by the proposed legislation would have an opportunity to appear and to testify personally before the subcommittee on this matter of such vital significance and importance to them. Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee; the Honorable Ernest F. Hollings, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere; and to the Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Mike Gravel, United States Senators, and the Honorable Nick Begich, United States Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in the United States Congress. Adopted this 27th day of March, 1972. To: Max From: Bob WILLIAM E. NOLAK, President, City Council of Barrow. MEMORANDUM 1 Re: Mary Jo's telephoned figures 1 on Ocean Going Mammals Number of people effected: 29,000 excluding 600 on Pribilofs that is, 29,000 ! Figures obtained from Mr. McKnight with the Department of Game, State of Alaska. 2 Not under State jurisdiction. 3 State controlled harvest-maybe once every 5 years, 955 taken in 1970. ALASKA RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, MARCH 16, 1972 The members of the Alaska Rural Development Council, being representative of the federal and state agencies and organizations concerned with improvement of the conditions of rural life in Alaska, are opposed to passage of House Bill 10420, in its present form, and any similar totally-restrictive bills in the Senate regarding protection of marine mammals. Our primary opposition is to Section 107 (a) (3); that such taking of marine mammals for subsistence purposes by Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo peoples "is not done for purposes of direct or indirect commercial sale." First, we feel that this bill, which will have a major impact on a large part of the population of Alaska, should at least be subject to public hearings in rural and metropolitan areas of Alaska before being considered. Second, if this bill becomes law, it immediately destroys the Native arts and crafts cottage-industry as it apparently precludes the sales of any parts of the sea mammals, or any items made from the tanned skins, or objects of art carved from the tusks or teeth. The cultures of these coastal Native peoples are firmly based on the full utilization of the sea mammals. To impose the dominant societies' cultural norm of waste of a valuable resource is not only counter to their cultural beliefs, but is also contrary to present U.S. policy on waste pollution. In addition, this arts and crafts trade is, in many villages, a major source of cash income for the village. Contrary to popular opinion, passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will not solve the financial problems of these people for the near future. There is no money available to the Native people from this Act for the first two years, and total disbursements of cash over the first five years are estimated at $550 per person. The lands allotted under this Act have value only for subsistence use for a long time to come, as it has been estimated that it will take about 25 years to complete the surveying on the 40 million acres at the present level of funding. So it can be seen, that to destroy this Native arts and crafts industry by legislative flat is to condemn these peoples to a poverty and welfare existence within an inflated cash economy. We, therefore, strongly urge the Marine Mammals Bill not be considered for passage until public hearings are held in Alaska, and until the bill is amended to allow the continuance of the Native arts and crafts industry. Introduced: 3/2/72 IN THE SENATE, BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, BY REQUEST SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 59, IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, SEVENTH LEGISLATURE-SECOND SESSION Relating to pending federal legislation pertaining to protection of ocean mammals. Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Alaska: Whereas legislation is pending before the United States Senate which has as its stated purpose the protection of ocean mammals; and Whereas, although the basic intent of this legislation may be praiseworthy, there is a grave danger that passage of present proposals would work a severe hardship for many of Alaska's peoples who must depend for their very existence on ocean mammals; and Whereas under the terms of pending legislation persons would allegedly be permitted to hunt ocean mammals for subsistence living by traditional means and so long as waste did not occur, but not for any commercial end; and Whereas what is meant by this language is not clear and has not been made clear in hearings held to date; and Whereas hundreds of Alaskans depend on the ocean mammals for subsistence, and subsistence dependence goes far beyond the food utilization, such as the making of clothes and goods which are worn or sold to form the only economy of many villages; and Whereas these Alaskans directly affected by passage of this far-reaching legislation have not had full opportunity to testify regarding the full impact of the pending legislation upon their social and economic well-being; Be it resolved by the Alaska Legislature that the United States Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere is urgently requested to hold further public hearings on the proposed legislation which would afford Alaskans the opportunity to appear and testify personally before the committee on this issue of vital importance to them. Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee; the Honorable Ernest F. Hollings, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere; and to the Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Mike Gravel, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Nick Begich, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress. SJR 59 passed the House March 22, 1972. SJR 59 passed the Senate March 7, 1972. The Resolution was signed by the Governor of Alaska-March 1972. [United States Department of Commerce News] GRAY WHALE CENSUS Down 15 PERCENT The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reports that the number of gray whales counted during the annual southward migration between December 18 and February 8 is down about 15 percent from the average count since the census began five years ago. The Fisheries Service is a component of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NMFS Director Philip M. Roedel said that although the counts were quite consistent from 1967-68 through 1970-71, the decrease this season does not necessarily indicate a decline in the gray whale population. Two NMFS observers stood equal numbers of morning and afternoon watches during the count, which takes place in daylight hours just south of Monterey, California, Weather conditions, visibility, ocean currents, and other factors differ from year to year and could be responsible for the lower count this season. The table shows the gray whale counts for only those dates in which the census was in operation during each of the five years: Mr. Roedel said that while no definitive reason can be given for the decrease, a larger portion of the whale population could have migrated farther offshore due to increased boat traffic in the Monterey area, as happened at Point Loma, Calif., during the past decade. He said studies of the gray whale will be continued to assure that every precaution is taken to protect the species. The gray whale was already on the endangered species list when former Commerce Secretary Stans terminated commercial whaling in the United States at the end of 1971. Other whales on the endangered list are the finback, sei, sperm, mowhead, blue, humpback, and right whales. HUNTERS PROUDLY DISPLAY THEIR TROPHY POLAR BEAR A GUIDE'S VIEW OF POLAR BEAR HUNTING (EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article was prepared for us by Chuck Gray of the News-Miner, who also is a rated airplane pilot and master guide. One of the old-timers at polar bear hunting, Gray says he has never done it on a large scale. The views in the following article are from the guide's standpoint.) (By Chuck Gray, The News-Miner) At least two years ago the decision was made in high places that the 1972 spring season would be the last aerial hunt for polar bear. It seems likely this will be the course of events unless the Alaska Fish and Game Board throws a monkey wrench in the works. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is prepared to recommend to the board that there be no additional aerial hunting after the current season. Since the game department's responsibility is proper management of game in light of available biological information, it may be assumed by the general public that the polar bear is an endangered species. This is not the case, however. One of the department's greatest achievements since statehood has been the quality of the polar bear research and they are first to deny the "endangered species" label. Of the three indexes the department has established to monitor the bear population-hide size, skull size and age-two do not indicate any change in population and the third shows only a marginal change; that there could be a slight reduction in the age of male bears being taken. If there is no biological reason to justify a complete closure of aerial hunting, what, then, is the reason for cutting off this activity that brings in an estimated $1 million dollars of new money into the state each year? The growing sentiment in the United States against killing wildlife has no small part in the decision. The notion is rampant throughout the country that the polar bear is in trouble. The public has been told that sows, cubs and anything that moves are being shot down with the use of helicopters. That was the thrust of the NBC TV "documentary" on vanishing wildlife last winter. This is exactly the misinformation conservation and protectionist groups need to put the pressure on in Washington. One example of this is the bill presently before Congress that would end the killing of all sea mammals by U.S. citizens while the State Department negotiates international agreements for their world-wide protection. This would, of course, include the polar bear. Already the government could probably take management for the polar bear away from the state because the animal is not indigenous to the state's land mass. On the basis of unfounded information such as the TV "documentary," the 1971 Alaska State Legislature passed a resolution directing the game board to stop aerial hunting after the spring 1972 season, an action in lieu of legislating a complete closure. Aside from these pressures, the game department is fed up with a handful of unscrupulous guides who circumvent the intent of the rules and regulations that are intended to keep the bear-take within the limits specified by mutual agreement of the arctic nations. Indeed, these guides have done so in light of the forthcoming closure, a classic case of short-sightedness. If they had not persisted in their selfish pursuits, it is safe to say the game department would not have the justification for recommending a closure at this time. The total bear take, legal and illegal, has not been great enough to seriously affect the bear population, but the difficulty of bringing these fellows to justice has been so exasperating to the game department enforcement officers that they no longer have any desire to maintain conditions where these guides can operate. Consequently, the game department's recommendation will be to stop aerial hunting but permit bears to be taken by surface methods. This means snow machine, since dog teams are almost a thing of the past in the arctic coast villages. This may seem like a logical solution to the polar bear problem to those not acquainted with the arctic. However, it will effectively curtail the taking of legal trophy bears but at the same time provide an environment where illegal hunts can still be conducted-at an even greater price than the market now commands. The illegal operators are well known; they have no reputation at stake if they continue to hunt by airplane and have the hide transported the last few miles by snow machine. A complete closure to all methods of taking polar bears or a vastly improved law enforcement effort are the only things that stand a chance of stopping the illegal operator. Another school of thought endorses the idea of handing the problem over to the federal government. If hunting is to be stopped the state will no longer have any revenue from this source, so why assume the monumental task of enforcement, they ask. In spite of the misinformation that is prevalent concerning the status of the polar bear, certain positive statements can be made. For instance, a lot of information has been gained in studies in the six years since the first International Polar Bear Symposium, a meeting of representatives from the arctic countries at the University of Alaska in 1965. Several views expressed at that meeting have been changed in light of later developments. However, the printed transcript of that meeting remans the "last word" by many polar bear "experts." Alaska has made a definite effort towards not exceeding the unofficial limit of 300 bears taken annually, established as a result of the international conference. In fact, an upward trend in the take for several years has been reversed and a dramatic drop was witnessed last year as a result of a strict new permit system. International cooperation and exchange of information continues among the arctic countries. The art of aerial hunting using high performance, small fix-wing aircraft was perfected over 20 years ago. Apparently it does not seem like a method of fair chase to those who have not experienced such a hunt. One's viewpoint changes once you are out over the ice. This specialized hunting in an alien environment provides an experience rarely found in any other hunt. It is probably the nearest thing to being on the moon. Over the years there have been three deaths, a lot of near misses and at least 15 aircraft abandoned on the ice. In spite of the risk, aerial hunting is the only practical method of taking trophy bears--which means large males. The large bears seldom come in off the moving pack ice so they can be taken by dog team or snow machine. The few bears that do venture off the pack onto the anchor ice near shore are sows, cubs and immature animals. The majority of animals taken by natives hunting by surface methods in Alaska, Canada and elsewhere are females and cubs. Aerial sports hunting of mature males has little effect on the reproduction rate compared to killing sows. The only guide in recent years to attempt dog team hunting of polar bears in Alaska gave it up after three years. He termed it impractical. Under average conditions a hunter, using surface methods, would have to spend at least a month cruising the anchor ice to glimpse a single bear-without having any choice of size. This seems an unnecessary restriction when there is no biological reason for it. Alaska will never grow big grain crops or raise many cattle, sheep and hogs, but we can "farm" wildlife. What is the difference in deriving a living by marketing the conventional commodities or assisting in cropping the annual increase from wildlife herds? There is nothing very sporting about conking a beef cow on the head with a sledge hammer, but nobody seems to advocate we stop killing cows! Regardless of the logical arguments, it seems certain that protectionists, the anti-gun element, a misinformed public, a frustrated game department and a few selfish and unethical market hunters have combined to bring down the curtain on the only polar bear hunt in the world where the sportsman has a reasonable chance to take a good trophy. It also seems unfair that deceit and misunderstanding should play such a large part in such a momentous decision. FOR A LAW THAT WILL REALLY PROTECT OCEAN MAMMALS (By Penny Keville) One day last month the House rejected a motion by Rep. John Dingell, DMich., to suspend the rules and pass HR 10420. The vote was 199 for to 150 against; thus the required two-thirds majority was not attained. If it had been, a majority vote would then have resulted in the passage of the bill without debate or amendments. The choice was simple: accept or reject as written. The bill in question, however, was not so simple. HR 10420 was the compromise bill reported out by the Fisheries & Wildlife Conservation subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee. Ostensibly concerned with ocean mammals, it was initially offered by Rep. Glenn Anderson, D-Calif., as a rival to the strong Harris-Pryor bill proposed by Rep. David Pryor, D-Ark., the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971. House hearings on these bills and several others were held in September of 1971. It was hoped that, after these hearings, a strong bill offering the needed protection for ocean mammals would be offered by the Committee. Rep. Edward A. Garmatz, D-Md., chairman of the full committee, said on the opening day of hearings that he had never in his 24 years in Congress experienced the volume of mail-averaging 200 pieces a day-that he received on the horrors of the slaughter of seals and other ocean mammals and the need for their protection. 'DEHUMANIZATION' Testifying in favor of the Harris-Pryor bill were such men as anthropologist Ashley Montagu, who stated that "to permit the senseless slaughter of animals is to encourage the dehumanization of man." Scientists and oceanographer Jacques Cousteau observed "to me, to support the Harris-Pryor Bill is a most obvious duty" and, further, "to act now vigorously is a duty for mankind." Cleveland Amory, president of the Fund for Animals, Inc., implored the committee to "send out a clarion call, not only to our fellow citizens, but to all nations on this earth that this country will have no more of this bloody business, this exercise in hypocrisy, this traffic in torture." The Anderson bill, however, was not without its supporter, which included the administration in the form of the Departments of Interior, Commerce and State; and several hunting and management societies, including the National Rifle Association, which claims Dingell, chairman of the subcommittee, as a member of its board of directors. The fur and commercial fishing industries were, of course, in overwhelming support of the Anderson bill, realizing that it did not contain provisions for the total protection of ocean mammals offered by the Harris-Pryor bill. Thus, under the provisions of HR 10420, these groups would have been permitted to continue slaughtering ocean animals and making use of their prod ucts. The commercial tuna industry was particularly protected by a provision of the Anderson bill which excluded any ban on the taking of marine mammals "which occurs as an incident to commercial fishing operations." Thus protec |