Marineland is currently trying to establish standards for humane capture and transportation and care of Cetaceans. Through the force of law, we are anxious to prevent abuses by marginal and unscrupulous exhibitors.

In terms of conservation, it is obvious that the more knowledge we have of these animals, the better. But perhaps even more important than knowledge is the fact that Marineland has served in a tremendous way to create widespread public sympathy for the welfare of porpoises and through them there has developed a much broader sympathy and understanding of the whole Cetacean world. To a high degree, our exhibit is designed as a combination of entertainment and education.

Thus, Marineland, far from creating a hazard for porpoises-far from endangering them-has had exactly the reverse effect.

And while it is natural that we should have been copied by less qualified groups to the extent that there are some nine porpoise exhibits in the state of Florida, the total catch of wild porpoises last year in Florida waters numbered just about 200 specimens, some 75% of which were shipped abroad.1 An estimate of the number of porpoises in off-shore Florida waters by the Florida state government runs into many millions. Whereas I consider such figures too high, is it not obvious that even if there were only one million, the taking of 200 animals would scarcely make a dent on their numbers as compared with other factors which from time immemorial have controlled their density.

Thus I would repeat that so far as the porpoise is concerned, Marinelandfar from creating a hazard-has had a most beneficial effect. It has greatly increased our knowledge and understanding of certain species of Cetaceans, and brought about a deep symapthetic interest in their welfare.

Is it not then evident that our positive contribution completely negates the implications of your attack on us in which you refer to "the profit making so-called marinelands which remove marine mammals from the wild and turn them into circus performers."

I would like to invite you to visit Marineland where you would be given every opportunity to investigate this whole question at first hand. If you do this; if you take advantage of this invitation, there is not the least doubt in my mind that your attitude concerning us would be greatly modified.

I request that this letter be made a permanent part of the testimony dealing with the proposed marine mammal legislation.

Very truly yours,

W. DOUGLAS BURDEN.

P.S.-I naturally completely support your attack on the dreadful drowning of porpoises in the tuna fish nets off our west coast. This has got to be corrected.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE COMMITTEE,

SIERRA CLUB, February 23, 1972.

Senator ERNEST HOLLINGS,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere,

Committee on Commerce,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: We are submitting additional testimony on S. 3161 and request that it be inserted in the record of the marine mammal hearings following our previously submitted prepared statements.

In addition we are submitting for the record, if you so desire, a copy of a letter from Mr. S. J. Brodie of the Canadian Embassy discussing seal quotas for 1972, a press release from the Canadian government, and the interim report to the minister of environment from the committee on seals and sealing. If this information has not been previously submitted (it was not in the House testimony) it will provide excellent factual background information.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

ROBERT C. HUGHES,

Chairman.

1 Evidently Europe boasts 40 porpoise shows. Marineland is totally opposed to the export of these animals.

SIERRA CLUB SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, AND ATMOSPHERE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, U.S. SENATE, ON MARINE MAMMAL LEGISLATION, FEBRUARY 23, 1972. PREPARED BY ROBERT C. HUGHES, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL WILDLIFE COMMITTEE.

Mr. Chairman, we did not have an opportunity to examine Senator Steven's bill, S. 3161, prior to our testimony on 15 February and would appreciate the insertion of these comments in the record following our testimony.

H.R. 10420 is, in general, a fine attempt at marine mammal legislation and represents the efforts of fine and dedicated Congressmen and staff workers with the additional input of the various concerned environmental groups. However, the Sierra Club believed that H.R. 10420 was not quite what we wanted and for that reason did not support it when it was brought before the entire House under suspension of the rules which precluded the possibility of amendments from the floor. H.R. 10420 did not fail because it was a bad bill.

S. 3161 is a modified version of H.R. 10420. We find that S. 3161 is an improved version of H.R. 10420 although still not adequate in our eyes. We wish to discuss several sections of S. 3161 and believe that with the changes recommended it would be an acceptable marine mammal bill.

Our original testimony was based on Senator Williams' bill, S. 2871, which with its moratorium imposed by legislation contains the basic building block of any successful marine mammal law. A legislative moratorium would not take control from the wildlife managers. They would still have their work to do. The moratorium would give them the time to make their studies without the dangers of over-exploitation in the meantime. A moratorium can be so stated that for each individual species or population it can be terminated when the evidence indicates that the welfare of the species or population would benefit from taking. When discussing a moratorium we acknowledge the necessity for continuation of our treaty obligations to prevent actions which could be disastrous such as sealing on the high seas. All scientific research conducted should avoid a commercial bias.

In the discussion that follows all section references are to S. 3161.

FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY

Section 2(2): The wording in S. 3161 is more positive than that in H.R. 10420 and is preferred.

Section 2(6): The wording in S. 3161, ". . . the primary objective of their management should be to maintain the populations, as near as possible, at the optimum carrying capacity level," is preferred to H.R. 10420's wording, "... the primary objective of their management should be to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. Whenever consistent with this primary objective, a secondary objective should be to obtain an optimum sustained yield." We object to the last sentence here in H.R. 10420. Optimum sustained yield should not be an objective of management and is inconsistent with management for the primary benefit of the species.

DEFINITIONS

Section 3(6): S. 3161 has a better definition of "optimum sustained yield" with its emphasis on maintaining the population at the maximum allowed by the habitat.

Section 3(7): This section added in S. 3161 and absent in H.R. 10420 is an acceptable definition of "optimum carrying capacity."

Section 3(8): This section added in S. 3161 and absent in H.R. 10420 is the definition of "management" to which we referred in our original statement. We accept this definition because of the wording which states, ". . . for the purposes of increasing and of marine mammals at the optimum carrying

capacity of their habitat." This is an excellent goal of wildlife management and is too often not the goal practiced.

Section 3(11): We reject the definition of "Secretary" because it includes the Secretary of Commerce. We believe that the responsibility for the marine mammals should not be divided between two secretaries and that the proper place for the responsibility should be in Interior.

Section 3(12): We prefer the definition of "take" as presented in the testimony of Friends of the Earth.

PROHIBITIONS

Section 101 (c) (1): This has been added in S. 3161 and is in line with our statement concerning the tuna fisheries. We believe this adds strength to the bill.

Section 101 (c) (2) (C): This sub-section refers to importation of fish taken in a manner determined to be injurious to marine mammals, but at the end has been added the wording, ". . . beginning two years after the effective date of this act." Our fisheries are subject at once. Foreign fisheries are given two years grace. We cannot see any valid reason for this two year grace period and believe it should be eliminated.

LIMITATIONS ON TAKING OF MARINE MAMMALS

Section 102 (a): S. 3161 eliminates the qualifier, "on the basis of scientific evidence demonstrating the need for limitations." We support the elimination if it gives the Secretary greater freedom to impose limitations. However, we prefer the wording for this Section 102 as presented in our original statement.

PERMITS

Section 103(b)(2): The material included in parenthesis on page 13, lines 7 & 8, should be deleted.

PENALTIES

We refer you to our original prepared statement on this section for what we believe to be an effective inhibitor.

COOPERATION WITH STATES

Section 109: The provisions of this law should apply to the States except that they should be free to enact legislation providing for more stringent protection of marine mammals within their own waters.

DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION

Section 202: We prefer that the wording in H.R. 10420 modified be added to S. 3161, directing the Marine Mammal Commission to, "conduct a continuing review of the condition of all species and populations of marine mammals and undertake or cause to be undertaken such studies as it deems necessary or desirable in connection with the protection and management of marine mammals."

CONCLUSION

In addition to the comments above on S. 3161, we again refer you to our prepared testimony presented on February 15. Thank you for allowing us to present this additional statement.

CANADIAN EMBASSY, AMBASSADE DU CANADA, Washington, D.C., 1 February, 1972.

DEAR SIR: Please find enclosed a copy of the Department of Environment's news release dated 18 January, 1972. The Minister of Environment, Mr. Jack

76-491 - 72 - pt. 1 19

Davis also announced acceptance of the first phase of reduction in quota recommended by the Committee. The quota will be 60 thousand pups each for Norwegian and Canadian commercial vessels, 30 thousand pups for landsmen and 10 thousand, all ages, for Indians and Eskimos in the far north. The quota is a reduction from 245,000 in 1971.

Thank you for your interest, if we can be of any further service please contact us.

Yours very truly,

S. J. BRODIE, MS.

[Environnement Canada, news release]

SEAL HUNT PHASE-OUT RECOMMENDED

Environment Minister Jack Davis today released the interim report of his Special Advisory Committee on Atlanite seals, and will send it to the House of Commons Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for study and recommendation.

Mr. Davis asked Professor Keith Ronald to set up a committee last year to study the seal herd. Dr. Ronald is Dean of the College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Other Committee members are: T. I. (Tom) Hughes, Director, Ontario Humane Society, Trevor H. Scott, International Society for the Protection of Animals, Dr. H. Rowsell, Canadian Council on Animal Care, Kjell Henriksen, Canadian member of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, and Professor H. D. Fisher, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia. The Committee made these recommendations:

(1) phase-out of the Canadian and Norwegian Atlantic seal hunt by 1974, followed by a minimum six-year moratorium on hunting;

(2) no increase in exploitation of seals in any other area in the world, especially in the Antarctic;

(3) immediate institution of a research program covering

(a) compensation to those affected by the abolition of hunting;

(b) expanded biological and related studies of the harp, hooded and other 'species of seals in Canada;

(c) development of satisfactory guidelines for the future protection and management of the seal population;

(d) development of improved methods for taking seals.

"I'm impressed by the quality of the report," Mr. Davis said, "and quite certain the Government will be following it up with effective action of its own." Davis said in anticipation of the report he had already banned the taking of seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by the big commercial seal fleet. "This fits in 100% with the recommendations of the report," he said. Davis stressed landsmen will be able to take seals as in the past, their catch being small as compared to that of the commercial fleet.

"However," the Minister said, "I am giving consideration to establishing sub-quotas and closing dates for the various areas in which the landsmen operate, and will limit the number of small longline vessels taking seals in 1972 to those which operated last year." He also stated that he is studying the possibility of restricting entry of landsmen in the seal fishery to those who are experienced in this operation.

INTERIM REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON SEALS AND SEALING

INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Seals and Sealing was established to review all aspects of seals and sealing for the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Jack Davis. The Committee consists of representatives from the animal welfare, scientific and industrial communities and is not aligned with any government agency.

The Committee became an entity, because of a continuing wave of public pressure across the world, demanding some detailed investigation of the seal hunt in Canada with respect to humane killing methods and conservation aspects. In addition, there was a need to coordinate and further investigate conditions, under which sealing was carried out in Canada. In 1971, there was considerable difficulty in applying present regulations and methods under which sealing was undertaken, especially by land-based hunters (landsmen). There was an apparent need for one body to evaluate all available data, and from such data produce an estimate of the population density of the harp seal.

All information on humane killing and conservation would be utilized in advising the Minister of a sound basis from which to manage the seal as a resource.

The Committee met with the public in major areas across Canada (St. John's, Halifax, Vancouver, Quebec City and Montreal). The availability of the Committee to the public was advertised in the public press across Canada; the response of the public for meetings was only in the areas listed. The Committee has met three times in Guelph, once in Ottawa with members of Parliament and again in Halifax as a sub-committee.

The Committee has requested and obtained information from many provincial and federal agencies and individual authorities in diverse fields. It has received briefs from many groups associated with animal welfare, the general public and the sealing industry. All information has been given freely and with limited bias.

A concerted attempt has been made to gather all resource material, and make some of the non-confidential information available to those interested, from the general public, government and university communities.

A bibliography concerning seals had already been developed through the office of the Chairman of the Committee at the University of Guelph. This has been made available as a source of information to the Committee. It contains 6000 references.

Personnel of the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology at the University of British Columbia were commissioned to prepare mathematical models of the harp seal population. These are now available (Appendix I).

Some members, by nature of their individual activities, have taken the opportunity to discuss, with experts in several countries, aspects of population control and conservation of marine species. Seal killings have also been observed outside Canada.

The Committee on Seals and Sealing came to appreciate the complexities of the problem and therefore recognized that there was no single simple solution. It was also realized that some information had not been made available to the Committee. This report is therefore based on a review of the available information obtained from all sources.

HARP SEAL

Taxonomy and Life History

The harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) is one of 32 species in a group of carnivores known as Pinnipedia. It is an earless hair seal which migrates in approximately a north-south pattern in Canadian waters, throughout its life. The harp seal is moving south in November and December, and by the end of February is seen on the ice of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador (Front). The young are usually born in the first two weeks of March. The adults breed soon after, moult, and then, in the next months, move northward.