abhor the idea of ceasing whaling activities.

Although South Korea, the Philippines, Peru, Brazil, Spain, and Iceland have all agreed to comply with the moratorium, many of them would certainly approach the U.S. to make a special arrangement to continue whaling if Japan is allowed to. It has been entirely appropriate for the U.S. to take the initiative to strengthen the enforcement of IWC decisions. It is entirely inappropriate, however, for the U.S. to pursue its present course of unilateral action since the result is the disempowering of the IWC and the renewed specter of unregulated whaling.

The upcoming IWC meeting will be the meeting that determines whether the moratorium will be real or exist only on paper. Assuming the U.S./Japan bilateral deal is overturned by the U.S. courts there are two ploys the hard core whaling nations are likely to attempt to circumvent the moratorium.

The first strategy of Norway and/or Japan will be to introduce a motion to create a third category of whaling called something like "coastal subsistence whaling." These nations will argue that even though their coastal whaling operations are commcercial ventures, they should be exempt from the moratorium, since like the aboriginal subsistence whalers, the communities in which these whaling bases exist are culturally bound and financially dependent on whaling. Norway has broached this subject with the U.S. on several occasions and apparently received a moderately sympathetic response. The U.S. went as far as to communicate with other IWC member nations to explore their potential support for this proposal.

At a

recent special IWC meeting to discuss the future of the commission during the moratorium, Japan and Norway both put this idea on the table. While other countries soundly blasted the notion, the U.S. was apparently silent. This must change.

It is imperative that at the upcoming IWC meeting, the U.S. take an absoultely firm stand against any resolution which would permit even limited commercial whaling. All the other whaling nations, particulary the poorer Latin American countries, could easily put forward their particular harship case for why they should be the exception to the moratorium. If a single country is granted an exemption under any criteria, all nine whaling nations are bound to clamor for special consideration for themselves. If this chain of events was set in motion, the entire moratorium could easily unravel.

The second strategy the whaling nations are likely to attempt to circumvent the moratorium is to issue themselves scientific permits to kill whales under the guise of studying their populations during the moratorium. The commission has agreed to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the whale populations which is due to be completed before the IWC reviews the status of the moratorium around 1990. Reports in the Japanese press indicate that the whalers seem quite confident that even if Japan accepts the moratorium they will be able to stay in business by conducting survey" whaling.

The U.S. should take a lead role at this year's IWC meeting to ensure that Japan and other whaling nations will not be able

to abuse the scientific permit system to circumvent the moratorium.

Benign (non-intrusive) techniques for studying whale populations are now sufficiently advanced that it is not imperative that any whales be killed in order to assess the status of the whale populations.

In conclusion, The HSUS strongly supports the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 54 which expresses the sense of the Congress with respect to implementation of the IWC moratorium. The language of the bill clearly restates an absolute commitment for the U.S. to support the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. We agree with the resolution's points that the U.S./Japan bilateral deal would be a violation of U.S. law and the regulations of the IWC. We agree that the President and Congress should take concrete action to secure compliance by all countries with the IWC moratorium.

Mr. YATRON. Thank you very much, Mr. Plowden, for your statement.

Our final witness on this panel is Dr. Robbins Barstow. Dr. Barstow, please proceed with your statement, sir.

Mr. BARSTOW. Before I begin my statement, Mr. Chairman, in honor of the official State animal of the State of Connecticut, the sperm whale, the Connecticut Cetacean Society would like to present you with a very special whale tie, with the hopes that you might be able to wear it at future hearings on this or related subjects.

[Handing to Chairman.]

Mr. YATRON. Thank you very much, Dr. Barstow, for the beautiful tie with the whale on it. I certainly will put it on the next time we have such a hearing. I am grateful. I will think of your organization and think of this hearing when I wear this tie. Thank you very, very much. It is very nice.

STATEMENT OF ROBBINS BARSTOW, VOLUNTEER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONNECTICUT CETACEAN SOCIETY

Mr. BARSTOW. I am Robbins Barstow, the volunteer executive director of the Connecticut Cetacean Society [CCS]. Cetacean is the scientific name for all whales, dolphins and porpoises, a whole family of marine mammals, with over 80 different species, and it is easier to refer to them all as cetaceans.

The Connecticut Cetacean Society is a small, all-volunteer organization with only 300 dues paying members and no regular office

or paid staff. Our headquarters are in my home in Wethersfield. But we do have members all over the United States and volunteer representatives in 13 foreign countries. Our publications are circulated worldwide. I have attended myself, as a delegate, or as an observer for the CCS, all of the last six meetings of the International Whaling Commission, and I participate in all of the IWC interagency committee meetings here in Washington. In 1983 the Connecticut Cetacean Society was the initiator and coordinator of a Global Conference on the Nonconsumptive Utilization of Cetacean Resources, held in Boston, and commonly referred to as the "Whales Alive" Conference.

Now, I wish to comment first on the exchange of letters between the United States and Japanese Governments with respect to Tokyo's compliance with the IWC's ban on commercial whaling. My views on this bilateral agreement were expressed in an article published in the Hartford Courant on December 14, 1984, a reprint of which I have attached to my written statement and which I would like to have included in the record of this hearing.1

Mr. YATRON. Without objection, Dr. Barstow.

Mr. BARSTOW. Mr. Chairman, whales are unique. Unlike land animals, their living space does not fall within national boundaries. Their dwelling place is the global commons, the oceans of the world, which do not belong to any one nation. Whales are not national resources to be exploited at will by any particular country. Whales are part of the common heritage of all humankind. As such, they require collective custody.

The collective agency universally recognized as the appropriate international organization for the conservation, management and study of whales in particular is the International Whaling Commission.

The Connecticut Cetacean Society opposes the November, 1984 U.S.-Japanese agreement precisely because it directly abrogates key determinations made by the IWC. Two individual nations cannot be allowed to effectuate a separate, bilateral agreement contravening a collective IWC ruling. We simply must uphold the multinational decisions of the IWC to maintain the integrity and even the survival of this body as the only organization capable of protecting and preserving the great whales of our planet on a global basis.

For this same reason, the Connecticut Cetacean Society strongly supports House Concurrent Resolution 54, introduced by Representative Bonker and yourself, Chairman Yatron, with the support, we are proud to say, of Connecticut's Congressman Sam Gejdenson. The United States must uphold and enforce with economic sanctions, if necessary, the moratorium, because it was overwhelmingly voted by representatives of the great majority of the peoples of the world at the IWC meeting in 1982.

In support of this position, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the subcommittee at this time a set of petitions collected in recent months by the Connecticut Cetacean Society with hundreds of signatures from all over the United States and even from as far

1 See app. 19.

away as Argentina, Australia, India, and West Germany, urging the United States to uphold the moratorium.

Mr. YATRON. Thank you very much, Dr. Barstow. It looks like it is pretty voluminous.

Mr. BARSTOw. Thank you.

Finally, I wish to express an extremely serious concern in relation to the preparations of the U.S. Government for this year's annual meeting of the IWC.

I have written an article entitled "Save the Whale: Save the IWC," which has been published in the Connecticut Cetacean Society's small magazine, "Whales Etcetera", and which I would also like to have included in the record.1

Mr. YATRON. Without objection.

Mr. BARSTOW. This article stresses the many functions and activities which must be carried out by the IWC even after the moratorium goes into effect.

We are at a crucial turning point in the history of the IWC and of the relationship between whales and human beings. The world is finally declaring peace for the whales-paz para las ballenas—at least for a period of a few years. The IWC now is more important than ever to maintain the collective, protective custody of all whales. It requires more support, not less support, now that commercial whaling is ending. We need the IWC strong and viable to oversee the moratorium and to study the status of living whales throughout the world. To do this, the IWC must continue to hold regular annual meetings.

Now, at the suggestion of the United States at last year's IWC meeting, a working group was set up on the future activities of the IWC. They met in Cambridge, United Kingdom, in February and issued a preliminary report which is going to be considered at this year's meeting. I think it is an excellent report, outlining at least 10 specific major areas of future activity for the IWC. However, in the face of increasing financial difficulties, the report lists several possible cost-saving reductions, including the holding of IWC meetings every other year instead of annually.

The Connecticut Cetacean Society is urging the U.S. Government and nongovernmental organizations to take the strongest possible stand in support of continuing annual meetings of the IWC. Too much can happen during a 2-year period to disrupt or undermine the moratorium. It must be monitored and reported on annually. We must continue to focus the attention of the world at least once a year on the state of the whales. This can only be done through annual meetings of the IWC. We must not proclaim that keeping whales alive is less important than keeping them dead.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I wish to urge your subcommittee to amend House Resolution 54 by adding the following provision as a further expression of the sense of the Congress:

(5) to maintain the International Whaling Commission as a viable and effective organization for the conservation, management, and study of whales, particularly during the critical period while the moratorium comes into effect, the United States should support the continued holding of annual IWC meetings, and take appropriate action to assure requisite funding for such meetings.

1 See app. 11.