FACT There is no possibility that the animals could be alive or could recover after being struck with the club and the heart stuck with a knife. Clubbing and stabbing are cruel. FICTION FACT The method is consistent with current humane slaughter practices. The United States refuses to use a less effective method merely for the sake of appear ances. OPPOSITION TO OCEAN MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am inserting in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a letter to Congresmen and a resolution in which the 600 Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands in Alaska have expressed strong opposition to S. 1315, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act. As the letter and resolution point out, the enactment of this legislation would be extremely unwise from both an ecological and an economic point of view. The bill would require the termination of the Four-Nation North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. If termination were permitted to occur, the continuing existence of the Alaska fur seal would be jeopardized. Termination would result in a retrogression to the preconvention situation where seals were slaughtered indiscriminately on the high seas. Under the Convention, the herd has progressed from near extinction to what is now a healthy, thriving population. To insure the continuing vitality of the herd, selective harvesting of bachelor seals that have not found a mate is necessary. As the Pribilof Islanders' letter emphasizes, baby seals are not killed in Alaska. The letter also points out that extensive experimentation has demonstrated that the swiftest, most painless harvesting method is clubbing in the expert manner practiced by the residents of the Pribilofs. In this connection, I should mention that my staff has contacted Mr. Tom Kimball, director of the National Wildlife Federation, and Dan Poole, president of Wildlife Management Institute. to obtain their views on S. 1315. Both of these men have said that this legislation is unsound in that it prohibits prudent management on the Pribilofs and requires the termination of the Fur Seal Convention. Representatives of other conservation groups are expected to express similar views in the near future. The letter and resolution make abundantly clear that S. 1315 is not only unsound from a conservation point of view; it is also unsound economically. The Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands would be deprived of their primary source of livelihood. At the same time, if the Convention is repealed, other nations would renew their pelagic sealing efforts, thus not only diverting income from the Pribilof Islands to foreign nationals but also destroying the scientific management program which has restored the herd. For these reasons, I strongly support the position which has been taken by the Pribilof Islanders and commend their letter and resolution to your attention. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and resolution be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the letter and resolution were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE ALEUT COMMUNITY COUNCIL St. Paul Island, Alaska, May 19, 1971. DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of the 600 Aleut residents of St. Paul and St. George, Pribilof Islands. we are writing to you about a bill known as the "Ocean Mammal Protection Act" (S. 1315, H.R. 6558) which has been intro duced in this Congress. We urge you not to endorse or support this bad legislation. If you have been told that this bill will benefit the Alaska fur seal, you have been misled. Title III of the bill would bring about termination of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. This would seriously endanger the herd and destroy our only practical source of income. Why would anybody want to terminate a successful four-nation treaty which has brought the fur seal from near extinction to what is now a healthy, thriving population? Because a well-financed advertising campaign which plays upon the emotions of well meaning people has villified our people and the Pribilof fur seal program, one of the most successful international conservation programs ever undertaken. Do not be misled into believing that baby seals are harvested on the Pribilof Islands. No baby seals are ever harvested on the Pribilofs. The Pribilof Island program should not be confused with one administered by the Canadian Government in the islands of the St. Lawrence River where baby hair seals are harvested. Do not be misled into believing that clubbing the seals is inhumane. Extensive testing has failed to develop a quicker, more painless method of harvest. The Pribilof Islands are the sole breeding grounds of the Alaska fur seal. The seal spends most of the year in the open seas, migrating as far west as Japan and as far south as the Mexican border. Prior to the 1911 treaty the herd had been reduced to about 120,000 because sealers indiscriminately hunted in the open seas. Since the treaty was entered in 1911 sealing on the open seas has been forbidden by the laws of the U.S., Canada, Japan and Russia. The herd is now maintained at a level of about 1.3 million. These countries abstain from taking seals on the high seas in return for a share of the annual regulated harvest of non-breeding bachelor males. The Aleut residents of St. Paul and St. George are employed in the annual harvest and in skinning and curing. These two communities represent the largest aggregation of our people in the world. The legislation would require our people to disperse. It takes away our livelihood and gives us nothing practical in return. The bill would also take away from the fur seal the protection afforded by the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and give it no practical protection. In place of the present convention the bill calls for an international agreement to ban all killing at sea or on land. We frequently stand on shore and watch vessels with Russian, Japanese and Korean flags fishing the waters of the Bering Sea. Do you believe that if the present treaty were terminated North Korea would agree to abstain from taking seals in return for nothing? The Aleut Community urges you not to support this very bad legislation. We enclose a copy of a resolution and petition of the Aleut Community Council which we have submitted to Senator Fred Harris, the chief sponsor of S. 1315, requesting that he withdraw the bill. JASON BOURDUKOFSKY, President of the Aleut Community Council. Vice President of the Aleut Community Council. Enclosure. THE ALEUT COMMUNITY COUNCIL, ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA Whereas, the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island is organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, as amended by the Alaska Act of May 1, 1936, and under the Constitution and Bylaws, and Corporate Charter, are authorized to do business; And Whereas, in addition to a land base, which after one hundred years is finally being made possible through the Fur Seal Act of 1966 authored by the late Senator Bob Bartlett, it is imperative that we retain our only source of income which is the seal industry: And Whereas, through lack of knowledge of local people and conditions the author of S. 1315 implies that some one hundred fifty (150) men will becomes guides and rangers if they agree to stop sealing; And 76-491 O 72 pt. 1 48 Whereas, though the Harris Bill, S. 1315, may address itself to a general condition, it is detrimental to our way of life and future existence. NOW, Therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island, and on behalf of the unorganized Aleut Community of St. George Island, that they do not endorse S. 1315 because it will kill our only source of income without providing any practical alternative industry to sustain our people and future on the islands; further, that they do not want to move or be moved off their islands. The undersigned residents' of the Aleut Community of St. Paul strongly endorse the above resolution and respectfully request the Honorable Senator Fred Harris of Oklahoma to withdraw S. 1315 for it is detrimental to our very livelihood. If S. 1315 is passed, it could mean the death of the largest Aleut Community in the world and we believe that this is not Mr. Harris' intention. We feel that if the Senator had adequate information of the Pribilofs, the Bill would not have been proposed. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 13, 1972] THE SLAUGHTER OF THE BABY SEALS U.S. STILL DEFENDS CANADIAN KILL (By Lewis Regenstein) Each spring, the harp seals return from their yearly migration through the North Atlantic to the eastern coastal areas of Canada. There, in early March, the female seals pull themselves up on the snow-covered ice and give birth to their young. The harp seal pups are among the most appealing of all nature's creatures. Their fur turns pure white about four days after birth and remains that color for some two weeks. These helpless, innocent animals are unafraid of humans and manifest a seeming friendliness toward people who approach them. Last year, one baby seal was seen to respond to cuddling by wrapping its flipper around the finger of an observer. It is during this period when the seals are giving birth to and nursing their pups that Canadian and Norwegian hunters descend on the herds to kick, club, and beat the baby "whitecoat" seals to death. They are then skinned, some while they are still alive, and witnesses have described hearing the mother and pups emitting pitiful wails of anguish while this takes place. Many of the mother seals refuse to abandon their pups and try to protect them as best they can. These armless, legless mammals are not very agile on land, however, and most of the mothers are driven off or killed. Those that do get away to the water's edge or to water holes poke their heads up and watch helplessly while their pups are butchered. At the end of each hunting day, the ice floes are again teeming with seals mourning over and nuzzling the bloody, skinned bodies of their young which have been left behind. The baby seals are not the only victims. Adult seals åre also killed, sometimes by shooting. However, the inclement weather condition allow many of the seals to escape wounded, only to die a lingering, agonizing death under the ice. A common sight is blood bubbling up from the ice holes where wounded seals have taken refuge. In 1971, 219,000 harp seals (primarily pups) were killed and recovered in the Canadian-Norwegian hunt. There were not enough seals available to fill the quota of 245.000, a strong indication that the herd is rapidly being wiped out. In the last 20 years, its size has been reduced by about two-thirds. Moreover, on January 18, 1972. an official Canadian government report was released warning that the herd was approaching extinction and recommending a phaseout and moratorium on further killing. This year's announced quota-including 150,000 baby seals-removes any remaining doubts that the Canadians and Norwegians are consciously trying to substantially eliminate the harp seal herd. This has been apparent for some time; and last year's quota was set at almost double the number that Canadian 1 Approximately 100 signatures were on the resolutions that were not reproducible. Government biologists had warned the herd could tolerate. The present quota, which will not and cannot be enforced, although a drastic reduction from last year, will effectively wipe out this year's newborn seals. The decision to extirpate the herd seems to result from the greed of Canadian and Norwegian sealing interests combined with pressures from the Canadian fishing industry, which disukes the seals because they feed on fish and carry an infectious marine parasite. The disappearance of the harp seal is already being anticipated by those primarily responsible for its decimation: (the Reba fur company of Bergen, Norway, owned by Christopher Reba; and the Karlson shipping company of Halifax, Nova Scotia, ostensibly owned by Karl Karlson.) Plans are underway to begin the large scale killing of seals in antarctica, the last remaining refuge on earth for marine mammals. (The State and Commerce Departments and the National Science Foundation have for several years been secretly negotiating a Convention to the Antractic Treaty, completed in London on February 10, 1972, which would organize the annual commercial killing of some 200,000 Antarctic seals, primarily baby "whitecoats", with unspecified numbers that can be "taken" for scientific research, food, and specimens for museums and other "cultural and educational institutions.") Despite the agreed-to limitations, enforcement will be impossible; and the unrestrained slaughter is expected to result in the annihilation of the seal herds and the destruction of the delicate and pristine Antarctic eco-system. Incredibly, U.S. Government officials still defend the Canadian seal kill; and the Nixon administration has been vigorously lobbying against legislation which would halt or reduce the killing. Ambassador Donald McKernan, representing the State Department, testified before Congress that although the harp seal herd had been been subjected to "too great a harvest," it could "stand" further harvesting. David Abshire, Assistant Secretary of State for congressional relations, feels that Canada's actions "to conserve seal herds" and to "ensure humane methods of harvesting seals" are preferable to unilateral legislative action the U.S. might take, such as banning the import of harp seal products. John Larsen, Assistant Secretary of Interior, describes the baby harp seals as "a significant renewable resource" which must "be reduced by regulated harvest ... to prevent overpopulation." Philip Roedel, head of the Commerce Department's National Marine Fisheries Service, in response to inquiries from Congress and the public, sends out form letters describing the Canadian hunt as “efficient and humane". The position of the Commerce Department's General Counsel, Karl Bakke, is that although the harp seal "resource” is "intensively harvested", this year's reduced quota will help encourage "a harvesting rate consistent with proper conservation of the resources." (The Commerce Department's position is undoubtedly influenced by the fact that it carries on its own seal kill in Alaska's Pribilof Islands each July, and because the U.S. is a major market for raw and finished seal products, mainly in the form of sealskin coats, fur trim items, and leather goods. The reasons the other government agencies defend the hunt is unclear.) The baby seal kill in Canada is also endorsed by several ostensible conservation groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, which favors "sustained-yield type harvests under controlled conditions." The World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in a pamphlet distributed by the U.S. fur industry, confirm that "the part of the sealing operation that lies within Canadian territorial waters is controlled by the government with a quota fixed on the advice of competent scientists, so that the herds are not unduly depleted." Attempts by the administration and the above groups to defeat effective congressional action to protect ocean mammals, combined with the efforts of the fur industry and the hunting and firearms lobby, have until recently been quite successful. However, on March 9 the House of Representatives passed a compromise bill banning the import into the U.S. of foreign seal skins and other ocean mammal products for a five year period. although the Fouke Fur Company of Greenville, S.C.. was given an exemption to continue importing "weaned" seal pelts for processing. Sen. Ernest Hollings' (D-S.C.) Oceans and Atmosphere Subcommittee is also drawing up similar but hopefully more effective legislation, possibly including a longer and more complete moratorium on imports and a requirement for the State Department to negotiate treaties for the protection of ocean mammals. The U.S. fur and leather industries have provided a tremendous economic incentive for the killing of the harp seals. Until Congress enacts the above legislation, America will share part of the blame for the perpetuation of the slaughter. [From NOAA Week, Mar. 31, 1972] NMFS REPORTS GRAY WHALE COUNT DOWN 15 PERCENT FROM AVERAGE The National Marine Fisheries Service 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. 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 according to the NMFS. 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: Fisheries experts 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. 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, bowhead, blue, humpback, and right whales. Exhibit A REFERENCE PAPERS SUPPORTING TESTIMONY OF ALICE HERRINGTON IN FAVOR OF ENACTMENT OF THE HARRIS OCEAN MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT (S. 2579)1 [From The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Sunday, August 15, 1971] LARGEST WEIGH 3 TONS-WALRUS CARCASSES PLAGUE TOWN KOTZEBUE, ALASKA.-What do you do with 200 walrus carcases? The Kotzebue City Council wants to know. The council has asked the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for some solution to the problem of disposing of the decomposing carcasses littering shores of Kotzebue Sound, adjacent to the Chukchi Sea in northwest Alaska. The mammals, the largest weighing as much as three tons, began to wash up on beaches a few weeks ago all the way from Shismaref to the south and Kivalina to the north. Some residents speculated the animals floated across the Bering Strait after hunts in Siberia. Other suggested their deaths resulted from disease. But John Burns of Fairbanks, a marine biologist for the Department of Fish and Game, discounted both theories. He said, "they are some of the animals which were lost during the spring hunt, probably at Little Diomede, King Island or St. Lawrence Island." 1 Exhibits D and V are in the subcommittee files. |