I am now aware that our own Game Dept. will recommend to the Alaska Board of Fish and Game that polar bear hunting with planes be stopped. This in spite of the fact that they know and readily admit that no harm is being done to the population nor could it be done under the regulations we already operate under. It seems that "Say Goodbye" may have represented their thinking more than they wished to admit.

Obviously there are far too few persons (guides and/or hunters) who have real interest in seeing the opportunity to hunt polar bear as we now do continued to bring much strong pressure to bear in their favor. It does seem rather strange to me however, that one of the largest bodies of knowledge about polar bear and the ice pack goes consistently untapped. I am speaking about the guides who have spent many years out there. There are persons who have spent 12-15 or more seasons on the ice. They must have learned something about the bears and their numbers. I do not believe that the guides who hunt polar bear-as a group could or would want to see the polar bear become an endangered specie. Most of us have a great deal of respect and admiration for the nanook and his home on the ice and would be entirely willing to accept (even propose) regulations as needed to protect him-but we find it increasingly hard to accept regulations established simply to pacify ecologists, environmentalists, conservationists and God knows what other titles they've assumed.

Just as we do not need unnecessary controls on guns and our rights to keep them we also do not need unnecessary controls on hunting when the situation does not warrant them. I was impressed with your views speaking for guns on "The Advocate" and am hopeful that you are mindful of the dangers of both Federal and State controls on anything where control is not warranted-your assistance is solicited and any help will certainly be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

DICK GUNLOGSON.

SEA AIRMOTIVE, INC., Anchorage, Alaska, February 18, 1972.

Hon. TED STEVENS,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR TED: I was pleased to read in the paper last night where you opposed the Senator from Oklahoma who wishes to protect all the sea mammals in Alaska. I noticed that you touched on the ecology and living of the people of the Pribilof Islands that the non-harvest of fur seals would completely ruin. I feel that the survival of these few people out there is only a pittance of what would suffer if we allow all of the sea mammals to increase at will. The sea lion is the one animal that has increased more in the last 20 years than any of the rest of the salmon predators. Mainly, because man has no use for him. You can fly the Prince William Sound area and the seal rocks where you can see thousands of sea lion. During the salmon run we know that they eat more salmon than the fishermen catch. All around the end of the Kenai peninsula you can see acres of sea lions lying on the beaches and rocks. Even down the peninsula on Amak Island, just north of Cold Bay, as I have flown sight-seers around it a number of times. I can show you sea lion 100 yards thick and a mile long, solid, lying on the beach. On these places they eat salmon all summer. It is possible for them to go without food for several months during the winter when food is scarce and then consume probably 2 cases of salmon a day when it is available to them.

I ask, "Why should we taxpayers stand by and do nothing while we see our tax money being spent to preserve these animals that are worthless to us and are eating the food that we would be glad to eat?" At the same time, people in parts of the world are starving to death. I wrote an article to the Anchorage Times just a few months ago about this. I am sending you a copy of what I wrote, also, what they published of it in their Letter to the Editor. You can

see that they edited the letter and took out all the controversial points or anything pertaining to the actual economy of these animals compared to man. Hoping that this will do you some good,

Sincerely yours,

WARD I. GAY.

P.S.-I would appreciate it very much if you could read this information to the Senate Committee investigating this issue.

MORE SALMON

Dear Editor: Now in progress in Anchorage is a meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. These men will spend many hours trying to determine what is happening to our salmon fisheries. Why the runs are declining. The only answer they will come up with will be "too many fishermen," American, Japanese, Korean and Russian, and will recommend new laws restricting these fishermen.

Now I would like to mention a few predators besides man that catch and eat salmon. Even as late as the 1940's there was a 5-cent-bounty on Dolly Varden tails. Whether this did any good or not is questionable as in many years of spring bear hunting, I have seen the Dollys, thick, in all steams the last part of May. Every one you catch is full of fingerling salmon, the egg sac still attached.

Before the flu epidemic of 1918, there were nearly 40,000 Aleuts living on the Alaskan Peninsula. Their main source of food was not only salmon but hair seals and Belugas and sea lions. They killed them and kept the supply down so that at the turn of the century the fur seal was almost extinct. Now the taxpayer's money has built this herd up to more than 3,000,000 and there are estimated to be 2,000,000 hair seals in Alaska. No one knows how many Belugas and sea lions there are but we know they eat fish, not only the mature salmon but also the fingerlings when first go into the sea.

I think that God put all the animals here in the world for man to utilize but not wantonly destroy. We must find uses for these salmon predators. For a long time I have been thoroughly convinced that the sea will give all the nations all the fish they want if we partially eliminate the other predators so that man can continue to be the biggest predator in the world, which he is and always has been.

WARD I. GAY.

HOPKINS MARINE STATION, Pacific Grove, Calif., February 23, 1972.

Hon. TED STEVENS,

U.S. Senate,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: Judson Vandevere told me of your interest in our heavy metal data on sea otters and sea lions. I have enclosed two tables. The first shows the concentration of 8 elements in the livers and kidneys of these animals. The results are expressed as parts per million dry weight (= micrograms of element/gram dry weight). The mercury data is presented on the second sheet, and is expressed on a parts per million wet weight basis for ease of comparison with other data such as the FDA limit of 0.5 ppm.

At present we don't know where the cadmium and mercury, concentrated in these animals, originally came from. However in attempts to learn more we have submitted a research proposal to EPA for a study of this phenomena. We are also writing Wallace Noerenberg. Commissioner of Alaskan Fish and Game and are asking his help in obtaining Alaskan marine mammal tissues for comparative studies.

I hope the enclosed information will be of use to you. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend you for the concern you have shown concerning ocean mammals and the legislation needed to protect them.

Sincerely,

JOHN H. MARTIN,
Assistant Professor.

76-491 O 72 pt. 1 43

THE CONCENTRATIONS OF 8 ELEMENTS IN KIDNEY AND LIVER TISSUE OF THE CALIFORNIA SEA OTTER, "ENHYDRA
LUTRIS," AND THE SEA LION, "ZALOPHUS CALIFORNIANUS"

P.P.M. MERCURY ON A WET WEIGHT BASIS IN THE SOUTHERN SEA OTTER AND CALIFORNIA SEA LION

(This same letter was sent to: Senator Fred Harris, McLean, Va.)

Senator ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Washington, D.C.

Anchorage, Alaska, February 25, 1972.

DEAR SENATOR HARRIS: Although I am not one of your constituents, I feel compelled to convey to you my feelings, my observations, and my opinions concerning ocean mammal conservation. Hopefully this information may be of value in your efforts to formulate reasonable legislation.

I have personally spent many hours over the Arctic ice in my "vintage" Piper Cub as a sportsman hunter. The purpose of my hunts is pictures and trophies for immediate members of my family. Each of my flights has made me more convinced that, with the existing State hunting limits, it is impossible to harvest sufficient numbers of polar bear to approach a sustained yield balance. The Arctic Ocean is literally teaming with all types of life. One often sees 8 to 12 polar bears each day and, on occasion, I have seen that many in less than two hours. This is compounded by the fact that I am sure that a hunter sees only one bear out of five that he flies over. The creatures are invariably in excellent condition; even the sows with young appear to be fat. The obviously abundant food supply insures continued large numbers of polar bear. I feel the same regarding my own observations of walrus and seals which abound in these waters. In no way will the limited harvest now permitted under Alaskan law endanger any of these creatures.

Many Alaskans agree with me that the polar bear has actually benefited from the harvest. I am sure you have heard the pro and cons on this before. It is my opinion that the harvest of the larger male bears is healthy since it makes it possible to achieve a lower death rate amont the cubs, and more of the available sows are bred. These are my personal suppositions, but it appears to be substantiated by "old time" Alaskan guides who have observed that the

number of bears is increasing and that there appear to be more multiple births.

Hopefully, you are interested in achieving proper regulation so the animal resources which were given to us can be properly utilized. The current rabid conservation groups' attitude advocating total ban on hunting ocean mammals is not a reasonable approach. Ironically, most of these "conservationists" do not have first hand knowledge of this segment of our Alaskan wildlife. This is unfortunate.

I would be willing to assist you in any way possible if you feel it necessary to evaluate what I have said The best time of year for Arctic Ocean observation of polar bear and walrus is March and April. It is my sincere opinion that you, as a lawmaker involved in arctic marine legislation, should have the opportunity for the understanding that is available here in Alaska this spring.

Thank you for taking your valuable time to read my thoughts on this matter.

Very truly yours,

ED GRANGER.

Credentials of Ed Granger: Assistant Director, Division of Aviation, State of Alaska; Captain, Alaskan Air National Guard, as Senior Pilot in C-123 Aircraft; ATR Pilot Rating (1416085 CFI, A&I); Registered Civil Engineer.

STATE OF ALASKA,

DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
Juneau, Alaska, February 26, 1972.

Hon. TED STEVENS,
U.S. Senator,

411 Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: The enclosed information is to be included in the record of the Ocean and Atmosphere Subcommittee hearings on Marine Mammal Legislation.

During the committee hearing I asked permission to have the Alaska Board of Fish and Game codified regulations pertaining to polar bear hunting submitted in the record. I have marked the attached information in a manner which isolates the pertinent sections of the regulations for ease in accomplishing publication.

I again wish to thank you for your assistance during our testimony before the subcommittee. If you require any additional information relative to Alaska's mammal resources, please contact me.

5 AAC 81.050. PERMITS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER. The following permits may be issued by the Commissioner for:

(7) taking polar bear in Alaska or transporting polar bear or parts of a polar bear into Alaska, under the following procedure:

(A) a total of 300 nontransferable permits shall be issued, and shall be allocated by hunting area "West Area" is that area west and south of a line extending northwest from Point Lay and "North Area" is that area north and east of a line extending northwest from Point Lay;

(B) applications for permits shall be made to the Commissioner on forms available from Department offices. Applications shall specify one of the hunt