Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

CANNERY WORKERS & FISHERMEN'S UNION,
San Diego, Calif., February 17, 1964.

Congressman HERBERT C. BONNER,

Chairman, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BONNER: In conversation with August Felando, who is manager of the American Tunaboat Association in San Diego, I was advised that a recent report on Senate bill 1988 contains a provision wherein fish caught by a foreign-flag vessel would be allowed to deliver their catch directly to American ports under certain conditions.

This comes as quite a surprise to us as we were present on the Senate side when S. 1988 was being heard, and nothing to this effect was talked about or even contemplated to my knowledge.

The Cannery Workers & Fishermen's Union is strongly opposed to any such piece of legislation, as this would merely further aggravate the problem of foreign fish landing at unfair competitive prices in the United States.

When this bill comes before your committee, we would respectfully urge you to delete that part which allows any landing of foreign fish directly from a foreign fishing vessel into the United States.

Sincerely,

CANNERY WORKERS & FISHERMEN'S UNION,
LESTER BALINGER, Secretary-Treasurer.

BEAUFORT FISHERIES, INC., Beaufort, N.C., February 14, 1964.

Congressman HERBERT C. BONNER,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BONNER: There is much consolation among many people in the field of commercial fisheries now that congressional action is pending on several important bills regarding fisheries. Senate bill 1006-the fishing vessel subsidy bill; Senate bill 627-the fisheries research and development bill; Senate bill 1988-the bill to protect domestic fisheries from foreign encroachment, and others, all are past due, and should add much to the restoration of fisheries to its proper place in the U.S. economy.

It is my understanding that hearings are being held, before your committee (Merchant Marine and Fisheries), and that strong justification will be presented for favorable action. Too, it is my understanding that S. 1988, as it is presently written, does not effect adequate penalty for encroachment nor does it adequately restrict our waters. Frankly, the sooner we keep the foreigners out of all of our waters, the better. Should there be requests that "upon application" certain of the foreign operations be allowed may I recommend that such weaknesses be opposed. Any legislation with loopholes such as this probability amounts to no legislation at all.

The strength of domestic fisheries has already been overlooked. There is a daily crying need for the type of legislation now under consideration. Your strong and dedicated efforts are appreciated.

Yours very truly,

WM. H. POTTER.

AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN

Hon. T. ASHTON THOMPSON,

OF NORTH AMERICA, Chicago, Ill., October 7, 1963.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. THOMPSON: We understand that H.R. 7954, a bill to prevent fishing in territorial water in the United States by persons other than U.S. nationals or inhabitants, is before your subcommittee. This bill was approved by the Senate last week.

We believe this measure is extremely important to the welfare of the fishing industry and the fish processing industry of the United States. It is one of the measures necessary to revive this industry, which is currently in serious difficulty. Employment in the seafood processing industry, for example, has seriously dropped, particularly in such important fish processing centers as Gloucester, Mass.

Ultramodern fishing vessels of the Soviet Union, in particular, have been scouring American fishing grounds. These vessels have been so active that they have seriously hampered the fishing operations of American fishing vessels. The activity of the Soviet ships is a primary reason why H.R. 7954 is necessary. We respectfully urged that your committee undertake hearings on H.R. 7954 soon. There was no opposition to this bill in the Senate and there probably will be none in the House. It should be quickly approved by the House. Very truly yours,

President.

THOMAS J. LLOYD,

PATRICK E. GORMAN,

Secretary-Treasurer.

Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,

CALIFORNIA FISH CANNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Terminal Island, Calif., March 9, 1964.

Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BONNER: Your committee recently conducted hearings on S. 1988, a bill to prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States, and in certain other areas, by persons other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States. Lack of adequate notice of the dates of the hearings and conflict with other urgent matters prevented our sending a representative to Washington to testify before your committee. We understand, however, that the record is still open, and we would appreciate your including this letter in the record as a statement of the position of the members of the California Fish Canners Association. The members of this association are not only engaged in the processing of tuna, mackerel, sardines, and other species of fishery products available to them, but many of the members have considerable ownership interest in fishing vessels which operate on the high seas. Some of the vessels owned by members of this association have been involved in the several seizures by Latin American countries for alleged violation of their territorial waters, and the owners of these vessels have paid substantial fines in order to obtain release of their very valuable fishing vessels.

The members of this association are in accord with the intent and purpose of S. 1988.

We understand the entire fishing and fish processing industry of the United States, and the several concerned Government agencies, are likewise in accord with the general objectives of the measure.

There has been a tremendous growth of high seas fishing effort by foreign fleets off our coasts in the past 2 or 3 years. We feel this effort will neither abate nor remain constant in the future, but will continue to increase. Certainly, without some sort of preventive authority coupled with attendant penalties, foreign vessels will be tempted to fish closer and closer to U.S. shores. With the recognized efficiency of some of the foreign fleets, it would be no problem for them to make an inshore swing along a section of our coasts and practically wipe out a local stock of fish in a very short time. Under present U.S. law they would be risking nothing except the possibility of being ordered back to the high seas by our Coast Guard.

The fact that under existing law the Coast Guard can only "invite out" any foreign vessel caught fishing in our territorial waters is rather absurd. Every country in the Americas, except the United States, has laws that provide penalties for such violations. The jurisdictional right to adopt and enforce such laws is clearly spelled out in international law and has been further validated by international practice.

The penalty portion of the bill is certainly in line with those prescribed in the laws of other countries that cover this situation. Since most of the sanctions contained in S. 1988 are permissive rather than mandatory, the amount of penalty levied against a violator would be left to the judging authority whose decision

would be guided by the circumstances surrounding the detention of a vessel held to be in violation.

The provision for allowing the licensing of a foreign vessel to fish in the territorial waters of the United States is not objectionable to our people as long as adequate safeguards to protect our industry's welfare are retained in the bill. U.S. fishing vessels have used such licensing privileges, granted by several Latin American countries, for a number of years. However, we do not feel a foreign fishing vessel should be allowed to land its catch in a port of the United States. Such a provision would be in direct contravention to existing U.S. law, which we do not wish to see modified.

We would not object, however, to a foreign-flag research vessel landing its catch in a port of the United States provided that such vessel was engaged in a joint ocean research project to which the United States was a party. This might possibly accommodate situations that could arise during the proposed U.N. Special Fund research program to be initiated in the Caribbean. This would offer an opportunity for such a research vessel to sell its incidential catch of fish on the fresh market in a port close to its area of operation, thereby helping to defray part of the operating costs of the ship.

We agree with the testimony of the Departments of State and Interior concerning the resources of the Continuental Shelf. It is our feeling that language should be used qualifying those shelf resources which the United States might claim, if such resources are retained in the licensing provision of the bill.

It has come to our attention that certain suggestions have possibly been made about using this vehicle for the extension of the territorial sea claimed by the United States. We would strongly object to the inclusion of any language which would purport to accomplish this objective. It is our understanding that if in the national interest it is found to be desirable to extend the breadth of the territorial sea claimed by the United States, the President has ample authority to do so. We question seriously, however, whether it is necessary to claim any extension of the breadth of the territorial sea beyond the 3 miles now claimed by the United States, or whether it is in the national interest to claim any extension of fishery jurisdiction beyond 3 miles.

The whole question of fishery jurisdiction is the subject of lively discussion among many nations of the world at the present time, and while it may later prove to be in the national interest to extend unilaterally or by multilateral agreement the breadth of fishery jurisdiction, we believe that question can best be answered at a later date.

We appreciate the attention your committee has been giving to this very important subject and we believe this legislation is both needed and timely, and we urge favorable action along the lines indicated above.

Yours sincerely,

CHAS. R. CARRY, Executive Director.

Mr. HERBERT C. BONNER,

SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., March 2, 1964.

Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BONNER: Sport Fishing Institute wishes to register a statement to be included in the written record of testimony for public witnesses on the hearings recently held on S. 1988 (as approved by the Senate in October 1963). This bill as passed by the Senate would prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States, and in certain other areas by persons other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States. The Sport Fishing Institute supports this delimiting concept but does not concur in some of the recent amendments presented to your subcommittee.

Sport Fishing Institute, the only national, nongovernmental, nonprofit, professionally staffed fish conservation organization believes that the right to fish in and regulate the fisheries pertaining to those territorial waters within the 3mile limit belong specifically to the States under proper guidance and direction by the Federal Government. We do not feel that the waters are boundless in their ability to carry large populations of both game, commercial, and forage fishes. New techniques and equipment are being developed continuously to

enable the American fisherman to harvest this natural resource which is historically his, both from the commercial and sport fishing standpoint. We do not feel that foreign-flag vessels should be permitted to encroach, any more than they already have, into these territorial waters of the United States.

It is understood that reciprocity to sport fishermen, principally from the Canadian waters in the Puget Sound area of Washington, the Detroit River, and Lake St. Clair area of Michigan, and the St. Lawrence River and Seaway in the northeastern part of the United States may have some merit as long as the States retain jurisdictional control over the alien licensing of the sport fisherman. To recapitulate our general thoughts and feelings on the above, let me state that Sport Fishing Institute does not concur in relaxing or liberalizing either commercial or sport fishing in the territorial waters of the United States to permit increased take of fishes by foreign-flag vessels.

Kindly register this as our statement concerning the House version of S. 1988, and proposed amendments.

Sincerely,

PHILIP A. DOUGLAS, Executive Secretary.

Mr. HERBERT C. BONNER,

THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA,
Glenview, Ill., March 4, 1964.

House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In connection with S. 1988. Our position parallels that expressed by Mr. Philip A. Douglas, executive secretary, of the Sport Fishing Institute in his letter to you dated March 2, 1964.

Sincerely yours,

J. W. PENFOLD, Conservation Director IWLA.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee adjourned, subject to the

call of the Chair.)

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »