When I was in the central Pacific we made a survey for the U.S. Navy. They were interested in fish to supply the Armed Forces.

And in all these waters we saw tunas. In some areas there were large quantities, and in other areas there weren't so much.

I am trying to point out that tuna is strictly an international fish. And how do we put quotas on certain areas is beyond me, because these fish are international, in my opinion. And to say we can catch only 80,000 tons in this area and not any over here, that that will deplete the fisheries, I am not so sure this is true.

I have lost my words here.

Senator BARTLETT. Don't hurry. Take your time.

Mr. MADRUGA. Presently we are catching approximately 110,000 tons of tuna out of this area that the Tuna Commission would put on restriction as the area that would be closed in case we caught over 80,000 tons.

I think that this quantity of fish, the 83,000 tons, is not sufficient for our needs. I think more fish than this can be taken out of this water, because I just finished a trip in January on the Nautilus, and in all my surveys, I saw more fish in these areas, in these identical areas, than the Tuna Commission is putting aside for quota-I saw more fish in these particular areas than all of my travels put together. And it makes me wonder if a quota is necessary at this time.

Not that I am against conservation, because I believe conservation is a good thing. I think eventually it will have to come, especially with all these countries getting into tuna fishing.

I saw off of Ecuador and off of Peru approximately 40 to 50 of their fishing vessels fishing in the same waters that we were fishing. Incidentally, they were international waters, as the United States recognizes them. We were fishing approximately 15 or 20 miles offshore.

As Mr. Felando mentioned earlier, there is a great move on for these people down in the southern countries, the South American countries and the Central American countries, to expand their fisheries. In fact, I think this is true of all the world. This bill, if enacted, would put a limit on, and if it isn't enforced properly we will be the only people hurt by this bill.

I think that we have the largest-at least the most productive, in dollars and cents-of all the fisheries in the United States. If something isn't done to enforce these measures along the lines that have been mentioned earlier, the U.S. tuna producer will be put out of business.

As Mr. Felando mentioned earlier, some boats are moving south, and you ask why they are moving south. They are transferring to foreign ownership because in the past 10 years we have had it really rough because of Japanese competition-not only Japanese competition, but South American and Central American, and Mexican also. These boatowners-not myself, but there are many boatowners who have transferred or sold their boats at terrific losses to some of these foreign countries just because they couldn't see any future in the tuna business.

Recently, in the last 2 years, the development of Nylon nets and power blocks has put us on a competitive basis, so to speak. We could produce this fish in a much cheaper fashion, and we could catch more because of the nets and power blocks. All the remaining bait boats

have transferred or rebuilt into purse seiners. This is a costly thing in itself. I think at the present time that these boats-boats that did it, say, 2 years ago-have just about paid up their conversion. The average conversion for tuna boats runs about $125,000.

You asked if this business was lucrative. I would say 10 or 12 years ago, yes, it was. Right after the war I think we had a lucrative business here. And then, as competition came in, it became tougher and tougher all the time, until about 1954 or 1955 when we were stopped several months during the year because of competition, mainly Japanese.

But now we find ourselves in a competitive position with Japan. We are confronted with this thing again, and I think that if this bill goes into effect, and if it isn't enforced properly, we are out of business.

Another thing: we have to compete with these countries down here. They are going to look out for themselves; and I can't say as I blame them. In other words, to go into the fishing waters, the Nautilus on its last trip had to pay the Ecuadoran Government, for permissionI don't know what permission, really. They claim they own the seas out to 200 miles. I think the United States claims a 3-mile limit. Senator BARTLETT. The State of Alaska claims a little more. Mr. MADRUGA. Anyway, we had to pay the Ecuadoran Government $5,200 for a license, plus a matricular that cost us another $200. Senator BARTLETT. For what?

Mr. MADRUGA. For permission to fish within their so-called waters. Actually, we were 20, 30, 40, or 50 miles offshore.

Senator BARTLETT. You had to do what? Say that again.

Mr. MADRUGA. We had to pay the government $5,200 for a license to fish in their waters.

Senator BARTLETT. What does our Government say about that? Mr. MADRUGA. Our Government, I don't think, has done a thing about this, as far as I am concerned.

Senator BARTLETT. I will get the answer from someone else.

Mr. MADRUGA. It gives them their blessing, I think.

Senator BARTLETT. Is this an annual license?

Mr. MADRUGA. No, sir; this is one trip.

I fished off that coast for 3 weeks. I caught approximately 300 tons while there. Fortunately the fishing was good.

But in order to go to Peru you have to pay the same thing again; and the same for Mexico.

Senator BARTLETT. How much? $5,200?

Mr. MADRUGA. Yes, sir: that is what it cost the Nautilus to fish off of the coast of Ecuador the last trip; and the trip before.

And this applies to all of these countries. Every boat that goes into these waters. That is millions of dollars out of the pockets of the tuna boat operators and the fishermen.

We wonder where do we stand with these governments.

We understand the Ecuadorans are coming out with a law saying all vessels, regardless of whether they pay for a license or not, will be prohibited from fishing within 40 miles of their coastline. Now if that takes effect, it means we are out of business along that coast. At certain times of the year we have to fish there to catch our load of fish.

So I'm not too sure that this bill is good for us in any way, shape, or form, because I am not sure those countries will cooperate with us. I am not too sure they will cooperate with us. They are looking for fisheries for themselves-not that I blame them. It's their prerogative. But I think in the process we may be eliminated from fishing off their coasts entirely.

Now I have been told if we don't go along with this bill, they will make it that much tougher for us. Well, I don't know which is the lesser of the two evils, going for this bill or not going for it. We have agreed amongst ourselves that we would go for the bill providing that the amendments that have been proposed by Mr. Nizetich are incorporated in the bill; otherwise, we are against it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say at this time. Senator BARTLETT. When did you put the Nautilus into service? Mr. MADRUGA. It was in October of 1961.

Senator BARTLETT. How big is she?

Mr. MADRUGA. She has a capacity of 825 tons, I think it's the largest fishing boat operating out of the United States. I know it's the largest tuna vessel in the world. She was formerly a Navy minelayer. We bought her and converted it. She was put up as a surplus ship. We bought it and converted it and, as I say, the total cost before it went to sea was over three-quarters of a million.

Senator BARTLETT. How long is she?

Mr. MADRUGA. One hundred eighty-nine feet long and a 37-foot beam.

Senator BARTLETT. How big a crew?

Mr. MADRUGA. We carry 17 men. Last trip we had a scientist on board put on by the hydrographic people. We are doing some work for them on thermograph readings and water temperature readings. Senator BARTLETT. How do you catch tuna from the Nautilus? Mr. MADRUGA. We use purse seine, just like 95 percent of the tuna fleets.

Senator BARTLETT. Power block.

Mr. MADRUGA. Yes, sir.

Mr. FELANDO. I have a picture of the Nautilus, Senator, if you want to look at it.

Senator BARTLETT. Let me see it.

What year did you say you put the Nautilus into service?

Mr. MADRUGA. We went to sea in 1961, October 1961.

Senator BARTLETT. Did you have a boat before the Nautilus?

Mr. MADRUGA. I have had interests and I have run boats, several boats, prior to this time. I have been a master of fishing boats since I was 23 years old.

Senator BARRLETT. How did you used to catch tuna?

Mr. MADRUGA. The old method of hook and line.

Senator BARTLETT. When did you go to nets and power blocks?

Mr. MADRUGA. Well, I had the Liberty prior to this vessel and about

3 years ago we converted her before we got this vessel.

Senator BARTLETT. Did you ever sell foreign

Mr. MADRUGA. I have never-I don't think we can sell fish to foreign countries. I think its illegal.

Senator BARTLETT. Illegal from their laws or ours?
Mr. MADRUGA. Our law.

85667-62-7

Senator BARTLETT. We will check on that.

Thank you very much.

Mr. FELANDO. I would like to introduce Ed Silva.

Mr. SILVA. I am from San Diego and I am a boat owner. Talking about conservation, you asked Mr. Herrington yesterday if the production had drastically increased and he said "Yes." Well, the years of 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, and 1952, we caught an average of 100,000 tons per year; that was 10, 12, 14 years ago. Last year we caught around 116,000 tons, so our production hasn't drastically increased.

You were told that fish lived to be about 4 years old, but Mr. Scheafer says about 7, and they go up to about 300 pounds, not 134, because we have caught many a ton of fish over 250 pounds.

Another thing on conservation, last year we caught approximately 7 million fish and that is equal to the production of one female and one male tuna. He also says that the fish in the tropical Pacific travel north to south, and the Japanese scientists agree with Mr. Scheafer on that one point.

We know that albacore travel from this coast to the Japanese coast and back again, and we have reason to believe that tuna do the same thing.

Tuna spawn-I have seen charts from the Japanese-all along the equatorial current, about 3,000 miles wide, all the way across the Pacific, not just along the coast. So there is a great spawning area.

Peru and Mexico, I know, have not joined the convention, and I am just wondering why. They are building up their fleets tremendously and they know this quota will probably go into effect and I think that is the reason they are buying these boats, so they can get part of that quota, or as much as they possibly can, and I concur with Mr. Felando and Mr. Madruga on everything else. Time is running short so that is about all I have to say.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

Mr. FELANDO. Sam Crivello.

Mr. CRIVELLO. I came here to oppose the bill S. 2568, but if these amendments are incorporated and in proper language, then I will go for it. Time is running short; I think most of the things have been covered by Mr. Madruga and Ed Silva, so that is about all I have to say.

Mr. FELANDO. Edmund Gann.

Mr. GANN. I am a boatowner and I go along with what Sam says so far as the bill is concerned. I think this bill is going to pose pretty serious problems to the industry. If we go back a little ways, back to the latter part of the fifties, we find that we had rather expensive boats-oh, fairly close to a half a million dollars and some of these boats sold for a total of $35,000. I feel with the passage of this bill, and the threat-the developing of larger fisheries to the south, that our operations will probably be cut fairly close to 50 percent. I don't think that we can economically operate our boats profitably having our business throttled to this extent.

I feel that a lot of our fleet will probably most likely be sold if this condition exists. I don't think that we can operate the fleet profitably. I think that will be the end of the industry as far as growth is concerned, because I don't think you could go to any institution and ask them to loan you money facing something of this sort.

I think that there isn't any possibility of growth here. And the only thing I can see is the eventual abolishment of the whole industry. And this is all I have to say.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Kenney has a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am just wondering, is this the offseason? Who is minding the boat today—I mean with all of you here?

Mr. GANN. It isn't the off season. You find that, like I say, in the 1950's, you found that we couldn't operate profitably and therefore you found that a lot of fishermen themselves found themselves financially-they were financially in very poor condition.

Mr. SILVA. He didn't understand the question. May I answer it? Most of these boats are conducted by more than one owner; that is, there are other groups, and my boat, my other partner is running the boat, and the same thing with the Nautilus and probably the same thing with Mr. Gann's.

Senator BARTLETT. They run 12 months a year?

Mr. SILVA. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. You don't have to do like the halibut fishermen does, lay up between voyages?

Mr. ŠILVA. No, sir; because we have different seasons and we fish all through different areas.

Mr. MASCARENHAS. I fished for approximately 15 years, and have been a licensed master since 1939 when they passed that bill requiring a licensed master. And I operate a tuna boat now. During the war I was a fisheries officer in the military government unit so I got around the Pacific quite a lot. We prospected in the Pacific, and I was down in the South Pacific, like Mr. Madruga. No matter where I went I saw fish; I saw tuna. Of course, we were just passing through, we couldn't evaluate it properly, but we do know that this belt of tuna exists around the entire world, wherever you have a suitable temperature, and that suitable temperature is found from 32° north latitude to 32° south latitude, which is approximately 4,000 miles wide and covers a belt around the Equator of 27,000 miles. It covers a lot of territory.

Now, how do we expect to regulate a territory like that? You have tuna in the Indian Ocean, in the Atlantic Ocean, and North Atlantic, in the South Atlantic, in the North Pacific, and the South Pacific, and along the Equator.

I think it's doggone near impractical to regulate a body of water like that. Are we going to pass the burden of cost to the American taxpayers? I think our industry produces a product of $50 million. That is the value of the product approximately. Is it going to cost $50 million to regulate that? We are paying the cost of research now, and it looks like that is what is going to happen. We set up the American Tuna Commission. We financed the whole operation. Now our vessels, which is the largest fleet, are doomed as far as I am concerned.

We originally were, I believe, in second place. We have dropped down to fifth place in the world production of fish; not just tuna, all the fish; we are in fifth place.

Now, there is some cause for that. Russia is in second place and fishing 50 miles from President Kennedy's hometown. We never heard of that before but now we find fleets that make our fleet look