants are identified in appendix 1 and appendix 2 of that draft convention. Appendix 2 lists species not in danger of extinction but of which the export, import and transit must be subject to control to avoid undue exploitation. Mr. Kyros. Then there will be a beginning of international con- trol over those species ? Mr. McKernan. Yes. Mr. Kyros. Is there any possibility of taking the Confer- ence further ? Is that the way in which the Conference is going to proceed, or is it possible to rewrite that by next spring ? Mr. McKernan. It is'possible, but not probable. I say that, Mr. Kyros. because this has been through several phases in its 'development and we have been dealing with perhaps -10 other countries in drafting of this convention. We are calling the Conference in conjunction with the lUCN and it is pretty well along now. Now. this does not mean it is impossible, you understand, but it would mean further delay, and it might be rather difficult in view of the larpe number of nations involved. Mr. Kyros. Well, if the Congress acted on a bill which you appar- ently do not approve of. Mr. Pryor's bill. H.R. 6558 ^Ir. McKernan. Mr. Anderson's bill. Mr. Kyros. Congressman Pryor's bill, H.R. 6558. you most cer- tainly would have to change your position on the agenda of the Con- ference ; would you not ? 191 Mr. McKerxax. If that bill passed and was signed by the Presi- dent, why then the United States would certainly have to reconsider its position at that particular conference. Mr. Kyros. If the bill which you seem to approve passed, namely H.R. 10420, which calls for certain controls and might include pe- riods of moratorium, would that not require you to change your posi- tion on the agenda for this Conference ( Mr. McKerxax. Well, as I understand the bill, and particularly the amendments that have been suggested by the Department of Com- merce, this would remain to be resolved ; that is, there would be con- siderable jflexibility as was brought out this morning, and in addition there would be the commission that would study the many aspects of marine mammal exploitation and conservation. There is a possibility that the Government would want to change its position, but I do not believe that it would necessarily be manda- tor}' that we do so. Mr. Ktros. On page 6 you say, "to the best of our knowledge," that is the State Department I assume, scientific evidence is not avail- able to support a blanket prohibition in the killing of all species of ocean mammals, or even all species of seals." "\^Tien you say "in your judgment," do you mean the judgment of Interior Department or of somebody else ? The State Department does not make an independent judgment on the killing of ocean mammals, does it ? Mr. McKerxax. Well. no. I was calling upon the scientific evidence that is available, and from the scientists of the international commis- sions that we have been talking about here, scientists of the Fur Seal Commission, for example. There is a good example where a point was raised this morning with regard to sea otters, and I think this is another example of a popula- tion where, at least as I imderst-and it, in some areas the population is declining because of the declining food. The sea otter overpopulated some of the islands of the Aleutians. I have personal knowledge of the scientific evidence available on these animals, and so this is a judgment on our part, based upon the best available scientific evidence. Mr, Ktros. Well, I thought the testimony to date questioned the validity of the scientific data collected on the herd. Mr. 'McI^JERXAX. It is true with ceitain species. Xo question about that. What I said is that the scientific evidence does not support a blanket proliibition on the killing of ocean mammals, or some species of seals. ^Lr. Kyros. In that case on what species should there be a ban ? Mr. McKerxax. Well, I am not fully familiar perhaps with all of the species of seals or stock of seals around the world, but let me say that with respect to the monk seal of Hawaii I would certainly believe there should be a ban on killing those seals. There is no particular purpose served in the killing of many of the harbor seals, small stocks of local harbor seals. On the other hand the Pribilof fur seals obviously can stand harvesting. To the best of my knowledge the hood and harp seals of the Canadian Subarctic can stand a harvest, although by the way, there has been too great a harvest of these animals, but the scientists of the 192 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Commission have indicated that they can certainly stand a harvest at the present levels of abundance. It seems to me that where there are small localized stocks that have been under heavy exploitation, and are either seriously depleted or in danofer of extinction, obviously a moratorium or a complete ban would be called for. I mis. I have never had so much mail received in my office as on this issue. It would seem to me that State Department is going far beyond what you are suggesting here as to what methods you are going to take with foreign nations, whether it concerns ocean dumping or air pollution- Mr. McKerxax. Well, ^Mr. Kyros. I would disagree with you that we are simply sitting on our hands and not doing anvthing. VTe have a orreat many successes in the marine field. Most of our International Fishery Commissions are quite successful. It is true, in the last 5 years or so. or even 10 years, that we have had a tremendous influx of foreign fleets off our coa-^s. We have not solved all of these problems, but, here again, the United States is very actively seeking a new Law of the Sea Convention. There will be a LOS conference very likely in 1973. I spent a good deal of time in Geneva this year at a preparatory conference. And, at this time, the United States has proposed and has shown what I think is a great deal of leadership in providing for additional protection for oar coastal fishermen, the kind, by the way. that would solve the prob- lems In Maine, Massachusetts, and the Xew England coast in general. Mr. Ktros. The haddock problem ? Mr. McKerxax. On haddock, as well as other snecies. That is, the proposals would provide the kind of protection that would take the pressures of foreign fishermen off these stocks of fish. We have had great success in tuna and great success in the rehabili- tation of salmon on the west coast and in the State of Alaska. We have had good cooperation from other nations who are fishing there and who would like to fish so they can exnort to our markets. I do not think, while there has Iseen a great deal said about a cer- tain lack of progress on some of these difficult areas, that one can say that we have not made considerable progress in settling our marine conservation problems. Mr. Ktros. I did not say that. What I said is that we in the Congress should not be fainthearted in dealing with the foreign nations on 195 marine mammal protection, because we have taken other attitudes in the past. I think that once we show other nations what we think the path should be. they would be willing to join in. It would appear to me that the best thing that could happen to vou is having Congress enact a strong bill that will give you a lot of muscle so that you will have the necessary authority to negotiate. Mr. Pellt. Mr. Kyros. will you yield ? Mr. Ktros. I yield. Mr. Pellt. I had in mind, when you said we should pass a strong bill, to indicate to these foreign countries that we meant business in connection with the Xorth Atlantic salmon. I am hopeful that we will pass a bill and encourage Denmark to come into the conmiunity of nations and practice conservation. I agree with you. Mr. Ktros. I can see salmon back in the Penobscot River some day. Mr. Pellt. I was over in Scotland during the recess, and they had the lowest catch of salmon in history. And. obviously, it is due to the fact of the indiscriminate taking of the North Atlantic salmon off of Greenland. Mr. McKerxax. It has been very slow in Canada, also, and it is a very serious matter. Mr. Pellt, It indicates that the agreement to hold the catch at its previous level is too high, and some more restrictive measures must be taken. Mr. Ktros. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DixGELL. Mr. Anderson '( Mr. AxDERSox. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I would like to clarify my own understanding of the Fur Seal Treaty. My understanding is "that of the seals that we harvest on our side, the 50.0ects of the International "\Mialing Commission, and so forth. I requested information, for example, on what efforts have been made by or through the State Department to develop international arrangements for the protection of (a) walruses, (b) seals, sea lions and sea elephants, other than the Alaska fur seal, (c) polar bears, and (d) sea otters. I asked what discussions had been held in conjunction with the planning of the 1972 Stockholm Conference as to the environmental implications, or lack thereof, associated with the protection of marine mammals. 67-765 O— 71 14 200 I further asked what efforts have been made by or through the State Department to change, and specifically to strengthen, the authorities of the International Whaling Commission. What information has been developed by your department regard- ing the killing of marine mammals in international waters by nations which are not parties to the existing international agreements. I have not yet received a reply from Secretary Rogers. Are you aAvare of this letter, Mr. McKernan ? Mr. McKernan. Yes, I am. It has recently come to me, and we are in the process at tlie present time of providing the answers as best we can to the questions you have raised. Mr. DiNGELL. Then 1 will ask unanimous consent that my letter to the Secretary, and the response, when it arrives — and I assume you will move expeditiously — will be inserted in the record at this partic- ular point. And without objection, it is so ordered. (The letter referred to follows :) August 17, 1971. Hon. Christian Herter. Special Assistant to the Secretary for Environmental Affairs, Department of State, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. Secretary: Whi'e I am not quite certain as to the assignments of responsibility within your Department, I am reasonably sure that you will have already familiarized yourself with the problems involved with the protection of whales, seals and other ocean mammals. I undersltand that there has been considerable discussion already on the possi- bility of including the question of ocean mammal protection in the agenda for the 1972 conference. You will, therefore, be interested in knowing that my Subcommittee has sched- uled hearings on several bills on the subject of marine mammal protection, chiefly H.R. 6558 and H.R. 10420, beginning Thursday. September 9, 1971. Conies of these bills have already been sent to the Department of State through oflScial channels, but I wanted to bring these to your specific attention and to ask that you let us have your views on this question. oflScially or unofficially, as you wish. The disappearance or low population levels of certain species of marine mammals would clearly have implications for the ecosystems of which these mamma's have been a significant part. Also, the level of po'Uition of the world's oceans will unquestionably have some effect UDon them which might well be to increase the environmental stress limiting their growth and survival rates. We wiU he most in^^erested in your reaction to these bills. With every good wish. Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. Department of State, Washington, B.C. Hon. John D. Dingell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your letter of August 17 requesting Mr. Christian A. Herter's views on the problems involved with the protection of marine mammals and the several bills on the subject of marine mammal pro- tection scheduled for hearings before your committee on September 9th. The Denartment considers that the policy of the United States should provide for the conservation and protection of marine mammals in order to maintain their population at optimum levels and to ensure that no species is ^threatened with extinction. We are therefore in sympathy with efforts by Congress to con- serve and protect marine mammals. The Department has prepared draft renorits on H.R. 6558 and H.R. 10420. The oflScial reports will be forwarded upon completion of the necessary review. 201 We are of course concerned about the effects of the deterioration of the ocean environment on all marine ecosystems and expect to participate fully in the discussion of this subject at the United Nations Conference on the Environment at Stockholm in 1972. In addition, we look to tlie world conference on the protection of wildlife which will be convened in Washington in the Spring of 1972 to conclude a con- vention on this subject. As you stated in your letter, the disappearance or serious reduction in the population levels of marine mammals can affect the stability and viability of marine ecosystems which in turn can lead to a more generalized disruption of the marine environmental balance. If we are to preserve the oceans, and if their resources are to be preserved for mankind, programs must be develoi)ed that view the oceans and their flora and fauna as a totality, recognizing that the extinction of one species can threaten all others. Sincerely, Hakkison M. Symmes, Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. September 3, 1971. Hon. William P. Rogers, Department of State, Washington, D.C. Dear Mb. Secretary : As I believe you have already been informed, my Sub- committee will begin hearings on September 9 on several bills dealing with the protection of marine mammals. While government witnesses will not be heard on that date, we will hear from them at a later date, and expect that the Department of State will provide us with a representative at that time. Becau.se hese que.^-tious will involve matters of significant United States policy, we expect your Deimrtment to provide a spokesman at the level of Assistant Secretary or higher i.e., one who is in a position to dis-cuss policy matters at the hearings! Presumably, Ambaf?.sador McKeman will be present to answer ques- tions of a technical nature, but I would hope that Mr. Herter, or a representative of his office, will also be available to respond to questions on the environmental implications of these bills. Additionally, we have some specific questions with regard to matters falling within the scope of the^e bills, as to which we would appreciate your assistance. Specifically, we would like to know : 1. What efforts have been made by or through the State Department to develop international arrangements for the protection of (a) walruses, (h) seals, sea lions and sea elephants (other than the Alaska fur seal), (c) polar bears, and (d) sea otters? 2. What discussions have been held in conjunction with the planning of the 1972 Stockholm Conference as to the environmental implications (or lack thereof) associated with the protection of marine mammals? 3. What efforts have been made by or through the State Department to change, and specifically to strengthen, the authorities of the International ^Vhaling Commission? 4. Finally, with regard to the activities of the IWC, I have some specific re- quests for information. It would be appreciated if you would supply us with (a) all recommendations to the IWC by its scientific advisors for each of the past fifteen years with regard to : (i) the number of whales which may be taken, by species and population stocks, if any ; (ii) species and population stocks which should not be taken; (iii) areas in which whaling should not take place ; and (iv) other suggested restrictions upon whaling activities by member nations. (b) all recommendations by the U.S. delegation with regard to the same ques- tions, for the same period. (c) all recommendations by the U.S. delegation on any other matter before the IWC. (d) the responses of the IWC with regard to each of the foregoing recom- mendations. (e) the activities of any member nation which may be inconsistent with any of the foregoing recommendations, or with positions taken by the IWC. 202 ." What information has been developed by your Department regarding the killing of marine mammals in international waters by nations which are not IKirties to the existing international agreements? Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated. Sincerely, ^ ^ John D. Dingexl, Chairman, Subcammittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. Department of State Washington, D.C., September ^0, 1971. Hon. John D. Dingell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chahixian : The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of September 3 regarding the hearings by your Subcommittee on several bills dealing with the protection of marine mammals. Your letter posed several questions with resi)ect to the activities of the Depart- ment and the International Whaling Commission regarding marine mammals. Responses to these questions appear below in the same order as they appear in your letter. 1. Efforts toward international arrangements for protection of various marine mammals As a matter of general interest under this item, the draft of a wildlife con- servation treaty which has been prepared by ithe International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources ( lUCN ) as a working document for the conference to be convened at Washington in April. 1972, would protect all sirenia (listed on Api>endix I of the draft) and polar bears, sea otters, Guadelupe fur seals and walruses (listed on Appendix II) . Walruses. — At the time of the meeting of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commis- sion in Ottawa in 1970, representatives of the United States and the Soviet Union, with Japanese and Canadian observers present, discussed the conservation of walruses and ice seals and agreed to exchange information on these animals, including population figures, kill statistics and published scientific and technical papers. Agreement was also reached on holding annual discussions on ice seals and walruses in conjunction with future annual Fur Seal Commission meetings. These discussions are aimed at determining whether more formal arrangement, including an international agreement, as appropriate, are required in order to ensiire the conservation of the animals. Seals, sea lions and sea elephants. — In addition to the above mention of ice- dwelling seals, the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fish- eries, to which the United States is a party, provides for ithe investigation, protection and conservation of harp and hood seals in the Convention area. These seals are taken off the eastern shores of Canada, and United States nationals do not participate in the hunt. In addition, a draft Antartic sealing convention has been prepared by the Antartic Treaty states, including the United States, and will be negotiated at a meeting expected to be called by the Grovernment of the United Kingdom next spring. It would prohibit pelagic sealing south of 60 degrees south latitude, protecting six species — crabeater seals, leopard seals, "Weddell seals, Ross seals, elephant seal and fur seals of the genus Arctnccphalus. Polar bears. — The first International Scientific Meeting on Polar Bears w^s held at Fairbanks. Ala.ska in 1965. A Polar Bear Group of Research Specialists was established (under the lUCN) : this Groun meets from time to time to dis- cuss research activities. The latest meeting was in February, 1970. The United States. Canada, Denmark. Norway and the Soviet Union are represented in the Group. As noted above, polar bears are on Appendix II of the lUCN draft. Sea otters. — This si>ecies is consideretl to be a resident species and is either protected or regulated by all states of 'the United States in which found. As noted above, sea otters are on Appendix II of the lUCN draft. 2. Disrussiovs in conjunction ivith planning for the 1972 Stockholm Conference. There have been as yet no intergovernmental discussions specifically on this subject. However, the subject of "the Environmental Aspects of Natural Re- sources Management" constitutes one of the four major tonical areas around which the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment is being 203 organized. Discussion of this subject at the Conference will focus upon the means for incorporating environmental considerations into the comprehensive planning and management of natural resources, including in this context living as well as non-living resources. We expect that the status of marine mammals and their role in ihe marine ecosystem will be discussed by the Conference, and the United States tlans to par'dcipate fully in these discussions. In addition to the discu.ssion of the conservation and management of resources, the Conference may take action to protect endangered species. AVe are considering the desirability of opening the wildlife conservation trealty for signature at the Stockholm Conference by those states which did not sign following the negotia- tions in Washington in April, 1972. 3. Efforts to strengthen the authority of the International Whaling Commission. The authority of the Whaling Commission derives, of course from the Inter- national Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. 1946. The only changes which have been made in the Convention are those provided by the Protocol of 1956, which entered into force in 1959. The Protocol made two changes, one adding helicopters and other aircraft to the definition of "whale catcher" and the other adding "methods of inspection" to the areas in which the Commission might regulate. The latter provision was intended, among other ithings, to enable the Commission to establish a system of international observation of enforcement, as had been proposed by Norway in 1955 with respect to factory ships in the Antarctic. The Convention itself is not greatly dissimilar to other international agree- ments for the conservation of living marine resources, although it does place more emphasis on the interests and well-being of the industry and consumers of products than is generally the case. This emphasis derives from the fact that at the time of the negotiation of the treaty there was considerable concern over the world shortage of fats and oils and other foods and over the condition of the whaling industry. Perhaps the greatest difficulty with the operation of the Convention has stemmed from the provisions i)ermitting .any of the Contracting Parties to object to a recommendation of the Commission within a si^ecified time. The use of this right to object, or the obvious intent to u^e it, has at times prevented the adoption of desirable conservation measures and the substitution of compromises not adequate for the purpose at hand. This follows from the fact that most members consider some controls, even though inadequate, as better than none at all, and the lodging of an objection to a recommendation, for ex- ample, on the Antarctic quota would have created a .situation in which no quota was in effect. It is easily understood that, in the highly competitive circumstances of the whaling industry, if one Government were to exempt itself from the appli- cation of a propo-sed regulation, other Governments concerned would immediately foUow suit in order not to be placed at a disadvantage. However, the same type of provision is present in practically all other marine conservation agreements, since governments have not been prepared to surrender their sovereign rights to an international conservation commission and to accept automatically whatever recommendations such a body might make. While such provisions have not caused nearly so much difliculty in otner conservation commissions, the impact of one regulation or another may be much more serious in the case of the whaling industry where such large units of capital (as regards the pelagic fleets) are involved and where there is such a high degree of com- petition. So far as the operations of the Whaling Commission are concerned, therefore, it becomes a matter of persuading all member governments whose na- tionals might be affected by a i^articular regulation that the proposed course of action is required in the light of the scientific evidence available and is in the best long-term interests of all. The efforts of the United States toward strengthening the .authority of the Commission have accordingly been directed toward building up a scientific case which would, to the extent possible, provide inescapable conclusions as to actions which the Commission should take. In this effort the United States has taken or supported several initiatives designed to persuade the Commission to face up to its conservation responsibilities. For example, after some years of disagreement among the Commission's scientific advisers as to the status of baleen whale stocks in the Antarctic, the Commission decided in 1960 to establish a si>ecial committee of three (later four) scientists expert in population dynamics and drawn from countries not engaged in Antarctic pelagic whaling' to examine the status of the Antarctic stocks and to report 204 on their condition, on the level of sustainable yield, and on conservation meas- u^s that would increase the sustantinable yield. The tnired states took a leading i«rt in the deci.^ion to establish this committee. lu taking this action, he cSnmission declared its intention that the Antarctic catch hmit should l»e brought into line with the scientific findings not later than JiUy 1%4. Fo lou ing the f-iilure of the Commission to honor this commitment the L nited states and others brought about a special meeting in May of 1965. at which it was agreetl that the Antarctic quota would be progressively reduced so that the figure for 1967 /6s would he less than the combined sustainable yield of the fin and sei whale stocksr-which by then were the only baleen whale species permitted to l>e taken in that area. _^ ,,- i, ^ f „_„, The United States has also taken a leading role in establishment of measure^, for conservation of the North Pacific whale stocks, to which increasing effort had l.een devoted following the decline of whaUng in the Autarctic Initial discussion and action with respect to North Pacific whales were confined to representatives of the four countries— the United States. Canada. .Japan and U.S.S.R.— primarily concerned The United States representative has acted as chairman of this North Pacific group since its inception. Through these efforts catch quotas have been established in the North Pacific, beginning with voluntary arrangements between these four countries in 1968 covering the 1969 season. These quotas were reduced for the following season and the Commission itself adopted regulations providing quotas, reduced in each case, for the 1971 and 19.2 seasons. 4. Specific information on activities of th^ International Whaling Commission. With regard to the various items of information requested concerning the Commissions activities and United States proposals, we have reviewed the documentation and have concluded that a complete and detailed response would require extensive research going far beyond the time when such information would be needed bv vou. Taking this into account and after consultation with a member of your' Committee staff, we suggest that the provision of certain Commission reports and documents might serve the purpose. Accordingly, we enclose a copv of the Chairman's report to the Commission for each of the annual meetings during the period 1956 through 1969. (The reports of the 1970 and 1971 meetings are not yet available and substitute materials have been provided. » These reports provide a rather detailed summary of Commission activities and of Commission actions at the annual meeting, including recom- mendations of the Scientific Committee which were available for consideration. In addition, there are enclosed for each of the annual meetings beginning with 1966. a copy of the report of the Commission's Technical Committee, of the Scientific Committee and of the Commissioners from the North Pacific member nations. The Technical Committee Ls a kind of committee of the whole which considers in the first instance the information available and formulates pro- posals for reference to the main body, and its report will, therefore, provide additional detail as to the nature of the alternatives available for action and as to the nature of the alternatives available for action and as to the positions of the various members. As of possible interest, there is also enclosed a copy of a Commission report in connection with the 1956 annual meeting which summarizes the origins, objectives and provisions of the Whaling Convention. 5. Information on the killing of marine mammals by nations not parties to existing agreements Whaling operations take place imder the jurisdiction of five governments which are not parties to the Whaling Convention. The.se are Chile. Peru. Brazil. Spain and Portugal. Chile and Peru signed the Convention but did not ratify : Brazil was formerly a party but withdrew in 1966 : Spain and Portugal were not signatories. These countries regularly report their catches to the Inter- national Bureau for Whaling Statistics at Sandefjord. Norway, which acts as a data-gathering c-enter for the Commi-ssion through the courtesy of the Norwegian Government. For example, in the 1970 season the catches by these cotmtries were as follows : Chile— 103 sei whales. Peru — So fin whales ; 414 sei whales : 1.4.36 sperm whales. Brazil — 26 sei whales : 76 .sperm whales : 701 minke whales. Spain — 261 sperm whales : 1.52 un.specified baleen whales. Portugal — 205 sperm whales (Azores) ; 44 sperm whales (Madeira). These figures compare with world totals for the 1969/70 Antarctic season and the 1970 sea.son el.sewhere of 5,057 fin whales. 11.195 sei whales and 25,842 sperm whales. 205 We cannot confirm that all regtilations of the Commission pertaining to prohibited spec-ies. size limits and the like are observed by the whalers of these countries. However, we understand that the regulations are generally observed. The Department is also aware of reports that two "pirate" whaling vessels have been operating off the west coast of Africa in the past year. These are understood to be relatively small operations, involving in each case a combination of catcher vessel and processing vessel. They are understood to be flying flags of convenience. The members of the Whaling Commission which are most directly concerned with these operations have undertaken to seek such measures as mav be possible to control them, and upon development of further informa- tion the Department will consider courses of action which it may take in this re.spect. ^ , • ^- i With respect to other species of marine mammals covered by international agreements, the Department is not aware, nor has it any reason to believe, that such animals are being killed by nations not parties to the existing agreements. I hope that the foregoing information will be useful to you in your considera- tion of the various bills on protection of marine mammals. If there is any further information we can provide please let me know. Sincerely. David M. Abshike, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. Mr. DixGELL. It is your view that the International A^Tialing Com- mission has done an adequate job of i^rotectingthe whales ( Mr. McKerxax. No. Mr. DixGELL. Well, what are we going to do about it ? Mr. McKerxax. Well, we are doing something about it. and I think, in the past 10 years, substantial progress has been made to brijig the controls on whaling within the allowable, sustainable yield limits. Mr. DixGELL. Are you telling me last year's catch was witliin the allowable sustainable yield limits ( Mr. McKerxax. On some si>ecies. the answer is "Yes." It is within the limits of the knowledge of the stocks of whales of some of these species, for example, the Xorrh Pacific sperm whales ; stUl. generally, the performance is not completely adequate from my point of view, and I am sure from yours. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DixGELL. It' is vers- definitely not adequate from my view, and that is one of the reasons we are having these hearings. Mr. McKerxax. We had three major objectives. The United States had three major objectives at this recent Whaling Commission meeting. By the way. these objectives were drafted, not necessarily or not even to any major degree, by the Department of State, but by all interested departments of Government. These were, first to attempt to bring down the catch below the sustainable yield level. Second, do away with the blue whale unit. You know. Mr. Chairman, for years in the Antarctic the whales have been listed, the catch has been listed, and the quotas have been taken on the basis of blue whale tmits rather than by sj^ecies. We felt for a long time this was a very bad practice, and we wanted to eliminate that. Third, we wanted to have initiated an effective enforcement scheme, international enforcement scheme. Xow. we did not completely succeed in the first objective. There was a general reduction of about 20 [percent, as I recall in the quotas for this vear from last vear. 206 In terms of the blue whale unit, the Commission turned down a rhaiifre for procedural reasons, but agreed that it would go into etfect next year. Now, this is a very major adyanee. It is years late, but there are some problems in terms of a pi-actical change as significant as that, and so there will be next year a change from the blue whale unit to a species unit of catch of whales taken from the Antarctic. We will haye then a control and a quota on these species themselyes rather than grouping them all under the general blue whale unit category. Then, it was agreed, and I think this is a major step, to institute an effectiye inspection system where, for example, Japanese would be on Soviet ships and Soviets would be on Japanese ships. That particular agreement is now being consummated in Tokyo at the present time. Mr. Dix(;ei>l. What about American inspectors on Soviet ships and Japanese landing ports? Mr. McKkrxax. That is under consideration at the present time. The question is with the United States not having any whaling or affording any reciprosity, in other words we will not have any whal- ing stations open, whether we ought to provide inspectors for the whaling countries. Mr. DiNGELL. That would tend to make us honest men. We have no commitments not to resume whaling. We simply are not doing it at this time because the whales have been jeo]>ardized. "Why should we be denied the opportunity of inspection ? Mr. McKerxan. That possibility is not eliminated, but I am sure the whaling nations would want reciprocity, and will want to inspect those nations who are inspecting them. Anyway, in terms of effective enforcement, this is a very major step forward, in my judgment. Mr. DiNGELL. Xow. is it your view that the nations are respecting catch limitations? Mr. McKerxax. Generally. Mr. DixGELL. Generally? Mr. McKerx'ax'. Yes ; I am not positive about it. Mr. DixGELL. I have heard it said that they are not respecting catch limits as to the number of whales or the species or the size, as a matter of fact. I will have you note there has been information that has been brought to my attention that would indicate that some of the nations, including the Soviet I^nion, are not respecting the size, the species or the numbers. Mr. M^KERXAX^ That may be true. I frankly would doubt it. I think that the Soviet T^nion and Japan, while they have not been in favor of as effective regulations as we, realize just as we do that these stocks must be protected. My general experience with the Soviet I^nion is that they enforce agreed upon regulations very assiduously, and whenever we have had an opportunity to check up on them, we find that they are more severe in their penalties than we are when we have violations, and that they do generally live up to their international commitments. 207 Xow, of course, Mr. Chairman. I have heard the same thing you have, and this is why we put such a high priority on an effective enforcement system. Mr. DixGELL. Is there a mechanism inside the International Whal- ing Commission to deal with this, or has our comitry pushed for any particular mechanism to deal with the problem ? Mr. McKerxax. We have been pushing very hard for an effective enforcement system within the Commission. Mr. Dix'GELL. Is there any at this time ? Mr. McKerxax. I am afraid. Mr. Chairman, that I do not know v\hat you mean. There is no Commission police force, but there is an agreement. There will be an agreement by the time the next whaling season rolls around, an agreement which will effectively provide for an exchange of enforcement personnel between the whaling nations at least. We are hopeful that there will be. There is every indication there will be. Such an agreement has not been concluded yet, and there are still possible disagreements that might come up at the last minute. Mr. DixGELL. "\Miat nations are not participating in the "Ulialing Commission's activities ? Mr. McKerxan. There are some minor whaling nations. I think Peru, Chile, Brazil. Spain, and Portugal. Mr. DixGELL. How about Korea ? Mr. McKerx\\x. Xot to our knowledge. I do not believe Korea is doing any whaling. Mr. Dix'^GELL. What is being done to bring these people into line to check the whale and conserve them ? Mr. McKerx'ax'. We have been constantly trying to encourage these people to join, and some do attend as observers. Mr. Chairman, their catch is minimal. About some 85 percent of the whales at the present time are taken by the large whaling nations, and about 15 percent by quite a large number of others who have very small land whaling stations and take their catch in the close vicinity of their own national territory or waters. ^Ir. DixGELL. Can you name one specific action taken by our Govern- ment which would bring these i^eople in under the convention for pur- poses of regulating the take ? Mr. McKerx'ax'. I cannot recall anything at the present time. I would be glad to examine our records and see. Mr. DixGELL. The record will te kept oiDen, I find myself hard put to justify somebody taking 15 percent without any controls at all; and we are going out of the business and when we have species on the brink of extinction. Mr. McKerx'ax. Xone of these nations have increased their whaling take, and they all have a very small, relatively stable take from local stocks near their own coast. Mr. Dix'GEix. Is there any j^elagic sealing going on ? Mr. McKerx'ax. Pelagic sealing? Mr. Dix'GELL. Yes. Mr. McKerx^ax. Of the Pribilof fur seals, no. There is none. 208 To the best of my knowledge there is none on any species, but I am not familiar, for example, with the Indian Ocean and in some other places. To the best of my knowldege, the answer is "No,"' but I could be wrong. Mr. DiNGELL. We have heard reports that seals are showing up in the Pribilofs witli nets and net markmgs around their necks. Mr. McKernan. Could very well be. Mr. DiNGELL. Any investigation of this? Mr. McKernan. Could very well l>e, because there are great quan- tities of salmon nets in the Northwestern Pacific Ocean. As you know, they do rob the nets, and sometimes they are caught in the'nets. These salmon caught in oc^ian nets, of course, are immobile, and so the fur seals being pretty clever come up and simply take sal- mon from the nets on the high seas. This does occur, and I would expect the fur seals to have some net around them because of their habit of taking the easy way out when there are fish caught in nets. Mr. Pelly. Just for the record, these are not nets that are lowered by American fishermen. They are all foreign fishing vessels that put down 10 mile long nets to take our salmon. Mr. McKernan. I will confirm that. That is correct, Mr. Pelly. There are probably a few nets of U.S. fishermen around the Aleutian Islands. The fur seals, of course, migrate as far south as Mexico, and as far over as Japan in their migrations during the wintertime, and when they migrate back to the Pribilofs in the Bering Sea, they migrate through the Aleutian Islands. They might get some fish from U.S. nets in the vicinity of the Aleu- tian Islands, but for the most part I think the netting is Japanese. Mr. Dingell. You say, however, you know of no pelagic sealing of the fur seal population going on at this time? Mr. McKernan. That is correct. We have authority to board vessels of other member nations and inspect them. Mr. Dingell. How about nonmember nations ? Mr. McKernan. We do not do so. Mr. Dingell. How about the Koreans? Mr. McKernan. Pardon ? Mr. Dingell. I understand the Koreans are taking these seals. Mr. McKernan. To the best of my knowledge that is not so. Mr. Dingell. Not so ? No other nations taking them ? Mr. McKernan. No. Mr. Dingell. How would your Department look on the idea of af- fording legislative authority to one of the Government agencies to be able to impose restrictions on import of animals taken in an inhumane way, the marine mammals, or from depleted stocks? Mr. McKernan. I cannot speak for the Department, but I cannot see any great disadvantage of this. I must confess, though, that I think the appropriate way to deal with this problem is through international conservation conventions and international conservation means, be- cause here we would have a much more direct effect. Mr. Dingell. Assuming you cannot get this kind of right, and you are having considerable difficulty, what about a ban on all importations? 209 Mr. McKernan. In that case that might, under some circumstances, be an effective lever to push nations toward effective conserv^ation ar- rangements and international agreements. Mr. DiNGELL. Do you favor controls of taking of particular popu- lations in an area where the population might be jeopardized or en- dangered, as opposed to j^erhaps a whole species or populations which are not endangered or in jeopardy ? Mr. McKerxan. If I understand you correctly, you are asking me A\hether or not there should be particularly stringent regulations where you have small, localized stocks which might be easily depleted or wiped out ? Yes, very much so. The gray whale is a good example along the Pacific coast. You may recall, Mr. Chairman, and I recall in past years discussing this with you, at one time they were badly depleted. The gray whale migrates up and down the Pacific coast of the United States, even looming in quite close to shore at times. The '\Anialing Commission banned the killing of gray whales, and United States, even looming in quite close to the shore at times. Mr. DiNGELL. "VAHiat is the level of population which you deem to be appropriate for wise management and wise use ? Do you consider it a minimum population ? Mr. McKernax. Generally speaking, it is the level where the growth is most rapid and recruitment is the greatest, and where natural mor- tality is at a minimum. Mr. Dix^gell. In relation to the total population ? Mr. MoKerx'^ax. I have heard some rule-of -thumb estimates by some scientists dealing with marine mammals that this particular level is roughly half of the original stock; that is, where the population is at about half of the level of the undisturbed stock, you get the maximum annual increment each year. Now, I think this is a very rough and ready sort, of estimate, but I have heard the scientists use that particular rule for marine mammals. Mr. DixGELL. Would you think this should be the definition of this subcommittee with regard to wise use and maximum sustained yield ? Mr. McKerx^ax. I have heard the discussion this morning, and I heard Dr. Talbot mention that he felt that other considerations ought to enter into any such definition, and I agree with that. From the standpoint of the United States, and from the standix)int of our very broad interests in the environment, I would favor a level somewhat higher than one-half. Now, if I can change my hat for a moment, and point out to you that I often times have to negotiate these issues with hard-headed foreign government officials, and a common denominator that is under- stood by almost everybody, and is not subject to much argument inter- nationally, is that particular level and that definition. By the way, that is why it occurs in the 1958 convention. The con- vention was discussed this morning briefly. The use of MSY occurs there because this is the kind of measure that anyone, no matter whether he understands or likes the esthetic aspects of whales or not, can at least understand, that is, the maximum sustainable yield, and it can be expressed in a number or at least a range. 210 From a practical point of view of getting acceptance both in devel- oped nations and developing nations, this is still not a bad measure. I pei-sonally would prefer perhaps some level somewhat higher than that, but I think that it is not a bad international basis. You can see yourself, Mr. Chairman, with everybody having a little different point of view, having somewhat diiferent objectives, some other level is very difficult to define. Mr. Din(;fxl. Do you think we ought to take some steps to put some more teeth in the International Wlialing Commission? Mr. McKerxan. Yes. Mr. DiNGELL. Do you have any suggestions as to what those could or should be ? Mr. McKernan. AYell, reference was made this morning to con- sideration of the economics of the industry. It is int<^rpreted by us to be a secondary consideration, but still it has been used as a consideration for avoidmg the hard realities of a substantially reduced catch. I would favor a conservation convention which considered the conservation of the resource as the primary objective. Mr. DiNGELL. Is it fair to say that the International Whaling Com- mission has not been so constituted and the convention, as drawn, does not really consider faithfully that objective ? Is that not a fair statement? Mr. McKernan. Yes; it certainly has done less than a satisfactory job, from my point of view. It has not done as well as I consider it should have done in relation to its terms of reference, but I think it is by far the best vehicle we have at the present time, and I very frankly am in favor of staying with it, within it. and working within to try and correct its deficiencies. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. McKernan, the committee is grateful to you and we thank you for your presence and you have been very helpful. Our next witness is Mr. Howard Pollock, Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce. We welcome our former colleagTie and member of this committee. STATEMENT OF HOWARD W. POLLOCK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM TERRY, RAUD JOHNSON, WILLIAM KIRKNESS, GEORGE HARRY, DR. WILLIAM PERRIN Mr. Pollock. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairmain, I would like to have come to the table with me Mr. Bill Terry and Mr. Raud Johnson. Mr. Johnson is our general counsel for NOA. Mr. Terry has been our deputy director of fisheries and is now our director of international relations. I have some other gentlemen I would like to introduce in the audi- ence, Mr. Chairman. I have Mr. Kirkness, our acting associate director for research management. 211 I have Mr. George Harrj% director of the Marine Mammal Biology Laboratory from Seattle. I also have Dr. William Perrin, the fisheries biologist at Central Pacific Research Center in California. There are others, but these are the main people I wanted to introduce at this juncture. Mr. Pelly. I am glad to see the west coast is well represented. Mr. DiNGELL. Gentlemen, we are happy to welcome you to the committee. Mr. Pollock, we are happy to recognize you for your statement at this time. Mr. Pollock. For the record, as a former member of this commit- tee, it is a particular pleasure to be here today to discuss the marine mammal matter in the legislation which has been introduced by so many Members of the Congress. During the past several years public attention throughout the United States has been drawn in a dramatic fashion to the problem of conservation of marine mammals. In particular, strong public con- cern has been voiced with respect to the preservation of those marine mammals which appear to be threatened with extinction, and the question of the use of humane techniques for harvesting commercially important species. We of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- ministration (NOAA) want to assure the committee that we share each of these concerns and are deeply committed to the enlightened conservation and management of marine mammals. We believe this concern is amply demonstrated by our past activities. Moreover, be- cause we are continually seeking ways to improve the conservation of these mammals, we have submitted to the committee our recom- mendations for a revised vereion of H.R. 10420 which, in our judg- ment, would provide the appropriate kinds of regulatory and research authority to supplement existing legislation and assist us in further- ing the conservation of these animals. Before discussing our proposed revision of H.R. 10420, however, w^e would like to briefl}^ examine our activities to date on behalf of marine mammals so as to dispel some of the misunderstandings sur- rounding this subject. NOAA is responsible under the Fur Seal Act of 1966 for the man- agement of the northern Paicific fur seal harvest carried out on the Pribilof Islands off the coast of Alaska. This program has been one of the most successful international conservation efforts ever mounted. Firet, it has saved the fur seal from the threat of extinction. Prior to the inauguration of this program in 1911, these animals were hunted indiscriminately on the high seas without regard to sex, age, or season of the year, with the result that their numbei-s had dwindled to a mere 200,000. Today, under strict controls, the fur seal populatioai has risen to approximately 1,200,000, a figure which is near the esti- mated optimum of from 1.5 to 1.8 million. Public statements by a few individuals to the effect that the present population has declined sub- stantially from its size in the 1930's and 1940's are founded on mis- information. An analysis of the methods used by the Governmejit in estimating the population figures for those years shows that the pub- lished estimates were much too high and did not reflect the actual situation. 212 Secondly, by limiting the fnr seal harvest to Government-controlled takinor on land, we have avoided many of the inhumane practices which are presently concerning the public. In contrast to the activities of the seal hunW-s of other countries operating on the ice between Lab- rador and Greenland, no baby seals are taken on the Pribilof Islands. Instead, for the most part, 8-to-4-year-old bachelor males are har- vested, which are surplus to the breeding requirements of the herds. Moreover, only clubbing with a stunnmg instrument followed by exsanguination is used as a method of harvest. The skinning of live seals which, for example, H.R. 4370 and H.R. 7^0 would seek to prohibit as a Federal crime, is never done on the Pribilof Islands, nor would any responsible person condone that or any similar practice. There has been much comment concerning the present harvesting method. Alternative means have been tested by both governmental and nongovernmental scientists, using the most sophisticated investi- gative techniques to detennine the most humane way of accomplish- ing the instantaneous loss of consciousness. To date no method has been found which is more humane to the seals than the one currently in use. This conclusion has been fully supported. Mr. DiNGELL. At this point, Mr. Pollock, it may be appropriate for the Chair to indicate that the Chair is going to direct the staff to review this if it is not unduly voluminous and we may want to include it in full in the record. Without objection, the staff is directed to review the document and to see how it Avill fit into the record and include all or such portions as might be appropriate. Mr. Pollock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a copy here. I think it has been forwarded to you, some copies, but may I furnish it to counsel. Mr. DiNGELL. You certainly may. Mr. Pollock. Another problem which continues to receive our attention is that which arises in connection with the inadvertent taking of porpoises in the tuna fisheries in the eastern tropical Pacific as a result of the introduction of purse seines. This problem is of particular concern to us and of equal concern to the American tuna industry. It has been estimated by our Fishery scientists that approximately 250,000 porpoises may be inadvertently killed in this manner each year. These estimates, of course, are preliminary and based on a very small sam- pling. Nevertheless, the National Marine Fisheries Service is and has been actively engaged in research to eliminate these takings. It is working on a net with an experimental pneumatic gate designed to permit porpoises to escape unharmed, coupled with, an acoustic simu- lator of killer whale sounds, to drive the porpoises from the net area. Mr. Chairman, I have some drawings which I would like to show the committee, if I might, concerning these and then continue with my prepared statement. Mr. DiNGELL. Entirely appropriate. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, this is a tuna fishing vessel with a purse seine net and this particular drawing shows the pneumatic gate. This is an experiment and I must say that the experiments thus far have not proven as satisfactory as we would like. Mr. Pollock. We are not getting the kind of results we anticipated, but this is one of a number experiments. 213 These are all floats on the net and as the net is drawn in, the air is let out of this portion of the net so that it will sink and then as it sinks the porpoises will swim out or should swim out. Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. We have mixed success so far with them. The bottom portion of the net here shows the tuna. 214 Mr. Pollock. Now, wc have another picture of this same pneumatic pate witli aixain the i)orpoises on the top to swim out and down here the tuna and over here we liave some simulators to simulate the killer whale. The intent of this is to frighten the porpoises and to scare them oft. Attain, there is some mixed success. What happens oftentimes is this will cause them to panic and run and if the pneumatic gate doesn't work correctly they will run into the net. This is one of a series of experiments that we have underway. I have two other pictures here which wall demonstrate the purse seine net when it is out or when it is being drawn into the vessel and this will demonstrate a combination of things. T^ 3* .: -*" — '-*'-i^**\ -'■»:-•--_■' \ Mr. Pollock. The portion of the net which is black at the back end of the net is called a Medina strip. It is a smaller mesh than the ordinary net. I have a sample if I might show the committee. Generally, the net used in taking the tima is a relatively large mesh, about 4 inches. This is measured by the stretching amount of the net. The next picture shows that as a net is brought into the vessel there is a combination of things that happen here. Mr. Pollock. I should show the Medina net wliich is identified as a 2-inch mesh, very small. The purjx)se of this is to keep the porpoises from getting their noses caught in the net. They can get caught in the normal type of net and if they do, they drown. There is a little bit larger mesh net, 5-inch width which is down at the bottom so that trash fish and other things can go on through the net. The experiment by people in the industry of using the so-called 215 Medina strip net on this back portion is to keep the purpoises from getting tlieir noses caught in there when they go out of the net or when they panic. The vessel uses a process which is called backing down. This is the bow of the vessel as you can see. As the vessel backs down, tlie portion of the net furthest away from the vessel will sink so that the porpoises can then swim out. It takes a skilled operator to keep the tuna inside the net and the porpoises out. You can see from the experiments that are going on, again it is a mixed success-type thing. We think this is the most promising at the present time, but we are experimenting with every conceivable thing, the industry and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Mr. DiNGELL. You might help the committee by indicating to us the fashion, and the place and the manner of the most acute mortality for porpoises in connection with this operation at a time convenient to you. Mr. Pollock. All right, I think. Mr. Chairman, the problem there was an experiment just last week where the Medina net was not used, but we had a problem of a number of porpoises drowning. Wliat they did was panic from the killer whale sound and they then ran into the net, as distinct from getting over it, and they got caught in the large mesh. This caused a problem. Mr. DiNGELL. Is it not a fact that the porpoise tends to dive when frightened ? Mr. Pollock. He will, to some extent. This Medina net, as I under- stand it, goes down some 40 feet or so and is 700 feet long so the pre- sumption is whenever they do try to get out and dive, they would run into the smaller mesh net as distinct from the main jwrtion of the net. 67-765 O - 71 - 15 216 A«rain, we have a combination of a number of things; the backing down, the process of the killer whale sound, the Medina net, and other experiments going on. 1 thought these would be of particular interest to the committee to get a picture of it. Mr, Pelly. Does the killer whale frighten the tuna also ? Mr. Pollock. I presume it would, Mr. Pelly. I am not sure. They are down lower in the net. The yellowtin tuna have a peculiar relationship with the porpoises. They circulate under the porpoises. This is how they identify them, that' is, the fishermen identify the tuna by the location of the porpoises. The tuna are down below the porpoises and if they were scared, they would simply stay in the net. Well, as I indicated, and I am going back to my j^repared statement in the middle part of page 5, unfortunately, in the initial tests of this device — the pneumatic gate — mechanical failures have occurred and the tests have not been entirely successful. Concurrently, industry has developed on its own initiative another type of net modification seeking to eliminate the inadvertent taking of porpoises. This modification appears to offer considerable promise, and both NOAA and the in- dustry intend to pursue its development. In addition, the industry has recently agreed with the National Ma- rine Fisheries Service to engage in a cooperative research program. Among other things, this program will include the use by the Service of tuna purse seining vessels for a total of 60 ship days, and will ]:)ermit the Service observers to accompany commercial tuna opera- tions on 20 fishing trips. "We are delighted with this cooperation and believe it will significantly advance our knowledge of porpoises and lead to means to avoid their incidental taking. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that the yellowfin tuna fishermen love and protect the porpoise, and have more reason than anyone to insure the survi\'al of the porpoises. Their very livelihood depends upon it. There are many docmnented stories of intrepid tuna fishermen who have thrown themselves into the sea within the purse seine to save the porpoises from downing, to help lift them over the nets, at considerable per- sonal risk from sharks. Incidentally the industry has movies available of such situations should the committee wish to see tliem. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to turn our attention to a discus- sion of the various bills which are under consideration by the com- mittee. These bills may be categorized under four general headings. The first group, exemplified by H.R. 6554, H.R. 6558, and other iden- tical and similar measures, would simply prohibit the taking of any marine mammal for any purpose. This approach presents a number of difficulties: 1. An immediate total ban on the taking of all marine mairmials without prior study or research of any kind is not a sound conservation measure. Such a ban, for example, would end the Alaska harvest of sea otters in areas where research has shown serious overpopulation prob- lems and resultant die-off'sof these animals. 2. It would probably constitute a breach of the Interim Convention on tlie Conservation of Xorth Pacific Fur Seals, and could, therefore, lead to the resumption of indiscriminate high seas pelagic sealing by other countries. This is the very practice which nearly caused the extinction of these animals prior to 1911 and brought about the need for the international treaty. 217 3. It would obliterate the cottage industries of the Aleuts ana Eskimos of the Bering seacoast, where native handicrafts based on marine mammals represent a major source of income. 4. It would prevent commercial fishermen from protecting their catches and gear from the depredations of hair seals and sea lions. 5. It would deny the native residents of small coastal communities along the Bering Sea and Arctic coast an important source of food which has been derived from the marginal sea. 6. It would create problems with several coastal States which al- ready regulate and manage marine mammal resources within State waters. This is so because these bills would appear inconsistent with certain parts of section 8 of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1301). Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Pollock, it would be helpful to the committee to suggest what those sections are and what they do, if you please. Mr. Pollock. Do you want me to go into the bills that prohibit it? Mr. DiNGELL. Just refer to the sections of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953. Mr. Pollock. Section 3, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. If it would be comfortable to you, you can supply that information. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, I think, generally, we would be happy to provide more specifically that information but section 3 simply provides the States the authority to manage these resources under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953. It is the natural resources portion and this would include the living resources of the sea, I am advised. Mr. DiNGELL. I think it would be helpful if you would, and it would be perfectly appropriate, if you submit it. Mr. Pollock. Very good. ( Information to be supplied follows :) Conflict With H.R. 6554 and H.R. 6558 The portion of the Submerged Lands Act which conflicts "nath H.R. 6554 and H.R. 6558 is Section 3(a) which provides in pertinent part: "It is liereby determined and declared to be in the public interest that (1) title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States, and the natural resources within such lands and waters, and (2) the right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop, and use the said lands and natural resources all in accordance with applicable State law be, and they are hereby, subject to the provisions hereof, recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in the assigned to the respective States . . ." Mr. Pollock. The second group of bills are concerned with the use of humane methods in taking marine mammals. It includes such meas- ures as H.R. 7240 and H.R. 4370 which prohibit, among other things, skinning animals alive or clubbing them. As previously noted, no fur seals under our jurisdiction are skinned alive, and clubbing is, to date, the most humane method of harvesting them. H.R. 4370 presupposes that a more humane mamier of harvesting seals will be found prior to July 1, 1972, and forbids clubbing thereafter. It may well be that no better method is found by that time, in which case the bill would, in effect, require the use of a less humane method. The third group of bills, such as H.R. 690, which you introduced, Mr. Chairman, and part of H.R. 6804, are primarily directed at research and investigation into the marine mammal problem. We strongly ad- vocate provision for adequate research so as to improve conservation and management measures. However, we also believe that authority to 218 issue re|j:iilat.ions. when research has shown the way, should be author- ized, and accordingly, our su<>:opulation? 8. Please supply copies of the Interior 1966 Task Force recommendations with respect to the Pribilof herd. Have these recommendations all been adopted? If not, why not? 9. How many Alauts are presently employed in the harvest of seals on St. Paul? What sums have been paid to them for their work over the past ten years? What percentage of their total income is this? 10. What is the dollar value of the skins given to Japan and Canada under the treaty for each of the last ten years? 11. If you know, how many seals were killed by pelagic hunting for each of the past ten years? 12. What is the justification for continuing to drive the seals inland for the killing? 13. What is believed to have been the size of this herd before commercial operations began? What has been the low point of the seal population? 14. Of the current population, what is believed to be the number of (a) harem bulls, (b) bachelor males, (c) females of breeding age. and (d) pups (seals up to three years old) ? 15. What guidelines have been set, if any, for the killing of females? 16. What do you l)elieve to be the maximum .sustainal)le yield of this herd? What is the optimum sustainable yield? 17. What figures do you have to indicate any attrition to the herd by reason of starvation or malnutrition? 221 I recognize that this is an extensive list of questions, although I anticipate that most of the answers to these can be readily found by reference to statistics already on hand. If it should appear that some of these questions cannot be immediately answered, I would appreciate your forwarding these answers no later than August 16 but expediting those which can be readily obtained. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, _ ^ JOHX D. DiNGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. The Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D.C., September 7, 1971. Hon. John D. Dingell, .. .> ... Chairman Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : By letter dated August 4, 1971, you raised 17 questions on behalf of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife concerning the man- agement of ocean mammals. . , . ^ Personnel of the National Marine Fisheries Service in this Departments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have prepared the enclosed report in response to these questions. ^ ^ .-, 4. Your continued interest in our program is appreciated and we trust that you find our comments helpful. Sincerely, ,, „ Maurice H. Stans, Secretary of Commerce. Enclosure. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, August 18, 1971. Report on Questions Raised by the Committee on Merchant Marine AND Fisheries on Marine Mammals Question No. 1. What legal tools does your Department presently have which permit the imposition of effective controls over the taking of ocean mammals? Answer. Legal control exercised over mairine mammals in this Department is ba.sed on the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (70 Stat. 1119; 16 U.S.C. 742a-742), which states that the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (now the National Marine Fisheries Service) shall be responsible for whales, seals, and sea lions. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife shall be respon- sible for sea mammals except whales, seals, and sea lions. More specifically, we have authorities regarding seals under the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1091; 16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) and regarding whales under the Whaling Conven- tion Act of 1949 (64 Stat. 42; 16 U.S.C. 916-9161). The legal authorities over fur seals and whales as stated in these Acts implement the 1957 Interim Con- vention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, and the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Question No. 2. Would any additional authorities be of assistance to you, and if so, icould you recommend their enactment? Please specify. Answer. No specific authority other than that cited in answer to question 1 has been granted this Department. Although the several states generally regu- late marine mammals within territorial waters, and some regulate their own citizens outside of territorial waters, there is no general Federal authority granted to this Department for marine mammals. We are considering what types of additional authority, if any, might be desirable, but we are not in a position at this time to put forth any specific legislative recommendations on behalf of the Administration. Question No. 3. What do you believe to be the natural size of the (Pribilof fur seal) herd? Upon ivhat authority? Answer. We define the natural size of the herd as the average population level maintained prior to commercial exploitation. There are no historical data available for this population, but it would probably be 2.0 to 2.5 million. Question No. 4. What do you believe to be the optimmn size of that herd? Upon ichat authority? 222 Answer. Because we have no additional criteria on which to base a calcula- tion for optimum poinilation, we assume optimum population is the same as the level for maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Maximum sustainable yield is estimated from a populati<.n producing 400,000 (±50,000) pups, which would lie i)rodueed by a herd of about l.o to 1.7 million. This is based on work dtme by the Marine" Mammal Laboratory in Seattle and has been reviewed by other seal biologists. ..,.,, , , • .., • Question No. J. What is the present size of that herd, and how is this est i mated f Answer. We estimate that conservatively the total number of fur .seals in the Pribilof Islands population slightly exceeds 1.2 million as follows: 1969-70 Average 1961-70 p,,nc 305.000 X|,2 ".::."""":". - 110,000 Females > 3 years - - 560,000 Malis>3 years 90' 0°° Total 1,215,000 360, 000 180, 000 125, 000 650, 000 90, 000 1, 405, 000 This estimate is based on a combination of the estimates of the numbers of pups born in 1069 and 1970. a weighted pregnancy rate, average survival rates, and other estimates and counts including two tyi^es of marking programs. Question Xn. 6. If you know, please furnish information describing: ( a ) The number of seals taken for each of the last ten years. (b) The age and sex of such animals. (c) When and under ivhat circumstances females have been taken. Were these pregnant or nursing? (d) The size of the herd for these ten years. (e) Hoio many pups have been born for these years? Answer. 6. (a) (b) (c). AGE AND SEX OF SEALS TAKEN, AND NUMBER OF PUPS BORN, PRIBILOF ISLANDS, 1961-70 Age 7 and older! Unclas- sified Number of pups born 2 3 4 5 6 Total 1961: Males _ 3,711 57, 871 19, 836 750 14 .. 15 82, 197 ) 43, 849 ) 438, 000 Females 449 4,509 6,798 4,436 4,723 22,934 .. 1962: Males — 2,255 32. 346 17, 856 1,017 206 53, 680 ) 43, 750 362, 000 Females 394 4,451 8,501 6,139 3,354 20, 718 203 1963: Males 2,019 18, 642 18, 874 2,127 90 .. 634 42, 386 ) 43, 952 ] 343, 000 Females 699 2,918 7,915 8,518 3,970 19, 563 369 1964: Males 3,678 29, 416 13, 112 2,256 135 .. 383 48, 980 ) 16,452 370, 000 Females 346 3,354 3,325 3,543 IM2 2, 212 1,850 1965: Males 1,431 22, 745 14, 638 1,418 135 .. 1,755 42, 122 ) 10, 432 ] 345, 000 Females. 162 1,336 2,556 1,089 579 842 3,868 1966: Males... 3,533 31, 106 16, 030 1,770 33 .. 52, 472 1 391 ] 388, 000 Females . .... 391 1967: Males 2,940 34, 613 15, 523 1,679 136 .. 829 55, 720 1 10, 096 ( (2) Females 21 935 1,579 1,552 1,166 4,466 377 1968; Males 2,106 23, 149 16, 959 1,948 130 .. 1,333 45, 625 ) 13, 335 i (2) Females 35 704 2,630 1,836 1,581 6,511 38 1969: Males 3,051 20, 471 12, 769 2,149 238 ._ 38, 678 ) 230 ( 304, 000 Females 230 1970: Males Females 1,823 25,092 13, 822 1,278 106 .. ""i2i" 42, 121 ) 121 306, 000 ' Females 7 and older have been grouped because ttieii r ages cannot be determined without considerable errnr. Generally, tiowever, most females takan 1 lave been between ages 3 and 12. Very few live ! longer tha n 20 years ■ No estimate. 223 AnsTv^er. 6(c). A small number of females are mistaken for males and har- vested accidentally each year. In 1954 and 1955, however, some females were purposely taken for studies of reproduction. Most of the females harve.sted since 1956 have been taken from hauling grounds. A good proportion of these animals were either not yet of breeding age or were old and apparently had not given birth to a pup during the year examined. From 1956 through 1963, females were taken under a herd reduction program designed to reveal the level of maximum sustained yield. From 1964 througb 1968, only those females not needed to maintain the population level were har vested. During these years, the response of the herd (primarily with respect to survival of the young) to a population level below its natural peak was appraised. The number of females (and the number of pups Ijorn) is now being allowed to increase to a higher level below their natural peak. Thus, females have not purposely been taken since 1968. When the new population level is reached, the number of females (and hence the numl)er of pups born) will be maintained there by taking surplus animals not needed as recruitment into the breeding reserve. Measurements will continue to Ije made of the response of the herd to manipulation of its population level to determine the level of maximum sustained yield. We esitmate that generally from 40 to 60 percent of the females disptached had given birth to pups that year. This changes somewhat from year to year. In the year for which we have the best data, 1968, only 34 percent of the females had given birth. Many pups, of course, had died before the females were har- vested. We estimate that generally 40 percent or less of the females which have been harvested had live pups. Answer. 6(rf) • Information contained in number 5 above. Question Xo. 7. 7s it your belief that the present population could not grow further without damage to the breeding stoek through overpopulation? Answer. We are now hoping that the population will increa.se to a level where about 400,000 to 450,000 pups are born annually. The only action that we can take to have the herd increase is to protect females. However, survival to age 3 years for recent year classes has been low, and unless the survival rate increases the population will remain at about its present level, or at best increase very .slowly. Question No. 8. Please supply copies of the Interior 1968 Task Force recom- mendations with respect to the Pribilof herd. Have these recommendations all been adopted? If not, why not? Answer. A copy of the Task Force Report and a copy of "Investigations and Experiments Pertaining to Fur Seal Slaughtering Methods" which summarizes our conclusions and actions concerning the Report, are enclosed. Question No. 0. How many Aleuts are presently employed in the harvest of seals on St. Paul? What sums have been paid to them for their work over the past ten years? What percentage of their total income is this? Answer. In 1971. a total of 197 Aleuts (40 permanent. 157 temporary) were employed on jobs related to seal harvesting. The 10-year earnings for Aleuts employed in sealing are as follows : 1962 - $420,000 1963 772.800 1964 879,700 1965 808,900 1966 821.300 1967 816,100 1968 784,900 1969 827.600 1970 905,500 1971 965,000 We do not know exactly what percentage of total annual income the above wages represent, but we believe it constitutes more than 90 percent. Additional income is derived from performing community services and from unemployment insurance. Question No. 10. What is the dollar value of the skins given to Japan and Canada under the treaty for each of the last ten years? Answer. The following table shows the number and estimated value of fur seal- skins given to Japan and Canada during the past 10 years as required by the treaty : 224 Japan and Canada 30 percent share Value to Japan Year of skins and Canada 1961. 1962. 1962. 1964. 1965. 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969. 1970. 37,813 18, 906 $2, 836, 000 29, 232 19,616 2, 338, 600 25, 901 12, 905 2, 538, 300 19, 630 9,815 1, 688, 200 15, 768 7,889 1,116,700 15, 859 7,924 1, 696, 900 19, 745 9,872 1, 777, 000 17, 688 8,844 1, 609, 600 11,672 5,836 1, 062, 200 12, 673 6,336 887, 100 1,352 1,483 1,355 883 486 501 260 115 42 249 101 500 291 118 600 603 600 600 509 309 278 229 1 153 585 529 593 339 149 715 910 263 285 570 4,023 4,116 3,808 2,937 419 2,119 444 1,717 132 1,421 830 1,822 334 405 911 1,246 The value of the Japanese and Canadian share of the harvest in any year is based on the average sale price for the same year. In actuality, however, the skins are not sold until about two years after they are harvested. This is due to the lengthy prot-essing time required to process quantities sufficient for sale puri>oses. Question No. 11. If you know, how many seals were killed hy pelagic hunting for each of the past ten years? Answer. No i)elagic commercial sealing has been permitted since 1911. The following table shows the number of seals collected on the high seas during 1961-1970 strictly for research purposes. These collections are reported annually by the scientific committee of the international North Pacific Fur Seal Commission. Year United States Canada U.S.S.R. Japan Total 1961... 1962. 1963 1964 1965. - 1966 1967.... 1968 1969 _. ___. 1970._ Total 7,637 2.663 3,882 9,938 24,120 Question No. 12. What is the justification for continuing to drive the seals inland for the killing? Answer. Seals to be harvested are driven relatively short distances inland from the hauling grounds primarily for several reasons. Harvesting operations conducted next to a hauling ground would in turn create excessive disturbance among breeding animals on the adjacent rookery. Secondly, the harvesting grounds must be accessible by truck. Question No. 13. What is believed to have been the sisc of this herd before commercial operations began? What has been the low point of the seal population? Answer. See number 3 above for discussion on natural population. The lowest lK)pulation level was in 1911 when it was estimated at about 200,000. Question No. IJf. Of the current population, what is believed to be the number of (a) harem bulls, (6) bachelor males, (c) females of breeding age, and (d) pups {seals up to three years old) ? Answer. Information is contained in the table provided in reply to number 5 above. The population estimates in the subject table are made after the harvest and after all pups are born. Normally we estimate there are between 10,000 and 20,000 harem bulls and 60,000 to 80,000 bachelor males. The harvest consists of a specified number of bachelor males. The harem bulls would be included in the 90,000 figure for males ^ 3 years, but not those bachelor males which have been harvested. The 1970 harvest was about 42,121 bachelor males predominantly in the 3-4 year age class. Question No. 15. What guidelines have been set, if any, for the killing of females? Answer. Our answer to question 6(c) generally explains the overall program of manipulating the population level by removal of females from the herd. Guidelines for use in deciding numbers of females to take are: (1) That with 225 an estimated pregnancy rate of 0.6, the number of pups born equals 60 percent of the females of breeding age (4 and older) ; (2) that the estimated annual death rate among breeding females is 0.11, which means that 11 percent of these animals must be replaced each year to maintain the breeding stock, and (3) that with an approximately equal survival rate of the sexes to age 4, the number of females available from each year class as potential breeders can be estimated from the survival (harvest) of males. The take of females is thus adjusted to fit the program objective and needs of the herd in terms of breeding stock. Question No. 16. What do you believe to be the maximum sustainable yield of this herd? What is the optimum sustainable yield? Answer. See information provided in number 4 above. Question No. 17. What figures do you have to indicate any attrition to the herd by reason of starvation or maltiutrition? Answer. The death rate among fur seals is high early in life, then tapers to a low level before rising among older animals. The main cause of death among a few hundred pups examined on St. Paul Island since 1962 has been malnu- trition (range 21-48 percent). Hookworm disease, bacterial infections, and injuries follow in order of importance. Compared to the total number of dead pups (about 281,000) counted on the Pribilof Islands since 1962, it is difficult to say whether or not the relatively small sample of pups examined is representative of reality. Further, by far the greatest proportion of mortality occurs at sea after the pups leave the Pribilof Islands in November. Good information is lacking on the relative causes of death among fur .seals at sea, and on what role malnutrition and other factors play in the magnitude of mortality. U.S. Department of Commebce, National Marine Fisheries Service, August, 1971. Investigations and Experiments Pertaining to Fur Seal Slaughtering Methods SUMMARY 1. Criticism of the method used to harvest fur seals on the Pribilof Islands has been inreasing in recent years. The criticism has been directed primarily against use of a club to stun fur seals. The Marine Mammal Resources Program has resiDonded to the compliants by seeking expert advice on how to improve procedures of harvesting fur seals. 2. In 19 >7 Dr. Elizabeth Simpson, a veterinarian from the University of Cam- bridge in England, repre senting the World Federation for the Protection of Animab-, and Mr. Brian E. Davies, representing the Humane Society of the United States, observed the harvest on the Pribilof Islands. Dr. Simpson con- cluded "that the Pribilof fur seal harvest is at present being carried out in a reasonably humane fashion, which could, however, be improved by attention to a few details." Mr. Davies recommended several changes to make the harvesting procedures more humane and suggested that research be started on mechanical methods of slaughter. 3. In 1!>68 the Department of Interior appointed a task force consisting of representatives from the National Academy of Sciences, The Humane Society of the United States, The Livestock Slaughter Division of the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife and, Bureau of Commer- cial Fitiheries. Alternative methods of killing were investigated, including carbon dioxide induced hyix)xia, electrocution, shooting, and stunning with clubs and concussion bolts. The task force decided not to test drugs because of the residue remaining in the meat and the fact that extensive work had already been done on drugs. The results of the tests indicated that none of the alternative methods was as rapid and effective as the traditional method, nor were they adaptable to the harvest situation. 4. However, the 1968 Task Force Report included recommendations for changes in operational procedures that would cause stress to the animals, most of which have been put into effect. 5. In 1969 a contract w^as awarded the Virginia Mason Research Center in Seattle to conduct a series of experiments using carbon dioxide and nitrogen gasses to dispatch fur seals. These preliminary tests were followed by more refined experunents during the 1970 season testing carbon dioxide, nitrogen, the drug succinylcholine and conventional stunning and bleeding methods. Stunning 226 and bleeding achieved unconsciousness and death much more rapidly than any other method. 6. The Research Council of the American Veterinary Medical Association recommended that their Panel of Euthanasia observe the 1971 harvest and make recommendations regarding all possible methods of dispatching fur seals. The expenses of this panel will be paid by the Marine Mammal Resources Program. 7. The estimated direct cost for implementation of the 1968 Task Force recommendations is $124,000. For the i>ast several years there has been mounting criticism of the annual harvest of northern .ar seals on the Pribilof Islands. The criticism has been directed to the United States Government by animal protection groups such as the Friends of Animals, Inc., International Society for the Protection of Animals, the Humane Society of the United States. Much of the present con- troversy started in 1965 when the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and the International Society for the Protection of Animals publicized the harvesting methods used on harp seals and hooded seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This situation, together with increasing public concern with ecological and environmental issues, turned attention to the fur seal on the Pribilof Islands. One of the first critics of the Pribilof Islands operations was the World Fed- eration for the Protection of Animals. Dr. Elizabeth Simpson, a veterinarian from the University of Cambridge, England, represented the World Federation for the Protection of Animals during her visit to the Pribilof Islands in 1967 to investigate harvesting practices. Mr. Brian D. Davies, representing the Humane Society of the United States, reviewed the Pribilof Islands operations at the same time. Dr. Simpson concluded ". . . that the Pribilof fur seal harvest is at present being carried out in a reasonably humane fashion, which could, however, be improved by attention to a few details." Mr. Davies concluded that there were two courses of action open to those interested in the welfare of animals. These are: (1) control the hunt so as to minimize cruelty, or (2) abolish fur seal hunting on the Pribilof Islands. He stated that, "It is not the province of this report to decide matters of principle." Mr. Davies made several recommendations regarding improvements in har- vest methods and suggested that research be started on mechanical methods of harvest, similar to those used in Federally inspected slaughterhouses. In 1968 the Department of the Interior appointed a Task Force to observe the Pribilof harvest and to recommend changes if needed. R?pre.sentatives from the National Academy of Sciences, the Humane Society of the United States, the Livestock Slaughter Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries were on the Task Force. In addition, obs3r\'ers were present from the New Brunsw^ick Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the International Society for the Protection of Animals. The Task Force tested several methods in an attempt to find an alternative to the method of stunning and bleeding now used. Methods tested included carbon dioxide induced hypoxia, electrocution, shooting, and stunning with clubs and concussion bolts. With regard to methods of harvesting, the Task Force concluded that : none of the methods tested appear to be readily or quickly adaptable to the fur seal harvest at this time, and unless the problems of sorting groups and restraining individual animals can be solved, otherwise effective methods of euthanasia could not be used in harvesting operations. The 1968 Task Force Report included recommendations for the improvement of operational procedures related to the fur seal harvest. These recommenda- tions were directed toward increasing efficiency in dispatching and reducing stress to the animals. Changes in procedures resulting from the recommendation are as follows: Reduction in length of drives from rookeries to the harvesting fields. St. Paul Island. — The Task Force commented specifically on the need for improvement at Northeast Point. Roads have since been extended into new harvesting areas closer to traditional hauling grounds on Northeast Point as well an on Polovina and Reef Rookeries, and a new harvesting area and access road is being developed at Tolstoi Rookery. St. George Island. — Two new^ access roads and harvesting areas have been developed on North Rookery. Thi.s improvement was not included in the Task Force recommendations. Since 1968, the overall length of the drives has been reduced 61 percent from 15,630 to 6,080 feet on the following rookeries : 227 (In feet] Location Distance, 1968 Distance, 1970 Polovina (1) Polovina (2). - Polovina Cliffs. _. - Northeast Point (east) Northeast Point (west) Reef Point (1) - - -- Tolstoi, from rookery Total - - - - 15.630 6,080 1,600 (0 2,810 1,030 1,510 620 2,280 1,630 4,000 940 1,630 860 1,800 1,000 « To be shortened. Removal of obstacles such as volcanic rock which cause stress to the seals during the drive. One of the more troublesome areas that required improvement was at Zapadni Rookery. This area has been improved by grading the bank slopes to provide easier access for animals to the har\'esting area. Many of the hauling grounds have rock out-croppings over which the seals must be driven but which cannot be removed without greatly disturbing the landscape. Provide relief clubbers to improve accuracy. Before 1968, the entire seasonal operation was conducted by four skilled em- ployees. In 1968, the harvesting crew was increased to five, and in 1969 and 1970 to seven. Reduce the number of seals to be dispatched at one time to lessen the possibility of multiple blows. The niunber of seals in the pods has been reduced as recommended by the Task Force except during the very end of the season when increasing numbers of females enter the drives and must be rejected. When the drives consist almost entirely of male animals the pods are limited to 6 to 8 animals. Late in the season when females are prominent in the drives the number of animals in each pod is increased in order to keep field operations moving rapidly and to limit the time the animals must be held in the drive. The Task Force made the following recommendations for future studies : 1. In order to establish criteria for .iuding both the effectiveness and the humaneness of euthanasia methods, techniques to measure sensitivity to pain, time of unconsciousness, and time of death must be developed. 2. Consultations with slaughter research and development workers and a thorough review of literature pertinent to physiological and behavior character- istics of diving mammals and euthanasia techniques should be carried out. 3. A feasibility study utilizing this information in the light of the behavior of wild animals and the various ecological, physical, social, and economic facets of life on the Pribilof Islands is necessary. 4. Following this, plans for research programs to explore the physiological and behavioral characteristics of the northern fur seal which may determine euthanasia methods should be developed. As a result of these recommendations a thorough review was made of the literature pertinent to the physiological and behavioral characteristics of diving mammals and to euthanasia techniques. Problems associated with harvesting methods have been discussed with several experts and also with the American Veterinary Medical Association at its annual meeting in 1970. As a result the Research Council of the AVMA made a recommendation that their Panel on Euthanasia should witness the 1971 harvest and judge the humaneness of all known methods that could be adapted to the sealing operation, including the present method. Six members of the panel have expressed a willingness to co- operate. The Executive Board of the AVMA concurred in the Research Council's recommendation with the suggestion that the panel serve initially as an inde- pendent i>anel of consultants. In 1969 a contract was awarded the Virginia Mason Research Center in Seattle to conduct a series of experiments using OO2 and N2 gasses to dispatch fur seals. These tests provided some useful information, but it was evident that more refined techniques would be required and the Virginia Mason Research Center agreed to conduct additional tests in 1970. During the 1970 season, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, succinylcholine. (a paralytic durg), and conventional stunning and bleeding were tested using twenty-six 228 3- and 4-year old males captured from the drives. Seals were instrumented to monitor electrocariogram, blood pressure, blood flow and amplitude of brain waves (electroencephalogram). Results of the tests were as follows: Succinylcholinc— Three levels of suceinylcholine, 20 mg/kg, 40 mg/kg, and 80 mg/kg, were tested. There was no difference in response associated with the three levels of drug administered. However, there were substantial differences in responses from seals surgically instrumented and used in diving experiments before they were injected with suceinylcholine. Three seals receiving no pre- treatment became permanently immobile about 5 minutes after injection and expired 13 to 14 minutes after injection. Time of death wa.s determined by clinical signs of pupil dilation, heart beat, and electro<^-ardiogram. Three seals subjected to anesthesia, surgery, and instrumentation before the experiment died 6% to 91/2 minutes after injection. Time of extinction was determined here by inter- pretation of the electroencephalogram. Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide Induced Hypoxia. — Ten seals were dispatched by subjecting them to hypoxic atmospheres of CO2 or N2 in a gas chamber. Death occurred at .an average of 509 seconds (8.5 minutes) in seals subjected to CO2, and 519 (8.7 minutes) for N2. The onset of bradycardia (slowed heart beat) occurred much more rapidly in seals subjected to CO2 than in seals sub- jected N2. No physiological end points measured, except possibly bradycardia, appeared to be affected appreciably by diving tests performed before gassing. Stunning and Bleeding. — Ten seals were dispatched by the conventional method of stunning and bleeding. In 7 of the 10 seals, the onset of slowed heart beat occurred 1 to 8 seconds after stunning. Zero blood flow and blood pressure occurred the instant the heart was opened with a knife, usually 1 to 2 minutes after the seal w.as struck. For the methods tested in 1970, the following conclusions can be made con- cerning the time lapse between initial application and neurological death. Stun- ning and sticking resulted in the most rapid extinction. Ck)ntrary to what was expected from CO2 tolerance tests on other seals, CO2 appears to be as fast as nitrogen euthanasia. Suceinylcholine took about as long to kill as high con- centrations of CO2 or N2. All of the methods appeared, from clinical observations and human experience, to be preceded by some degree of alarm associated with herding or handling. All of the methods except stunning with a club, required a period of up to several minutes to achieve unconsciousness and insensitivlty to pain. Marine Mammal Resource Program — March 1971 The estimated direct costs for implementation of the 1968 Task Force recommendations during the period 1968-1970 are as follows: Imj^rovement to rookery road system .and killing fields to shorten drives $88, 700 Research on alternate methods of killings : Virginia Mason Research Center 16, 500 Special supplies and equipment 1, 800 Travel (task force and miscellaneous) - 4,000 Labor — sealing crew (relief clubbers) 13,000 Total 124, 000 The Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D.C., September 24, 1971. Hon. John D. Dingell, Chairman, Suhcomtnittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your letter of September 2 concerning hearings on marine mammal legislation to be held by your committee. You asked for any changes in policies or regulations of this Department af- fecting the operations of the National Marine Fisheries Service with regard to marine mammals, following the date of the reorganization plan which trans- ferred the functions of that agency to the Department of Commerce. As you may recall we made the decision last April to terminate the taking of whales on the Endangered Species List by U.S. citizens. This termination will become 229 effective December 31, 1971, to conform to the action of the Secretary of the Interior under the Endangered Species Act, whereby he terminated importation of endangered whale products after the end of the year. This in essence places the two Federal agencies in united action to protect those whales included as endangered which .are the sei, finback, sperm, bowhead, blue, humpback, right, and gray whales. Immediately after the formation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration I asked for a complete review of the Pribilof Islands seal pro- gram. This summer I visited the Islands to see the operations first hand and I have personally reviewed all pertinent aspects of the program. Based on this a policy decision was made that further effort should be expanded on harvesting methods and a greater emphasis be placed on seeking alternatives. One result was the visit by six prominent veterinarians named by the American Veterinary Medical Association to the Pribilof Islands this summer to review the operations and make their recommendations. These recommendations have been received, and I have ordered full and immediate implementation of all of them. Funds have been allocated in FY 1972 and are expected to be allocated in FY 1973 for research on .alternative harvesting methods at least as humane as those presently used and less esthetieally displeasing. Private research and develop- ment organizations, as well as .several humane organizations, have expressed interest in conducting contract studies. If further information is needed we would be pleased to supply it. Sincerely, Maurice H. Stans, Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Pelly. No questions, but I would like to state it is a great pleasure for us on the committee to have ISIr. Pollock come back and represent the executive branch. I think he is doing a very good j ob. Mr. Pollock. Thank you verj^ much. I appreciate the kind words of the distinguished Congressman from the State of Washington. Mr. DiNGELL. I would like to echo those remarks. I will indicate that I think it is the intention of this committee to have observers and perhaps members there and I expect to have a rather rigorous scrutiny of the representatives when they are here. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join in welcoming my colleague back. He is doing a great job and I have much confidence in him. Mr. Pollock, this testimony is helpful and I am sure the committee will follow the recomendations and your suggestions very carefully in trying to fashion some legiselation. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Anderson ? Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to commend Mr. Pollock for a very fine presentation and want to thank you for your comments and suggestions on H.R. 10420. I was listening to your remarks relative to the tuna fishermen. In connection with H.R. 10420 in the southern California area I have talked to many tuna fishermen and they are all giving the view that the porpoises are their friends and they want to do everything they can to protect them. Is this, in your mind, a general feeling of most tuna fishermen or is this a story they give me because of my interest in tuna fishing ? Mr. Pollock. Congressman Anderson, I think this certainly is a correct statement. I had occasion to talk to a number of people in the industry, fishermen, and I think that someone, some individual who might go out and intentionally want to harm one of the porpoises, if he was abroad one of those vessels I think he would be taking his own life in his hands. I think he would be dealt with very harshly and may very well be thrown overboard. 230 I think the tuna fishermen know this is their livelihood and they have a very warm and verj- affectionate feeling for the porpoises. I thinlv they will continually be in the forefront trs'ing to do what is possible to alleviate the problem we have of inadvertently catehing porpoises actually when they are fishing for yellowfish tuna. Mr. AxDERSox. When you mentioned this attitude on the part of tuna fishennen to people who are critical of that exception in the bill they laugh and sort of snicker and say we are being taken in by this, that many of them do not care. Your feeling is generally across the board most tima fishermen do want to protect the porpoises ? Mr. Pollock. Yes. I think the only area, of course, when you talk about tima fishermen you may be t-alking about skipjack tuna and other kinds of fishermen, but where the problem arises in the taking of yellowfish tima, these people depend upon the porpoise for their surA-ival and I think you have heard many times their expression of veiT deep affection for the porpoise. Aside fi-om that, if that did not exist, they depend upon the por- poises for their livelihood and it would be folly to try to destroy them. Mr. AxDERSox. You have used a figure of 350,000 or whatever figure you gave us Mr. Pollock. I said 250,000. Mr. AxDERSOx. We have a figure of 250,000 we have heard of. How big is that in comparison to the total jwrpoise population ? How big is that ? Do we have an estimate on their population ? Mr. Pollock. I am not sure we know what the total is. Mr. AxDERSOx. 250.000 sounds terribly large to most people. Mr. Pollock. We do not know what the total population is. Mr. Ax'DERSox'. Is it up in the millions ? ]Mr. Pollock It would be quite a high figure I would assume. Incidentialh', this is one of the areas, among many others, where we have to do far more research than we are doing now. Mr. Ax'DERSox'. Xow another area I know you mention on page 3, you say in activities of seal hunters of other countries, no baby seals are taken on the Pribilof Islands. Mr. Pollock. That is correct. Mr. Ax'DERSOx. TMiere are they taken ? The people we talk to say do you not want to protect the baby seals. Where are they being taken \ Mr. Pollock. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in Labrador I under- stand, and are taken by Canadians, not by U.S. citizens. Mr. AxDERsox'. Is this something we tried to work out with them ? Mr. Pollock. Yes. Mr. AxDERSox. Any success ? Mr. Pollock. Well, it is obviously still going on but I think they are very conscious of it. The public in Canada is also verv conscious of it. I think there is progress. We would hope this would stop. Mr. Terry tells me that the whitecoats, which are the baby seals, have been prohibited, or the making of coats from the white furs (the white sealskin) . in Canada is now prohibited. Mr. AxDERSOX. The pictures I have been in the papers and so on show these baby seals being slaughtered. In mv area that does not set to well. The average person, including myself, have felt these were the Pri- bilof seals. 231 Mr. Pollock. They are not the Pribilof seals and we at no time take the babies. Mr. AxDERSox. I notice you say the skinning of live seals is never done in the Pribilof s. Is this being done anywhere. Mr. Pollock ? Mr. Pollock. I am not aware of it. We have heard these criticisms made by a few individuals and we do not do that. Mr. AxDERSox. They are the only questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DixGELL. Mr. Potter? Mr. Potter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pollock, under what authority does the Department of Com- merce presently regulate whaling ? Mr. Pollock. It is under the 1956 act. as amended, by Reorganiza- tion Plan Xo. -4 of 1970. Mr. Potter. What species of whales do you feel you have authority to regulate? Mr. Pollock. We have the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 that we formerly had. the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries had in the Depart- ment of Interior before it was transferred. Mr. Potter. What species of whale do you consider that you have authority to regulate ? Mr. Pollock. Well, we feel that we have authority over all the whales and we feel that this includes the porpoise and the dolphin, not the fish dolphin, but also seals and sea lions. Mr. Potter. As to the seals or the sea lions you get that authority from the Seal Act. I presume. Mr- Pollock. The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; fur seals are im- der the Fur Seal Act of 1966. Mr. Potter. "\Miat is your 1972 fiscal year budget for research? Mr. Pollock. Did you say the 1970 ? Mr. Potter. The 1972 budget, the current fiscal year. Mr. Pollock. May I provide it for the record? I do not think I have it. Mr. Potter. My impression is that it is in the order of about $65,000. Mr. Pollock. That is very close. It is a little less than $65,000. That is for whales only. Mr. DixGELL. If you please, and if counsel would yield at this point, would you furnish it ? Mr. Pollock. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I am advised there is an- other $50,000 for porpoises. ^Ir. DiXGELL. Would you please give us a statement of your research programs on mammals under your jurisdiction for the past 5 years, together with the research programs that you have engaged in ? You do not need to do it now, but will' you furnish it for purposes of the record ? (The information follows:) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIESSERVICE— MARINE MAMMAL FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEARS 1968 THROUGH 1972 Fur seal Whale Porpoise ■^1972 - $292,000 $64,000 $65,000 1971 ' - 292.000 64,000 45,000 1970 -" --- 265,000 64.000 40,000 1969 '.' 268,000 71,000 1968 - 263,000 66,000 67-T65 O — 71 16 232 September 27, 1971. Brief Description of NMFS Fur Seal Research for Fiscal Years 1968 Through Fiscal Year 1972 Fiscal year 1968, $263,000 Conductwl study on population dynamics of fur seals in the Pribilof Islands which included estimates of pups born and of the mortality rate through ages one, two, three and four. Studied nutritional requirements of pups Continued development of freeze branding as a technique for marking fur seals. Conducted pelagic investigations for information on pregnancy rate, the intermingling of fur seal stocks, and conducted food studies. Make a cooperative study with Canada in the area of Washington and British Columbia to increase the intensity of pelagic studies in these areas. Supported a U.S. observer abroad Japanese pelagic research vessel. Fiscal year 1969, $268,000 Continued a study on population dynamics in Pribilof Islands. Continued pelagic investigation on pregnancy rate, the intermingling of fur seal stocks, and conducted food studies. Continued development of freeze branding as marking techniques. Continued cooperative pelagic studies with Canada in waters off Washington and British Columbia. Conducted a task force experiment on alternative methods for killing fur seals. Conducted studies preliminary to research on the physiology of death. Conducted experimtntal radio tagging of fur seals. Made estimates of age composition and mortality rate of adult males. Observed USSR research on Commander Island. Fiscal year 1910, $265,000 Continued a study on population dynamics in Pribilof Islands. Continued pelagic investigation on pregnancy rate, the intermingling of fur seal stocks, and conducted food studies. Continued development of freeze branding as marking techniques. Continued cooperative pelagic studies with Canada in waters off Washington and British Columbia. Conducted studies preliminary to research on the physiology of death. Conducted experimental radio tagging of fur seals. Fiscal year 1971, $292,000 Continued a study on population dynamics in Pribilof Islands. Continued pelagic investigation on pregnancy rate, the intermingling of fur seal stacks, and conducted food studies. Continued development of freeze branding as marking techniques. Continued cooperative pelagic studies with Canada in waters off Washington and British Columbia. Conducted studies preliminary to research on the physiology of death. Conducted experimental radio tagging of fur seals. Initiated monitoring programs for contaminants in marine mammals. Fiscal year 1972, $292,000 Continued a study on population dynamics in Pribilof Islands. Continutd pelagic investigation on pregnancy rate, the intermingling of fur seal stocks, and conducted food studies. Continued development of freeze branding as marking techniques. Continued cooperative pelagic studies \Aith Canada in waters off Washington and British Columbia. Conducted studies preliminary to research on the physiology of death. Conducted experimental radio tagging of fur seals. Initiated monitoring programs for contaminants in marine mammals. Supported panel study by members of American Veterinary Association on euthanasia of fur seals. 233 Brief Description of NMFS Whale Research for Fiscal Year 1968 Through 1972 Fiscal year 1968-1969, $137,000 Oondiieted studies on tecliniques for marking whales. Performed research on the biology of the grey, sperm, fin and sei whales. Fiscal year 1910, $64,000 Conducted studies on techniques for marking whales. Performed research on the biology of the grey, sperm, fin and sei whale. Initiated the development of ti'anisducers for counting grey whales and the development of tags for use on small whales. Fiscal year 1911, $64,000 Conducted studies on techniques for marking whales. Performed research on the biology of the grey, sperm, fin and sie whales. Initiated the development of transducers for counting grey whales and the development of tags for use on small whales. Published monography on grey whales. Fiscal year 1912, $64,000 Continued development of counting grey whales by transducers. Completed analysis of biological data on the sperm, fin and sie whales, taken at the San Francisco whaling station. Continued development of tagging techniques for small whales. Brief Description of NMFS Porpoise Research for Fiscal Year 1970 Through 1972 Fiscal year 1970, $30,000 Developed net escape techniques. Conducted porpoise behavior studies in Hawaii. Conducted tests with underwater sounds. Completed trials with tuna purse seine modifications. Fiscal year 1971, $45,000 Developed porix)ise gates in tuna purse seine. Conducted at sea collections of porpoise mortality data. Conducted porpoise population studies. Fiscal year 1972, $65,000 Expanded the at sea data collections. Continued work on population studies and chartered si>ecial vessels to test porpoise escape gates in a tuna purse seine. Mr. DixGELL. Also submit to us an estimate of the cost of the ad- ministering of H.R. 10420 and the other bills before this committee for the next 5 years as required by this committee under the recent con- gressional reform legislation. Mr. Pollock- Yes, sir. '\^^len we get into the area of research, we would have to perhaps outline two, three, or four programs of research because it would depend upon the number of dollars and the kind of job we did. Mr. DiNGELL. I am aware of that, and I understand the difficulties that this presupposes. When you furnish that ; also give us a statement of what you regard as a good research program in terms of management and protection of the different species entrusted to the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce. You can submit this again for the record, and I am asking this as a drafting service for the committee, and I am expressly instructing you it is not to be cleared through the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Pollock. I did not understand your last few words. Mr. DiNGELL. I said I am expressly requesting this as a drafting service, and it is not to be cleared through the Bureau of the Budget, in any fashion whatsoever. 234 Mr. Pollock. I understand you, Mr. Chairman. (The information follows:) Fn^E-YEAR Cost Estimates Under the Proposed Department of Commerce Revision of H.R. 10420 The objective of the marine mammal research program is to gain sufficient knowledge so that intelligent decisions may be made about the conservation and use of marine mammals. The current marine mammal research program of the National Marine Fisheries Service is directed toward obligations of the United Staltes to the Convention for the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, to the International Whaling Commission, and to solving the problem of releasing porpoises from tuna purse seines. The fiscal year 1972 budget for these programs is $394,000. The development of a more exltensive research program on marine mammals would require the collection and analysis of additional information. Annual costs of such a research program could initially range from $394,000 with redirection of current programs, to as high as the $l-$2.5 million level, depending on results. Management and enforcement activities might involve some increased staffing for the NaJtional Marine Fisheries Service in the field. The estimated costs of the expanded operation would be between $100,000 and $200,000 per year. Marine Mammal Research Marine mammals are divided among the following groups: Carnivora (sea otter), Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, and walruses), Sirenia (dugong and mana- tees), Mysticeti (baleen whales), and Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises). A few other species, such as the polar bear and Cape Horn otter, spend much time in the marine environment and could be classified as marine mammals. Information should be developed for all marine mammals sufficient to answer the basic questions regarding their biology, abundance, and their ecological rela- tionships to each other and to other living resources of the sea. With the exception of the northern fur seal and some of the large whales, little information is available on which to ba.se effective marine mammal conservation programs. In fact, there is so little information on the abundance of species com- monly seen by the public, such as the harbor seal, northern sea lion, and killer whale, that it is not possible to say whether their numbers are increasing or decreasing. Even less information is available for small cetaceans. We must obtain as much information as possible to insure preservation of marine mammals. A few species are so rare that only observational information should be gathered. One species : the Caribbean monk seal, may now be extinct. Its statu.s should be established, and if this seal still exists, special protective efforts should be taken. The development of a basic marine mammals research program will require the close cooperation of an international level of scientists from the government, academic and private community. A significant barrier to such a program at the current time is the shortage of highly qualified scientists capable of assisting in the studies. It may be anticipated, however, as the program evolves, an increas- ing capability will be developed and the manpower shortage will be overcome. A further barrier to progress is the requirement for international cooperation in regard to the marine mammals whose life history involves extensive migrations in international waters. It may also be anticipated, however, that appropriate agreements will eventually be developed. As a result of the above limitations it is essential to establish immediate re- search priorities and gradually expand the studies as money, manpower and the neces.sary international agreements are attained. Highest priority for study should be given to those species : a. Threatened by commercial exploitation either by intentional fishing or inadvertent capture in the pursuit of other species. b. Affected by contaminants, loss of habitat or food supply. Species falling into the first category would include virtually all species of large whales and the tropical iwrpoises which are currently being captured in the yellowfin tuna fishery. The second category would include studies of California sea lions — there has been almost no survival of pups in recent years while tissue samples from adult 235 females reveal pesticide residues two to eight times higher in t'hose with aborte 26 1966-67 1967-1 i 100 1125 1967-68.... 1968-1 100 66 1968-69._ 1969-1 100 73 Total 314 1 Whales collected during the 1966-67 season were taken under both permit No. 1966-2 and 1967-1 Data Collected All of the whales collected were examined by biologists of the Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory. The following data and specimens were routinely 1. Body measurements, gathered : 2. Ectoparasites (species, number, and pathological effects). 3. Blubber thickness. 4. Condition of mammary glands. 5. Ovaries (weight; size of graafian follicles; size and number of corpora albicantia). 6. Uterus (histological condition). 7. Fetus (sex and body measurements). 8. Testes (w^eight and histological condition). 9. Penis (length). 10. Stomach contents (species and quantity). 11. Endoparasites (species, number, and pathological effects). 12. Vertebral epiphyses (degree of fusion to determine physical maturity). 13. Earplug (for age determination). 14. Baleen plates (for age determination). 241 In addition to the studies conducted by the NMFS biologists, many collabora- tors from other institutions gathered data and specimens for specialized studies on various aspects of .anatomy and physiology. A partial list of these collabora- tors follows : Name, Institute, and Subject : Dr. George Pilleri, Brain Anatomy Institute, Berne, Switzerland, Brain anatomy. Mr. Yuk Lenng, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, Cyamid parasites. Dr. Claude Lenfant, University of W.ashington, Seattle, Washington, Blood chemistry. Dr. Robert L. Rausch, Arctic Health Research Center College, Alaska, Tape- worm parasites. Mr. Kenneth M. Neiland, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, Trematode and acanthocephalan parasites. Mr. John T. Davey, Commonwealth Bureau of Helminthology, St. Albans, Eng- land, Roundworm parasites. Dr. Merrill P. Spencer, Virginia Mason Research Center, Seattle, Washington, Histology. Dr. Earl L. Bousefleld, National Museum of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, Indentifi- cation of amphipods from stomach. Dr. Francis H. Fay, Arctic Health Research Center College, Alaska, Karyotypes. Mr. Toshio Kasuya, Ocean Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan, anatomy and osteology. Dr. Ray C. Truex, Hahneman Medical School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, heart anatomy. Dr. Daniel F. Cowan, Michigan State University, Bast Lansing, Michigan, Pathology. Dr. Floyd Durham, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, anatomy. Dr. John Sinclair, University of Texas Medical School, Galveston, Texas, Embryology. Dr. G. Victor Morejohn, San Jose State College, San Jose, California, functional anatomy. Dr. Richard Lyons, University of Oregon Medical School, Portland. Oregon, heart anatomy. Dr. Julio Ludowieg, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco, California, intervertebral disks. Dr. Luther Meyer, Piedmont, California, Intestinal protozoa. Mr. Robert Brownell, Little Company of Mary Hospital, Torrance, California, Dr. William McFarland, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, visual pigments of the eye. Dr. J. C. Daniels, Jr., University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, Biochemistry of uterine fluid. Dr. John W. Blake, Battelle Memorial Institute, Duxbury, Massachusetts, Bio- chemistry of liver and duodenum. Dr. Frederick Crescitelli, University of California, Los Angeles, California, visual pigments of the eye. Dr. Frank R. N. Curd, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, biochemistry of myoglobin. Dr. Andrew F. Hegyeli, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, anticancer substances in the liver. Dr. H. M. S. Watkins, Naval Biological Laboratory, Oakland, California, viruses. Dr. John E. Simmons, University of California, Berkeley, California, Parasites. Dr. Einar Leifson, Loyola University, Hines, Illinois, Intestinal bacteria. Dr. Margaret Y. Martinez, West Chester State College, West Chester, Pennsyl- vania, histology. Mr. Alfred J. Wilson, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Gulf Breeze, Florida, pesticide residues, Mrs. Joyce Roderick, Moss Landing Marine Station, Moss Landing, California, anatomy of flippers. Dr. Helen C. Ranch, Stanford University, Stanford, California, spinal cord and dorsal root ganglia. Mr. Frank Maurer, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Blood proteins. Dr. Richard B. Holtzman, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, ra- dionuclide residues. 242 Dr. Arnold Ross, San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, California, parasitic barnacles. Dr. Philip Schwartz, Warren State Hospital, Warren, Pennsylvania, senile changes. Mr. Robert C. Boice, Little Comi>any of Mary Hospital, Torrance, California chemistry of blood and urine. Results At the termination of each Special Scientific Permit, a preliminary report list- ing the sex, length, and locations and dates of capture of each whale was sub- mitted to the Secretary of the International Whaling Commission. Interim reports on the biological results of the studies were submitted to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission in 1964, 1967, and 1969. The final results of our studies were published in April 1971 : Rice, D. W., and A. A. Wolman, 1971. The life histoi-y and ecology of the gray whale {Eschrichtius robustus). American Society of Mammalogists, Si>ecial Publication No. 3. 142 I>ages. The data obtained from the gray whales collected under the Special Scientific Permits, along with our annual counts of the migrating whales, provide the International Whaling Commission with information on the population size and trends, and also provide a basis for setting rational catch limits if the Interna- tional Whaling Commission should decide that commercial exploitation of gray whales should be resumed. SPERM WHALES Jtistification Following the depletion of baleen whale stocks since World War II, the whaling industry has turned its attention more and more to sperm whales {Physeter catodon). Sperm whales are now the most important species to the industry. In recent years the annual catch has been around 24,000, of which about 15,000 come from the North Pacific. Asse.ssment of the sustainable yield of sperm whale stocks is much more diffi- cult than that of baleen whale stocks because of several unique features of sperm whale biology : (1) Males may attain a body length of 55 or 60 feet, whereas females seldom grow longer than 38 feet. (2) Sperm whales are polygamous, and 1 to 3 older adult males join the schools of females during the breeding season, whereas the younger adult males may form "bachelor" schools. (3) Many male sperm whales migrate to high latitudes during tJie summer months, whereas the females and immature animals remain in temperate or tropical waters. Because of the legal minimum length limit of 38 feet for floating factory ships, and 3." feet for shore stations, commercial catches of sperm whales are comprised of about 75 percent males : only a few of tJie older females are taken. As a result it appears that, at least in some areas such as the North Pacific, the catch of males exceeds the sustainable yield, while the catch of females is less than the siistainable yield. TABLE 2.-SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC PERMITS TO CAPTURE SPERM WHALES ISSUED TO BCF/NMFS MARINE MAMMAL BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY Season: 1964.. 1965 .. 1966 1967.. "" 1968 1969 1970 .^/^////^ Total 189 > 1 school. Permit No. Numbe r of whales requested Number of whales taken 1964-3 1965-1 (0 50 50 100 100 100 100 0 0 1966-1 1967-3 22 50 1968-2 1969-5 1970-2 53 34 30 243 In order to gain suflaeient knowledge of the biology of the sperm whale to make estimates of the sustainable yield of eadi sex, it is necessary to collect sample of females and younger males that are shorter than legal minimum length limits. To obtain these samples, Special Scientific Permits were issued annually, beginning in 1964, to the Director of the Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory. Large series of sperm whales have also been collected under Special Scientific Permits by Government whale research organizations in other coun- tries. The report of the 1970 Special Meeting on Sperm Whale Biology and Stock Assessments of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission recommended that more undersized sperm whales be collected under Si>ecial Scientific Permits to elucidate several poorly-understood aspects of their biology (21st Report of the Commi-ssion, page 47) . Num1)er Taken Since 1966, 189 sperm whales have been collected under Special Scientific Permits issued to the Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory (Table 2). These included animals shorter than the legal minimum length, lactating females, and animals taken before the start or after the finish of the legal 8-month open season. Data Collected All execept four ^ of the 189 si)erm whales collected under Special Scientific Permits, as well as the majority (452) of those taken under regular commercial operations, were examined by biologists of the Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory. The following data and specimens were routinely gathered : (1) Body length. (2) Teeth (for age determination). (3) Ectoparasites (species, number, and pathological effects). (4) Blubber thickness. (5) Condition of mammary glands. (6) Ovaries (weight; size of Graafian follicles; size and number of corpora albicantia ) . (7) Uterus (histological condition). (8) Fetus ( sex and body length ) . (9) Testes (weight and histological condition). (10) Stomach contents (species and quantity). (11) Endoparasites (species, numbers, and pathological effects). (12) Vertebral epiphyses (degree of fusion determines physical maturity). Results At the termination of each individual Special Scientific Permit, a preliminary report listing the sex, length, and locations and dates of capture of each whale was submitted to the Secretary of the International Whaling Commission. The following report, which summarizes the results of our studies on sperm whales through 1969, was submitted to the Special Meeting on Sperm Whale Biology and Stock Assessments of the Scientific Committee of the International Wlialing Commission, held in Honolulu, March 13-24, 1970: Rice, D. W., and A. A. Wolman. 1970. Sperm whales in the eastern North Pacific : Progress report on research, 1959-1969. 18 pages- Data from the above report, along with data from other countries engaged in sperm whale research, were incorporated in the final report of the si>ecial meeting : International Whaling Commission. Scientific Committee, 1971. Report of the special meeting on sperm whale biology and stock assessments. Twenty-first Report of the Commission, pages 40-50. A final report of our studies on sperm whales is now being prepared, and will be published. The data from biological investigations have permitted preliminary estimates to be made of the sustainable yields of some stocks of sperm whales. As a result the International "SVlialing Commission has set catch limits for sperm whales in the North Pacific Ocean, and in the western Indian Ocean and adjacent sec- tor of the Antarctic. As further data become available, these estimates of sus- tainable yield will be refined, and estimates will be made for stocks in other parts of the world. 1 Four were not examined when they arrived at the whaling station because the biologist who was to take the observations and specimens had to go to the hospital. 244 A Sample of a Whaling Pbhimit for the Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory This permit is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit shall be effective from the date of issuance and shall terminate on 2. The permittee shall notify the Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region, Room 6116, Arcade Building. Seattle, Washington 98101; (a) When and where hunting for whales under this permit will begin and when such hunting is com- pleted; and (ft) when a change is made in the locality where hunting is to be conducted. 3. No parts of the whales taken shall be wasted. Those parts not removed and retained for scientific analysis shall be delivered to a land whaling .station licensed by this Service to engage in the processing of whales for commercial purposes. 4. The permittee shall furnish a report of the results of the research con- ducted hereunder in form suitable for transmittal to the International Whaling Commission in compliance with the requirements of Section 3, Article VIII. of the Whaling Convention. Example of a Scientific Permit for Non-Government Individuals This permit is granted subject to the foowing conditions: 1. The permission granted hereunder shall extend through 2. This permit applies only to activities conducted in international waters off It does not authorize any operations in areas under the jurisdiction of the Government of (non-U.S.A.) . 3. In the event that whales shall be accidently killed during the experiment operations, further attempts .shall be terminated. 4. In keeping with the requirements of paragraph 2, Article VIII of the Whal- ing Convention, in the event that any whales are killed accidently while attempt- ing to implant a tracking device, they shall, so far as practicable, be processed in accordance with directions issued by this Government. 5. The permittee shall furnish to this Service a report in triplicate of the results of the research conducted hereunder in a form suitable for transmittal to the International Whaling Commission in compliance with the requirements of Section 3, Article VIII, of the Whaling Convention. This report shall be sub- mitted on or before December 31, 19 Summary of Scientific Permits To Take Whales Issued to Non-Government Individuals or Institutions The informaion is presented in the following order: Permit number (notes year and sequential number) ; date permit was issued; to whom issued; number and species allowed : purpose ; and number of whales actually killed or captured. 1958-1 ; October 28, 1958 ; Frank Nolan ; 4 gray whales. Experiments on taking of heartbeats, electro-cardiograms; effect of injection of an antibiotic; studies of heart, hormonal assays and steroid determinations; biochemical analysis of blood .serum and/or plasma ; commercial utilization potential. No whales were taken under this permit. 19.39-1; January 15, 1959 (March 30, 1959 — time extension) ; Frank Nolan; 4 gray whales. Experimental purpo.ses same as 1958-1. Two whales were killed under thip permit. 1963-1; July 1, 1963; Richard B. Lyons; 4 whales (except right whale). To obtain organs and tissues for multi-disciplinary biological and physiological studies (haemoglobin, ion tran.sport, .structure and physiology of reproductive tract, hormones, and others). No whales were taken under this permit. 1965-2; June 30, 1965; Richard B. Lyons; 12 whales (no more than 6 gray whales, no right whales). To study the l)iology and physiology of whale organs and tissues— extension of work under Permit 1963-1. No whales were taken under this permit. 1962-3 ; April 12, 1962 ; William Schevill. 1964-2 ; February 26, 1964 ; William Schevill. 1965-2 ; March 29, 1965 ; William Schevill. 245 Radio-tagging of right, humpback and fin whales to study the migrations of those species off the eastern United States. 1964-4 ; September 17, 1964 ; Robert W. Eisner ; 3 gray whales. To study the physiology of the circulatory and respiratory systems of gray whales. No whales were taken under this permit. 1965-i ; November 30, 1965 ; Palmer T. Beaudette. To tag 3 gray whales, ob.sen'e and photograph whale behavior, and to record whale sounds. 1966-3; May 24, 1966; John Prescott (Marineland of Pacific) ; 2 minke whales. 1967-2 ; March 7, 1967 ; John Prescott (Marineland of Pacific) ; 2 minke whales. 1968-3; April 1968; John Prescott (Marineland of Pacific) ; 2 minke whales. 1969-2; June 21, 1969; John Prescott (Marineland of Pacific) ; 1 gray whale. 1969-3; February 12, 1969; John Prescott (Marineland of Pacific) ; 2 minke whales. Purpose of all permits : To take and hold live for public display ; to investigate techniques of capture and transportation ; to ascertain food requirements ; to study sound production and comparative behavior. No whales were taken under these permits. 1968-1 ; January 22, 1968 ; John Schultz ; 2 gray whales. To tag migrating gray whales with electronic tracking equipment ; to establish feasibility of electronic tagging and tracking; to observe behavior during migration. 1969-^ ; March 1969 ; John Schultz ; 1 gray whale. To tag and investigate the behavior during the northward migration ; to observe the behavior in the oceanic region influenced by the Santa Barbara oil spill. 1970-3 ; April 1970 ; Kenneth S. Norris ; 4 sperm whales, 2 humpback whales. For purposes of live scientific studies on diving physiology, acoustic emissions, behavior and neurophysiology. No whales were taken under this permit. 1970-1 ; October 29, 1970 ; Kenneth S. Norris (i>er permit 1970-3) . 1971-2 ; January 18, 1971 ; J. Thomas Whitman ; 3 sperm whales. To capture and hold for public display ; to study aspects of transportation and holding of large marine mammals. No whales have been taken to date under this permit. 1971-3; March 2, 1971; David W. Kenney (Sea World) ; 2 gray whales. To take for public display and biological research on nutrition, physiology, pathology and behavior. One whale was captured alive in Mexican waters under this permit (a ijermit was also issued by the Government of Mexico). 1971-4; August 6, 1971; J. Thomas Whitman (Marine World) ; 2 humpback whales. To capture and hold alive for puri>oses of "display, .scientific research, and edu- cational use." No whales have been taken to date under this i>ermit. 1971-6; August 4, 1971; G. L. Kooyman ; Sperm whale (no number). To carry out observations of surface and dive times, behavior at the surface, and to make undenvater recordings of vocalizations. Publications on Cetaceans by NMFS Staff Caldwell, David K., Melba C. Caldwell, and Dale W. Rice. 1966. Behavior of the sperm whale, Physeter catodon L. In Whales, dolphins, and porpoises, edited by Kenneth S. Norris, University of California Press, pp. 678-717. Fiscus, Clifford H.. and Karl Niggol. 1965. Observations of cetaceans off Califor- nia, Oregon, and Washington. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 498, 27 pp. Fiscus, Clifford H, Dale W. Rice, and Ancel M. Johnson. 1969. New records of Mcsoplodon stcjnegeri and Ziphius cavirostris from Alaska. J. Mammal. 50(2) : 127. Gilmore, Raymond M. 1960. A census of the California gray whale. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. 342. Kasuya, Toshio, and Dale W. Rice. 1970. Notes on baleen plates and on arrange- ment of parasitic barnacles of gray whale, Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 22 :39-43. Neiland, K. A., D. W. Rice, and B. L. Holden. 1970. Helminths of marine mam- mals, I. The genus Nasitrema, air sinus flukes of delphinid cetacea. J. Parasitol. 56(2) :305-316. 246 Rausc'h, Robert L., and Dale W. Rice. 1970. Ogtnogastcr Trilincatus sp. n. (Tre- uiatoda : Xotocotylidae) from the fin whale, Balae7ioptcra physalus L. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 37(2) :196-200. Rice, Dale W. : 1960. Di-stribution of the bottle-nosed dolphin in the Leeward Hawaiian Islands. J. Mammal. 41(3): 407-408. 1961. Sei whales with rudimentary baleen. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. No. 5, pp. 189-193. 1961. Census of the California gray whale, 1959/60. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. No. 6, pp. 219-225. 1963. Progress report on biological studies of the larger Cetacea in the waters off California. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. No. 7, pp. 181-187. 1963. The whale marking cruise of the Sioux City off California and Baja California. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. No. 6, pp. 153-160. 1963. Pacific coast whaling and whale research. Trans. 28th N. Amer. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. pp. 327-335. 1965. Offshore southward migration of gray whales off southern California. J. Mammal. 46(3) : 504-505. 1965. Bryde's whale in the Gulf of Mexico. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. No. pp, 114-115. 1967. Cetaceans. In Recent mammals of the world, a synopsis of families, edited by Sydney Anderson and J. Knox Jones. The Ronald Press Co., New York, pp. 291-324. 1968. Stomach contents and feeding behavior of killer whales in the eastern North Pacific. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. No. 3, pp. 35-38. 1969. Sperm whales — Sounders of the deep. Pacific Search 3(7) : 2p. insert. 1970. Gray whales — long distance swimmers of the east Pacific. Pacific Search 4(8) : 2-3. Rice, Dale W., and David K. Caldwell. 1961. Observations on the habits of the whalesucker {Rcmilegia australis). Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. No. 5, pp. 181-189. Rice, Dale W., and Clifford H. Fiscus. 1968. Right whales in the southeastern North Pacific. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. No. 5, pp. 105-107. Rice, Dale W., and Allen A. Wolman. 1971. Life history and ecology of the gray whale Eschrichtius robustus. Amer. Soc. Mammal., Spec. Publ. No. 3. Scheffer, Victor B. : 1942. Further records of the Dall porpoise in California. J. Mammal. 23(2) : 221. 1949. The dall porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli, in Alaska. J. 30(2) : 11&-121. 1949. Dolphins — little-known mammals of the Pacific. Pac. Disc. 2(4) : 18-22. 1949. Notes on three beaked whales from the Aleutian Islands. Pac. Sci. 3(4) : 353. 1950. Porpoises assembling in the North Pacific Ocean. Murrelet 31(1) : 16. 1950. The striped dolphin, Larjcnorhynchus obliquidcns Gill 1865, on the coast of North America. Amer. Midi. Nat. 44(3) : 750-758. 1953. Measurements and stomach contents of eleven delphinids from the northeast Pacific. Murrelet 34(2) : 27-30. 1960. A dolphin Stenella from Washington State. Murrelet 41(2) : 23. 1967. The killer whale. Pacific Search, 1(7): 2pp. Scheffer. Victor B., and John W\ Slipp. 1948. The whales and dolphins of Wash- ington State with a key to the cetaceans of the west coast of North America. Amer. Midi. Nat. 39(2) : 257-337. Stroud. Richard K. 1968. Risso dolphin in Washington State. J. Mammal. 49(2) : 347-348. Wilke. Ford, and A. J. Nicholson. 1958. Food of i>orpoises in waters off Japan. J. Mammal. 39(3) : 441-443. Wilke, Ford, Takeshi Taniwaki, and Nagahisa Kuroda. 1953. Phocoenoides and Lagenorhynchus in Japan, with notes on hunting. J. Mammal. 34(4) : 488-497. Papers Prepared fob International W^halixg Commission Me:etings Rice, Dale W. : 1964. Eskimo whaling in Arctic Alaska, 23 processed pp. 1966. Blue whales in the waters off Baja California. Marine Mammal Bio- logical Laboratory, 17 processed pp. 1966. Status of humpback whales or their wintering grounds in the south- eastern North Pacific, 11 processed pp. 247 Rice, Dale W., and Allen A. Wolman : 1967. The gray whale : age, growth, reproduction, and the annual cycle. Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory, 34 processed pp. 1969. Sperm whales in the eastern North Pacific : Progress report on research, 1959-1969, 18 processed pp. Material Supplied by NMFS (BCF) to International Whaling Commission, 1966-1971 International Whaling Commission, 23rd Annual Meeting, 1971 ; U.S. Progress Report on Whale Research, February 1970-March 1971. (Studies mentioned were on North Pacific stocks of fin, sei, gray and sperm whales. ) International Whaling Commission, 22nd Annual Meeting 1970; U.S. Progress Report on Whale Research, February 1969-March 1970; Contribution to Special Meeting on Sperm Whale Biology and Stock Assessments March 13-24 1970 ; SP/3 Sperm Whales in the eastern North Pacific : Progress Report on research, 1959- 1969 Rice and Wolman. Information not available for 1969. No contributions in 1968. International Whaling Commission, 19th Annual Meeting 1967 ; Eighth Meet- ing of the North Pacific Working Group U.S.A. — (1) The grey whale: Age, growth, reproduction and the annual cycle — D. W. Rice and A. A. Wolman. International Whaling Commission, 18th Annual Meeting 1966 ; Contributed to Scientific Committee through 7th meeting of North Pacific Working Group ; Blue whales in the waters of Baja, California, Dale W. Rice, 1966 ; Growth and repro- duction of the gray whale. Dale W. Rice ; United States whale marking June 1965-June 1966 ; Hosted IWC/FAO Joint Working Party on Whale Stock Assess- ment, January 26-February 2, 1966 in Seattle. Hosted Sixth Meeting of the North Pacific Working Group of IWC, Honolulu, February 7-12, 1966. Submitted Status of humpback whales on their wintering grounds in the south- eastern North Pacific, D. W. Rice. Progress Report on sperm whale research, United States. June 14, 1971. United States Progress Report on Whale Research, February 1970- March 1971 1. Species and Stocks Studied Studies have continued on the eastern North Pacific stocks of fin. sei. gray, and sperm whales. 2. Field Observations and Collections Biological data and specimens, including ear plugs or teeth, were collected from 5 fin whales, 4 sei whales, and 56 sperm whales at the Richmond, California shore station during 1970. Thirty of the sperm whales were collected under a Special Scientific Permit and were undersized, lactating. or taken outside the regular whaling season. A census of the southward-migrating gray whales at Yankee Point, Monterey county, California, was conducted from 10 December 1970 to 13 February 1971. Catcher-boat captains have continued to record sightings of protected species ( blue and humback whales ) off central California. On 15 March 1971, the oceanarium Sea World of San Diego captured alive a gray whale calf in Laguna Ojo de Liebre (Scammon's Lagoon), Baja Cali- fornia, under Special Scientific Permits issued by the United States and Mexican governments. Data on growth, nutrition, metabolism, and other aspects of its biology are being systematically recorded. 3. Marking No whales were marked, and no marked whales were recovered. We have a contract with the Floy Tag Company of Seattle to develop a mark suitable for use on whale calves and other small cetaceans. 4. Laboratory tvork Laboratory work on most of the collected material has been completed. 67-765 O - 71 - 17 248 5. Results During the 1970/71 season, 3325 gray whales were counted passing Yankee Point during daylight hours (0700-1700). This figure is almost the same as the counts made during the previous three seasons, and further confirms our opin- ion that the eastern Pacific gray whale population has remained stable since at least the 1967/68 season (see Rice and Wolman, 1971) . A specimen of the bathypelagic anglerfish Ceratias holhoelli from the stomach of a sperm whale taken off California constitutes the first eastern North Pacific record for this fish, and its third known occurrence in the diet of the sperm whale. The identity of certain large squid beaks from California sperm whale stomachs has been confirmed as Architeuthis sp. ; these specimens represent the first known occurrence of Architeuthis in the eastern Pacific. PUBLICATIONS Kasuya, T., and D. W. Rice. 1970. Notes on baleen plates and on arrangement of parasitic barnacles of gray whale. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 22 :39-^3. Kenyon, K. W., and D. W. Rice. 1971. [Review of] Anderson, Harald T. (ed.). The biology of marine mammals. J. Mammal. 52(1) : 253-555. Rausch, R. L., and D. W. Rice. 1970. Ogmogaster triUneatus sp. nov. (Tremae- toda: Notocotylidae) from the fin whale Balaenopicra physalus L. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 37(2) : 196-200. Rice, D. W. 1970. Gordon C. Pike, 1922-1968 [obituary]. J. Mammal. 52(2) : 131 135. Rice, D. W. 1970. Gray whales — long distance swimmers of the East Pacific. Pacific Search 4(8) : 2-3. Rice. D. W., and A. A. Wolman. 971. Life history and ecology of the gray whale (Eschrichtius rohustus). Amer. Soc. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 3 :1-142. Mr. Potter. I am a little confused. Are these reports you are talk- ing about in the nature of scientific papers or simply reports to the International Whaling Commission saying we killed x number of whales and why, sex, size, and what have you ? Mr. Pollock. I would presume Dr. Harry could answer better, but I would presume that they are for research purposes and in the course of that, that reports are made to the Whaling Commission. Mr. Potter. What we want is a copy of any research papers, show- ing the results from the taking of the whales. Mr. Pollock. No problem. We will be happy to do that. Mr. DiNGELL. And if no such information is available we would like to be advised also. Mr. Potter. Mr. Pollock, in the Department's comments on the bill, H.R. 10420, it indicated among other things that "Those States with resident populations of marine mammals already have, in effect, appropriate regulations governing the utilization and conservation of those mammals." That is on page 2. Mr. Pollock. Of my testimony ? Mr. Potter. No ; of the Department's report. Mr. Pollock. Yes. Mr. Potter. Are you suggesting to the committee that it is there- fore unnecessary for the Federal Government to regulate the taking of marine mammals which may be migratory or which may be threat- ened or international in character? Mr. Pollock. I think our feeling generally is that where the States are doing a proper job, and we believe most of them are, where marine mammals are involved, that there should be cooperative programs, that we should not enact legislation which would take away the right or superimpose upon the States a Federal law to regulate them where it is being properly done. 249 Mr. Potter. Well, let us take the Stat« of Alaska. Are you familiar with that ? Mr. Pollock. Yes. Mr. Potter. Let us take those animals for which your Department has responsibility, that is to say seals and whales. Is it your belief that the Alaskan regulations for the taking of these mammals are presently adequate? Mr. Pollock. So far as I know, the law is adequate. Of course, in the case of fur seals we have the international con- vention, and the Fur Seal Act which control the fur seals and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. We are quite in control of the fur seals. Mr. Potter. If they were not, I take it you would have no objection to letting the Federal Government work out cooperative arrangements ? Mr. Pollock. We have no objection to working out cooperative arrangements in any way. This is the proper way to do it rather than take away the right from the State. Mr. Potter. The reason I asked the question is because Alaska does not attempt to regulate porpoises or whales at all. As to porpoises, there is no closed season or no limit and as beluga whales there is no closed season and no limit. As far as seals are concerned from north of the Alaskan Peninsula all the way up around the coast for hair seals there is no closed season or a limit and as I understand it, reading from Alaska's regulations, there is a bounty paid for the killing of hair seals. Mr. Pollock. There is a bounty on hair seals in certain portions of the water off Alaska and this is in protection of the salmon industry. This is a matter of balancing these interests. Mr. Potter. These seals which are subject to bounty include the ringed seal, the bearded seal, the harbor seal, and the ribbon seal, and I understand the ribbon seal has been classified as a rare species by Interior. Mr. Pollock. To my knowledge there is no bounty paid on the ribbon seal. You see, you have to put this in its proper context. There are 34,000 miles of shoreline in Alaska and in some of those areas far up to the north there is no bounty paid on this. There are no salmon populations that go there. Now, there are other places where there are important salmon populations and where seals do take a lot of salmon, and the bounty is placed under those conditions, and they are a very common seal, the hair seals. Mr. Potter. Hair seals include ribbon seals. Mr. Pollock. They include everything, but I am saying as a prac- tical matter they are not taking scarce species. Mr. Potter. At this point I would ask the chairman for permission to include in the record such portions of the Alaska game regulations as are appropriate and also the page from the Interior Red Book in- dicating the status of the ribbon seal as rare. Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The information follows :) 250 MARINE MAr^lVIAL HUNTIMG Species and Units Open Seasons Bag Llrnils Marine mammal hunting. Followin^^ arc the seasons ami ba« limits on marine m.im- mals, aiKl ihc units or portions of units to which they apply: (1) SEA LlOrJ,* PORPOISE AND BELUGA Units 1 through 26 "No closed season No limit 'Sea lion: proviJcJ thut the taking of sea lions for commercial purposes in excess of 10 is permitted only under the terms of a permit that may he Issued by the Commiisiohor in consideration of conservation requirements. Species and Units Open Sescons Bijg Limits (2) SEAL (iticltidinp^only h:srbnr seal, rirgcd seal, ribbon seal and bearded seal) '' Units I throui;h 16 • 'June 20 - July 31 'Nu ilmit ••Oct. 13 -April iO Units 17 through 26 ' No closed season No limit 'Any person taking seals at T-ugidtk Island -or from the ared from Cape Menshikof to Cape Leontoi'itch shall male the pelts vf any seals take: there available in the field for inspevf.O'i at' the request of an authorized representative of the Department. ' 'Provided that fishermen are allowed to kill nuisatice seals involved in fishery depreda- tions and provided further that four seals may be taken at any time for noncommercial purposes under the terras of a permit issued by the Commissioner. 251 HUNTING SEASONS AND BAG UIMIS (Conlin»ed> MARINE MAMMAL HUNTING (Continued; Spocles and Units Open Seasons Bag Limits (3) SEAL, ELEPHANT Units 1 rh rough 5 No open season (4) WALRUS Units 9 tnd 17 No open season Unics 18, 22, 23 and 26 Resident: One adult bull; provided how- No closed season ever, that residents dependent upon and utilizing walr^ for food may . ts.ke up to 5 adult cows or subaduits (either sex), and adult bulls without a limit; and provided further, that or- phaned calves mav Ix: taken for food without conr;ibuting to the bag limit. Nonresident: One adult bull No closed season Taking of Polar Bear, Walbus and Sea Ottesi on the High Se^as The taking of polar bear, walrus and sea otter on the high seas by residents of Alaska is permitted only by accordance with the seasons, bag limits, methods and means, and licensing provisions that presently pertain to tlie taking of these animals in Alaska and its territorial waters. Bounties. Bounties, as established by statute, will be paid in the following game management units or parts thereof, upon compliance with the bounlty procedures set forth in AS 16.35.050 through 16.35.130 : Coyote. — No bounty paid in any unit. Wolf. — Bounty paid in Units 1, 2, and 3 only. Wolverine. — No bounty paid in any unit. Hair seal. — Inland and coastal waters of Alaska west of 159 degrees west longitude or north of ,69 degrees north latitude, except the waters south of 58 degrees north latitude. (Excerpt from ''Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States," 1968 ed.) Ribbon Seal — Histriophoca fasciata (Zimmermann) ORDER : PINNIPEDIA ; FAMILY : PHOCIDAE Distinguishing characteristics. — Adults attain a length of up to 6V^ feet; coloration in male dark brown marked with well-defined yellowish-white band around the neck, one around base of each forelimb. and one around rump; coloration of female pale grayish-yellow or grayish-brown, with whitish band across lower back. Present distribution. — In general, from Kurile Islands and Okhotsk Sea north- ward along the coasts of Kamchatka and in the Bering Straits. Along the Alaska coast, from Point Barrow to the Aleutian Islands. Former distribution. — Roughly the same. Status. — Rare. Estimated numbers. — No estimates. Breeding rate in the ivild. — Young are born on the ice in March, April and early May. Females probably breed once every two years. 252 Reasons for decline.— This species has apparently always been rare ; there probably has been no decline in recent years. Protective measures already taken. — None. Measures proposed. — None at present. Numbers in captivity. — Unknown. Jirpcdina notential in captivity. — Unknown. Referenccs^Mlen. G. M m2: 447-149; Allen, J. A. 1880: 67^82; Brooks, James W. 1963. Management and status of marine mammals in Alaska Trans N. Amer. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 28: 314-326; Kenyon and SchefEer, 1955: 23, Scheffer, 1058 : 103. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate to say there are no regulations on a number of these because there is simply no taking. .,. .i • ^u ^ t There are no people in the area that utilize these species that 1 gather the counsel is concerned about. The natives will harvest a limited amount of them in the winter months. ^ _ . , ... Mr. DiNGELL. As I understand, though, the idea ot bounty is to shoot the thing as a varmint and present an ear or some other part and get your bounty. . • n n i Mr. Pollock. But Mr. Chairman, the bounty is not paid all along the coastline of Alaska, only in limited areas. Mr. DiNGELL. Well, I think the Alaska game regulations go to that particular point. It says sea lions Mr. Potter. Mr. Chairman, referring to the regulations and to the map it appears that bounties are paid on hair seals for inland and coastal waters of Alaska, 159° W. longitude or north of 69° N. latitude and that essentially is as I read it, the waters from Bristol Bay north. Mr. DiNGELL. As I read 159° longitude it hits Alaska about Perryville. Mr. Pollock. May I have Mr. Kirkness make a comment ? Mr. Kirkness is our acting director for resource management in the fisheries service, but he was formerly the commissioner for fish and game for the State of Alaska and could probably answer your question with some degree of specificity. Mr. DiNGELL. As I note 58 degrees would cover practically the entire Alaska Peninsula south of a place called Egegik. Mr. Kirkness. At one time the bounty system on seals was through- out Alaska and the biologist working on this requested many times it be abandoned because it was a waste of money since the system did not reduce seal population but merely kept them in a healthy state. The legislature did, some years ago, remove the bounty in most of Alaska but left it in Arctic Alaska from about Togiak on up the Northwest Coast. This was kef)t primarily as the monetary basis to ))ump a little money into the local economy since the Natives up there have a very low income. When the Natives harvest an animal, not only do they get the meat and skin and make things to sell to tourists, but also they get a $3 bounty, and it was left in the Arctic Alaska, on around the northern area. As Mr. Pollock said, the reason there are no regulations on many species is because these species are what you could call a saturated population, hardly utilized, but they are utilized by a small segment of the population largely throughout the year. 253 Mr. DiNGELL. Let us talk a little bit about that. That is a very interesting point : ^ i i.u I would appreciate it if you gentlemen as our experts down there would tell us. You say here those States with resident populations with marine mammals now have in effect appropriate regulations- would you tell us what species ? First of all, is it not a fact that before you can have a regulation that you have to have knowledge of population levels and age groups, mortality, length of life, and the harvest and, of course, the entire area of residency, migration, and population ? Is that not a necessity ? Mr. Pollock. I think that is correct. Mr. DiNGELL. Would you name us the species of animals, marine mammals on which any State has that kind of information ? Mr. Pollock. I do not know what information the States might have at this point. We could certainly inquire and provide it. Mr. DiNGELL. I am curious to know is there any species of marine mammal on which this kind or volume of information is available to us? Mr. Pollock. I do not know. The State of Alaska, as I indicated in the letter to the secretary, has a staff or biologists trained in marine mammal work which is second in size only to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Mr. DiNGELL. 'Second to the National Marine Fisheries Service? Mr. Pollock. I am saying we have a lot of biologists. Mr. DiNGELL. Do you folks have any information on any popula- tions of marine mammals with the exception of fur seals ? Mr. Pollock. I am sure we do. Mr. DiNGELL. I would like for you at this time to name it for us. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Terry says whales. Mr. DiNGELL. Some people tell us the population on the fur seal is not correct. Can you name us any other species? Mr. Pollock. Well, Mr. Terry mentions whales. Mr. DiNGELL. All right, I want you to give us the name of any whale that you have population figures on within 500. Just name one species. Mr. Terry. Mr. Chairman, I am not at all sure that we have popula- tion figures on any type of whale within 500. Mr. DiNGELL. What is the magnitude of plus or minus error on whale populations, then ? Mr. Terry. I am not prepared to say. We have prohibited the taking of whales by Americans. We are satisfied with the information that we have that a number of these whales are in a very dangerous condition. Mr. DiNGELL. Well, I am still waiting for somebody to tell me. You have got blue whales, maybe 3,600 and in 1930 to 1940 there were 100. Fin back, there were 400,000. Today there are 100,000. These are the best figures we can get. The sperm whale, 600,000 for the same period and today it is down to perhaps 50,000. This is an endangered species. The humpback whale was 100,000 and is down to 2,000. 254 Now, the blue whale, I do not know what the population is, but it is a relatively small thing. You indicated here that we have a situation which dates the resident populations of marine mammals already in effect. If you do not know the population of these marine mammals, how are you going to t«ll us the regulations are adequate or appropriate? That is the purpose of a good regulation, knowing what the popu- lation is. Then you can arrive at the number, what the harvest can be. We do not have the information at hand that is needed, so name tliese then if you please, one State with resident populatioais of marine mammals having, in effect, approprif.te regulations governing the utilization and appropriateness of these marine mammals. Mr. Pollock. You are making a verj' flat presumption. I do not know what each of these States may have and they may have the statistics on them. I am not prepared to say. It is pretty obvious that if you have regulations over a period of years on a particular mammal and they are available in the area, not scarce, apparently not diminishing, then your regulations must be sufficient or adequate. Almost all wild animal populations are nian- aged through various indicators such as average age and various localized counts of animals. Total population counts necessarily are estimates. Mr. DiNGELL. Woidd you say that is good regulation practice? Mr. Pollock. No, sir. Mr. DiNGELL. Is that the way the folks down at Commerce regulate these marine species ? If that be so, maybe that is why we are in trouble. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, we do not have all the information we need on any of these species, I am sure. Tliis takes time and there are studies that are necessary, but we know by the presence of the animals that some of these animals are not in serious trouble. Mr. DiNGELL. Then you have species that travel the whole of the ocean. The gray whale has a migration that has mystified philosophers and biologists for generations. The ix)lar bear, nobody knows where he comes from or originates. Seals, thousands and thousan'ds of miles. Tlie porpoises likewise, and most of your whale species move over incredibly vast ai-eas of the ocean and we know little about their move- ment and habitat. This is the pi^ecise point. Here you are coming in and telling us we ought to make an exception to the State regulations of species that cover, for example, all of the polar area like the polar bear. Seals migrate hundreds of thousands of miles. Mr. Pollock. We were not talking about pelagic species but rather resident species in the territorial waters only. Mr. DiNGELL. What resident species do you refer to ? Mr. Pollock. In Alaska and California, the sea otter or the harbor seals. Mr. DiNGELL. That falls under Interior, and Interior is not pro- testing this particular section. Mr. Pollock. I am only trying to respond to your questions, sir. Mr. DiNGELL. I am trying to get your expertise in corning up with an exception or justification for the section that you allude to here. 255 Well , thank you very much. Mr. Potter, aiiy further questions? Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, before we wind it up let me make one point. The point made in that paragraph, it was our feeling that the Congress in its wisdom, in the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 use 1301 granted to tlie States certain jurisdiction over living marine resources in their territorial seas. We are simply saying we do not think it is proper in the conduct of legislation now to reverse that and take it all away if we can work out cooperative programs with the States. Mr. DiNGELL. I am sure you are aware in the bills before us we do have a provision for cooperative management programs, but I am satisfied you imderstand that perhaps the maximimi bomidary of the State's jurisdiction is 3 miles. Mr. Pollock. It is today. Mr. Dingell. And the probability of expansion of that jurisdiction is most conjectural. Mr. Pollock. But I think in 1973 it will probably go to 12 miles. I am just grabbing at that based on my feeling for the law of the sea. Mr. DiNGELL. As author of the 12-mile limit legislation, as the man who handled that inside this committee, I assure you that will be viewed with a very fishy eye in this particidar committee. I give you firm assurances on that jxtint. Mr. Potter. I have been in contact with a number of people who speak very highly of Dr. Perrin's work and we want you to know that we appreciate your bringing him as you were asked to do. I would like to ask you. Dr. Perrin, if you can tell me is there any discernible trend in the taking of ix)rpoises? Are we catching more this year than yast year or catching about the same amomit of what? Dr. Perkin. The only data we have is on the yellow fin taken, on the tons of yellow fin tuna that are taken. Mr. DiNGELL. Doctor, do you want to come up to the witness table? Mr. Pollock. Before we proceed with that, I wovdd like to introduce Dr. William Aron who is here, our Director, Office of Ecology and Environmental Conservation. Will you stand, Doctor ? Mr. DiNGELL. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Pollock, for your kindness in making Dr. Perrin available to us. Mr. PooTER. As I understand it, your estimates of tuna taken has been pretty much tied to the tomiage (and I think I got the figure from the National Marine Fisheries Services) as 3.9 porpoises per ton. Dr. Perrin. That is the figure we used. Mr. Potter. What is the tonnage of the yellow fin taken by the fleet? Dr. Perrin. It is going up steadily. Mr. Potter. Can you give me what the figures were say 5 year ago? Dr. Perrin. I can give you figures for 1966 when there were ap- proximately 44,000 tons of yellow fin tuna taken in conjunction with porpoise schools. This is in the yellow fin regulatory area. In 1967 there was approximately 33,000. In 1968, it was approximately 35,000 or 44,000. In 1969, there was quite a jump to approximately 83,000 tons. We do not have the data yet for 1970 or, of course, for 1971. 256 Mr. Potter. Does porpoise meat have any market value in this counti-y ? Dr. Perrin. No. Mr. Potter. We have heard rumors that other countries may be considering gearing up to catch porpoise. Mr. Pollock. May I excuse my general counsel ? We have a meeting scheduled for 4:30 at the State Department and several of us are supposed to go. We are considerably late. Mr. Potter. I do not have any questions that require the advice of counsel, I think. If we do, we can defer. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Terry and I were both supposed to be over at the State Department. Mr. DiNGELL. We can excuse you and if we have other questions or information we can communicate with you and get the information. Gentlemen, we thank you. Are you going to go, Mr. Pollock ? Mr. Pollock. I think I had better stay. Mr. DiNGELL. You are welcome either place. Mr. Pollock. I think Mr. Terry will have to go. Mr. Potter. I would note for the record that this committee is a much more interesting place to be than the State Department. Have you given any thought, Mr. Pollock, to whether or not it would be an appropriate exercise of regulation to give the Secretary the authority to regulate the conditions under which marine mammals might be kept by zoos or marinelands or such operations? Mr. Pollock. I think we indicated that we think the Secretary should have some standby authority that he may or may not exercise so that he would have the authority to issue regulations if this became necessary. Mr. DiNGELL. If you would yield at that point. Would you see to it that your counsel submits to us language you would deem appro- priate for that particular end ? I think it would be helpful to us if you would give us suggestions in the form of drafting service. Mr. PoLLOTK. The standbv authority. Yes, sir; we will look at it. It may be in our draft bill, but if not, we will provide it. Mr. Potter. We have received information — and if I can make my filing system work I will find it — regarding the fur seal program and specifically with relation to the question of the interrelationship of the U.S. Government and the Fouke Co. in South Carolina. With the Chair's permission I would ask to put into the record a copy of a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Services by minority counsel for the committee and their answer relating to the operation of the Fouke contract. Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The letter follows:) Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, December 30, 1970. Mr. Philip M. Roedel, Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Interior Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Roedel : Attached are several articles from the Fall 1970 Report of "Friends of Animals, Inc." dealing with the harvesting of seals on the Pribilof Islands. While much that is reported in these articles has been previously docu- 257 mented elsewhere, this is the first instance in which I have read of the federal government's involvement in the economic aspects of fur sealing. In order to enlighten the members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee regarding this matter, I would appreciate your furnishing me a detailed report of the extent to which the federal government, as represented by your department, assists financially or otherwise in the transportation, proc- essing and distribution of seal skins taken on the Pribilof Islands. In this con- nection, I also would appreciate a more complete analysis of the contractual relationship between the federal government and the Fouke Fur Company of Greenville, South Carolina, than appears in these articles. Sincerely yours, Richard N. Shaeood, Minority Counsel. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, B.C., January 12, 1971. Mr. Richard N. Sharood, Minority Counsel, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Rep^ resentatives, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. Sharood : This is in response to your letter of December 30, 1970, to Mr. Philip M. Roedel, Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, con- cerning the Federal Government's involvement in the economic aspects of fur sealing. Under the law (16 U.S.C. 1154), the Secretary of the Interior is to provide for the processing of fur sealskins and for the sale of fur sealskins, and the Secre- tary is authorized to enter into agreements with any public or private agency or person for this purpose. (This responsibility was transferred to the Secretary of Commerce under President Nixon's Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.) The Fouke Company is under contract to the U.S. Government for processing U.S. Government-owned Alaska fur sealskins and selling them for the account of the U.S. Government. (A copy of the current contract is enclosed.) After deduction of the Fouke Company compensation, based upon the contractually prescribed formula, the net proceeds received by the U.S. Government are deposited under a special account in the U.S. Treasury. Congress appropriates funds to the Department to defray expenses of administering the fur seal program. Since the sale price of the fur sealskins bears directly on the proceeds from the program, it has been considered that fur seal advertising by the contractor is in the interest of the Government by serving to stimulate interest in fur sealskins which would be reflected in prices received from the sales. The current contract provides that the contractor will promote and advertise processed sealskins, and estimated promotion and advertising costs were included as a part of the total estimated costs from which the negotiated contract price formula was established as the basis for payment to the Company upon sale of the fur sealskins. Adver- tising costs considered in the contract negotiations as being applicable to the U.S. Government each year are substantially less than one-third of the $750,000 frequently cited by critics of the Pribilof Islands seal harvest. Under the terms of the contract the Government is responsible for transporting the raw pelts from the Pribilof Islands to the Fouke Company plant in Greenville, South Carolina. The processing and sale of the sealskins from there on is covered under the contract. The history of the contractual relationship between the Fouke Company and the Federal Government is as follows. Contracts with the Fouke Company and its predecessor agency date back to 1915. In that year a 5-year contract was awarded to the Funsten Brothers firm, headed by Mr. P. B. Fouke, for processing and sale of U.S. Government-owned Alaska sealskins. In 1921 the Fouke Fur Company was organized and was awarded a 10-year contract. In 1931 a new contract was awarded the Fouke Fur Company which was terminated in 1939. At that time bids were solicited and, based on qualifications of the bidders, a contract was awarded to the Fouke Fur Company. This contract was renegotiated in 1947 and continued in exist- ence, with several amendments, until 1962. In 1963, following solicitation of proposals, a contract was awarded to the "Supara" firm ; in the same year this contract was declared by the Comptroller General of the United States to be invalid. A contract was awarded to the Pierre Laclede Company in 1965 for 258 research and development and for processing a limited quantity of sealskins ; this contract was terminated in 1967. In 1905 a 5-year contract was awarded to the Fouke Fur Company, following an extensive effort to develop competition and following comprehensive evaluations of proposals from four firms. In Febru- ary of 1970 the present contract was negotiated with and awarded to the Fouke Company which covers processing sealskins from the 1968, 1969, and 1970 harvests and six semiannual sales through the spring of 1973. As of this date, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the Fouke Company is the only firm that has the capability to process sealskins in a manner that will bring the highest revenue to the U.S. GovemmeiaL. We trust that the foregoing will supply you with the information needed to enlighten the members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee regard- ing this matter. Should you need any additional information we will be pleased to supply it. Sincerely, John W. Townsend, Jr., Acting Associate Administrator. Febbuaby 1, 1971. Mr. John W. Townsend, Jr., Acting Associate Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, B.C. Deae Me. Townsend : Thank you for your letter of January 12, 1971, con- cerning administration of the fur seal program. I have a few additional questions which you may be able to assist me with. For ease of response, I am numbering these questions. Your further asistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. 1. How much money has the United States grossed from the sale of furs during the past decade by year? 2. How much money has the Fouke Company or other contractors grossed under its agreements w^ith the United States during the same period ? 3. List the oflScers, directors, and, if known, stockholders of the Fouke Company. 4. Pursuant to the Fur Seal Convention, what is the value of seal skins trans- ferred to the Soviet Union during the past decade? 5. Under Article 2 of the Fouke Company agreement, the United States appears to bear all costs of transportation of sealskins to Greenville, South Carolina. What is the cost of this service? 6. Your letter states a rationale for the contractor's advertising program, and and states that the cost is, in fact, less than one-third of the $750,000 figure quoted by critics. What is the exact sum involved? 7. Please furnish me the first annual financial statement submitted pursuant to Article 9(e) of the Fouke agreement when availaible. 8. What is the basis for Article 23 of the Fouke contract? 9. How many Alaskan natives live on the Pribilof Islands? What is their average family income? Please furnish a census breakdown, if available. 10. What is the total cost of administering the Pribilof Islands, including the fur seal program? Please furnish a complete breakdown of the cost for the current fiscal year. 11. Please comment directly on the allegations on page 9 and 10 of the Friends of Animals, Inc., Fall 1970 Report that the harvest is not, in fact, a substitute for natural mortality. Sincerely yours, Richard N. Sharood, Minority Counsel. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administbation, Rockville, Md., February 23, 1971. Hon. RicHAED N. Sharood, Minority Counsel, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mb. Shaeood : This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1971. in which you ask 11 questions regarding the administration of the fur seal program. Answers are provided in the same order that the questions appeared in your letter: 1-2. Gross receipts and contractor costs : $2, 839, 862 $1, 582, 876 2, 742, 403 1,461,380 3, 566, 764 1,733,740 3, 500, 691 1, 845, 991 2, 530, 301 1, 508, 379 2, 794, 485 1,117,027 2, 582, 028 1,134,270 2, 884, 813 1,213,832 3, 029, 340 1,241,742 2, 226, 108 1,076,297 259 Gross receipts from Contract processing Year sale of sealskins and sales costs 1961 1962 1963 1964 _ 1965 1966 ._ 1967 1968 1969... 1970 4. Soviet fur sealskins : No Pribilof fur sealskins have been transferred to the Soviet Union. The in- ternational Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals re- quires 15 percent of the U.S. harvest to be delivered to each, Canada and Japan, respectively. The same requirement is also applied to the U.S.S.R, harvest. 5. Costs of transportation of the sealskins from the Pribilof Islands to Green- ville, South Carolina : Pribilofs to Seattle. Washington, via National Marine Fisheries Service ves- sel: 1969, 10,000; 1970, $10,800; Seattle, Washington, to Greenville, S.C, via rail, 1969, $13,700 ; 1970, $13,200. 7. Annual financial statement : The first financial statement to be submitted under the contract has not been received to date. The Company's Secretary-Treasurer advised us that the Com- pany anticipates availability and transmittal of its financial statement to the Government during the week of February 15, 1971. 8. Basis of Article 23 : Article 23 was incorporated, as a matter of practice, into all contracts issued by the issuing organization, the former Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, as a general provision. The provi.sion is identical to that set forth in the Federal Procurement Regulations (41 OFR 1-7.101-19) for use by Government agencies in fixed price supply contracts entered into by formal advertising and in nego- tiated contracts. It is, as a matter of course, incorporated into most, if not all, Federal Government contracts. The provision has as its apparent statutory source Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, of the United States Code under Chap- ter 24., Contracts, sections 431 through 433. 9. Population and income of the Pribilof Islands residents : St. Paul Island, 470 ; St. George Island, 161 ; total, 631. In 1967, according to a .survey made for us by the University of Alaska, the average income per household was $10,560. We have no later data nor do we have a census breakdown. 10. Administration cost : The cost of administering the Pribilof Islands including the fur seal program is shown on the enclosed table for FY 1970. 11. Allegations of Friends of Animals, Inc. : The meaning is often not clearly understood of statements such as "killing is beneficial to the population," "Killing saves seals from starvation," and a state- ment attributed to former Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Leslie L. Glasgow, that "the harvest is merely a substitute for natural mortality." Obviously, har- vesting does not benefit the individual seal killed, but neither is the harvest detri- mental to the survival of the entire seal population. The above quotes emphasize that harvesting a wild animal crop under an adequate management plan does not lead to decimation of the population. Most management plans for fish and wildlife populations, including the plan for fur seals, emphasize the maximum sustainable yield. Maximum sustainable yield is based on a concept that the death rate increases with an increase in the population until at some level mortality is so great that additions to the breeding population decrease or remain constant. At that level the total number of animals also decreases or remains constant. At some lesser population level, however, the maximum number of additions to the harvestable resource of animals occurs and this is the level of maximum sustainable yield. For the fur seal, this level is about three-quarters of the maximum population possible. Fur seals are being managed to achieve a population level which will give the maximum yield of skins. In the early 19O0's the population level of fur seals was too low to give a maximum yield of skins so their numbers were allowed to in- crease. The important mortality of fur seals occurs from birth to about age 3 years. By the early 1940's the death rate had increased to the extent that addi- 260 tlons to the mature female herd about equaled the number lost to natural mortal- ity and the population stopped increasing. Since then, the fur seal population has been reduced to about the level which gives the maximum sustainable yield of skins and at this lower level the death rate from birth to age 3 years is less than at the maximum level. Diseases, parasites, stravation, and overcrowding are some of the factors that may increase the death rate and reduce additions to the mature herd when the population increases beyond the level of maximum sustain- able yield. We feel that since this is not a publicly-held corporation, the information on stockholders in answer to question 3, and the information on cost estimates for advertising in answer to question 6, may be considered confidential commercial or financial information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522(b) (4), and therefore not sub- ject to disclosure to the public. Our General Counsel's Office is presently looking into the matter. Therefore, until we have a determination, we would appreciate it if you would treat that information as confidential. Should you need any additional information, we will be pleased to supply it. Sincerely, John W. Townsend, Jr., Acting Associate Administrator. National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fur Seal Program Obligations for fiscal year 1910 Operation and maintenance — NMFS vessel $347, 360 Transportation of fuel oil to islands 77, 100 Administration of community 304,087 Education and training 180,792 Civil Service retirement for Islanders 97, 409 Police protection 14, 000 Miscellaneous Hi 886 Utilization of fur seals 285, 931 Killing and skinning 72, 575 Curing and packing skins 167, 556 Transportation of skins, Seattle to Greenville, S.C 13, 252 Fur seal herd management 24, 513 Roads to rookeries 8,036 Replacement and modernization (new construction) 383,958 Electricity, sewer, water systems 53, 195 Automatic ix)werplant 49, 595 New equipment 56, 420 Relocating tank farm 17,973 Design new processing plant 45, 747 Miscellaneous 14, 334 New house 103, 129 Villaee services — St. Paul (operation and maintenance) 616, 753 Management and facilities (docks, roads, airstrip, communica- tion) 271, 218 Powerplant 102, 618 Stores and warehousing 51, 232 Equipment operation and maintenance 111,394 Lighterage and cargo handling 48, 041 Government mess 32,250 Village services — St. George 386, 571 Management and facilities 170,868 Powerplant 30, 698 Stores and warehousing 80, 349 Equipment operation and maintenance 75, 034 Lighterage and cargo handling 17, 118 Government mess 12,504 261 National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fur Seal Program Obligations for fiscal year 1970 — Continued Seattle program office $165, 136 Research laboratory 266, 837 Supplies on hand 24, 208 Administration 270, 400 Total 3, 128, 336 Receipts (meals, lodging, transportation, etc.) 399,726 Net 2, 728, 610 Mr. Potter. This indicates that the company gets around 40 percent to 60 percent of the gross proceeds that are paid for the account of the United States in the sale of the furs that are auctioned off. The existing contract between the Fouke Co. and the U.S. Govern- ment calls for the submission of financial statements annually. Would you provide the committee with a copy of the most recent financial statement submitted by the Fouke Co. ? Mr. Pollock. Yes, sir, and I would like to say generally I do not know the specific answer, but I would like to make the remark that Fouke processes Government-owned furs and they then sell them for the Government, not for themsehes. Mr. Potter. I understand that. They sell them at a public auction. Mr. Pollock. Yes. Mr. Potter. Will you supply that information ? Mr. Pollock. Yes. (The information referred to was provided to the committee but is considered confidential and was therefore placed in the committee files.) Mr. Potter. My question was that, in a given year the Government will get over $2.5 million and Fouke may take half of that, or $1,25 million. It seems to me this is a fairly comfortable margin. The real point of my asking the question was we are all concerned with improving the economy of the Pribilof Islands and I was just wondering if the U.S. Government might profitably and properly work out some sort of an arrangement whereby t'he Pribilof Islands would get a little bigger share of the pie. Mr. Pollock. We have some figures here, 1965 to 1970 on the distri- bution of the amount of money received from the sale of the Alaska fur seal skins, the total net amount to the Fouke Co. and the amount to the U.S. Government which we would be happy to provide. If you want additional information, and we do not have it here today, we would be happy to provide it to you. It is my understanding that about 70 percent of the net proceeds are given to iVlaska under the terms of the Statehood Act. Mr. DiNGELL. That is the net profit ? Mr. Pollock. That is right. Mr. DiNGELL. We are talking here about gross receipts from seal skin sales. For example, 1961 gross receipts were $2,839,062. The Fouke Co. got for contract processing and sales cost $1,582,- 876 or 55.8 percent. Mr. Pollock. When was that ? Mr. DiNGELL. In 1961. It run over the past years, 55 percent, 55.8 percent, 53 percent, then 48.8 percent, 52.7 percent, 59.6 percent, 40 percent, 43.8 percent, 42 percent, 41.5 percent, 48.5 percent. 262 I will not say that Fouke did not earn the money, but it looked like they were doing better than we were. Mr. Potter. Obviously, the fibres you have do not tie in with the figures we have. The reference that I had is a letter from John Townsend to Mr. Sharood dated February 23 or February 28, 1971, 1 am having trouble making the date out, and you might want to run down your own files and figure out how these relate to each other. It just occurred to me this does appear to be a large sum of money and since we are all concerned about improving the economy of the Pribilof Islands, we are running perilously close to what the United States used to be accused of doing with the underprivileged countries, going in and taking resources and taking most of the most of the money for the United States. Mr. Pollock. I understand they have quite a complicated contract in figuring out the price. Mr. Potter. I can assure you that it is. I spent 2 days working through the contract formula procedures. Mr. Pollock. Do you wish us to respond to this in writing? We will have to check the letter. Mr. Potter. It would be most helpful if you will, to see if we can integrate these figures with the figures you have got which I would like to have also. Mr. DiNGELL. I think it would be helpful. You might want to submit the figures you have with you, Mr. Pollock, so we can try to round them off with what we have, those that have been submitted to the committee. Mr. Pollock. Yes, (The information follows :) DISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SALE OF ALASKA FUR SEALSKINS, 1960-70 Year Total net Fouke Co U.S. Government 1960 .. : $4,743,350.54 $1,587,948.73 $3,155,401.81 1961 4,089,016.12 1,514,082.69 2,574,933.43 1962 4,386,633.99 1,477,694.87 2,908,939.12 1963... 6,003,959.44 1,956,088.60 4,047,870.84 1964.. 4,601,365.26 1,722,044.23 2,879,321.03 1965..-. 3,153,011.96 1,053,641.21 2,099,370.75 1966 . - 4,469,614.38 615,452,56 1,400,183.48 1967 3,372,012.17 527,059.66 1,156,293.18 1968 4,426,299.98 613,999.08 1,440,733.05 1969... - 3,782,989.58 539,077.38 1,087,562.02 1970 2,906,118.28 607,643.35 670,982.69 Mr. Potter. It has been alleged by the opponents of the fur seal program that the Fouke Co. advertising budget is very substantial — on the order of $750,000 for 3 years. I think that was the figure used. Can you tell me, one, is that true ; and two, does that come out of Fouke's share of the proceeds or the Government's share of the pro- ceeds ? Mr. Kirkness. The figure has been bandied about as the amount for advertising for 1 year and it is considerably off. Some years ago when the U.S. Government negotiated the contract, the Government decided that advertising was in the best interest of the Government getting more money for the sealskins. 263 When the contract is negotiated with Fouke, consideration is given in the contract for the fact that Fouke will advertise. Mr. Potter. And that is worked into the formula for computing the Fouke share ? Mr. KiRKNESS. Yes, that is correct. Mr. DiNGELL. I find myself hard put to figure out how advertising sealskins contributes to the conservation of the seal. Mr. KiRKNESS. It does not contribute to the conservation except you get more money. Mr. Pollock. It contributes to the sale of the furs. It brings more money to the Treasury and maybe then you can do more research. Mr. DiNGELL. I have been defending this from the conservation end and I come to the conclusion that maybe you are not as interested in the conservation of the seal as I thought you were. Mr. Pollock. Several of us would like to comment. I would ask Mr. Kirkness to respond. Mr. KiRKNESS. I think Congress itself asked us to do this in the Fur Seal Act of 1966. Mr. DiNGELL. Is there a specific section in that statute that tells you to advertise seal skins ? Mr. KiRKNESS. Not sj>ecifically advertise. Mr. DiNGELL. If there is, I would like to know about it. We may want to repeal it at this particular time and if it is not, you folks have some more explaining to do. Where in the statute are you direced to advertise the sealskins ? Mr. KiRKNESS. There is no specific place in the contract that says you shall advertise sealskins. Mr. DiNGELL. Where are you directed to take action by advertising seal skins? Mr. KiRKNESS. The Secretary is instructed to harvest, process and sell sealskins and, therefore, presumably, to get the most money for the product that is possible. Mr. Pelly. They are sold at auction, are they not? Is there any reason why you have to advertise like you were selling on the retail market ? That is an awfully large expense it seems to me All you have to do is send out a letter to all the fur buyers when you are going to hold your auction and that is all there should be to it. Mr. DiNGELL. It has always been my impression that you advertise the auction, but that you did not advertise the product. If I am in error on that, I will be glad to correct my judgment. Do you have a comment? Mr. KiRKNESS. Mr. Chairman, as I said, at the time the U.S. Govern- ment felt it was advantageous that Mr. Fouke, who was the dealer, who handles the sealskins, advertise these so they would bring the highest price. Mr. DiNGELL. I am of the impression it is not in the best interests of the seals. I have some question as to whether it is in the best interests of the Federal Government. I think that that quarter of a million dollars could be better spent by the natives than by the Fouke Co. or by Madison Avenue. If I am in error, I would like for you to correct me. If you folks are in error, go back to the drawing board and correct it. 67-765 O - 71 - 18 264 I would find myself very hard put to justify this sealing program to anybody, to my constituents or the people at large if you folks go on advertising sealskins to support this operation. I cannot see how the seal is going to be preserved by you folks adver- tising sealskins. I find myself hard put to understand how the Aleuts are going to be aj)preciably bettered by having you folks advertising sealskins and draining money off from the contract that could have gone into the pockets of the Aleuts up there. Mr. Pelly. Mr. Chairman, could we have a justification for this advertising submitted for the record so that we can find out on what basis they negotiated a contract? Mr. DiNGELL. That would be most welcome. Mr. Pollock. We will be happy to supply that. I think the basic premise is that these furs are desirable and they are sold on the market ; there is more money in the fund which will assist the natives more. But we can supply that, Mr. Chairman. (The information follows:) Justification for Fouke Advertising Under law (16 U.S.C. 1145), the Secretary of Commerce is to provide for the processing of fur sealskins and for the sale of fur sealskins, and the Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with any public or private agency or person for this purpose. 16 U.S.C. 1154(a) (4) specifically contemplates market promo- tion by the Secretary. The Fouke Company is under contract to the U.S. Govern- ment for processing U.S. Government-owned Alaska fur sealskins and selling them for the account of the U.S. Government. After deduction of the Fouke ^Com- pany compensation, based upon the contractually prescribed formula, the net pro- ceeds received by the U.S. Government are deposited under a special account in the U.S. Treasury. Congress appropriates funds to the Department of Commerce and they are in turn made available to the National Marine Fisheries Service to defray expenses of administering the Pribilof Islands and the related fur seal program including, as an example, the payment of wages to the native Aleut inhabitants who are employees of the National Marine Fisheries Sen'ice. The Ser\nce has considered fur seal advertising by the contractor as in the in- terest of the Government by serving to stimulate interest in fur seal, which in turn would be reflected in prices received from sales and thereby, the amomit of proceeds to be received by the Government. The current contract provides that the contractor will promote and advertise fur seal, and estimated promotion and advertising costs were included as part of the total estimated costs from which the negotiated contract price formula was established as the basis for payment to the Company upon sale of the fur sealskins. The Government-owned fur seal thereby bears an allocation of the Fouke Company's total advertising program and the Government, under the contract, reserves the right to review from time to time the Company's general program of advertising and promotion. However, the Company is not contractually required to submit each individual advertise- ment for specific Government approval before publication, and the Company does not receive direct payment or direct reimbursement from the Government for advertising expenses. Mr. DiNGELL. Well, we give the Japanese and the Kussians a share of the take. Mr. Pollock. No, sir; the Japanese and the Canadians get a share of the take and the Russians give them 15 percent as we do. Mr. Pelly. Has the price of furs not gone down since the depart- ment started advertising? Mr. Pollock. No, sir ; it started going down since the conservation- ists have been talking about not killing any kind of animals. Mr. DiNGELL. Do we give them skins or give them cash money or a percentage of the take or what do we give them ? 265 Mr. Pollock. We give them skins. Mr. DiNGELL. So we are not benefiting the seal and the aims of con- servation by giving our good friends, the Canadians, Russians, and Japanese a bigger chunk of money. Mr. Pollock. No; but if we harvested 50,000 or 60,000 skins and there was no market for them, obviously there would be no purpose in doing this. The Aleut population there on St. Paul and St. Greorge would derive no benefit whatsoever. Mr. DiNGELL. This gets us down to a rather fundamental question. As I read it, the title is conservation and protection of the North Pacific fur seals. Now, I do not find anything in there that says that this is to the benefit of the Aleuts. If I am in error on that point I would be delighted to have you cor- rect me. Now, would you like to cite to us, if you please, in title I relating to conservation and protection of fur seals under section 101 anything that says we are supposed to up the take to the Aleuts ? Mr. Pollock. We construe it. Mr. DiNGELL. Please do not construe it. Mr. Pollock. Under subchapter 2, section 1161. Mr. DiNGELL. Are you dealing with the code citation or the citation of the act ? I have the act before me. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, 16 U.S.C. 1161 and 1162 specifically deal with that and also 63 and 64. Section 1161 talks about the special reservation and the purposes. It says the Pribilof Islands shall continue to be administered as a special reservation by the Secretary of Interior (that has been changed under Reorganization Plan No. 4) for the purpose of conserving, managing, and protecting the North Pacific fur seals and other wildlife and for other purposes. Mr. DiNGELL. I am interested in you telling me where that directs you to advertise sealskins. Mr. Pollock. May I continue ? Mr. DiNGELL. Yes. Mr. Pollock. Section 1162, contracts, agreements, leases or permits for use of Government-owned property for specific purposes. This says the Secretary in carrying out the provisions of this sub- chapter is authorized to enter into contracts or agreements or leases with, or to issue permits to public or private agencies or persons, in- cluding the natives of said islands in accordance with such terms and conditions as he deems desirable for the use of any Government-owned real or personal property located on the Pribilof Islands. Mr. DiNGELL. That does not deal with advertising sealskins. Mr. Pollock. You are talking about what the money is used for. Mr. DiNGELL. Where are the directions in that statute? You are a lawyer. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, if you are searching for whether or not it says you shall or shall not advertise, it does not. Mr. DiNGELL. I am still curious to know where you got the authority in that statute to advertise sealskins. I am waiting, Mr. Pollock. 266 Mr. Pollock. The feeling— it was before I came abroad and it was also before when it was in the Department of Interior. Mr. DiNGELL. Let us understand one thing. I recognize you had nothing to do with the negotiation of the contract or making the judg- ment and you are sent up to defend it and I expect you to do your best and I expect that you are going to tdl us where you got the authority to advertise sealskins. Mr. Pollock. We think we have it under the general authority of the chapter to the extent that we increase the amount of money that we get into the fund from the sale proceeds. We have it available for municipal and other purposes. Mr. DiNGELL. The statute here is for the conservation and protec- tion of the North Americaji fur seals and not to advertise hides. I am waiting for you to tell me the authority. The general section gives you general authority to do the things that are specifically enunciated elsewhere and not to do anything else that comes to your mind. If we are going to take the assimiption that general authority gives you authority to do anything that crosses your mind down there, we might as well close the Congress up and go home and let you do what you have in mind, because we have been enacting general statutes for the freedom of the people and the dignity of the Congress for a long time. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, we were given the authority to operate the program, to administer the program and to the extent that the sales proceeds are increased, then to that extent we have the money available through the natives and for other purposes. Mr. DiNGELL. If you gave the natives that one-quarter million dol- lars you blew on advertising, they would have one-quarter million dollars more. I will give you authority to submit to us an opinion justifying the advertising for seals, but 1 am going to ask you a different question. How does advertising protect and conserve the fur seals ? Mr. Pollock. It does not, and I did not make that statement. Mr. DiNGELL. The statute says that is what you are supposed to do. Mr. Pollock. We conserv^e these seals under our conservation pro- gram ; and if we harvested the skin and they were not salable, there is no market for them, we could not get the funds for the program to provide for other purposes ; that is, for the natives. Mr. DiNGELL. That is an additional whereas and wherefore, but that is not the function of the statute. The function of the statute is to conserve the North Pacific fur seal. It is not to advertise seals and not to help the Fouke Co., and it is not really to increase the capital return and the income of the Pribilof Islanders. I was in the Congress when we passed that statute. You may have been on the subcommittee at that time, but it was not our intention. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, may I call your attention to title 16, United States Code, section 1154, the authority of the Secretary, and the agreements. One portion of that is subparagraph No. 4, utilize such quantities of fur sealskins taken pursuant to this section as the Secretary deems desirable for product development and market promotion. 267 Mr, DiNGELL. Well, it looks to me like we may \mve to repeal that section, although it seems to refer only to the use of skins themselves for promotional purposes. Mr. Pelly. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be well also to have submitted in the record the description and the amounts of promotion money, advertising costs, what magazines they went into, and just how this authority was taken in order to try to advance the price and sale and demand. Mr. PoixocH. How many years do you want to go back, Mr. Pelly? Mr. Pelly. 1966 it was negotiated into the contract. Mr. Pollock. From 1966 ? (The information follows :) Amount of total advertising cost allocated hy Fouke to U.S. Government-owned skins ^^^1^ $145, 648 1967 138,564 1968 160, 620 1969 161, .919 1970 127, 128 Advertising Media Used by Fouke Co. Under the provisions of the various contracts with the Fouke Co., the adver- tising approach for the forthcoming year is reviewed. The Fouke Co. describes the direction and media that will receive direct attention. Generally it is the printed media such as newspapers, and popular and fashion magazines, both in Europe and the United States. In the United States, newspapers such as the New York Times, Wichita Eagle Beacon, Chicago Tribune, "Women's Wear Daily, and Buffalo Courier Express have carried advertising. Magazines such as Time, Newsweek, Playbill, Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, and the New Yorker have also carried advertising. In addition, television appearances, radio interviews, and fashion shows have been conducted to promote the acceptance of Alaskan fur seal garments. The advertising campaigns by the Fouke Co. and an agency under contract with Fouke Co. are within the guidelines and approved budget estimates. Mr. DiNGELL. Let me ask, if you are going to benefit the Pribilof Islands', would you not best see that the skins were processed in the area and the islanders have an opportunity to get the economic gains from that activity as opposed to sending it to the Fouke Co. down in South Carolina ? Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, many years ago when I was in the Alaska Legislature, we had extensive hearings on precisely this point, and for the purpose of trying to move the industry from where it was, I believe, in St. Louis, Mo., but it is now in South Carolina, to Alaska ; and after the extensive hearings and after investigation of other people in the business, it was determined that the Fouke Co. has a unique capability for doing this that no other people can match. Mr. DiNGELL. Can you not take the unique ability up to the Pribilofs ? Mr. Pollock. They have chosen to try to do this. There have been a number of furs set aside for the natives on the islands to try to learn the trade and to try and tan and so forth, and they simply have not done it. They do not have the capability, and nobody in the fur tanning industry can match the quality of fur that is processed by the Fouke Co. That is the only reason we have it down there. 268 (After the close of the hearings, information was received by the committee describing the activities of the Fouke Co. with regard to the Alaska fur seals. The information follows :) Chapman, Duff and Lenzini, Washington, D.C., September 29, 1911. Re hearings on Ocean Mammal Protection Bills ; H.R. 6554, H.R. 10420. Hon. John Dingell, .. „ Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, House tom- mittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : On behalf of The Fouke Company, Greenville, South Carolina, I wish to submit the following information for the record in connection with the above-referenced bills. The Fouke Company and its predecessors have processed Alaska fur sealskins under contract with the U.S. Government for over fifty years. Accordingly, the Company is interested in the hearings which have been held on the above-referenced bills. The issues before the Subcommittee involve finding the best means of conserving and protecting valuable marine mammal resources. We would support a bill along the lines of H.R. 10420. With respect to the Pribilof Island program, the annual harvest represents the management control phase of the overall fur seal program. Qualified marine mammal scientists have declared and the history of the Pribilof program dem- onstrates that the annual harvest results in a healthy, productive population. Since the Alaska fur seal is a commercially valuable animal, we believe that no purpose is served by denying the rational use of a valuable product of nature. With respect to operations of The Fouke Company which may be of intere^ to the Subcommittee we desire to submit for the hearing record the following information : 1. Compensation. Pursuant to the agreement (U.S. Government Contract No. 14-17-0007-1111) entered into between the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Fouke Company on February 13, 1970 covering the processing and sale of U.S. harvested and owned Alaska fur sealskins from the annual Pribilof harvest for 1968, 1969, and 1970, the Company is compensated on a per skin basis for each category of sealskin sold in accordance with a contractual formula. For the last seven auctions the Company has received the following compensation from sales of the U.S. share. Date Net proceeds of sale U.S. Gov- ernment share Fouke compen- sation Compensa- tion as percent of net proceeds Number of U.S.-owned slni.pany in Greenville, S.C. The standard packing formula of 80 skins per barrel wag used again this past season, however at the beginning, on June 25, a substantial percentage of the harvest consisted of 4-year old bachelors which were of a considerably larger size than the 3-year old males. As a consequence, the first 2 blocks of 20 barrels (40 total) on St. George and the first 3 blocks (60 barrels total) on St. Paul were packed with 75 skins per barrel. Out of the total 632 barrels from both Lslands, 6 barrels were only partially filled to accommodate the precise division between countries. Following procedures which were used in past years to identify origin, sex and age of sealskins, we continued stencilling barrels as follows: St Paul Island- Barrel No. 1 through 1,000 Males. Barrel No. 1,001 through No. 1,500^ Immature females. Barren No. 1,501 through No. 2,000^ Mature females. St George Island — Barren No. 2.001 through No. 2,500 Males. Barrel No. 2.501 through No. 3,000^ Immature females. Barrel No 3,001 through No. 3,500^ Mature females. 1 No females were barreled separately this past season. Females which were inadvertently killed in the male drives (120 for both islands) were marked and pasked along with the males. BLUBBEK RESERVED FOR SEALSKIN PROCESSING During the 1970 season, blubber was selected for kenching in salt on St. Paul Island. The season's production of blubber was 276 barrels. Dairing the 1969 season's production 217 barrels remained in excess on the island. From this reserve 170 barrels were withdrawn to fill the processing requirements. The remaining 47 barrels will remain on the island with the 1970 production, leav- ing a total of 323 barrels of blubber on inventory. The total season's production of kenched blubber was barreled. No blubber was reserved on St George. Based on the formula of one gallon of blubber oil for every 16 male or 26 female skins (alternatively 3.5 barrels of blubber for 1,000 males or 2.0 barrels of blubber per female skins), the following table indicates distribution of the blubber for the season : Males (number of skins in Total parentheses) (barrels) Japan — - 22.145(6,327) 22 Canada .. — 22.145(6,327) 22 United States 103,314 (29,525) 104 Total - («,179) 148 When the 1970 production of sealskins arrived in Seattle, 2,000 skins (25 barrels) were removed from the shipment to be held in local cold storage for possible future research and development needs. The 8,760 sealskins held in cold storage in Seattle from the 1964, 1965 and 1966 harvests were withdrawn and shipped to the processor. The blubber required to process these sealskins with- drawn from cold storage (7,058 males and 1,702 females) is 22 barrels. To compute the 22 barrels of blubber needed for processing, the 2,000 male sealskins placed in cold storage were deducted from the 7,058 males. To process the 276 remaining 5,058 males, under the formula mentioned, will require 17.703 barrels, and 3.404 barrels for 1,702 females. The additional blubber requirement will be shipi)ed from St. Paul Island with the lt»71 production of skins and blubber. Note the 22 barrels are included with the total 170 blubber barrel requirement mentioned previously. One drum of slurry blubber was shipi^ed to Seattle to determine oil recovery from blubber removed by the fleshing machine. Results are unknown at this time. Byproduct Utilization This year a new five-year contract was negotiated with the Oregon Marine Products Co. for the sale of the seal carcasses from St. Paul. No proposals were received from other firms after bids were solicited. The conditions of the agree- ment are similar to those of the former contract with this firm. The Japanese organization (Mitsubishi International) which has the contract to use the fur seal carcasses from St. George, has not relinquished its contract, but for the second successive year the company took no carcasses. The St. Paul contractor had some difficulty with his plant operation and was unable to process several hundred carcasses. Because of commitments to the Alaska crab industry, the Pioneer Alaska Line was unable to transport all the ground seal meat in' two shipments. The M/V PRIBILOF therefore carried 197 tons of the frozen product to Bellingham, Washington. General Administration of the Pribilof Islands A team of scientists from the Virginia Mason Research Center of Seattle spent considerable time on St. Paul Island for the second consecutive year. This team conducted investigations on the feasibility of other — and possibly more humane — methods of dispatching seals. Findings are discussed in another section of this report. Discussions with the Alaska Department of Education are now in progress concerning the construction of a new school on St. Paul. It appears quite certain that the school will be built by force account labor, financed by the State on a reimburseable basis. Four teachers on St. Paul have returned for their third teaching term and three teachers are new to the Pribilofs. On St. George, two teachers returned for their second year and one local St. George woman received a degree in education from the University at Fairbanks and is now an accredited teacher on St. George. Total payment to the State of Alaska was about $180,000 during the 1969-1970 school year. Elections were held in November on each island, resulting in changes in Council presidents and other Council members. Construction ST, PAUL Eight new pre-cut homes were occupied beginning in September. Garages cannot be used until they are protects from fire according to code. Material to accomplish this was shipped on the fall trip of the PRIBILOF. The ninth house in this new housing site was also completed and occupied. The last large septic tank, serving the industrial area and staff quarters, was completed in the fall. The drain fields should be completed in 1971. Extensive road repair was begun after the sealing operation was completed Nearly all roads to the sealing grounds were completed, thus shortening the distance from the hauling ground to the killing area. Much was done for the Weather Bureau in transporting, erecting on site, and repairing a new pre-fabricated house. ST. GEORGE During the 1970 season 5 men were employed full time on construction and maintenance. This crew was supplemented as occasion demanded, such as times when it was necessary to pour concrete, haul fill dirt, etc. The construction crew was employed mainly in constructing a new tank farm for storage of gasoline and diesel oil. The gasoline farm consisting of three 10,000 gallon tanks is virtually completed. Footings have been poured for four of eight 25,000 gallon diesel tanks which are to be installed. Work was started on converting a portion 277 of the old dock warehouse into an electric and plumbing shop. The regular winter village crew is continuing work on this project. The construction crew also installed new doors on the Armco warehouse and placed the sewage treatment screen in its permanent location under the blubber house. One member of the construction crew (carpenler-helper) spent most of his time in constructing and installing outside ladders for fire escapes on the Com'sany House and various homes throughout the village. Railings on some of the stairways within the village houses were also installed . Upon the comi^eltion of the sealing season (July 31), workmen who had been engaged in sealing and blubbering became available and were assigned to im- proving the roads, hauling fill material for the new airstrip, painting houses and general maintenance work throughout the village. Tbanspoktation and Supply In February 1970, all three holds of the M/V PRIBILOF were lined with plywood in order to carry bulk gravel. The ship was able to carry 2,987 short tons of this commodity to the Pribilof Islands in four trips, in addition to 1,191 tons of other cargo, for a total of 4,178 short tons of miscellaneous supplies carried on the PRIBILOF in 1970. Southbound, in addition to empty propane cylinders, emnty helium cylinders and miscellaneous small items, the PRIBILOF brought to Seattle the 1969 catch of sealskins and blubber on the April voyage, and in September, she carried the 1970 season's production. The ship also brought to Bellingham, Washington 197 tons of ground seal meat wliich was in excess of the carrying capacity of the commercial vessel WESTERN PIONEER. The \v ESTBRN PIONEER made two trips to St. Paul to pick up a portion of the ground seal meat. Due to commitments to the crab industry, the vessel was unable to carry all the meat available on either trip. Reeve Aleution Airways, Inc. continued flights to St. Paul each Wednesday and continued the tourist flights from the end of June through August. Alaska Pudget United Tug & Bargo Co., under contract with the Air Force, de- livered 800,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 76,000 gallons of gasoline to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries on St. Paul and St. George Islands. The company also delivered oil and gasoline to the U.S. Coast Guard on St. Paul, a pre-fabricated house for the Weather Bureau on St. Paul, and a piece of heavy equipment to St. George. The delivering company was plagued with problems this year. TSvo houses were scheduled for delivery to the Weather Bureau, but one half of one was dropped and destroyed in hoisting from the oil barge to the landing craft. The other half of this building was returned to the manufacturer. Because of adverse weather and landing conditions, it took a week to land the heavy equip- ment on St. George. Beseabch Data studies by independent eeseaechebs Scientists from three institutions pursued independent studies on St. Paul Island in 1970. The principal investigators were Drs. Merrill P. Spencer, M.D., Director, Virginia Mason Research Center, Seattle, Washington ; Ke Chung Kim, Ph. D., entomologist, Pennsylvania State University; and Joseph Daniel, Jr., Ph. D., development physiologist, University of Colorado. Dr. Spencer, a cardiovascular specialist, was accompanied by Ann Van Goe- them, D.V.M., a veterinary surgeon ; Mr. Uorman Simmons, an electronics tech- nician ; and Mr. Charles Barefoot, a medical instrumentation specialist. The team conducted experiments of diving physiology and euthanasia involving 32 bachelor fur seals over a 4-week period. The experiments were planned jointly by Dr. Spencer and Mark C. Keyes, D.V.M., staff research veterinarian for the Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory. Dr. Keyes directed the team during the first and fourth week when experiments pertained to euthanasia by means of succinyl- choline injection or stunning and bleeding, and assisted the team during the sec- ond and third week when experiments, pertaining to diving physiology and sub- jection of seals to hyjwxic atmospheres of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, were di- rected by Dr. Spencer. Eight seals were surgically instrumented for electro- cardiogram, electroencephalogram, blood pressure, and blood flow. Half of these were used for diving physiology experiments followed by euthanasia by various means, and half were used for euthanasia experiments only. 278 Samples for blood oxygen and carbon dioxide levels were available and taken by means of instrumentation for blood pressure. Chamber oxygen was measured during hypoxia experiments. Diving physiology experiments were conducted in a tank, from a boat, or from a seaside landing. The rational for obcaining diving physio:ogy data was that it showed the natural capacity of the fur seal to with- stand high carbon dioxide and low oxygen tensions to which they were subjected in experiments of euthanasia by hypoxia. There is no question but that fur seals can support vigorous activity under water for extended i>eriods of time. Their ability to do this is not fully under- stood but is presently believed to be owing more to a higher packed red cell vol- ume, more eflBcient uptake of hemoglobin-bound oxygen by the tissues (oxygen unloaded at lower tensions; more favorable dissociation curve), greater toler- ance for oxygen debt by the muscle tissues, and other mechanisms, than to unique cardiovascular adjustments. Eight seals instrumented for telemetered electrocardiograms and electro- encephalogram were killed by stunning and bleeding; half of these were also instrumented for blood flow. Six seals, also instrumented for telemetered electrocardiogram and electro- encephalogram, were killed by gas-induced hypoxia ; two at rest and four after exercise (taken from a drive) ; half by carbon dioxide and half by nitrogen. Six seals were killed by injection of succinylcholine. Analyses of all the data are not expected to be completed until late December 1970 but preliminary observations indicate that, in general, the approximate times required from exposure to gas, injection of drug, or impact of club to ac^hieve death as indicated by zero blood pressure or flow, flattened brain wavea (electroencephalogram), and marked aberration of the heart potentials (electro- cardiogram), were 6 to 9 minutes for nitrogen, 6 to 8 minutes for carbon dioxide, 13 to 15 minutes for succinylcholine, and % to 1% minutes for stunning and bleeding. Dr. K. C. Kim began studies of fur seal lice in 1969. Although he found lice on pups both in cages away from the rookeries, it was not conclusive proof that the pups had been infested by lice that had overwintered on their mothers be- cause their mothers had been captured from the rookery where they had been in contact with other louse-infested seals. Also inconclusive was the recovery of three adult lice from a digested bachelor skin because these were no more than might have been recovered from an inanimate object off the rookery. The breakthrough came this past spring when Dr. Kim recovered over 70 nymphs from the digested skins of a female seal collected off the coast of Wash- ington. Nymphs were recovered from nine other skins of fur seals collected under similar circumstances. This evidence finally established that adult seals were the source of infestation for newborn pups, particularly the mother seal because Dr. Kim found the nymphs concentrated in the area of the mammary glands. Apparently, adult fur is not a suitable habitat for adult lice because no one, including Dr. Kim, has ever found significant numbers of adult lice on adult fur seals ; however, resting nymphs are able to over-winter on adults and subadults in close association with the skin and probably undergo a final molt to adult lice near the time of parturition when they quickly desert the mother for the advan- tage of a much more available blood supply of the pup. During the 1970 season Dr. Kim spent 1 week studying multiplication, growth, development, and behavior of lice on pups from the rookeries and on pups bom in cages away from the rookeries. Dr. Joe Daniel, Jr. has been studying the phenomenon of delayed implanta- tion in fur seals since 1965 when he came to St. Paul Island and incubated fur seal blastocysts in vitro under the influence of 34 different nutrients, hormones, and other substances. None of these stimulated the blastocysts to speed up their development. The next year he sent two graduate students, Messrs. John Cowen and Bela Gulyas, to measure the metabolic rate of fur seal blastocysts. They found that a fur seal blastocyst consumes an average of 8 millimicroliters of oxygen per hour, and Dr. Daniel concluded that control of the delay in implantation, in fur seals, did not lie in the realm of respiratory changes. In 1967, Dr. Daniel demonstrated accelerated growth of fur seal blastocysts by incubating them with specific protein fractions found in the uterine fluids of animals that implant rapidly. 279 In 1970. Dr. Daniel, assisted by Dr. Keyes and Mr. Dave Fly, conducted an experiment to measure the effect on blastocyst development of altering the photoperiod, or administering serial injections of progresterons. White- whiskered females, in groups of three, were subjected for 5 days to total dark- ness, peri^etual light, or 12 hours of Mght and 12 hours of darkness. Interpreta- tion of the resu'ts has not yet been completed. A distinguished scientist and visitor to St. Paul Island was William C. Dolowy. D. V. M.. Chairman, Department of Experimental Animal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine. Dr. Dolowy spent 1 week on St. Paul to observe and film research activities as part of a tour to evaluate the suitability of the program for a field training ground for graduate vet- erinary .students in the field of laboratory animal medicine. Dr. Dolowy was impressed with the adequacy of facilities and the diversity of research pursuits. PUBLICATION AND INFORMATION RELEASES Anas, Raymond E., and Alfred J. Wilson, Jr., 1970. "Organochlorine pesti- cides in fur seals." Pesticides Monitoring Journal, 3(4) : 198-200. Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory. 1970. "Fur seal investigations, 1967." U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 597. 1970. "Fur seal investigations, 1968." U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 617. Neiland. K. A.. D. W. Rice, and B. L. Holden, 1970. "Helminths of marine mammals." 1. The genus Nasitrema, air sinus flukes of delphinid Cetacea. J. Parisitol. 56(2) : 305-316. Rice, Dale W.. 1970. "Obituary for Gordon C. Pike, 1922-1968." J. Mammal. 51(2) : 434-435. 1970. "Long distance swimmers of the east Pacific gray whales." Pacific Search. 4(8) : 2-3. Wolman. Allen A., and Alfred J. Wilson, Jr.. 1970. "Occurrence of pesticides in whales." Pcstieides Monitoring Journal, 4(1) : 8-10. APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION OF PRIBILOF FUR SEALSKINS-1970 United States Canada Japan Total Skins Barrels Skins Barrels Skins Barrels Skins Barrels St George Island 4,145 25, 380 54 320 888 5,439 12 69 888 5,439 12 69 5,921 36, 258 78 St Paul Island 458 Total, both islands 29, 525 374 6,327 81 6,327 81 42, 179 536 Note: Standard packing formula used this season: St. George, 1st 3,000 skins packed 75 to the barrel, remaining season's harvest packed 80 to the barrel. St. Paul, 1st 4,500 skins packed 75 to the barrel, remaining season's harvest packed 80 to the barrel. Only 502 barrels are in shipment as 9 barrels were withdrawn to test 3 fiberboard shipping cartons, 2 contain- ing 240 skins each and 1 containing 239 skins. The 3 cartons are included with the regular season's shipment. 20 machine test skins shipped in July to processor and 25 barrels (2,000 skins) withdrawn to reserve in storage, Seattle, for research and develop Tient. Out of the total barrels for both islands, 6 barrels are partially full containing 38 to 71 skins under the standard pack. APPENDIX B AGES OF MALE SEALS COMPRISING KILL, PRIBILOF ISLANDS, JUNE 24 TO JULY 31, 1970 [Calculated from samples of canine teeth] Age St. Paul Island St. George Island Number Percentage of kill Number Percentage of kill 1,725 5 61 32 2 98 2,916 2,274 547 89 2 22,176 49 11,548 38 731 9 17 . 2 36.197 . 5.924 . Total. 67-765 O - 71 - 19 280 APPENDIX C ADULT MALE SEALS COUNTED, PRIBILOF ISLANDS, ALASKA, JULV 1970 Island and rookery Date, July— Harem Idle St. Paul Island: Lukanin 13 107 35 KItovi. - — 13 241 49 Reef 13 716 414 Gorba'tch - 13 385 178 Ardiguen 13 108 77 Morjovi - 14 352 80 Yosfoctini. - 14 791 203 Little Polovina 10 103 51 Polovina.... - -- 10 87 40 Polovina Cliffs 10 390 74 Tolstoi 11 570 115 Zapadni Reef - 10 106 29 LittleZapadni 10 325 66 Zapadni - H 664 255 Total 4,945 1^M6 St. George Island: East Reef ---. 14 102 55 EastCliffs 14 166 65 StarayaArtil 15 194 99 North. - - 14 516 175 Zapadni... 13 224 359 South - -. 13 264 524 Total ~ 1466 1,277 APPENDIX D INVENTORY OF U.S. PRIBILOF SEALSKINS FROM COMMERCIAL HARVESTS AS OF NOV. 29, 1970 Male Female Total 142 290 1,130 563 185 432 994 154 127 464 685 135 391 919 6,611 157 231 293 691 583 788 2,743 Tota In custody of the Fouke Co. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle storage. Total inventory 78, 962 2,000 80, 962 9,194 9,194 88, 156 2,000 90, 156 Appendix E Pribilof Islands receipts, expenditures, and payment to Alaska for Fiscal Year 1910 Gross receipts deposited to Pribilof Islands fund : Fiscal year 1970 $2,232,525.14 Less : Actual cost of administration : Fiscal year 1970 2, 676, 323. 50 Net receipts (credit). 443, 798. 36 Payment to State of Alaska for fiscal year 1970, 70 percent of $ Nil APPENDIX F PRIBILOF ISLANDS FUR SEALSKINS SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION IN 1970 FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THF. U.S. GOVERNMENT Total number sold D.D.M & F.2 Lakoda > Sheared < Date of sale Average Number price ■ sold Average Number price sold Average price Number sold Average price Gross sales Apr. 9-10 Nov. 2-3 .... 23.507 .... 16.215 $75.43 18,960 80.77 15,243 $78. 69 2, 262 82. 06 629 $48.11 49.35 2,247 343 $16, 99 23.89 $1, 639, 291 1, 290, 136 Total .... 39,722. > Computed on D.D.M. & F. and Lakoda skin prices only. ' Dressed, dyed, marhined, and finished. ' Fouke trade name applied to sheared sealskins of superior quality. * Sheared skins of inferior quality. Source: The Fouke Co. at Greenv He S.C. 281 Distribution Regional Director. NOAA. NMFS, NW Region, Seattle, Wash 1 Regional Director. NOAA. NMFS, Alaska Region. Juneau, Alaska 1 Assistant Director for Management and Services, NOAA, NMFS, Wash- ington, D.C 2 Resource Management Division. NOAA, NMFS, Washington. D.C 8 Marine Mammal Resource Program, NOAA, NMFS, NW Region, Seattle, Wash. 8 Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory, NOAA, NMFS, NW Region, Seattle, Wash 5 St. Paul Island. Alaska 2 St. George Island. Alaska 2 Experimental Fur Farm. Petersburg. Alaska 1 Seattle Marketing Office. NOAA, NMFS, NW Region, Seattle, Wash 1 Seattle Market News Office. NOAA, NMFS, NW Region, Seattle. Wash___ 1 Technological Laboratory, NOAA, NMFS, NW Region, Seattle, Wash 1 Master, MV Pribilof 1 Secretary of State for Alaska. Juneau. Alaska 1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subport Building, Juneau, Alaska- 1 Mr. Pollock. Why do you say that? Mr. DiNGELL. First of all, you are pulling the lucrative end, the processino; end, out of the islands; and, second, you are employing stateside people and employees from the Alaskan mainland. I await with some interest your explanation as to not only the dis- parity of the figures but also as to the question of policy as to how this kind of program is actually benefiting the Pribilovians. I am going to proceed, if I may, to another point. Are you taking females or not? Mr. Pollock. Normally we do not. Mr. DiNGELL. There was one year when you did. Mr. Pollock. There were several years when we did to reduce the population. Mr. DiNGELL. Wliy did you take females to reduce the population ? Mr. Pollock. Because the females are the ones that will determine the total population dynamics. It only takes one bull to service from one to 100 females. Mr. DiNGELL. Well, now, I note here that you killed females in 1956, 27,599, and I will insert this into the record. In 1957, you killed 47,000. Mr. Pollock. That is correct. Mr. DiNGELL. In 1958. it was 31,000. In 1959, you killed 28,000. In 1960, you killed 4,000. In 1961, you killed 43,000. In 1963, you killed 43,000. In 1964, again 43,000. In 1965, 16,000. In 1966, 10,391. In 1967, 10,096. In 1968-69 it was 13,000 and then you dropped to 200. I missed a figure somewhere, but anyway, in 1969 it was down to 230 and in 1970, it was 121. This also indicates that in 1970 there were 61 immature and 58 mature females killed during the season. In fact, barrels containing male skin identification tags were un- attached. If you are doing this thing officially, how come you are kill- ing females by mistake and what is the justification for the number of females killed in 1956 through 1970 ? 282 Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chainnan, fii"st I will turn this over in a minute to Mr. George Harry, the Director of the Marine Mammal Biolo^^ Laboratory, but during? the early period you mentioned we took the females to' reduce the size of the herd, to reduce it to an efficient size in conjunction with the availability of island facilities. AYe do not generally, if a herd is maintained at a certain size, we do not intentially take any of the females. Some of the young males, 3- and 4-year-old males and females are similar in api^earance. If a female is on the breeding ground, then she would never be in a place where it is harvested. We never take them from around the breeding grounds. The male, the 3- and 4-year-old males and the 5-year-old females for that matter stay around the edges of the herd. As a matter of fact, if the bachelor males, which are the animals w^e harvest, got in among the females, the big bulls would kill them. In- termittently, some females will get caught wnth the bachelor males, but they are not intentionally taken. I would like to give Dr. Harry an opportimity to respond. Mr. DiNGELL. I note here we compare the Alaska fur seal popula- tion births and deaths from 1941, the number of births has declined from the time you have been killing fur seals rather strikingly. The births have dropped from the first year you engaged in female kills in 1956. Mr. Pollock. That was the purpose of it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. They have dropped from 992,000 down to 306,000. Mr. Pollock. That was the purpose of taking these females during those years. Mr. DiNGELL. I am curious as to how^ we can call this good manage- ment. What was the reason that you had to reduce this population in such striking fashion? Mr. PoLix)CK. Again, I think it is proper that Mr. Harry respond because he is certainly an expert and I am not. However, the population was too large in the estimation of the ex- perts maintaining the herd. The way that you reduce the population is not to reduce the males, but the females. Mr. DiNGELL. That is a conclusion. Now, the statement is made the population is too large. On what basis do you make that statement ? Dr. Harry. Could I respond to that, please ? Mr. DiNGELL. Please do. Dr. Harry. At the time of the negotiations leading to the signing of the treaty in 1956, all of the scientists from the four countries care- fully examined all of the data available at that time on the fur seal population and came to the conclusion that the population was beyond and above the point of maximum sustainable yield. They came to this conclusion because the population had levelled off in the mid-1940's, and was no longer growing. There was an increase in the mortality rate of pups on land and there were fairly good-sized fluctuations in the number of pups born eveiy year. This was the basis for the decision and it was again a decision of scientists of all countries that in order to get maximum sustainable yield, we had too many animals and they should be reduced in number. 283 Now, the number that you quoted or mentioned, I think 992,000 in 1956 down to some other number, and I have forgotten the year you have used, we have found since then that the 992,000 was an exaggera- tion of the true facts. Mr. DiNGELL. Are you saying at that point there was an overestima- tion of the population ? Dr. Harry. Yes; this was an overestimation and the true value is close to 560,000. Mr. DiNGELL. Let me stop you at that particular point. How can you make a mistake ? You are overestimating the population by a mag- nitude of almost two. Dr. Harry. That is right, and the reason was that it was deter- mined that the method of marking the animals by tagging with a clip on the flipper was causing an additional mortality. Because of the way the population dynamics works out, you do not ^et as many tags back and because of that, you get an inflated population estimate. As soon as the scientists became aware of this, they immediately began to de- velop a difi^erent method. Mr. DiNGELL. When did this happen, what year did this happen ? Dr. Harry. What year ? Mr. DiNGELL. "WHiat year did this reassessment of the population of the seals take place ? Dr. IL\RRY. This was about 1960 or 1961. Mr. DiNGELL. 1961 ? Dr. Harry. 1960 or 1961 when the scientists first realized that the estimates were too high and began to develop other methods of esti- mating the number of pups. Mr. DiNGELL. You are telling us about 1961 they came to the con- clusion that you were having an overlarge estimate of birtlis. Dr. Harry. That the estimates were too large. Mr. DiNGELL. And I note in 1961 you were killing 43,760 seals and in 1962, the year after you came to this conclusion that you were not having as many births by a magnitude of two, you killed 43,952 females. It looks to me like you adjusted for your error by increasing the number of females killed by about 200. Dr. Harry. I said the scientists first began to be aware of this about 1961, and it took some time to develop a new method and check to see whether it was correct or incorrect. A new method is being used now, a difi^erent method, and this cor- rects for these errors. Instead of tagging with the associated mortality, we are continuing to tag at some times, in some years, but in most years instead of tag- ging and waiting for recoveries 3 or 4 years later, and this is what the problem was, we are now shearing the tops of the heads of the fur seals, and then making population estimates immediately during the year of marking, thus avoiding the mortality factor I previously mentioned. This is how it was determined after 1961 that, indeed, these esti- mates were too high, were inflated estimates. Mr. DiNGELL. Well, even after that when you found that you had half as many pups as you thought the following year, and I assume this represents the time which you completed some adjustments in your figures, you were still taking 16,000 females. 284 Dr. Harry. As Mr. Pollock said, the reduction was purposeful be- cause the scientists of all four countries agreed there were too many. It was a purposeful reduction. Mr. DiNGELT.. It was a purposeful reduction baped on an overestimate by two : the year vou found out you took 200 more than you did, the year before, and I assume vou must have corrected. The following year you took 16,000. The next year vou took 10.000. I would like vou to submit to me the average pelt prices for the years from 1056 to 1970. I would like to comnare that against the females killed. I have a notion that the biological judgment was not as sirrni^cant perhans as the price of pelts. Mr. KiRKNESS. There was no market for females when first har- vested, because there was no process developed. Mr. Potter. "Wlien did the market for females first open up? Mr. KiRKNESS. After we started to harvest females, then the process was developed, and it was some time in the early 1960's before a prod- uct, was developed that had public acceptance. Mr. DiNGELL. I am absolutely hard init to believe that you cannot tan a female skin as successful as you can a male. Mr. KiRKNESS. You can market it, but the process used for males was not usable on the females for the market at that time. Mr. Potter. So they just killed the females and threw them back into the ocean ? (Mr. Kirkness indicated agreement. ) Dr. Harry. This was not during the entire period, 1 or 2 years, and I forget exactlv which. Mr. DiNGELL. When did you develop the process for female hides? When was that developed ? Mr. KiRKNESS T will supplv that for the record. Mr. DiNGELL. I think that will be very helpful. (The information referred to follows :) Development of Process for Marketing Female Fuk Sealskins The first female fur sealskins were auctioned at St. Louis, Missouri, in October of 1960 under the trade name LAKODA. AVERAGE AUCTION PRICE FOR MALE AND FEMALE SEALSKINS FROM 1950-70 Number of Year Male Female Year females taken 1950 $95.52 1951 89.76 1952.... 104.99 1953 __ 71.73 1954 76.92 1955 94.14 1956 100.96 1957 80.23 1958 78.70 1959.. 101.49 1960 103.00 1961 87.31 1962 106.97 1963 117.12 1964 95.50 1965 110.07 1966 116.96 1967 85.26 1968 102.42 1969 , 90.28 1970 78.10 1950 .... 1951 .... 1952 .... 1953 .... 1954 .... 1955 _... 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 26, 977 47, 423 31,059 27, 634 $36. 05 4,296 26.52 1961 13,875 46.36 1962 24, 455 41.86 1963 42, 976 60.49 1964 15,983 71.72 1965 9,804 70.03 1966 ... 65.64 1967 10,034 52.69 1968 13, 095 45.11 1969 1970 ... 229 285 Mr. DiNGELL. You said it was in the early 1960's, but it was not before 1959? Mr. KiRKNESs. I do not think so. Mr. Potter. Let me ask you a few questions about the size of the herd. I gather from reading the material that you very kindly furnished me with, that essentially you try to maintain estimates of the size of the herd on the basis of how many pups are born per year; is that correct ? Dr. Harry. Yes ; the basis of the returns, how many returns you get from a given pup population, and you adjust this to get the maximum. Mr. Pollock. You have a very high mortality rate in your first and second years. Mr. DiNGELL. Do you have any population goal at all for seals on the total population from 1956 to 1970 ? Dr. Harry. Yes ; I do not have them all in front of me. Mr. DiNGELL. Will you submit them to us for the record, please, and give us what you have here ? Dr. Harry. We do have them, and they are easily worked out. I do not happen to have them before me right now. I will supply them to you, Mr. Chairman. (The information referred to follows :) Population Goal of Fur Seal Management Program The fur seal management program, as developed in accordance with the Fur Seal Treaty, is to achieve the maximum sustainable yield (m.s.y.). At this time we do not know precisely what m.s.y. is but we have made good estimates and through our management of the fur seal population we are attempting to give more precision to our estimates. Our initial estimate in 1955 of the m.s.y. was approximately 415,000 pups per year. We then began a herd reduction program to reduce the population to the number of females that would produce approxi- mately that number of pups. A subsequent estimate of the m.s.y. required a recruitment of about 480.000 pups per year. That estimate was based, in part, on data which were later found to be invalid and the 480,000 figures was rejectetl. The best present estimate of the m.s.y. is for a pup production of about 400,000 pups per year. EHiring the cour.se of the herd reed the number of females killed to 10,000, even though you had an increase in the number of population, although they were not up to the optimum levels. Now, I am finding myself hard put to understand why this number of female hides ought to be rotted and fed to fish under these circum- In 1966, you had 347,000 pups, and you only killed 391 females. Now, that apparent wisdom had begun to prevail downtown, but then I note here in 1967 you do not have figures on the total number of pups, but you killed 10,000 females. Here, you are killing 10,000 females without any figures on the birth. The same thing was true in 1968. You killed 13,000. Apparently, some kind of wisdom dictated that you ought to kill 3,000 more, even though you did not know the number of pups born. Then 'in 1969 you had 304,000, and you did not kill but 230 females. In 1970, you had 306,000 pups bom, and you killed 121 females. How do you justify this against the optimum which is 500,000 pups? In some years you are killing the females without giving us a knowl- edge of pups born, and in some instances you are doing it on a basis of figures on the magnitude of 2 to 20, and then you are doing it without the utilization of the female hides. I need some justification for this as a good conservation practice, and I am waiting to hear it. Dr. Harry. Again, I think with regard to the hides, most of these were used after the early period. Mr. DiNGELL. Let us assume for the sake of the argument a certain number of these were used. According to your own good management practices and your own reports here, you are telling us that you are killing females when you had not yet achieved your optimum population number. Dr. Harry. During the period from 1956 through 1963, the objec- tive was to reduce the stock of fur seals, and during this period the 287 number of pups did come down, and probably at the end of that period was close to, or perhaps a little below, the optimum number; probably a little bit below. On the optimum number it seems to me we estimate the optimum at 400,000 plus or minus 50,000. We were a little below that, and that is true. Then in 1964 the decision was made to attempt to hold the stock at that population because we needed information on how the herd responded at that population level. Mr. DiNGELL. You mentioned that you have come to a lower figure in 1969, and you said the optimum population of pups was 500,000. Have you been going up and down on that fi^re ? Dr. Harry. The l)est figure we have now is about 400,000. I am not sure where the 500,000 came in. Mr. DiNGELL. Your figure is 500,000 here in the year 1969. Have you gone down since then ? Maybe I ought to ask you to send to us the optimum population level, in the opinion of your agency. ISIaybe that has been going up and down also. Dr. Harry. There have been some changes. As we get additional information, of course, these things do change. Our best estimate is about 400,000. Mr. DiNGELL. Just a minute. You said, in 1969, 500,000. TVhen did you change that to 400,000 ? Dr. Harry. I do not know where the 500,000 came from. Mr. DiNGELL. I do not know either. Maybe you folks down there would do well to read your own reports. This comes from the annual report of sealing operations, 1969, Pribilof Islands, Alaska, prepared by the staff of the marine mam- mal resource program, dated December 31, 1969. This is stamped administrative use only. I hope that does not classi- fy it so you do not get the wisdom of your staif. Dr. Harry. Well, I cannot reply to that. Our best estimate, based on the best data that we have now is 400,000. It was probably a typo- graphical error. Mr. DiNGELL. I will let that pass for the moment, even when you take plus or minus 50,000, by the way I must tell you plus or minus 50,000 is sloppy administration. Dr. Harry. With an animal population it is difficult to get precise figures, for whales, fur seals, or almost anj^hing. Mr. DiNGELL. These are not whales, and they are seals, and you are counting them on the ground. Dr. Harry. If we could count them we would have precise numbers, but there are so many of them that we have to estimate it. Mr. DiNGELL. Interior count ducks down to a few thousand, and they have the whole of North America. All you have to do is chase these things around the Pribilofs and count them. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, these are Interior's figures we are talk- ing about. Mr. DiNGELL. NO A A has been in existence 11 months. Dr. Harry. We believe that the number of pups now is below the optimum and, of course, the harvest of the females was stopped in 1968. 288 In 1969, 1970, and 1971 there has been no harvest of females. We have been getting an unusual situation in that it appears that something is happening to their survival in the ocean. In a previous period when the herd was about the size it is now the population was increasing in numbers at a rapid rate. We got many more returns of fur seals into the harvest than we are getting now, so it appeal's that something is happening in the oceans to cause a greater mortality while they are at sea before they return. Mr. DiNGELL. Now, you are coming to a point that is precisely the same as was made by another witness at a time earlier. That witness indicated that something bad is happening to the sur- vival rat« of the Pribilof seal herds, and he indicated that it was this year. Apparently there has been something happening for a little while. Do you have any knowledge of what it is, is it pollution, or what is it? Dr. Harry. We do not know precisely what it is. We do know^ it is something that is happening in the oceans. It might be a temporary weather condition, or a temporary environmental condition that will correct itself. There could be something else, such as pesticides for example, work- ing on the psysiology of these things, or other contaminants, or it could be a combination of things. Mr. DiNGELL. Do yo have any research program to find out what is causing this ? Dr. Harry. Practically about all we can do to determine what is hapj>eining or what the situation will be, is just what we have done. The only way we can regulate it practically is to eliminate the kill of females. If it is a temporary thing, then in a number of years this relationship will change. Mr. DiNGELL. Any halting of the harvest of females will not tell you what is causing the death on the high seas. Mr. Pollock. I understand the natural enemies of the fur seal are the killer whales, and maybe sharks, you know, and it could be that maybe there is a prevalence of them in the particular areas where they have been. I think our figures generally show ballpark estimates of something like a mortality of 50 percent in the first year for the pups, and about 30 percent in the second year, which is really quite high. Dr. Harry. We do have ideas for attempting to determine whether, for example, some of these contaminants may be affecting the physiology. For example, from the information that we have just from our sam- pling program at sea, we are attempting to correlate the amounts of contaminants with pregnancy rates. Mr. DiNGELL. Are you saying that you are doing this at sea? Dr. Harry. Yes. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Pelly, did you have a question ? Mr. Pelly. Well, I simply wanted to ask to have inserted in the record with your approval, Mr. Chairman, a statement having to do with what one of the witnesses said last week ; namely, that he would be willing to see the management program for the seal herds eliminated, and leave it to the whims of nature. 289 Now, what I want to know is what do the scientists and the experts have to say about the need for control, or what would happen if we let it return to the whims of nature, if we did not have this program going. I do not want to take your time. It is late. But I thought, perhaps, Mr. Pollock, you could get some statements together from what our scientists or experts believe in this regard. Mr. Pollock. I am looking, Mr. Pelly. Mr. Pelly. On the floor, someone may want to eliminate the whole program, and I would like to know whether it would be a good thing or bad tiling for you who have studied the matter, what you scientists think. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Pelly, I am looking for a paper that might give part of a quick answer. Mr. Pelly. I would just as soon not have a quick answer. I would like an authoritative answer, and would like it supplied for the record. Mr. Pollock. The thing I would point out, and I do not see the document here, is that the English have a very serious problem with the herds where they have not made conservation harvests on their seals, and they are very overpopulated with many, many pups. And many of the adults have been dying from disease, and they are now embarking on a program of making a very serious cut in the total population. I do not find that particular document. Mr. DiNGELL. You are referring to an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the killing of 3,000 seals? Mr. Pollock. Yes. Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, the Chair will insert that in the record. (The information follows :) [The Daily Telegraph (London, England) Tuesday, Aug. 17, 1971] National Tkust Will Kill 3,000 Seals on Fabne Islands (By Clare Dover, Science Staff) Three thousand grey seal calves and their mothers are to be killed over the next three years on the Fame Islands, off the North-East coast, the National Trust has announced. The culling will start in the autumn of next year. The decision has been made reluctantly because the seals are overcrowded and living in "squalor." Seal calves become lost in the crowd and die of malnutrition, and adult seals have become aggressive. The shooting, which will take place during the next breeding season, will reduce the seal colony to half its present size of 7,000. The seals will be shot through the head with high-powered rifles. STARVED TO DEATH The colony has been investigated by Mr. Nigel Bonner, of the Seals Research Unit of the Natural Environment Research Council, and Mrs. Grace Hickling, of the Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle-upon Tyne Natural History Society. They say that 21 per cent of last year's Fame Islands seal calves died, largely because they lost contact with their mothers and starved to death. The calves could not obtain milk, which forms their only food for the first few weeks of life. "The general picture now presented by the breeding grounds on the Fame Islands at the height of the season is one of squalor. The carcasses of dead calves lie scattered on the mud and starving calves, many of them covered in purulent wounds inflicted by aggressive cows, lie moribund or suck weakly at each other. 290 AREAS OF QUAGMIRE Wallowing of sea^s has converted whole areas into "muddy qungmires devoid of vegetation." Heavy rain then washes away the mud, causing erosion of the relatively fragile soil cap. In 1056. about 750 seal calves were bom at the Fame Islands. Each succeeding year, the number has risen, until 1,956 were born last year. There is "no evidence" that the numbers will stabilise if nature is allowed to take its course. The Council of the National Trust savs it recognises thot its decision win cause distress to some me- ..)ers. The Trust has repeatedly refused previous requests from the Government for a cull in the interests of the fishing industry. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Roimtree ? Mr. RouNTREE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pollock, could yoii submit for the record a breakdown, either statistical or by whatever means you feel best, as to the economic impact that any ban on the import of seals or ocean mammal products will have in regard to the TTnited States ? If you have anv figures pertaining to international trade, our com- mitments under that and the impact it will have in regard to the other European nations, this would be helpful and give us a better deal of the situation. Mr. Pollock. You mean the economic impact on the importation of all mammals? Mr. RouNTREE. Because we have, in some of the legislative proposals, this type of a concept, banning the importation of ocean mammals and their bvproducts. I think it would be helpful in analyzing the pros and cons of this particular approach to see what the Department of Commerce can give us in the way of data. That is the only thing I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. I think the information counsel has requested will be very helpful, and it will be inserted at this point in the record. Mr. Pollock. Mav I inquire, Mr. Chairman, I finally found my copy of the London Telegraph article, do you have that? Mr. DiNGELL. Yes ; I do. That has already been put in the record. You are directed to supply the information that Mr. Rountree has requested, and it will appear in the record at this point. (The information follows :) Economic Impact of the Prohibition of Importation of Marine Mammal Products to the United States The economic impact of the prohibition of the importation of marine mammal products on U.S. firms relying on these products is diflScult to estimate because of the unavailability of data. Quantity and value of imported marine oils are reported here as follows in 1970 : TSUS CATEGORIES OF MARINE MAMMAL OILS, 1970 Item and article Quantity Value 177.3 —Seal oil.. -..- 370,150 $38,338 177.32-Sperm oil, crude- ..._ _ - ---- 49,629,135 5,246,835 177.34— Sperm oil, other than crude- _._ 5,978,543 677,395 177.36— Whale oil, except sperm.. 1.880 2,036 177.40— Other marine mammal.... ..- 36,851 26,077 494.0600— Spermacetic wax - 56,000 Total 56,016,559 6,046,681 In addition to the marine mammal oil products listed above, there are certain "basket" categories which may include other marine mammal products. These are as follows : 291 TSUS "BASKET" CATEGORIES WHICH MAY INCLUDE WHALE MEATS, 1970 Quantity Item Articles (basket category) (pounds) Value 106.7000 Containing whale meat 691,913 5167,428 196.7500 .do 677,467 279,037 107 7000 do 4,975,429 1,265,621 184 5510 do 48,126,380 8,744,562 1845530 do -- 502,984,000 37,712,548 184.5540 do 948,000 58,121 Total 558,403,189 48,227,317 TSUS "BASKET" CATEGORIES WHICH MAY INCLUDE SEALSKIN, 1970 Quantity Item and article (pounds) Value 123.0C85- Containing sealskins -.- - $133,277 124.1060— Containing sealskins... -- ^'^'^il 124.4000— Containing sealskins 1,981,370 124.8000— Containing sealskins 744,089 Total .- -- - 3,535,247 The "basket" categories listed above include other products along with marine mammal products (see attached copy of pages from the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated 1971). Identification of an individual product making up these categories is not available and therefore the proportion of these values made up of marine mammal products is not available. Other marine mammal products which may appear in other "basket" categories are considered to be of minimal importance. The best estimate based upon available information is that the declared total value of marine mammal imports to the United States falls between $10 million $15 million per year. It is not known what the economic impact of the prohibition of these imports would have on the importing firms involved since the magnitude of their total business and the proportion made up of imported marine mammal products is not known. Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated (1971) FOB USE IN classification OF IMPORTED MERCHANDISE FOR RATE OF DUTY AND STATISTICAL PURPOSES SCHEDULE l.-ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTS PART 2.-MEATS Rates of duty Stat. Units of Item suffix Articles quantity 1 2 SUBPART B.-MEATS OTHER THAN BIRD MEAT Subpart B headnote 1. For the purposes of this subpart: (a) The term "fresh, chilled, or frozen" covers meats even though completely detendonized and deboned, but does not cover meats which have been pre- pared or preserved; and (b) the term "prepared or preserved" covers meats even if in a fresh, chilled, or frozen state if such meats have been ground or comminuted, diced or cut into sizes for stew meat or similar uses, rolled and skewered, or specially processed into fancy cuts, special shapes, or otherwise made ready for particular uses by the retail consumer; and also covers meats which have been subjected to processes such as drying, curing, smoking, cooking, sea- soning, flavoring, or to any combination of such processes. Meats (except meat offal), fresh, chilled, or frozen, of all animals (except birds): 292 SCHEDULE l.-ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTS- Continued PART 2.— MEATS— Continued Rates ot duty Stat. Units of Item suffix' Articles Quantity 1 106.10 Cattle 3«iperlb. 6«i per lb. Beef, with bone: 20 Fresh or chilled Lb. 40 Frozen - Lb. 60 Beef , without bone - Lb. 80 Other(veal).. Lb. 106 20 Goats and sheep (except lambs) Z.D0 per Id. bp per lb. 20 Mutton Lb. 40 Goat meat— -- Lb. 106.30 00 Lambs Lb 20 Per lb. Z«iP"l'>. 106.40 Swine 0.70 per lb. 2.50 per lb. 20 Fresh or chilled Lb. 40 Frozen Lb. Game animals: 106 50 00 Deer (except reindeer) Lb 0.30 per lb. 60perlb. 106 55 00 Other -.- - Lb 3.50 per lb. 60 per lb. 106.60 00 Frogs ..-- Lb 3% ad val. 10% ad val. 106.65 00 Horses (except meat packed in immediate con- tainers weighing with their contents less than 10 pounds each) - Lb Free. Free. Other: 106 70 00+ Valued not over 30 cents per pound Lb 30 per lb. 60perlb. 106 75 00 Valued over 30 cents per pound Lb 10% ad val. 20% ad val. Edible meat offal, fresh, chilled, or frozen, of all ani- mals (except birds): 106 80 00 Valued not over 20 cents per pound ..Lb ..O.60perlb. 60 per lb. 106.85 00 Valued over 20 cents per pound Lb 3% ad val. 30% ad val. Sausages, whether or not in airtight containers: Pork: 107 10 00 Fresh... Lb 1.90perlb. 3.250pirlb. 107 15 00 Other --.. - Lb 1.6250perlb. 3.250 per lb. 107 20 00 Beef, in airtight containers Lb 9% ad val. 30% ad val. '107.25 Other...- - 6% ad val. 20% ad val. 20 Beef.... Lb. 40 Other Lb. Pork, prepared or preserved (except sausages): 107.30 Not boned and cooked and packed in airtight 20 per lb. 3.250 per ob. containers. 20 Hams and shoulders Lb. 40 Bacon Lb. 60 Other... Lb. 107.35 Boned and cooked and packed in airtight 30 per lb. 30 per lb. containers. 15 Hams and shoulders: In containers holding less than 3 Lb. pounds. 25 In containers holding 3 pounds and Lb. over. 40 Bacon Lb. 60 Other- ....1 Lb. Beef and veal, prepared or preserved (except sausages): Beef or veal, cured or pickled: 107.40 CD Valued not over 30 cents per pound Lb 30 per lb. 4.50perlb. 107.45 00 Valued over 30 cents per pound Lb 10% ad val. 30% ad val. 107.50 Beef in airtight containers 9% ad val. 30% ad vaL 20 Corned beef: In containers holding not more than 2 Lb. pounds. 40 In containers holding more than 2 Lb. pounds. Other: 60 In containers holding not more than 2 Lb. pounds. 80 In containers holding more than 2 Lb. pounds. Other: 107.55 00 Valued not over 30 cents per pound Lb 30perlb -60perlb. 107.60 Valued over 30 cents per pound - 10% ad val 20% ad vaL 20 Prepared, whether fresh, chilled, or Lb frozen, but not otherwise preserved. 40 Other - - Lb Other meats and edible meat offal, prepared or preserved * 107.65 00 Frog meat Lb 7% ad val 20% ad val. Other: 107.70 00 Valued not over 30 cents per pound Lb 1.80perlb 60perlb. 107.75 Valued over 3u cents per pound 6% ad val 20% ad val. 20 Lamb or mutton (excluding offal) Lb 40 Mixture principally of beef and pork Lb (excluding sausages and mixtures principally of pork or beef offal). 60 Other Lb 107.80 00 Extract of meat, including fluid - Lb 20perlb 150perlb. 293 PART 15.-0THER ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTS Item Stat, suffix Articles Units of quantity Rates of duty 184.10 184.20 00 00 184.25 00 184.30 00 184.35 00 184.40 00 184.45 184.47 00 CO 184. 50 184.52 00 40 70 184.54 184.55 00 10 20 30 40 50 SUBPART C.-ANIMAL FEEDS Subpart C headnotes 1. For the purposes of this subpart: (a) the term "animal feeds, and ingredients therefor" embraces products chiefly used as food for animals, or chiefly used as ingredients in such food, respectively, but such term does not Include any product provided for in schedule 4 (except part 2E thereof) or sched- ule 5 (except part IK thereoO; and (b) the terms "mixed feeds" and "mixed-feed ingredients" in item 184.70 embrace products whicn are admix- tures of grains (or products, including byproducts, obtained m milling grains) with molasses, oil-cake, meal, or other f dstuffs, and which consist of not less than 6 percent by weight of the said grains or grain products. 2. None of the provisions of this subpart cover fer- tilizer or fertilizer materials (see part II of schedule 4.) Bran, shorts, and middlings obtained in milling grains. S. ton — Free Beet pulp, dried S. ton 34^ per short ton. 220 per short ton. S. ton 120 per short ton. Straw (except flax straw and rice straw) S. ton 100 per short ton. Grain hulls, ground or not ground Cwt,.. Grain or seed screenings, scalpings, chaff ,orscourings ground or not ground: Of flaxseed.. - S. ton.. Other - S. ton. Soy bean and other vegetable oil cake and oil-cake meal: Linseed oil cake and oil-cake meal S. ton.. Other. - -- Cottonseed oil cake and oil-cake meal Lb. Other - - Lb. Tankage; dead Fish and whales; flsh and whale scrap, meal and solubles; homogenized condensed fish and wha'es; all the foregoing not fit for human consumption: Cod-liver solubles Lb — Other Fish or whale meat in airtight containers — Lb. Tankage S. ton Scrap and meal - -- S. ton Solubles -- --- S. ton Other. - --- — - S. ton Brewers' and distillers' grains and malt sprouts S. ton. Hay. 10% ad val. $4.45 per short ton. $4.45 per short ton. $5 per short ton. $1.50 per short ton. Free... 100 per 100 lbs. Free 10% ad val. Free 1C% ad val. 0.150 per lb 0.30 per lb. 0.30 per lb. 0.30 per lb. 6% ad val 20% ad vaL Free Free. 294 PART 5.-HIDES, SKINS, AND LEATHER; FURSKINS Stat. Units of Item suffix Articles quantity Rates of duty 123 00 Skins bearing wool or hair of a kind described in sub- Free Free. part C of part 1 of schedule 3, raw or not dressed, if suitable for use as furs without the removal of the wool or hair from the skins (except removal resulting in an unsought tesidve of wool or hair to processing of the skins for use as furs) and im- ported to be so used. Whole skins of lamb and sheep: 40 Caiacul, Shiiam, Krimmer, Broadtail, Mosul, No. Bessarabian, Astrakhan, S.W. African lamb, cross and half Persian, and other types of Per- sian lamb. 50 Other _ - ---- No. 85 Other _ - X 123.50 00 Furskinsof the silver, black, or platinum fox (includ- No 22% ad val 50% ad val. jng those of any fox which is a mutation, or type developed, from silver, black, or platinum foxes), whether or not dressed. Other furskins, raw or not dressed, or dressed: 124.10 Raw or not dressed Ffee Free. Whole skins: 05 Beaver - No. 07 Cheetah No. 10 Fox (other than silver, black, or plat- inum, including mutations therefrom) No. 15 Hare - --- -- No. 16 JagOar No. 17 Leopard No. 18 Lynx. No. 20 Marten _ No. 35 Mink, except "Japanese niink". No. 30 Ocelot No. 35 Otter No. 40 Rabbit Lb. 45 Sable-__ No. 50 Squirrel No. 57 Other No. 60 Other -.-. X Drassed: Not dyed: 124. 20 00 Plates, mats, linings, strips, crosses, or similar forms- ..- X 10% ad val 35% ad val. Other: 124.25 Beaver, caracul and Persian lamb, chinchilla, ermine, fisher, fitch, fox, kolinsky, leopard, lynx, marten, mink, nutria, ocelot, otter, pony, raccoon, sable, and wolf__ 3% ad val 25% ad val. Whole skins: Fox_ - No. Mink _.. No. Persian lamb and caracul. No. .Other No. Other X Rabbit No 6%, ad val 25% ad val. Other X 6% ad val 25% ad val. Dyed: 124.60 00 Plates, mats, linings, strips, crosses, or similar forms X 12% ad val 40% ad val. Other: 124.65 Beaver, caracul and Persian lamb, chinchilla, ermine, fisher, fitch, fox, kolinsky, leopard, lynx, marten, mink, nutria, ocelot, otter, pony, raccoon, sable, and wolf 4.5% ad val 30% ad val. Whole skins- 30 Fox No. 40 Mink No. 60 Persian lamb and caracul. No. 20 40 60 80 90 124. 30 00 124. 40 00 295 Mr. Potter. Mr. Pollock, have you all done any research on the re- lationships between the size and the health of the Alaska fur seal population and what is generally going on in the Bering Sea eco- system ? This is, I believe, a rather unique system. Mr. Pollock. Are you talking about the fur seals now ? Mr. Potter. Yes. Mr. Pollock. They migrate all the way down. Mr. Potter. I know that. Mr. Pollock. All the way down the western coast of the United States and beyond. Mr. Potter. "Wlien they come back to the rookeries, they are tied to the rookeries for a period of about 2 months ? Mr. Pollock. Well, it varies. The older harem bulls come in first, in the late spring, followed by the females. The younger males come in later. Mr. Potter. There is still a long space of time that they are resident in the Bering Sea. There is some indication that the increased herring fishery in the Bering Sea is having a substantial effect on the health of the fur seal |x>pulation because it is making it harder and harder for the females get enough of food within a few days of the islands, so the pups are starving. Dr. Harry. We do have a little bit of information on this and, of course, there have been tremendous takes of fish from the Bering Sea, and this is a changing situation. Mr. Dingell. I am curious if this is not a problem of overfishing. Dr. Harry. For the fur seals ? Mr. Dingell. Yes. Dr. Harry. We were curious about this also and, over a period of years, have weighed pups to see if there is any obvious difference in the weight of them. In other words, are they really going hungry ? Also, we have been checking the mortality of pups on land before they go to sea, to see if there has been any change. And there has been nothing obvious shown up in either. They are not skinnier. The good condition of the pups is an indica- tion of an adec[uate milk supply which, in turn, indicates that the fe- males are getting an adequate supply of food in the vicinity of the islands. There has not been any great change in the mortality of pups on land in recent years. As a matter of fact, if anything, it may have dropped a little. Mr. Dingell. Have you done any tests on heavy metals or pesticides in the carcasses of seals that have been sacrificed out there? Dr. Harry, Yes. Mr. Dingell. Have you seen any changes in DDT, cadmium, or lead, or any of the other heavy metals ? Dr. Harry. We, just got some cadmium analyses back and they had a fair amount of it. We have not had a chance to look at it. It is brandnew data. We have a good deal of old data on mercury and DDT, and fur seals have a good charge of both of these. As a matter of fact, most of the marine mammals do today. Mr. Dingell. Are you doing the study on a fairly regular basis ? 67-765 O - 71 - 20 296 Dr. Harry. Yes ; we have been doing this fairly regularly. We have only determined this last year. The first time this problem came up was last year so there is no' a big backlog of data. Nobody knew there was a problem until we decided maybe this is something we had better analyze, and we analyzed the fur seals for mercury, and they had a considerable amount especially concentra'ed in the liver. And this is the first indication of such a thing in this mammal. Mr. DiNGELL. How about the heavy metals, generally ? Dr. Harry. Cadmium has shown up in a pre'ty good charge. DDT and other pesticides are there. Mr. DiNGELL. AVould you submit us information on this point ? Dr. Harry. Yes. (The infonnation follows :) Residues Found IN Seals FEMALE FUR SEALS P.p.m . insecticide (wet basis) Pregnant sample WARF Percent Percent Estimated No. No. moisture fat DDE DDD DDT Dieldrin PCB's PCB/DDT 24 ... 0071121 7.45 85.9 1.17 0.67 0.74 0.27 2.15 3.00 53 ... 0071122 5.15 93.3 16.00 1.93 2.49 .19 15.5 6.22 66... ._. 0071123 5.28 94.0 2.91 1.00 .85 .12 3.88 4.56 145 ... 0071124 7.71 91.6 3.36 .91 .79 .35 3.59 4.54 161 ... 0071125 12.40 82.4 2.31 1.05 .63 .14 2.84 4.51 177 ... 0071126 9.95 85.7 4.99 1.23 .76 .16 3.81 5.01 178 ... 0071127 7.41 89.3 3.80 .74 .98 .28 4.68 4.78 186. ... 0071128 10.10 69.6 9.44 2.70 1.72 .19 7.05 4.10 188 ... 0071129 8.42 89.2 10.92 1.40 1.33 .20 9.98 7.50 236 ... 0071130 8.19 90.4 3.73 1.20 .89 .14 4.55 5.11 240.... ... 0071131 8.48 81.0 1.74 .64 .40 .12 1.69 4.23 246. ... 0071132 6.34 93.0 4.86 .48 .68 .06 2.98 4.38 247.. ... 0071133 7.06 89.4 3.27 .33 .42 .07 1.36 3.24 250 ... 0071134 5.59 92.6 2.82 .34 .46 .06 1.81 3.93 251 ... 0071135 6.88 89.9 2.84 .28 .43 .07 .81 1.88 255 ... 0071136 6.78 92.5 6.97 1.03 1.15 .16 9.93 8.63 271 ... 0071137 23.50 67.0 .78 .27 .24 .07 .66 2.75 297 FEMALE FUR SEALS WARF Percent P.p.m. insecticide (wet basis) Estimated Sample No. No. Moisture Fat DDE ODD DDT Dieldrin PCB's PCB/DDT Nonpregnant: 36_.. .. 0071138 6.59 91.5 6.04 1.07 0.79 0.42 7.28 9.22 42.. .. 0071139 6.21 89.2 1.51 .82 .41 .06 1.27 3.10 101 .. 0071140 17.1 79.3 3.69 1.22 .99 .53 5.90 5.96 111... .. 0071141 14.9 76.8 25.2 1.97 2.12 1.03 18.2 8.58 146... .. 0071142 13.3 79.7 6.20 2.09 1.96 .14 7.59 3.87 149. .. 0071143 9.30 88.2 2.14 1.04 .64 .29 3.37 5.27 198 .. 0071144 9.90 87.4 3.81 1.06 .60 .08 2.79 4.65 218 .. 0071145 8.45 88.3 6.59 .84 1.13 .08 2.48 2.19 256 .. 0071146 8.75 82.6 3.19 .51 .58 .10 1.95 3.36 280. .. 0071147 15.9 81.5 32.1 2.35 2.19 .07 3.44 1.57 282. .. 0071148 28.3 57.9 72.3 2.56 3.28 .05 16.4 5.00 301 .. 0071149 14.6 75.9 10.6 .96 .78 .02 5.55 7.12 303... .. 0071150 5.68 93.8 1.19 .22 .26 .08 .86 3.31 340 .. 0071151 25.2 53.8 13.5 .82 1.06 <.02 7.87 7.42 347 .. 0071152 11.4 85.0 13.6 1.88 1.64 .05 2.95 1.80 352 .. 0071153 19.1 72.3 8.16 .59 .96 .06 2.05 2.14 Aborted: 253 .. 0071154 If. 41 89.4 32.3 2.55 2.52 .09 3.09 1.23 275 .. 0071155 7.17 88.1 18.5 1.64 1.49 .15 2.02 1.36 341... .. 0071156 13.5 78.1 4.46 .57 .49 .04 1.34 2.73 366. .. 0071157 10.8 76.8 19.7 1.27 2.03 .11 18.2 8.97 375 .. 0071158 10.2 78.6 29.0 1.35 1.44 .09 8.97 6.23 MERCURY DETERMINATIONS FOR MALE FUR SEALS COLLECTED ON ST. PAUL ISLAND BY THE BUREAU OF COM- MERCIAL FISHERIES, SEPTEMBER 1970 Sample No. Mercury (p.p.m., wet weight) Age (years) Sample No. Mercury (p.p.m., wet weight) Age (years) Liver » Muscle 2 Liver ' Muscle 2 1 16. 0 . 7.5 . 9.0 5.5 . 11.5 . 11.5 Lost . 4.0 . 14.5 13.5 15.5 . 5.5 . 16.0 17.5 19.0 . 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 12.0 . 14.5 . 11.0 7.0 . 12.5 . 11.5 12.0 . 10.5 . 14.0 . 8.5 . 9.5 . 7.0 . 8.5 5.5 . 3.0 . 2 2 2 3 4 0.21-0.19-0.21-0.21 0.32-0.31-0.31-0.35 2 3 5 3 6 7 0.22-0.22-0.25-0.22 0.21-0.23-0.21-0.19 3 3 8 -.- 3 9 0.35-0.31-0.31-0.35 0.41-0.39-0.37-0.31 3 10 3 11. 3 12 3 13 14 0.40-0. 38-0. 42-0. 41 0.23-0.26-0.26-0.27 0.21-0.18-0.20-0.17 3 3 15 3 I Results of replicated analyses identical, so single value given here. 24 replicates. 298 [Reprinted by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service] Residues in Fish, Wildlife, and Estuaries— Organochlorine Pesticides in Fur Seals (By Raymond E. Anas ^ and Alfred J. Wilson, Jr.'' ABSTRACT (Samples of liver and brain tissue from 30 northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and 7 fur seal fetuses that were collected on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, in 1968 and off the Washington coast in 1969, were analyzed for organo- chlorine pesticides. These compounds were found in all of the fur seals and in three of the fetuses. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) were not detected. Of 30 samples of liver tissue from the seals, all contained DDE ; 21. DDD ; 24, DDT ; and 3 contained dieldrin. Of the 30 brain samples, all contained DDE : 5, DDD ; 4. DDT ; and none contained dieldrin. DDE was present in liver tissue from three of the fetuses and in brain tissue from two. ) introduction Pesticides are widespread in the oceans. Organochlorine pesticides have been found in the tissues of marine mammals in Antarctica (1, 4), Scotland (2), Canada (2), and the United States (A. J. Wilson, Bureau of Commercial Fish- cries, unpublished data.) This report records the amounts of DDE, DDD, DDT, and dieldrin found in the tissues of northern fur sea's, Callorhinus ursinus, col- lected on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, and off the Washington coast. Thousands of fur seals are taken each year by the United States on the Pribilof Islands. Alaska. The skins are used for fur garments, and the carcasses, minus the blubber, are ground and fed to mink. The liver and meat are eaten by residents of the Pribilof Islands. The U.S.S.R. takes seals on the Commander and Robben Islands, and some seals are taken at sea in research by Canada. Japan, the U.S.S.R.. and the United States. Fur seals migrate to the Bering Sea (to return to the Pribilof and Commander Islands) and the Okhotsk Sea (to return to Robben Island) during summer and autumn; they migrate as far south as Cali- fornia and Japan in winter and spring. Fur seals feed principally on small fishes and squids. Killer whales and sharks are probable predators. SAMPLING procedures Samples of liver and brain tissues were collected from fur seals in July 1968 on the Pribilof Islands, and in February and March 1969 off the Washington coast. Samples of blubber were not collected, but the concentrations of pesticides are usually greater in the blubber than in other tissues (2). Brain and liver tissue samples weighing about lOg each were collected from each of 30 seals and 7 fetuses. Tissues were kept frozen from the time of collection until analysis. Seventeen of the seals were animals of known age that had been tagged previously as pups. The ages of the 13 other seals were determined by counting layers of dentine in upper canine teeth. The fetuses were in their fourth month. 1 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory, Seattle. Wash 98115. 2 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Biological Field Station, Gulf Breeze. Fla. 32561. 299 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES Liver and brain tissues were analyzed for BHC, heptachlor, aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, toxapliene, metlioxychlor, dieldrin, endrin, and the o, p' and p,p' isomers of DDE, DDD, and DDT. Tissues were tliawed and mixed with anhydrous sodium sulfate in a blender. The mixture was extracted for 4 hours with petroleum ether in a Soxhlet apparatus. Extracts were concentrated and partitioned with acetoni- trile. The acetonitrile was evaporated just to dryness and the residue diluted from a Florisil column {3). The sample was then identified and quantified by electron capture gas chromatography. Three columns of different polarity (DC 200, QF-1, and mixed DC 200 and QF-1) were used to confirm identification. Operating parameters on Varian Aerograph 204 and 610D gas chromatographs were as follows : Columns: 5' x %" (O.D.), pyrex glass, packed with 3% DC-200, 5% QF-1, and a 1 : 1 ratio of 3% DC-200 and QF-1, all on Gas Chrom Q. Temperature : Detector, 210 C ; Injector, 210 C ; Oven, 190 C. Carrier Gas : Prepurified nitrogen at a flow rate of 40 ml/minute. A few samples were analyzed using thin-layer chromatography. Laboratory tests gave the following recovery rates: p, p'-DDE. 80-859'o ; p, p'-DDD (TDE), 82-95% ; p, p'-DDT, 91-95% ; and dieldrin, 85-90%. The lower limit of sensitivity was 0.010 ppm (mg/kg dry weight). Data in this report do not include a correc- tion factor for percentage recovery. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) as reported by Holden and Marsden (2) were not detected in these samples. RESULTS Some form of pesticide was found in all 30 of the seals examined, and 3 of the 7 fetuses had measurable amounts of pesticide (Table 1). The largest concentra- tion of any pesticide in an individual was in the liver of a male yearling taken on February 20. 1969 (5.1 ppm DDE). Tissue samples from males and females collected in February and March 1969 contained larger concentrations of pesti- cides, on the average, than those from males collected in July 1968, but some overlap occurred. Of 30 samples of liver tissue from seals other than fetuses, all contained DDE ; 21, DDD ; 24, DDT ; and 3 contained dieldrin. Of the 30 brain samples, all contained DDE ; 5, DDD ; 4, DDT ; and none contained dieldrin. DDE was present in liver tissue from three of the seven fetuses and in brain tit- sue from two. DDD, DDT, and dieldrin were absent in fetal liver and brain. 300 C»^C* « ; a o . .... -.^ C^esi ^^ CO OO CNi ^^ r^ C/- C/5 -J < UJ 00 ce. O o o a o r^ iTi r^ ^r r^ C^'"*^^^C^i^O^ ir> ^o> to ^* r^ u^ o> o> CO oo (Oosicsjo^ ^ri — cscsioor CO to to oo .— ' CNJ ^^ ^^ f — .— • CVt '^ CO^"OOtO . .-H .— I .— t .— t ■ ..^oooooooooes oooo« . . . .c oo ^ ■ ■ • o o o» o ^H CO in if> en cvj ^J" o 00 ^M ^ tOkr>cjr..o»in^Hmo»in ,CNj , cvj csj c^ oo ^^ ^" en to to to .-< .-» fn «— . to en in oo .-< ,ooo^ .Ooo CO UJ o o »— (^.it— tf— icoenroco^^' CO < CQ <: er>a> to to CT»0> ■ 00 ■ to to 10)0) o) o o o m , ■ _>< a> O) ' ' T3T3 '-'■O'^TJ O) O) O) to to to O) O) O) 0)0» to to ^- esi If) CNJ CNJCSI .Q ^to CM CM Evw «> U> lO to l£) S oo en — * ^ CM CM CNJ 3^5^*5^55^ OOOOOOC/5 I I I I I 1 I I -^^^^^55^5 3> Z3 ^ 3 q: a: cr O'O'O'O'O' « =3 3 =d =) 3 o I I 1 I I I CO S^ — 'N CD C3 •"■ ^* OO CDO oC» loj 0) « s» ■ t/1 c a> 11 ^5 f=5V :i£:u. — o o CO CO 3 E CD a. T^ o w a> •o-o o £ r* E o eo-— <— t CNJ ^ to a> a> u> to o> a> «o to CO CM CO t/5 00 . a> ' • • <» 3 •=> -a 3 ■^ fi ^ (O (^ =5 = & "^^ CO o < E Q» s — >s ■c o CQ oo X3 1 a> DO E c 0) s^ f o -D o QO a> DO r o o o. V crt a> CO «^ CO CO s, C/1 CO 03 -0"D < •«> ^^ o a o (Szic *" c« « 302 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Jerrold Forester and Johnnie Knight for their assistance in the chemical analysis and Clifford H. Fiscus and Hiroshi Kajimura for their as- sistance in the collection of the samples. LITERATURE CITED (i) George, J. L., and D. H. E. Frear, 1966. Pesticides in the Antarctic. J. Appl. Ecol. 3 ( Suppl. ) : 155-167. (2) Holtien, A. V.. and K. Marsdcn. 1961. Organochlorine pesticides in seals and porpoises. Nature 216(5122) : 1274-1276. (,?) Mills, Paul A., J. H. Onley, and R. A. Gaither. 1963. Rapid method for chlorinated pesticide residues in non-fatty foods. J. Ass. Offic. Agr. Chem. 46(2) : 186-191. (./,) Sladcn. W. J. L., C. M. Menzie. and W. L. Reichel, 1966. DDT residues in Adelie penguins and a crabeater seal from Antarctica. Nature 210(5037) : 670-673. Appendix chemical names of compounds mentioned in this issue Aldrin : Not less than 95% of 1.2.3,4.10,10-hexachloro-l,4,4a,5.8,8a-hexahydro' l,4-er!do-ej'0-5-8-dimethanonaphthalene. BHC : 1,2.3,4.5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane. mixed isomers. y Chlordane : l,2.4,5,6,7,8,8-octachloro-3a.4,7.7a-tetraihydro-4J-methanoindane, gamma isomer. DDD (TDE) : l.l-dichloro-2.2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethane ; technical DDD con- tains some 0. //-isomer also. DDE : 1 l-dichloro-2.2-bis ( p-chlorophenyl ) ethylene. DDT (including its isomers and dehydrochlorination products) : 1.1.1-trichloro- 2.2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethane ; technical DDT consists of a mixture of the p, p'- isomer and the o,p'-isomer (in a ratio of about 3 or 4 to 1) . Dieldrin: Not less than 85% of 1 2,3,410.10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1.4,4a,5,6,7,- 8,8a-octahydro-l,4-enfZo-e3'o-5.8-dimethanonaphthalene. Endrin :' 1.2.3.4.10,10 - hexach'oro - 6,7 - epoxy-l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-l-endo- en/Zo-5.8-dimethanonaphthalene. Heptachlor: 1.4,5,6.7,8.8-heptachioro-3a,4.7.7a-tetrahydro-4.7-methanoindene. Heptachlor epoxide : 1,4,5.6, 7.8,8-heptachloro-2.3-epoxy-3a.4,7,7a-tetrahydro-4.7- methonoindan. Lindane : 1. 2,3.4.5. 6-hexachlorocyclohexane. 99% or more gamma isomer. Malathion : diethyl mercaptosuccinate, 5-ester with 0.0-dimethyl phosphorodi- thioate. Methoxychlor : 1 l.l-trichloro-2.2-bis ( »-methoxyphenyl ) ethane. Methyl parathion : 0.0-dimethyl 0-p-nitronhenyl nhosnhorothioate. Toxaphene : chlorinated camphene containing 67% to 69% chlorine. [Reprinted by the U.S. Department of Health. Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service] OCCUBEENCE OF PESTICIDES IN WHALES (By Allen A. Wolman^ and Alfred J. Wilson. Jr.=) ABSTRACT {Organochlorine pesticides were fo^md in tissue samples of brain, flutter, and liver fram 6 of 23 gray whales. Eschrichtius robustus, and in each of 6 sperm whales, Physeter catodon, collected near San Francisco, Calif., in 1968 and 1969. Concentrations of DDT or its metabolites ranged up to 0.36 ppm in blubber tisxue of nrny whales, and 6.0 ppm in blubber tis'^ue of sperm whales. The highest dieldriti concentrations were 0.075 ppm in gray and 0.019 ppm in sperm whales.) Residues of the chlorinated hydrocarbon in.secticides, DDT and dieldrin, have been foiuid in various forms of wildlife, mainly in fatty tissues (5, 7) ; these 1 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Marine Mammal Biological Laboratory, Seattle, Wash. 98115. 2 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Biological Field Station, Gulf Breeze, Fla. 32561. 303 INTRODUCTION compounds are resistant to chemical brealidown by digestive and physiological processes in mammals, birds, and fish (3). Pesticide residues have been found in blubber, brain, and other body tissues of marine mammals in Antarctica (4, J2) and in gray seals, Halichoerus grypus; common seals, Phoc (1) Anas, R. E. and A. J. Wilson, Jr. 191/0. Organochlorine pesticides in fur seals. Pesticides Monit. J. 3(4) :198-200. (2) Anderson, D. W., J. J. Hiokey, R. W. Risebrough, D. F. Hughes, and R. E. Christensen. 1969. Significance of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues to breeding pelicans cormorants. Can. Field-Natur. 83(2) :91-112. (3) Gakstatter, J. H. 1967. The uptake from water by several species of fresh- water fish of p,p'-DDT, dieldrin, and lindane ; their tissue distribution and elimi- nation rate. Diss. Abstr. B27, 11, 3820. (4) George, J. L. and D. E. H. Frear. 1966. Pesticides in the Antarctic. J. Appl. Ecol. 3 (Suppl) :155-167. (5) Greenwood, R. J., Y. A. Grieehus, and E. J. Hugghins. 1967. Insecticide re.'idues in big game mammals of South Dakota. J. AVildlife Manage. 31 :288-292. (6) Hifkey, J. J. (editor). 1969. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology, and decline. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wi.s., 596 p. (7) Holden, A. V. and K. Marsden. 1967. Organochlorine pesticides in seals and porpoises. Nature 216(5122) : 1274-1276. (8) Koeman, J. H. and H. van Gendcren. 1966. Some preliminary notes on residues of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in birds and mammals in the Netherlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 3 ( Suppl. ) :99. (.9) Mills, Paul A., J. H. Onley, and R. A. Gaither. 1963. Rapid method for chlorinated pesticide residues in nonfatty foods. J. Ass. Oflac. Agr. Chem. 46 :186- 191. (10) Phillips, W. E. J. 1963. DDT and the metabolism of Vitamin A and carotene in the rat. Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 41 :1793-1802. (11) Rice, D. W. and A. A. Wolman. The gray whale Eschrichtius robustus: Life history and ecology. J. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 3 (in press). (12) Sladen, W. J. L., C. M. Menzie, and W. L. Reichel. 1966. DDT residues in Adelie penguins and a crab-eater seal from Antarctica. Nature 210(5037) :670- 673. (13) Tinsley, I. J. 1966. Nutritional interactions in dieldrin toxicity. Agr. Food Chem. 14 :563-565. (14) Tomilin, A. G. 1937. Kitv dal-nego Vostoka [The whales of the far east] Uch. Zap. Mosk. Gos. Univ., Ser. Biol. Nauk, 12:119-167. (Russian with English summary. ) (15) Zenkomch, B. A. 1937. The food of far-eastern whales. C. R. (Dokl.) Acad. Sci. URSS, 16(4) :231-234. (16) 1937. Esche o serom kalifornisskom kite (Rhachianeetes glaucus Cope, 1864). [More on the gray California whale (Rhachianeetes glaucus Cope, 1864).] Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR, Dal'nevostochnyi Fil., 23: 91-103. 305 < o o CO CO c/> a: UJ > < CD < UJ o o LkJ -a <. e 1. ^ 9 E >■ Q. <. CC CL a c ooooooooooooooooooooooo 'ooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo O^^C0«O C3^0^ oo o^ o 'o^o^ooooo ooo I w = o. I CO CL U C o a o a> a> -'E ooooooooo "oo oooooo ooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo C3 O O O O "^ o ■ ■ 'ooooo 'oesoo (=>(=) ooo ooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo OOOO '^ O ■ ■ 'OOOOO 'ooooooooo OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOJ^OOOOOOOOOO c = S o 5 o" o o o o o o o ES5 5SS55 E^ Es= 's; ;;;: I .'■'■— 'S — 'b'b'boo'bo'b'booooo'b'b'b'b'b'boc^o I 00 OO 00 00 00 00 O) 0> Ok 'O* ■ iO to to to tC tC to tD to '«£ ^^ — »«» imim .ui I tO«0 -tOlO ^^ O C«JCN4CMCO O < _^ ^, . inr^CNj to sssssssssssssssssssssss SSSSSoSaia)CT)£>22 22:2 22222222 OT3 CO ■♦-* E o O CO 00 to o OO 00 c o OO 9 o. c/> o .c ■e o V ■o o o c/> 306 ^oo^^o f— n— « C30 C3C300 OOOOOO o CD r^ earner en CO _l < c a> 3 o^ r-t <-4CSJ>^ -Iff ■ o^ o o o Csl ^ ^ 0«— ' ^ oo oo oo o* o> CT> V O^OOO O^CSI CO .— • csj cvj CM ro CO .— ti-H CMCSJ CNJCNJ 00 OOOO OO OO OO to to to to to tO O* CT> CT> 01 O^ CT> 307 MERCURY LEVELS IN HARP SEALS TAKEN FROM GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE Weight Mercury levels (p.p.m.) of seal Specimen number (pounds) Age of seal Meat Heart Flippers Fat Liver Pup: No.l. — 17Mlday 0.26 No.2 20H do - .19 No.3 22^ do .22 No.4 19J^ do (1) No.5 - 23 do 44 No.6 21 do 28 No 7 23 do .66 No.S---! 2m do... .41 No.9 20J^ do .18 No. 10 - 20J^ do .12 Adult: No.l 500 lOyears .40 No.2 600 7years .19 No.3 600 ISyears .45 No 4 500 6 years .20 No.S 500 16 years 28 No.6 650 15years 91 No.7 600 lOyears .29 0.16 0.36 0.79 .11 .18 .. .47 .18 (') -- .52 (') .28 .. .70 .32 .40 .. .67 .20 .27 .. .72 .36 .59 .. 1.37 .23 .40 .. 1.28 .09 .18 .. .56 .08 .11 .. .29 .30 .44 .35 7.38 .04 .24 .04 2.57 .18 .51 .05 6.34 .14 .37 <.01 8.12 .10 .04 .36 3.84 .88 1.10 .09 7.17 .09 .28 .11 3.70 I Results expected Mar. 16, 1971. Source: Inspection Branch, Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Ottawa, Mar. 15, 1971. Mr. DiNGELL. You can submit us some indication on the year-by-year basis, the best you have. Dr. Harry. This is brand new information, we have only had it for a couple of years. I could make one interesting comment about it, if I could, and just take a second about DDT in sea lions. In California we have a small fur seal population and, along with studies of these animals we are looking at some sea lions. This year we found that there was a high abortion rate among the sea lions. There had been a good number of sea lions aborted in recent years. In testing these sea lions, we found out that those that had aborted had from two to eight times as much DDT as those that had not aborted. We are not saying this is cause and effect, but it is giving us a little concern. Mr. DiNGELL. Well, the two events are contemporaneous. Dr. Harry. We are not sure it is causing the fact, but we are con- cerned, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. I think further information on that for the record Avould be very helpful to us. Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman, in further response to Mr. Potter's remark, I am sure you are aware of it, but the Interim Convention on the Conservation of the North Pacific Fur Seals has a paragraph in the beginning which says desiring to take effective measures toward achieving the maximum, sustainable productivity of the fur seal re- sources of the North Pacific Ocean so that fur seal populations can be brought to and maintained at the levels which will provide the greatest harvest, year after year, with due regard to their relation to the pro- ductivity of other living marine resources of the area. I guess the Japanese are very concerned that the fur seals have been taking a lot of salmon. Mr. Pelly. The Japanese have been taking an awful lot of Ameri- can salmon, too. I would be very appreciative if they would show their concern by leaving our salmon alone. 308 Mr. Potter. Do you have any information on the extent to which the fur seal poses a substantial hazard to the salmon fishery? Dr. Harry. I do not think it poses a substantial hazard to the salmon fisheries. They do take salmon when they become available. The fur seal, as you know, migrate along the coast, and if the salmon comes along, they might take it, but our food analysis shows this is not a large component of their diet. Mr. DiNGELL. Principally a herring feeder. Dr. Harry. Herring and anchovy. Mr. DiNGELL. The smallest species. Dr. Harry. Yes. Mr. Potter. I guess we have kept you rather long here this evening, but what troubles me is that w^hat we seem to be doing is increasing the enviromnental stress on fur seals and all marine mammals from a number of ways : the predator pix)'blem is increasing ; certainly, tlie contamination of the system they live in is increasing; the amount of food that they have access to is decreasing. Mr. Pollock. I do not know whether that is correct, Mr. Potter. Is their food supply decreasing ? Dr. Harry. We are talking f^bout in the Bering Sea where the take of the fisli in the Bering Sea has been tremendous. Mr. DiNGELL. And some species have actually been decimated in the Bering Sea by the overfishing problem that we have witih the Russians and the Japanese. INIr. Pollock. I am very well aware, but I did not know there was any shortage of food for the fur seals. As Dr. Harry explained the pup mortality on land is not increasing nor is their average weight decreasing. Mr. Potter. What this suggests, it would seem to me, is that we have to be increasingly conservative in any action we take that may have any effect on the population levels, where the population levels, for whatever reason, are going down. They are now 60 or 75 percent^ of what you think they ought to be. What I am suggesting is in that the exercise of discretion, the Secretary should be. vigilant to suggest to the members of the North Pacific Fur Seal Con\'ention that we may have to back off and maybe take less seals, if that is what is best for the population — not so much what is best for optimizing the cash i-eturn, as what is best for protectmg the herds. Mr. Pollock. I think our decisions have been a maximum sus- tainable yield of the herd and not the dollars we receive from them. However, it should be noted t^hat due to the polygamous nature of the fur seal, excess males can be harvested at practically any population level without damaging the population. I think our program is found- ed upon this premise. I think I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think you are aware that Secretary Stans and I went to the Pribilofs this year for the purpose of observing the harvest. He is quite interested in this and the conservation aspects of preserving this very wondei-ful herd. Mr. DiNGELL. Gentlemen, we have kept you too long. The Chair is delighted to see his old friend and colleague back here, and perhaps has kept you here for your very helpful and patient testimony. 309 Mr. Pollock. I have enjoyed the session. We really do appreciate the interest of the committee in this whole matter. Mr. DiNGELL. Gentlemen, we thank you. If there is no further business, we will stand adjourned, j)ending the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 6 :30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair. ) MARINE MAMMALS FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1971 House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Washington,, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9 :50 a.m. in room 1334, Longworth Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell, chairman, presiding. Mr. Dingell. The subcommittee will come to order. This is a continuation of hearings on legislation to preserve marine mammals. We are privileged to have with us this morning the delegation in Congress from the State of Alaska along with several of our colleagues in Congress. Mr. Begich, would you care to lead off for the Alaska delegation ? STATEMENT OF THE ALASKA DELEGATION TO CONGRESS Mr. Begich. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The legislation presently being considered by this subcommittee of the protection of the ocean mammals of the United States and the world is of great importance to all Alaskans. As you well realize, Alaska and its marine areas provide the habitat for many of the species this legislation will endeaver to protect and manage. It is my privilage and pleasure to be joined in submitting testimony for these hearings by the other two members of Alaska's congressional delegation. Senator Mike Gravel and Senator Ted Stevens. By coming before this subcommittee together, it is our intent to make clear our commitment to the task you are undertaking, and to confirm our unity on the direction such legislation should take. First, we share a commitment to early action designed to gather full information about ocean mammals and the programs which will insure the existence and enhancement of each separate species. The crucial need is for information which can lead to responsible pro- grams. In the outpouring of public information which preceeded these hearings, a common shortcoming was the drawings of judgments re- lating to various species of ocean mammals based on limited and often inaccurate information. The benefits of a comprehensive and fully funded study program cannot be overstated. Second, the goal of such a program should be to identify the precise species of ocean mammals which are endangered and to create conservation and management programs which solve the problems which brought the species to an endangered status. To allow general- ization of ocean mammal crises to continue will result in an inefficient (311) 67-765 O - 71 - 21 312 use of available manpower and funds to solve the most important problems. When the areas of most serious problems are isolated, the measures to provide protection should be complete and unyielding. Finally, each member of the Alaska delegation shares the view that special mention must be made of the needs of Alaska's Natives, espe- cially the residents of the Pribilof Islands. For years, certain species of ocean mammals have supplied the means of subsistence to many groups of Alaska Natives. The management of the species utilized for subsistence has been in all respects admirable, and we share the view that subsistence rights should not be in any manner diminished by new legislation. With specific regard to the Pribilof Islanders, their yearly seal harvest has been, in our view, unjustly maligned in information dis- tributed recently. This harvest, carried out under the policies of the Four Nation North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, has resulted not only in the progression of the seal herd from near extinction to a full healthy herd, but has also provided the only practical source of income for over 600 residents of the Pribilof Islands. Although more will be said on this topic by each member of the Delegation in separate statement, it is our conviction that the present treaty should remain unchanged along with the present successful program of management in this area. Mr. Chairman, this concludes the statement on behalf of the entire Alaska delegation. I appreciate the courtesy of the committee in hear- ing our testimony at this time. I wish to express my appreciation for the participation of my distinguished colleagues from Alaska in this hearing. At this time, Mr. Chairman, each member of the delegation would like to make a statement on this most important legislation. Mr. DiNGELL. You may proceed. Mr. Beoich. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. NICK BEGICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Mr. Beoich. Mr. Chairman, the statement which I submitted on be- half of all members of the Alaska delegation captures the essence of my separate remarks as well. I continue for the purpose of adding detail to those remarks and elaborating on the direction I believe should be taken to protect marine mammals. Alaska bears a special relationship to this legislation as Alaska provides the habitat for most of tlie species being studied here. The sea otter, polar bear, walrus, hair and fur seal and several types of whale are all found in Alaska and its waters. For years, the State of Alaska has recognized these ocean mammals both as an important natural resource and as a responsibility. I am aware that statements will be sub- mitted by the State of Alaska to these hearings, but I would also as- sure the committee of the State's commitment to the sfoals of the legisla- tion beina: considered here. I share in this commitment, and would offer the following comments for your consideration. First, the crucial need in this or any other area of enviromnental protection is for adequate information. Few of us can deny that we have come to the entire environmental issue late, and must strive to regain lost ground. At the same time, I believe it can be agreed that the 313 keystone environmental principle is the lesson of universality — the intricate relationship of all things to one another. From this, I am com- mitted to the notion that we must not allow our zeal to regain lost ground to overcome the need for comprehensive knowledge of the effect our actions might have. The reasoning is particularly appropriate to the work of this com- mittee relating to ocean mammals and its larger work relating to the protection of the entire marine environment. While it is certain that im- mediate protective action is essential in some areas and for some spe- cies, I believe the theme of your final legislation in the 92d Congress should be the gathering of adequate information for coming years. I believe it is particularly important to add a great deal to our knowledge regarding ocean mammals. I would be less than honest if I did not reflect my feeling that some of the information circulated regarding some marine mammal species in Alaska has given way to excessive inaccuracy and information. In the specific case of the Alaska fur seal, it was finally necessary for the most serious of these in- accuracies and exaggerations to be corrected by responsible public and private groups. I will comment further on this issue at a later point. Unquestionably, all those involved in this issue are motivated by notions of sound public policy. As with so many of the newly emerg- ing environmental issues, however, the desire to take prompt action is running ahead of the facts. In my view, this is the shortcoming of H.R. 6558, and is the reason that this bill cannot serve as the starting point for a comprehensive and responsible legislative program in this area. An examination of all bills introduced reveals that H.R. 10420, by the gentleman from California (Mr. Anderson) has an admirable commitment to the need for com])rehensive study and isolation of areas of particular concern. Title II of H.R. 10420 offers a framework which is responsible and practical. I indorse this proposal with a single exception, and that is the need for additional participation by the States. In undertaking: study and regulatory action regarding marine mammals, the Federal Government is certain to steer perilously close to the State police powers clearly established in the area of fish and game regulation. In my view, the way to resolve this issue is to fully involve the States, with a cooperative program of study and partici- pation. In the specific case of Alaska, I believe a substantial additional benefit exists in creating a cooperative State-Federal program. The benefit is that the information contribution of Alaska is very likely to exceed that of the Federal level as the study of ocean mammals has been underway by State agencies for years, while it is a much newer national issue. I suspect the same is true for other States as well. Mr. Chairman, I would summarize these first points at this time. I believe the early emphasis of comprehensive legislation should focus on the gathering of information and the isolation of problems for immediate attention. The formation of a long-term regulatory scheme should await the conclusion of the information gathering process. Second, I believe this process should emphasize the State-Federal relationship to a much greater extent than proposed in any legislation 314 beiiifr presently considered. Speaking specifically for the contribution Alaska can make under such a plan, I believe it would do credit to the goals this committee is pursuing. The second major area I wish to cover is the effect of this legislation on Alaska's Native population. I am aware of the knowledge the com- mittee and its able staff holds on this subject, and will limit my remarks accordingly. As I see it, there are two aspects of this concern. The first relates to the protection of Native subsistence practices as affected by this legis- lation. The second relates specifically to the residents of the Pribilof Islands and the annual harvest of seals in that area. Regarding subsistence practices, I think the committee will be in- terested in the following very revealing statement from Alaska- Natives and the Land, prepared by the Federal Field Committee for Development PI amiing in x4laska (1968) : Activities of food-gathering (and related subsistence activities) are important to probably more Alaska Natives today than when the U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia 100 years ago. While the extent of dependence varies by region, among communities within a region, and among families within communities, it appears that most village Alaskans subsist in some measure by hunting, fishing, and trapping ; by gathering berries and greens ; and, for some, by using animal skins in garment making; and by gathering driftwood, timber, or willows for fuel. In western and northern Alaska there is generally a greater dependence upon food-gathering activities than in other regions. The fact is, that in spite of intervening pressures of great magnitude, a cultural system centering on subsistence still thrives in some regions of Alaska, and ocean mammals play an important role in maintaining the subsistence level. I would make it very clear that it is incumbent on all of us to respect this situation and approach actions which would alter it with great care. On the other hand, I think it is clear that no endangered species should be sacrificed in the effort to protect subsistence rights. The goal, obviously, is to strike a proper balance by approaching the entire problem" with great sensitivity. Again, I find that H.R. 10420 contains provisions that most closely approach the desired balance and sensi- tivity. The matter of the Pribilof Island seal harvest is, in many respects, the central situation upon which the present legislative action is under- taken. By this time, it has become abundantly clear that the sincere dedication of those who publicized this issue was marked by an excess of zeal over basis in fact. By the time these hearings were undertaken, the extreme claims made concerning this seal harvest were resoundingly disproved by a series of objective reports from : the Secretary of Commerce, an admin- istration ])anel of nationally known veterinarians, the residents of the Pribilof Islands, and a coalition of internationally respected environ- mental organizations. I am aware that the committee record includes these reports but wish to cite and endoi^se them at this time. The result is that the facts of this situation have begun to stand out in reasonably sharp relief. The harvest is the essential element of the economy of 600 Pribilof Island residents. The general guidance and control of the harvest is under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention between the United States, Russia, Japan, and Canada, which is often cited as a model for international conserva- tion agreements. 315 The U.S. aspect of the harvest is supervised closely by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and is limited by sound conservation practices. The result has been not a decimation of the seal herd, but rather a dramatic recovery of the herd since the inception of the treaty. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would submit that the case against this treaty and the present aspects of the fur seal harvest on the Pribilof Islands has not been made, and both should remain unaffected by the present legislation. In conclusion, I would add only this: that my real hope is that this topic is not shelved after the efforts of this year in response to a sudden acknowledgement of a problem area. In this, as in every other area of environmental protection, the key will be our commit- ment to f ollowup our present actions. In the protection of ocean mam- mals, this key will be extremely vital. Thank you. Mr. DiNGELL. We appreciate your views, Mr. Begich, and thank you for your interest. Our next witness is the able Senator from Alaska, Senator Mike Gravel. We're happy to have you with us. STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE GRAVEL, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Senator Gravel. Mr. Chairman, in recent months there has been a much publicized campaign conducted by a group of people dedicated to the preservation and protection of ocean mammals. While I applaud their dedication to this serious problem, I take issue with the manner in which their campaign is conducted. Wide distribution has been given to photographs depicting the gory slaughter of baby seals and their mothers, captioned with misleading references to the annual seal harvest in the Pribilof Islands. As a matter of fact, these photographs were taken on the Gulf of the St. Lawrence in Canada — an area over which the United States has no jurisdiction. The "legislation proposed today, H.R. 6558, has a very grave sig- nificance to the State of Alaska generally, and the Aleut community in particular, and I think the time has come to look at the facts. The Fur Seal Act of 1966 charged the Secretary of the Interior with management of the seal harvest on the Pribilof Islands. Under President Nixon's Reorganization Plan No. 4, jurisdiction was trans- ferred to the Secretary of Commerce, and at present the NationaJ Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration supervises the harvest of approximately 50,000 seals each year. The harvest is limited in large measure to nonbreeding bachelor males between the ages of 3 and 4 years. Baby seals are not harvested. Females are taken only when it is in the best interests of the herd ; that is, in order to maintain a population level their environment can support. The harvest is conducted under the auspices of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention by international treaty between the United 316 States, Russia, Japan, and Canada, and is cited by historians as one of the most successful conservation efforts ever undertaken. In 1911 the North Pacific fur seal herd numbered less than 200,000 due to indiscriminate slaughter in the open seas. Under the protec- tion accorded by the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention their num- bers now exceed 1^3 million. . The Ocean Mammal Protection Act would terminate this historic treaty and call instead for the United States to seek an international agreement to stop all killing of North Pacific fur seals on land or sea. I submit that such a measure is totally unfeasible and would result in resumed random hunting of the animals. Fifteen of the world's most respected conservationist groups, in- cluding the American Committee for International Wild Life Pro- tection, the National Audubon Society, North American Wildlife Society, and the World Wildlife Fund are united in their opposition to this bill. As responsible legislators, we cannot allow the emotional aspects of this issue to override the scientific facts. We cannot accept blanket legislation of this sort. The field of ocean mammal protection is a vast one — each species deserves individual consideration. For example, under the bill, the preservationist policies for the polar bear, which although relatively rare is not on the endangered species list, would be the same as for the blue whale which is in dan- ger of extinction. How can the guidelines established for these two species be adapted to the thriving fur seal population ? We must distinguish carefuly between the bills introduced for ocean mammal protection. H.R. 6558 is the wrong choice. Its negative aspects far outweigh any good its sponsors hope to accomplish. It would not put an end to the slaughter of baby seals on the St. Lawrence — it would terminate the international treaty which brought about the restoration of the North Pacific fur seal herd and create obstacles to any future interna- tional agreement for protection of ocean mammals. In addition, it would seriously undermine the scientific gains made in the field of animal conservation and ]3rotection. The Marine Mammal Protection Act, H.R. 10420, is the more rea- sonable alternative. I particularly endorse the creation of a Marine Mammal Conser- vation Commission which would comprehensively review U.S. par- ticipation in international treaties relating to marine mammals and conduct a continuing review of the condition of these mammals, of methods for their management, and of humane methods of commer- cially taking the animals. It would make recommendations for additional measures for pro- tection of ocean mammals if deemed necessary and recommend revi- sions in the endangered species list when called for. An authority of this nature is precisely what is needed to bring about a balanced program for protection and preservation of the ocean mammals. Again, let me stress that we must not neglect our responsibility— we must work together, not divided on mistaken emotional grounds but rather united in our attempt to find the best possible solution to the problem of ocean mammal preservation. 317 Mr, DiNGELL. Thank you, Senator. Now we shall hear from the other distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens. STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Mr. Stevens. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning to comment on the ocean mammal protection legislation now being con- sidered by the subcommittee. I will confine my remarks to the impact of this legislation on the citizens of Alaska, and especially our Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut people. At the outset, I want to state my strong opposition to those provi- sions of H.K. 6558 and similar House bills which would terminate the Pribilof Islands seal harvest administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is my view that these measures are the product of a well-financed advertising campaign which has succeeded in dis- seminating a good deal of misinformation about the Alaska fur seal program. As you know, these ads have represented that the Alaska fur seal is in danger, that baby seals are slaughtered on the Pribilofs, and that the annual harvest is mhumane. These representations are not true. Furthermore, the enactment of H.R. 6558 in its present form would seriously endanger the continuing existence of the Alaska fur seal and would destroy the livelihood of the natives living on the Pribilof Islands. Repeal of the protection presently provided by the Four-Nation North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, as would be required by the en- actment of H.R. 6558 and similar legislation, would mark a retrogres- sion to the preconvention situation where seals were slaughtered indis- criminately on the high seas. Under the convention, the herd has progressed from near extinction to what is now a healthy, thriving population. To insure the continuing vitality of the herd, selective harvesting of bachelor seals is necessary. In this connection, I should emphasize that baby seals are not harvested in Alaska. All of the pic- tures depicting such harvesting were taken in areas not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Moreover, extensive experimentation, I am informed, has demonstrated that the swiftest, most painless har- vesting method is clubbing in the expert manner practiced by the residents of the Pribilof Islands. The Secretary also observed that the seal management program on the Pribilofs has been one of the most effective wildlife conservation and management programs in history. Mr. Stans' observations have been strongly corroborated in a report to the Commerce Department by a panel of six distinguished veterinarians selected by the American Veterinary Medical Association. I understand that the report — which concluded that the Pribilof harvest is conducted in a humane, efficient manner — will also be included in the hearing record. The leaders of many prestigious and knowledgeable conservation groups have also expressed the view that H.R. 6558 and other bills of this type are unsound in that they prohibit prudent management on the Pribilofs and require the termination of the Fur Seal Convention. In separate letters to President Nixon and to all Members of the House and Senate, these leaders stated that programs for the protection and 318 scieiitific management of marine mammals are being threatened by well-publicized and misguided efforts which, if successful, would de- stroy the operation of biologically sound activities conducted by State and Federal conservation agencies. The letters made clear that the "hands off" policy proposed in H.R. 6558 and S. 1315, an identical Senate bill, would severely jeopardize the efforts of responsible fish and wildlife agencies to manage their marine mammals programs in a scientific manner. Thus, the ability of these mammals to survive and prosper would be adversely affected. I respectfully request that the letters which I have just mentioned be inserted in the hearing record. Mr. DiNGELL. If there is no objection, it is so ordered. (The letters follow:) KODiAK, Alaska, June 5, 1911. President Richakd M. Nixon, The White House, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. President : We are writing in regard to the upcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission, to urge that the United States propose a ten-year international moratorium on the killing of all whales. The slaughter of these animals by foreign fleets— so common in the waters off Alaska— will surely lead to their extinction unless drastic measures are enacted and enforced. We are encouraged by the steps your adminstration has already taken to protect several species of whales. However, we believe that an international moratorium on whaling for at least ten years is vital if whales of all existing species are to survive. We respectfully request your support of such a proposal. Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas K. McLeod. U.S. Senate, June 7, 1971. Dear : Through a well-financed advertising campaign, a good deal of misinformation has recently been disseminated relative to the Alaska fur seal program administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service. These ads have represented that the Alaska fur seal is in danger, that baby seals are slaughtered on the Pribilof Islands, and that the annual Pribilof harvest is inhumane. These representations are not true. Based on this misinformation, S. 1315, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act, has been introduced to require that the four-nation North Pacific Fur Seal Conven- tion be terminated. If enacted, this measure would seriously endanger the con- tinuing existence of the Alaska fur seal and would destroy the livelihood of Alaska Natives living on the Pribilof Islands. Withdrawal of the protection presently provided under the Fur Seal Convention would make a retrogression to the pre-convention .situation where seals were slaughtered indiscriminately on the high seas. Under the Convention, the herd has progressed from near extinc- tion to what is now a healthy, thriving population. To insure the continuing vitality of the herd, the selective harvesting of bachelor seals that have not found a mate is necessary. (Baby seals are not killed in Alaska.) Extensive experimentation has demonstrated that the swiftest, most painless harvesting method is clubbing in the expert manner practiced by the residents of the Pribilof Islands. Seeking expert opinion, I asked Tom Kimball, Director of the National Wildlife Federation, and Dan Poole, President of the Wildlife Management Institute, for their views on S. 1315. Both of these men told us that this legislation is unsound in that it prohibits prudent management on the Pribilofs and requires the termination of the Fur Seal Convention. Representatives of other conservation groups are expected to express similar views in the near future. Not only is S. 1315 unsound from a conservation point of view, it is also unsound economically. The Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands would be deprived of their primary source of livelihood. At the same time, if the Con- 319 vention is repealed other nations could renew their pelagic sealing efforts, thus not only diverting income from the Pribilof Islanders to foreign nationals but also destroying the scientific management program which has restored the herd. For the^e reasons, I urge you not to endorse or co-sponsor S. 1315 or legislation similar to it. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me or have a member of your staff contact my Legislative Assistant Mr. John Katz, on Extension 530O4. With best wishes, Cordially, Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator. The Aleut Communfty Couxcil. St. Paul Island, Alaska, May 19, 1911. Dear Senator : On behalf of the 600 Aleut residents of St. Paul and St. George, Pribilof Islands, we are writing to you about a bill known as the "Ocean Mammal Protection Act" (S. 1315, H.R. 6558) which has been introduced in this Congress. We urge you not to endorse or support this bad legislation. If you have been told that this bill \x\\\ benefit the Alaska fur seal, you have been misled. Title III of the bill would bring about termination of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. This would seriously endanger the herd and destroy our only practical source of income. Why would anybody want to terminate a successful four-nation treaty which has brought the fur seal from near extinction to what is now a healthy, thriving population? Because a well-financed advertLsing campaign which plays upon the emotions of well meaning people has vilified our people and the Pribilof fur seal program, one of the most succes.sful international conservation pro- grams ever undertaken. Do not be misled into believing that baby seals are harvested on the Pribilof Islands, islo baby seals are ever harvested on the Pribilof s. The Pribilof Island program should not be confused with one ad- ministered by the Canadian Government in the islands of the St. Lawrence River where baby hair seals are hai-vested. Do not be misled into believing that clubbing the seals is inhumane. Extensive testing has failed to develop a quicker, more painless method of harvest. The Pribilof Islands are the sole breeding grounds of the Alaska fur seal. The seal si)ends most of the year in the open seas, migrating as far west as Japan and as far south as the Mexican border. Prior to the 1^11 treaty the herd had been reduced to about 120,000 because sealers indiscriminately hunted in the open seas. Since the treaty was entered in 1911 sealing on the open seas has been forbidden by the laws of the U.S., Canada, Japan and Ru.ssia. The herd is now maintained at a level of about 1.3 million. These countries abstain from taking seals on the high seas in return for a share of the annual regulated harvest of nonbreeding bachelor males. The Aleut re.sidents of St. Paul and St. George are employed in the annual han-est and in skinning and curing. These two communities repre.sent the largest aggregation of our people in the world. The legislation would require our people to disperse. It takes away our livelihood and gives us nothing practical in return. The bill would also take away from the fur .s-eal the protection afforded by the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and give it no practical protection. In place of the present convention the bill calls for an international agreement to ban all killing at sea or on land. We frequently stand on shore and watch vessels with Russian, Japanese and Korean flags fishing the waters of the Bering Sea. Do you believe that if the present treaty were terminated North Korea would agree to abstain from taking seals in return for nothing? The Aleut Community urges you not to support this very bad legislation. We enclose a copy of a resolution and petition of the Aleut Commimity Council which we have submitted to Senator Fred Harris, the chief sponsor of S. 1315, requesting that he withdraw the bill. Jason Boubdukofsky, President of the Aleut Co-mmunity Council, Gabriel Stepitin, Vice President of the Aleut Community Council. Enclosure. 320 THE ALEUT COMMUNITY COUNCIL, ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA Whereas, the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island is organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, as amended by the Alaska Act of May 1, 1936, and under its Constitution and Bylaws, and Cori)orate Charter, are authorized to do business ; And Whereas, in addition to a land base, which after one hundred years is finally being made pos.sible through the Fur Seal Act of 1966 authored by the late Senator Bob Bartlett. It is imperative that we retain our only source of income which is the seal industry ; And Whereas, through lack of knowledge of local people and conditions the author of S. 1315 implies that some one hundred fifty (150) men will become guides and rangers if they agree to stop sealing ; And Whereas, though the Harris Bill, S. 1315, may address itself to a general condition, it is detrimental to our way of life and future existence. NOW. Therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island, and on behalf of the unorganized Aleut Community of St. George Island, that they do not endorse S. 1315 because it will kill our only source of income without providing any practical alternative industry to sustain our people and future on the islands ; further, that they do not want to move or be moved off their islands. The undersigned residents of the Aleut Community of St. Paul strongly en- dorse the above resolution and respectfully request the Honorable Senator Fred Harris of Oklahoma to withdraw S. 1315 for it is detrimental to our very liveli- hood. If S. 1315 is passed, it could mean the death of the largest Aleut Com- munity in the world and we believe that this is not Mr. Harris' intention. We feel that if the Senator had adequate information of the Pribilofs, the Bill would not have been proposed. Senator Stevens. As further documentation for the position that I have taken, I would also like to insert certain additional data. One of tl>e documents is a news release issued by Secretary of Commerce. Maurice H. Stans, after a recent visit to the Pribilof Islands. Secretary Stans concluded his statement with the observation that : Ending the program (on the Pribilofs) would not be in the interest of a sus- tained seal population, the Aleut workers or the federal government. I repeat, if and when more humane methods for harvesting are found and satisfactorily tested, they will be adopted. In addition to the news release, I would like to insert an article printed in the July 1971 edition of NO A A, a publication of the Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. In this article, entitled, "A Thriving Herd," Mr. John A. Guinan points out that under National Marine Fisheries Service management, the Pribilof seal herd has come back from near extinc- tion. In addition, he describes the management techniques employed on the island and exposes certain fictions that have been widely dis- seminated about the seal harvest. Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, so ordered. (The information follows :) Conclusions on Methods Used in Harvesting Seals U.S. Department of Commerce, WasJiington, D.C., Julij H, 1971. Secretary of Commerce Maurice H. Stans today reported his conclusions on methods used in the harvesting of seals, following his return from a visit to the Pribilof Islands off the Alaskan Coast in the Bering Sea on July 8th and 9th. Secretary Stans went to the Pribilofs to observe fur seal management and conservation practices there, and to review harvesting methods in light of recent criticisms of the practices. 321 While there, he consulted with the following : 1. A group of six veterinarians named by the American Veterinary Medical Association to study the methods employed in fur seal harvesting. 2. Members of the administration of St. Paul, the major Aleut community in Alaska, located on one of the Pribilof Islands. 3. Representatives of the American Humane Association, the International Society for the Protection of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States, who were on the Island to observe the harvesting. 4. Representatives of the Canadian government with responsibilities for seal harvesting in Canada. 5. Members of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is responsible for the harvesting and preparation of the seal skins. "The issue is not whether we will or will not continue to manage the fur seal herd," the Secretary said. "The issue is how we will manage the seal herds at their optimum levels most humanely." The Secretary said present management practices were arrived at after the near extinction of the herd sixty years ago, and cessation of the internationally- negotiated management program now very likely would result in the same catastrophic effects. He said these could include resumption of high seas hunting of the seals, with indiscriminate slaughter, and a very high mortality rate of the pups on shore. "As a result of my meetings and my personal review of the situation," he said, "I can report the following conclusions : "1. There is no molestation or harvesting of the female seals, the pups or the male bulls associated with the harems in the rookeries. The only harvesting that takes place is of male seals three or four years old who situate themselves at a distance from the breeding herds. "2. Except for the fact that the operation takes place in the open, the method of harvesting is very similar to that which takes place in a meat-packing plant. The herd of male seals is removed about 100 yards from the beach, sorted into groups of from six to ten, and each animal in a group is then rendered uncon- scious by a quick blow to the head and immediately killed by bleeding. The entire process, including the skinning of the dead animal, takes about one minute. "3. Investigations have been conducted over a period of years to determine whether or not there is a more eflBcient method of harvesting. None has been found. The six veterinarians on the spot have been asked by me to make any recommendations for a more humane method of harvesting, and their report will be made to me upon the completion of the assignment. If their scientific studies establish that a better method is practicable, it will be adopted. "4. The annual period of harvesting and the number of seals harvested is determined carefully on a basis that will maintain the population of the seal herd at its optimum level. As a result of this process, the nimiber of seals on the Pribilofs is currently estimated at 1,300,000, compared to only 200,000 in 1911. There is no present danger whatsoever of extermination of the herd under these policies. "5. The harvesting of the seals is the source of practically all of the income of the 700 Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands. To deprive them of this income wou'd make them dependent on the government. The local officials make it quite clear that they want the harvesting to continue so that the residents can earn a living and that under no circumstances do they want to move from the Islands. "6. Any implications, such as those recently published, to the effect that baby seals are harvested, that harvesting is depleting the herd, that harvesting meth- ods are inefficient or inhumane, or indiscriminate, are totally unfounded. The crop of these animals is being managed and harvested under scientific practices just as domestic animals are raised and harvested. "Ending the program would not be in the interest of a sustained seal popu- lation, the Aleut workers, or the federal government. I repeat, if and when more humane methods or harvesting are found and satisfactorily tested, they will be adopted." Secretary Stans said the fur seal management program has been one of the most effective wildlife conservation and management programs in history. 322 Veterinarians' Views on the Seal Harvest U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., Septetnber 8, 1911. Secretary of Commerce Maurice H. Stans announced today that a panel of six distinguished veterinarians selected by the American Veterinary Medcal Associ- ation has found that the annual Pribilof Islands fur seal harvest is humanely and efficiently conducted. The Secretary early this year invited the team of nationally known veteri- narians, headed by L.. C. Roger Smith, Ohio State University research professor, to review sealing practices conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and to make recom- mendations, if possible, for improvement. Highlights of the report, released today, are : In the present operation, good management and supervision have provided humaneness. The Aleut sealers are continuously supervised, performing their strenuous, dangerous jobs "in a serious manner and without evidence of malice toward the animals." Animals were not forced to travel at a fast pace from the beach to the har- vest field, and were rested en route where it api>eared desirable. The harvest was confined entirely to male seals, generally in the 3-4 year age class. Baby seals were not taken. Clubbing is a rapid, highly eflicient and humane method of rendering the animal unconscious when properly performed . . . Clubbing, followed by exsanguination, constitutes painless, humane euthanasia. Quick, deep unconsciousness followed stunning, with no recovery of con- sciousness in the 30-60 elapsed seconds between the stunning and bleeding of the animals viewed by the panel. In all instances observed, the seals were dead when the pelts were taken. Rumors have been circulated that they are skinned alive. "I am pleased indeed that the panel found unanimously that the methods of harvesting seals cannot be criticized from the standpoint of humaneness and efficiency," the Secretary said. "This confirms my own observations at the scene during the harvest in July. I hope it will put to rest once and for all false rumors of brutality and poor con- servation practices being circulated by a few vocal critics. We now have the truth from a highly qualified and impartial source." The panel, which was on St. Paul Island from July 7 through July 14, offered several recommendations, which the Secretary said would be carried out, notably that despite the humaneness of the operation, the search should continue for more aesthetically acceptable methods of euthanasia. NMFS official observers confirmed that the Pribliof seal population now appears stable at about 1.3 million animals. Early in this century, open-ocean sealing had reduced the population to about 200,000. An international treaty was initiated in 1911 and the Pribilof Islands herd placed under the control of the U.S. Government. Under present international agreements, the NMFS supervises the yearly har- vest of Pribilof seals. The harvest, restricted largely to 3 to 4 year old bachelor males, is conducted by native Aleuts under the supervision of NMFS managers. Thirty percent of the pelts collected are divided between Canada and Japan in return for their abstinence from sealing in the oceans. After preliminary processing on the Islands, the sealskins are sent to a private company for final processing. Subsequently the furs are auctioned off to buyers from many countries. Over a period of years the profits from the sale of the skins have paid for the extensive research, administration of the Islands, the harvesting, various social benefits to the Aleut inhabitants such as education and housing, and still provided a net profit. Since statehood, the State of Alaska, by law, receives 70 percent of the net profits after all costs to the Federal Gov ernment have been deducted. A list of other panel members follows. ♦Bernard S. Portner, V.M.D., Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry, 100 Pergen Street, Newark, N.J. ♦William V. Lumb, D.V.M., Ph. D., Director and Professor, Surgical Labora- tory, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo. •Member, A.V.M.A. Council on Research's Panel on Euthanasia. 323 Leslie E. McDonald, D.V.M., Ph. D., Associate Dean and Professor of Physi- ology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Athens, Ga. *Alvin F. Moreland, D.V.M., Associate Professor and Head, Division of Com- parative Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. ♦Wallace M. Wass, D.V.M., Ph. D., Professor and Head, Department of Vet- erinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. A Thriving Hebd (By John A. Guinan) On the grim, mist-shrouded Pribilof Islands ofE the coast of Alaska, an annual ritual that predates recorded history is taking place once again. The Northern Fur Seals have arrived at the rookeries on these lonely islands. The snowdrifts along the rocky beaches and rough volcanic hillsides have not melted completely when, in late May and early June, the big breeding bulls begin to appear. Heavy with fat from the long winter's feeding, belligerent and full of fight, the bulls or "beachmasters" lumber ashore. Each establishes his individual territory — about 30 to 50 feet in diameter — which another bull enters at his peril. Mature male or "bull" fur seals are much larger than the females or "cows." The fur seal cows average about 100 pounds in weight, but the great breeding bulls weigh from 400 to more than 600 pounds. The yoimg of these fascinating creatures are called "pups." Soon it is summer on the tiny islands where no tall tree grows, but where for this brief season hundreds of varieties of wildflowers of rare color and beauty burst into bloom. About mid-June, the cows begin to arrive. Until this time, once their territories had been established, the bulls have slept or rested from their long sea journey. When the contest for their harems begins, however, there is no rest for the big beachmasters. Polygamous to an amazing degree, each gathers in as many docile cows as possible ; the number varies from one or two to a hundred, but the aver- age is about 40. Day and night, the air is filled with the bleating of females and young, and with the roars of the mighty males as each bull defends his harem against all comers. Battles between males are savage. From now until the end of the breeding season, the bulls live without food and get little sleep, gradually losing the layers of fat uith which they came ashore. Almost as soon as the harems are formed, the pups conceived the year before begin to appear, and soon after a pup is born the mother is bred again. One pup per cow is the rule, and the young are carried for an entire year before binth. Not all cows bear young each season ; the proportion is about 80 percent. The pups are precocious, their eyes wide open. They are active and have a coat of hair. It will be some weeks before any fur appears. They are entirely dependent on the mother's milk for food. The cow generally stays close to her youngster for several days, then leaves to go to sea for food. The mother may be away for a week, her trip taking her as far as a hundred miles from the rookery, but when she returns, the pup makes up for lost time. It takes on several times more milk than would a human infant of the same body weight — up to a gallon of rich, creamy milk at a feeding. The little stomach swells like a toy balloon as the pup drops off for a long sleep. The mother seal will feed only her own pup and, despite her lengthy absence, the miles she travels, and the thousands of pups in a rookery, she finds her own. Baby fur seals venture to the water at about four weeks. Even though they can swim at birth, they have very little endurance. Their first trips to the cold water are taken with trepidation. The cow seals nurse their young for about three months, and no human disturbs them. By now, the weather is taking a turn for the worse, and the pups are left abruptly to shift for themselves. Early mortality is high. Many pups succumb on the island before migration ; others are prey to killer whales or big sharks ; still more are lost in storms at sea. Yet more than enough yoimg seals survive each year to keep the herd at its maximum healthy size. Around the edges of the breeding rookeries range the younger bulls, varying in age from six to eight years but not yet strong enough to compete with the fully matured beachmasters. Now and then they may steal a wayward wife or two, or even take over the harem of a disabled monarch. But most of the ♦Member, A.V.M.A. Council on Research's Panel on Euthanasia. 324 younger bulls await the end of the active breeding season when the young unbred females appear on the shore to join their first harem. And whUe all this activity goes on, the younger male seals, up to six years of age — known as "bachelors" — congregate in their own area nearby. It is from these males that the annual harvest of fur seal skins is taken, primarily from three and four-year old animals. Because the number of males and females at birth is approximately the same, and because the breeding bulls are so polyga- mous, many of these bachelors are surplus ,to maintaining the population of the herd. , ^ Removing bachelors from the hauling grounds is comparatively easy and does not disturb seals in the breeding rookeries. The weeks from late June until early August find the Aleut sealers on the hauling ground each morning at daybreak. The bachelor seals are driven a short distance inland from the beaches and sorted into progressively smaller groups or "pods," until only those to be harvested remain on the grounds. The seals are dispatched by a single blow to the head with a long club, immediately-followed by sticking the heart. It may look cruel, but it does render a quick death. In fact, no quicker or more eflicient way has been found to kill the animals in spite of a great amount of research over the past three years to find another method. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which administers the Pribilof Island Fur Seal Program, continues to seek an alternative method of disi>atching the animals and this year has a six- man team of consultants referred by the American Veterinary Medical Associa- tion studying the problem on the islands. After the pelts are taken, they are transported to a processing plant on the islands where they are cooled and washed, and the fat or blubber is removed. The pelts are then cured in brine ; when this process is complete, they are packed in wooden barrels. Fifteen percent of all skins taken by the United States go to Japan and an- other 15 percent to Canada, under terms of an international treaty. In return for a share of the skins, Japan and Canada refrain from what is called "pelagic" — sealing — that is, taking seals at sea. Pelagic sealing is a wasteful process, because the sex or age of seals is most diflScult to determine when they are in the water, and because many animals are merely wounded and lost. The Soviet Union harvests fur seals on the Commander Islands and Robben Island and has the same percentage arrangement with Japan and Canada. Repre- sentatives of the four nations meet annually under terms of the Interim Con- vention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. The Alaska fur seal herd, the world's largest, today nvunbers some 1.3 mil- lion animals. Early in this century, the seals faced extinction as the population declined to about 200,000. Since then, under the sound wildlife management prac- tiecs of the NMFS (formerly the Buerau of Commercial Fisheries), the herd has increased and stabilized. Scientists determine how many seals can be taken each year without endangering the population, and the kill is limited to that number. The restoration of the herd has been hailed throughout the world as an outstanding achievement in wildlife management and conservation. NMFS scientists and technicians travel to the Pribilofs to supervise the annual harvest. They join the year-round and temporary Aleut employees who work on all phases of the harvest. Sealing and related services are the only real employ- ment available to the people of the islands. The inhabitants are Aleuts, a people said to have been taken to the Pribilofs to harvest seals for the Russians shortly after the islands were discovered. They are generally somewhat shorter than their fellow Americans in the "Lower 48" and somewhat stockier in build. They are not Eskimos, and maintain they are a separate race. Some of the present residents can trace their ancestry back for 180 years ; more than 95 percent were born on the Pribilofs. St. Paul, the larger of the two inhabited islands, is home to about 400 residents. Compared to many towns in Alaska, it has excellent physical facilities — reliable electrical service, pure water, a volunter fire department and a sewer system. The frame homes are arranged on streets, and new homes may soon outnumber the older residences. The Aleuts are keenly aware of the importance of sealing, because it is their primary source of employment except for the relatively few service and main- tenance jobs. There is no agriculture. St. Paul has several local businesses. There are four cafes, or refreshment stands, two movie houses, several taxis or rental cars, and one intermittent barber shop. Since 1962, all workers employed by the United States have received standard government wages in accordance with the work performed and the period for which they were employed. 325 The Aleuts are full-fledged U.S. citizens who vote in local, state, and national elections. They all speak English, pay taxes, and yoiing men are subject to the draft. Elementary school education is available, but for a high school education youngsters must go to the mainland. Residents of the Pribilofs do not yet have telephones or television, but prac- tically every family has at least one short-wave and long-wave radio. Many homes are equipped with citizens-band short-wave radios which substitute for tele- phones, except that there is no privacy. With these radios, they can communicate with each other on St. Paul and with friends and relatives on St. George, the other occupied island. The story is told of an Aleut lady who wanted to have a semi-private chat with a friend at the other end of the village via the citzens- band radio, so she whispered. A small herd of wild reindeer roams St. Paul Island ; and bird lovers come from all over the world, equipped with cameras and binoculars, to see the tufted puflSns, the niurres, the kittiwakes, the pelagic cormorants, and many other species. And each year, the seals return, in a migration that has continued for eons. The Truth About the U.S. Fur Seals FICTION The U.S. kills baby seals on the Pribilof Islands. FACT The U.S. does not kill baby seals on the Pribilofs or anywhere else. Misleading advertisements have used pictures of a Canadian harvest of a different species of seal. fiction The U.S. seal harvest takes place on the ice. FACT The U.S. harvest takes place on land a short distance from the rookeries where animals can be carefully selected for sex and age. FICTION Clubs are used because it's the cheapest way to kill the animals. FACT Scientific evidence has shown that clubbing and sticking the heart with a sharp knife is the quickest and most humane way known to dispatch the seals. FICTION At the rate we are killing them the last seal will soon be gone. FACT The Pribilof Island seal herds are scientifically managed to maintain the herd at its stabilized population of about 1.3 million animals. That is close to the number which will provide the greatest annual harvest. Seals are skinned alive. FICTION FACT There is no possibility that the animals could be alive or could recover after being struck with the club and the heart stuck with a knife. FICTION Clubbing and stabbing are cruel. FACT The method is consistent with current humane slaughter practices. The United States refuses to use a less effective method merely for the sake of appearances. 326 Senator Stevens. Not only is H.R. 6558 unsound from a conserva- tion point of view, it is also unsound economically. The Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands would be deprived of their primary source ot livelihood. At the same time, if the convention is repealed, it is very likely that other nations would renew their pelagic sealing efforts, thus not only diverting income from the Pribilof Islanders to foreign nationals but also destroying the scientific management program which has restored the herd. . The cogency of these observations is unaerlined in a letter to all Congressmen and Senators and a resolution in which the 600 Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands have expressed strong opposition to H.R. 6558 and S. 1315. 1 respectfully request that these documents also be included in the hearing record. As these statements indicate, the residents of the Pribilofs are unanimous in their belief that the bills which I have just mentioned are unsound from both an ecological and an economic point of view. I would also like to address myself briefly to certain other matters associated with ocean mammal legislation. It seems to me that any legislative proposal which the subcommittee adopts should include an exemption which would permit Alaska Natives to continue to hunt ocean mammals, and especially whales, for subsistence purposes. This suggestion is premised on my firm belief that these activities, which yield an important portion of the nutritional requirements of many Natives living along the coast, would not jeopardize the continuing existence of whales and other ocean mammals. Rather, I believe that the present scarcity of such animals is the product of mass killing for commercial purposes by the nationals of certain foreign countries. Alaska Natives have traditionally been good conservationists, and I am concerned that one of their most important sources of food will not be jeopardized by the imprudent activities of other people. In this connection, I should mention that I have been advised by Mr. John W. Townsend, Associate Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that if the Congress de- cides to enact legislation calling for a 10-year international moratorium on the harvesting of all species of whales, the Department of Commerce would recomemnd an exception for the hunting of such mammals by Alaska Natives for their own use. This recommendation would be based on the Department's own research which reveals that population declines in certain whale species are not caused or affected by sub- sistence whaling activities undertaken by Natives living along the coasts of Alaska. Thus, I would suggest the adoption of language simi- lar to section 203 (a) of H.R. 6558. As you know, this subsection would permit Alaska Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts to take ocean mammals (except polar bears) for their own noncommercial use provided that such taking is done in accordance with customary traditions and as an adjunct of the Native culture. Mr. DiNGELL. That was an excellent statement. Senator, the com- mittee appreciates your time. Our next witness will be the gentleman from Wisconsin, Hon. David R. Obey. 327 STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. Obey. Mr. Chairman, I am indeed grateful to testify in behalf of H.R. 10420, sponsored by Congressman Anderson, myself and nine other Members of this House, ^Vhich provides for the management of all marine mammals within the jurisdiction of the United States. The passage of this bill would allow us to take significant steps forward in the preservation and management of marine mammals. Frankly, I think it may well be a necessary measure if the blue whale, sea lion, walrus, hair seal, sea otter, polar bear and other such species are to survive. These animals deserve our attention now, because as several scientists have warned, if action is not taken these animals may become extinct. While this bill prohibits the harassment, hunting, capture or killing of these animals, it does allow the Secretary of Interior to issue permits for the taking of these animals as long as it is not done in such a way that the animals are threatened with extinction or undue attrition. This legislation comes at a time when article after article has ap- peared in the press teUing of atrocities by marine hunters and of the exploitation of marine mammals for their fur, meat or oil. Marine mammal populations have diminished sharply in recent years, ranging from the sea lion which loses a a few thousand each year to several whale species and stocks which are near extinction. The killing of jwrpoises by tuna fiishermen is a prime example of the thoughtless waste that exists. The fleets are said to kill as many as 200,000 porpoises each year. Fishermen also prey on the sea otter with rifles, hoping to remove them permanently from the abalone fish beds. And, in addition to the commercial squander, in many areas the "sports hunter" threatens these animals even more seriously. In the case of the polar bear the game hunter's impact is dramatic. The Alaskan airplane hunter provides the impetus for a dwindling polar bear l^opulation. Although the Northern Pacific Fur Seal Convention, which allocates the killing of seals by four countries, is a notable exception, little legislation and few international agreements exist regarding the pres- ervation of marine mammals. Those which do exist are not strong enough to adequately protect our marine life. Federal legislation on the books varies too widely for effective control. Private research is still in the primary stages, and in need of Federal money and technical assistance. Research in the field— which is desperately needed just to produce an adequate appreciation of the extent of the problem — is limited, and most of it is concentrated on fur seals. Even here research is only in the observation stages. Research which has been done shows that marine mammals may prove to be of great importance to mankind m the future. The sea cow may prove to be significant as a consumer of water hyacinth, a source of concern and expense to water research managers. Water hy- acinth tends to proliferate in reservoirs and creates massive ecological and esthetic problems. Further research in this area would obviously be beneficial. 67-765 O - 71 - 22 328 Mr. Chairman, this measure is a flexible one which lessens the likeli- hood that any of our marine mammals would become extinct and at the same time allows for commercial management and scientific re- search. Combined with international agreements, this bill can halt the rapid decline of marine mammal life. Through the issuance of per- mits development of research, and strict penalties, it offers a chance for e'ffective protection of our marine mammal population. I hope this committee will support this legislation. Mr DiNGELL. The subcommittee appreciates your fine statement. I would now like to call on the gentleman from Nevada, the able Congressman Walter S. Baring. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER S. BAHING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF NEVADA Mr. Baring. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I ap- preciate this opportunity to put my support during these hearings be- hind legislation to prohibit and control the capturing or killing of ocean mammals and the act to be known as the Ocean Mammal Protec- tion Act of 1971. This legislation which I have cosponsored, H.R. 7861, is one more vital pie^e of legislation I deem most important for this Nation as we continue on the path of properly controlling and preserving the envi- ronment of this Nation, and for that matter, of all nations. While the bill I have cosponsored is one of many which seeks to es- tablish controls, all of the measures aim for the one solid purpose of halting the wanton and inhumane destruction of our wildlife, all too often solely for commercial gain. We must seek to put a stop to incidents of slaughter of the various rare species of this Nation. The bill H.R. 7861, and others, include the tools for us to put the restrictions to work as soon as possible to insure continued productivity of the ocean mammals. Also, while this legislation will help set guidelines to solve the prob- lem of protecting ocean mammals, we must also seek solutions regard- ing tlie need for international agreements with other nations as some of tlie ocean mammals, such as the whale, range far and wide through international waters. Some species of the whale and the polar bear are feared to be reach- ing such low levels in numbers that extinction of these endangered species will surely result unless proper controls are established. I urge favorable action on this legislation. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland, Hon. Clarence T>. T^ng, will be our next witness. STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE D. LONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. Long. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opiwrtunity to testify on behalf of my bill, H.R. 7891. before the Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation Subcommittee during your consideration of legislation to protect ocean mammals. I commend you for holding hearings on this issue, which has aroused the interest of the American people and other nations throughout the world. 329 My bill would prohibit the taking of ocean mammals by any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and would ban the import of such animals into the United States. To protect the natives who rely on these animals for food and clothing, my bill allows Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who live on the coasts of the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans to take the animals for their own use. However, the polar bear would be protected even from the natives. One of my constituents who is concerned that the polar bear is quickly becoming extinct presented a petition bearing more than 1,200 signatures from all parts of the country to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife during a meeting in my office. The petition demands that immediate action be taken to fully protect the polar bear in all arctic areas controlled by the United States and that the U.S. Government enter into immediate negotiations with the gov- ernments of other arctic countries to establish an international agree- ment protecting the polar bear. I am aware that Congressman Pryor has revised his bill to pro- vide for negotiations to obtain an international agreement to protect all ocean mammals. My bill is identical to his original bill, and I en- dorse his provision for such an agreement. I have received numerous letters from my constituents urging pas- sage of tliis legislation. After watching a documentary of the slaughter of baby seals, a woman from Baltimore wrote, "Some of the baby seals were skinned while still alive. It made us all sick and our 4-year-old son cried, because of the way these so-called men killed these poor animals." A man from Baltimore wrote to me, "It would be different if man needed the skins of sea mammals to protect himself from the elements but this is no longer the situation." Another constituent wrote, "It's horrible what is being done to those poor animals just to keep human beings happy, and we certainly are not worth it." A young girl from my congressional district wrote, "After all the talk on our animals becoming extinct, why are we letting these adorable seals become extinct ? Those darling creatures do nothing at all to harm man. Some of the fishennen who go on the annual kill say they do it for sport!" The walrus is one ocean mammal which faces extinction in the near future. It is estimated that in the mid-19th century, the Pacific walrus population was 200,000. By 1968, only 45,000 remained. The total kill of walrus each year in the Pacific is about 8,300. Because it is a slow breeder, the walrus produces only one calf for each two adults killed. The figures speak for themselves. I believe that enactment of this legislation is urgent, and I hope that the subcommittee will soon report it to the full committee so that we may have a chance to consider it on the House floor, Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you very much Congressman, that was an ex- cellent statement. Our colleague from the State of Arizona, has requested to say a few words. Mr. Rhodes, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. RHODES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman, It is an honor to appear before this sub- committee on behalf of the legislation you consider today, and more specifically, H.R. 7861 which I cosponsored. 330 Sadly, this type of legislation, to prohibit or control the capturing or killing of ocean mammals, is necessary if this needless brutality is to be stopped. The need is supported by the unfortunate facts; the mterest m Congress is demonstrated by the extremely large number of our col- leagues who have cosponsored the legislation before you today ; and the concern of the American people is evidenced by the tremendous public interest expressed in congressional mail. I urge you to report this legislation favorably. Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you Congressman. We shall keep your views in mind when the committee considers this legislation in executive meeting. . . . Next, I would like to call on the very able gentleman from Virginia, the Hon. G. William Whitehurst. STATEMENT OF HON. G. WILLIAM WHITEHURST, A REP- RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIR- GINIA Mr. Whitehurst. Mr. Chairman, the subject of marine mammals and the mass slaughter and cruelty to which they and other wildlife have been subjected has received national attention from the news media during the last few years. The accounts of the methods by which some animals are killed or captured have shocked and angered human- itarians across the world. I have introduced two bills dealing with this subject which have been referred to this subcommittee. They are H.R. 7240 and H.K. 6804. The first bill calls for direct action dealing with the killing and cap- ture of these animals, and the second directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct comprehensive studies of all ocean mammals. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain why I intro- duce these bills. First, as a conservationist, I am concerned over our disappearing wildlife; and second, as a humanitarian, I am desirous of preventing cruelty to, or suffering of, any living creatures whenever 2)ossible, including, of course, animals unable to care for themselves. Congress acted out of these same motives in the 91st Congress by passing three pieces of legislation which ultimately became public law. They are Public Law 91-579 the Animal Welfare Act; Public Law 91-544, the Horse Protection Act; and Public Law 91-135, the Endangered Species Act, which was first passed by this committee. All of these laws are major accomplishments in the areas of conservation and humanitarianism. We now have an opiwrtunity to add a fourth to this list, thereby ending some of man's greatest crimes against nature and animals. The tragic and dramatic decrease in the world population of our great whales has been brought to the Nation's attention. Blue whales have dropped from 100,000 to the present 1,000 in 50 years; the hump- back decreased from more than 10,000 to just a few thousand; and the sperm whale population has slipped from 600,000 to 250,000 in 25 years. In response to these statistics, the Department of the Interior placed the great whales on the endangered species list, and the Depart- ment of Commerce followed this action by moving to eliminate all TT.S. commercial whaling activities. However, steps must be taken not only to put a halt to the vanishing of the whale population but to assure that a similar fate does not await other species of ocean mammals 331 and indeed, all animals, including the great cats, polar bears, coyotes, and eagles to name just a few. Thanks to massive doses of publicity in all phases of the news media such terms as sea-clubbing, bunny-hopping, steel- jaw traps, coyote getters, and Compound 1080 have become familiar to most people. Bunny hopping, as you know, is the practice of herding large numbers of rabbits into fenc«d-in areas and then turning adults and children loose on them with clubs. After one particularly bloody venture, it was reported that over 10,000 rabbits had been killed. Coyote getters and compound 1080 are both involved in the effort to thin the number of predatory^ animals in the West and Southwest. The "getter'- is an explosive de\dce that expels a cyanide pellet into the mouth of any animal that tugs on it. Compound 1080, 1 ounce of which is potent enough to kill 200 adult humans or 20,000 coyotes, is among a number of poisons which are used in baited carcas^ to attract pi-edators. Needless to say, these methods do not discriminate among the kinds of animals they attract and destroy. Other methods used to thin predator populations include wiring the mouths of coyotes closed, then, while these animals are still alive, cutting out their bladders to be used to lure other coyotes to the same fate. Through these methods, eagles, domestic animals, pets, and human beings have lost their lives, and now there is even concern over the drastic decrease in the coyote population. Steel-jaw traps have long been regarded as cruel. The accounts of trapped animals gnawing off their own legs and paws in order to escape are gruesome. Animals which do not escape in this way must suffer untold anguish until they are released by death, either naturally or at the hands of the trapper. These traps can be purchased in various sizes. The subject that has been the target of the most publicity, however, has been the clubbing of the seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Pribilof Islands. Many documentaries have been done, with varying degrees of accuracy. I am sure that most of us have seen at least one of them. The sight of a baby seal being killed is distasteful to all of us, par- ticularly when repeated clubbing is necessary. Any inhumanity dis- played during the har\'est of these animals must be eliminated. At the same time, however, we must be sure that we do not hinder the bene- ficial conservation and economic accomplishments of the seal harv^est- ing in the Pribilofs. To ban the taking of all seals in the Pribilofs would put us in default of the treaty to which we are signatories along with Japan, Canada, and Russia, and put us in danger of returning to the tragic days of pelagic sealing. The Pribilof Treaty was signed in 1911, when the fur seal popu- lation was found to have dropped from over 2 million in the early 1800's to just over 100,000. As an inducement to end the indiscriminate slaughter that had gone on, Japan and Canada were to receive 15 percent of the proceeds from the regiilated harvest. The harvest has been conducted under strict conservation methods which, to date, have made it possible for the fur seal herd to grow from that low point to the present 1.3 million, while producing more than $75 million from pelts. To interfere with this treaty by banning the killing of the seals could undo all that has been accomplished over the past 60 years. Further, to ban the killing of all seals would lead to unrestricted 332 growth of herds, with ultimate starvation the result of overpopulation. Thus a careful balance must be maintained. Mr. Chairman, there is one more subject to which I would like to direct remarks, and that concerns the capture and importation of animals for the purpose of stocking private game preser\'es. This con- cept and everything connected with it goes against the grain of every humanitarian and conservationist, and it should be halted. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the principles contained m H.R. 7240 would go a long way toward ending the ills I have outlined. H.R. 7240 would do the following : (1) Prevent the importation of any ocean mammal, polar bear, or exotic animal, or their byproducts, that is endangered or was taken by inhumane methods. This will not hinder any treaty obligation we now have, but it will necessitate the determination of what humane methods of slaughter or capture are. Parenthetically, let me say here that I do not believe that the planned visit to the Pribilofs by the Department of the Interior to determine the humaneness or inhu- maneness of clubbing a seal to death can truly be considered an ob- jective trip, as a result of the preliminary publicity and the Aleuts' awareness of the impending trip. (2) Prevent the inhumane methods of capture or killing of any animal within the United States or its territories. (3) Eliminate the stocking of private game preserves with ani- mals imported into this country, unless the stocking is for conserva- tion purposes. Mr. Chairman, the purposes of this bill can best be achieved i± they are combined with the machinery contained in H.R. 10420, which calls for licensing and the establishment of quota systems. I am also asking at this time for the institution of mandatory Federal licensing, at minimal fees, for all trapping and hunting on Federal property. H.R. 9754, which has already received hearings by this subcommittee, contains the essence of whati am proposing, but it should also require the mandatory licensing regardless of the presence of a "cooperative Federal- State agreement." This legislative combination eliminates many of the questions that had arisen concerning the feasibility of H.R. 7240, and would cer- tainly seem to satisfy the questions raised by the Department of the Interior in their report on mv bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for giv- ing me this opportunity to testify. I know that my bill as well as the others will receive your careful consideration, and I am grateful to you. Mr. DiNGELL. The subcommittee thanks you for your excellent statement. Our good friend from Massachusetts, the Honorable Silvio Conte, will be our next witness. STATEMENT OF HON. SILVIO 0. CONTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. CoNTE. Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to express my support of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971. Over the past few months I have received a heavy volume of mail from my constituents making their views known on the subject of 333 l^rotection of our oceans' mammals. I feel the time has come to take the simple, but necessary steps to protect from brutal death and ex- tinction our seals, whales, walruses, porpoises, dolphins, sea otters, manatees, polar bears, and so forth. The bill I have cosponsored would do that now, not tomorrow and not following some commission's endless wrangling over this issue until it is too late. It would simply stop the killing now and would do so by three principal methods. (1) It would prohibit U.S. citizen from killing these mammals. (2) It would ban the import from other countries of skins or other parts of these mammals, thereby removing the economic incentives for other countries to contmue the killing. (3) It would direct our Government to initiate negotiations with other countries for complete protection treaties for each of these species of mammals. There has been some opposition voiced against this measure. There are those who have seen fit to try to kill this bill or, in the alternative, substitute a much weaker one in its place. Some conservation groups oppose this legislation on the basis that one of man's rights and duties is to manage his resources for either economic or recreational benefits. Perhaps most of the opposition has centered around that section of the bill concerning the North Pacific fur seal and the treaty under which we now operate an annual seal kill of some 40,000 on our Pribilof Islands. The State Department has taken the position that we are party to a group conservation treaty and we should not in any way jeopardize its aims. The fear is that cosignatories might resume pelagic sealing resulting in tragic consequences to the North Pacific fur seal population. However, Mr. Chairman, that would not result from this legislation. For it calls upon our State Department to negotiate a new treaty to provide complete protection for these seals with the Soviet Union, Canada, and Japan. The State Department is to pursue such a treaty until it is an actuality. The existing treaty is to be renewed in 1976 to preclude pelagic sealing if we are not able to successfully negotiate a new treaty by that time. Another argument holds that, if we stop the killing of the North Pacific fur seal, the Aleut natives would be dispossessed of the only occuaption they know, that is, killing seals. Mr. Chairman, this asser- tion clouds the'issue. These Aleuts were brought to the Pribilof Islands many years ago by the Russians. They were kept there under the czars for the purpose of killing these seals. Since Ave purchased Alaska we have kept them in the same status of indentured servants to slaughter these seals. It is very much like pitying the poor dope peddler because he is applying the only trade he knows. The world's strongest and richest country could surely spend a little time devising other ways for the Aleuts to make a decent living. Mr. Chairman, we do not need a commission to tell us that most species of whales and/or polar bears are endangered. We do not need additional bureaucrats to study the remaining numbers of manatees and sea otters until such time that all we have left to study will be the skeletal remains of an extinct species. Since we no longer need the food, fiber, and oils from anv of these mammals, we should be ci\dlized enough to end the killing of them now. I respectfully urge that the 334 committee take prompt and effective action in approving this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. We certainly appreciate your fine statement. The next witness is the gentleman from Alabama, our good friend the Honorable John H. Buchanan. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommit- tee on Fisheries and Wildlife. As a cosponsor of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971 (H.R. 7706), I am gratified that this subcom- mittee is holding hearings on this and related measures which would give needed protection to seals, whales, polar bears, walruses, sea cows, sea lions, porpoises, and dolphins. This legislation has my strong support. I would, however, recommend to the subcommittee one change, which I will discuss later. The Ocean Mammal Protection Act declares the protection of all ocean mammals to be the public policy of the United States, to be car- ried out through severe restrictions on the taking of ocean mammals by persons or vessels under the jurisdiction of the United States and through negotiations with foreign governments toward an eventual worldwide ban on the further slaughter of ocean mammals. As we are becoming increasingly aware, ocean mammals are being ruthlessly pursued, harassed, and killed, both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations of the world. It is also becoming tragically apparent that many ocean mammal species will become rare, if not extinct, unless steps are taken to stop their slaughter. The polar bear, for example, is judged to be decreasing in popula- tion and international cooperation toward proper management of the remainin<^ species is considered essential. The whale is an important example of an ocean mammal being threatened with extinction, and in related action the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements has alreadv held hearings on legislation (H.J. Res. 706 and H.J. Res. 730) which would instruct the Secretary of State to call for a 10-year moratorium on the killing of all species of whales. This legislation (now H. Con. Res. 387) was approved by that subcom- mittee before the August recess. A similar bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in June of this year. Information presented in connection with the foregoing subcom- mittee hearings revealed that regulatory measures taken by the Inter- national Whaling Commission over the past 25 years have not been sufficient to stop the steady downward trend in the world whale popu- lation. Indeed, more whales were killed during the past 10 years than ever before in the history of commercial whaling. This has resulted in a situation in which at least eight species of whales are already en- dangered. The largest species, tlie blue whale, is already virtually extinct. Again, in my judgment, there is just no justification for the ex- termination of these hugh, intelligent, benign creatures. Whale prod- ucts are useful, but they are not necessary to man's survival. 335 The situation regarding the killing- of whales also presents a perfect example of the need for the type of international cooperation sought in the legislation pending before this subcommittee. Last year, for ex- ample, Russians and Japanese took some 85 percent of the 42,266 whales reported killed during the year. As already indicated, the system of international controls being used to date has obviously failed to provide adequate protection. Drastic and immediate action is re- quired. Since the United States has exercised leadership over the last year by voluntarily ending all whaling by American citizens, we must now look to Japan and Russia to observe the moratorium — if only in order to assure themselves of whales for future controlled slaughter. The bludgeoning and beating of seals has also been the source of much attention recently and the seal harvest is, in my judgment, a needless and appalling spectacle. The United States now has an agreement with Japan and Canada (the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention) to kill seals on the Pribilof Islands. It expires in 1976, and the Ocean Mammal Protection Act directs the State Department to inform Japan and Canada that the treaty will not be renewed at that time. The bill proposes in its place all countries be asked to sign a treaty to stop killing oc€»an mammals, whether they are on land or at sea. If the Japanese and Canadians should refuse to sign such treaty, they could elect to take their 15 percent of the usual annual kill quota in dollars — as they have done in the past years — or accept 9.000 skins each per year until 1976 (or until the "new treaty is signed). The bill would also ban the killing of the 42,000 seals usually destined for the United States and prohibit the entry of anv skins into the ITnited States. In a significant attempt to stop this needless slaughter and protect these endangered ocean mammal species, H.R. 7706 (as well as other bills pending before this subcommittee) would make the slaughter of any ocean mammal bv any I^.S. citizen or corporation a criminal offense ; ban the import into the Ignited States of products from these animals; call for the State Department to initiate an international treaty ending the killing of ocean mammals : and designate the Pribilof Islands a sanctuary for seals, sea lions, birds, and other wildlife, to be promoted as a tourist attraction for the economic well-being of the native Aleuts. A first offense against the act's ban on the taking of ocean mam- mals would be punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprison- ment of not more than 1 year, or both. Subsequent offenses would be punishable by fines of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of not less than 1 or more than 3 years, or both. Any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States which is employed in connection with a violation of the act would also be subject to forfeiture. Important exceptions to the act's ban on taking ocean mammals are provided for the nation's zoos and for the use of the mammals in scien- tific and medical research. Exceptions would also be provided for Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, who would be permitted to ocean mam- mals for their own use (not for sale) and in a manner which accords with their customary traditions and native culture. Mr. Chairman, it" is in the matter of the legislation's provisions for exceptions to the ban on taking ocean mammals that I feel a change — in the way of an addition — should be made. In as much as I am a 336 cosponsor of this legislation, it goes without saying that I am in full accord with its goal. My study of H.R. 7706, however, has convinced me that a de^rree of flexibility is needed in order to assure the attain- ment of this meritorious goal. This needed flexibility should be pro- vided by the inclusion of an additional exception to those provided in sections 203 and 204 (or by other appropriate language) which would allow for the controlled scientific taking of these ocean mammals when such action is proven to be necessary for the continuation of the species itself. . While the meritorious goal of this legislation is to remove trom nature the hand of man, w^hich has too often been a destructive force toward upsetting the ingenious balance which nature, left alone, seems to maintain ; it must be remembered that this balance has already been upset by man in varying degrees. The mere removal of man from nature through this or similar legislation will not, therefore, guar- antee an immediate correction of existing imbalances nor assure the prevention of future imbalances resulting from actions not covered in the scope of this legislation. Thus, in my judgment we must at least acknowledge the possibility that these creatures of nature and their environment might at some future point need or benefit from the helping hand of man. I am sure that the members of this subcommittee have ample infor- mation on the use of such scientific management programs and that your knowledge in this area far exceeds my own. At this point, there- fore, it should be sufficient to merely note that many of these programs have been successful. As it is presently written, however, H.R. 7706 would absolutely preclude the future use of such scientific management of ocean mammals. I am not proposing that the bill foster such management programs or provide any kind of direct support for them in its provisions. I am merely proposing that we not legislatively preclude the use of such programs should they prove to be necessary to assure the per- petuation of the very species we are seeking to protect through such legislation. Any use of such programs provided by my suggested change in the bill, furthermore, could and should be subject to strin- gent specifications and requirements. Turning again to the present provisions of this legislation, H.R. 7706 would establish a National Seal Rookery Preserve and Bird Sanctuary under the Department of the Interior on the Pribilof Is- lands. The bill provides that the native Aleuts shall be given the opportunity to be the rangers and guides for this purpose and states that they shall be given any training necessary for such jobs. The bill also authorizes the establishment of a presidentially appointed com- mission to provide assistance in the transfer of the Pribilof Islands. In urging favorable consideration of this important legislation, I might end by making a more philosophical observation of what the bill's goal represents. As man ascended from the caves, his own neces- sary struggle for survival gradually resulted in his dominance over the earth's other creatures. Unfortunately, this dominance has been accompanied to a certain extent by arrogant assumptions of super- iority which have persisted in spite of mounting evidence that all life is somehow interdependent. It is past time, therefore, for man to real- ize that the ability to rid the earth of other living things constitutes a growing threat to his own survival. Perhaps during the breathing 337 spell sought in this type of legislation, man will come to understand that the power to dominate carries with it an obligation for restraint and compassion. Thank you. Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Congressman, that was an excellent statement. I believe we have just one more Member who desires to be heard at this time. Will Congressman Ryan please take the witness chai'r? STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Ryan. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the dis- tinguished subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to testify with regard to various bills concerning the preservation of ocean mammals. Many species of ocean mammals face immediate, or long run, danger of extinction. Essential components of the delicate balance of nature, these animals have been hunted down and destroyed throughout the world. Marvels of adaptation to their environment, jx)ssessed of highly developed intelligence, often characterized by an acute sense of pro- tectiveness for their fellows, the mammals of the world's oceans are irreplaceable. Yet, man's arrogant rapaciousness continues. Instead of perceiving this planet as a world we share with our fellow living creatures, we plunder its wealth. Within the last 200 years, nearly 75 species of mannnals alone have become extinct. Only lately has an increasingly aroused public began to rouse itself to our common folly. These hearings which you are now holding are particularly timely, because it is the sad lot of many species of ocean mammals that they face — in a frighteningly short, time, unless strong actions are taken very quickly — ^being added to the list of creatures no longer to be seen on this earth. You have before you numerous bills and resolutions which take cognizance of this disaster in the making which faces many of the mammalian species which jwpulate our oceans and seas. There are two in particular which I want to discuss. One of these — House Concur- rent Resolution 77—1 introduced on the first day of the 92d Congress. In the 91st Congress, I had introduced this legislation as House Con- current Resolution 495 (and companion bills). The other is H.R. 7556, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971, of which I am a cosponsor, and of which our distinguished colleague from Arkansas, (Mr. Pryor), is the chief sponsor. This bill has been reintroduced in modified form as H.R. 10569, Ocean Mammal Protection Act. Title I of the Ocean Manmial Protection Act of 1971 provides a statement of findings and declaration of policy. I think this title particularly apt, because it accurately articulates the situation we face at this very moment and which demands aggressive action on the part of this committee to avert. Section 101 states the finding that "ocean mammals are being ruthlessly pursued, harassed, and killed, both at sea and on land by hunters of many nations of the world.'' Further, "many ocean mammals will become rare, if not extinct, unless steps are taken to stop their slaughter." 338 Thus, it is declared to be the public policy of the United States "to protect all ocean mammals from harassment or slaughter"; and, m addition, to enter into negotiations with foreign governments and through interested international organizations "with a view to ob- taining a worldwide ban on the further slaughter of ocean mammals. Title II of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971 sets up the prohibitions which will help achieve the end to the slaughter which now occurs. Section 202 (a) bars, first, the taking of ocean mammals by persons or vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; se0r) porpoises die annually. Third, we must encourasre the Secretary of State to negotiate inter- national agreements for the protection of the ocean mammals. Sorne international activities do exist — the International "Whaling Commis- sion, established pursuant to the International TVIialing Convention, 341 is one example. Another example of international cooperation was the First International Conference on Polar Bears, held at the University of Alaska in September 1965. However, international organizations and agreements are thus far too weak. The International Whaling Commission, for example, has no enforcement powers, and in many respects its efforts at preservation have been stymied. Consequently, our Government must undertake efforts, through the United Nations, for example, to achieve binding international accords. In fact. I would recommend working toward a moratorium on all killing of ocean mammals, not only by means of the Ocean ^lammal Protection Act, which only applied to the United States, but world- wide. At the least, this moratorium must rmi for 15 years, so that our scientists can determine what chances of survival remain for ocean mammals, and what can be done to assure this survival before these magnificent creatures are banished by man. through his arrogance and stupidity, from the face of the earth. During the moratorium we must work for title Ill's prescription : "International agreement or agreements" which "should seek to outlaw all killing of these mammals for any reason." HOUSE COXCURREXT RESOLTTTIOX 7 7 I now want to turn to House Concurrent Resolution 77. of wliich I am the chief sponsor and in which 17 of my colleagues have joined in sponsoring. These 17 are : Mr. Halpern, :Mr. Hanley, Mr. Horton, Mr. Hosmer. Mr. Koch. Mr. Kyros. Mr. Moorhead, Mr.' Morse, Mr. Xix, Mr. Obey. Mr. Rosenthal. ]Mr. St Germain, Mr. Svmington, Mr. Vigorito, ^Ir. Waldie, Mr. Whitehurst, and Mr. Wolff. I have delaved discussing House Concurrent Resolution 77 until first discussing the Ocean Mammal Protection Act because my resolution's aim is ven' relevant to that expressed in title IV of the latter act. Both of which concern the slaughter of Xorthern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. House Concurrent Resolution 77 has two operative j^rovisi^ons. The first of these expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe and shall implement with all possible spe^d and urgency regulations for the harvesting of Xorthern fur seals which insure that the seals are quickly and painlessly killed before skimimg. The second clau-e provides that penalties be pre- scribed by the Secretary- for violation of the regulations which he shall prescribe and implement in accordance with this resolution. Once again, we have a tragic example of a cruel practice employed to accomplish an unneeded end. Tlie seals are slam solely for their furs, which in turn are employed to satisfy the market for an unneeded luxurv. The seals do not threaten man, nor do they threaten his food supplies. Xo product which they apply is irrejjlaceable. The reason why they are victims of slaughter is because they fill an acquired desire for seal fur garments — a desire which can be satisfied in other ways. Unfortunately, international circumstances would api^ear to bar an\- immediate cessation of the seal harvest. The premise for the harvest is an international convention, firet agreed to in 1911 by the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia. The aim of this convention 342 was to end pelagic sealing — that is, seal hunting at sea — which had contributed so greatly to the enormous decrease in Northern fur seals. Should the international agreement which now exists be unilaterally terminated by the United States, it is very likely that at least some of the other parties to the convention would resume large scale pelagic sealing — an eventuality which would be very detrimental to the North- ern fur seal. In this regard, I want to refer to the Ocean Mammal Protection Act, as modified, which I have previously discussed. Title IV of that act expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should immediately notify the other parties to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, signed on February 9, 1957, as the latest successor to the 1911 Convention, that the United States does not intend to ex- tend its life beyond 1976. Further, title IV expresses the sense of the Congress that the convention should be permitted to expire in 1976, after its current termination date in 1975. In light of the past history of the northern fur seal — that is, the great depradations following upon the pelagic sealing method which used to be employed — I must oppose any tennination of the convention unless we have an international binding agreement that such sealing will not be resumed. While title IV of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act does express the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should im- mediately initiate negotiations with the parties to the convention and other interested nations for the purpose of achieving an international ban on all killing of northern fur seals, I do not believe that we can unilaterally terminate our participation in the convention prior to the obtaining of such a ban. Thus, I particularly stress the importance of section 403 of the modified Ocean Mammal Protection Act, which provides for renewal of the convention if a new treaty cannot be negotiated. The Ocean Mammal Protection Act in the interim prior to a new treaty calls for termination of that portion of the harvest — 70 per- cent of the seals killed — ^which is allocable to the United States under the convention. In principle, I am in accord with the step of at least terminating the U.S. percentage of the kill. However, I am fearful that this step might be interpreted — purposefully — by one or more of the parties to the convention as being an abrogation or violation of the convention, justifying their resumption of pelagic sealing, and I stress the importance of this consideration. Now I want to return to the thrust of House Concurrent Resolution 77, which is not cessation of the seal harvest or even its decrease, but rather, revision of the practices employed in that harvest. The Fur Seal Act of 1966, charges the Secretary of the Interior with the management of the fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. His De- partment's Bureau of Commercial Fisheries supervises the harvest. The kill is largely limited to 3- and 4-year old bachelor males that con- gregate on the edge of the seal rookeries. The Department of the Interior claims that this harvest serves con- servation ends, stating in a publication entitled "Fur Seals of Alaska's Pribilof Islands," issued by the Department, that : The Pribilof rookeries can support only so many seals. The Bureau of Commer- cial Fisheries maintains the seal herd at its maximum level of productivity. Animals surplus to the needs of the herd are harvested each summer. If man does not do it, nature steps in. Some persons, who have the best intentions, have 343 the impression that man could simply leave the fur seals alone and nature would see to it that they lived happily ever after. It is not true. Nature would see to it that the surplus was killed off. And when nature sets about redressing a population imbalance there is no place for mercy in the natural process. Nature has no compunction over killing pups slowly with parasites or starvation or any other way. People need to recognize this inescapable biological fact in consider- ing what the consequences would be if man were to abandon his management responsibilities. This reasoning is very dubious. The same publication states that the Pribilof Islands herd is now estimated at some 1.5 million animals. This number is nowhere near former totals, and clearly disputes the contention that increased numbers would be detrimental to the animals. According to Mr. Seton H. Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servdce, Avriting in the 1969 edition of Encyclopedia Americana on the subject of "Seals and Sealing" (vol. 24, pp. 480-483), at the time of the seal herd's discovery in 1786, there Avere at least 5 million seals. In 1948, there were 3,837,131 animals in the herd. Thus, under the supposedly enlightened conservation concerns of the Department of the Interior, the herd has decreased in the last 22 years by approximately 2 million — even allowing for inclusion in the earlier totals of the Japanese and Russian herds — without any specified diminution in territory available to the animals. Unfortunately, so long as other nations do not enter into an inter- national accord banning lx)th pelagic sealing and killing of seals, or at least allowing cessation of the killing of those seals currently al- locable to the United States, under the existing convention, it would seem that the harvest must continue. But, let us be clear. This harvest stems from the world's demand for fur seals, and the even more disas- terous consequences which would occur were pelagic sealing resumed. Its merit does not lie in maintenance of the vitality of the Pribilof seals, as the Department of Interior indicates. The annual harvest commences with the bachelor seals being driven from the shore to the fields beyond. The distance varies from a few hundred yards to over half a mile to sites where the killing takes place. The actual killing is performed by man armed with hardwood clubs 155 centimeters long. They are assisted by one or two men who divide off small pods, or groups, of seals, about 10 in number, from the main herd, driving them toward the killers who then club them on the top of the head. Men known as stickers go around the clubbed animals and cut their skins in the midventral thoracic region, followed by pushing the knife into the thorax. The heart is then punctured by the knife. After sticking, other groups of men come to skin the seal. According to the report prepared by Dr. Elizabeth Simpson for the World Federation for the Protection of Animals and published in 1967, about 13.6 percent of the animals showed evidence of the animal having received two or more blows with the club, which is supposed to kill them instantaneously with one blow. Dr. Simpson also noted that the length of the drives of the seals to the slaughter grounds is in some locations too long, resulting in "unnecessary distress on the part of some of the seals." Clearlv, then, the so-called merciless seal harvest is not quite as bene- ficial as it has at times been portrayed. I do want to be frank, however, and acknowledge that Dr. Simpson did conclude that the present club- bing technique is probably the best, in comparison with the use of the 67-765 O - 71 - 23 344 captive bolt pistol, electrical stunning, and carbon dioxide stunning prior to sticking. She so concluded on the basis of the premise that "any method involving more handling of the animals would * * * be a step in the wrong direction." (P. 5.) Another stud_y of the Pribilof Islands harvest reached similar con- clusions. This study was made by the task force to study alternate methods of harvest! n.q- fur seals, and was issued in 19f>8. We are, it appears, left with a difficult conclusion. Clubbing has been supported by studies. However, there are some directions toward which we should be pushing. First, we should be seeking international accord on totally banning seal killing. Second, we should be impressing upon the Secretarv of the Interior the importance of developing more hu- mane methods of killing; so long as the harvest continues. To this end, I think it particularly appropriate that House Concurrent Kesolution 77 be enacted into law. I would like, before closing, to make reference to a very real concern which has been voiced. This is the economic situation of the individuals involved in the Pribilof Islands harvest. The total population of the Pribilof Islands is approximately 600 people. Their only income pro- ducing industry is the seal hunt. However, I want to stress that this industry is not the result of indigenous cultural patterns : the Russians, who originally owned the Pribilofs. brought Aleutian people from the Aleutian chain of islands to the Pribilofs, where they were kept in bondage as slaves for the purpose of conducting the slaughter. Second, I want to stress that I believe it entirely appropriate that should more humane methods of harvest be instituted, the people presently em- ployed be trained to carryout these methods. Should the harvest be terminated, I believe Federal assistance to develop new industry, to assist in moving the Natives, should they wish to leave, and to retrain them, would be entirely in order. Finally. I believe similar assistance should be provided the employees of the Fouke Fur Co., in Greenville, S.C, which is the only American company engaged in processing and preparing the seal pelts. Mr. DiNGELL. That was certainly a very enlightening and informa- tive statement. The Chair thanks vou for appearing. Mr. Ryan. It was my pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Our next witness is Mr. August Felando, accompanied by Mr. Joe Medina, American Tuna Boat Association. Gentlemen, we are very happy to welcome you for such a statement as you choose to give. STATEMENT OF AUGUST FELANDO, AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSO- CIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOE MEDINA, SKIPPER OF TUNA- BOAT "QUEEN MARY" Mr. Felando. I am Auarust Felando. I am appearing before this subcommittee on behalf of the American Tunaboat Association. I am the general manager of this nonprofit fishery cooperative association, incorporated under the laws of the State of California, with its prin- cipal office of business in San Diego, Calif. The American Tunaboat Association (ATA) has been in existence since 1923. The membership is comprised exclusively of tuna-fishing vessel owners. Annually our members catch and unload over 60 percent 345 of all tropical tunas landed in the United States by vessels operating from the United States. Some of our members operate from Puerto Rico. There are 132 U.S. tuna clippers ; that is, vessels that have a carrying capacity of 100 short, tons of frozen tmia or more. The total trip carry- ing capacity of this fleet is about 60,000 tons. There are 12 additional vessels under various stages of construction in the United States. We oppose the legislation before this subcommittee calling for the complete protection by law of all marine mammals. Our interest in the proposed bills arises from the fact that the term of "marine mammal'' as used in such bills includes porpoise. For over 40 years, U.S. tuna fishermen have used porpoise to locate and cap- ture tunas in certain areas of the eastern Pacific. AVithin the past 25 years, specialized fishing skills and techniques have been developed within the U.S. tuna fleet to better utilize the unique relationship that exists between certain tunas and porpoise. In great measure, the success of the U.S tuna fleet in meeting the challenge offered by every other tuna producer in the world that sells frozen tuna in the free market of the Ignited States, can be attributed to the fact that the I^.S. fishermen and the porpoise have been learn- ing how to live together in accomplishing the task of capturing the tunas. It is no secret in worldwide fishing circles that the U.S. tuna fishermen have a competitive advantage over foreign fishennen in us- ing the purse seine technique on tunas that travel with porpoise. To a substantial degree, the future of the U.S. tuna fleet as a viable, competitive fishing fleet is essentially connected with porpoise. This is one reason why strong emotional feelings arise within our fleet con- cerning the treatment of porpoise. We want to continue the use of por- poise to help us locate and capture tunas. We are against any activity of man that will reduce our opportunities to work with porpoise in capturing tuna. Under H.R. 6558 and other identical bills, the terms "take" or "taking'' or "taken" are defined so that it would make our use of porpoise in catching tuna unlawful. In using porpoise to catch tuna, it is necessary to first locate the porpoise. Because porpoise are air bi'eathers and stay close to the sur- face, it is easier for the fishermen to spot them more easily at a distance than they can fish. Upon sighting a school of porpoise, the tuna vessel proceeds to pursue or chase the poqwise for the purpose of detennin- ing whether a tuna school is associated. In making this determina- tion, the tuna vessel will repeatedly maneuver in and about the por- poise, looking for signs that the tuna are following the porpoise. One could classify this searching maneuver as a form of harassment. If no tuna are detected with the porpoise, the tuna vessel leaves and proceeds to look for other ocean signs that may lead to the discovery of tuna. Upon examination of the language used in section 201(c) of H.R. 6558, and in considering the above facts related to a very common and innocent example of how U.S. tuna fishermen use porpoise to locate tuna, it would be possible to conclude that the tuna vessel had com- mitted a series of unlawful acts in that it pursued, hunted, and har- assed porpoise, or at least that such vessel attempted to pursue, hunt, or harass the porpoise in tfying to locate and detect a school of tuna. It would appear that the definition offered in section 201(c) lends itself to an unreasonable analysis and to the acceptance of conditions that are totally unrealistic. 346 The unacceptability of section 201(c) becomes even stronger when one undertakes an analysis of section 205 (Forfeiture). Under section 205(a) the vessel, "its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores shall be subject to forfeiture." According to a variety of legal authorities, this language creates a property right in the Govern- ment immediately upon the commission of the illegal act. Further, the rights of other persons cannot be respected, although already existing, or subsequently obtained, no matter how innocently acquired. An ex- tremely harsh penalty — the loss of a $2 or $3 million fishing vessel, along with its valuable gear and cargo — merely for pursuing and in- terfering with a school of porpoise to see if any tuna are about. Please refer to the following cases on this point : United States v. Grundy and Thomhurgh, 3 Cranch 338; 2 L. Ed. 459; 1960 Bags of Coffee. 8 Cranch 398, confirmed in Caldwell v. United States, 8 Howard 306; 12 L. Ed. 1115; The JAMES G. SWAN; D.C.D. Wash., N.D. (1896) 77 F 473-t75 ; 600 tons of Iron Ore (D.C.D.N.J. 1881) 9 F 595- 601. Also see 25 C.J.S. 259, at page 571. It is our preliminary view that the proposed bills, by their very terms and language, give rise to a need for considerable examination, analysis, and study. We would like to withhold further comment on other specific points raised by the proposed bills at this time, because we believe it necessary to explain to the subcommittee the techniques we have developed in using porpoise to capture the tuna after we have detected them to be associated with a porpoise school. It is in this area where the proposed bills in defining; the critical terms of "take" or "taking" or "taken" have a substantially harmful impact on the tuna fishery. With me is Mr. Joe Medina, master and managing owner of the tuna vessel Queen Mary. He has been engaged in the fishery practically all of his life. His father was one of the early pioneers and leaders of the tuna fleet. Mr. Medina is available for the purpose of explaining how the vc sols in the tuna fleet use porpoise to capture tuna. He will fur- ther explain the many techniques, skills, and equipment fishermen have developed throiigh the years in working with porpoise to capture tuna. He will discuss in detail the recent technique that he and his first cousin, Harold Medina, captain and managing owner of the Keni 31, have developed in working with porpoise schools. In recent years, a great deal of interest has been generated about how the U.S. fleet uses porpoise to capture tuna. This has been particu- larly true with respect to the curiosity developed by our competitors, the foreign tuna fishermen. Although we have had many scientists aboard our vessels, ranging from employees of the Federal Govern- ment to those of the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission, no coordinated program of study dealing with the porpoises and their association with the tunas has been developed. Various articles, re- ports, and papers have been published on the subject since 1966. To our knowledge, no specialized report concerning porpoise has been prepared by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. In the past 2 years, we have been working with the National Marine Fisheries Service in attempting to work out more information about the porpoise and in developing new ideas concerning the assistance to be given porpoise to leave the captured tuna. Necessarily, insufficient data has been developed in this period of time by the fleet concerning 347 the impact of their using the porpoise to capture tunas on the por- poise population. Kecently, the American Tunaboat Association, along with other organizations of the tuna industry, have worked out a program with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Under this program we hope to gather specific information on the success of the techniques devel- oped by the fishermen to assist the porpoise in helping themselves to escape from the captured tuna. Under this program. Government scientists will be aboard the ves- sels for the purpose of observing the techniques used by the fishermen. In addition, the fishermen will provide porpoise specimens to the fish- ery service. Plans are also being developed to have special charter trips, wherein a set number of days will be devoted exclusively to porpoise research. Preliminary views seem to indicate that this pro- gram will be substantially completed by the end of 1972. It is our opinion that upon the completion of this program, the industry and the Government will be in a better position to evaluate the apparent problem associated with porpoise and tuna fishing. Thank you. Now at this time I would like to turn to Mr. Medina. He does not have a prepared statement, but I believe that it will be comprehensive enough and of extreme value to this committee. Mr. DiNGELL. We are very interested in receiving Mr. Medina's statement and we look forward to hearing from him. Mr. Medina. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Joe Medina, manager-owner and master of the fishing vessel Queen Mary. My family, my grandfather and father, were pioneers that started the tuna industry in San Diego and I have been actively engaged for the past 25 years. I would like to go back. The fishermen and everybody have been associated with the porpoise for the past 45 years. Up until the year 1958, the fish that was called bait fishing, we actually fished with poles, used to go onto a school of porpoise and chum live bait and take the tuna out with poles. In 1958, we converted to purse seine net fishing where we seine with a large net. The problem we had then and it has been a problem we have had in the last 13 years, we corral the jwrpoise within our nets and the prob- lem was getting the porpoise out alive. When we first started, the only method we knew was the crew jump- ing in at the risk of danger to their lives and helping the porpoise out. We had to do it to save the porpoise. Then 3 years later, we developed a new method what we call backing down where we ac'tually roll in half our net, secure the front end and actually back the vessel down and slide the whole net and actually pull the net from midemeath the porpoise. This was a big saving on the porpoise. The one problem that developed was a few porpoise would kill them- selves getting tangled up in the net. Two years ago, me and my fir^t cousin, Harold Medina, a manager and captain on the Kenv M developed a new netting. We tried it last year on my cousin's boat and I am happy to say it has been a big success. 348 The fii"st of the year, we compared the Queen Mat'y tog^either and we had the old netting and he had the new and we both made sets on schools of porpoise aaid tuna at the same time. He was thi-ough an hour before we were. Out of 1,500 porix)ises, Harold only had four porpoises left in the nett after backing down and these were removed by hand. We, making a set on another school, finished backing down and we had 50 or GO porpoise that got tangled. AVhen they are tangled, we drop back down to help the porpoise out and save the ones still alive. One point I am ti-ying to make, the fishermen will do anything to save the porpoise. We always have and always will, but I think tliis new net has been the salvation for us and I think we have the pix>blem licked. As late as this last Wednesday, I talked to my cousin and he is making a movie on this backing down. The movie is — or shows that he set on a school of 2,000 porpoise and after backing down, he had four porpoise left and those were taken out alive. So out of 2,000 ]X)r- ix)ise, not one was killed. The one point I am trying to make is I feel in a year the whole fleet will convert over and everybody will have the new net. It takes about 6 months for delivery. National Marine Terminal has ordered this Av ebbing and they have 100 bales and it takes two bales to make this adaptation and they will have that available in a short time. We have changed our net over and I feel in a shoit time that the whole fleet Avill adapt this new technique. I also talked to my vessel this past Wednesday. They have the web- bing on this trip and they say it is like the difference between day and night. It has been a real help. We have the problem licked. I say this is one thing the fishermen always try to do is save the ix)rpoise caught because without them we would not be in business. Mr. FixANDO. Mr. Chairman, we have a film here that was produced by one of the canners. It was filmed in 1960 and it is a vei-^^ short film, but T think it is a dated one. We will leave this film with the committee. We hope that when the Ketni J/, returns home with film to have the film available to you within a month. Then I think you will be able to see what was done in 1960 — where actually in 1960 aboard this vessel the fellows were in the net manually lifting the ix)rix>ises out. We think in 1971 you will see the vast change that has occurred and we believe the success of this new modification will be shown in the new Medina net. ^Ir. DixGELL. I know the committee is grateful to you for the very helpful statement. We will certainly receive the film that you are alluding to. Did you want to shoAv the other film this morning? Mr. Felaxdo. I do not think it is necessary. I see you have a long witness list and I think there is a narration in it. This film has been shown all over the counti*y for the last 11 years and what is available is just a 3-minute jwrtion. I think at the committee's convenience you can see the film at that time. There is a narration that explains exactly what is going on. 349 Mr. DiNGELL. You are one of the most considerate witnesses we have ever had in these places and I would say that I am always glad to see you, but I think after this morning I shall be even more so. I want to thank you and commend you for your cooperation with the Committee. Mr.Pelly? Mr. Pelly. Just one short question. In H.R, 10420 the definition on page 3, the term "take" means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, capture or kill any marine mammal. Do you consider that the incidental taking of a porpoise under the new method, maybe an occasional killing of a porpoise with the new nets, would make you liable to these very strong penalties under that bill? Mr. Felando. Yes, I believe so. I think the language itself is so broad in that definition I think it would cover the situation where ve do not actually kill the porpoise. The porpoise actually get caught in the webbing and if they are not able to get out in time they will drown. But I feel any incidental death to the porpoise in the net would be covered by that definition section, Mr, Pelly. Mr. Pelly. In other words, in order to relieve you from liability the word "intentional" should be in the definition of killing, or harassing, or hunting, would that satisfy you ? Mr. Felaxdo. Yes, I believe that the use of the words expressing wil- fullness or intent will be satisfactory because certainly that has not been our practice and it not our intent. Mr. Pelly. It would be too bad if someone who really uses the porpoise as a part of their fishing technique in locating this and whose interest is in keeping them alive and not destroying them could be penalized with such penalties that they accidentally, through their op- eration, drown a porpoise or two. Mr. Felando. We, as a matter of policy, would be opposed to the killing of poi-poises for the puq^ose of producing a product. It would actually seriously damage the future of our business. Mr. Pelly. Your testimony unequivocably opposes all these bills, as I understand it. Now, if this were changed, would it change your position on the legislation ? Mr. Felaxdo. Yes, it would. Mr. Pelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DixGELL. ]Mr. Kyros ? Mr. Kyros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is that net which you just explained now universally used by all tuna fishermen? Mr. Felaxdo. No, the problem has been the one that Mr. Medina worked out last year and the net was just made available at the begin- ning of this year. It took Mr. Joe Medina 6 months before he was able to get the net and just before I came liere from San Diego I talked to one supplier. They have 100 bales of webbing now and it takes two bales of webbing to make the modification. To my knowledge at the present time there are eight or 10 vessels that have the modification and we expect, on the basis of discussions 350 that I have had with vessel operators, we expect most of the boats to chan<;e over by t lie beginning of next year. On the basis of just how meaningful it is in the success of the fisli- ing operations and on the basis of what lias happened in the fleet before, we just feel that all the vessels will be forced by virute of the competition alone, to make the changeover. At that time, I think we will be able to come up with strong evidence that this new modification is very successful. Mr. Kyros. If they are going to modify without any legislation caus- ing them to do it, then what about cost of changeover? Would not there be individual tunaboat operators who would not change because they are in areas by themselves ? Mr. Felando. No. The cost is betwen $2,200 and $3,000. In one set, in one successful set, you have already doubled that. Mr. Medina. Let me say not only for saving the poi-poise, but when I am out there and I make a set and I finish an hour before my com- petitor, I guarantee you he is going to put that webbing on. He will have to, to compete. We do not have enough data, but we are really happy with the re- sult. I think it is a fantastic thing. Mr. Kyros. So a law that was in accordance with your testimony this morning would not be oppressive to you or the industry, or to the tuna fishermen. Mr. Felando. My ansrvver would be yes right now, without seeing the language, Mr. Kyros. Well, in terms of your language, and with the use of your net method. Would that be oppressive to the tmia industry ? Mr. Felando. It would not be oppressive. We are hoping that we can develop even better tecliniques than what we have now. We think this is the answer, but it is too early to say. This is going to take us a little time to satisfy anyone who examines the process. My answer to you right now is "Yes." Mr. Kyros. There is no way other than the net to avoid catching dolphins along with the tunafish, I take it ? Mr. Felando. We have tried all kinds of ways. We have tried to work with sounds. We have known that for over 40 years that certain sound frequencies have an impact on poq^oise. Right now, we think that our best answer is this new modification of the net, but we are always ready to hear of anything new or anything better than what we are doing. Mr. Kyros. Has the Federal Government, through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, presented ideas and suggestions to you? Mr. Felando. We talked with them in early 1970 about a gate. Ac- tually, some of the fishermen have tried a gate earlier and we felt that their gate system — and actually we had a vessel try it out in December 1970 and we felt that it would not work. We think recent experiments by the Government have shown we were right. Mr. Kyros. People are very concerned right now about Campbell's products. Have tuna sales gone up ? Mr. Felando. Right now, we have no difficulty selling our product to the canners. I can only assume that sales are good. Mr. Kyros. I notice my daughter's cat eats tunafish in the morning. Are you selling a lot of tunafish for animal food? 351 Mr. Felando. Yes ; I think the gross sale figures for all pet foods is around $80 million a year. How much can be attributed to tuna, I do not know. All of the tuna is used, if not for human food, for pet food and other products, ranging from vitamins to cattle feed. Mr. Kyeos. What about the west coast? Are there Japanese tuna fishermen out there? Mr. Felando. Yes ; they are our main competitors. Mr. Kyros. Do you know if they have indicated the same concern for the dolphin and porpoises that you have this morning? Mr. Felando. They are trying to learn our techniques and I think they have one vessel that just this year tried to fish in our area and compete with us, but mostly their techniques are with the long line. Most of the fish is caught by long line and they have not yet made a substantial impact in the type of gear that we are operating. Mr. Kyros. Not nets, but hooks ? Mr. Felando. That is right. Mr. Kyros. So they do not have the same problem with the nets that you do with the dolphins ? Mr. Felando. Not as yet, because they do not have as many vessels. They have undertaken a program now to try to figure how we are doing it and so we expect them to come in within a short time and compete directly with us. Mr. Kyros. Are there any other foreign fishermen who fish the tuna ? Mr. Felando. Oh, yes, the French, Spanish, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, Panamanians, Canadians, Ecuadorians, and Peruvians. Mr. Kyros. Do you think we need an international agreement with them to make universal use of these nets ? Mr. Felando. There is no question in my mind that taking singular action against a U.S. fisherman will not solve this problem. Mr. Kyros. So there should then be an international law ? Mr. Felando. I think the answer is really solving the technical prob- lem and I think by working with us in solving this problem I feel that having a law in itself will not particularly, if it is directed toward U.S. -flag vessels, will not solve the problem. I think it is a technical problem. That is where the efforts should be directed. I think we have the answer. Time will show if we are right. I would like to see more attention toward the problem solving rather than just the passing of laws. Mr. Kyros. Other than your own initiative in solving it, you say that nothing else has been done, particularly by the Federal Government ? Mr. Felando. They have tried to come up with ideas in recent years and we have worked with them, but the idea that they came up with which was a gate, we advised them that we felt that this was not the answer and so their first efforts in this area with regard to these escape mechanisms have not been successful. So far the facts are showing that our escape mechanisms, our devices through the years have been more successful. Mr. Kyros' Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. de la Garza ? Mr. DE LA Garza. No questions. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Potter? 352 Mr. Potter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I tliink the most significant part of what you are telling the commit- tee is that, if I understand you, it is to the economic interest of the industry to use this Medina net. Is that an accurate summary? Mr. Felando. Yes ; it is to our economic interest to keep the porpoise lielping us and it is also extremely important in doing so, not only to have them around to help us, but also in the process of catching tuna, to get them out of the way as quickly as possible because this gives us the competitive advantage in operating our vessels. Mr. Potter. Incidentally, what species of porpoise are you talking about ? Mr. Felando, I am not an expert. We call them spinners and spotters and white bellies. These are the terms that we use in the industry. Mr. Potter. Primarily dolphins, I assume. Mr. Felando. Well, the word dolphin confuses us. I know some people use dolphin and porpoise and we just use, in the industry, we just call them porpoise. I do not know whether they are dolphin or what. Mr. Potter. Am I correct that risfht now the American tuna purse seine fleet is the only purse seine fleet of any significance presently fishing for tuna? Mr. Felando. No. You would have to sav at the present time that Mexico has a growing fleet in the purse seine business. I would say that is also true of France and Spain. There is a devel- oping fleet under the Panamanian flag. There is a definite indication that we are not there all bv ourselves. The purse seine, there is a growing recognition that this is the way to catch tuna, and it is a question of time how long we will maintain leadership. Mr. Potter. I understand that for many years it was this technique w'hich gave us a competitive edge — that we could use it and others could not. Mr. Felando. Well, it is just the fact that we originated the tech- nique. Now, this knowledge is being transferred and picked up by foreign fishermen. Mr. Potter. Have you any indication as to the extent to which the Medina net is being adopted by any of the other countries which are developing purse seine operations ? Mr. Felando. No. I just know that anyone who is in the business and who wants to stay in the business will pick up these things quickly. The word is getting aroimd. A lot of the people that we compete with, you know we have com- munication with them out at sea and I can only say at this time that I believe they will get the word very quickly. Mr. Potter. Is it your impression that the fishermen of other comi- tries are as solicitious of the welfare of the jwrpoise and dolphin as you are ? Mr. Felando. Well, I think they want to catch fish and I would hope that they would recognize the advantages of making the change. As to whether they have the same attitude that we 'have, I think all fishermen recognize the importance of porpoise so I would have to say I believe so. 353 Mr. Potter. Or at least hope so. Mr. Felando. I would hope so. Mr. PoTFER. That is all. Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Anderson ? Mr. AxDERsoN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Felando, is the Medina net the type which has a 2-inoh netting rather than the 4-inch nettinjo; that normally is used ? Mr. Felando. That is correct. Mr. Anderson. I have been somewhat shocked by the number of porpoises that are reportedly killed each year as a result of being cauffht in the nets. We have heard figures estimating 200,000 killed annually. And al- though they estimate how many are killed, no one seems to be able to tell us how many dolphin or porpoise there are. How many porpoise would you estimate there are ? Are we talking in terms of millions ? Mr. Felando. I would like to have Joe Medina talk about this. This is a very difficult thing. I wish we had more data to answer. In fact, I think only six sets of data, six cruises are the basis for this estimate. I would like to have Joe speak what he sees out there at sea. Mr. Medina. I might sav I think those figures are awfully high, but I might say from my experience and I have been ffoing to sea since I was 7 years old, I would say we see as much porpoise today as we have ever seen. There are also quite a bit of fish caught outside the porpoise. The only area from the Equator to up like Peru and Ecuador, is strictly what we call a school fishing; area. We have no problems down there except we get chased once in a while by a f cav gunboats. I might add it is an area off of Costa Rica that they have a nickname for the porpoise there. We are kind of happy they do not migrate them any place else. We call them the untouchables. We cannot catch them. We have been tr\'ing for 10 years and they have outsmarted us every time. There Avere four of us and we followed the porpoise and made a set with 16 speedboats. We were nominated to try with our boat. Well, we got around them all rieht and made a real nice set, started purse seining and they started leaking out the net and taking the fish with them and we ended up with no f)orpoise or no fish. Once they get outside, they are still looking at you. There are areas where we cannot catch the porpoise and other areas where we catch them verv easily. Well, to answer your question, we still see as much porpoise as we ever did. We have this problem licked with this net of mine. I wish it could be a year later so Ave could have a little more data for you. Within a year, everybody Avill have this net. Mr. Anderson. I aa-ouM like to explore this estimate of 200,000 por- i:»oises killed a year. Noav I understand that this is not a count. It is just an estimate that Avas made, using a prorated share of the catch of tuna on so manv ships. They orive us the figure of 3.9 porpoise for every ton of tuna. And that is Avhere they got the 200.000 figure. HoAv did thev actually determine that there were 3.9 porpoise killed per ton of tuna ? 354 Am I right in the way this figure has been developed? Mr. Felando. Yes ; from what I understand. We have allowed Gov- ernment observers to go aboard our vessels and to take a count. However, for instance there was only one observation on one vessel in 1968, one observation on one vessel in 1969, and I think four obser- vations in 1971, so they have a limited sample. On the basis of that count and what they tried to figure out was what percentage of tuna was caught with ^.orpoise and then on the basis of that, they would multiply what they estimated to be the number of porpoise killed per set or per ton with what they figured the fishermen would catch over a year on porpoise schools. 'We have not done anything like that. We have not come up with the different system or different count, so it is hard to say. The only thing that we can say is that we know it is so muc^i vari- ation, so many different circumstances and each set is a different experience, that we really question how good these figures are. That is all I can say to this, Congressman. I wish we could come up with an estimate. We have not done it. However, we are going to work out the program with the Govern- ment and we hope to get better figures. This is a question of time and maybe we can zero in on the thing. Mr. Anderson. When most of us think of the porpoise, we think of the ones we see on the TV, and they are fairly large. Wlien we are talking about 200,000 or 250,000 porpoise being caught in these nets, and they tell us they get caught by the nose in the 4-inch net, how big are these porpoise? Are they big or are they small ones? Mr. Medina. These are large porpoise. We catch a spinner porpoise and the spotter porpoise. Sometimes we see small ones mixed in, but very seldom and I would say they are 5 to 6 feet long. Mr. Anderson. These are trapped because they get caught in the 4- inch net? Mr. Medina. Yes. When we back down, this is the first thing that really saves the porpoise, when we back down we may have 1,500 or 2,000 porpoise. This is a large school. Sometimes we may make a set on 40 or 50 porpoise and have no trouble getting them out. When we back down out of that 1,500 porpoise, maybe 40 or 50 will get tangled in the net. The rest of them slide out over the top of the net and get out alive. This is the problem we have with the 40 or 50 porpoise and we get in and save them, the ones that are tangled up. With this new webbing and smaller net, and we are not having the problem, these porpoises are sliding right out of the net and getting out alive. Mr. Felando. Mr. Anderson, I might say this section of the net is around 700 feet long and 40 feet deep. This is the small mesh. This appears to be like a sliding platform. They do not get their noses caught. They have very sharp teeth and they do not get caught any more and do not panic. Like I say, the pictures will speak a 1,000 words and I am hopeful when we have the film that this might answer a lot of the questions that you have in your mind. 355 But to answer specifically your question, it appears we are talking about these mostly larger porpoise, 5 to 6 feet. Mr. Anderson. Now, there are several ocean mammal protection bills before this committee. Several of the bills would place a definite fine of $5,000, or a 1-year imprisonment for anyone killing or harrass- ing certain ocean mammals. What would that type of bill with such a penalty provision in it, do to the tuna fishing industry ? Would you be able to purse seine at all ? Mr. Felando. No, it would be almost fatal to the U.S. fishing fleet and I just do not see how we would be able to operate under the con- servation program that we have now. I might bring out another fact that I question about this number figure. We have been under Federal regulation as to the production of tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific since 1966. As you know, an international commmission composed of six coun- tries have been in existence since 1950 covering the conservation of the tuna as in the eastern Pacific. We have an open season and a closed season. The regulatory area which encompasses about 3 million square miles, the area we are talking about north of the Equator, up to about 20 degrees nortli latitude and out to about 122 or 110 longitude in some areas, this area is substantially closed durinc: the closed sea- son so there is a reduction of fishing effort for about 7 months in this area. This is one reason why I really question the figure that they have raised. Really, there is only a season for the yellowfin tuna which is pri- marily associated with the porpoise for about 4i/^ months. What happens is that the fleet then adjusts to the conservation regulations just like we have now. We have about 21 vessels in the Atlantic, another 20 or so vessels outside the regulatory area and the balance of the fleet are more or less located in fishing areas where tuna schools are not associated with the porpoise. This is one reason I question the figures brought out. We feel there is already some de facto regulation, you know, over and above what we are doing with regard to escape mechanisms so there is a real question whether there is a substantial impact on the porpoise population as has been raised publicly. Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. The committee thanks you for your presence and your very helpful information. Our next witness is Mr. Eugene Dreisen, American Fur Merchants Association. Mr. Dreisen, we are happv to welcome you back to the committee for such statement as you choose to give. I notice you have with you some of your associates and counsel and if you will see to it that you are fully identified for purposes of the record, and also that the gentlemen with you are identified by name, you may proceed. 356 STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH POSER, FUR CONSERVATION INSTI- TUTE, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. EUGENE DREISIN, AMERICAN FUR MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION; MR. JAMES SHARP, ESQ., WASHINGTON, D.C., REPRESENTING THE FUR CONSERVATION INSTITUTE OF AMERICA; MR. FRED HESSEL, AMERICAN FUR MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION; MR. WALTER SCHWARTZ, MEMBER OF THE FUR CONSERVATION INSTITUTE; AND MR. IRVING HECHT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATE FUR MANU- FACTURERS ASSOCIATION Mr. Sharp. Before Mr. Poser begins, Mr. Chairman, I am James R. Sharp, an attorney in Washington, D.C., and I represent the Fur Conservation Institute of America which represents all segments of the U.S. fur industry. In order that you may know Avho is here from the institute, I will introduce them. We have only two witnesses and I have a memorandum which I will offer. On my left is Mr. Joseph Poser, who is the president of the American Fur Brokers Association and a vice president of the American Fur Merchants Association. Beyond him is Mr. Eugene Dreisen, president of the American Fur Association and also the U.S. delegate to the International Fur Trade Federation in London. To my right is Mr. Hans Hessel, vice president of the American Fur Merchants Association and chairman of its foreign trade committee. Next to Mr. Hessel is Mr. Walter Schwartz who is a member of the Fur Conservation Institute and a member of the American Fur Mer- chants Association and next to him is Mr. Irving Hecht who is the executive vice president of the Associated Fur Manufacturers Association. With that introduction, I should like to turn the mike over to Mr. Poser. Mr. Poser. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Joseph E. Poser, a New York fur merchant, president of the American Fur Brokers Association and a vice president of the American Fur Merchants Association. However, I speak here on behalf of the Fur Conservation Institute of America, a body representing all segments of the fur industry in the United States. Contrary to impressions the members of this committee may well liave gathered from the highly emotional and either purposely warped or sadly misinformed presentation of proponents of the Harris-Pryor Ocean Mammal Protection Act, the U.S. fur industry is devoted to the concept of conservation of fur-bearing animals. Since primitive times when furs served as shelter to man from the elements, fur trading has had an honorable history in this country and around the world. For centuries no thought had to be given to the question of continuity of supply. Vast lands existed, unoccupied by man, where fur-bearing animals lived in abundant numbers, and the early traders took what they wanted without endangering any species. In those years the necessity of conservation did not guide actions of the fur industry or of Government officials or of the general public. Early in the 20th century the necessity of conservation of our wild mammal resources first became evident when it was found that the 357 North American fur seal population had been reduced to a dangerous level. In 1911, with the support of the fur industries in the four countries harvesting Northern Pacific fur seals, the United States, Canada, Russia, and Japan, signed a Northern Pacific Seal Convention. This was one of the first and a prime example of a plan for the rational use of a natural resource. This convention, may I point out, was adopted long before its present opponents had any thought of the necessity for wildlife conservation. It was highly successful and in 1957 a temporary convention for the conservation of seals was again agreed to by the four countries, as before, with the warm support of the fur industries of those countries. It is this latter convention which expires in 1976. Everyone concerned with these hearings knows that the population explosion of people has resulted in the impairment of the natural hab- itat of wild animals. We in the fur industry learned that man's need of living space, space in which to produce his needs and to enjoy his recreational activities, has grown beyond the wildest predictions of the past. The fur industry has come to realize that it has become both necessary and desirable to scientifically manage ^^dld animal stocks if these resources are to be preserved and conserved to serve man's present and future needs and pleasures. We in the fur industry have learned that the development and worldwide use of pesticides has added an unanticipated danger to the continued existence of wild animals. Our industry recognizes that pollution of our streams, our land and our atmosphere has threatened not only the lives and livelihood of the people who occupy our ever more crowded earth, but, as well, threatened the lives of many wild animals which historically have provided man with great recreational, educational and economic resources. For all these reasons we realize that conservation measures are urgently needed and that only if such measures are reduced to statutes and international conventions can they effectuate the i-equired conser\'ation. We in the fur industry have thus enlarged the recognition e_xpressed years ago in our sup^wrt of the international seal conventions. We recogiiize that the continued existence of the fur industry depends upon the enforcement of conservation measures on a worldwide scale, and that they must relate to all wild animals historically used by maai for food, clothing, adornment or shelter. For these reasons the fur industry welcomes and supports sound Federal laws, strengthened by international agreements, designed to conserve wild animals. Accordingly, we urge this committee to report out a carefully con- sidered sea mammal protection bill. In May 1969, in testimony in supix)rt. of the Endangered Species Act, our spokesman testified before the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment, of the Senate Commerce Committee: "We are opposed to the overutilization of any species of wildlife that threatens that specie with extinction." Following the passage of that bill, the International Fur Trade Federation representing over 20 countries negotiated an agreement of aims and practices with the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the World Wildlife Fund. The outline of said agreement is contained in a booklet which I would like to have introduced into the record. 358 Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, the booklet you refer to will be inserted in the record at this jwint. (Booklet referred to follows :) Conservation and the Fur Trade — PtrBLisHEo by The International Fur Trade Federation foreword The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the World Wildlife Fund welcome and endorse the action outlined in this paper, action which is based on knowledge accumulated over many years by the lUCN and which will lead to important management and conser\'ation practices in the use of pelts from wild animals and in particular from depleted species. Fritz VcIllmar, Secretary General World Wildlife Fund. Gerardo Budowski, Director General International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Conservation and the Fur Trade F'or a long time the Fur Trade has been deeply interested in the question of the conservation of fur bearing animals, for it is obviously not in the economic interest of the industry to see any species of wild life become extinct. In 1968 the International Fur Trade Federation (which is a federation of the national Fur Trade Associations of twenty three countries) appointed a Committee to investigate the jwsition. In the words of H.R.H. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh : "Conservation is an immensely complicated problem and people who leap to the apparent obvious conclusion that it means complete protection of all Avild things are guilty of gross over-simplification. They have merely al- lowed their emotions to overnm their reason." The two primary causes of decline in wild animal populations are modification of habitat and overexploitation by man. Modification of habitat is caused by the conservation of land where a species has lived, by deforestation, drainage etc., to agricultural or industrial uses. Often this is linked with the effects of population gro^i:h, the building of new towns and roads, railways and airfields ; with burning, overgrazing by domestic stock and a host of other practices. It may also involve a change in the animal population ; for instance a reduction in prey animals which would adversely affect their predators. Exploitation is as likely to be for food or casual sport as for such economic utilisation as trap- ping for furs ; provided the harvest does not exceed the populations' recruit- ment, a sustained yield of animals can be taken in i^erjjetuity. Rigid protection of a particular animal can sometimes be dangerous to its own survival if attention is not given to its food supply and habitat require- ments. Thus the Moose on Isle Royal in Lake Superior, imder complete protec- tion, increased to a level at which they virtually destroyed their liabitat. When Wolves were introduced to the island to prey upon the Moose a reasonable bal- ance between population and food supply was restored. It is right that restrictions should take place on the hunting of Tigers and Leopards, but except in the areas set aside as game reser\^es or national parks or other \A-ild areas it is doubtful if any large increase in population can be allowed to occur, for under such circumstances the authorities in the areas in which they exist \\ill be faced with the potential danger to humans and domestic animals. In areas where man has settletl, habitat changes resulting from human activity, allow Leopards and Tigers little alternative but to prey on the increasing herds of domestic livestock. Farmers whose whole income is a few pounds a year derived from cattle and goats will naturally wage war on these predators. In this connection it must also be remembered that, in the past, instances were recordetl of Tigers and Leopards being responsible for the death of many human beings. On the other hand, there are many well attested instances of populations of grazing animals, such as Deer, where hunting has been abolished and predators have been killed off, increasing beyond the capacity of the habitat to support them, resulting in the destruction of the habitat by overgrazing and starvation of the animals. 359 If herds of Seals are left undisturbed they can under certain circumstances compete with man's fishery operations. In Greenland and Arctic Canada, where the adult Seals used by the fur trade for coats originate, the sealing that has been carried on by the Eskimos for thousands of years is vital to their economy and their very existence. (In the Gulf of St. Lawrence where some individuals have been responsible for intense anti-Fur Trade propaganda, the vast majority of Seals taken are used for leather purposes and not by the Fur Trade at all). In any case, the part of the sealing operation that lies within Canadian terri- torial waters is controlled by the Government with a quota fixed on the advice of competent scientists, so that the herds are not unduly depleted. On the island of NortJb Rona off the Scottish coast, there is concentrated the largest population of Grey Seals in the world. A sur\'ey made by the Nature Conserrancy has shown that as a result of overcrowding leading to disease, starvation and fatal injuries, of two thousand pups bom each season from three to four hundred never live to reach the sea. It is arguable that it is better to kill some excess Seals quickly and humanely and thus allow the pups a better chance of survival. It is not true that if we just leave the Seals alone nature will see that they live happily ever after ; on the contrary, if we abandon our management responsibilities, natural balances will be attained in ways that may be far more painful to individual animals. Many people still find it diflScult to understand that with man's dominance on earth the protection of Nature with its delicately balanced ecosystems, and all endangered forms of life, depends increasingly upon planned management of the wilderness and on enlightened exploitation of its natural resources based on scientific research, and that the roles of the hunter and the conservationist are usually compatible. In Alaska the Fur Trade long ago took the lead in an outstanding conservation project. In 1911 the Fur Seal herd had declined to a maximum of 150,000 to 200,000 animals and was almost extinct in other areas. In that year a treaty was signed by all the Governments concerned and the management of the herd was taken over by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Government in the interests of the Fur Trade. Selective killing was under the strictest super- vision to ensure that hvunane methods were used to confine the killing to surplus three year old males, which meant that no female or breeding bull was ever in- tentionally killed. The killing of these bachelor Seals does not affect the structure or breeding i)erformance of the herd, because the animals are polygamous. As the result of this scientific management the numbers of animals have increased to one and a half million and each year approximately seventy thousand skins are taken for the Fur Trade. The operations provide valuable employment to the native Aleut population who live in the islands. The Fur Seal has been re- established and is now returning to other areas, and a sustained yield of surplus animals for use in the Fur Trade now gives economic benefits to many people. ORYX, the journal of the Fauna Preservation Society, has said : "The Pribilof Fur Seals are in fadt the perfect example of what conserva- tion means by liarvesting wild animal population on a sustained yield basis." The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources considers that conservation can best be defined as : "The rational management of earth's resources to achieve the highest sustainable quality of living for mankind." In Canada there are great conservation projects covering effective wildlife management with carefully planned profitable culling covering Beaver and Musquash. Areas of hundreds of square miles are set aside as Reserves. Work is done to control water resources and increase food, and the harvesting of a scientifically assessed number of animals by the native population is allowed. Reserves are closed from time ito time and fresh areas opened for trapping. In the U.S.S.R. the same approach is being made with the Sable and other animals. In many producing countries the problem is being tackled by the establishment of conservation areas and reserves, where animals can be managed scienltifically, and by restrictions on the export of certain skins. Unfortunately, the possibilities of eva.sion are great and it is often diflBcult to make such controls really effective. Under these circumstances, the members of the Fur Trade are in a unique posi- tion, in respect of fur bearing species, to aid the international effort in the control of trade in threatened species, through the acceptance of self-imposed bans on the use of skins of these*animals. With this objective in mind contact was made with the International Union for Con.servation of Nature and Natural Resources (lUON) which is the authori- 67-765 O - 71 - 24 360 tative international conservation organisation and of which the World Wildlife Fund is the fundraising associate. Joint meetings were arranged in 1969 by the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) which were alttended by representa- tives of the Fur Trade and the lUCN, including such well known conservationists as : Lt. Cdr. Peter Scott (Chairman of lUCN Survival Service Commission) ; Mr. Richard Fitter (Hon. Secretary of the Fauna Preservation Society) ; Prof. Paul Leyhausen (Chairman of the lUCN Survival Service Commis- sion Cat Group) ; and Mr. Harry Goodwin (Chief of the Endangered Species OflBce, U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior). These meetings confirmed that there was a great deal of common ground be- tween the two sides in as much as the Fur Trade was genuinely anxious to pre- vent the extinction of the threatened species of animals by all means in their power, and that the lUCN recognised the legitimate interests of the Trade which could often contribute to the necessary culling and balance of wildlife and to the rational utilization of a renewable resource. As a result of the discussions during the meetings, it was agreed that the IFTF would recommend strongly to their members a voluntary total Imn on tradi- in the skins of five seriously endangered animals as follows : Tiger (Panthera tigris) ; Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia) : Clouded Leonard (Neofelis nebulosa) ; La Plata Otter (Lutra platensis) ; and Giant Otter (Ptero nura bra sinensis'* Since there is now a good deal of evidence that Leopards and Cheetahs, al- though not immediately endangered, are being overkilled in some areas it was agreed that a temporary ban or moratorium should be recommended for three years, to enable a scientific survey to be made to determine the true position of these animals and the sustainable yield. These measures would operate from a date which would allow the Trade to clear existing stock as legitimate sales. In Great Britain, the British Fur Trade Association has proposed to the Government that they should remove the skins of the seven species mentioned above from the open general license to import raw skins which operates at pres- ent, so that they will only be allowed into the country under a specific import license if accompanied by a certificate of legal capture from the originating country authenticated by the United Kingdom Consul. The Swiss, German and French Associations have approached their Govern- ments on similar lines to the British Fur Trade. Among South American Spotted Cats, such as Jaguars, Ocelots, Peludas and other types of Spotted Cats presently under pressure from exploitation, there was not suflScient information to indicate that the siiecies were endangered, and it was necessary that an enquiry should take place as soon as possible into the position of these animals, so that action could be taken in good time to prevent the depletion of stocks. These enquiries on Leopards and Cheetahs and South American Cats would be carried out jointly by lUCN and IFTF who would maintain a close watch on the number of skins coming on to the market and make a substantial financial con- tribution to the costs of such surveys. It was also agreed that the IFTF would recommend to their member associa- tions that they should support all conservation legislation in their respective countries on the same lines as the United States Endangered Species Act which, with the help of the American Fur Merchants Association, became effective in the U.S.A. in August 1970. The Director General of lUCN has said : "This agreement with the IFTF whose members include Fur Trade Asso- ciations throughout the world, represents an important forward step toward the rational management of these living resources. The action of the IFTF will be a significant and lasting contribution to the preservation of the life forms which are in danger of extinction." And Mr. Walter Hickel, when United States Secretary of the Interior, in a personal letter has said : "The United States Department of the Interior sends its congratulations to the International Fur Trade Federation for its efforts to save endangered species and prevent other species from becoming threatened with extinction. The efforts of all international organisations concerned with conservation and rational use of the living resources of the world must be joined to pre- serve these life forms for future generations." Retail fur stores throughout the world who subscribe to these agreements vrill display a plaque which certifies that they support the principles of conservation and adhere strictly to the guidance provided by the World Wildlife Fund on the 361 advice of lUCN and in cooperation with the IFTF. The proceeds from the sale of tliese plaques will be used to finance research projects leading to conservation action. It will be seen, therefore, that the Fur Trade is deeply concerned in this question and is working in the closest cooperation with the most responsible organisations in the world, to ensure that there is effective wildlife management, and that the taking of skins for furs is based on planned scientific methods to ensure mainte- nance of stocks. Mr. Poser. Our attitude concerning the conservation of sea mam- mals is identical with that of the true conservationists and the con- cerned public authorities. However, it departs from that of the so- called humane le^slation o;roups such as the Friends of Animals, Inc., and similar organizations. These oraranizations can be more aptly described as preservationists rather than conservationists. Their phi- losophy seems to be that no living animal shouM be used by man unless absohitely necessary to serve man's need for food, clothinsr, or shelter. The dispatch of animals not absolutely necessary for food, clothing, or shelter, even though done by the most humane method possible, is not regarded by them as humane. Yet they label the dispatch of cattle and other animals they say are necessary for man's livelihood as humane, even though such animals may be dispatched by the same means as surplus bachelor seals. In resnect to conservation, we are in srood company. Our philosophy matches that of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IITCN), the Wildlife Mana^-ement Institute, the American Forestry Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the Audubon Society, the American MammaloQ-ical Society, the Departments of Commerce, State, and Interior, and the Council on Fnvironmental Quality. We believe the controlled or "managed" use of the world's mineral, plant, and animal resources is necessary to the continued life, protection, edu- cation, and welfare of man. We believe such use is also necessary to prevent the population of some species from increasins; to the extent they endan6 about 750 seals were born on the Islands, which have a total land area of 80 acres. The number of births has increaseeculiarity of the fur seal is to be found in its polygamous way of life, under which condition the normal growth of the herd is predicated on a grown male needing 40 to 50 females. This situation permits a fully rational ex- ploitation of the seal resources, removing only the young immature males, in the age bracket between 3 and 4 years, and leaving all females and baby seals for the further development of the herd. The temporary convention for the preservation of fur seals can serve as a shining example of international cooperation for the rational exploitation of the living resources of the sea. The Soviet Union will continue to adhere to its international obligations and will continue the seal harvest observing the provisions of the convention with a view to further increase the number of herds. Mr. Dreisin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiNGELL. Are there any questions ? Mr. Sharp. Mr. Chairman, may I say just a word before you start the questions? 1 Certified Translation of body of communication from Soviet BTport-Import Trading Co., V/O Sojuzpushnina, Moscow, to Eugene Dreisin (Russian version attached). Septem- ber 17, l©?!. 365 We have been able to gather some statistics that may be of interest to the committee. For instance, I have a good deal about the number of females killed. We do have a report from NOAA that there were only 230 in 1969, 121 in 1970, and 84 in 1971. Mr. DiNGELL. Those figures, I believe, are already in the record. Mr. Sharp. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are other statistics with respect to the processing and exportation of seal skins showing that the bulk of such skins that are processed in this country (the Canadian as well as the U.S. share and Japanese share) are exported. In any event if there are questions on the matter of statistics we will be happy to answer them. ( The statistics referred to follow : ) DATA PROVIDED BY FOUKE CO. OF GREENVILLE, S.C, RELATIVE TO SOURCES AND DESTINATION OF FUR SEAL SKINS SOLD AT FOUKE CO.'S AUCTIONS 12 Sales and source of skins Total number of skins sold Estimated number of skins exported Estimated percent of skins exported Estimated dollar value of skins exported Estimated number of skins not exported Estimated percent of skins not exported Estimated dollar value of skins not exported April 1968: Alaska Other 27,301 . 22,309. Subtotal 49,610 30, 367 61.2 $2,173,039 19,243 38.8 $1,707,387 September 1968: Alaska Other 27,730 . 25, 636 . Subtotal. 53,366 33.158 62.1 1,917,394 20, 208 37.9 1,549,865 Total 1968 102, 976 63, 525 61.7 4, 090, 432 39,451 38.3 3, 257, 252 April 1969: Alaska Other 26,800 . 27, 142 . Subtotal 53,942 33,715 62.5 1, 854, 931 20, 227 37.5 1, 664, 862 October 1969: Alaska Russia Other..- 26,905 . 2,879 _ 27,045 . Subtotal. 56, 829 35, 050 61.7 1,517,030 21, 779 38.3 864, 493 Total 1969 110,771 68, 765 62.1 3, 371, 961 42, 006 37.9 2, 529. 355 April 1970: Alaska Russia Other 26,575 - 5,989 - 26, 103 - Subtotal... 58, 667 38,613 65.8 2, 083, 730 20,054 34.2 1,192,575 November 1970: Alaska Russia Other.. 19,897 _ 2,757 . 28,462 . Subtotal 51,116 44, 101 86.3 2, 258, 975 7,075 13.7 436, 699 Total 1970 109, 783 82, 714 75.3 4, 342, 708 27, 129 24.7 1,629.274 April 1971: Alaska -. Russia Other _. 20,842 . 2,655 . 29,047 . Total 52, 544 43, 866 83.5 2, 277, 760 8,678 16.5 493, 238 1 Canadian skins are processed by Fouke Co. but shipped to Montreal and not sold in the United States and are therefore not included in the above figures. ,. 11 1 «nn>«™; on„..,iiu 2 Other sources in all cases are Uruguay and South Africa. Uruguayan skins average approximately 1,400 semi-annually. The balance are all from South Africa. 366 EXPORT DATA SUPPLIED BY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE-TOTAL DRESSED SEAL FURSKIN EXPORTS, INCLUDING FUR SEAL, ROCK SEAL AND HAIR SEAL Year Number skins Dollar value lofic 88,644 $6,055,144 iSfi " •" 62,747 4,087,779 iqS? ■ "■ 84,562 5,442,157 ,5b8 " " 85,858 5,901,127 tSfio " " 75,011 3,926,145 1970 " " 104,347 5,281,613 i97rthroughJuiy:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::-: -- 28,395 1,586,970 Mr. Sharp. Mr. Chairman, I also have some suggested changes in H.K. 10420 and with your permission, I will submit them to the reporter. Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, they will appear in the record at this point. (The suggested changes to H.R. 10420 follow :) Suggested Changes in H.R. 10420 as Submitted by the Fur Conservation Institute of America 1. Provision Requiring Negotiation of a New or Extended Northern Pacific Seal Convention and International Conventions for Conservation of Other Ocean Mammals. H.R. 10420 should be changed to the extent and in the respects necessary — (a) To require that well in advance of the expiration date of the Northern Pacific Seal Convention in 1976, an extended (hopefully permanent) Convention be negotiated by the Secretary of State, consistent with the findings and declara- tions of policy set out in Section 2 of H.R. 10420, and with the advice and as- sistance of the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. (b) To require that within two years after adoption of the Act the Secretary of State convene a meeting or meetings of representatives of appropriate nations to consider conventions designed to conserve sea mammals other than fur seals. (c) To provide that prior to termination of the present Northern Pacific Seal Convention and during the period of any new or extended Seal or other inter- national convention relating to the Conservation of Ocean Mammals under the terms of which an International body sets annual or other limitations on the taking of the mammals involved, the Secretary shall have no power to set any limitation on the taking of such mammals which is in derogation of such Con- vention or of the limitations on taking established thereunder by the Interna- tional body which is required by the Convention to establish limitations thereon. 2. Provisions to he Modified as a Result of Suggestion Number 1. As a result of the incorixtration of provisions such as suggested in 1 above, ap- propriate changes will have to be adopted in Sections 102, 103 and other sections. Perhaps Sec. 107 dealing with "Exceptions" could be modified to except from the provisions of the title all taking done pursuant to and in accordance with any international convention to which the United States is a party. 3. Changes to Assure that Limitations on Taking Which May be Preseribed by the Secretary are Consistent ivith the Act. We suggested that in order to be doubly sure that the Secretary administering the Act does so in accordance with the statement of policies set forth in Section 2, there be inserted in line 21 of H.R. 10420 as introduced by the original spon- sors, after the word "shall" and before the word "prescribe" the words "consistent with the findings and declaration of policies set out in Section 2." Jf. Changes in the Penalty Section. Section 104 which provides penalties for violation penalizes only violations of the Act or "any regulation issued thereunder." Like the i>enalty section of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.A. 668 cc-4), the section in the Ocean Mammals Act should provide penalties for violation of the Act or of "any regu- lation or permit issued thereunder." Penalty Section 104 provides penalties for violation, among other things, of the prohibitions of Section 101. The latter section provides that except as pro- vided in Section 102, 107 and 109 it is unlawful for any person or vessel subject to 367 the jurisdiction of the United States to take an ocean mammal or use any port, harbor or place in connection with any such taking or to possess, transport, sell or offer for sale any such mammal in interstate commerce or to import any such mammal or part thereof. Under Section 102 the prohibition would apply immediately after the Secre- tary had prescribed limitations on the taking of the species, there being no waiting time provided for between the effective date of the limitations prescribed by the Secretary under Section 102 and the application of the prohibitions under Sec- tion 101. This could operate quite unfairly as to anyone with a stock of skins on hand as of the date the Secretary prescribed the limitations. The same problem was considered during the course of the Senate Subcommittee hearings on the Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, Section 668 cc 3 (b) containing a licensing provision as to inventory on hand was adopted to eliminate any economic hard- ship which would otherwise result in a similar situation. A similar relief clause should be incorporated in H.R. 10420 or such other bill as the Committee may report out. 5. Revision of the Forfeiture Provisions. The forfeiture provisions are set forth in Section 105 of H.R. 10420. There is considerable question as to whether the section as now written provides ade- quate protection to those whose property is seized. Lengthy consideration of the identical problem was given to the forfeiture provisions of the Endangered Species Act by the Senate Cominierce Committee and its Subcommittee. We be- lieve that Section 105 of H.R. 10420 should be modified to follow the pattern estab- lished by the forfeiture provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This pattern is set out in Section 668-<>c-4(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act (USCA 16 Par. 668-cc^(a)(2). 6. Excessive Administrative Requiremetits. As introduced, the Act would be administered largely by the Secretary of Interior. However, under Title II, Section 201. a Marine Mammial Commission would be appointed. Its duties would be (Sec. 202) to conduct studies and miake recommendations to the Secreitary. The Commission is to be aided in its work by a "Oommittee of S