annually accounts for approximately 43 percent of the total U.S. landings of all species of fish, whales and shellfish included. Last year, for example, when the total U.S. landings were 5.24 billion pounds, menhaden landings alone were 2.2 billion pounds. The fishing vessels employed in the menhaden fishery are among the largest and finest in the U.S. domestic fishing fleet. The largest ones are over 180 feet in length and, with modern refrigeration installed aboard, they have a replacement value at today's cost of approximately a half million dollars. 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. In addition, because of its size and requirements, it afford numerous jobs and employment opportunities in allied industries such as shipbuilding and repairs, in the manufacturing of engines and other marine and fishing equipment, in the fuel oil business and in other fields. The menhaden fishery is strictly a coastal fishery, largely confined to the shallow, 3- to 12-mile strip of waters along our coastal area. Most of the fishing is conducted within 3 miles of shore with exception occurring in the late fall months off the North Carolina coast as the fish move south along the coast and pass on out to sea, where they become lost to the fishery until the following spring. The fishing season therefore is largely confined to the spring, summer, and fall months. This brief summary of the menhaden fishery and the industry it supports has been given in the interest of letting you know why we are so extremely interested in preserving and maintaining the fisheries surrounding our coastal shores strictly for our own U.S. citizens. With the menhaden resource susceptible to capture within the narrow strip of water surrounding our shores, we are wholeheartedly in support of whatever legislation may be necessary to prevent poaching by foreigners on this domestic resource. We feel that S. 1988 is a step in the right direction, particularly, from the standpoint of providing the Coast Guard and other governmental agencies with the authority they need for carrying out and enforcing the provision with respect to our territorial seas. We favor the proposed changes suggested by Admiral Roland of the Coast Guard to strengthen the bill from the standpoint of enforcement. However, we are opposed to the addition to the bill suggested by witnesses for the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the State Department that would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue permits to foreign vessels to engage in fishing within our territorial seas, or for the catch of such vessels to be landed in our ports. For many reasons, this seems unwise. Certainly, we do not know of any fishery resource within our territorial seas that we would wish to invite foreign vessels and fishermen in to explore or harvest. Our present problem seems to be that of determining a means of preserving the fishery resources within our territorial seas for the benefit of our own citizens. 1 Our commercial fishing industry in some areas now has a very difficult time in its own preservation in view of the great pressure by sports fishermen and resort operators to drive it from accustomed fishing grounds. Certainly, any foreign vessel invited in or permitted to fish would only aggravate this situation. Although our industry is one of the oldest domestic fishing industries, 1961 and 1962 were record years. We are confident there will be other record years if we can maintain and preserve the domestic fishery resources surrounding our coasts for our own citizens. We will strongly support whatever legislation is called for to do this. Thank you. J. STEELE CULBERTSON, Director, Industrial Products Division, National Fisheries Institute, Inc. Hon. E. L. Bartlett, STATE OF ALASKA, SENATE. DEAR BOB: May I add my voice of support in favor of S. 1988. In my service as an adviser to the American section of the INPFC, the last 2 vears as chairman of the advisory group, I can certainly vouch for the need of such legislation. The retention of the "Continental Shelf" portion of the bill is of utmost importance. Action this session is most necessary. ALFRED A. OWEN. Re hearing on S. 1988. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senator E. L. BARTLETT, WAKEFIELD FISHERIES, Port Wakefield, Alaska, September 4, 1963. Presiding Officer, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I firmly believe the measure before you for discussion is one of the most significantly constructive proposals placed before the Congress on a fishery matter in a long time. Legislation of this type is vital if we are to protect the most elementary rights of our fishermen. Whereas we here in Alaska may feel this problem more acutely than others at the moment, I feel sure it will meet with the approval of the U.S. fishing industry on all coasts. The threat is a bit further off in some areas, but the need is the same. I would like to appear personally in support of such a fine piece of legislation, but a trip next week to Tokyo on matters not unrelated interferes. Sincerely, LOWELL WAKEFIELD, President. ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As chairman of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, I have been directed to inform your committee this commission strongly endorses S. 1988. This commission is composed of the 15 Atlantic Coastal States, who are responsible for management of their States fishery resources. Several months ago, your committee heard testimony from members of this commission, in support of S. 627. We are very grateful for your efforts in securing passage in the Senate of this important legislation. S. 1988 is also a very important piece of legislation. Years ago, when there was no threat to the domestic fishery from foreign intrusion, there was no need for Federal regulation providing stiff penalties. This situation has changed. Today we find a Russian fishing fleet fishing the entire length of our east coast, and with no penalties provided for fishing inside the State jurisdictional waters, it is absurd to think these limits will not be violated. State departments responsible for management of their fishery resources are keenly aware that good management depends on knowledge gained through research. Scientific management often requires restrictions to be placed on certain types of fishing gear to relieve pressure on certain species of fish. How could this be accomplished, if the area is invaded by foreign fishing vessels over whom we have no control other than to order them offshore? S. 1988 also has another important provision. This permits the Federal Government to delegate authority to the State agency responsible for enforcement of State regulations to enforce this Federal statute. Most, if not all, of the States have very efficient marine police and coastal patrol units. These enforcement bodies would be very effective, in aiding the Coast Guard, who are admittedly undermanned, to prevent violations. This commission is also in complete accord with the provision dealing with the Continental Shelf. We believe that any species that is not completely mobile in water should be considered in the same category as clams and oysters. This would include lobsters, whose ability to move is very limited. Also scallops who, while they have the ability to move, have no means of directing their movement. Respectfully, DAVID H. HART, Chairman. Senator BARTLETT. The hearing is now adjourned. (Whereupon, the hearing in the above matter was adjourned at 12 noon, to reconvene in closed session at 3 p.m., the same day.) OF OCT 23 1963 MAIN READING ROOM 22-289 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE UNITED STATES SENATE EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON TRADE PATTERNS IN THE PACIFIC AREA APRIL 17 AND 18, 1963 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) Serial 32 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1963 |