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. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of March 3, 1971 requesting the comments of the Department of State on S. 685 "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 1957 Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, to which the United States, Canada, Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are Parties, makes no mention of methods of killing fur seals except to prohibit commercial pelagic sealing, that is, the killing of fur seals at sea. The United States is not committed by the Convention to any particular method of harvesting the seals on land. Accordingly, the Department would see no objection to S. 685 from the standpoint of United States treaty obligations were other methods of killing to be adopted. It appears, however, that a problem might arise out of the provisions of Section 4 of S. 685. Should the research specified in that Section not result in the discovery of feasible alternative means of killing seals or not provide a basis for a determination as to which killing technique is maximally painless to the seals, presumably all killing of fur seals by the United States would cease after July 1, 1972. In such case no benefits from United States sealing operations would accrue to Canada and Japan, thus providing those countries with a motive and argumentation for termination of the Convention and their return to the wasteful practice of pelagic sealing, the abolition of which has been a primary tenet of international arrangements for North Pacific fur seals since the original Convention of 1911. The Department would point out, moreover, that the Convention imposes extensive and specific responsibilities on the United States and the other Parties with regard to the carrying out of scientific research programs and cooperation investigating the fur seal resources of the North Pacific Ocean. While the Department is not in a position to make a positive judgment on this aspect, it appears to us that a prohibition of the taking of female fur seals, as proposed by S. 685, might have an adverse effect on the capabilities of the United States to carry out its research and management obligations under the Convention. In view of the foregoing, the Department believes that consideration of S. 685 should be deferred pending further progress in studies we understand are being made by the Department of Commerce regarding methods of killing fur seals. With regard to other aspects of S. 685 the Department defers to the views of the Department of Commerce. 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. ABSHIRE, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your Committee has requested the comments of this Department on S. 685, 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." S. 685 contains amendments to the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) that would prohibit, on lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, (1) the killing of seals by clubbing after July 1, 1972; (2) the taking of the skin of any seal under one year of age; and (3) the taking of the skin of any female seal. Section 3 of S. 685 provides for the fining and/or the imprisonment of anyone who knowingly transports in interstate commerce a seaiskin or product thereof taken in violation of the Act, and for the forfeiture of revenue derived from the sale of any skin so taken. Section 4 directs the Secretary to initiate research on alternative means of killing sals and on shortening the seal drive, with a killing technique to be prescribed by regulation no later than April 1, 1972, and made effective no later than July 1, 1972. We recommend against the passage of S. 685 with the possible exception of prohibitions against the taking of skins of seals under one year of age as discussed below. We believe that the enactment of S. 685 would be premature in as much of research to date on alternative methods of killing the animals does not portend the development of a better method by April 1, 1972. The Fur Seal Act of 1966 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to take and cure fur sealskins on the Pribilof Islands and on lands subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whenever he deems such taking and curing necessary to carry out the provisions of the Interim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. The Convention was signed by the United States, Canada, Japan, and the Soviet Union at Washington on October 8, 1963, and has been extended further through October 14, 1975. The Fur Seal Act of 1966 provides generally for implementation of the Convention by the United States and vests in the Secretary of the Interior authority to manage the fur seal resources of the North Pacific Ocean. This authority was transferred to the Secretary of Commerce by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 which became effective on October 3, 1970 (84 Stat. 2090). With the exception of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos "who dwell on the coasts of the North Pacific Ocean," only employees of this Department are permitted to engage in the harvest of fur seals on lands subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The exception provided for native inhabitants of coastal areas (16 U.S.C. 1152 (a)) limits the way in which skins may be taken. Records indicate, however, that there has been no taking of fur seal pups. Since the taking of seals by the Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos who dwell on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean from canoes without the use of firearms is sanctioned by the Convention and authorized by section 102 of the Fur Seal Act of 1966, it is possible that they may have taken pups in a very moderate way to supply food. If exceptions are provided to accommodate the need for scientific research and to assure the continuation of practices now sanctioned by the Convention, we would have no objection to enactment of a prohibition against the taking of the skin of any seal under one year of age, as proposed in section 1 of S. 685. The selective taking of female seals in the commercial harvest has been practiced periodically over the years, most recently during the period of 1956 through 1968. Females are killed only when necessary to assure the most productive balance between available habitat and populations. Overcrowding results in increased rates of disease, starvation and mortality among pups. The selective harvesting of females is a well recognized technique of modern wildlife and livestock management. S. 685 is concerned primarily with the clubbing method now used to take fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. Over the years, questions concerning killing methods have been raised not only by our people, 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 Federation for the Protection of Animals reported: "In conclusion, I find that from my observation of herding and killing methods and from post morten findings, 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. The method of killing the 4 and 5 year old fur seals, that of clubbing, 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 closely, of limiting the length of time they work, of payment 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 comparison with the enormous bony development of the occipital region of the mature bull, makes clubbing practicable. Of other methods of killing large numbers of animals presently available, for example the captive bolt pistol, electrical stunning and CO2 stunning 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 efficient sticking, this method is probably the best. Any method involving more handling of the animals would, I feel, be a step in the wrong direction." Notwithstanding our beliefs, 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 fur seal management. At that time the Federal agency concerned was the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in the Department of the Interior. The Task Force included representatives from the former Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the University of Minnesota (National Science Foundation 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. 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. Consideration was given to asphyxiation, electrocution, shooting, concussion bolts, drugs and tranquilizers. In response to recommendations of the Task Force on driving conditions and animal stress, driving distances have been reduced by about 50 percent, obstacles have been removed from drive paths and additional clubbers have been added to the crew. Research conducted in 1969 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. The Department is continuing its research efforts to develop alternative means of killing the animals. Representatives of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Panel on Euthanasia observed the 1971 seal harvest on the Pribilof Islands to consider possible killing methods and concluded that the present method of harvesting was the most humane and practicable method available. In addition, we are planning for new contract research on better methods of conducting the harvest. If no acceptable or practical alternative to present harvesting methods could be found, the probable consequence of the prohibition of S. 685 against the killing of seals by clubbing would be complete cessation of the northern fur seal harvest on the Pribilof Islands. Such a cessation would result in detrimental biological and economic effects. The Aleuts living in two communities on the Pribilofs would be deprived of employment. The limited capacity of the Pribilofs to support the seals 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 provided by international agreement, and might well resort to the wasteful killing of fur seals in the open sea as was the practice prior to the 1911 international agreement on the northern fur seals. We are in complete agreement with those who urge continued research to discover an alternative means of killing fur seals. The current belief that a single blow on the skull is the most humane method should not be a bar to further study now or beyond some specified future date, as proposed by S. 685. Without the assurance that some alternative method will be found, however, we cannot agree that clubbing should be prohibited after July 1, 1972. The requirement that the Secretary "determine which killing technique is maximally painless. . ." implies that there exists methods superior to the present techniques. This may not be true. Furthermore, it would have the effect of impeding continuing study after July 1, 1972. As we have noted above, the Secretary has conducted, and will continue to conduct, the kind of research authorized by section 4 of S. 685. Thus, it would be undesirable to fix by a statutory provision the method of harvesting as exists at a given point in time. We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on S. 1315, "To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed; 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, importing, offering for sale or possession, all ocean mammals or any part thereof. Certain exceptions 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 ocean mammals or the monetary value thereof, would be subject to seizure and forfeiture 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. Enforcement of Title II would be the joint responsibility of the Secretaries of 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 the Department of the Interior and a Pribilof Islands Commission, on which would serve the Secretary of the Treasury of 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 officers. 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. PURAL, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for this Department's comments on S. 1315, a bill "To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, killed; and for other purposes." Enforcement of the proposal, if enacted, would not appear to require significant additional law enforcement activity on the part of the Coast Guard. However, we defer to the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and State on the desirability of the bill. 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 to the Committee. DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on S. 1315, 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 worldwide 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 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 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 offense, and of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for 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 |