imports from other nations where less responsible management programs may be in effect. If this committee can produce legislation which will satisfy these basic objectives I think that it can justifiably be proud of having done a responsible job. No doubt there are improvements that will suggest themselves in the future, and it may be that total protection will ultimately become possible. In the interim, this will prevent the loss or significant diminution of animal species and stocks insofar as we are able to do so today. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator HOLLINGS. Senator, your statement is a veritable Magna Carta for protection of marine mammals. I commend you for it. It is objective, realistic, and persuasive. Senator PACKWOOD. Thank you. Senator HOLLINGS. I want to work with you and I want you to work with this committee. I have many questions and I would like to get your ideas further, but I understand you have other commit ments. Senator PACKWOOD. I have another committee meeting starting right now, so I must leave. Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you. (The material referred to earlier follows:) PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION, Portland Oreg., February 9, 1972. Hon. ROBERT PACKWOOD, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PACKWOOD: I have reviewed the text of your bill (S. 2639) for the protection of marine mammals, and offer the following comments for your consideration and that of Senator Hollings' Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere. These remarks derive from the position taken by the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission last November in our Resolution No. 8, wherein we opposed any federal intent to pre-empt state responsibilities for marine mammal management inside the three-mile boundary of territorial waters. We pointed out that the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 confirmed state title to and ownership of natural resources, including marine animals, within these territorial waters; also that our Pacific States have long been engaged in planned management and research programs to effectively protect and manage animal populations within state boundaries. We support the general intent and broad purposes expressed in the Findings and Declaration of Policy of your S. 2639, and as expressed also in S. 3112. These objectives apply equally well to general fisheries protection and wise use, and as such have been indorsed by fisheries management programs already existing in many of our states. The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission recognizes the need for legislative and administrative action at all levels to assure conservation and wise use of our living marine resources and to protect them against over-exploitation and careless or wanton destruction. Clearly there is particular need for incisive Federal action encompassing the 3- to 12-mile contiguous fishing zone, over which our states have no direct jurisdiction, and for which Federal authority presently lacks a penalty system requisite for truly effective management. Clearly too, effective management of this contiguous zone is prerequisite to negotiating of international agreements that will protect and effectively manage living marine resources on the high seas. However, some marine mammal species breed and reside throughout their lives within the territorial waters assigned to state jurisdiction. To us it seems unthinkable that Federal legislation should consider disruption of presently effective State management programs through legislative pre-emption of state responsibility. We strongly oppose the pre-emption concept spelled out in H.R. 10420, (and presumably carried also in S. 3112) as a departure from the intent of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, and because it can only disrupt and waste the initiative, long-term effort, and considerable committment of manpower and resources already invested by many of our states in effective marine mammal conservation and management. As example of on-going programs of marine mammal protection and wise management, the State of California presently has assigned two biologists full-time to research on the ecology and basic biology of the sea-otter. This is a continuation of long-term studies seeking most effective possible mechanisms for protecting this rare and beautiful animal and at the same time minimizing its impact as predator upon other valuable marine resources. As an illustration of California's input to enforcement of marine mammal protection functions, last year some ten marine patrol officers invested approximately 12,000 manhours in patrol actions designed to protect marine mammals, near-shore game fish, and marine plants. These patrols took action concerning some 2,700 violations. The patrol staff estimates that approximately 15% of this total effort related to protection of marine mammals. We submit that Federal legislation either should exclude the management of species residing primarily in state waters,' or should seek to develop an effective working partnership with existing strong state programs of marine mammal protection and management. Many important species range the oceans freely across political boundaries. Clearly a meshing of research and management effort between state and federal agencies would be the logical way to develop efficient overall programs. We believe that your S. 2639 seeks this kind of constructive state-federal relationship, with Section 109 directing development of "cooperative arrangements with the appropriate officials of the several states for conservation and protection of marine mammals," and further specifying that marine mammals taken in territorial waters within the scope of these cooperative arrangements shall be considered lawfully taken in the context of this legislation. We respectfully urge that this intent for cooperative interaction be made more explicit through amplification of Section 109, perhaps as follows (suggested language recommended by several of our State agencies working cooperatively with professional wildlife management associations): "COOPERATION WITH STATES "SEC. 109. (a) The Secretary is authorized and directed to review from time to time the laws and regulations of states relating to protection and management of marine mammals which inhabit waters or lands within the boundaries of a State. If the Secretary determines that State laws and regulations are consistent with the policies and purposes of this Act, the provisions of this Act relating to such marine mammals, except the provisions of this section, shall not apply. "(b) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to each State whose laws and regulations relating to protection and management of marine mammals are found to be consistent with the purposes and policies of this Act. The purpose of such grants shall be to assist States in developing and implementing programs for the protection and management of marine mammals including, but not limited to planning, research, inventories, habitat acquisition and improvement and law enforcement. The Secretary may, as a condition of any such grant, provide that State agencies report at regular intervals on the status of species and populations which are the subject of such grants. "(c) The Secretary is authorized and directed to enter into cooperative agreements with the appropriate officials of any State for the protection and management of marine mammals provided any such arrangement is consistent with the purposes and policies of this Act." Senator Packwood, we earnestly request your aid in assuring that Federal marine mammal legislation, designed to serve the most laudable general objectives, will not at the same time dismantle existing effective State operations through unjustified pre-emption of jurisdiction. Pre-emption is operationally unsound; we should build on present strengths, not undermine them. As proposed in our Resolution 8. recommending exclusion of sea-otter, elephant seals, and sea lions from the proposed Federal legislation. Pre-emption is philosophically unwise, at it removes authority ever further from the people who are most concerned with the effects of that authority. Clearly pre-emption is not what President Nixon had in mind in his call for creative Federalism. His concept is based on increased State participation financially and operationally in government, and visualizes a regionalization of Federal function. Toward these pervasive goals of marine mammal protection through concerted Federal-State interaction, we respectfully commend your attention. On behalf of the five compact states of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, may I again express appreciation for your continued leadership in moving this nation toward effective protection and wise use of its natural resources. Yours sincerely, JOHN P. HARVILLE, FINAL ACT OF THE CONFERENCE ON THE CONSERVATION OF ANTARCTIC SEALS, FEBRUARY 3-11, 1972, WITH CONVENTION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ANTARCTIC SEALS, LONDON, FEBRUARY 11, 1972 I The Governments of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, the French Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Republic of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and the Food and Agriculturé Organization of the United Nations represented by an observer delegation; Having accepted the invitation extended to them by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to participate in a Conference on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals; Appointed their representatives, advisers and observers who are listed below by countries in the order of alphabetical precedence: Argentina Representative: Senor Juan Carlos M Beltramino, Minister Plenipotentiary, Argentine Embassy, London. Alternate: Dra. Graciela Leonar Grandi, Second Secretary, Argentine Embassy, London. Australia Representative: H.E. Mr. R. L. Harry, CBE, Australian Ambassador, Bonn. Adviser: Mr. E. L. Jenkins, Agricultural Representative, Australian High Commission, London. Adviser: Mr. W. J. Farmer, Second Secretary, Australian High Commission, London. Belgium Representative: Alfred van der Essen, Ministre Plenipotentiaire, Directeur d'Administration au Ministère des Affaires étrangeres et du Commerce extérieur, Bruxelles. Alternate: Baron de Gerlache de Gomery, MVO, Shipping Counselor, Belgian Embassy, London. Chile Representative: Senor Jorge Berguno, Minister-Counseller, Embassy of Chile, London. Alternate: Dr. W. Hermosilla, Adviser in Biology, Instituto Antartico Chileno, Santiago. Alternate: Senor H. Montealegre, Second Secretary, Embassy of Chile, London. The French Republic Representative: M. J-F Miquel, Scientific Counsellor, French Embassy, London. Alternate: Mme. Nicole Glynn, Scientific Service, French Embassy, London. Japan Representative: Mr. N. Nakashima, Minister, Plenipotentiary, Japanese Embassy, London. Adviser: Professor Masaharu Nishiwaki, Tokyo University. Member: Mr. Tatsuo Saito, Deputy Head of the First Maritime Division of the Fisheries Agency. Member: Mr. Hakubi Sasaki, First Secretary (Scientific), Japanese Embassy, London. New Zealand Representative: Mr. N. V. Farrell, Minister, New Zealand High Commission, London. Alternate: Dr. V. Armstrong, Scientific Adviser, New Zealand High Commission, London. Alternate: Mr. A. C. Doyle, Second Secretary, New Zealand High Commission, London. Norway Representative: Mr. Tore Bogh, Minister-Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo. Alternate: Mr. J. H. Bernes, Director-General, Ministry of Fisheries, Oslo. Alternate: Mr. T. Oritsland, Oceanographer, The Marine Research Institute of the Directorate of Fisheries, Bergen. The Republic of South Africa Representative: Mr. R. W. Rand, Division of Sea Fisheries, Department of Industries, South Africa. Adviser: Mr. W. Scholtz, Second Secretary, South African Embassy, London. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Representative: Mr. I. I. Ippolitov, Minister-Counsellor, Embassy of the Soviet Union, London. Alternate: Mr. L. A. Popov, Ministry of Fisheries. Alternate: Mr. V. S. Kotlyar, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Alternate: Dr. Brian Roberts, CMG, Polar Regions Section, Latin America Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Alternate: Mr. David M. Edwards, Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Alternate: Miss Charlotte Rycroft, Latin America Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Alternate: Mr. W. Nigel Bonner, Seals Research Division, Institute for Marine Environmental Research. Alternate: Dr. Richard M. Laws, Life Sciences Division, British Antarctic Survey. Alternate: Dr. T. E. Armstrong, Scott Polar Research Institute. The United States of America Representative: The Honorable Donald L. McKernan, Ambassador, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Fisheries and Wildlife and Coordinator of Ocean Affairs, Department of State. Alternate: Mr. Alanson G. Burt, Office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Fisheries and Wildlife and Coordinator of Ocean Affairs, Department of State. Alternate: The Honourable Wymberley DeR. Coerr, Special Adviser to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs, Department of State. Adviser: The Honourable Mario Biaggi, Congressional Adviser, United States House of Representatives. Adviser: The Honourable Edwin B. Forsythe, Congressional Adviser, United States House of Representatives. Adviser: Mr. Frank M. Potter, Jr., Congressional Staff Adviser, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, United States House of Representatives. Adviser: Mr. Bryan H. Baas, American Embassy, London. Adviser: Mr. David E. Birenbaum, National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, D.C. Adviser: Mrs. Prudence I. Fox, Office of International Affairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. Adviser: Mr. Thomas R. Garrett, Friends of the Earth, Washington, D.C. Adviser: Mr. William A. Hayne, Senior Staff Member for International Affairs, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. Adviser: Captain James E. Heg, USN, Chief of Polar Planning and Coordination, Office of Polar Programmes, National Science Foundation. Adviser: Mr. Walter Kirkness, Acting Deputy Associate Director for Resource Management, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. Adviser: Mr. George A. Llano, Ph.D., Programme Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine, Office of Polar Programmes, National Science Foundation. Adviser: Mrs. Eleanor C. McDowell, Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State. Adviser: Mr. Addison E. Richmond, Jr., Ph.D., Deputy for Polar and Technological Affairs, Office of General Scientific Affairs, Bureau of International Scientific and Technological Affairs, Department of State. Adviser: Mr. Donald B. Siniff, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Adviser: Mrs. Frances K. Wein, Sierra Club, San Francisco, California. Adviser: Mr. Robert L. Horstman, Sea Mammal Motivational Institute, Key Largo, Florida. THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES Observer: Mr. L. K. Boerema. The Conference met at London on 3 February 1972 under the Chairmanship of Mr. H. G. Balfour Paul, representative of the delegation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The committees established under the Rules of Procedure of the Conference were constituted as follows: Committee on Drafting D. M. Edwards (U.K.-Chairman) J. Berguno (Chile) T. Saito (Japan) A. C. Doyle (New Zealand) T. Bogh (Norway) V. S. Kotlyar (U.S.S.R.) T. E. Armstrong (U.K.) Mrs. E. C. McDowell (U.S.) Committee on the Annex R. M. Laws (U.K.-Chairman) W. Hermosilla (Chile) M. Nishiwaki (Japan) T. Saito (Japan) T. Oritsland (Norway) R. W. Rand (South Africa) J. A. Gulland (F.A.O.) The final session was held on 11 February 1972. As a result of its deliberations the Conference has established and drawn up for signature a "Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals," the text of which is annexed hereto. |