Anyway, about 5 minutes after he called me he said they are flashing at me and want me stop. Manuel stated that I am going to continue on and try and locate a school of fish, and if I see them I am going to set. I know I can outrun them but I don't plan to.

About 5 minutes later he said they are firing at us, I can see shots, I can see the flashes from the

quns.

I said how many shots-first of all I said you better stop because we don't want anybody to get hurt.

I said how many shots do you think they have fired? Can you see the actual shots? He said no, I can't see where they are landing, but I can see the flashes from the gun. They look like they are going right overhead. So I advised him to stop at which time he said he did.

It took about another 5 or 10 minutes and all the time I was talking to him on the radio. This is through the land radio WOM in Miami, Fla., by land phone-an overseas radio.

About 5 minutes later he said they asked us to put a boat over which I am doing, and then the crew came and the crew found the-the Ecuadorean people came aboard and boarded the vessel and that was the last radio contact that I had with the captain at that particular time.

I just wish to substantiate his statement to the fact that he didn't mention the earlier seizure, the actual seizure. He didn't mention that they were fired upon.

Mr. CINTAS. We were fired upon on three different times. Mr. Madruga is trying to say there were three different encounters that we were fired upon-three different times.

Mr. MADRUGA. We have been having this problem for many years and what we can do about it is very difficult, I know, for you gentlemen to resolve. How we resolve it, I don't know.

I would like to see something done along the lines which Congressman Van Deerlin stated.

Up to now we have had several meetings-our industry leaders have had many meetings with the State Department and our Members of Congress-I mean our Congressmen in Washington. We haven't resolved anything. Really haven't resolved anything to solve this problem.

We have had 2 or 3 years of what you might say peaceful fishing from about 1967 to 1969, and we had a system there which wasn't too bad, but was still paying a fine-I mean paying for a license which permitted us incidentally when we did buy a license, to fish inside the 12-mile limit.

Now this is a great thing because the fact that we can fish within 12 miles would help us out substantially, and we are willing to buy the license when we fish inside the 12 miles, but our State Department says, no, don't buy a license when you fish outside 12 miles.

The majority of the time these fish are outside the 12 miles, so it leaves us right on the spot. Our State Department says don't buy a license, we will help you.

Well, we are being harassed by this because it is a real problem, because we can't go about our business and fish the way we would like to fish.

How we resolve the problem? Getting back to Congressman Van Deerlin's statement, I think that if a destroyer-I respect fully dis

agree with him about an individual on the boat--but a destroyer or an escort within the area, I think, would help to resolve this problem. Now the British have done this over in Iceland. They had a problem there with a 90-mile limit. The Icelanders said you can't fish in here. The British said we are going to fish here, which is our right. We have been doing it for many hundreds of years. The Icelanders said, no, but the Englishmen sent over a destroyer and in in a matter of a short time the problem was resolved.

We had the same problem again down there in Brazil. The French went over there with their lobster people and were fishing within-I don't know the exact limits-but they were fishing fairly close-I think it was within 200 miles-how far off I do not know--but the Brazilians said, no, you are not going to fish here. The Frenchmen sent a naval craft and the incident ended. There was no further harassment.

That is what I say, I think we should send a patrol ship--I don't think we have to get involved. I don't think the Ecuadorans would cause any incident any more than we would cause one. I think the fact that we have a ship there would make the people know we mean business.

Like Congressman Van Deerlin said, and I will say it again, we don't want to be recognized as the "Chicken of the Sea."

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. ANDERSON. May I break in and ask Mr. Madruga a question along the line of his suggestion?

Mr. Madruga, it is my understanding there is a temptation among some American tuna fishermen to purchase fishing licenses that would allow them to fish within a 200-mile limit without reprisal. Now I am informed also that some of the people in the State Department feel this would be an acknowledgement of Ecuador's claim to the extended fishing limit. Do you know of any company that has purchased such a license?

Mr. MADRUGA. Yes, sir, there are a few incidents where these boats have purchased licenses. They don't want to be harassed. They know the fish is there and if we can catch them we will pay this fee of $10,000 or $12,000.

Mr. ANDERSON. Does the license specify a 200-mile limit, or is it within the 12-mile limit with a courtesy to go beyond the 12 miles? Mr. MADRUGA. No, it doesn't state anything like this. Now most of the time the licenses-we used to purchase licenses. This is something that goes way back when we were a bait boat. We had to catch this bait right off the beaches of the countries that were involved-maybe a mile or 2 miles-but subsequently we did buy a license because our country only recognizes 3 miles in those days only recognized 3 miles. Now we did purchase this license.

Now this set a precedent of buying a license, and we are willing to buy a license, even today we are willing to buy a license. We don't mind buying a license if we fish within their 12-mile area.

If something could be worked out with these governments that we could fish-I don't care if they claim 200 miles or not-I would rather not see them claim this--but if we could fish within that area without saying they had jurisdiction over those waters, we would still be willing to buy a license. The fact remains that if we buy a license out

side of 12 miles, we are admitting that they have jurisdiction over the 200-mile limit. I don't think we should do that because if we do this we are doing it for all the rest of the world. We will have to buy a license from every nation in the world where the tunas are biting.

Mr. ANDERSON. Then some of these tuna fishing companies are buying them. Does the license state within 12 miles or does it state nothing? It is just a license to fish?

Mr. CINTAS. To give you the term on it, Mr. Anderson, it is absolutely ridiculous.

Take the vessel Apollo, or a vessel that carries 1 ton of fish, or a vessel that carries 2,000 tons of fish. The license states that you are entitled to fish 50 days only. Now under normal circumstances you certainly cannot load the Apollo in 150 days let alone 50 days. The fees for the license, I think, if you are familiar with it, is $20 a net ton; $20 is not unreasonable. We have been living with $12 in Mexico; $12 with Peru; and $20 a net ton is not unreasonable.

Mr. ANDERSON. Is that on the capacity of the vessel or the catch? Mr. CINTAS. Net registered tonnage.

Mr. ANDERSON. Whether you catch any fish or not, you pay it on the net registered tonnage?

Mr. CINTAS. Absolutely. Without even knowing if there is any fish in the area. You must remember as its stands today, we don't even have freedom of passage; freedom of inspection. We are willing to buy a permit to fish, of course, if you know there is fish in the area inside of 12 miles.

Mr. DINGELL. Are you saying, Mr. Cintas, that you do not have freedom of passage in these areas?

Mr. CINTAS. No, we don't. I may catch a load of fish in Chile, Mr. Chairman, and be in transit to Panama, and if they catch the Apollo navigating anywhere within 200 miles they will seize the vessel.

Mr. FELANDO. Mr. Chairman, we have had a vessel seized 175 miles off the coast of Ecuador-the Caribbean-in 1969.

Mr. CINTAS. You must remember that the Galapagos Islands belong to Ecuador. If you put 200 miles east of the Galapagos and 200 miles west of the coast of Ecuador, you haven't got too much left there. Mr. MADRUGA. A 50-mile channel.

Mr. CINTAS. Of course it is unreasonable to have to navigate the Apollo from Chile to Panama and have to go out between this small strip. These are problems. Real, real serious problems.

I've got to tell you something else that is very, very important. The seizures now in 1971 are happening because it so happens that there are a lot of fish off the coast of Ecuador, and there is a large American fleet there-35 or 40 boats at one time.

This is not uncommon, and the reason these incidents haven't been more consistent or to the same extent they are today is because the American fleet doesn't work this area as much as they have in the last month.

It is going to be very, very interesting, and I know quite a few people in Ecuador that are influential in the fisheries, and what not, and it is going to be quite interesting to see what happens to the Apollo on the second seizure, and I am certainly going right back where I came from because the fish is there.

They claim a double fine, whatever it might cost me this time, but it is going to cost me twice as much next time and that is speaking of about $180,000 or thereabouts.

Mr. DINGELL. And the time after that?

Mr. CINTAS. The time after that is the confiscation of the vesselfish and all-and they are serious.

The biggest influence in Ecuador is among the fishermen-the tuna fishermen in Ecuador. I am speaking of things that have happened. A lot of times I know what is going to happen before because these people are going to definitely protect their fishing.

By protecting this they simply think that this fish grows and stays there. Tuna is a migratory fish. It goes all over the world. If we catch it, fine, if it is not caught in Guayaquil, it can be caught in Japan somewhere. Who knows.

The fact remains there is no doubt the more the Americans fish or catch, the less there is for them. They have a certain right there to protect themselves. I just don't know about giving them their rights and at the same time protect us.

It is a hell of a tough question.

I have to go along with Mr. Madruga here, if they can come up with some kind of a fair license fee arrangement with enough time involved with one permit with the size of the boat itself and don't name the amount of days involved in the permit, but for one trip. Also let's bring the license fee down and make it reasonable.

Mr. LEGGETT. How much do you think is a reasonable fee?
Mr. CINTAS. $10 a ton.

Mr. LEGGETT. Which would be how much for the Apollo?

Mr. CINTAS. $2,830.

Mr. LEGGETT. You say you can't fill your boat in 150 days?
Mr. MADRUGA. Not normally.

Mr. LEGGETT. Normally how long are you out on a catch?

Mr. CINTAS. Anywhere from a month to 4 months. It varies, Congressman, this is not determined-from a month to 4 months, and this is a bigger size vessel.

Mr. LEGGETT. You indicated that 40 or 50 American vessels are in there at the present time, but how many ships from other countries are there? How many from Ecuador are out there?

Mr. CINTAS. There are three known Panamanian flags and there is one French-this is the first time we ever had a Frenchman in there to fish here. I think we have a couple or three Costa Rica flags, and I think the remainder-about 95 percent-of the fleet is American.

Mr. MADRUGA. There were some Japanese ships and several Canadian ships-three of four Canadian ships, and maybe half a dozen Japanese. Mr. LEGGETT. Where are the Ecuadoran ships if they want this ground for their own fishing grounds?

Mr. CINTAS. They have 80 vessels of the size from 2 tons to 120 tons, and their fleet is increasing every day. It is very obvious. I don't think there is anybody that fishes there more than I do, and I can see the increase in our type of fishing and in bait fishing, and that is the biggest source of tuna fishing is bait fishing.

Mr. LEGGETT. How about Peru and Chile?

Mr. CINTAS. Peru and Chile has no fishing boats fishing in this area for tuna.

Mr. LEGGETT. Just one more question. You indicated that you haven't been in this area as much as you are at the present time before, but you have had an acceleration of your fishing apparently in this particularly spot off Ecuador over the past month or 45 days. What is the reason for that?

Mr. CINTAS. I won't call it seasonal, but because of the currents and whatnot, this is their summer down there and, of course, the water is warmer and to that extent tunas like warmer water. It just so happens to be a fantastic year for tuna down that coast. This just so happens. Also I think it is more because the American tuna fishermen go down there to locate this fish. There is no confusion that the American tuna boats go down there, and it wasn't necessary in the past because they fish off of Mexico-2, 3, 4, or 6 hundred miles off what we call school fishing or different types of school fishing.

It just so happens that the word gets out that there are good signs and there is a tremendous amount of fish, and of course, where you can catch the fish it is easier to go that way and catch the greater amount of fish. That is why the great amount of boats are in this area right now. It is very common to have a good-sized fleet in this area this time of the year-December, January, February, and March up to April.

Mr. LEGGETT. Just one more question. As a result of the increased number of seizures, has the Tuna Boat Association abated at all its efforts to fish in these waters?

Mr. FELANDO. No. You have to understand that the vessels go where the fish are, and the problem for instance in 1970 based on the records maintained by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission which is a conservation commission, there is a chart there south of 5° last year, of the 111,000 tons of yellowfin tuna caught there were only about 9,000 tons caught south of the Equator. So most of the fishing you could say last year was done north of the Equator. This year we are noticing quite a change in oceanographic conditions where there is a lot of cold water and rough water north, and a contraction of favorable waters seemingly in the middle.

The skipjack, based on what scientific information is available at the present time-I can get into this later on in my statement-is that it appears that the skipjack spawn around Hawaii and the skipjack seems to be more prevalent off the Gulf of Guayaquil than anywhere. else, and they seem to move in toward the Pacific coast or the Western Hemisphere at certain times-the most favorable times and then start making circulatory movements. Along with other fish this is somewhat a highly migratory fish during the year, and maybe over a 5-year cycle, so that we have right now is we have tuna vessels stretched all the way from Baja California, all the way down. The word was out earlier this year that there is good fishing in the Gulf of Guayaquil, and that is where most of the boats are headed, and they were right.

However, there was also good fishing off Central America too, maybe not as good as off the Gulf of Guayaquil-maybe better for a few boats, but right now the objective of everyone is a pure economic one, and that is you only get paid or fishermen only get paid when he catches fish. It is on a share basis, so you go where the fish are. That is the main motivation among vessels the way we operate.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Mailliard?