I could ask you to comment, but I will say that perhaps, and just perhaps I don't want to make a definite statement-this gives him too much discretionary authority. We want to look into that to make sure that the area set aside isn't too limited, and then also we will want to pursue in that section the possible need to the proposed municipality, or to individuals, for other tracts of land elsewhere, as long as adequate protection is supplied to the seal rookeries.

And I am not going to ask you about suggested amendments 1, 2 or 3, because I know that you will have them under constant consideration and evaluation, pending the time when we resume hearings on this bill, not on the shore of the Bering Sea, but by the banks of the Potomac River.

I am a little puzzled by section 207 on page 14. Maybe "puzzled" isn't the right word. It says:

Any person who violates or fails to comply with any regulation issued by the Secretary of the Interior under this title relating to the use and management of the Pribilof Islands or to the conservation and protection of the fur seals or wildlife or other natural resources located thereon shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

It says "Any regulation issued by the Secretary of the Interior." I will ask Mr. Foster this question, because he is an attorney.

Is that a more sweeping grant of authority than is generally conveyed, or is it typical?

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the penalty provisions normally are drafted very carefully and very specifically and this in my opinion is an extremely broad criminal provision which by its own terms would apply to any violation of any regulation which in my opinion is exceedingly broad in scope for any criminal penalty. Senator BARTLETT. You would suggest that we ought to tighten this a bit?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Let me ask you a further question, Mr. Baker, and/or Mr. Foster, in this connection.

Under the existing language in that section 207, what if a fellow went down to a seal rookery and killed 100 pups. Would this be the maximum penalty that could be inflicted upon him?

Mr. BAKER. If I might comment, though I am prepared to defer to Mr. Foster's legal background here, it seems to me that a $500 fine and 6 months would be a pretty stiff penalty for killing 100 pups. Perhaps it would be more than adequate under that circumstance.

Senator BARTLETT. I would differ from your statement. I think it would be completely inadequate. I would make it stiffer than that. Mr. Foster has comment or an answer.

Mr. FOSTER. I will attempt to.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that a violation of the type that you suggested there would come under title III, which deals with the enforcement of the entire act regarding conservation of the resources, not only the administration of the island but the conservation of the resources under titles I and III.

Section 302 provides that the enforcement of the provision of this act was the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Coast Guard. I think a violation of the conservation regulations of the type you have in mind there would

fall under titles I and III, and under that the penalty provides, provided in section 304, which provides that any violation of that type shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisonment of not more than 1 year or both, and the violation you referred to would probably be a violation of the Secretary's rules issued under section 303, which is rules to carry out the provisions of the act, or some other provision that he has granting general responsibility for the conservation of the region.

Senator BARTLETT. Referring to your judgment, that would almost of necessity have to be carried over to section 207?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Foster.

Page 18, and we are rapidly approaching the end of this 19-page document, section 308 (a) undertakes to repeal the act of February 26,

1944.

What are we repealing; the Fur Seal Act of that year?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. And replacing it with appropriate language in this bill?

Mr. BAKER. With appropriate language, except with respect to sea otters. This leaves the matter of protecting sea otters in limbo, I think, as the language now stands.

Senator BARTLETT. I believe you are right.

Are there any sea otters here!

Mr. BAKER. Not in this immediate vicinity, I think.

Senator BARTLETT. Then we will wrestle with that problem elsewhere, if that is all right.

Finally, or almost so, in subsection (b), section 308, in what manner are we seeking to alter or amend the Alaska Statehood Act.?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, you caught me a little short at this point. Senator BARTLETT. We can inquire about that later. There is no reason why you should be especially familiar with that. You more appropriately ought to ask me, as I was more concerned with the Alaska Statehood Act than you. We will find out by-and-by, Mr. Baker. That is perfectly all right.

Thank you very much.

Are there any further witnesses? If not, we are almost ready to recess the hearings. Before doing so, I want to express my thanks to all of you for turning out and bearing with us over this extended period of time. I will frankly say that at no time have I been a participant in a congressional hearing and I have been a participant in many congressional hearings-where I have found so many people in one room for so long, no matter whether the hearing was in Washington, D.C., or any other place.

It is a tribute to you, in my judgment, and demonstrates your compelling interest in the subject matter. You should be interested, of course, but people who should be not always are in the form of physical presence when their future is at stake, and I think this is a very great credit to all of you.

For all of us who made this journey, even if 2 days belatedly to the Pribilofs, for Mr. Bowman, for Mr. Foster, for Mr. Baker, who was good enough to come with us from Washington-yes, and for Mr. Monick, the reporter, who is a kind of an oldtime Alaskan, was

been here on money hearings and even comes back sometimes on his own on hunting ventures-and for myself, I want to say that this has been for us a very, very constructive meeting.

We have been glad to listen to all of you who have testified. We feel we have learned much from you. For one, I will say that if we had merely held hearings back in Washington on this, and acted on this bill, without coming to you in a democratic manner, we would have lost something. We would have lost something that is very valuable. In all this, for the record I want to express my appreciation and that of Chairman Warren G. Magnuson for having authorized this trip and having permitted us to come out here.

You know there are so many bills in Congress, so many very thousands of bills introduced in each Congress, that not very many times are field trips taken so that the people most concerned and most affected may be heard. This is one of the comparatively rare instances where that has been done. We are glad, we are happy as a committee, as Americans, that here this has been the case, that we have come out and that we have had the opportunity to listen to you and to learn from you.

I feel this particularly as not only a U.S. Senator, but a U.S. Senator from Alaska.

As I said, the record will be kept open for 1 month from this date. If you submit by written communication additional statements, direct them to Mr. Foster. They will be received and will be placed in the printed record.

This session of the special subcommittee of the U.S. Committee on Commerce will be recessed until the call of the chairman in Washington, D.C.

Good night.

(Whereupon, at 10:12 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)

FUR SEALS-PRIBILOF ISLANDS

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. E. L. Bartlett presiding.

Senator BARTLETT. The committee will be in order.

The purpose of the hearing this morning is to continue receiving testimony on S. 2102, a bill to protect and conserve the North Pacific fur seals and to administer the Pribilof Islands for the conservation of fur seals and other wildlife, and for other purposes.

I introduced this bill on June 8, 1965. Hearings were held by the subcommittee on September 9, on St. Paul Island, Pribilof Islands.

I regret that these hearings cannot be commenced in the same manner it was possible to do on St. Paul Island when Father Lestenkof, of the Russian Orthodox Church, was able to open the committee meetings with a prayer.

At the hearings on St. Paul the committee received testimony from the president of the St. Paul Council, Mr. Iliodor Merculieff and several other members of the St. Paul community. In addition, the committee heard from Mrs. Susie Merculief, of the St. George Council. Brief statements were also made by Mr. Willard L. Bowman, the executive director of the State Commission for Human Rights, State of Alaska; and Mr. Ralph C. Baker, Assistant Director for Resource Development, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior.

It is my hope that testimony on this legislation can be completed this morning. We are to hear today from witnesses for the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the State of Alaska, and representatives of the St. Paul Community Council.

The acting chairman is glad to observe that the testimony is being recorded by Mr. Monick, who did likewise on St. Paul Island on that glorious day last September.

The first witness today will be Mr. McKernan, Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

121

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. McKERNAN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID FINNEGAN, SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE; JAMES STORER, STAFF ECONOMIST; AND RALPH BAKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. MCKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to bring Mr. Finnegan of the Department of Interior Solicitor's Office to the table with me, and Dr. James Storer, Bureau staff economist, and Mr. Ralph Baker, Assistant Director for Resource Development, who testified in Alaska. I ask them to come forward to assist in answering specific questions that you may have in mind.

Senator BARTLETT. Very well.

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee today to testify in support of S. 2102, a bill to protect and conserve the North Pacific fur seals, and to administer the Pribilof Islands for the conservation of fur seals and other wildlife, and for other purposes.

We believe that this proposal is the next logical legislative step in a long history of national concern for the North Pacific fur seal resource and for the welfare of the Aleut inhabitants of the Pribilof Islands.

The Pribilof Islands, situated in the Bering Sea approximately 3 ** miles off the Alaska coast, are a special Government reservation set aside in 1869 for the protection and management of the Alaska fur seal herd.

Under the provisions of the Fur Seal Act of 1944, as amended (16) U.S.C. 631a, et seq.), the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, administers these islands to conserve and manage the fur seal herd which annually migrates to the islands for breeding purposes. The Secretary also provides for the welfare of approximately 650 Aleut natives who permanently reside on the islands of St. Paul and St. George.

For the most part, these natives are descendants of Aleuts transported by the Russians from the Aleutian chain to provide a labor force to exploit the fur seal herd during the period of Russian ownership in Ala-ka.

S. 2102 is designed to give legal effect to the terms of the Inter m Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals signed on February 9, 1957, as amended by a protocol dated October 8, 1963.

Under the provisions of this convention and earlier conventions of a similar nature, the fur seal resources of the North Pacific have prospered.

The Pribilof I-lands herd under United States jurisdiction has in creased from about 120,000 animals in 1911 to approximately one ar i a half million an.mals at the present time. Smaller herds of the sare speces under the jurisdiction of the Soviet Union have doubled in « ze since 1957, reaching a current total of some 250,000 animals.

In return for abstaining from the commercial utilization of North Pacific fur seal on the high seas, the Governments of Canada a: d