Mr. LONGEWAY. Mr. Tollefson, it occurs to me as sort of a complex statement, in that they show that 80 percent of the shrimp is caught locally and coastwise but if we should possibly legislate against agreement with the Guianas that the other 1512 percent may have to come from U.S. waters. This is a pretty small percentage of the total. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Except that then that fleet would join the domestic fleet fishing off our own shores and then we would have overfishing with the possibility of economic disaster. Mr. LONGEWAY. Yes, sir. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony, sir. Tomorrow we have four more witnesses to hear. I would like for each of them to confine themselves to about 20 minutes and deal with the penalty provision of existing law. Some of you will probably have to testify again on this subject as I think this committee will delete from the bill that provision with respect to extending the 12-mile Continental Shelf, and so forth. Therefore, if each of the witnesses keep their remarks brief it will help the committee to finish up tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, February 26, 1964.) FISHING IN U.S. TERRITORIAL WATERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 219, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Herbert C. Bonner (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. STATEMENT OF J. STEELE CULBERTSON, DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL Mr. CULBERTSON. I just returned from the Virginia Fishermen's Association meeting down at Old Point Comfort, Mr. Chairman, and the North Carolina Menhaden Operators are there as well as some Virginia, Massachusetts, Delaware, New Jersey, Louisiana, and Texas. They all send greetings up to this committee. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. CULBERTSON. I am J. Steele Culbertson, director of the Industrial Products Division of National Fisheries Institute, Inc., a nonprofit trade association. I am here to represent the industrial products division only. Member companies of the industrial products division and associates own and operate fishing vessels and equipment which, in recent years, on a volume or poundage basis, have been responsible for harvesting almost as much fish annually as all other fishing vessels and gear owned and operated in the United States, including the boats and gear engaged in the shellfish operations. The principal species that makes up this tremendous tonnage is the menhaden. Although perhaps not as well known as some of the groundfish such as cod, haddock, flounders, whiting, and perch, or other species like salmon, halibut, tuna, crabs, and shrimp, nevertheless, it is a highly important and valuable fishery which extends from the southern New England States to Texas. Fishing is conducted relatively close inshore, with most of the catch taken within 3 miles of the beach. Landings from the menhaden fishery alone in 1961 were 2.3 billion pounds; and in 1962, 2.25 billion pounds. In those years this represented 45 percent and 43 percent respectively, of the total landings of all species in the United States on a volume basis, including shellfish. 145 I might add, Mr. Chairman, at this point, that imports of fishmeal into the United States in 1963 has been 383,000 tons, which on a liveweight basis would be approximately 3.8 billion pounds of fish as taken from the water. The total supply of fish in the United States in 1963, was 10.4 billion pounds. Of this, 57 percent was for industrial use and 43 percent was for food fish purposes. I mention this just to let you gentlemen know how important the industrial fish field is today. On a poundage basis it outranks the amount of fish utilized in the United States for food purposes. Menhaden is a member of the herring family and an extremely oily and bony fish, and, therefore, is not desirable as an edible species as harvested. Indirectly, however, it is a large contributor to our domestic food supply. As taken from the fishery, it is manufactured into fishmeal, fish oil, and fish solubles. The fishmeal and solubles are highly desirable animal protein supplements for use in the manufacture of poultry and animal feeds. Fishmeal and solubles contain all the essential amino acids and other nutrients that are so essential to the growth and health of these animals. About half of the fish oil produced in the United States is shipped to European countries where it is manufactured into a fine grade of margarine. Similar use is not permitted in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration. The principal domestic use for the fish oil is for the manufacture of high-grade marine and other protective coatings in the paint field. Should the Food and Drug Administration approve the manufacture and sale of fish protein concentrate commonly known as fish flour in the United States, menhaden is the species that would most likely be used for that purpose. There are over 200 large vessels in the menhaden fleet, each equipped with two 36-foot aluminum purse seine boats. Fishing crews aboard each large vessel consist of from 14 to 18 men, requiring in all a total of over 4,000 fishermen. An equal number, or more, of shore workers and plant personnel are required to operate the plants giving, in all, 8,000 to 10,000 people directly engaged in the industry. On page 130 of the Senate hearings on S. 1988 is a statement presented on behalf of our organization that contains additional information on this segment of our domestic fishing industry, so I will not occupy any more time with this phase of my testimony. It did seem that I should identify our segment of the fishing industry to this extent. Under the laws of the United States and of the respective States, the States have jurisdiction over fisheries, not only over their inland waters, but of coastal waters as well, to the extent of the 3-mile limit. When ultimately increased to 12 miles, the States' authority, as I understand, would extend that distance. Each State has authority to prescribe the laws and regulations governing the taking and catching of fish. Such laws vary from State to State, depending upon what the governing bodies of the respective States consider to be reasonable fishing and conservation practices. As a result there are wide differences in State fish and game laws and regulations as to methods of fishing, sizes and types of gear, the mesh size, the dates, time and places of fishing, catch limits, and even the size of vessel is sometimes prescribed. For the most part, State fishing regulations are issued on an annual basis but are amended from time to time during the season to take care of special conditions that occur in the fishery that might require curtailment or permit relaxation of the regulations. In order to obtain a fishing license in many States, a person must be a citizen of the United States, or must have declared his intentions to become a citizen. S. 1988 as amended in the Senate, whereby the Secretary of the Treasury, under certain conditions, would be authorized to issue licenses to foreigners to fish in our 3-mile territorial waters, would seem to be in direct conflict with such a State law. State fish and game laws and regulations, also, usually prescribe license fees and boat and gear taxes. In many States the charges for fishing licenses and gear taxes favor the residents of the State, who may pay less than nonresidents of the State. At least one State requires a person to be a resident of the State and of a particular area in the State in order to use a certain type of gear. The above are just some of the peculiarities of State commercial fishing regulations. There are many others too numerous to mention, but, from the standpoint of certain groups of fishermen, they are highly important and may determine their success or failure during a particular fishing season. Even if fish and game commissions were in sympathy with the idea of licensing foreign fishermen to fish within our 3-mile territorial waters and sell their catch in their ports in competition with the fishermen of the State, how could the above conflicts be resolved and handled? But assume for a moment that some foreign vessels were licensed to fish within our 3-mile limit for species claimed to be underutilized. Would the State fisheries commission have the equipment and personnel to follow the foreign vessels around to see that they did not engage in fishing for other species and dispose of their catch onto other foreign vessels from fleets operating just outside our 3-mile limit? Such licensing seems most unwise, and with foreign fleets operating along our shores, could be very damaging to our fishery resources. Certainly State authorities could hardly be expected to give preferential treatment to foreign fishermen over fishermen of the State. Whether they did or not, the licensing of foreign fishermen to fish within our territorial waters would be sure to invite ill feeling and resentment by our fishermen, the same as officials and fishermen of foreign countries resent intrusion in their territorial waters by fishermen of other nations. As I understand it, sir, the Coast Guard does not enforce State laws. That is a responsibility which each State has to provide for its own fisheries laws. I have a booklet here from Alaska. It states that there were 700 violators picked up there in the last 2 years for violation of the States commercial fishery laws. These were U.S. citizens. It does not seem that the Congress would desire to enact legislation that would appear to be in conflict with the regulatory authority of the States with respect to its fisheries. This is especially true because |