culty as you have heard is in enforcement of these laws and regulations. Enforcement is next to impossible if poachers and smugglers are handsomely rewarded, and if contraband can be legalized merely by crossing a border.

I visited Peru in March of this year. Here great efforts are being made to save the vicugna, a wild animal much prized for its fine wool. But despite laws and regulations, vicugnas are still being killed, and vicugna wool is openly sold on the world's markets.

It has been suggested that a way to rectify this situation would be to refuse entry to any animals or animal products taken illegally from their country of origin. Such a prohibition is included in the present Lacey Act, although it applies only to live birds and mammals. But experience has shown that enforcement of this provision of the Lacey Act is next to impossible.

One of several reasons is that most animal species occur in more than one country. The vicugna is found in Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia as well as Peru. It is not completely protected in all four nations. Wool shipped to the United States or Europe is likely to arrive from still a fifth country. At the time of entry, it is not possible to determine its origin.

While in South America, I attended a regional meeting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, at Bariloche, Argentina. Here many of the Latin American delegates voiced their concern that the demand for furs, vicugna wool, caiman hides, and live animals is fast stripping their continent of its most valuable wildlife. By resolution-the resolution to which Dr. Cain referred-they urged the importing nations to close their borders to animal products illegally removed from other countries.

In our view, the legislation you are considering is a simple, straightforward answer. The Secretary of the Interior would determine, after consultation with experts, which species of wildlife are endangered by hunting and capture. He would then prohibit commercial traffic in these species, though he could, at his discretion, authorize exceptions for zoological, educational, or scientific purposes. For most of the mammals, the trade in furs and other products is far greater than the trade in living specimens. Among the fur-bearers, 50 to 100 times as many are killed for their furs as are brought out alive.

It should be emphasized that this bill is not designed to halt all commercial traffic in furs, hides, other animal products, or in live animals. In some cases, it may be possible to take an annual harvest without endangering wild populations. In the United States, hunters take an annual harvest of deer, waterfowl, and other game, without endangering the species. No legitimate commercial interest can be impaired by protecting the last remnants of an endangered species, before it vanishes altogether. An example is the Brazilian giant otter, which is killed for its fur. At one time, one to two hundred monthly were shipped from a principal port where now only one or two come in.

While this legislation would be of great assistance to foreign governments it would benefit our own States in the same manner. For example, the legislature of Texas gave its protection to the Texas tortoise a few years ago, considering it to be an endangered species. Texas tortoises are still being collected and sold as pets, however. Under present circumstances, once they are carried across the Texas border, they can be sold legally and openly.

We are well aware that the authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior by this legislation is quite broad, and that it could be used unwisely. For example, he is authorized to make exceptions to a general ban, for zoological, educational or scientific purposes. We hope and expect that he would exercise discretion under this section. A few of the world's animals are now so rare that not one individual should be shot or captured. Examples are the Javan and Sumatran rhinoceroses and the monkey-eating eagle. For such species, he should not make exceptions. On the other hand, the Aldabra tortoise is an endangered species, but the regula tory authorities consider that a few can be taken each year without detriment to the population. This year the export quota is fifty. We would expect the Secretary to allow importations, under this section, within the limits of such a quota. We recognize, however, that there is no practical alternative to Secretarial discretion. No two species are in quite the same predicament. Each must be carefully considered, and no general formula can apply. We have confidence that the Secretary will consult the appropriate experts and make his decisions in accordance with their advice. We stand ready to assist as we have in the past. Mr. Chairman, the American Association of Zoological Parks & Aquariums urges enactment of this legislation. It will be an important contribution to international wildlife conservation, and it will be of material aid to other nations seeking to protect their native animals.

Senator BREWSTER. We will now call Mr. Louis S. Clapper who is chief of the conservation education division of the National Wildlife Federation.

Mr. Clapper.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER, CHIEF, CONSERVATION EDUCATION DIVISION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. CLAPPER. Senator, I would like to take advantage of your original offer and just merely summarize our statement here and have it put in the record in full.

Senator BREWSTER. Please do.

Mr. CLAPPER. Our organization went on record back in 1966 as expressing its concern and interest about the commercialization of wildlife. And we do believe the bills under consideration here today, the Senate version and the version that we hope will pass later this week, will do much to discourage the commercialization of this problem and the problem of endangered species being imported into this country. And further, we believe it is important to extend the provisions of the existing Federal law to interstate commerce to protect the rare and endangered species of amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, or crustaceans as would be provided for in section 2 of this bill.

And in summary, Mr. Chairman, we do hope that the committee can work rapidly on this and make this another accomplishment of the 90th Congress.

Thank you.

Senator BREWSTER. Tell us a little bit about the National Wildlife Federation.

Mr. CLAPPER. We are a private organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. We have affiliates in 49 of the States. And these, in turn, are made up of local clubs and individuals. And we believe that some 2.5 million persons are associated with our organization through the affiliates or through associate member programs.

Senator BREWSTER. Are you supported in any way by Federal funds? Mr. CLAPPER. None whatever, sir.

Senator BREWSTER. I am familiar, of course, with the National Wildlife Federation Act. I wished to bring out who you were.

Thank you very much for your statement and support of this program.

Mr. CLAPPER. Thank you, sir.

(The full statement of Mr. Clapper follows:)

STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE

FEDERATION

Mr. Chairman, I am Louis S. Clapper, Chief of the Division of Conservation Education, National Wildlife Federation.

Ours is a private organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. The Federation has affiliates in 49 States. These affiliates, in turn, are made up of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2,500,000 persons.

We welcome the invitation to comment upon S. 2984 and H.R. 11618, "to prevent the importation of endangered species of fish or wildlife into the United States; to prevent the interstate shipment of reptiles, amphibians, and other wildlife taken contrary to State law; and for other purposes."

Mr. Chairman, during the annual convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in March, 1966, our organization adopted a resolution (No. 8), expressing its urgent concern and dismay about the commercialization of wildlife. Further, the Federation recommended that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature undertake to find out how the use of products involving rare or endangered species of wildlife can best be discouraged. A copy of this resolution is attached in the hope it will be made a part of this statement.

În view of the foregoing, the Federation hereby endorses the principles expressed in S. 2984 and H.R. 11618, believing enactment of one or the other will do much to discourage the commercialization of rare and endangered wildlife by preventing the importation of these products into this country. If sales of these products can be prevented, in the United States and portions of Europe, the incentives for taking endangered wildlife will be reduced significantly. There is a great traffic at the present time in skins, furs, hides, and other wildlife products for fashionable clothing, rugs, decorative items, etc. Much of this trade originates in under-developed countries, some now endeavoring to establish stable new governments. These governments have only limited funds, in many cases, and it is difficult for them to enforce stringent laws against poaching even if such protective statutes exist. And, none exist in some countries. Therefore, if the demand is dried up, much of the incentive to poach is removed.

It is our understanding that the traffic is not limited to furs and skins used for unique and decorative apparel. Rare monkeys and other mammals are taken alive for medical and pharmaceutical research purposes. Rare tropical fish are taken alive for sale for use in aquaria. Song and game birds can be purchased in many countries.

We also believe that it is important to extend provisions of the existing Federal law relating to interstate commerce in fish and wildlife to protect rare or endangered species of amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, or crustaceans, as would be provided for in section 2 of these bills. The plight of the native alligator is a good example of a situation requiring the help of the Federal Government. Protection of the alligator through State law is not preventing the illegal taking of these creatures, sometimes within the Everglades National Park and elsewhere. Separate legislation has been introduced to protect the alligator but we would endorse this approach of a broad scope.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we hope the Subcommittee will move speedily to make the enactment of S. 2984 or H.R. 11618 an accomplishment of this Session of the 90th Congress.

Thank you for the opportunity of making these remarks.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 30TH ANNUAL CONVENTION, PITTSBURGH, PA., MARCH 11-13, 1966

RESOLUTION NO. 8-USE OF WILDLIFE PRODUCTS

Whereas skins, furs and other products of many mammals, birds, and reptiles are widely used for clothing, rugs, decorative items, and are imported into the U.S.; and

Whereas many of the products involve rare or endangered species of wildlife;

and

Whereas the demand for these wildlife products is creating an incentive for illegal hunting and exploitation which threatens the extinction of some species: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention assembled March 12, 1966, at Pittsburgh, Pa., hereby expresses its urgent concern about the commercialization of wildlife and recommends that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, in cooperation with the United Nations, undertake a project to determine how the use of products involving rare or endangered species of wildlife can best be discouraged; and be it further

Resolved, That the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife be requested to develop information on how the United States can act to limit the importation of rare and endangered wildlife or wildlife products.

Senator BREWSTER. We will now call Dr. Alfred Etter, representing the Defenders of Wildlife here in Washington.

Dr. Etter, I have your prepared statement, and please proceed in such manner as you may wish.

STATEMENT OF DR. ALFRED ETTER, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. ETTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will shorten this statement a little bit in my presentation.

I am Dr. Alfred Etter, field representative for Defenders of Wildlife, which is a national nonprofit educational organization devoted to making it possible for animals to survive in the wild. As the committee is no doubt aware, this is not an easy mission these days, and the endangered species problem is an especially difficult one.

We would like to say at the very beginning that we are very much in favor of this bill S. 2984 and congratulate all those people who have anything to do with it.

It is rather amusing to look back at the story of Black Sambo. In those days, it was the tiger who wanted to wear the people's clothes, and little Sambo was the endangered species. Now, the shoe is on the other ear, you might say, and the people want to wear the animal's clothes. And the threat is to the tiger. The problem seems to be that everybody in our society wants to be the grandest tiger in the jungle for one reason or another. And the animals are the ones that pay the price.

We can understand the predilection of people for these wild animals' products-leopard coats, alligator bags, and ivory pool balls and such items because these wild animals are capable of synthesizing materials which have no peer even in this amazing age of synthetics. But we feel that the greatest synthesis really is the living animal perpetuating itself to the end of its allotted time in its given environment. It is an absolutely unique creation.

And looking at animals from an esthetic point of view, they are really the ultimate art of the universe today. Artists resort to painting cans of tomato soup, I suspect, largely because the beauty of animals has gone out of the lives of a good part of the population. Back in the early days, they used to paint pictures of animals in caves, sanetuaries, and thereby show their admiration for all these animls. And, in fact, of course, there is still a great deal of animal art.

Why are these animals disappearing? Well, of course, we have many factors in the environment today that are shoving species after species to the edge of extinction. But it seems to me that one of the greatest factors in the whole picture is this item of procrastination. Our society is given to procrastination.

You realize that it was 300 years ago that the dodo became extinct. To what purpose did this bird die? Have we realized the lesson that the bird tells or the death of the bird tells? Today, more species are threatened than ever before, and there is a constant sequence of headlines in newspapers about the extinction of this sort of species or the threat to this or that species.

I suppose that back in the days of the dodo that the Dutch Portuguese people, sailors, early settlers on the island of Mauritius, might have pleaded ignorance of ecological principles, and perhaps they did not really understand the importance of any particular species of

animal. But certainly today this situation should have changed, and it should have changed a long time ago.

And Mr. Pautzke, Clarence Pautzke, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior made the statement in his testimony on H.R. 6138 and the other bills related to that subject that:

Governments have given protection to those wild animals used for, sport and food for centuries. It is only recently that animals have been thought worthy of preservation for their own sake and for the appreciation of future generations.

Well, I cannot understand where the governments have been all this time because there really has been appreciation of the value of species as such for their own sake for a long period of time. After all, Noah set the precedent for concern for every kind of animal in the early days. And 200 years ago, there was a French student of nature and religion, Bernadin de St. Pierre, who took the concept of the species out of the folklore of the Bible and put it into ecological terms when he said— and this was in his publication "Studies of Nature":

The harmony of this Globe would be partially destroyed . . . were but the smallest, the seemingly most insignificant genus of plants to be suppressed; for its annihilation would leave a certain space of ground destitute of verdure, and thereby rob of its nourishment the species of insect which there found the support of life. The destruction of the insect, again would involve that of the species of bird, which in these alone finds the food proper for its young; and so on to infinity.

St. Pierre was not unaware of the dodo problem. He had, in fact, been to Mauritius, and he realized that the animal had become extinct. And he attributed most of this to its ultimate cause-that is, the fact that man, as he put it, "degrades the earth; he massacres without mercy everything that breathes." This was back in about 1784 when he wrote this book. So we have had a long time to realize that species are important.

And, in fact, another person connected with the dodo, H. E. Strickland, an English scientist of the last century, published a book called "The Dodo and Its Kindred" about 1848. A quote from that book is rather appropriate in that it shows the appreciation of the individual species. He said:

It is the duty of the naturalist to preserve to the stores of science the knowledge of these extinct or expiring organisms, when he is unable to preserve their lives; so that our acquaintance with the marvels of animal and vegetable existence may suffer no detriment by the losses which the organic creation seems destined to sustain.

This in a way was a rather typical scientist's approach. They are more concerned about writing obituaries all too often than they are in actually taking action and attempting to save some of these species. Of course, admittedly, it is a very difficult thing, and the scientist cannot do it by himself. But the result has been that everybody has passed the responsibility down the line, and we have this chain of headlines such as:

Madagascar's lemurs face extinction because of hunting and forest clearing.

India's tigers down from 40,000 to 4,000 in 50 years.

Australia fights trade in parrots.

Purses threaten alligators.

Safari hits it big-four leopards.