will be fair and equitable to our fisheries. First, it would be possible for nationals of other parties to the convention to exploit the resource at a time when American fishermen could not, if those party governments permitted their fishermen to fish contrary to the intent of the Commission's restrictions. Second, it would be possible for nationals of countries not party to the convention to exploit the resource while Americans were denied access to fishing, if their government permitted their fishermen to fish contrary to the intent of the Commission's regulations. And, third, it would be possible for nationals of the United States to evade control by fishing during the closed season and landing their catches in some foreign countries. We believe the provisions of S. 2568 are designed to cover such factual situations, and I will very briefly review those. I would like to mention some other factors which tend to mitigate the problems. While it's true that the American Tropical Tuna Commission has no authority to regulate fishing activities, the parties to it do have such authority. Our contact with these governments, both at the regular meetings of the Commission and on a survey trip to each country taken by representatives of the Departments of State and Interior, encourage us to believe that these countries will take parallel action contemplated by the terms of the convention. Our Government is a party to other international agreements which contemplate regulatory action by the party governments rather than by the Commission itself, as indicated by Mr. Herrington in previous testimony, and our experience with these conventions has been completely satisfactory not only to the Government but to the affected industries as well. Examples that come quickly to mind are the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, the North Pacific Halibut Commission, the North Pacific Fisheries Convention, and the Great Lakes Fisheries Convention. The countries not party to the convention which are in the position substantially to exploit the resource are Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, and Japan. Now, of course, there are other countries which potentially could exploit these resources. You pointed out that the U.S.S.R. theoretically has the potential of exploiting this resource if she so chooses. Direct contact has been had by our Government with these aforementioned Governments. We have discussed this problem with them, and all of them have given us reason to believe that their cooperation will be forthcoming. Colombia, for example, has requested membership in the Commission; and Japan has expressed interest. In an official communication to our Government Japan has indicated that it would respect the yellowfin tuna conservation program of the Commission and would, so far as is practically possible, provide the Commission with current yellowfin catch statistics for the area involved. For these reasons we believe the three possible threats to the achievement of reasonable control of the tuna fishery will not actually materialize. Even so, there are further safeguards built into the bill to prevent unfair competition. The bill provides that once the Secretary of the Interior promulgates conservation regulations he shall then promulgate additional regulations, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to prohibit entry into the United States of tuna taken from the regulatory area of any country— when the vessels of such country are being used in the conduct of fishing operations in the regulatory area in such manner or in such circumstances as would tend to diminish the effectiveness of the conservation recommendations of the Commission. We interpret this qualifying language, which I have just quoted, to mean that all yellowfin tuna taken from the regulatory area, regardless of when taken, will be denied entry into the United States from any country whose fishermen violate the closed season on yellowfin. This is a question that you discussed briefly with Mr. Herrington. Our regulations would reflect this interpretation and the resulting import prohibition would be an effective deterrent to fishing contrary to the intent of regulations by nationals of the country where the importation would originate. În addition, the bill authorizes regulations to prevent the importation of yellowfin tuna taken contrary to the Commission regulations and shipped to the United States through a third country. An additional safeguard built into the bill is the authority given to the Secretary of the Interior to suspend the conservation regulations in the event he finds that foreign fishing operations in the regulatory area would constitute a serious threat to the achievement of the regulations. This has also been discussed, Mr. Chairman, in previous testimony. I would simply add that in this regard the Secretary of the Interior can have, and will have, the benefit of consultation with the Secretary of State and U.S. representatives on the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The industry has expressed some concern that the large size of the regulatory area will make enforcement and surveillance of the fishing fleets impractical. Now it is true that our enforcement for the most part will be shoreside inspections, but we do believe we will have considerable information regarding the fishing activities both from our fishing fleet and from such patrols we will be able to mount through the cooperation of the Coast Guard. It should be noted in the importation regulations contemplated by this legislation the burden of proof will be on the foreign shipperI would like to make that clear, Mr. Chairman-if the Secretary of the Interior so should indicate, then this foreign shipper must satisfy the Secretary that yellowfin tuna offered for importation was not taken from the regulatory area during the closed season. There has been some objection to the forfeiture provisions of the original bill. It is believed that the liability for forfeiture of the fishing vessel would hinder the industry in financing the fishing venture. We believe that the present forfeiture provisions are sufficient to obtain proper compliance with the laws and regulations. In other words, we think a reasonable compromise in position can be achieved in this regard. In summary, we in the Department strongly believe that this bill will give to the Secretary the authority he needs to fulfill the commitments of our Government for the conservation of the fishery according to the recommendations of the international body to which we hold membership. We believe that under such authority we can promulgate regulations: to conserve the fishery and at the same time safeguard the interests of this very important-one of the most important, Mr. Chairman— American fishing industries. After consideration of the specific safeguards mentioned, it is to be noted that should it appear that regulation was unfair to our industry because of acts of nationals of other countries over whom control. was not effective, we have the ultimate safeguard that the Secretary of the Interior can suspend the regulations and remove the restraint on the American industry. I will be glad to answer any questions, but I would like to emphasize the importance to which I give this particular piece of legislation. I believe it is not only important with respect to our foreign commitments in conservation, but I also believe that it very definitely is in the best interests of our industry to maintain this fishery at a very high level of productivity, and this can only be done through legislation of this kind which will allow the implementation of the Commission's recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. McKernan. How would U.S. nationals be controlled if they sought to take yellowfin to foreign ports for sale? Mr. McKERNAN. The importation of these yellowfin from the foreign port would be prohibited. Senator BARTLETT. Is it possible there might be a market in that foreign country? Mr. McKERNAN. With respect to the present Central and South American countries, practically all of the yellowfin and skipjack tuna landed in these countries enters the United States in one form or another at the present time. Senator BARTLETT. We consume practically all of it here? Senator BARTLETT. You have had personal contacts, Mr. McKernan, with this situation? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. Senator BARTLETT. Now, the 83,000 tons would be the overall quota for all nations, members and nonmembers? Mr. McKERNAN. Correct. Senator BARTLETT. I have no further questions. Mr. Huse? Mr. HUSE. No questions. Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Kenney? Mr. KENNEY. I have one question. Do you anticipate that it would be desirable or necessary in the conduct of public hearings before the regulations were issued, to hold such hearings at places other than Washington? For instance, in California? Mr. McKERNAN. I think this might well be highly desirable, and it would be rather consistent with what we have done in other circumstances. In the case of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, we have held meetings with the industry, and formerly, when we had regulatory authority over Alaska, we held public hearings in various places within the State within, at that time, the Territory of Alaska, now the State of Alaska. Mr. KENNEY. Thank you. Senator BARTLETT. By the way, Mr. McKernan, there are a lot of miles of ocean space, square miles, that are encompassed in this area. Have you, or has Interior, State, or anyone, so far as you know, talked with the Coast Guard about patrolling? Mr. McKERNAN. I believe that preliminary discussions have been held, Mr. Chairman. I'm not personally familiar with the results of these; but I believe that within the limits of the finances provided to the Coast Guard they will be as cooperative with us in this area as they are everywhere else. We get excellent cooperation from them, both in the northwest Atlantic and in the northeastern Pacific, as you well know. Now, there's no question about the fact that we intend the major enforcement to be based at the ports of entry, that is, the ports of handling. Senator BARTLETT. You don't expect the need for a fleet of Coast Guard cutters? Mr. McKERNAN. We do not contemplate that need at the present time. Senator BARTLETT. Now, Mr. McKernan, I understand that you are going to be busy elsewhere tomorrow, and Dr. McHugh, also. Can you have someone here from Interior who will be ready to respond to questions, if necessary, in light of the testimony that will be presented by other witnesses tomorrow? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. Mr. William Terry of our Department and Mr. Ralph Curtiss of our Bureau will both be present, and I am sure can be present practically all the time, Mr. Chairman. Senator BARTLETT. Very well. And thank you. Dr. McHugh. STATEMENT OF DR. J. L. McHUGH, U.S. COMMISSIONER, Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I also have a prepared statement that I have already submitted to the committee. I think I can save the committee a little time by giving this briefly in my own words. Senator BARTLETT. That will be fine. (Statement follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. J. L. MCHUGH, U.S. COMMISSIONER, INTER-AMERICAN TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, am Dr. J. L. McHugh, Chief of the Division of Biological Research in the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior, and one of the three U.S. Commissioners on the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. At a special meeting at Long Beach, Calif., on September 14, 1961, the Commission passed a resolution recommending regulation of the catch of yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. At its regular annual meeting in Quito, Ecuador, last week, the Commission reaffirmed the need for regulation. I am here today to describe the scientific basis for this recommendation. The Commission is convinced that this scientific evidence demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that if regulations are not put into effect these valuable stocks of yellowfin tuna cannot continue to produce the maximum sustainable annual catch. As early as 1957 the scientific staff of the Commission determined that there is a limit to the total catch of yellowfin tuna that can be sustained year after year. Subsequent investigations have confirmed this estimate. The most probable estimate of maximum sustained annual catch is 195 million pounds, or 97,000 tons, but it could be some 12,000 tons higher or lower. This maximum annual catch can be made in about 35,000 days of fishing by a standard tuna clipper. Thus, a fleet of 200 such fishing boats would require 175 days of fishing to make the maximum sustainable catch. It is possible by fishing harder to take more fish than this in a particular year, but only at the expense of the catch in later years. If fishing continues to exceed the rate of 35,000 standard fishing days that would produce this maximum catch, as it did in 1961, the average annual catch will be less than the maximum. In other words, by fishing harder, the fleet will catch less fish. Rapid development of the purse seine fishery, stimulated by invention of the power block and synthetic nets, has increased the intensity of fishing to a point well beyond that which would produce the maximum sustainable yield. The total catch was about 117,000 tons in 1960 and slightly more than this in 1961. This means that the fishery was removing not only all the annual surplus but also some of the reserve stock. Events in the first 4 months of the 1962 fishery have confirmed this conclusion, for the fleet as a whole is fishing even harder than in 1961 and catching smaller quantities of yellowfin. Moreover, in 1961 the fleet had to fish harder than in 1960 to make its catch. In 1960 the fleet operated for about 35,000 standard fishing days to make its yellowfin catch. This is exactly the amount of fishing that will produce the maximum sustainable catch. But the fleet of 1961 expended nearly 42,000 units of effort, and the fleet in 1962 will be able to exert even greater fishing pressure unless regulations are adopted and put into effect. It is just as if a man had invested $300,000 in a highly remunerative business which gave him a return of $97,000 annually. He then decided that $97,000 was not sufficient to meet his needs and made up his mind to increase his annual income to $117,000, taking the increase from the principal. He could continue to do this for a few years and would not be aware that anything was wrong if he ignored his bank statements. However, each year he would be drawing less interest and removing more principal. For 6 years he could enjoy an annual income of $117,000, but on the 7th year he would awaken to find his income suddenly reduced more than two-thirds and his principal entirely gone. next year he would have nothing. The In this hypothetical example, the "principal" is analogous to the stock of yellowfin tuna in the sea, spawning each year to produce the "interest", which is the crop of new fish growing up to fishable size each year. The tuna fishery, of course, could not duplicate this example, for it is impossible to remove the last yellowfin tuna from the ocean and still make a profit. If the fishery were to continue at its present rate, each year the fleet would find it more difficult to catch fish, and it would soon become unprofitable to fish for yellowfin tuna alone. small catch of yellowfin then would be taken incidentally by the skipjack fishery, and this steady attrition probably would hold the yellowfin stocks at a low productive level. This would be contrary to our objective of reaping the maximum yield from this valuable tuna resource. A The scientific work of the Commission has shown that the maximum yield of yellowfin tuna from the eastern tropical Pacific will be reached when 35,000 standard fishing days produce 97,000 tons a year. It was concluded that this point was reached at the end of the 1960 fishing season. In 1961 the total catch was slightly greater than the 1960 catch, but it took almost 20 percent more fishing effort to maintain the catch at this level. This was accomplished at the expense of future yields. In other words, the fishery was dipping into its "capital." The question has been raised that possibly this declining yield has been caused by a change in the movements or oceanic distribution of yellowfin. Our scientists have an independent method of checking this point, for they have been tagging large numbers of fish each year. The ratio of tagged to untagged fish |