advice of IUCN and in cooperation with the IFTF. The proceeds from the sale of these plaques will be used to finance research projects leading to conservation action.

It will be seen, therefore, that the Fur Trade is deeply concerned in this question and is working in the closest cooperation with the most responsible organisations in the world, to ensure that there is effective wildlife management, and that the taking of skins for furs is based on planned scientific methods to ensure maintenance of stocks.

Mr. POSER. Our attitude concerning the conservation of sea mammals is identical with that of the true conservationists and the concerned public authorities. However, it departs from that of the socalled humane legislation groups such as the Friends of Animals, Inc., and similar organizations. These organizations can be more aptly described as preservationists rather than conservationists. Their philosophy seems to be that no living animal should be used by man unless absolutely necessary to serve man's need for food, clothing, or shelter. The dispatch of animals not absolutely necessary for food, clothing, or shelter, even though done by the most humane method possible, is not regarded by them as humane. Yet they label the dispatch of cattle and other animals they say are necessary for man's livelihood as humane, even though such animals may be dispatched by the same means as surplus bachelor seals.

In respect to conservation, we are in good company. Our philosophy matches that of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Wildlife Management Institute, the American Forestry Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the Audubon Society, the American Mammalogical Society, the Departments of Commerce, State, and Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality. We believe the controlled or "managed" use of the world's mineral, plant, and animal resources is necessary to the continued life, protection, education, and welfare of man. We believe such use is also necessary to prevent the population of some species from increasing to the extent they endanger themselves or other species. We believe that if an ample quantity of mineral, plant, or animal resource can be generated by scientific management, there is nothing wrong or inhumane in its limited use by man. We believe that if a resource is threatened from whatever source, its use must be controlled by laws and international conventions: that is, managed in the interests of both man and nature. At this point, I offer for the record a news item clipped from the New York Times, August 22, 1971, issue, relating to the overpopulation of the grav seals in the Farne Islands off the northern coast of England and the consequent necessity of dispatching nearly half the herd to save the balance. I would like to read some excerpts from this article, which show that nature itself doesn't always do a very good job of management and that man can make a solid management contribution.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair indicates there is no objection to insertion of these, if they have not already been inserted.

(The document referred to follow :)

[Clipping from the New York Times, Aug. 22, 1971]

BRITAIN PLANS TO KILL 3,000 SEALS ON FARNE ISLES

(Special to the New York Times)

London, Aug. 22.-Three thousand gray seals on the Farne Islands, off the northeastern coast of England, will be killed over the next three years because of overpopulation.

The culling of the seals, which now number about 7,000, will be carried out by the Ministry of Fisheries beginning next year. Killings will be carried out at close range by pistol shots through the head. The action is approved by the National Trust and other groups devoted to preserving wildlife.

According to Nigel Bonner of the seals research unit of the National Environment Research Council, 21 percent of last year's seal calves born on the Islands died, mainly because they lost contact with their mothers and starved to death. The calves were unable to obtain milk, their only food for the first weeks of life. "The general picture now presented by the breeding grounds on the Farne Islands at the height of the season is one of squalor," said Mr. Bonner. “The carcasses of dead calves lie scattered on the mud and starving calves, many of them covered with purulent wounds inflicted by aggressive cows, lie moribund or sucking weakly at each other."

In 1956 about 750 seals were born on the Islands, which have a total land area of 80 acres. The number of births has increased in succeeding years, and last year, 1,956 seals were born. Mr. Bonner said there was "no evidence" that the number would stabilize if nature were allowed to take its course.

[London "Daily Mail" May 26, 1971]

BID TO SAVE SEALS BY SLAUGHTER

(By Harvey Elliott, Environment Reporter)

A population explosion on an island owned by the National Trust could mean death for thousands of seals.

So many have been born on Farne Island in the past ten years that the adults are now fighting each other for the space left available.

And the death rate is rising rapidly among calves.

Now the seal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council is recommending to the National Trust that they kill sufficient seals to ensure a healthy breeding stock of acceptable size.

The report will split the trust. When it bought Farne Island, off Northumberland, in 1925, it was designated as a bird sanctuary and seal population was only a few hundred.

But they multiplied rapidly under the protection of the trust and by 1960 were becoming a menace to fishermen.

In 1963 it was decided to kill 1,500 of the seals. But the cull was stopped after 350 had been killed because of the public outcry.

In 1960 there were 3,500 seals on the island. Today there are 7,000.

According to the report many rare birds are being driven from the island. Soil is being eroded and there is a disturbing development of aggressive behaviour in the adult seals.

Mr. POSER. Having placed on the record our industry's strong support for conservation in both principle and in practice, I would like to briefly comment on the various bills which have been referred to the committee and with which these hearings are concerned. I would first like to make it clear that of the sea mammals covered by the bills being considered by the committee, the fur industry's interest lies almost exclusively in the northern Pacific fur seals.

We oppose H.R. 7555, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971, Congressman Pryor's September 9 version of that act (H.R. 10569) and all like proposals which would ban the harvest of ocean mammals even when in oversupply or when at a level permitting a sustained yield without diminishing the population stock. Such bills would unnecessarily deny to man the use of an abundance or overabundance of a natural animal resource. Furthermore, such bills would allow the present Northern Pacific Seal Convention to expire. It would thus open the door to pelagic killing of northern Pacific fur seals, an activity which would not only endanger but soon make extinct the population of this specie which sound management over the past 60 years has built to an optimum level permitting a sustained annual yield.

We strongly favor H.R. 10420. It is an enlightened proposal the provisions of which spring from an application of commonsense rather than emotion. Like many other legislative proposals, however, the bill could stand improvement. We understand that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce has submitted proposals for amendment of H.R. 10420 to make it more workable. As we have had no opportunity to review those proposals we can make no comment on them here.

However, we have some positive proposals of our own to submit for improvement of that bill. Our Washington counsel, James R. Sharp, has prepared a memorandum of suggested changes in H.R. 10420 for consideration of the committee and its staff. The major change we are proposing is that a section be added requiring that the Department of State negotiate a permanent extension of the Northern Pacific Seal Convention which expires in 1976. We also urge that the committee incorporate other changes to assure that the power of the Secretary to set limits on the taking of ocean mammals shall, under no circumstances, be exercised in derogation of the rights of other nations as they may be established in the present and any extended or new convention relating to the management of fur seal or other sea mammals.

Your hearing schedule is crowded so I will take no more of your time. The matter before you must be decided shortly and after calm and deliberate consideration. We will leave no stone unturned to aid you in obtaining the passage of legislation designed to conserve and increase the available supply of wild ocean mammals in order, as provided by H.R. 10420, that the supply "can maintain that equilibrium at which they may be managed on an optimum sustained yield basis." It is that type of legislation which we trust will be reported out by the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee of the House upon the recommendation of this subcommittee.

In order that the position of the U.S.S.R. organization which handles its seal exports may be of record in these hearings, I request that Mr. Eugene Dreisin be allowed a few minutes for that purpose.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dreisin, the committee will be happy to hear from you.

Mr. DREISIN. I am Eugene Dreisin, president of British-American Brokers, Inc., former president of the American Fur Merchants Association, and American delegate to the International Fur Trade Federation in London.

Technical, humanitarian and economic questions have been covered at some length by other witnesses. I will address myself to the international aspects of the problem being studied by the committee as it related to Northern Pacific fur seals.

Fur seal harvests in the North Pacific involve only four nations. The two governments which carry the main responsibility are the United States and the Soviet Union.

On Monday of this week the committee heard witnesses from three departments and one agency of our own Government. These spokesmen were unanimous in opposing the Pryor Ocean Mammal Protec tion Act type of bill and unanimous in supporting H.R. 10420 and a continuation and extension of the Northern Pacific Seal Convention. Statements recently appeared in a Baltimore, Md., newspaper implying that the Soviet Union is in some way disillusioned with the North

ern Pacific Seal Convention and is prepared to cancel it. When this was called to my attention, I wrote to the organization that handles all seal exports from the Soviet Union and inquired as to the position of that organization (the Soviet Export-Import Trading Co., V/O Sojuzpushnina, Moscow) on the matter of the convention. I have with me a statement on the subject, which has been mailed to me in reply to my inquiry.

In order that the attitude of the Soviets in relation to the convention may be of record here, I respectfully request that the original and the translation of the communication I received be made part of the record.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. DREISIN. I will read for the benefit of the committee members the certified English translation so that the members may know that this Soviet organization is as anxious as we are about the continuation and extension of the convention and that it is as proud as the U.S. fur industry is of the success of the conservation program for which the 1911 and 1957 conventions were designed.

(Translation is as follows:)

THE HUNTING OF FUR SEALS1

The North Pacific fur seal is one of the sea animals valued for the beauty of its fur.

In the pursuit of profits during many decades of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was uncontrolled annihilation of these animals, including and by dint of the widespread growth of rapacious sea hunting. This brought about a radical decline in the seal population.

A seal convention was entered into in 1911. This convention was signed by the U.S.A., England, Russia and Japan. This convention was supposed to encourage a more rational use of seal resources, however, due to various reasons this convention, in subsequent years, lost its effectiveness.

In 1957, a temporary convention for the preservation of fur seals in the northern part of the Pacific was renegotiated between the U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Canada and Japan. The basis for the convention was the recognition of the principle of rational exploitation of the seal resources and the first action taken was the prohibition of the hunting on the high seas.

The adherence by all countries participating in the convention and the administration of the seal harvest on a scientific basis has reflected favorably in the seal resources whose quantities have grown considerably. This has facilitated a larger harvest which at the same time did not impede the constant growth of the herd.

A biological peculiarity of the fur seal is to be found in its polygamous way of life, under which condition the normal growth of the herd is predicated on a grown male needing 40 to 50 females. This situation permits a fully rational exploitation of the seal resources, removing only the young immature males, in the age bracket between 3 and 4 years, and leaving all females and baby seals for the further development of the herd.

The temporary convention for the preservation of fur seals can serve as a shining example of international cooperation for the rational exploitation of the living resources of the sea.

The Soviet Union will continue to adhere to its international obligations and will continue the seal harvest observing the provisions of the convention with a view to further increase the number of herds.

Mr. DREISIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Are there any questions?

Mr. SHARP. Mr. Chairman, may I say just a word before you start the questions?

1 Certified Translation of body of communication from Soviet Export-Import Trading Co., V/O Sojuzpushnina, Moscow, to Eugene Dreisin (Russian version attached). September 17, 1971.

We have been able to gather some statistics that may be of interest to the committee. For instance, I have a good deal about the number of females killed. We do have a report from NOAA that there were only 230 in 1969, 121 in 1970, and 84 in 1971.

Mr. DINGELL. Those figures, I believe, are already in the record. Mr. SHARP. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are other statistics with respect to the processing and exportation of seal skins showing that the bulk of such skins that are processed in this country (the Canadian as well as the U.S. share and Japanese share) are exported. In any event if there are questions on the matter of statistics we will be happy to answer them.

(The statistics referred to follow :)

DATA PROVIDED BY FOUKE CO. OF GREENVILLE, S.C., RELATIVE TO SOURCES AND DESTINATION OF FUR SEAL SKINS SOLD AT FOUKE CO.'S AUCTIONS 12

1 Canadian skins are processed by Fouke Co. but shipped to Montreal and not sold in the United States and are therefore not included in the above figures.

2 Other sources in all cases are Uruguay and South Africa. Uruguayan skins average approximately 1,400 semi-annually. The balance are all from South Africa.