Hon. E. L. BARTLETT, Washington, D.C. STATE OF ALASKA, SENATE. DEAR BOB: May I add my voice of support in favor of S. 1988. In my service as an adviser to the American section of the INPFC, the last 2 vears as chairman of the advisory group, I can certainly vouch for the need of such legislation. The retention of the "Continental Shelf” portion of the bill is of utmost importance. Action this session is most necessary. Best wishes. ALFRED A. OWEN. Re hearing on S. 1988. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, WAKEFIELD FISHERIES, Port Wakefield, Alaska, September 4, 1963. Presiding Officer, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I firmly believe the measure before you for discussion is one of the most significantly constructive proposals placed before the Congress on a fishery matter in a long time. Legislation of this type is vital if we are to protect the most elementary rights of our fishermen. Whereas we here in Alaska may feel this problem more acutely than others at the moment, I feel sure it will meet with the approval of the U.S. fishing industry on all coasts. The threat is a bit further off in some areas, but the need is the same. I would like to appear personally in support of such a fine piece of legislation, but a trip next week to Tokyo on matters not unrelated interferes. Sincerely, LOWELL WAKEFIELD, President. ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As chairman of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, I have been directed to inform your committee this commission strongly endorses S. 1988. This commission is composed of the 15 Atlantic Coastal States, who are responsible for management of their States fishery resources. Several months ago, your committee heard testimony from members of this commission, in support of S. 627. We are very grateful for your efforts in securing passage in the Senate of this important legislation. S. 1988 is also a very important piece of legislation. Years ago, when there was no threat to the domestic fishery from foreign intrusion, there was no need for Federal regulation providing stiff penalties. This situation has changed. Today we find a Russian fishing fleet fishing the entire length of our east coast, and with no penalties provided for fishing inside the State jurisdictional waters, it is absurd to think these limits will not be violated. State departments responsible for management of their fishery resources are keenly aware that good management depends on knowledge gained through research. Scientific management often requires restrictions to be placed on certain types of fishing gear to relieve pressure on certain species of fish. How could this be accomplished, if the area is invaded by foreign fishing vessels over whom we have no control other than to order them offshore? S. 1988 also has another important provision. This permits the Federal Government to delegate authority to the State agency responsible for enforcement of State regulations to enforce this Federal statute. Most, if not all, of the States have very efficient marine police and coastal patrol units. These enforcement bodies would be very effective, in aiding the Coast Guard, who are admittedly undermanned, to prevent violations. This commission is also in complete accord with the provision dealing with the Continental Shelf. We believe that any species that is not completely mobile in water should be considered in the same category as clams and oysters. This would include lobsters, whose ability to move is very limited. Also scallops who, while they have the ability to move, have no means of directing their movement. Respectfully, DAVID H. HART, Chairman. Senator BARTLETT. The hearing is now adjourned. (Whereupon, the hearing in the above matter was adjourned at 12 noon, to reconvene in closed session at 3 p.m., the same day.) |