is one example. Another example of international cooperation was the First International Conference on Polar Bears, held at the University of Alaska in September 1965. However, international organizations and agreements are thus far too weak. The International Whaling Commission, for example, has no enforcement powers, and in many respects its efforts at preservation have been stymied. Consequently. our Government must undertake efforts, through the United Nations. for example, to achieve binding international accords.

In fact, I would recommend working toward a moratorium on all killing of ocean mammals, not only by means of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act, which only applied to the United States, but worldwide. At the least, this moratorium must run for 15 years, so that our scientists can determine what chances of survival remain for ocean mammals, and what can be done to assure this survival before these magnificent creatures are banished by man, through his arrogance and stupidity, from the face of the earth.

During the moratorium we must work for title III's prescription: "International agreement or agreements" which "should seek to outlaw all killing of these mammals for any reason."

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 77

I now want to turn to House Concurrent Resolution 77, of which I am the chief sponsor and in which 17 of my colleagues have joined in sponsoring. These 17 are:

Mr. Halpern, Mr. Hanley, Mr. Horton, Mr. Hosmer, Mr. Koch, Mr. Kyros, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Morse, Mr. Nix, Mr. Obey, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. St Germain, Mr. Symington, Mr. Vigorito, Mr. Waldie, Mr. Whitehurst, and Mr. Wolff.

I have delayed discussing House Concurrent Resolution 77 until first discussing the Ocean Mammal Protection Act because my resolution's aim is very relevant to that expressed in title IV of the latter act. Both of which concern the slaughter of Northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands.

House Concurrent Resolution 77 has two operative provisions. The first of these expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe and shall implement with all possible speed and urgency regulations for the harvesting of Northern fur seals which insure that the seals are quickly and painlessly killed before skinning. The second clause provides that penalties be prescribed by the Secretary for violation of the regulations which he shall prescribe and implement in accordance with this resolution.

Once again, we have a tragic example of a cruel practice employed to accomplish an unneeded end. The seals are slain solely for their furs, which in turn are employed to satisfy the market for an unneeded luxury. The seals do not threaten man, nor do they threaten his food supplies. No product which they apply is irreplaceable. The reason why they are victims of slaughter is because they fill an acquired desire for seal fur garments-a desire which can be satisfied in other ways.

Unfortunately, international circumstances would appear to bar any immediate cessation of the seal harvest. The premise for the harvest is an international convention, first agreed to in 1911 by the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia. The aim of this convention

was to end pelagic sealing-that is, seal hunting at sea-which had contributed so greatly to the enormous decrease in Northern fur seals. Should the international agreement which now exists be unilaterally terminated by the United States, it is very likely that at least some of the other parties to the convention would resume large scale pelagic sealing-an eventuality which would be very detrimental to the Northern fur seal.

In this regard, I want to refer to the Ocean Mammal Protection Act, as modified, which I have previously discussed. Title IV of that act expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should immediately notify the other parties to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, signed on February 9, 1957, as the latest successor to the 1911 Convention, that the United States does not intend to extend its life beyond 1976. Further, title IV expresses the sense of the Congress that the convention should be permitted to expire in 1976, after its current termination date in 1975.

In light of the past history of the northern fur seal-that is, the great depradations following upon the pelagic sealing method which used to be employed-I must oppose any termination of the convention unless we have an international binding agreement that such sealing will not be resumed. While title IV of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act does express the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should immediately initiate negotiations with the parties to the convention and other interested nations for the purpose of achieving an international ban on all killing of northern fur seals, I do not believe that we can unilaterally terminate our participation in the convention prior to the obtaining of such a ban. Thus, I particularly stress the importance of section 403 of the modified Ocean Mammal Protection Act, which provides for renewal of the convention if a new treaty cannot be negotiated.

The Ocean Mammal Protection Act in the interim prior to a new treaty calls for termination of that portion of the harvest-70 percent of the seals killed-which is allocable to the United States under the convention. In principle, I am in accord with the step of at least terminating the U.S. percentage of the kill. However, I am fearful that this step might be interpreted-purposefully-by one or more of the parties to the convention as being an abrogation or violation of the convention, justifying their resumption of pelagic sealing, and I stress the importance of this consideration.

Now I want to return to the thrust of House Concurrent Resolution 77, which is not cessation of the seal harvest or even its decrease, but rather, revision of the practices employed in that harvest.

The Fur Seal Act of 1966, charges the Secretary of the Interior with the management of the fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. His Department's Bureau of Commercial Fisheries supervises the harvest. The kill is largely limited to 3- and 4-year old bachelor males that congregate on the edge of the seal rookeries.

The Department of the Interior claims that this harvest serves conservation ends, stating in a publication entitled "Fur Seals of Alaska's Pribilof Islands," issued by the Department, that:

The Pribilof rookeries can support only so many seals. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries maintains the seal herd at its maximum level of productivity. Animals surplus to the needs of the herd are harvested each summer. If man does not do it, nature steps in. Some persons, who have the best intentions, have

the impression that man could simply leave the fur seals alone and nature would see to it that they lived happily ever after. It is not true. Nature would see to it that the surplus was killed off. And when nature sets about redressing a population imbalance there is no place for mercy in the natural process. Nature has no compunction over killing pups slowly with parasites or starvation or any other way. People need to recognize this inescapable biological fact in considering what the consequences would be if man were to abandon his management responsibilities.

This reasoning is very dubious. The same publication states that the Pribilof Islands herd is now estimated at some 1.5 million animals. This number is nowhere near former totals, and clearly disputes the contention that increased numbers would be detrimental to the animals. According to Mr. Seton H. Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, writing in the 1969 edition of Encyclopedia Americana on the subject of "Seals and Sealing" (vol. 24, pp. 480-483), at the time of the seal herd's discovery in 1786, there were at least 5 million seals. In 1948, there were 3,837,131 animals in the herd. Thus, under the supposedly enlightened conservation concerns of the Department of the Interior, the herd has decreased in the last 22 years by approximately 2 million— even allowing for inclusion in the earlier totals of the Japanese and Russian herds-without any specified diminution in territory available to the animals.

Unfortunately, so long as other nations do not enter into an international accord banning both pelagic sealing and killing of seals, or at least allowing cessation of the killing of those seals currently allocable to the United States, under the existing convention, it would seem that the harvest must continue. But, let us be clear. This harvest stems from the world's demand for fur seals, and the even more disasterous consequences which would occur were pelagic sealing resumed. Its merit does not lie in maintenance of the vitality of the Pribilof seals, as the Department of Interior indicates.

The annual harvest commences with the bachelor seals being driven from the shore to the fields beyond. The distance varies from a few hundred yards to over half a mile to sites where the killing takes place. The actual killing is performed by man armed with hardwood clubs 155 centimeters long. They are assisted by one or two men who divide off small pods, or groups, of seals, about 10 in number, from the main herd, driving them toward the killers who then club them on the top of the head. Men known as stickers go around the clubbed animals and cut their skins in the midventral thoracic region, followed by pushing the knife into the thorax. The heart is then punctured by the knife. After sticking, other groups of men come to skin the seal.

According to the report prepared by Dr. Elizabeth Simpson for the World Federation for the Protection of Animals and published in 1967, about 13.6 percent of the animals showed evidence of the animal having received two or more blows with the club, which is supposed to kill them instantaneously with one blow. Dr. Simpson also noted that the length of the drives of the seals to the slaughter grounds is in some locations too long, resulting in "unnecessary distress on the part of some of the seals."

Clearly, then, the so-called merciless seal harvest is not quite as beneficial as it has at times been portrayed. I do want to be frank, however, and acknowledge that Dr. Simpson did conclude that the present clubbing technique is probably the best, in comparison with the use of the

67-765 O 71 - 23

captive bolt pistol, electrical stunning, and carbon dioxide stunning prior to sticking. She so concluded on the basis of the premise that “any method involving more handling of the animals would * * * be a step in the wrong direction." (P. 5.)

Another study of the Pribilof Islands harvest reached similar conclusions. This study was made by the task force to study alternate methods of harvesting fur seals, and was issued in 1968.

We are, it appears, left with a difficult conclusion. Clubbing has been supported by studies. However, there are some directions toward which we should be pushing. First, we should be seeking international accord on totally banning seal killing. Second, we should be impressing upon the Secretary of the Interior the importance of developing more humane methods of killing; so long as the harvest continues. To this end, I think it particularly appropriate that House Concurrent Resolution 77 be enacted into law.

I would like, before closing, to make reference to a very real concern which has been voiced. This is the economic situation of the individuals involved in the Pribilof Islands harvest. The total population of the Pribilof Islands is approximately 600 people. Their only income producing industry is the seal hunt. However, I want to stress that this industry is not the result of indigenous cultural patterns: the Russians, who originally owned the Pribilofs, brought Aleutian people from the Aleutian chain of islands to the Pribilofs, where they were kept in bondage as slaves for the purpose of conducting the slaughter. Second, I want to stress that I believe it entirely appropriate that should more humane methods of harvest be instituted, the people presently employed be trained to carryout these methods. Should the harvest be terminated, I believe Federal assistance to develop new industry, to assist in moving the Natives, should they wish to leave, and to retrain them, would be entirely in order.

Finally, I believe similar assistance should be provided the employees of the Fouke Fur Co., in Greenville, S.C., which is the only American company engaged in processing and preparing the seal pelts.

Mr. DINGELL. That was certainly a very enlightening and informative statement. The Chair thanks you for appearing.

Mr. RYAN. It was my pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Our next witness is Mr. August Felando, accompanied by Mr. Joe Medina, American Tuna Boat Association.

Gentlemen, we are very happy to welcome you for such a statement as you choose to give.

STATEMENT OF AUGUST FELANDO, AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOE MEDINA, SKIPPER OF TUNABOAT "QUEEN MARY”

Mr. FELANDO. I am August Felando. I am appearing before this subcommittee on behalf of the American Tunaboat Association. I am the general manager of this nonprofit fishery cooperative association, incorporated under the laws of the State of California, with its principal office of business in San Diego, Calif.

The American Tunaboat Association (ATA) has been in existence since 1923. The membership is comprised exclusively of tuna-fishing vessel owners. Annually our members catch and unload over 60 percent

of all tropical tunas landed in the United States by vessels operating from the United States. Some of our members operate from Puerto Rico.

There are 132 U.S. tuna clippers; that is, vessels that have a carrying capacity of 100 short tons of frozen tuna or more. The total trip carrying capacity of this fleet is about 60,000 tons. There are 12 additional vessels under various stages of construction in the United States.

We oppose the legislation before this subcommittee calling for the complete protection by law of all marine mammals.

Our interest in the proposed bills arises from the fact that the term of “marine mammal" as used in such bills includes porpoise. For over 40 years, U.S. tuna fishermen have used porpoise to locate and capture tunas in certain areas of the eastern Pacific. Within the past 25 years, specialized fishing skills and techniques have been developed within the U.S. tuna fleet to better utilize the unique relationship that exists between certain tunas and porpoise.

In great measure, the success of the U.S tuna fleet in meeting the challenge offered by every other tuna producer in the world that sells frozen tuna in the free market of the United States, can be attributed to the fact that the U.S. fishermen and the porpoise have been learning how to live together in accomplishing the task of capturing the tunas. It is no secret in worldwide fishing circles that the U.S. tuna fishermen have a competitive advantage over foreign fishermen in using the purse seine technique on tunas that travel with porpoise.

To a substantial degree, the future of the U.S. tuna fleet as a viable, competitive fishing fleet is essentially connected with porpoise. This is one reason why strong emotional feelings arise within our fleet concerning the treatment of porpoise. We want to continue the use of porpoise to help us locate and capture tunas. We are against any activity of man that will reduce our opportunities to work with porpoise in capturing tuna. Under H.R. 6558 and other identical bills, the terms "take" or "taking" or "taken" are defined so that it would make our use of porpoise in catching tuna unlawful.

In using porpoise to catch tuna, it is necessary to first locate the porpoise. Because porpoise are air breathers and stay close to the surface, it is easier for the fishermen to spot them more easily at a distance than they can fish. Upon sighting a school of porpoise, the tuna vessel proceeds to pursue or chase the porpoise for the purpose of determining whether a tuna school is associated. In making this determination, the tuna vessel will repeatedly maneuver in and about the porpoise, looking for signs that the tuna are following the porpoise. One could classify this searching maneuver as a form of harassment. If no tuna are detected with the porpoise, the tuna vessel leaves and proceeds to look for other ocean signs that may lead to the discovery of tuna.

Upon examination of the language used in section 201 (c) of H.R. 6558, and in considering the above facts related to a very common and innocent example of how U.S. tuna fishermen use porpoise to locate tuna, it would be possible to conclude that the tuna vessel had committed a series of unlawful acts in that it pursued, hunted, and harassed porpoise, or at least that such vessel attempted to pursue, hunt, or harass the porpoise in trying to locate and detect a school of tuna.

It would appear that the definition offered in section 201 (c) lends itself to an unreasonable analysis and to the acceptance of conditions that are totally unrealistic.