ing areas designated under Section 7(A) of this section and be accompanied by an application for a hunting license (Form DR 200) and the appropriate fee. At time of application, the applicant shall designate on the application form the location in the hunting area at which he will accept delivery of the permit. These locations must be one of the following: in the West Area, Nome, Kotzebue, or Point Hope; in the North Area, Barrow. The permits will be available from a Department representative at the specified location during the open season, and may be picked up by the permittee only; (C) each application shall be accompanied by fees to cover that application only; applications from nonresident applicants shall also be accompanied by fees to cover cost of polar bear big game tag. A maximum of two persons may apply jointly. Applications will not be accepted from persons who have taken a polar bear in Alaska, or imported a polar bear or unprocessed polar bear skin into Alaska, during the preceding three regulatory years. A person who has taken a polar bear in Alaska, or imported a polar bear or unprocessed polar bear skin into Alaska, during the preceding three regulatory years may not apply for a permit; (D) if applications received by the close of business August 31 of any regulatory year exceed the number of permits authorized, a public drawing will be held on September 4 to determine successful applicants; (E) if applications do not exceed the authorized number of permits by the close of business August 31, permits will be issued as applications are received until the authorized quota of permits is reached, or until February 1 of that regulatory year; (F) residents may, however, take no more than three polar bears (except cubs and females accompanied by cubs) without a permit at any time for food; polar bears so taken may not be taken, transported from point of taking, or imported with the aid or use of aircraft; Authority: AS 16.05.250 (3) 5 AAC 81.180. SEALING OF BEAR SKINS AND SKULLS. (a) No person may possess in the state, transport or export from the state, the skin or skull of a bear, whether taken inside or outside of the state unless it has been sealed by an authorized representative of the Department. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) of this section, a person taking a bear may possess the unsealed skin or skull of the bear taken for a period not to exceed 30 days from the time of taking for the purpose of transporting the skin and skull to an authorized representative of the Department for sealing. The skin and skull of a bear shall be sealed within 30 days from the time of taking or shall be tendered immediately for sealing upon the request of an authorized representative of the Department. (c) A person who takes a bear shall present the skin and skull for sealing to an authorized representative of the Department and shall, in addition, complete a report on an appropriate form provided by the Department. A skin and skull accompanied by the completed form signed by the person who took the bear shall be considered properly tendered for sealing if it is received by an authorized representative of the Department within 30 days from the time of taking. (d) Until a bear skull has been examined, sealed and had a rudimentary lower pre-molar tooth removed by the Department it shall be accompanied by the skin of the bear from which the skull was taken. (e) As used in this section “bear” means brown, grizzly, or polar bear, or black bear in Unit 5 (including the cinnamon and blue phases). Authority: AS 16.05.250 (3) 5 AAC 81.190. POLAR BEAR AND WALRUS. No person may possess or transport in, import into or export from Alaska, a walrus or polar bear, or parts of a walrus or polar bear, unless such animal has been taken in Alaska or on the high seas adjacent to the coast of Alaska in accordance with the seasons, bag limits, and licensing provisions of these regulations. Authority: AS 16.05.250 (3) ARTICLE 5. USE OF GAME Units, Open seasons, and bag limits (3) BEAR, POLAR West Area, that area west and south of a line extending northwest from Point Lay; Feb. 15-April 15; One bear every four regulatory years, by permit only. 210 permits will be issued. (See sec. 50 of this chapter). North Area, that area north and east of a line extending northwest from Point Lay; March 1-April 30; One bear every four regulatory years by permit only. 90 permits will be issued. (See sec. 50 of this chapter). 5 AAC 81.380. Taking of polar bear, walrus and sea otter on the high seas. The taking of polar bear, walrus and sea otter on the high seas by residents of Alaska is permitted only in accordance with the seasons, bag limits, methods and means, and licensing provisions that presently pertain to the taking of these animals in Alaska and its territorial waters. Authority: AS 16.05.250 (3) MARCH 1, 1972. Hon. HOWARD W. POLLOCK, Deputy Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. DEAR HOWARD: Pursuant to your helpful testimony before the Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere of the Committee on Commerce on February 23, 1972, it would be greatly appreciated if you could supply for the record answers to the following questions concerning the diet of the Northern Pacific Fur Seal: 1. What does the diet of the Northern Pacific Fur Seal consist of? 2. In whatever term of measurement might be appropriate, what is the average consumption per seal per year? 3. What would be the estimated total consumption of the entire population of the Northern Pacific Fur Seal per year? 4. Approximately what percentage of the available food source would this estimated total consumption represent? 5. What is the historical record of the foreign exploitation of this same food source and its effect upon the population of the Northern Pacific Fur Seal? Recognizing how difficult it might be to obtain answers to certain of the above questions, it is my feeling that your response would be most useful in determining the level at which the fur seal population should be maintained and whether they have been harvested unreasonably. Thank you for your cooperation. DEAR TED: In further response to your letter of March 1, 1972, we are enclosing a report on the diet and food consumption of the northern fur seal. We trust the information provided will be helpful to you. Sincerely, HOWARD W. POLLOCK, DIET OF THE NORTHERN FUR SEAL The diet of the northern fur seal varies in different areas and seasonally in the same area depending on the availability of prey species. Fur seal food consists principally of the smaller schooling fishes and squids. Over 60 species of fish and squid have been identified from more than 12,000 fur seal stomachs taken in the eastern North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea since 1958. Major food species by area are: California : anchovy, saury, hake, squids; Washington: herring, squids, anchovy, saimonids, osmerids; in Alaskan waters including eastern Bering Sea: capelin, walleye pollock, squids, herring, and sand lance. In the western Pacific, the Sea of Japan, the okhotsk Sea, and the western Bering Sea many of these prey species are taken including several species of squids, myctophids, walleye pollock, Atka mackeral, and saury. Captive fur seals have been reported variously to consume from 7 to 10 percent of their body weight daily. Dr. Schefter, a previous employee of NMFS, calculated that the Pribilof herd of 1,530,000 seals consumed an estimated 760,000 tons of food per year. Another of our employees has made a crude estimate in 19.1 that the average consumption of fish and squids per year by seal is about 1 ton. The Pribilof fur seal population is currently estimated to be about 1.25 million and the total world population about 2 million animals. The other seals return to the Soviet Commander Islands, Robben Island, and several of the Kuril Islands. Most of these animals are found on or near the breeding islands from late June into November. The Pribilof population ranges out 200 miles at sea to feed during this period. During the remainder of the year the seals range south to the coasts of California and northern Honshu and some are scattered across the subarctic waters of the North Pacific Ocean. In the eastern North Pacific Ocean seals winter from the Gulf of Alaska south to California along the continental shelf and slope, concentrating in areas of food abundance. A very crude estimate of total consumption of the population would be on the order of 2 million tons. In comparison, the total catch by a single country in Bering Sea has reached nearly 1.5 million metric tons in some recent years. The percentage of fur seal consumption of an available food source cannot be satisfactorily worked out with our present knowledge. For example, squids of several different species are a major food throughout the range of the fur seal, primarily off or away from the continental shelf; to our knowledge no estimates of the abundance of these species has been made. A small squid inshore fishery exists off California. In 1968, 24, 933,000 lb. were taken with a value of $553,000. The catch of hake off California, Oregon, and Washington and of walleye pollock off Alaska by foreign fleets is substantial. Except for a small hake fishery off Washington, there is little utilization of these species by American fishermen. Even extremely crude estimates of the total amount of these species available and the share taken by fishermen and the share taken by fur seals would be difficult to make and the level of accuracy extremely low. Since the fur seal is an animal of the open seas for 7 to 8 months of the year, there has been little direct conflict between commercial fishing interests and fur seals. The recent expansion of foreign fishing fleets and their appearance on the continental shelf waters from the Bering Sea to California since 1960 has undoubtedly removed species of fish from these grounds that would otherwise have been available to fur seals. An attempt to evaluate the effect of these fisheries on the fur seal population would be extremely difficult if not impossible at the present time. The Marine Mammal Division of the Northwest Fisheries Center plans to conduct research around the Pribilof Islands and in the eastern Bering Sea, beginning in 1973, to study possible effects the Bering Sea commercial fisheries of the USSR and Japan may have had on prey utilization by fur seals and possible changes in feeding areas, during June to November, when the largest part of the population is on the Pribilof Islands and in the eastern Bering Sea. Relationships between pup mortality and food availability will be studied. LAVINIA WALLACE YOUNG NOME COMMUNITY CENTER, INC., Senator ERNEST HOLLINGS, Washington, D.C. Nome, Alaska, March 3, 1972. DEAR MR. HOLLINGS: We are very much aware of the Bills relating to the taking of sea animals for purposes other than food. Let us remind you that clothing, hunting equipment (boats, sleds, etc.) and economic livelihood here are also dependent on sea animals. Let me also remind you that it is not the Eskimo that has depleted the sea animals by his hunting. Let me also remind you that ivory carving and skin sewing are the two economic basis that most Eskimo families have. Our board cannot write you: nor can I as a part of my job in a non-profit Corporation. So, let me urge you, privately, to delay hearings beyond next Tuesday. Then, write a Bill directed at the right culprits big game hunters, commercial whaling interests, furriers and retail garment outlets and the like. I assure you, my feelings are shared. I don't think you have the right perspective at all! And I am one of those environmentalists who is pushing for legislation from you on these kinds of issues. I simply think the legislation should be responsible. Sincerely, Senator ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, WILLIAM G. TRUDEAU, Executive Director. ALASKA STATE SENATE, March 5, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmospheres, DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: I understand there are several bills pending before your Subcommittee which would prohibt the hunting of sea mammals, except under very limited circumstances for subsistence purposes, using ancient methods of hunting and that the products from the sea mammals could not be utilized either indirectly or directly in commercial sale. I believe that the bills as written would create a severe hardship to the people whom I represent as they live along the Arctic Coast-from Barter Island to St. Lawrence Island. The sea mammals such as walrus, seal, bearded seal, balooga whale, polar bear and the whale have been hunted for thousands of years by the Eskimo people and today consist of the major portion of the diet of the Native people living along the coast where most of the Eskimo people are located. The skins of the animals have been utilized for making mukluks (boots), parkas, mittens for personal use and sometimes for sale to supplement the meager income that we now have. We utilize the meat for home consumption and some of it is for sale to other villages. We utilize seal and whale oil very extensively and is a major part of our diet. We sincerely request an additional hearing before your Subcommittee to allow village people who utilize these animals to state their reasons for objecting to the present bills that are pending. I am sure that you would not want to create a severe hardship for these people for whom hunting and fishing is a way of life. I feel that the Eskimo people should not suffer hardship because economic interests were left unbridled in the past and were allowed to decimate sea mammals without regard for the future. The Native people of Alaska have utilized these mammals for subsistence purposes for generations and passage of the bills would be a severe blow to our culture and economy. I would appreciate knowing the time of your next hearing on this measure which would adversely affect the people I represent. Sincerely, WILLIAM L. HENSLEY. Senator ERNEST HOLLINGS, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, Washington, D.C., March 6, 1972. Chairman, Oceans and Atmosphere Subcommittee, Senate Commere Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: We would very much appreciate your considering our views on the marine mammal protective legislation pending before your Oceans and Atmosphere Subcommittee. We appreciate your invitation to express our convictions. We feel that the amended Harris-Pryor Bill, with the amendment proposed by Senator Humphrey which would stop the killing of dolphins by tuna fisher men, comes closest to representing the views of our 38,000 members across the country, including many in South Carolina. We realize that there are several bills under consideration by you. However, we feel strongly that the final bill reported out of your committee should, at a bare minimum, do the following: (1) Place a moratorium of at least ten years, and hopefully longer, on the killing, capturing, or otherwise "taking" of all species of marine mammals, with exceptions for our treaty obligations under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and non-wasteful native hunting of non-endangered species. The killing of whales and polar bears by natives must be stopped altogether. This prohibition should also include the U.S. tuna fleet, which is killing hundreds of thousands of dolphins each year. Finally, the bill should contain a determination to end the Pribilof seal kill, but in such a way as to not abrogate the treaty and cause a return to pelagic sealing. (2) Provide a total ban on the import into this country of all ocean mammal products, thus removing the economic incentive for other nations to continue the killing. (3) Require the State Department to negotiate with other countries treaties to protect ocean mammals. (4) Give jurisdiction for enforcing the law to the Department of Interior rather than the business-oriented Commerce Department. We also hope that the final language of the bill will not refer to "management" of marine mammals so as to provide "sustained yield harvests." We believe that the American people want to stop the killing of these friendly, highly-intelligent animals, not continue the slaughter on a "rational" basis. I am enclosing a copy of our October-November 1970 magazine for your retention. If you would include this letter in the hearings record, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you for considering our views and for your interest in this vital matter. Sincerely, Senator ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, MARY HAZELL HARRIS, Executive Director and Editor. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, College, Alaska, March 8, 1972. Chairman, Oceans and Atmospheric Subcommittee, Senate Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: These comments on Senator Stevens' Marine Mammal Bill S. 3161 are offered as a continuation of David Hickok's statement in behalf of the University of Alaska before your committee on marine mammal legislation, February 15, 1972. We believe that legislative proposals have been modified greatly in recognition of many of the problems that have been brought to the attention of Congress in response to the public outcry demanding increased protection for marine mammals. We are as concerned as anyone over the declining status of some species of sea mammals and the difficulties involved in providing them necessary protection. We are equally concerned, however, by what we believe is public overreaction that fails to take cognizance of the excellent research and management programs carried out by both the Federal government and the State of Alaska. For instance, the sea otter has been brought back from near-extinction to a point where it can support a small harvest. We believe the long term public interest in the welfare of marine mammals lies in encouraging such programs by the State. Another problem that concerns us greatly is the dependence of the Alaska Natives on products of marine mammals, not only for subsistence, but also as the basis of small, but locally important, industries based on carving of ivory and bone and manufacture and sale of such items as mukluks. We are concerned also that if a permit system is established for harvest of marine mammals, or any resource, all permits be issued on the basis of established policy based on biological principles applicable to all qualified applicants and not subject to a public review. We believe S. 3161 has certain features which deal more realistically with marine mammal management problems than other bills, notably the establish |