Mr. DINGELL. Let us talk a little bit about that. That is a very interesting point:

I would appreciate it if you gentlemen as our experts down there would tell us. You say here those States with resident populations with marine mammals now have in effect appropriate regulationswould you tell us what species?

First of all, is it not a fact that before you can have a regulation that you have to have knowledge of population levels and age groups, mortality, length of life, and the harvest and, of course, the entire area of residency, migration, and population?

Is that not a necessity?

Mr. POLLOCK. I think that is correct.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you name us the species of animals, marine mammals on which any State has that kind of information?

Mr. POLLOCK. I do not know what information the States might have at this point. We could certainly inquire and provide it.

Mr. DINGELL. I am curious to know is there any species of marine mammal on which this kind or volume of information is available to us?

Mr. POLLOCK. I do not know.

The State of Alaska, as I indicated in the letter to the secretary, has a staff or biologists trained in marine mammal work which is second in size only to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Mr. DINGELL. Second to the National Marine Fisheries Service? Mr. POLLOCK. I am saying we have a lot of biologists.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you folks have any information on any populations of marine mammals with the exception of fur seals?

Mr. POLLOCK. I am sure we do.

Mr. DINGELL. I would like for you at this time to name it for us. Mr. POLLOCK. Mr. Terry says whales.

Mr. DINGELL. Some people tell us the population on the fur seal is not correct. Can you name us any other species?

Mr. POLLOCK. Well, Mr. Terry mentions whales.

Mr. DINGELL. All right, I want you to give us the name of any whale that you have population figures on within 500. Just name one species.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am not at all sure that we have population figures on any type of whale within 500.

Mr. DINGELL. What is the magnitude of plus or minus error on whale populations, then?

Mr. TERRY. I am not prepared to say.

We have prohibited the taking of whales by Americans. We are satisfied with the information that we have that a number of these whales are in a very dangerous condition.

Mr. DINGELL. Well, I am still waiting for somebody to tell me. You have got blue whales, maybe 3,600 and in 1930 to 1940 there were 100.

Fin back, there were 400,000. Today there are 100,000.

These are the best figures we can get.

The sperm whale, 600,000 for the same period and today it is down to perhaps 50,000. This is an endangered species.

The humpback whale was 100,000 and is down to 2,000.

Now, the blue whale, I do not know what the population is, but it is a relatively small thing.

You indicated here that we have a situation which dates the resident populations of marine mammals already in effect.

If you do not know the population of these marine mammals, how are you going to tell us the regulations are adequate or appropriate?

That is the purpose of a good regulation, knowing what the population is. Then you can arrive at the number, what the harvest can be. We do not have the information at hand that is needed, so name these then if you please, one State with resident populations of marine mammals having, in effect, appropriate regulations governing the utilization and appropriateness of these marine mammals.

Mr. POLLOCK. You are making a very flat presumption.

I do not know what each of these States may have and they may have the statistics on them. I am not prepared to say.

It is pretty obvious that if you have regulations over a period of years on a particular mammal and they are available in the area, not scarce, apparently not diminishing, then your regulations must be sufficient or adequate. Almost all wild animal populations are managed through various indicators such as average age and various localized counts of animals. Total population counts necessarily are estimates.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you say that is good regulation practice?
Mr. POLLOCK. No, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Is that the way the folks down at Commerce regulate these marine species? If that be so, maybe that is why we are in trouble. Mr. POLLOCK. Mr. Chairman, we do not have all the information we need on any of these species, I am sure.

This takes time and there are studies that are necessary, but we know by the presence of the animals that some of these animals are not in serious trouble.

Mr. DINGELL. Then you have species that travel the whole of the ocean. The gray whale has a migration that has mystified philosophers and biologists for generations.

The polar bear, nobody knows where he comes from or originates. Seals, thousands and thousands of miles.

The porpoises likewise, and most of your whale species move over incredibly vast areas of the ocean and we know little about their movement and habitat.

This is the precise point. Here you are coming in and telling us we ought to make an exception to the State regulations of species that cover, for example, all of the polar area like the polar bear. Seals migrate hundreds of thousands of miles.

Mr. POLLOCK. We were not talking about pelagic species but rather resident species in the territorial waters only.

Mr. DINGELL. What resident species do you refer to?

Mr. POLLOCK. In Alaska and California, the sea otter or the harbor seals.

Mr. DINGELL. That falls under Interior, and Interior is not protesting this particular section.

Mr. POLLOCK. I am only trying to respond to your questions, sir. Mr. DINGELL. I am trying to get your expertise in coming up with an exception or justification for the section that you allude to here.

Well, thank you very much.

Mr. Potter, any further questions?

Mr. POLLOCK. Mr. Chairman, before we wind it up let me make one point. The point made in that paragraph, it was our feeling that the Congress in its wisdom, in the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 USC 1301 granted to the States certain jurisdiction over living marine resources in their territorial seas.

We are simply saying we do not think it is proper in the conduct of legislation now to reverse that and take it all away if we can work out cooperative programs with the States.

Mr. DINGELL. I am sure you are aware in the bills before us we do have a provision for cooperative management programs, but I am satisfied you understand that perhaps the maximum boundary of the State's jurisdiction is 3 miles.

Mr. POLLOCK. It is today.

Mr. DINGELL. And the probability of expansion of that jurisdiction is most conjectural.

Mr. POLLOCK. But I think in 1973 it will probably go to 12 miles. I am just grabbing at that based on my feeling for the law of the sea. Mr. DINGELL. As author of the 12-mile limit legislation, as the man who handled that inside this committee, I assure you that will be viewed with a very fishy eye in this particular committee.

I give you firm assurances on that point.

Mr. POTTER. I have been in contact with a number of people who speak very highly of Dr. Perrin's work and we want you to know that we appreciate your bringing him as you were asked to do.

I would like to ask you, Dr. Perrin, if you can tell me is there any discernible trend in the taking of porpoises? Are we catching more this year than yast year or catching about the same amount of what? Dr. PERRIN. The only data we have is on the yellow fin taken, on the tons of yellow fin tuna that are taken.

Mr. DINGELL. Doctor, do you want to come up to the witness table? Mr. POLLOCK. Before we proceed with that, I would like to introduce Dr. William Aron who is here, our Director, Office of Ecology and Environmental Conservation.

Will you stand, Doctor?

Mr. ĎINGELL. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Pollock, for your kindness in making Dr. Perrin available to us.

Mr. POTTER. As I understand it, your estimates of tuna taken has been pretty much tied to the tonnage (and I think I got the figure from the National Marine Fisheries Services) as 3.9 porpoises per ton. Dr. PERRIN. That is the figure we used.

Mr. POTTER. What is the tonnage of the yellow fin taken by the fleet?

Dr. PERRIN. It is going up steadily.

Mr. POTTER. Can you give me what the figures were say 5 year ago? Dr. PERRIN. I can give you figures for 1966 when there were approximately 44,000 tons of yellow fin tuna taken in conjunction with porpoise schools. This is in the yellow fin regulatory area.

In 1967 there was approximately 33,000.

In 1968, it was approximately 35,000 or 44,000.

In 1969, there was quite a jump to approximately 83,000 tons.
We do not have the data yet for 1970 or, of course, for 1971.

Mr. POTTER. Does porpoise meat have any market value in this country?

Dr. PERRIN. No.

Mr. POTTER. We have heard rumors that other countries may be considering gearing up to catch porpoise.

Mr. POLLOCK. May I excuse my general counsel? We have a meeting scheduled for 4:30 at the State Department and several of us are supposed to go. We are considerably late.

Mr. POTTER. I do not have any questions that require the advice of counsel, I think. If we do, we can defer.

Mr. POLLOCK. Mr. Terry and I were both supposed to be over at the State Department.

Mr. DINGELL. We can excuse you and if we have other questions or information we can communicate with you and get the information. Gentlemen, we thank you.

Are you going to go, Mr. Pollock?

Mr. POLLOCK. I think I had better stay.

Mr. DINGELL. You are welcome either place.

Mr. POLLOCK. I think Mr. Terry will have to go.

Mr. POTTER. I would note for the record that this committee is a much more interesting place to be than the State Department.

Have you given any thought, Mr. Pollock, to whether or not it would be an appropriate exercise of regulation to give the Secretary the authority to regulate the conditions under which marine mammals might be kept by zoos or marinelands or such operations?

Mr. POLLOCK. I think we indicated that we think the Secretary should have some standby authority that he may or may not exercise so that he would have the authority to issue regulations if this became necessary.

Mr. DINGELL. If you would yield at that point. Would you see to it that your counsel submits to us language you would deem appropriate for that particular end?

I think it would be helpful to us if you would give us suggestions in the form of drafting service.

Mr. POLLOTK. The standby authority. Yes, sir; we will look at it.
It may be in our draft bill, but if not, we will provide it.

Mr. POTTER. We have received information-and if I can make my filing system work I will find it-regarding the fur seal program and specifically with relation to the question of the interrelationship of the U.S. Government and the Fouke Co. in South Carolina.

With the Chair's permission I would ask to put into the record a copy of a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Services by minority counsel for the committee and their answer relating to the operation of the Fouke contract.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The letter follows:)

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
December 30, 1970.

Mr. PHILIP M. ROEDEL,
Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Interior Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ROEDEL: Attached are several articles from the Fall 1970 Report of "Friends of Animals, Inc." dealing with the harvesting of seals on the Pribilof Islands. While much that is reported in these articles has been previously docu

mented elsewhere, this is the first instance in which I have read of the federal government's involvement in the economic aspects of fur sealing.

In order to enlighten the members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee regarding this matter, I would appreciate your furnishing me a detailed report of the extent to which the federal government, as represented by your department, assists financially or otherwise in the transportation, processing and distribution of seal skins taken on the Pribilof Islands. In this connection, I also would appreciate a more complete analysis of the contractual relationship between the federal government and the Fouke Fur Company of Greenville, South Carolina, than appears in these articles.

Sincerely yours,

RICHARD N. SHAROOD,
Minority Counsel.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., January 12, 1971.

Mr. RICHARD N. SHAROOD,

Minority Counsel, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Rep. resentatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SHAROOD: This is in response to your letter of December 30, 1970, to Mr. Philip M. Roedel, Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, concerning the Federal Government's involvement in the economic aspects of fur sealing.

Under the law (16 U.S.C. 1154), the Secretary of the Interior is to provide for the processing of fur sealskins and for the sale of fur sealskins, and the Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with any public or private agency or person for this purpose. (This responsibility was transferred to the Secretary of Commerce under President Nixon's Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.)

The Fouke Company is under contract to the U.S. Government for processing U.S. Government-owned Alaska fur sealskins and selling them for the account of the U.S. Government. (A copy of the current contract is enclosed.) After deduction of the Fouke Company compensation, based upon the contractually prescribed formula, the net proceeds received by the U.S. Government are deposited under a special account in the U.S. Treasury. Congress appropriates funds to the Department to defray expenses of administering the fur seal program. Since the sale price of the fur sealskins bears directly on the proceeds from the program, it has been considered that fur seal advertising by the contractor is in the interest of the Government by serving to stimulate interest in fur sealskins which would be reflected in prices received from the sales. The current contract provides that the contractor will promote and advertise processed sealskins, and estimated promotion and advertising costs were included as a part of the total estimated costs from which the negotiated contract price formula was established as the basis for payment to the Company upon sale of the fur sealskins. Advertising costs considered in the contract negotiations as being applicable to the U.S. Government each year are substantially less than one-third of the $750,000 frequently cited by critics of the Pribil of Islands seal harvest.

Under the terms of the contract the Government is responsible for transporting the raw pelts from the Pribilof Islands to the Fouke Company plant in Greenville, South Carolina. The processing and sale of the sealskins from there on is covered under the contract.

The history of the contractual relationship between the Fouke Company and the Federal Government is as follows.

Contracts with the Fouke Company and its predecessor agency date back to 1915. In that year a 5-year contract was awarded to the Funsten Brothers firm, headed by Mr. P. B. Fouke, for processing and sale of U.S. Government-owned Alaska sealskins. In 1921 the Fouke Fur Company was organized and was awarded a 10-year contract. In 1931 a new contract was awarded the Fouke Fur Company which was terminated in 1939. At that time bids were solicited and, based on qualifications of the bidders, a contract was awarded to the Fouke Fur Company. This contract was renegotiated in 1947 and continued in existence, with several amendments, until 1962. In 1963, following solicitation of proposals, a contract was awarded to the "Supara" firm; in the same year this contract was declared by the Comptroller General of the United States to be invalid. A contract was awarded to the Pierre Laclede Company in 1965 for