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 PRODUCTS DIVISION, NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, INC. 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 the regulation and conservation of these fishery resources, in most cases, rests entirely with the States. Neither would it seem that the Congress would wish to enact legislation which, if put into use, would be sure to be a source of resentment by the fishermen and other citizens of the States. Unless and until it can be demonstrated that the welfare of the U.S. domestic fisheries, and by this we mean the majority interest of all our domestic fisheries, is going to be benefited by inviting or authorizing foreign fishermen and foreign vessels to enter and fish within our 3-mile territorial waters limit, and to sell their catch in our ports, we strongly urge that the Congress refrain from enacting any legislation for this purpose. As stated in our testimony in the Senate hearing, we wholeheartedly support the provision of S. 1988 that would levy penalties against foreign fishermen who fish in our territorial waters, including subjecting the vessels and gear used to forfeiture. The enactment of such legislation is certainly called for and would be beneficial to our domestic fishing industry and the governmental agencies charged with the responsibility of preventing fishing in our territorial waters by foreigners. Thank you. That concludes my statement. The CHAIRMAN. You object to the issuance of a permit to fish within the 3-mile limit to a foreign vessel? Mr. CULBERTSON. Yes, sir; our segment of the industry very much objects to that. The CHAIRMAN. That is provided for in S. 1988. Mr. CULBERTSON. That is correct. I objected to that at the time this amendment was added when this bill was before the Senate, Mr. Chairman. I guess I am the only one who did. The CHAIRMAN. What else do you object to in this bill? The CHAIRMAN. Would you suggest anything other than what is provided for in the present bill? Mr. CULBERTSON. Not in this particular bill. We think it is urgent, Mr. Chairman, that laws with teeth in them be enacted immediately in order to give our enforcement people a means of coping with the foreign vessels that are violating our law by fishing inside our territorial waters. The CHAIRMAN. You talk here about putting a penalty on those who come within the 3-mile limit, a Federal penalty. What would you suggest the preservation of the State law so that the Federal law would not supersede the State law? Mr. CULBERSON. I see no reason why the Federal Government should not exercise its power to help enforce such a law. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tollefson. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Your concern is with commercial fisheries and not recreational sport fisheries? Mr. CULBERTSON. The interests I represent, Mr. Tollefson, are the commercial fishing interests, and I speak for them. Mr. TOLLEFSON. So that, speaking for them, you would have no obiection to the issuance of licenses for recreational fishing? Mr. CULBERTSON. I did not take that up with my members, sir. suspect that if they were familiar with the newly proposed amend ment they would not see much point to it. I did not take that up with them. Mr. TOLLEFSON. There are some areas where there is a considerable amount of sports fishing, interchange, so to speak, of sport fishermen from Canada coming into the United States, and vice versa. Do you personally see any objection to permitting Canadians or anybody else coming into our waters for sports fishing purposes only? Mr. CULBERTSON. I certainly do not, because we enjoy good fishing in their waters. I have fished in them and you have, I am sure. Any regulation you make respecting permits for such fishing, I would suggest it be taken up with the State agencies responsible for those types of regulations and leave the Federal Government out of it. Mr. TOLLEFSON. There has been one problem pointed out during the course of these hearings relative to the situation confronting our fishermen who, I understand, must obtain permits or licenses for fishing within the territorial waters of Central and South American countries. There is a concern on their part to the effect that, unless we have some kind of reciprocity arrangement in the legislation, if it is a strict bill, it might be seized upon as an excuse to discriminate against our fishermen off the shores of Central and South America. Do you take the position that we should have no provision whatever in the bill with respect to licenses of foreign fishermen in our territorial waters? Mr. CULBERTSON. With respect to the 3-mile limit, I would take that position. I am familiar with the fact that certain U.S. fishing interests have fished in waters claimed by other nationals for many years. The people who engage in that fishing, have gotten permits from the countries involved, and they started getting permits many years ago, and they will continue to get them. This has been taking place for all these years without any licensing provision in our laws for foreigners. Why all of a sudden, when it becomes necessary to place penalties in our laws, must we assume this would have any effect on such arrangements? We have not changed our law in any other respect. I see no reason why they cannot continue to get their permits. Now, there are many fishing infractions that a fisherman might be arrested for beside violating territorial limits of a foreign country. As I have just stated, in Alaska there were 700 of our own fishermen arrested for violating the State laws. When you purchase a license to go into another country and fish, you might get picked up if you violate some of the laws that they expect their own fishermen to abide by. Sometimes, fishermen, in the heat of fishing, find it pretty difficult to remember what some of these laws are and they disregard them. Maybe some of their difficulties arise from these type of violations. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Do your people fish off the shores of any other country? Mr. CULBERTSON. They do not. As I mentioned, most of the fishing for this tremendous resource is within the 3-mile limit. Mr. TOLLEFSON. So, if there was a reciprocity arrangement of some kind, it would not affect you because your people do not fish off the shores of any foreign country? Mr. CULBERTSON. No, sir. Mr. TOLLEFSON. This is a kind of an aside, but I am curious about your statement to the effect that the various States on the Atlantic |