management of marine mammals; except that any such arrangement must be consistent with the purposes and policies of this title.

"(d) There are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year in which this section takes effect and for the next four fiscal years such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section, but the sums appropriated for any such year shall not exceed $750,000.00, one-half of such sums to be available to each Secretary."

13. In Section 110, page 43 delete subsection (b), relettering the remaining subsections, and delete the amount $1,000,000.00' at line 11, page 44, and substitute the amount $250,000.00'."

14. In Section 111 (a), page 44, line 15, insert "other Federal and state agency"

15. In Section 111 (a), page 44, line 16, insert "such limitations and regulations"

TITLE II-MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION

(The purpose of this amendment is to establish an independent advisory group if Title II is retained. The revision assures that authority respecting marine mammal programs appropriately would be vested in a single agency.)

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION

(a) There is hereby established the Marine Mammal Commission (hereafter referred to in this title as the "Commission").

(b) (1) The Commission shall be composed of three members who shall be appointed by the President. The President shall make his selection from a list, submitted to him by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, of individuals knowledgeagle in the fields of marine ecology and conservation and who are not in a position to profit from the taking of marine mammals. No member of the Commission may, during his period of service on the Commission, hold any other position as an officer or employee of the United States, except as a retided officer or retired civilian employee of the United States.

(2) The term of office for each member shall be three years; except that of the members initially appointed to the Commission, the term of one member shall be for one year, the term of one member shall be for two years, and the term of one member shall be for three years. A member may serve after the expiration of his term until his successor has taken office.

(c) The President shall designate a Chairman of the Commission (hereafter referred to in this title as the "Chairman") from among its members. (d) Members of the Commission shall each be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for each day such member is engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Commission. Each member shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in Government service employed intermittently.

(3) The Commission shall have an Executive Director, who shall be appointed (without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service) by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission and shall be paid at a rate not in excess of the rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under Section 5332 of title 5, United States Code. The Executive Director shall have such duties as the Chairman may assign.

DUTIES OF COMMISSION

(a) The Commission shall—

(1) undertake a complete review of the population dynamics of all marine mammals;

(2) not later than two years and six months after this Act goes into effect, report to the President and the Congress on its findings as to the population dynamics of marine mammals and make such recommendations as it deems wise as to the policies that should be pursued by the Government. (3) recommend to the Secretary of State appropriate policies regarding existing international arrangements for the Conservation of marine mammals;

(4) recommend to the Secretary such revisions of the Endangered Species List, authorized by the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, as may be appropriate with regard to marine mammals; and

(b) The reports and recommendations which the Commission makes shall be matters of public record and shall be available to the public at all reasonable times. All other activities of the Commission shall be matters of public record and available to the public in accordance with the provisions of section 552 of title 5, United States Code.

CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS NEEDED

(Desirable but not vital)

1. The words "stocks" should be deleted where used throughout the bill and replaced with "populations."

2. In Section 2 (3), page 22, line 11, delete "reproduce" and substitute "sustain." The findings would then read as follows:

The Congress finds that

(3) there is inadequate knowledge of the population dynamics of such marine mammals and of the factors which bear upon their ability to (reproduce) sustain themselves successfully.

3. In Section 2 (4), page 22, line 15, delete "conservation" and substitute "management." The finding would then read as follows:

The Congress finds that

(4) negotiations should be undertaken, as soon as possible, to encourage the development of international arrangements for research on, and (conservation) management of, all marine mammals.

4. In Section 2 (6), page 23, delete lines 8-11, insert "maintain populations, as near as possible, at the optimum carrying capacity level."

5. In Section 3 (1), page 23, line 15, delete "the number of individuals within."

6. In Section 103 (e), page 34, line 16, after "effect" insert "without compensable interest."

7. In Section 103 (i), page 35, line 25, delete "general" and substitute "special."

8. In Section 103 (i), page 36, line 1, after "mammals" insert "for a specified project or activity."

9. In Section 103 (i), page 36, line 2, delete "general" and substitute "special."

10. In Section 108 (1), page 42, line 10, after "protection" add "and management."

11. In Section 108 (1), page 42, line 12, delete "health" and substitute "well-being."

12. Title II, page 46, et seq., delete entire title.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. Chairman, I am Louis S. Clapper, Conservation Director for the National Wildlife Federation, which has natural headquarters at 1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W., here in Washington, D.C.

Ours is a private organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. The Federation has independent affiliates in all 50 States and the Virgin Islands. These affiliates, in turn, are composed of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 3,000,000 persons.

We appreciate the invitation and opportunity to make these comments. Mr. Chairman, when hearings were held in the House last year, the National Wildlife Federation supported H.R. 10420, as introduced by Congressman Anderson, in principle, with some changes being recommended. Today, we support many of the principles expressed in S. 3112, which is the same as H.R. 10420, as reported to the House by the Committee on Merchane Marine and Fisheries, but also with some changes to recommend as set out in S. 3161.

Consequently, I shall direct the comment in this statement to S. 3112 and S. 3161.

Purpose of this legislation is to give greater protection to marine mammals and to provide for proper management of them. We are in accord wtih these objectives.

The National Wildlife Federation is firm in its support for proper and professional management of wildlife. We support professional wildlife management, as taught in our Nation's best educational institutions, with the objective of maintaining maximum variety and optimum numbers of wildlife for the many and varied uses of man-to observe, photograph, study, and harvest for food and wearing apparel purposes when surpluses exist. We are proud of the achievements which our colleges and universities have made over the last three or four decades in developing scientists in wildlife management who take their rightful places with their colleagues in other resources management areas, such as foresters, entomologists, soils scientists, etc. We are convinced that their backgrounds of formal training and experience must be utilized to the fullest if wildlife resources are to be maintained on a sustaining basis.

It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that we do not support any legislation which calls for complete protection, by law, of all ocean mammals. Not all of these creatures need complete protection, in the minds of professional wildlife managers, if we continue to follow the concept that wildlife resources are to be used for the benefit of man. We feel that legislating total protection preempts the professional wildlife scientist from applying his knowledge and experience.

As a matter of fact, we think that the worst disservice we could perform to any form of wildlife is to abandon the principle of sound management. Man has so complicated and disrupted the animal habitats that there is little semblance of the original balance of nature. If wildlife populations are not kept at levels which are supported by adequate food supplies, and by living and breeding space of their natural habitats, they will die of starvation and disease as well as suffering from a lack of procreation. In addition, the habitat must provide ample living, not marginal subsistence, if healthy wildlife populations are to be maintained over extended periods of time. Recovery to a normal balanced population following a starvation dieoff is a slow, inhumane and unnecessary process. In our view, the methods employed in removing surplus population (whether carried out by individuals representing sporting or commercial interests) should be left to regulation by professional wildlife management experts as long as control is exercised to protect the basic brood stocks and the harvest is carried out in the most humane manner.

It is in this same context that we will oppose any "moratorium" on the taking of marine mammals-unless professional wildlife managers make the decision.

Mr. Chairman, I must make it perfectly clear, however, that the National Wildlife Federation does not oppose complete protection of wildlife as a proper management tool. Complete protection is one of several techniques used by professional wildlife biologists. Our organization was one of the original sponsors of the concept of completely protecting endangered species of wildlife and we stand firm in the same position today. On the other hand, harvesting of surpluses is another valuable management tool in the ultimate objective of the continuing long-range well-being of an animal population. In short, we are convinced that any recommendation or decision relating to the proper handling of wildlife must be based upon factual research data and experience, as well as on the restoration and management of proper wildlife habitat, but not on the basis of emotional, philosophical, or moral judgments.

Our organization, of course, feels that it is absolutely vital to world wildlife populations that we continue to base wildlife management efforts upon a sound foundation of scientific knowledge about the status and needs of wildlife. And, we will be among the first to say that, like the fields of medicine or agriculture or meteorology, much remains to be learned in wildlife management. However, if we have insufficient data, we all should direct our efforts towards filling in these gaps in our body of knowledge. We need all possible management tools at our disposal, including both protection and harvest, to solve the complexities of contemporary wildlife management. To do otherwise in this enlightened age would be an abrogation of our responsibili

ties to the fish and fauna of the world. No matter how much we may desire it, we cannot return to the pristine natural conditions of the Stone Age. Modern man has so disrupted our planet and ecological systems, poisoned and polluted the environment, that the only hope for much of the world's wildlife is for man to utilize his greatest powers of reason, science, technology, and persuasion to overcome or minimize the adverse impact of his own intrusions into the ecosystem.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude by saying that the National Wildlife Federation participated fully with a number of other groups in drafting proposed changes to S. 3112 (and H.R. 10420). These are being presented to the Committee as part of the testimony of the Wildlife Management Institute. As amended, we think S. 3112 can be a highly useful and significant contribution to the resources management programs of this Nation, and the entire world, in perpetuating wildlife populations for the benefit of man and the basic populations of the creatures themselves. Thank you again for the opportunity of appearing here today.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD N. DENNEY, WILDLIFE CONSULTANT, THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION

The American Humane Association was founded almost one hundred years ago, and is a national federation of local and state organizations throughout the United States whose primary objectives are the prevention of cruelty and suffering, of children and animals. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, the Association and its affiliated agencies represent approximately 350,000 individuals, although thousands of other people share and support the basic humanitarian philosophy. We work very closely with many non-member organizations, as well as city, county and state governments throughout the United States in consulting with and assisting them in their programs of animal welfare. We have been instrumental and/or assisted in the passage of such Federal legislation as the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, the Animal Welfare Act of 1970, and the Horse Protection Act of 1970. We are a member of the International Society for the Protection of Animals, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the Society for Range Management and the Wildlife Society. We have observed the harvest of the northern fur seal on the Pribilof Islands, and demonstrated the only alternative harvest method to date that is feasible and shows merit for further development. The encroachment of the rapidly increasing human population throughout the world into new land areas has increased the demand and exploitation of the earth's natural resources, both terrestrial and marine, which were previously considered to be inexhaustible or little affected by man's actions. This expansion of man's impact on the environment has resulted in degradation of many wildlife habitats, with a consequent effect on indigenous species that were previously of lesser concern to humanitarians, but which have now come into the sphere of humane interests. An underlying principle of humane work is animal welfare, which not only includes the obvious prevention of overt cruelty by intent, but also of animal suffering which may result from the acts of man, or man's lack of appropriate action, stemming from ignorance, negligence or apathy. Man's trail through the history of the world is littered with the wreckage of the lack of specific action at the proper time, such as proper management, as exemplified by the many wild species that have been extirpated.

Current interest is centered on marine mammals, and it is imperative that the ocean animals not only be protected, but that they be properly managed on a sound program based on biological data and natural resource principles. There are those amongst the American public who, because they are less informed and more emotional, advocate total protection only, in the sense of the abolition of killing in any manner or for any reason. These people advocate that nature should be allowed to take its course without intervention by man. This is not a realistic approach, as man's alteration of the various ecosystems already makes it imperative that his continued influence be manifested through management to ensure the survival of designated species, and to alleviate nature's cruelties, such management to be based on sound, comprehensive ecological investigations.

Any marine mammal legislation which proposes total protection only without rational management is categorically untenable. It may well be true that the initial stages of a management program on many of the ocean animals, i.e. sea otter, manatee, certain species of whale, and polar bear, will involve total protection for a specified period, but this must be recognized for what it is an integral component of a rational management program. Other necessary requisites of such a management plan would include assessments of the number, sex and age structure, and distribution of the populations, as well as life history data, habitat requirements, ecological significance, and the evaluation of the need for population control or manipulation. Each of these components has many facets as well, many of which are inter-dependent. Therefore, it is readily apparent that the prohibition of harvesting alone is not management, as aptly demonstrated by the case histories of wildlife populations which, though protected, virtually eliminated themselves through uncontrolled numbers causing severe habitat deterioration, of which the Kaibab deer herd in Arizona during the 1920's is a classic example.

One marine mammal species on which it has been demonstrated that a management program has been effective and should be continued is the northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) of the northern Pacific Oceoan and the Bering Sea. This ocean animal has been the subject of intensive research and management since the inception of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention in 1911 between the United States, Great Britain (for Canada), Russia and Japan. This compact brought about the cessation of pelagic sealing and promulgated the cooperative research and management program still basically in effect. The success of this program through international cooperation and rational management is demonstrated through the increase from around two hundred thousand seals in 1912 to a peak of approximately one and a half million during the past 60 years.

The terrestrial habitat requirements of the fur seal in the limited area and physical characteristics of the land necessary for reproduction indicate that population control should be an integral component of their management. Overcrowding of the relatively limited rookery areas through overpopulation has been demonstrated to increase pup mortality through malnutrition, hookworm disease and trauma. It has also been found that these population-decimating factors are of lower incidence in a herd that is on the up-swing (or increasing in numbers) building toward an optimum population. Therefore, it is desirable, through population control, to keep the maximum sustained yield concept inherent in a vigorous population, by sustaining the building-up stage of the herd to a point just less than the carrying capacity of the most limiting or critical habitat requirement. Because of the life history traits involving social structuring and polygamy of the northern fur seal, those immature male animals surplus to the continued breeding requirements of the herd can be effectively harvested without disturbance to the mature breeding population, and without impeding the maintaining of a near-optimum and vigorous total population.

Several television programs and articles in the press during the past year have focused public attention on the northern fur seal harvest in Alaska. Much of the information disseminated has been so general, unspecific, incomplete or slanted that many individuals do not realize that there are differences between the Canadian seal hunts, which have also been publicized, and the American sealing program. Many confuse the harp seal pups (whitecoats taken in Canada with the sub-adult fur seals taken in the Pribilof Islands on population control. This confusion has been exploited by certain organizations in the United States, either ignorantly or purposely deluding the American public into believing that the Canadian situation is representative of sealing on the Pribilofs. These organizations charge that the manner of cropping fur seals is cruel and inhumane, and that the harvest is profitstimulated in catering to woman's vanity and the attending graft of bureaucrats and private enterprise.

Let's take a look at some of these allegations. First of all, in regard to clubbing or stunning the seals being an inhumane act, a special panel of veterinarians expert in euthanasia studied the harvest procedures on the Pribilof Islands this summer (1971), and determined that the current harvest methods are as humane as any so far devised. Suggestions that the sealing crews were on their good behavior, and that therefore the veterinarians did not see the normal harvesting procedures, are not plausible. Comments by