waters out to 12 miles, it would prohibit two countries, would it not? Mr. KIBRE. Exactly. Mr. LENNON. Is that not exactly what is was designed to do? Mr. KIBRE. Primarily. Mr. LENNON. Thank you very much for your informative and helpful testimony. Mr. KIBRE. Thank you. Mr. LENNON. This will conclude the hearings on the Senate bill 1988, and its companion bills in the House. I understand that there are a number of telegrams and other communications addressed to the committee on this subject, and, without objection, we request that they be inserted in the record at this point. With that, the committee stands adjourned. (The material mentioned follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES ACKERT, PRESIDENT, ATLANTIC FISHERMEN'S UNION OF BOSTON, GLOUCESTER & NEW YORK My name is James Ackert. I am president of the Atlantic Fishermen's Union of Boston, Gloucester & New York. I have been engaged in the fishing industry for a period of 20-odd years, serving as mate and master for the past 16 years. In speaking here today in favor of S. 1988, I will devote myself strictly to the Boston area as Gloucester and New Bedford are represented. Because of the buildup of the Russian fishing fleet off our shores, it is apparent that there must be restrictions on the Russian trawlers if the New England fishing industry is to survive. I suggest setting the Continental Shelf as our fishing limit for foreign nations. With this limit, we can safeguard banks historically fished by our vessels. We could then enter into a "fishing treaty" with Canada. From January 1958 to July 1958, the "Boston fishing fleet" produced 81.7 million pounds of fish. For the same period this year (1963) we produced 66.7 million pounds. The lack of production of fish would be a serious problem in case of a national emergency arising from war on contamination of the atmosphere. Because the Russians have refused to abide by established conservation practices, we must assume that by the practice of using small mesh twine, they will deplete our fishing grounds. The trawler Massachusetts, on August 17, 1963, hauled up a Russian trawl net while they were engaged in groundfish operation. Because of the size of the net, there is no question of the ownership (country) of said trawls. Laced inside of the cod end belly of the trawl net was a small mesh liner. Because of the bulk of Russian trawl net it was impossible to bring the whole net back to port, therefore they removed the liner by cutting it away from the cod end belly and let the rest of the net go. The length of the sweep of this net was between 350 and 400 feet. The Canadian and United States fishing boats do not use nets of this size and the only other nation fishing on Georges are the Russians. I have an affidavit signed by the crew of the Massachusetts to verify this statement. Also, a piece of the twine was brought in by her crew. In the area of the 2000 line (loran bearing) where the Massachusetts picked up the Russian trawl net, there is no whiting or red fish. There was no justification for using small mesh in this area. Herring never go to the bottom around this area to spawn, because the bottom is too hard. In order to lose this net the Russian trawler was engaged in bottom trawling. If he was engaged in midwater trawling he would not have lost his trawl. The Charlotte G, Capt. Henry Duwart, of Provincetown, while dragging 4 miles east-northeast from Pollock Rip Lightship, picked up a Russian trawl with 2,000 pounds of undersized schrod haddock meshed in the net. There was no whiting or herring caught in this net and if the Russians were engaged in catching either of these fish they would also be meshed in the net. The use of this illegal-size mesh is being investigated by Mr. Briggs, Commissioner of LCNAF. A finding of this issue will come in the future. The lack of production on Georges Bank and other banks off our New England shores are of great concern to the people engaged in the New England fishing industry. This condition is already creating hardship to the New England fishing industry, and unless our banks are protected, the outlook for the future does not appear promising. There have been several incidents of harassment of our boats by the Russian fleet. I am sure these will be mentioned in Mr. Lewis' statement. The start of the Russian fleet (after World War II) was with the assistance of the U.S. Government (under the Marshall plan). It would seem that we consider fishing industries important to other nations of the world. Therefore, it must be apparent that we must protect our own fishing industry so that we can help to feed the people of our country in case of any emergency. In regards to the clause allowing foreign vessels to fish within territorial waters and to land its catch in a U.S. port, we, the members of the Atlantic Fishermen's Union, strongly protest this addition to Senate bill 1988. This leaves a door open that has never been open before and for the good of the fishing industry, should never be allowed to be opened. Injury to the New England fishing industry was reported by the Tariff Commission in 1956 due to amount of imports of fish. The situation has not changed any since that date and allowing foreign vessels to land fish in U.S. ports will cause greater hardships on the New England fishing industry. This would be the final blow to a hard-pressed industry. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 20, 1964. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, DEAR CHAIRMAN BONNER: On behalf of the Japan Fishery Society, a trade association composed of representatives of the fishermen, the fish producers and processors of Japan, I appreciate the privilege afforded us today in your acceptance for inclusion in the record our written statement and views on S. 1988, H.R. 8296, H.R. 9957, and H.R. 7954. I would say at the beginning that although Japan does not have a general statute or practice of prohibiting foreign nationals from fishing in territorial waters, we believe it to be settled in international law that any coastal state may exclude foreign nationals from its territorial waters and penalize intrusions therein. Severe sanctions such as appear in this legislation together with a capability of enforcing them will in all probability discourage any intentional violation of territorial waters. We do not feel, however, that it is wise or even necessary at this time to extend the Federal power and these severe sanctions to the vast expanses of the international waters over the Continental Shelf. Briefly stated, our reasons are that we do not find either in the Convention on the Continental Shelf, in the customary international law or in the existing statutes of the United States any agreement at all as to what species of fish or marine animal is contemplated by the terms Continental Shelf fisheries resources appertaining to the United States or fishery resources of the Continental Shelf claimed by the United States. The confusion is particularly noticeable with respect to definitions under article 2, section 4, of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, which, although not yet in effect, is probably the most binding rule on the subject amongst all nations. This point was brought to the attention of members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce of the Senate by the representatives of the Department of State and the Department of the Interior who were asked to assist the committee in its hearings held in September of last year. Strict enforcement by the Federal Government of the Federal law over the vast territories now defined as Continental Shelf could create a great deal of misunderstanding and would, we submit, not be justified in the terms of benefit to the fishing industry of the United States. I should like to state two specific examples. While the limits of the Continental Shelf in the North Atlantic extend several hundred miles off the U.S. coast, it is difficult to see how the United States under any definition of "Continental Shelf fishery resource" could prohibit other nationals from competing with U.S. nationals for fishery resources of high seas. In the case of the king crab fisheries in international waters off Alaska, it is a fact that Japanese fishermen have exploited and developed the king crab fishery exclusively in international waters north of the Aleutians and both the Japanese and the United States fishermen are even now cooperating in efforts under the North Pacific Fisheries Convention looking toward the maintenance of that stock of fish in the North Pacific. I am sure you understand the very serious nature of this particular problem, not only for the Japanese fishermen but for the people of Japan whose very existence is so dependent upon high seas fisheries. I suggest the interests of fishermen of both countries could best be served by continuation of cooperative efforts with respect to the maintenance of the king crab fishery and that you defer your consideration of Continental Shelf fisheries until the problems for the American fishermen are better defined and the applicable law in somewhat of a less confused state. Again, I appreciate your inclusion of our full statement in the record of the hearings. Respectfully submitted. JAPAN FISHERY SOCIETY, STATEMENT OF MR. H. WILLIAM TANAKA, ON BEHALF OF THE JAPAN FISHERY SOCIETY INTRODUCTION This statement is submitted on behalf of the Japan Fishery Society, a trade association of Tokyo, Japan. The society is composed of representatives of both the fishermen and the fish processors of Japan. The statement is submitted because of the very serious problem the enforcement of the legislation in its present form will present to the king crab fishermen of Japan and with the hope that continued cooperative efforts between American and Japanese fishermen in this and other areas may strengthen the feeling of good will between the peoples of the United States and the peoples of Japan-free world allies. THE BASIC POSITION OF JAPAN FISHERY SOCIETY While Japan has no specific law prohibiting foreign nationals from fishing in its territorial waters, it is generally conceded among nations that the territorial waters of a nation are reserved for the exclusive exploitation and development by the nationals of that nation. Thus, reasonable sanctions against unauthorized use of territorial waters appear unquestionably justified in the interest of public order in the community of nations. Therefore, the Japan Fishery Society has no objections to that portion of the legislation under consideration which provides sanctions for the taking of fishery resources within the territorial waters of the United States as long as reasonable precautions are taken to establish that such violations are deliberate and that upon apprehension, foreign nationals are granted those substantive and procedural rights which conform to requirements of international law on the treatment of aliens. In support of this position the society offers its good offices to avoid any misunderstanding among Japanese fishermen and the people of Japan as to the purpose and intent of that portion of the legislation applicable to territorial waters of the United States. With respect to that portion of the legislation providing severe criminal sanctions against foreign nationals "taking of any Continental Shelf fishery resource which appertains to the United States” or “taking fishery resource of the Continental Shelf claimed by the United States," the Japan Fishery Society suggests that neither the Convention on the Continental Shelf, international law, or the legislative history of S. 1988 passed in the Senate contains anything like a consensus as to the species of fish or marine animal covered by the terms applicable to those resources, the taking of which by nationals of other states would constitute a crime under the statutes. Further, it is our belief that the extension of Federal power by Federal law to such a vast expanse as covered by present definitions of the Continental Shelf beyond the territorial waters insofar as it relates to fishery resources would not return a commensurate benefit to the fishing interests of the United States and, on balance, could lead to unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of other nations as to the purpose and intent of the United States in enacting this bill. With specific reference to the possible enforcement against the Japanese king crab fishermen who have exploited and developed almost exclusively the king crab fishery in the high seas north of the Alaskan Peninsula, it is the view of the Japan Fishery Society that under a proper interpretation of the Convention on the Continental Shelf or of international law, king crab is not a specie of fish over which the United States would have exclusive rights to exploit. This view finds support in the apparent difficulty of the drafters of S. 1988 and their advisers in the executive departments to agree upon this specie as a valid object of a criminal taking by nationals of other states. The immediate usefulness to the American fisheries interest of possible enforcement of this statute against this specie is debatable since the Alaskan exploitation of the king crab fishery has been developed in the waters of the Gulf of Alaska south of the Alaskan Peninsula while the Japanese have taken this resource in the high seas area north of the Alaskan Peninsula since 1930, an area which is not being fished by Alaskan fishermen. In the North Atlantic, while the Continental Shelf extends several hundred miles outside territorial waters of the United States it is difficult to see how under any interpretation of international law or the Convention on the Continental Shelf the United States can prohibt other nationals from competing with U.S. nationals for those finny fish resources. It is suggested where arangements already provide for cooperative efforts looking toward continuing productivity of a stock of fish such as the king crab, adherence to these principles will be of greater benefit to American fishermen interested in the exploitation of the king crab and to the interests of all American fishermen, than an attempt to unilaterally exclude the Japanese. The remainder of this statement will consist of analysis and documentation of our basic position using the king crab fishery in the high seas north of the Alaskan Peninsula. THE KING CRAB FISHERY The king crab (Paralithodes camtachatida) like the lobster is a migratory decapod crustacean crawling on the seabed in its adult state. It is found in the cold offshore waters of central and western Alaska, extending from Prince William Sound to the Alaskan Peninsula to the northern part of the East Bering Sea. The spectacular and commercially important feature about king crab is their size. Male crabs with an overall spread of 4 to 5 feet weighing 15 or more pounds are found in waters south of the Alaskan Peninsula. The record weight is 26 pounds. After hatching the crabs pass through various free swimming zoea stages and inhabit the middle and bottom zones of relatively shallow water. The adults are found in depths from 30 to more than 200 meters, depending on the season of the year. With the approach of the breeding season the females precede the males into the shallow water and after breeding both sexes move north toward colder water.1 The greatest distance covered by a tagged crab was in the case of a male which was recovered at a distance of 300 miles from the tagging point.2 Beginning in about 1930 the Japanese king crab fishermen fished in the high seas off of Pribiloff Islands and in the East Bering Sea, to the north of the Alaskan Peninsula. The better fishing for the Japanese lies along the exposed coast of the north side of the Alaskan Peninsula. During much of the season this fishery is a considerable distance offshore. Much adverse weather is experienced and shelter is scanty. Beginning in 1960 Soviet king crab fishermen participated in the fishery in the East Bering Sea, however, up until that time exploitation and development of the king crab was almost exclusively by Japanese fishermen. American fishing in the area has been negligible. For several years prior to 1930 occasional small packs of king crabs were put up in Cook Inlet by the U.S. fishermen. Increasing exploration of the crab fishery by the Japanese raised serious questions as to whether American interests were making adequate use of the high seas fishery resources. Accordingly, early in 1940 the Congress authorized the Fish and Wildlife Service to make extensive exploration missions to determine if possible and under what circumstances the U.S. fishermen might profitably exploit the king crab resource. 1 See "Growth of Adult Male King Crab," Fishery Bulletin No. 200, from Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service, vol. 62. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries; "Edible Crabs." Fishery Leaflet No. 471, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. 2 "Canned Crab Industry of Japan," Fishery Leaflet No. 314, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, p. 15. Three fishing vessels and a floating cannery were employed, and during 10 months in the field, explored likely areas from southeastern Alaska to within sight of Siberia. Except for poor results around the Pribiloffs, the areas of greatest abundance in the Bering Sea were found to coincide very closely with the Japanese floating canneries reported in Alaskan waters during the late thirties. King crab operations by U.S. fishermen commenced on a significant commercial basis after World War II and exploitation of the king crab has been confined almost exclusively to the Gulf of Alaska south of the Alaskan Peninsula. The Japanese king crab fisheries are operated under Japanese Government regulations which restrict the taking of king crab by its fishermen in the high seas north of the Alaskan Peninsula. Some of these restrictions now in force to protect the king crab resources include: (a) Prohibition against the taking of the female of the species; (b) prohibition of the taking of the male adult measuring a carapace width of less than 13 centimeters; (c) prohibition against the use of tangle net with a mesh size of less than 50 centimeters; (d) limitation of total catch to be taken in the high seas off the coast of Alaska.* The king crab has been designated by marine biologists as "stock of fish" in the North Pacific under the regime of the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to that convention a request for study of the South East Bering Sea king crab stock was made to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission by the U.S. Government in February 1954. These investigations are going forward with the cooperation of the contracting parties to these investigations scientists of each nation conduct research on fishing on vessels of both nations.5 Alaska fishermen took a record 77 million pounds of king crabs in 1963-24 million pounds more than in the previous record year 1962. Production of these shellfish by Americans fishing in the Gulf of Alaska has increased spectacularly in recent years, reaching a total estimated at $13 million in processed and frozen crab in 1963. 6 In order to properly evaluate the effect of this legislation, it will be helpful to define the term "Continental Shelf." It should be noted that there are actually two definitions-a geological-geographical one and the legal definition as finally formulated in article I of the Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958. The geological-geographical definition used by scientists emphasizes that the shelf is a submarine extension of the "continent" outward into the sea; a kind of pedestal on which the continents seem to rest in the ocean lying between the shore and the first substantial fall off, on the seaward side, whatever its depth. This submarine plain which fringes all of the continents, at varying widths from the shore, slopes gradually in most instances out to an edge at which the superjacent water is approximately 200 meters or 100 fathoms deep. A standard definition is: "The zone around the continent, extending from the low-water line to the depth at which there is a market increase of slope to greater depth. Where this increase occurs, the term shelf edge is appropriate. Conventionally, its edge is taken at 100 fathoms, or 200 meters, but instances are known where the increase of slope occurs at more than 200 or less than 65 fathoms. ****7 The legal definition of the International Law Commission (ILC) in 1956 and incorporated into the Convention on the Continental Shelf as article 1 varies significantly: "For the purpose of these articles, the term "Continental Shelf" is used as referring (a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas; (b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands." U.S. Tariff Commission, "Crab Meat Report to the President," Rept. No. 147. 1961 Annual Report of International North Pacific Fisheries Commission; Growth of the Adult Male King Crab, op. cit., at pp. 1 and 2. Advance report on the fisheries of the United States, 1963, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, C.F.S. No. 3450, p. 10; testimony of William A. Ritter, Alaskan King Crab Institute, Inc., before U.S. Tariff Commission, Dec. 11, 1963, transcript. pp. 549 and 550. ? International Committee on the Nomenclature of Ocean Bottom Features, reported in vol. 1, No. 1, Deep Sea Research (published by Wiseman & Ovey), at pp. 11-16 (October 1953). |