Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Senator HOLLINGS. Has any one else in the Government worked in this particular field with the porpoise?

Mr. PERRIN. Yes, the Navy has a program of research into the ecology and behavior of the local whitebelly porpoise off San Diego. They are interested in the animal because he is a sound source. He makes a lot of noise which confuses people who are monitoring underwater sounds to spot submarines and so forth.

So they have an extensive study going of distribution, movements and population size of the whitebelly porpoise off San Diego.

Some of their techniques could probably be applied to this situation. Senator HOLLINGS. Are you familiar with it? Do you coordinate

between

Mr. PERRIN. Yes, we cooperate very closely with the Navy or they cooperated with us, rather, in this last big research cruise we had. We contracted two of their people to actually run it for us. We used their equipment, their technicians and their advice.

Senator HOLLINGS. What is the type of porpoise we see in those oceanariums like Marineland?

Mr. PERRIN. These are mainly bottlenose porpoise, Tursiops.
Senator HOLLINGS. What was that again?

Mr. PERRIN. Primarily bottlenose porpoise or dolphins.

Senator HOLLINGS. Do you think that 250,000 estimate is a low estimate of those being killed now in the tuna catch?

Mr. PERRIN. The real figure could be twice that or half that. I don't want to make any more estimates until I have had a chance to look at the data for this year. We have more data this year already than we have from all the previous years put together. This would not be very scientific to make an estimate without considering those new data.

Senator HOLLINGS. The use of porpoises for human consumption, is that only in Japan?

Mr. PERRIN. There are minor fisheries in several places around the world but the only major fishery is in Japanese water. There are small fisheries in South America, Turkey; there was one in Denmark. There is a small one in Newfoundland where I guess the use is for food but the Japanese fishery is the only significant fishery.

Senator HOLLINGS. How significant is it; how extensive?

Mr. PERRIN. I have seen figures of 50,000 porpoise of several species harvested per year.

Senator HOLLINGS. We appreciate very much your appearance here this afternoon. We are going to keep in touch with you on this experimentation. It sounds very interesting-the progress that you are making.

Thank you.

If Dr. Small is not present, the committee will stand in recess.
Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, the committee adjourned at 2:45 p.m., subject to call of the Chair.)

76-491 O 72 pt. 1 27

OCEAN MAMMAL PROTECTION

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1972

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE

OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Ernest F. Hollings (chairman), presiding. Present: Senators Hollings and Stevens.

Senator HOLLINGS. The committee will please come to order. We are pleased this afternoon to have as our first witness the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Packwood, who is the author of S. 2639. We are glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB PACKWOOD, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Senator PACKWOOD. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence I would like to ask that at the end of my testimony a letter from the Executive Director of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission be inerted in the record.

Senator HOLLINGS. It will be.

Senator PACKWOOD. The letter agrees in part and disagrees with my bill, but I have had dealings with them on a variety of matters and I would like their views to be brought to the attention of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for asking me to appear before you today and for holding hearings on this important legislation.

There is certainly no controversy, either here or on the other side of the Capitol, over the fact that marine mammals need more attention and enlightened protection than they have received in the past. I am certain that you have already heard adequate testimony on this controversy.

To meet this problem, two alternatives have been urged upon this subcommittee. On, generally described as the protectionists' view, and encompassed by Senator Harris' bill, S. 2579, would impose an absolute ban on the taking or importing of all marine life.

The others, sometimes described as the managers' bill, represented by my bill, S. 2639, and also by similar legislation proposed by Senators Williams, Stevens, and yourself, would respond to the problem by authorizing an extensive and intensive program of management of species and stocks of marine mammals.

The controlling issue in the controversy between these two views must necessarily be what is best for the animals themselves and for the ecosystems upon which they, and possibly we, depend.

Under this criterion I can only conclude that enlightened, effecttive management of marine mammals is the better course of action to pursue at this time.

Critics of management programs point to failures of other management programs, such as the International Whaling Commission, as evidence that the concept itself is no good.

While it is undeniable that some programs, including the International Whaling Commission, have been inadequate, it is no more rational to conclude from this that the management concept should be abandoned than it would be to throw out our system of criminal justice because miscarriages of justice have occurred in the past. The answer, it seems to me, is to improve the system, not to scrap it altogether.

My bill, and the other similar bills, attempt to do just this-to see that management systems are devised, in ways, I might add, that have not been tried before, which would be responsive to the needs of society and of the animals themselves.

A notable and, I believe, basic defect in the proposal of the protectionists lies in its complete lack of a research program designed to improve our knowledge of these animals.

You have already heard evidence of the almost nonexistent research efforts that have been developed by the Federal Government in the past, with the exception perhaps of the Alaska fur seal program which must surely stand as an outstanding example of what can happen under a sound management program.

The significance of an adequate research program becomes apparent when one considers the fact that the species and stocks of animals described in this legislation are almost without exception migratory and/or international-or at the very least live in waters that may go beyond the territorial limits of U.S. jurisdiction.

What this means, of course, is that these animals may be, and often are, considered fair game by citizens of other countries, citizens for whom a self-imposed U.S. ban would mean only that there would be more animals for them to take.

While I understand the temptation to adopt a moralistic posture, banning all killing of marine mammals by U.S. citizens, and to urge all other nations to follow our leads, I think that we must recognize the cold reality that they will not do so today.

A case in point might be the recently negotiated treaty to regulate the catching of Antarctic seals.

I might ask, Mr. Chairman-I have a copy of that treaty. It was just concluded in London, February 11, this year. I ask that it be included.

Senator HOLLINGS. It will be included at the conclusion of your oral testimony.

Senator PACKWOOD. We were very clearly told by the other 11 nations at the London conference early this month that they were not at all interested in creating an Antarctic preserve for seals.

Faced with scientific statements that there may be as many as 50 million seals in the waters off Antarctic the decision was made by all of the countries present to permit limited and controlled taking of Antarctic seals, with that taking heavily weighted toward conservative limits pending the development of more and better information

to tell us how these resources can be best used without sustaining serious damage.

Few other nations of the world consider themselves as highly favored as we are today, having adequate supplies of protein and other raw materials. For the less-favored countries marine mammals are not a luxury but are, rather, a potential source of food or cash.

I doubt if anyone here likes the idea, but it does no good to pretend it is not there.

I believe that such nations can be reached, however, by being shown that marine mammals are resources which can be depleted by overuse and that this will result in long term losses for all concerned. The fable of the goose and the golden eggs is told in many other languages than English.

This is in fact the argument that finally seems to be prevailing with respect to the great whales, although even here it appears that there is no lack of opportunists who may be quite willing to destroy resources for all time for the sake of a quick return.

For this reason, and since we know that the pressure for exploitation of these and other resources is on the increase, it becomes imperative that we develop a sound, broadly-based research program to define accurately the limits of what can safely be done without endangering the resources themselves.

I do not think that it would be a responsible act for this Congress to adopt legislation which imposes a flat ban on our taking of marine mammals without providing a sound research program to help us plot a course for the future.

I say this not because I am unsympathetic with the motives and concerns of the protectionists, but because I am convinced that their proposal just will not work. And that, therefore, it is not responsible to the best interests of the animals themselves.

I might add that the position of the ostrich is not only undignified, but extraordinarily vulnerable.

There are elements in each of the management proposals now before the committee which have much to commend them. By way of putting my own bill into perspective I might say that it was introduced as a first generation effort at a time when it appeared that Senate hearings might be imminent and when no alternative was available for consideration by this committee.

I would say that many of the modifications that have been proposed upon my original bill have improved considerably upon it. I appears to me that the essential elements of a sound and responsible bill for the long term protection of marine mammals would at least include the following:

(1) A management program open to full public review and. keyed to the needs of the animals themselves;

(2) A comprehensive research progrram which I have already described;

(3) The existence of an independent agency to review the ongoing program without management responsibilties and with some research capability of its own, and

(4) Adequate controls to prevent misbehavior of U.S. citizens and agencies, coupled with a flexible capacity to restrict

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »