I think that is where we really find ourselves in trouble. Now, when you went to London, were you a self-contained unit? Were you within the State Department? Did you take experts from Interior, or people from some place else to help you in this field? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes, I had a delegation of about 19 and I had experts from the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Commerce with me. The Department of Interior has a specialist on seals. He did not. come. Senator Cook. It seems we ought to get all 19 back together and figure out who will give a little and where we will perform the research so it can be utilized effectively. Mr. McKERNAN. We have very little, Senator-the responsibilities for certain groups of animals are quite clearly placed in the Department of Commerce and others in the Department of Interior. Now, I don't say it could not be better, but I would point out that this is one of the reasons why the bill before you has some advantages, it seems to me, that is, that there is a study of our whole national program and international program. That is, our own department will come under investigation and thorough study by the marine mammals commission and the scientific advisory group that is set up under it. I think that is a good thing and I don't disagree with what you say. I think it might bring about a coalescing of these efforts and perhaps better use of the funds that are available. Senator Cook. Mr. Ambassador, were you totally satisfied with the advice you got from these 19 people in regard to your capability to negotiate? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. Of course, I wish we could have had more information Senator Cook. Then you weren't totally satisfied? Mr. McKERNAN (continuing). I was totally satisfied that these people that I had were the best experts available and they had the information that was available. I was not satisfied with the information that is available because it is inadquate. Senator Cook. Mr. Ambassador, Congressman Dingell raised enough cane, and he got two people to go along to sit on that treaty, didn't he? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. Senator Cook. It would have been nice if the Senate would have been advised, because it is the Senate that has to ratify treaties not the House. Again we have met the enemy and it is us. Mr. McKERNAN. Senator, I would simply point out that I was requested by these particular congressmen and the committee to place certain congressmen on the delegation and I would have been pleased Senator Cook. Don't misunderstand me, I didn't want to go to London. I was up in the coal mines and I have been busy. But the point I make is that they went. Do you think they were satisfied with the negotiations that occurred? Mr. McKERNAN (continuing). I hope they were. Senator Coon. Did they indicate to you that they might be satisfied? Mr. McKERNAN. I don't want to commit them but I must say our relations with them-we had very frequent delegation meetings and it is my understanding that they felt that their views were being heard and were considered. I would, of course, rather this question be addressed to them. Senator Cook. In regard to negotiating with some degree of secrecy, Mr. Ambassador, even if you had filed an environmental policy statement as required-you dealt with 10 other countries, right? Mr. McKERNAN. Eleven other countries. Senator Cook. If they had decided not to accept any of the recommendations that the United States made, that would have been a matter for those countries to determine, wouldn't it? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. Senator Cook. As a matter of fact, if the United States does not ratify this treaty, there will be a continuation of effort on the part of various countries to continue to fish and to continue to seal in the antarctic waters, right? Mr. McKERNAN. I don't think there is any question but what the treaty will be ratified by at least seven countries necessary to put it into effect, that it will go into effect, and there will be sealing there whether or not we ratify it. Senator Cook. And if the Congress of the United State, wants to have a sanctuary, and if these countries have absolute right to fish there all the ranting and raving we do isn't going to make any difference, is it? Mr. McKERNAN. That is right. Senator Сook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator HOLLINGS. Yes. Senator STEVENS. Would you expess your views on S. 3161. I know you reported on the others. Mr. McKERNAN. You mean in writing? Senator STEVENS. Yes. We will have something yet, I am sure. Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Ambassador, before you leave, one word generally on the credence or weight I ought to give these State commissions and State regulations. We have talked very loosely about the State regulations. From your experiences, are these State regulations conservationmotivated, or controlled by the industries themselves? Mr. MCKERNAN. Most of my experience has been on the west coast of the United States and in Alaska. In connection with mammals, the Federal Government has had excellent cooperation from the State of Alaska in my judgment. They have an active program on a number of these marine mammals. Take the polar bear, as an example. I think the State of Alaska has quite a good research program and management program going in the State of Alaska. Now it is not all perfect and there are some problems that I am aware of. I have endeavored to work with the State of Alaska in bringing together the polar nations, and I have gotten cooperation from the Governor of Alaska and from his Department of Fish and Game and I would not like to see the State of Alaska out of that picture because they have been doing a good job, they do have some experts, and I think that the federal government can work cooperatively with a number of these States without completely usurping the authority of the States over some of these resources. Now, I realize that is a somewhat equivocal statement. I must say that in the case of Alaska, though, I would not like to see the State out of the picture. It is my experience that with relatively small amounts of funds, they have been doing relatively a good job. Thank you. Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much. Senator STEVENS. Before you go, I would like to tell you that tonight featured on the Advocate program, will be the issue on the 200-mile limit that I introduced a bill on it is going to be on at 8:30 on channel 26, and our good friend, former Secretary of Interior, Wally Hickel, will carry the Alaska position. I invite you to look at it. Mr. McKERNAN. I will. Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much. Senator HOLLINGS. We will next hear from Curtis Bohlen, of the Department of the Interior. While Mr. Bohlen is getting situated, we have the ban on the nuclear weapons in the seabed. I think it is a significant thing, and we will vote to confirm that treaty at 12 o'clock. Now, Secretary Bohlen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior. STATEMENT OF E. U. CURTIS BOHLEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BROOKS Mr. BOHLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. James Brooks, a former administrator in the Alaska Fish and Game Department, and presently an eminent wildlife biologist in charge of our polar bear research. With your permission, I would like to have him help me. Senator HOLLINGS. Certainly, he may be seated at the table with you. Mr. BOHLEN. Mr. Brooks just returned from an international conference in Switzerland concerning the polar bear. Senator HOLLINGS. You may proceed. Mr. BOHLEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: The array of bills which have been introduced are testimony to the widespread public interest in protecting marine mammals. The alarming expression of concern by the public while difficult to channel, is probably not out of proportion to the critically depleted state of some species of marine mammals. We recognize that the marine environment of which these animals are a part has been altered as the result of man's incursions and further degradation is almost certain to occur. These problems are particularly troublesome in the Arctic because of the increased interest in development. Therefore, in addition to direct exploitation of marine mammals, changes in the ocean environment complicate efforts to assure the preservation of these resources. Most of the marine mammals are a truly international resource since all or a major portion of their lives are spent on the high seas outside of the territorial waters of the United States. While many species have been decimated, the North Pacific fur seal population has increased significantly in the last 50 years and the sea otter has been restored to former abundance in large proportions of its original range as the result of conservation efforts of the federal government in cooperation with the various States. The fur seal and the sea otter populations are testimony to scientific management accompanied by protection. We are not opposed to the concept of complete protection or a temporary moratorium in those cases where such action is warranted. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, for instance, this department has exercised every available authority to protect the great whales. More recently, the Secretary of the Interior has called for an international moratorium on whales until such time as we have sound scientific information to guide intelligent management. Total protection, however, is not always an effective solution. A number of bills have been introduced pertaining to marine mammals, 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 some recommendations. We support the need recognized in S. 2639 and S. 2871 for a coordinated approach to the protection, conservation and management of ocean mammals, strengthened by appropriate authority. We cannot support S. 1315 and S. 2579, which places an almost absolute, permanent prohibition on the taking of marine mammals. At present the Department of the Interior has Federal jurisdiction for the sea otter, polar bear, walrus, and endangered species. The sea otter is protected in the lower 48 States. The State of Alaska took 400 in 1970-71 season for sale on the Seattle Fur Exchange. We understand that no otter will be taken this season. In 1971, it is estimated that 206 polar bears were legally taken on the pack ice adjacent to Alaska. Over 90 percent of these animals were taken on the high seas. Most of these bears were harvested with the aid of aircraft which are employed to both locate and herd the animals to the hunter. This manner of hunting has been practiced for more than two decades and has accounted for the killing of approximately 4,000 polar bears during this period. Aircraft hunting has resulted in a drastic decline in the number of polar bears taken by Eskimos and has caused much alarm among conservationists. Public Law 92-159, which regulates the shooting or harassment of wildlife. from aircraft, could be helpful in controlling the use of airplanes in hunting polar bear. The bill as enacted did not delegate enforcement authority to the Department of the Interior and our Solicitor has ruled that the law must be enforced by the Department of Justice. We are preparing language to amend this public law so that we can enforce this law in cooperation with the States. At a meeting held last week in Morges, Switzerland, scientists from five countries drafted a protocol which would ban the hunting of polar bears on the high seas except for traditional taking of bear for subsistence by local people. We support this concept and have been actively working on a treaty which would accomplish this purpose. We now find, however, that 5 or more years might be required to develop and execute such an agreement. The walrus is almost truly an international species occurring in territorial waters only as a brief transient in migration. The walrus population, which is mutually shared with U.S.S.R., appears to num+ ber 90,000 to 100,000 animals and little or no change in abundance has been detected in recent years. Russia permits subsistence utilization of a small but unknown number of animals by the native people of the Siberian Coast. The harvest by Alaskan ranges from 1,000 to 1,400 annually, and they are taken primarily by Eskimos for ivory. There is a definite need to reduce the techniques whereby more than half the walruses killed are never recoverd. The Department needs additional authority and means to protect marine mammals and to enter into cooperative agreements with the States covering management and research. We recommend that any new marine mammal bill vest in the Secretary of the Interior authority to regulate the taking by American nationals of polar bear and walrus on the high seas. Such authority is already available for the protection of sea otters under title III of the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1096; 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 proposed amendment would make it unlawful, except as provided by regulations issued by the Secretary, for any person 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 addition of a new section 3, as follows: SEC. 3. Section 301 of the Fur 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. Given such authority, we would seriously consider, after consultation with the State of Alaska, the imposition of a moratorium on the taking of polar bears and walruses upon the high seas. Exceptions. would only be allowed for either well-justified, scientific and educational purposes, or for subsistence purposes when taken by Alaskan natives. Although we support and make extensive use of advisory commissions, we feel that their role should be purely advisory and that the advisee should have discretion in appointing their members, and determining their duties and structure. This assures their responsiveness to the needs of the agency receiving the advice and avoids the danger of unwieldy bureaucracy and fragmenting management authority between it and the agency administering the program. In addition, we feel that independent research authority is inappro |