funds are appropriated, which your Bill suggests, funds should be available for increased research involving marine mammals and that our Unit will be able to increase accordingly its efforts along these lines with additional funding from the government agencies involved. Yours truly, PETER C. LENT, Acting Unit Leader. March 29, 1972. DEAR TED: I am deeply concerned about the fact that the Natives will not be allowed to sell their skins, if the Marine Mammal Bill goes through as it is now, even with your amendment. I have done a weeks time of research, talked to Natives, Fish & Game, Health Service, etc. in order to get the necessary backup for my claims and statements in enclosed letter. This letter is meant to give you the same kind of amunition as the others use it, i.e. emotion. But in my case the "emotion" is backed by facts and is the truth. I have no personal interest, other than to prevent a bad mistake; I can and do not expect a personal gain because I am out of the business and actually crazy to even get involved again. But I have to live with myself and I can't stand injustice. You know under which conditions the Natives live up north; and to deprive them now of one of their very few sources of cash income is-in my opinion--a despicable act which has to be prevented. Please use my letter to its utmost, give it-if possible-wide publicity in congressional and senatorial circles (besides the congressional record) and please win the case. If for any reason you want to change or add or omit any parts of the letter in order to make it more effective, please feel completely free to do this. I am not lobbying; all I want for you is to get a weapon which you can use. The Marine Mammal Protection Act, as such, is good and very much along my lines. It was I who introduced, fought for, and obtained legislation for the protection of hairseals in Alaska. The results of this protection were not only a sustained yield, but an actual increase in the hairseal population. Udalls Moratorium of 5 years will be the most detrimental for us, because, just as on the Pribiloffs, once you start to manage a resource you have to stay with it. The claim that there is inadequate knowledge of the population dynamics of Marine Mammals is not correct for Alaskas seals. On Furseals we know just about everything we will ever know and on hairseal we have a seven year headstart. If possible at all, try to get an exemption from the moratorium for Alaskas hairseal. Otherwise we will get a population explosion with all its repercussions from the Fishing Industry; and this at the time when we want to begin bottom fishing. The question is: Who is going to get our fish? The Russians, the Japanese and the seals, or we? Kindest personal regards, CASA REVENTLOW, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, March 29, 1972. DEAR SENATOR STEVENS: Your amendment #1048 to the Marine Mammal Protection Act is a step in the right direction to protect our native arts and crafts and through them the native culture. However, out of my experience in the arctic and in the hair seal industry, in which I personally have no monetary interest, I know that this amendment is not sufficient to cover the existing problems, because it does not cover the sale of sealskins. Let me explain. 1. Better than 50% of the proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals consumed by the eskimos in coastal villages comes from marine mammals. (See the "Alaska Dietary Survey 1956-1961" by the Public Health Service, publication #999-AH-2.) In addition, seals are taken for their oils as a preservative for greens, which contain vitamin C, necessary for the health of the natives. Natives collect willow leaves, mix them up with seal oil, pack them in seal pokes and bury them in the perma frost for fresh keeping. (Doctor Christine A. Heller Ph.D., authority on native nutrition in Alaska.) Seals are taken for dog food. In severe cold spells, dogs can not live a single day without seal or fish meat and blubber. 2. The amounts of seals taken for the above listed purposes, although modest in comparison to the total seal population, exceed the number of skins necessary for arts, crafts and clothing. However, these excess skins are the main source of income besides relief checks for the eskimos. The sole purpose in obtaining additional income is for the purchase of milk, carbohydrates such as sugar, grains, canned fruits, soft drinks etc. None of these things is naturally available in the arctic and must be imported. Sealskins are taken by the native stores in lieu of payment for the above mentioned goods. Usually the value of the skins are just deducted from the amounts owed at the stores by the natives. The value of a skin is rated by the natives in terms of how many bags of groceries they can obtain for them. Once or twice a year a fur buyer comes into the village and buys a couple of hundred skins for cash. The money he injects into the village is just about the only cash most natives ever get to see. Relief checks are credited to their accounts in the native stores. Native arts and crafts are delivered to the stores and also credited and therefore do not produce any cash return. Only those few arts and craft products which are sold to occasional Polar Bear hunters and government employees passing through the villages, together with the excess skins sold to fur buyers provide a cash revenue. This cash if not spent for groceries is used to buy clothing and accessories by mail order. 3. In section 2 it was stated that only part of the skins taken are used for native arts and crafts. This is in spite of the fact that good native designs and sufficient knowledgeable skin-sewers are available. The reason for this discrepancy lies in the difficulty of marketing native made products at this time. (a) Most skins used by native craftsmen are "home tanned the native way". This dressing makes a strong skin but leaves a fishy, rancid odor in the product which is intolerably offensive to Caucasions. (b) When making slippers, mukluks or other clothing items, the people from the villages can not yet comply with our commercial sizing codes. For example, a size six slipper ordered from five different sewers will probably result in five different sizes and probably none of them will be a size six. But it should be remembered that Eskimos have an amazing visual memory. A shape once observed in the landscape seems to be fixed in his mind forever. After one good look at a stranger the Eskimo woman can go home and complete a set of clothing which will fit from parka to boots as if it had been tailored after innumeral fittings. 4. The solution to the problems mentioned in section 3 is simple. (a) A small but efficient sealskin dressing plant is available and working in Anchorage. This plant can dress the skins from the villages perfectly and odorless. Payment for the dressing can be made in skins in lieu of cash. (b) Local manufacturers are quite willing to precut native design, market tested products using powered tools and modern and efficient methods and operations They then will send these precut items in kit form, back to the villages and have them completed by their skilled craftsmen to assure a sale price with a fair cash return to the worker. This utilization of the native crafts and production in a larger volume with commensurating quality can easily be achieved. For-going claims coincide with research findings about developing a "Hand Craft Industry for the natives" by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Industrial Development Branch, Juneau Alaska. The only raw materials available in abundance to the coastal Eskimos, Aleutes and Indians in Alaska are hair sealskin of a species which are not endangered. (Varification available by the Fish and Game Dept.) The use of this raw material which actually is a by product of the main, local food and vitamin source for our coastal natives is gravely curtailed and becomes under the pending bill, practically worthless. The Natives must retain the rights to work, barter, trade or sell their skins as they have done since time immemorial, long before the white man arrived. "I beg of you Dear Senator Stevens to insure by further amendment that these rights are secured. If we do not do this we will deprive our natives of their aboriginal rights, we will infringe on their human rights and endanger their right to exist." At this point, the conservation of fellow human beings appears much more important then the conservation of marine mammals which never have been and never will be endangered by the native take. Respectfully yours, VICTOR F. REVENTLOW. ALASKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY, Hon. NICK BEGICH, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BEGICH: Thank you very much for your letter to Bob Weeden and myself requesting our opinion as to the Marine Mammal Protection Act which passed the House of Representatives March 9, 1972. As you can see from the attached letter from Dr. Weeden to various national conservation organizations, and the attached copy of a telegram sent to Senators Gravel, Stevens and Hollings, the Society generally supports your position as stated in testimony before the House. Of course, we support rigid controls on the unnecessary killing of any wild animal, marine or terrestrial. This particular legislation, however, was apparently generated by emotion, not fact. As Dr. Weeden ably points out, few, if any, of the animals brought under control by this legislation are seriously, directly, threatened as a result of man's harvest. Thus the legislation will have little effect on these populations, except in the case of the northern fur seal. whose population dynamics are dependent upon the current rate of harvest. If the harvest of this seal is stopped, the results may be serious indeed. The only real effect of this legislation would be to remove the currently effective management plan of the State of Alaska, and replace it with an untried system administered by the Federal bureaucracy, and to eliminate the small subsistence of Alaskan Natives that depend upon these animals for raw materials Both of these effects are undesirable and totally unnecessary. In addition it is unfortunate and disgraceful that Congressman Dingell felt that Alaska's Natives have abrogated their traditional small takes of these animals in the light of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I am sure that he was uninformed as to the Alaskan Native situation, and I am sure that you have corrected this unfortunate misunderstanding. I hope that this letter and the enclosures help to answer your questions as to the position of the Alaska Conservation Society in regards to this legislation. Thank you for this opportunity to share our opinions with you. Sincerely, ERNST W. MUELLER, President, Alaska Conservation Society. Bethel, Alaska, April 2, 1972. President RICHARD M. NIXON, DEAR PRESIDENT NIXON: The Marine Mammals Bill (H. R. 10420) is an invitation to a catastrophe. Riots are unheard of on the Arctic tundra, but to have law enforcement officers enforce this ridiculous bill is to invite something similar. In this case, we would suggest a man-for-man enforcement. One cannot change a way of life overnight, or even as long as the bill is in effect. Our people have hunted "marine mammals" and lived in this way since time immemorial, and will continue to do so no matter what laws are in effect or who is in power, be it a governor, president, Alaskan native, or even the type of government. The United States purports to be a free and democratic government where it's citizens, regardless of race, color, or creed, can choose their own way of life. Yet this bill threatens to take away a way of life for the Native American people of Alaska. The Natives were here, living in this manner, long before Christopher Columbus' forefathers even had a glisten of life in their eyes, and long before the United States government was set up. We, the undersigned, request that the President and Congress of the United States give serious consideration to preserving a way of life, a culture, of the first Americans. If not, we would then like the definition of what a free and democratic government is. Sincerely, ISAAC MUTE, Chairman, Eskimo Economic Reference Committee. CITY COUNCIL, Manokotak, Alaska, April 2, 1972. Hon. TED STEVENS, U.S. Senate, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. We understand there are some bills pending in Congress before the Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmospheres that would create hardship to the people of Alaska by prohibiting hunting and fishing of the Sea Mammals. Do you know or can you believe, that whenever a person comes home with a Sea Mammal the villages of Alaska shares it among it's people. We have faith that you will oppose to these bills that would create a severe hardship for the people of Alaska for whom, hunting and fishing is a way of life. We have assurance that there will be some action on this matter from you people. Chairman, Oceans and Atmospheric Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: As your Subcommittee continues its deliberations on marine mammal legislation, we respectfully urge that full and favorable consideration be accorded the enhancement of effective federal-state interactions in management of these important marine resources. We believe that state-federal cooperative action is a cornerstone of the American governmental system, and that threats of federal pre-emption in areas of established state jurisdiction dangerously undermine the balanced responsibilities inherent in that system. We emphasize further that pre-emption of State authority for research and management of marine mammals could only result in disruption and waste of the initiative, long-term effort, and considerable commitment of manpower and resources already invested by many of our states in on-going effective programs for marine mammal conservation and management. For example, the State of California presently assigns two biologists fulltime to continuing researches on the California Sea Otter, a species brought back from near extinction by State initiative, and long under intensive study. California also invests some 12.000 man-hours yearly in patrol activities designed to protect marine mammals, near-shore game fish, and marine plants. Marine mammal protection accounts for about 15% of this total patrol effort. Clearly there are economies and major efficiencies in this kind of multi-purpose action by a State's organized patrol force. Your Subcommittee has heard similar testimony from the State of Alaska indicating the great investments by Alaska in marine mammal conservation and management. We cannot believe that Congress would wish to dismantle existing strong State programs having obvious operational values and cost-effectiveness. Neither do we believe that federal pre-emption of all marine mammal management automatically will produce the enlightened long-range program the American people are demanding. For these reasons, we are opposed to the federal pre emption concept articulated in H. R- 10420, and presumably in the Senate companion bill. We support instead the concept of separate jurisdiction but shared research and conservation concerns which are enunciated in paragraph 109 of Senator Ted Stevens' S. 3112 bill. These specific comments are based upon earlier formal action by the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission at its November 1971 annual meeting. At that time our five compact states unanimously adopted a resolution which stated that the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 has confirmed state title to and ownership of natural resources within the three-mile limit, and therefore that PMFC strongly opposed any federal intent to pre-empt state responsibilities for managing marine mammals within state waters (text of resolution attached). We respectfully request your support and your leadership in assuring that the bill endorsed by your Subcommittee will enhance, not undermine, productive State-Federal interactions. The real goal for all concerned is the welfare of our priceless marine mammal resources. We believe this shared goal can best be served by a bill that sponsors and supports cooperation, not conflict, among responsible jurisdictions. Yours sincerely, JOHN P. HARVILLE, PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8 Marine Mammal Management WHEREAS, Federal legislation has been introduced that would place all marine mammals under federal jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 confirms state title to and ownership of natural resources, including marine animals; and WHEREAS, the Pacific states are engaged in active management and research programs to protect and manage animal populations within state boundaries; and WHEREAS, authority to manage resident marine mammal populations is essential for comprehensive planning and development of the coastal zone by the states; and WHEREAS, sea otters, elephant seals, land breeding harbor seals and sea lions are normally within state boundaries and are properly under jurisdiction of the respective Pacific states; Now BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission recommends that sea otters, elephant seals, land breeding harbor seals and sea lions be excluded from the proposed federal legislation. Adopted unanimously by the five Compact States of Alaska, Californa, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington at the Annual Meeting November 18, 1971, Seattle, Washington. MEMBERSHIP OF OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERIC SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) Chairman. Democrats: John O. Pastore, R.I.; Philip A. Hart, Mich.; Russell B. Long, La.; Daniel K. Inouye, Ha.; William B. Spong, Va. Republicans: Ted Stevens, Alaska; Robert P. Griffin, Mich.; Marlow W. Cook, Ky. (Mark Hatfield left this Committee when appointed to Appropriations). Text of Section 109 of Ted Stevens' S. 3161 Bill (the critical section): 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 primarily inhabit waters or lands within the boundaries of a State. With respect to those States concerning which the Secretary is satisfied, as a result of such review, that State laws and regulations are consistent with the policies and purposes of this Act, the provisions of this |