MISCELLANEOUS FISHERIES LEGISLATION FISHING RIGHTS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION The committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas N. Downing presiding. Mr. DOWNING. The committee will come to order. This morning we will resume hearings on H.R. 9531 and identical bills. Our first witness will be Hon. Clarence F. Pautzke, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Mr. Secretary, we are delighted to have you, and we do appreciate your patience in this matter. Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, if I might comment, I might say that I especially welcome Mr. Pautzke here this morning. He is a former University of Washington football player of note, but more important to me is that he is vitally interested in fisheries, and we in the State of Washington are very proud of him. STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE F. PAUTZKE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM M. TERRY, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. PAUTZKE. Thank you very much, Congressman Pelly. We surely are in the midst of fisheries problems. Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee. I would like first to introduce my colleague who is here with me, Mr. William Terry, who is the Director of International Affairs for the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and will assist me on any questions that you might have pertaining to my statement here, or other fisheries problems. May I read my statement? It is not too long. I believe you have a copy of it. 331 I am appearing before you to give our views on H.R. 9531, which would extend the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States from the present 3 miles to 12 miles offshore. While we do not object to the enactment of this bill, we would like to present pertinent information for the committee's consideration as to what effect its enactment at this time may have on the American fishing industry. In 1958 and 1960, Law of the Sea Conferences were held in Geneva on the question of fishery jurisdiction. But no agreement was reached. Subsequent to those meetings, certain nations took unilateral action to extend jurisdiction over fisheries. As these developments took place, the Department assessed its own position in relationship to the effect any proposed extended jurisdiction by the United States might have on the domestic industry. Our present position on the proposed 12-mile fisheries limit has been arrived at against the background of several years of study and debate. After evaluating all factors involved, we conclude that the advantages and disadvantages, when balanced against each other, are such that there is no clear case for extending U.S. fisheries jurisdiction beyond 3 miles at this time. As for the future, the Department's estimates of supply and demand suggest that there will be increased demands upon the U.S. commercial fishing industry and upon the resources now within the range of that industry for more fish and fishery products. The estimates also suggest the possibility of a demand which the industry may not be able to satisfy from the fishery resources off the U.S. coasts. While these admittedly are estimates, we do believe that future uncertainties require the preservation of flexibility for future U.S. actions. As a practical matter, it should be noted that only American fishermen now fish in the zone between 3 and 12 miles, except off the coast of Alaska, where we know of intermittent Japanese and Soviet fishing. It seems evident, of course, that growing foreign fishing operations may alter this situation. In the northeast Pacific several hundred Japanese and Soviet fishing vessels operate off our coasts, mostly well beyond 12 miles. We believe it is probable that there will be an increase in the operations of these vessels within 12 miles of the U.S. coasts at some time in the future. However, in view of the species they now seek, and the location of these fish, it seems doubtful that this shift will occur in the immediate future. One of the arguments often advanced against extension of U.S. jurisdiction is that an important part of the U.S. industry relies upon fishing in waters close to the coasts of foreign countries, and that these fishermen would be adversely affected by any retaliatory extension by other countries. We estimate that during the period 1959-63 about 15 percent by value of the U.S. catch was taken off foreign coasts. The catches consist largely of tuna and shrimp. Also of importance in considering the fisheries jurisdiction question is the fact that a significant portion of the fish stocks now supporting the U.S. coastal fisheries can and does move freely through the zone of water between 3 and 12 miles and beyond. The total average marine fishery catch off our coasts for the 195963 period was about 4,500 million pounds. About 68 percent of this was from our present territorial waters. About 13 percent of the catch was taken between 3 and 12 miles, which this bill would add to out excluusive fishing zone. The remaining 19 percent was taken beyond 12 miles. In summary, concerning H.R. 9531, the establishment of an exclusive fishing zone out to 12 miles would offer some protection to a portion of our domestic industry, but may result in other segments of our fishing industry losing part of their present catch off foreign coasts. Should foreign fleets begin to fish extensively within 12 miles of the U.S. coast, the advantages of establishing a 9-mile contiguous zone beyond the territorial sea of the United States would soon outweigh the disadvantages cited. We take a different view concerning H.R. 14961. This bill would extend our jurisdiction over fisheries out to 12 miles or the 200 meter contour line, whichever is farthest. Although the balance of advantages and disadvantages from the creation of a 9-mile contiguous zone for fishery purposes may be arguable, may be an issue on which honest men's opinions differ, it is our view that there can be little question regarding the balance of advantages and disadvantages from broader extensions of jurisdiction such as those contemplated in this bill. In our judgement, an attempt by the United States to extend its jurisdiction to the waters above the Continental Shelf or beyond would be unacceptable to many nations, and particularly to those nations primarily affected by such extension. At the same time, the mere fact of a claim by the United States to extended jurisdiction-whether the claims were made effective or not-would strengthen the claims advanced by many governments in Latin America, and would thus substantially increase the threat to the U.S. fishery operating in waters off South America coasts. In brief, such an effort by the United States would, in our judgment, be ineffective in achieving the sought-after objective, and at the same time would diminish by an unacceptable amount the ability of the United States to minimize the effect on U.S. distant-water fisheries of extreme Latin American claims. I have an addition to my statement here that I will read. Our objection to jurisdiction beyond the 12 miles does not mean that we ignore the problems caused by the foreign fishing which have been mentioned so often before this committee. We are aware of these problems. There are, however, other ways of dealing with them, particularly the conservation problem. I have in mind specifically the negotiation route, which we have used successfully so many times in the past. I have in mind also the 1958 Geneva Conference on Fisheries. This, Mr. Chairman, is my statement, and I would be pleased to answer any questions that we may be able to answer. Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pautzke's statement of the position of the Department of the Interior reminds me of the story of the politician who took a firm stand on an issue. He said some of his friends were for it, and others were against it, and he was for his friends. I remember when Mr. Pautzke and I were sharing places on a panel before the Congress of American Fishermen, and Mr. Pautzke's statement then was, and apparently still is, that the Department will watch closely developments, and, when the time comes that they feel that they should recommend legislation, they will do so. I have been waiting now for the 14 years I have been in Congress for some positive conservation legislation to be recommended by this Department. Nevertheless, I know he is under a very difficult situation. Some of his friends, and the friends of the Department, don't like the idea of the 12-mile fishing zone, and others do. Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Pelly, it is much better than the old militant politician who said he had not made up his mind on an issue, but when he does, he is going to be bitter about it. Mr. PELLY. I just wanted to say to Mr. Pautzke that I appreciate his presence here today, and I think that he will be willing to affirm what I said in the last hearing here to the representative from the tuna fishing industry, that we do have a vital interest in the concentrations of salmon between the 3- and 12-mile limits when they congregate and migrate to the Columbia and other rivers of Washington and Oregon. Is that not a fact? Mr. PAUTZKE. That is a fact, Congressman. We have a distinct obligation to protect this resource. Mr. PELLY. Are we going to wait until the Russians walk in there and start taking those fish, or are we going to sit back and say that when they do, we will recommend some legislation? Mr. PAUTZKE. I would imagine that, if the Russians participated in the catching of salmon, that this will be a whole new ball game. Mr. PELLY. Well, I think you know that at the moment we have evidence in the form of sworn statements that the Russians have been taking salmon off the west coast, and it is only a short way for them to come to the 3-mile limit, which they could do under existing law. I want to certainly express my appreciation to the Department of State for promptly asking for discussions with the Soviet Union over these recent trawler operations off the west coast, and I am sure that the Department of the Interior will join in those conversations, and I thrust that we can settle this matter without some drastic law. Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Congressman, I would not want you to leave the statement in here that was not double-checked. We do not have valid data yet that the Russians are in this present fisheries taking salmon. We have surveillance on them daily. Mr. PELLY. It is nightly that I want you to watch them, because that is when they are said to be catching the salmon. Mr. PAUTZKE. Nightly, too. Mr. PELLY. You had better get some infrared cameras. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Pautzke, on page 3 of your statement you say: In summary, concerning H.R. 9531, the establishment of an exclusive fishing zone out to 12 miles would offer some protection to a portion of our domestic industry, but may result in other segments of our fishing industry losing part of their present catch off foreign coasts. Elaborate on that a little bit more, if you will. Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Chairman, our latest information, and I have it tabulated here, is that the total U.S. catch for 1964, of which we have the last complete tabulation-for 1965 the data from foreign catch is still coming in-was $451 million. That is ex-vessel price. Approximately 50 percent of this value was caught within the 3mile territorial zone of the United States. Mr. DOWNING. How much more percentage would be added if we added 9 more miles? Mr. PAUTZKE. Eleven percent is caught in the 3 to 12 miles, with very little incidental catch by any foreign nation, as yet, off of our shores in this zone. About 24 percent is caught beyond 12 miles. We are, in off-vessel value, about 15 percent off of foreign coasts. This amounts to about approximately $70 million off of foreign countries. Mr. DOWNING. How can our establishing a 12-mile zone be harmful to the tuna and shrimp industry? Mr. PAUTZKE. By the simple means that taking the shrimp that there are areas within approximately 9 miles where the largest portion of your foreign shrimp catch is made. Mr. DOWNING. Where is that? Mr. PAUTZKE. In the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. DOWNING. I thought the Mexican Government had imposed a 12-mile limit. Mr. PAUTZKE. May I ask Mr. Terry to answer that? Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think the reasoning here is more or less as follows: While a number of Latin American governments have made claims to various extensive jurisdictions, many 12, a few beyond this, there is a difference between what many of these governments claim in a juridical sense, and the way in which they implement the claims, and it is in this area that the position of the United States becomes important, in a negotiation dealing with the question of how the claim is implemented. It is one thing to claim 12 miles. It is another thing to enforce the claim. Mr. DOWNING. Does Mexico claim 12 miles? Mr. TERRY. In Mexico the claim is to a 9-mile territorial sea. In many other parts of Latin America it is 12, and off the west coast, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru, the claims extend to as much as 200 miles, the chairman knows. The United States does make an effort to keep these claims to manageable proportions. We are rarely 100-percent successful, but the position which the United States takes on a question obviously affects the U.S. position in bargaining. The extreme example is that, if the United States asserts a claim to 200 miles, it is hardly then in a position to go to a foreign government and say, "You may not implement your claim against our vessels." |