tection plan as well as to prohibit the use of the nonedible parts such as bone, pelt, baleen, or ivory, will cause unnecessary hardship to a civilization which has lived in rapport and harmony with its environment for centuries. These people waste little of their resources and the food provided to them by nature. These natives utilize all possible usable parts of the mammals they take for food. The pelts and skeletal parts provide clothing and artifacts necessary for garments and preservation of their culture. The manufacture of salable objecs not only preserves the native history in this part of the United States, but provides a much needed aid in the native economy. At best, the native income is submarginal, and however meager the cash derived from the sale of the objects manufactured, it is a necessary part of the natives economy. There are probably many points I have overlooked, and inasmuch as I believe that the committee is located in a highly sophisticated urban area and must be honestly influenced by day to day contact with people who know little of the problems of the people of Alaska nor have had very much contact with nature, itself, I believe that the committee should hold hearings in Alaska and get a full view of the other side of the scene. I know you will give this your best consideration, Senator Hollings, and hope to see you soon in the actual field of concern. Kindest regards, HAROLD Z. HANSEN, Director, International Fisheries. VILLAGE OF SAVOONGA, Savoonga, Alaska, March 26, 1972. Hon. TED STEVENS, Senator From Alaska, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We, the people of Savoonga, believe that the passage of the proposed bill prohibiting the commercial taking and usage of sea mammals will do us a grave injustice. Our village's economy is based on hunting and trapping. We are a coastal village where we depend on sea mammals. We eat the sea mammals we take We cannot eat the skins, ivory, or all the blubber of the sea mammals we catch. If the proposed bill is passed we will have to throw away the greater portion of the above items. We now use the skins, ivory, and blubber of the sea mammals to supplement our inadequate incomes. The incomes of most of us in the village are well below the poverty level. Our problem is coupled by the high prices we have to pay for store bought goods. For example, we cannot afford to buy fresh milk, and even eggs sell for $1.20 a dozen. The price of goods does not reflect a large profit for the stores. The goods cost the stores almost as much. Not only will the proposed bill seriously effect our economy, it will also deal a devastating blow to our culture. If we are not able to sell our ivory, the art of ivory carving will falter. Without a market people will be dissuaded to carve. A strong cultural identification is necessary for persons who suffer great emotional stresses from the convergence of a dominant culture and a less dominant culture. Ivory carving is an integral part of our culture, thus, very important in maintaining our pride as individuals and as a people. We desperately need your help in introducing a clause in the bill that would allow the commercial usage of the skins, ivory, and blubber of sea mammals taken for subsistence. Believe us. Yours very truly, WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PEOPLE OF SAVOONGA.1 UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, College, Alaska, March 27, 1972. DEAR SIR: I am deeply concerned about marine mammals legislation now before Congress. Intended to afford protection to the dismaying number of marine homiotherms that are in serious danger from overexploitation, unintentional killing, and oceanic pollution, the majority of the bills have unintentionally overlooked two basic facts. First, some marine mammal species or regional populations are large, vigorous, growing, or already at the upper limit of their food resources. Second, these same species or populations provide sustenance to several thousand Aleut and Eskimo Americans, whose annual harvests for food, clothing, or articles of commerce in no way threaten the species in question. 1 Approximately 75 signatures were on the letter that were not reproductible. It would be a serious mistake for conservationists to mislead the public into thinking all marine mammals would become more abundant if we only stop hunting them. It would be criminal to legislate an ancient and ecologically balanced native culture out of existence, forcing these people to leave their traditional homes or go on welfare, or both. A few brief examples will show what I mean. I have enclosed other back-up material from respected biologists to give the details and provide you with the facts you need in your educative efforts. The Pacific walrus was declining due to excessive hunting in the last half of the 19th century and the first two or three decades of this century. For at least twenty years, however, walrus populations have been increasing. There are at least 100,000 walrus in the Bering Sea now, and the herd shows a net gain each year. Simultaneously, Alaskan Eskimos are harvesting walrus for food, boat coverings, clothing, and ivory. Though more walrus are being lost after being shot than anyone likes, the total kill (retrieved and lost) is still less than the annual increment to the herd. The State's management program, based on exceptionally good research and surveys, incorporates both regulatory and educational aspects; it is a solid, successful program. Sea otters are another case in point. The State's management work involves complete protection of otters from private hunting or trapping; an exploratory harvest by state personnel in areas where sea otter populations are existing on second-rate foods because preferred species have been reduced by the otters themselves; and substantial re-stocking programs to hasten the recolonization of former sea otter range from Oregon north to the Pribilofs. There are lots of sea otter in southwestern Alaska-at least 40-50,000. Federal legislation ot "protect" the otter is not only unnecessary, it is an infringement on Alaska's responsibility, since these animals spend practically all their time in stateowned inshore areas. Northern fur seals have also thrived under biological management, there being about one and one-half million of them scattered over the entire North Pacific in winter, and concentrated on the rookeries of the Pribilofs in summer. There were close to four million fur seals in 1948. The decline over the past two decades may well have resulted from the increasing exploitation of Bering Sea and North Pacific fish stocks by Japan, Korea, Russia, and other nations. In any case, the current harvest program is not limiting fur seal numbers. If we were to stop harvesting the seals, their populations would not increase. The seals would simply show an increased natural mortality from malnutrition or disease. I feel no compulsion to maintain the fur seal commerce for its own sake. If people wish to stop buying fur seal coats, that is fine with me. I am only saying that stopping the harvest will not increase the abundance of the seals. We should also recognize the costs of such an action. The United States would, for example, have to pay Japan and Russia an amount equivalent to the average loss of revenue following cessation of harvesting. The Aleut people on St. Paul Island would absorb the main costs: they would either have to be relocated or go on dole. (It has been suggested that a tourist industry could provide an equivalent substitute economy for these people, but the short-term prospects for developing such a trade are bleak.) Beluga whales: Belugas, or white whales, are common from the Gulf of Alaska westward and northward to the Beaufort Sea. They are pelagic in winter but spend summers inshore, often in estuaries and river mouths where fish (especially salmon smolts migrating to the sea) are abundant. Belugas are taken by Eskimos for food from the Kuskokwim Delta north to Barrow, yielding some 200,000 pounds of beluga meat annually, plus oil for cooking. Belugas concentrate in large numbers in some bays in summer, and apparently can be a serious competitor with commercial fishermen for salmon. Any legislation for marine mammal protection should allow for a continued modest harvest by people who need belugas for food, and for occasional population control measures (frightening or killing whales) where needed to protect fisheries. The State of Alaska has been extremely loath to conduct these control programs in the past ten years, and I see no reason to expect a change in this cautious attitude in the future. Polar bears: The Department of Fish and Game has conducted a management program on polar bears since 1960. The program has included some excellent research, a progressively restrictive set of harvest regulations, and a val iant but none-too-effective enforcement effort. The Department has proposed regulations which would eliminate aircraft hunting for polar bears after the current season, and ban all sale of polar bear hides. If these proposals are acted upon-and my guess is that they will-the harvest of bears in Alaska I will decline to one-fifth or so of its present level of 250-300 per year. Thus, federal legislation is not needed to protect Alaskan polar bear populations. However, it seems clear that polar bear conservation is more and more an international affair, in which governments at the national level must have full power to negotiate with each other. For this reason I view U. S. federal control of polar bears as inevitable and desirable from the political standpoint, though unnecessary in strict biological conservation terms I urge you to lend your support to legislation that will take vigorous action to protect marine mammals that need protection, that will protect subsistence cultures that are ecologically balanced with their marine mammal resources, and that will not unnecessarily substitute an untested federal effort for a successful ongoing state conservation program. Sincerely yours, ROBERT B. WEEDEN, Professor of Wildlife Management. March 27, 1972. DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: We the people of Akolmuit would like to express our views on this Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. First of all any action on any thing pertaining to the livelihood of Native people who are mainly depending on Sea Mammal. We strongly urge anything pertaining to the Native people a public hearing should be act upon, in order to see how the people feel. Most of the people are either on welfare or getting special assistance or is our government prepared to have more welfare to our people? In order to understand our way of living we gladly will invite someone from the Senate to come and live with us and find out how much we depend on sea mammals and other food we get from our great land. Thank you for your action in our favor! Sincerely yours, MICHAEL CHASE, President. March 27, 1972. DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: I understand there is a legislation there about Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971. I strongly oppose this legislation because almost 100% of us in the Villages depend on sea mammals for survival. We use sea mammals not only for food but also for shelter and warmth. To many of us sea mammals are our only source of cash income. It is our job just like you as a Senator work each day not only as a public servant but also to support your family. We use sea mammals to support our families. For many years our school system taught our children about how to survive in the dominant society, forgetting our way of life completely. Now in the last couple of years the system is talking about including our culture before the culture is completely lost. Now some schools are teaching the children about sewing arts & crafts. This has been long coming and now there is a legislation to ban sea mammals for commercial use. This is utterly ridiculous. Is our government prepared to take on everyone on welfare? You must know the results of welfare recipients I do not want to go on welfare but I guess I will if I must. People must survive especially with nine dependents. I suggest that you hold public hearings in our Villages. This must be done on every legislation, hold hearings in areas where such legislation will most affect You may vote on any legislation on pets without asking them their view because they are incommunicado. also nobody seems to depend on them for livelihood. Lastly I invite you to come live with us in our Village for couple of months. We will provide housing and food. After you stay in our home you can then determine and decide whether you want such legislation. Thank you for your action in our favor! Sincerely yours, NICK O' NICK. P.S.-We the under-signed support Nick O' Nick's eloquently written letter. We trust that you will act in our favor! Thank you! Elena Nick, Robert Nick, Elena W. Nick, Chris Cooke, Margaret Nick March 28, 1972. DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: We the people of Little Russion Mission strongly oppose the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971. Ninety per-cent of the people of the Kuskokwim-Yukon area depend on marine mammals for food, and use their pelts for commercial arts and crafts. This bill will prevent the Eskimo people from using the skins for their cash economy; their only source of income. This bill, if it passes, will force many of the people in this area into the welfare roles. First of all, any action on anything pertaining to the Native people's livelihood, a public hearing should be held. I urge you that a public hearing be held in our Villages before you act on this legislation. This legislation, if it passes, will force many of the people into the welfare roles. It is not desirable to get handouts, but I guess we will be forced to enter into the system. You are most welcome to come and stay with us in our Village any time you want to. We will provide you with housing and food. It may not be the most comfortable but it certainly will be friendly. We trust you will act according to our favor! Sincerely yours, PAUL KELILA, President, Little Russian Mission. March 28, 1972. DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: We the people of Napakiak, once again, would like to express our views on this Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971. We strongly oppose this legislation because we depend on marine mammals for food, and use their pelts for commercial arts and crafts. This bill will prevent many of us from earning our cash economy other than going on welfare. This legislation is like a legislation banning some of the essential jobs like teaching or nursing. Commercial arts and crafts is the only job many of our people have. It is a job that clothes, shelters, and feeds our dependents. We do not hunt sea mammals to add to our collection of animals we have caught to hany in our walls. So we strongly urge that you do not exclude us from using sea mammals for commercial use. If this bill must pass, we strongly support Senator Stevens amendment 1048 to Senate Bill 3161 giving us commercial arts and crafts rights. Lastly, you are most welcome to come and stay with us in our Village any time you want to. We will provide you with housing and food. Thank you for your action in our favor! Sincerely yours, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, BILLY MCCANN, President, Napakiak. March 29, 1972. Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, New Senate Office Building, DEAR SIR: The 19 member Anchorage Overall Economic Development Committee was jointly formed by the Greater Anchorage Area Borough and the City of Anchorage to study and recommend ways of improving the local economy and lowering our unemployment rate approximately 10%. We are vitally interested in the following bills relating to harvesting and use of sea mam 76-491 O 72 pt. 1 45 mals presently before.your Committee: Senate bills 3161, 685, 2639, 2871, and 3112; and would respectfully ask that hearings on these bills be held in Anchorage. The arts and crafts connected with parts of sea mammals constitute a significant part of our economy particularly to that subsegment consisting of our 6,000 local Natives who comprise in turn a large part of our unemployment problem. Time and money prohibit these people from presenting their case to you if hearings are held in Washington, so we reiterate our request that you hold hearings on these bills in Anchorage so that the economic importance of arts and crafts associated with sea mammals might be demonstrated to you. Respectfully, FRANK AUSTIN, Chairman, Overall Economic Development Program Committee. ALASKA COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, College, Alaska, March 29, 1972. Hon. TED STEVENS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: Thank you for your recent letters and the copy of the Bill S-3161 introduced by yourself and dealing with marine mammals. I do have a few comments to make on this Bill which I hope will be of interest. I certainly wish to express my feelings that this Bill is far superior to any previous one introduced in this session of Congress, on the subject of marine mammals and their conservation. However, there are in my opinion, some unsatisfactory aspects to the Bill. Most important I feel, is the undesirable division of responsibility between the Department of Commerce and the Department of Interior with regard to marine mammals, which carries over into this legislation. I am referring particularly to the Definition Section, page 5 where the term "Secretary" is defined. It appears that the Secretary of the Interior, as I read it, will have responsibility for only three species; polar bear, walrus and sea otter. The Secretary of Commerce will have responsibility then for all other species of marine mamal in the order cetecea and pinnepedia. In terms of efficiency of management, enforcement and research, such a division seems extremely undesirable. It will also certainly make the problems for the State of Alaska more difficult. It is clear that this legeslation will require a great deal of effort on the part of the State Department of Fish and Game in order to coordinate their activitise with the new activities and responsibilities of the federal government. In this case, they will have to coordinate with two seperate cabinet departments. I also find lacking in the Definition Section a definition of "subsistence use”. The term subsistence purposes is used in Section 107, page 22, volume 22, however, there is specifically excluded the commercial sale of marine mammal products. This seems therefore to make it more difficult for the Eskimo and Aleut people of Alaska to adapt their traditional methods of livelihood to the modern cash economy and thus makes them more dependent upon a welfare economy. There is an excellent letter by an Alaskan guide on this subject, which appeared in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner on March 27, on page 12. I hope you will have the opportunity to read this. I think it is an excellent summary of some of the problems. If this Bill passes and its present provisions become law, it is clear that there will be a tremendous amount of new responsibility placed on both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Interior. Neither agency presently has the manpower to carry out these responsibilities. In order to do a good job of this, it will not only be required that the authorized funds be appropriated, but that the current stringent limitations on manpower in these agencies, notably the Department of Interior, be lifted. As I am sure you well know, the Department of Interior in Alaska is suffering very severely from the manpower restrictions at present, because of their many new responsibilities relating to land classification, pipeline related work and other urgent matters in the State. Our Research Unit has been involved in marine mammal research and will continue to be so involved. We have recently started a major study of the behavior and ecology of walrus and presently have a student out on a U.S. Coast Guard Ice Breaker involved in this work. I certainly hope that if the |