Mr. Dow. Could I interrupt? Mr. MORTON. Yes. Mr. Dow. In listening to this conversation, I wonder if we ought to consider the format of these various types of reports we are thinking of. For example, should we start an encyclopedia type on the first go-around of this major survey and then keep that up to date by revisions in the same way that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is kept up annually, or should we publish a completely new survey periodically every 3 or 5 or 10 years? I just wonder if you gentlemen have a thought of the format or the modus operandi of this program. Mr. CROWTHER. Mr. Chairman, speaking for Commercial Fisheries, we have given some thought to the format. As Congressman Morton has said, we do collect and publish annually fairly complete statistics on the commercial fishing industry in the United States, and we publish hundreds of documents each year on the particular aspects of individual fisheries, each segment of the fishery such as the haddock fishery, shrimp fishery, tuna. What we visualize in this from the commercial fisheries standpoint is a document which would treat each of the species or groups of species to give the extent of the fishery, the area in which it is fished, the size of the resource as we know it, its potential, its use, and information of that sort which is not published in any one document at the present time, so that anyone in the Government or even the public could go to this document and pick out the particular species he is interested in and get a fairly complete picture of that species as it is fished in the United States today. Mr. Dow. Mr. Crowther, how would you update that from time to time? In other words, would you let it go for 20 years or would you update it each year in an annual encyclopedia type? Mr. CROWTHER. I think your point was well taken, Congressman, and I would like to give more thought as to just how often it should be updated and the type of information which would be put into this and the format there would be used in updating it. Mr. Dow. In other words, you wouldn't object if we here on the committee would think about possibly an amendment to the resolution to convert this somewhat into a periodic arrangement rather than a one-shot deal? Mr. CROWTHER. We would welcome it, sir. We think it is needed. Mr. Dow. Thank you. Mr. DINGELL. I have only one last question, and that is, gentlemen, if we did change this from a one-shot scrutiny to a continuing authorization for a regularly scheduled survey, would this provide more useful knowledge and a more useful cross section of information on the resources in the fisheries on the Continental Shelf and elsewhere in the United States than we would find if we did it on a one-shot basis? Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected here, but surely, as I view this one-shot basis, the minute the ink is dry on it, changes are taking place, and if we did nothing on an annual basis but add supplements to the report where the changes have taken place, I think this would update the report in a more continuous manner than a one-shot basis. Mr. DINGELL. It is fair to say that the fisheries resources of the ocean are in a state of continuing flux, change, rise, fall, with different species at one point or another being in abundance or in decline, so that a document which might be published this year surveying the resources wouldn't necessarily extend sufficiently to give useful information in 2 or 3 years; am I correct? Mr. PAUTZKE. You are correct. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Morton? Mr. MORTON. No. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Keith? Mr. KEITH. Did you deal at all in your discussions with the question of scallops resources? Mr. PAUTZKE. We talked of marine resources, but we didn't particularly mention scallops. They would be part of the marine resources. They would be covered. Mr. KEITH. Do you not concur with me that there is a real need to study the question of shellfish resources in general and scallops in particular? Mr. PAUTZKE. I am going to ask the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Mr. Crowther, the Deputy Director, for his reaction. Mr. CROWTHER. Yes, there is certainly a need to study this resource, Congressman Keith. Í recognize as you do that the resource off New England has been going down in take in recent years, and we do now make preliminary surveys of that area, but undoubtedly much more research could go into the scallop industry. Mr. KEITH. Would your research also delve into the question of lobsters? Mr. CROWTHER. Congressman Keith, I would like to point out that in your absence we discussed the extent of the work that was to be done under this particular bill, and as the joint resolution is now written, it would actually include a compilation of the information that is known at present. There was a discussion about the need for actually surveying the resources themselves on the Continental Shelf. I must point out that this would be a much more extensive job than is actually called for in the present joint resolution so that in effect we were not talking about actual research work on this as the resolution is now written. Mr. KEITH. In other words, there have been considerable studies made of these resources by different Federal and State Government agencies as well as by private industry, and this acutal compilation of available data would be of some real value. Was that one of the primary purposes of your initial approach? Mr. CROWTHER. I do not visualize the report which would come out under Senate Joint Resolution 29 as containing a compilation of all the research results, but rather perhaps fairly general statements on the extent of the research work underway and the findings. I think we would rely on our present publication method to put out detailed reports on a particular species. Mr. KEITH. Under the Regional Technical Services Act that was passed last year, there was some reference made to the role of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in studying techniques of fishing that might be used by more than one State. Would provisions of that act provide duplicating funds and a duplication of effort, or is that an alternative approach? Do you or our staff members have a comment on that? Mr. CROWTHER. Are you referring, Congressman Keith, to Public Law 309, "Federal Aid to States"? Mr. KEITH. I am referring to the Regional Technical Services Act that was sponsored by Commerce. Offered as evidence of the need for this legislation was the fact that there was a lot more that we could do in fisheries than we have been doing on a regional basis. We discussed this with Mr. McKernan and he felt that a considerable duplication of services might occur if the Regional Technical Services Act became law because the services that Commerce offered to provide under this act were already being assumed and furnished by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. You don't know anything about this, Mr. Pautzke? Mr. KEITH. I believe that this approach is being used in the city of Gloucester now for research into improved techniques in the fishing field. Obviously I have gotten off on another tangent. I can see that my chairman is about to make a point of order that the House is in session. I thank the chairman. Mr. DINGELL. The Chair did not want to restrict the gentleman's time because I think the course of questioning that the gentleman is following is very useful to the committee. Gentlemen, the Chair is grateful to you for your presence this morning. The meeting will adjourn. (Whereupon the subcommittee adjourned.) MISCELLANEOUS FISHERIES LEGISLATION PRIBILOF ISLANDS-FUR SEALS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 11:15 a.m, pursuant to call, in room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DINGELL. The subcommittee will hold hearings this morning on H.R. 9602, by Congressman Rivers of Alaska, and S. 2102, which was identical to H.R. 9602 as introduced. These two bills are designed to implement the Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals and to give the Secretary of the Interior broader discretion in the administration of the Pribilof Islands. Further, S. 2102, as passed by the Senate, would continue the protection now afforded the sea otter on the high seas. Let the bills and agency reports appear at this point in the record. (The bill, act, and agency reports follow:) [H.R. 9602, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] 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 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Fur Seal Act of 1965". TITLE I-CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION ON THE NORTH PACIFIC FUR SEALS SEC. 101. It is unlawful, except as provided in this Act or by regulation of the Secretary of the Interior, for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in the taking of fur seals in the North Pacific Ocean or on lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, or to use any port or harbor or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States for any purpose connected in any way with such taking, or for any person to transport, import, offer for sale, or possess at any port or place or on any vessel, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, fur seals or the parts thereof, including, but not limited to, raw dressed, or dyed fur seal skins, taken contrary to the provisions of this Act or the Convention, or for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to refuse to permit, except within the territorial waters of the United States, a duly authorized official of Canada, Japan, or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to board and search any vessel which is outfitted for the harvesting of living marine resources and which is subject to the 69-049-66-23 |