part of the Department, increasing shell and seed planting and changes based on biological studies. They were planting shells in deep water, for instance, as they do in Delaware, Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico Sound. They were getting no results. After we went into the area and looked it over, we found there was a great preponderance of enemies, because of the predatory activities, the oysters were killed. S we changed the system of management from planting in the deep wat r to the intertidal waters where they fall to the sun and the air, and as a result we have had an increased production. The county produced last year, 75 percent of all of the oysters in North Carolina.

We have indications of potentials that exist for the other fisheries; we have recently had the development of swordfishing in the Dare County area. A few years ago exploratory fishing was conducted by the Silver Bay of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and pinpointed a bed of clams near Beaufort Inlet. Over a million pounds of clams were harvested in the first year.

There is a scallop potential offshore, in the ocean, at 18 to 20 fathoms off Core Banks. One season close to a quarter of a million pounds were harvested.

Off New Hanover County, the fishermen have been fishing for sea bass out in the ocean. The production in the past 5 years has jumped from 40,000 to 60,000 pounds to over 1,200,000 pounds. The fish had been there all the time but they had never gone after them. We have indications of red snapper being out there in abundance. A few years ago we had one fisherman who caught close to a quarter of a million pounds.

With a little support in many instances we could follow up these potentials and bring them to the attention of the fishermen. They are hesitant to doing some of this sort of work.

In addition to the marine laboratories, in looking at the coastal State fisheries departments prior to 1940, the departments seemed to be confronted with the enforcement of a multitude of rules, regulations and statutes, laws which were generally restrictive in nature, often based on suppositions and emotions or fostered by pressure groups and selfish interests. We see today that the States have what we would consider a healthy attitude, a different outlook of fishery problems, they are more concerned with the proper utilization of the resources, with better public relations, the enforcement has been enhanced by the training of personnel, by increased staff, by such things as vessels with two-way radios and planes to cover greater areas in this case.

There is a need in the States for cooperative programs because migratory fish do not recognize State lines and boundaries. This has been the function of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and we have within our own biological areas groups that are concerned with this particular type of problem and we are cooperating together on studies of this nature.

Thank you.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Dr. Chestnut.

Mr. L. W. Gurkin, a member of the Conservation and Development Board, with the Commercial Fisheries Committee.

Mr. Gurkin.

STATEMENT OF L. W. GURKIN, MEMBER, CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES COMMITTEE

Mr. GURKIN. Mr. Rodgers and I prepared the statement he gave, and I believe that expressed my thoughts.

I would like to say there is a tremendous need for this development and research. Right off our coast alone, the swordfishing, that alone would justify research and development. Some of these boats are bringing in a $5,000 catch in one trip.

Mr. LENNON. Some of those fish have gotten to Washington. Mr. Bonner brought some up. He has not had us over to dinner yet. Mr. GURKIN. Good. He has more now.

Mr. LENNON. We will be delighted to hear from Dr. David Adams, the Commissioner of Commercial Fisheries of North Carolina. Doctor, we welcome you. I will take the opportunity to welcome you to North Carolina in your position. I have not seen you before.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID ADAMS, COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

Dr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am David Adams, Commissioner of Fisheries for the State of North Carolina.

Dr. Chestnut and Mr. Rodgers have quite adequately, I think, covered the State's viewpoint on this subject. I will rapidly inject a few points here.

I represent the Division of Commercial Fisheries of the State of North Carolina. North Carolina has recognized the neeed for research in all aspects of commercial fishing, and has, through the years, sponsored a number of projects aimed at solving some of the vast number of biological problems which hamper the intelligent management of our estuarine and marine resources. We have recently embarked on an expanded program in this area, and are now in the process of adding personnel trained in fisheries biology to our staff. During the last session of the North Carolina General Assembly, $50,000 was appropriated for research in areas affecting commercial fisheries.

If we are to intelligently manage the fisheries resources of our more than 3,000 square miles of sounds and estuaries, our more than 300 miles of coastline, and the deeper adjacent waters offshore, we urgently need solutions to a number of pressing problems. We need to know much more about the productivity of our vast menhaden, shad, striped bass, croaker, and shrimp nursery areas. We need to know how this productivity has been affected in the past, and might be affected in the future, by overharvesting, by pollution, by use of adjacent lands, and by existing and planned coastal industries. We must learn much more about the populations of bottom and pelagic fishes found offshore, and how they may be efficiently harvested. We need to develop new and better means of processing our raw product into a more acceptable market item.

I feel that the provisions of S. 627 and H.R. 5539 will go a long way toward helping us find the answers to these, and the many other problems we now have before us and which we can expect to develop in the future, and therefore add my endorsement of the above bills to that already expressed by the North Carolina Board of Conservation

and Development in resolution (submitted earlier to this committee) urging their prompt passage.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you very much, Dr. Adams.

Mr. Bonner, I know you want to interrogate our friends from North Carolina.

Mr. BONNER. Doctor, referring to page 5 of the Senate report, "calculated apportionment of funds under the Commercial Fisheries Resource and Development Act of 1963." Have you any observation to make about whether or not this table reflects what should be apportioned among the States should this become a law and an appropriation be made for it?

The fish that will be harvested might be marketed in one area and processed in another.

Dr. CHESTNUT. I am familiar with the report.

There has been, I am certain, a great deal of thought gone into this apportionment and a finding of some equitable means by which each State would receive a justifiable portion. I don't know that I am qualified to answer your question on that particular point.

Mr. BONNER. Well, is it a subject that should be explored?

Dr. CHESTNUT. Of course, personally, in this formula it takes the average value of the raw fish landed and the average value of the manufactured products and combines the two. I feel that you don't have anything to process until you catch something first. You have to have a source of raw material, so that is my own personal feeling, and I might state in supporting this particular legislation and being interested in it, I do not have any assurance or guarantee that our particular laboratory will get 1 cent of this. This would go to the department of conservation and development and they will do with it whatever they please. But I do feel that this would be of tremendous impetus and stimulus to many States.

Mr. BONNER. You raise an interesting question there. The department of conservation and development is broken down into commercial and sport fisheries. Are the commercial and sport fisheries independent of the department of conservation and development?

Mr. RODGERS. They are independent, Mr. Bonner. At one time commercial fisheries and game fisheries were under the department of conservation and development. In 1947, I believe it was, the legislature adopted a bill which established the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and they took over the supervision of inland fishing and hunting, and left us with supervision over the sounds and the sea and the activities of commercial fishermen. We coordinate our activities with the wildlife group arranging on boundaries, fish size to be taken, and where necessary coordinate our regulations with respect to the activities of the law enforcement offices.

At the present time some funds come from the Federal Government, a portion of the tax money that is paid on fishing gear and equipment, and the Federal Government provides that that money shall be directed to only one agency in each State. In our case, when that was first done, when that Federal legislation was passed, the wildlife resources commission was designated as the organization to receive that money for projects which they submitted from year to year and we get none of that money, although the stipulation of the law does provide that it shall be used for both game and commercial fishing.

Actually, except through special grants and appropriations, we do not get any Federal money in the department of conservation and development for fisheries development and research. Neither do we have a research unit in the department of conservation and development under our compact

Mr. BONNER. Dr. Chestnut's branch, does it do research?
Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BONNER. Under this bill then, Dr. Chestnut, the moneys here would go to the department of conservation and development and you do not know whether you would get any at all to do any research program?

Dr. CHESTNUT. That is right. Duke University, North Carolina State College, or any other institution in the State may submit their requests to them, and they might decide they should have the money. In spite of that I still feel it is a good bill.

Mr. BONNER. Does this situation hold true in other States?

Dr. CHESTNUT. I am not certain that it does.

Mr. BONNER. To the cutting up of this money.

Anyway, in your State the research would have to be farmed out to you from the recipient?

Dr. CHESTNUT. That is right.

Mr. BONNER. Which would be your agency?

Mr. RODGERS. Yes.

Mr. BONNER. And this gentleman over here, now, what would his agency get?

Mr. RODGERS. Well, Dr. Adams is the commissioner in charge of our physical activities.

Mr. BONNER. And he would then, under your direction, split up whatever came to North Carolina?

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir, but there is a little provision there, Mr. Bonner, when the institute of fisheries research was set up by compact between the board of conservation and development and the University of North Carolina by Frank Graham, who was then president of the university, Dr. Coker and Roy Hampton, who was then chairman of commercial fisheries, it was decided that since no appropriations had, up to that time, been made directly to us for research by the general assembly, it was decided that the institute of fisheries research would constitute the scientific arm, so to speak, of the department of conservation and development.

Mr. BONNER. Which is that?

Mr. RODGERS. That is Dr. Chestnut's unit, and they do all of our research.

We employed no scientists except Dr. Adams, who is the commissioner of commerical fisheries.

Mr. BONNER. Dr. Chestnut, let me ask you another question

Do you get a grant from the Bureau of Fisheries for anything?
Dr. CHESTNUT. No, sir, we never have.

Mr. BONNER. No aid from the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries-commercial support?

Dr. CHESTNUT. No, we do not. The only grants we have had have been from the National Science Foundation

Mr. BONNER. Not Federal, you are not getting any Federal support at all?

Dr. CHESTNUT. None at all.

Mr. BONNER. Have you made any requests for any?

Dr. CHESTNUT. Not from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
Mr. BONNER. The U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries?

Dr. CHESTNUT. No.

Mr. BONNER. Does Duke University get any?

Dr. CHESTNUT. Yes; they have one project on blue crabs.

Mr. BONNER. Crabs?

Dr. CHESTNUT. That is right.

Mr. BONNER. They get support from the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries?

Dr. CHESTNUT. That is right.

Mr. BONNER. Does any other institution in the State get any program at all?

Dr. CHESTNUT. I believe that is the only one.

Mr. BONNER. I have been interested in one at State College.

Dr. CHESTNUT. Several years ago State College had one on the menhaden in oil fractionation, and I believe Dr. William Hassler at State College is receiving some support now.

Mr. BONNER. Back to this table-well, Mr. Lennon says that he has this under thorough control, so I am going to yield to him and let it come back to him.

Mr. LENNON. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BONNER. He called my attention to this table and I had previously wanted to ask some questions of other witnesses which I overlooked, but I want to ask you now in this Senate report, the same question I have asked others. What has been the cause of our drop to this fifth place at a nation?

Dr. CHESTNUT. Well, I believe you asked Dr. Hargis that same question.

Actually, I believe if we look at our statistics, the total production. in the United States has not dropped so drastically as the other nations have surged ahead of us. I believe that is part of the picture, and then, of course, you are familiar with the situation as it exists in New England where the trawl fishery has been affected by imports. We here, even in North Carolina, have been able to buy imported shrimp cheaper in chainstores than we could at the waterfront. So this has had an influence.

Mr. BONNER. The reason I ask this, it is bothering me whether or not this is the answer to the increased harvest of the sea and marine life; that is, whether this bill is the answer or is the bill pending before the committee with respect to subsidizing fishing vessels and gear the answer; or is the bill proposing to extend over territorial waters in order to protect our marine life the answer. Well, Mr. Lennon will get back to that.

What do you think about it?

Dr. CHESTNUT. I think it has been pointed out earlier in the testimony that there is a woeful lack of information on many of these species and we cannot manage them until we have

Mr. BONNER. I mean this position we are in, whether we are harvesting our share of the sea? Do we need to harvest more?

Dr. CHESTNUT. I believe in the projected estimates of the consumption of seafood in this country, I think it shows that we are going to have to depend more and more upon the sea. So I think from that standpoint, yes.