a bit and we are getting more all the time. We need vastly more study. We don't have much specific knowledge, but we do have indications that something is badly wrong.

For example, the heavy metal concentrations showing up in so many marine mammals. These mammals of course represent parameters of the decline, as Miss Herrington called it, of the health of the oceans.

Senator HOLLINGS. And therein, really, there will be more dying from pollution than from hunting. You were talking in here about. the 10-year moratorium proposed by Senator Williams.

What scientific basis do you have for that? Why not 5 or 15? Why 10?

Mr. GARRETT. I will have to confess that is an arbitrary figure. I don't think it could be possible to get the results of detailed studies, in less than 10 years. It might take longer than that. Granted some significant results may be had in 5 years, but it is obviously going to take time to develop and collate the results. I don't think any of these bills have anything like enough funding for research or enough emphasis on research.

Senator HOLLINGS. We do need more.

Mr. GARRETT. I think so.

Senator HOLLINGS. In London last week, that wasn't secret as far as you are concerned.

Mr. GARRETT. I was there, yes, and I am perfectly free to talk. The British Secretary didn't think so at the time. He complained to Ambassador McKernan. He said I was stirring up the British conservationists.

Senator HOLLINGS. You would, if you could, wouldn't you?

Mr. GARRETT. As soon as the conference was over, I attempted to stir them up, or at least conferred with them on what happened. Senator HOLLINGS. Maybe you can clear up the statement previously about killing of the baby seals. Do you know? I understand from the Ambassador that wasn't the case.

Mr. GARRETT. I spent two hours talking to Dr. Oerlitson who runs the Norwegian marine mammal program, and who went to Antarctica in 1964 on an experimental sealing expedition in which he took 1,000 seals. He admits they are thinking of taking baby seals. They are particularly interested in the white ones, baby Weddells and

crabeaters.

Senator HOLLINGS. Would the treaty allow that?

Mr. GARRETT. Unfortunately the Antarctic Treaty does not apply to the marine areas. Article 6 indicates that high seas freedom will not be abridged in any way.

Senator HOLLINGS. Out on the high seas they can take the baby seals.

Mr. GARRETT. Right. Some of them are on the shore, and on the fast ice attached to the shelf ice, but most of them are found on the ice floes, so-called pack ice. They are not protected at all under the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty.

Senator HOLLINGS. What you are saying then is slightly different from what we heard previously. You believe these countries are not so ready, willing and able to come around to treaties. In fact the British delegation is going along with the Norwegian catch?

Mr. GARRETT. The supply of harp and hooded seal pelts, especially the baby harp seal pelts is declining. That kill is declining. Most of these pelts are used by the British fur industry. The kill has been reduced in the St. Lawrence Gulf, and the Canadian Sealing Board is recommending that the kill off Labrador as well as the gulf, be phased out. In the meantime, the kill of harp and hooded seals off Jan Mayen island has been reduced drastically. This is the first year the Norwegians have had quotas.

It is obvious the British will be hurting for enough pelts to fill their markets. I think they are pushing the Norwegians in this matter. I didn't see any evidence that the Russians or Japanese were planning to go down immediately. But there is no question that the Reba Fur Co. of Bergen, Norway is thinking of going down.

Senator STEVENS. Let me ask you this, we are now raising the question of the experiment of John Lindberg, and in Hawaii and in Alaska of raising salmon in pens. They are going to be completely domesticated in the sense the pens will be moved. I am sure you read

of this.

What would your organization do if we started that with fur seals, walruses, and other mammals?

Mr. GARRETT. Well, as an individual it would be hard for me to take this. I do hate to see animals as highly evolved as these animals are, penned up in that manner.

Senator STEVENS. I agree with you, but I wanted your response. There seems to be a definite distinction between demonstration and our right to use them to sustain man, and those left in the wild state where they are actually better off.

I wonder if you have examined that proposition. If we have a human demand for these animals, we will domesticate them; is that what you want to see us do?

Mr. GARRETT. No. Do we have that much requirement for, say, walrus, or for pinniped in this country?

Senator STEVENS. You may not have but some of my people do.

In terms of their livelihood, the Eskimo people that I have talked to tend to get ill if they try to make the transition between their food and the food you and I would prefer. Assuming that that is so, and assuming we are heading towards the proposition of a prohibition against taking animals in wild state, aren't we going toward the same thing?

Mr. GARRETT. No. I think all these bills have provisions for Native taking. I will have to be frank. I would rather see an animal, such as walrus, if it must be killed, be killed in its normal habitat rather than to be confined in some manner of pen.

In any case, it has been demonstrated that walrus can't survive long in captivity. A few zoos are trying it, but as a general rule they can't be raised that way. I would rather see them killed in their natural habitat. It seems to me that Native taking is comparatively minor, and the thing to do is eliminate the wastefulness.

While you were out, I did read a paragraph about Bowhead whales. I certainly can't subscribe to the killing of Bowhead whales by anyone at this stage.

Senator STEVENS. Despite the testimony we have, that it is the one mammal on the increase.

Mr. GARRETT. During the House hearings Mr. Burns of the Alaska Game and Fish Department stated that the current rate of kill, could not be sustained. He cited a ratio of 5 to 1, five Bowhead whales injured and perhaps dying for every one taken. I got this three or four to one figure from Dale Rice who made a study of Bowhead whales off Barrow. But it is clear certainly that this is very wasteful killing, and even the International Whaling Commissionthere is no sorrier example of a conservation group-even the commission protects Bowhead whales.

It seems most unfortunate that we are permitting a species, which is fairly close to extinction, to be taken in this manner. The Bowhead whale population which used to summer in the Davis Strait has been apparently extirpated by Greenland Eskimoes in recent years.

Senator STEVENS. The chairman says we must protect bullheads like me. I take it your position basically is that the United States should take the lead in bringing about a prohibition as to taking of marine mammals. In view of what you know about the feelings in the other nations, do you think that is realistic?

Mr. GARRETT. I don't think we can achieve any total prohibition of the taking. But I do think we have some chance over a course of time, if we negotiate vigorously, of developing some kind of international marine sanctuary concept. One thing that is really terrifying is the though of a big oil spill in the northern areas. We should be pushing for marine sanctuaries constantly, and I think we must strive hard to get a moratorium on the taking of all whales. There is no more disgraceful chapter in the history of the human depredation than the destruction of the great whales, primarily by the Japanese and Russians.

Senator STEVENS. I am constrained to say that the only chance of an oil spill is if we are forced to transport oil by water instead of by pipeline.

Senator HOLLINGS. And that is another committee and another hearing. Let's don't start that one.

Mr. Garrett, I appreciate very much your statement this afternoon. It is a big help to the committee. We will stay in touch with you. Mr. GARRETT. Thanks a million.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you.

The next witness is Mr. Robert Hughes of the Sierra Club.

Is this one of the friends of Stevens? Did Senator Stevens quote you earlier or was that the Isaac Walton League, or is there a difference?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HUGHES, WILDLIFE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES COMMITTEE, SIERRA CLUB, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. HUGHES. I don't think he quoted us.

Senator HOLLINGS. We will be glad to hear from you, sir. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Hughes, I am the chairman of the Sierra Club's National Wildlife Committee.

The Sierra Club, a dynamic environmental organization with over 140,000 members, was founded in 1892 to help people explore, enjoy, and protect wildlands and wildlife and to preserve and restore the

quality of man's environment and the integrity of the earth's ecosystems.

You have our statement and also our supplemental testimony by Richard Frank of the Center for Law and Social Policy.

I would like to briefly at this point discuss certain matters. Senator HOLLINGS. The statement will be included in its entirety. Mr. HUGHES. I might mention I have had pleasant contacts with. your fellow South Carolina legislator, Mr. Alex Sanders, in your State assembly, on conservation matters.

Senator HOLLINGS. Good.

Mr. Hughes. We have come here to

Senator HOLLINGS. What does he know about the sea?

Mr. HUGHES. I am afraid we were talking about swamps in that

case.

Senator HOLLINGS. Right, swamps and crabs. Go right ahead. We will learn together.

Mr. HUGHES. Primarily, we are here to support Senator Williams' S. 2871 bill.

Most of the amendments we have proposed come from H.R. 10420 out of Mr. Dingell's committee, which as I understand is your S. 3112.

We depart from our wildlife management friends when we come to the issue of a moratorium.

We feel the knowledge of marine mammals is so slight and everybody, I believe, has agreed to that, that we should at this point declare a moratorium until such time as we know enough about the various populations and species to make sound judgments on whether or not taking should be resumed.

We believe that to take the opposite approach of allowing the taking of marine mammals to continue until the proof indicates it should stop may lead to taking of action too late.

We would further want to see a ban on import of marine mammals products.

Ambassador McKernan spoke to you on the Arctic sealing treaty negotiated in London last week.

Mr. Potter, who has been with us most of the day, told us that our delegation tried very hard and was usually outvoted 11 to 1 on each particular point, but in reading the State Department position paper from which they were required to work, there was one sentence that upset me very much. Although Mr. Potter said it didn't apply to our delegation, I think it shows the State Department philosophy, that is, "that it is in the long-term United States' interest to develop sound, regulated resource development in Antarctica," which would seem to me to be a departure from the idea of Antarctica as a sanctuary.

Senator Cook, I noticed, was quite concerned with the Antarctic Treaty.

We do not propose that the existing Alaska Fur Seal Treaty be abrogated. If this is the best way to preserve the fur seal, then we would suggest that it be continued.

Senator HOLLINGS. What is your expert knowledge on that? That is what we are trying to find out? What is your view? Is it a good

treaty or isn't it? Does it promote and increase the herd or is it diminishing the herd? What is the Sierra Club position?

Mr. HUGHES. We don't know whether it is increasing or not. But we know if the treaty isn't continued there will be trouble on the high seas.

In this case, good or bad, I am afraid we will have to live with that treaty until we know more.

Senator HOLLINGS. In that same vein, is not the Antarctic Treaty a step in the right direction?

Mr. HUGHES. Not necessarily. I think we should have been negotiating a treaty to create an Antarctic sanctuary, although I understand we didn't even broach the subject in London or prior to that.

If there is going to be exploitation of Antarctic seals, then perhaps we should sign the treaty but that doesn't mean we should join in the exploitation. At least we can be there to help regulation.

Senator STEVENS. That is a very excellent point. I just sometimes wonder how many times people would have us be shut out of a community of nations where you might have influence because they don't agree we have been 100 percent successful in negotiations. I think that is an excellent point.

Mr. HUGHES. I am afraid we are never 100 percent successful in almost anything we try.

On the issue of the taking of marine mammals incident to the capturing of fish, tuna specifically, we will support the proposals that are going to be made that the tuna industry find some other way to do this without harming the marine mammals and we also support the concept that if marine mammals are destroyed in taking of fish, then those fish should not be imported into the country.

Again, we cannot tell our fisherman they cannot do this and import fish from another country that doesn't have the same regulation. Certainly our scientists can devise ways to perfect those nets and we understand that a lot of work is being done right now.

We rather like the idea of a Marine Mammal Commission. Nobody apparently has sole responsibility in the marine mammal field and most certainly unless we take the responsbility for the seals out of Commerce where it shouldn't be in the first place, and give it to Interior, so all wildlife is in one jurisdiction, then perhaps we should have a commission.

I think Interior's opposition to that might be fear of losing their authority or some of their authority.

A commission operating independently, if it does not consist of people who are exploiters, can perhaps come to sound judgments on what should be done.

We have heard testimony today that the polar bear consists of five separate populations and that now the management people can determine the sustainable yield of each individual population.

We are concerned that wildlife management, in which we do believe, should have as its goal the benefit of the wildlife population and environment rather than the benefit of commercial exploitation. The report accompanying H.R. 10420 made that point.

This in turn indicates that the animals must be managed for their benefit and not for commercial exploitation.

76-491 O 72 pt. 1 18