Apropos of the harvesting, then, it would seem to me that a real research effort should be put (a) into the reasons for the population decline, (b) attempts to establish new colonies and allow them to grow, and (e) to find out (as an example under the reasons for the population decline) whether the fur seals themselves are contaminated by mercury, PCB's dieldrin or some similar environmental contaminant.

Finally, it seems to me that larger social issues should be addressed * * *. We should put the question to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries by way of the Congress whether a consuming harvest of fur seals is the primary or the only valid use of this population of animals. The Federal government has put in an investment of time and money in research and management of the fur seal, based on the funds that come back from killing and skinning these animals. We should ask whether in fact they should not feel obliged to make a similar effort to develop other forms of use of the islands, such as tourism. Many visitors would be attracted to see the fur seals and the huge bird colonies on these islands-see Lindblad, etc.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Lindblad firm is an organizer and promoter of such tours.

If the resource is developed for a variety of non-consuming uses, then the pressure for this consuming use is somewhat lessened. I think we should ask Bob Davis (Resource Economist, National Audubon Society) whether he thinks that there aren't a fair amount of data to support the idea that the economy of the islands would profit more by expanded tourist trade. I think we could make a point that the number of people who would profit (a) economically from being in the business, and (b) from enjoying the resource, would be expanded by this kind of use. This positive effect should especially be felt if it were associated with attempts to form new colonies of fur seals in several other areas where tourism might be developed.

It would seem to me that the point of economic development should be made in association with the Association on American Indian Affairs which has an office in New York. At present the Pribilof Aleuts are in a relatively feudal circumstance in which the semicaptive people are required to partake in a brutalizing form of livelihood. The Aleuts, if they are at all similar to the Eskimos I have known, are eminently suitable for tourist trade in their outgoing personalities and general friendliness. They, like any people including our own, are readily brutalized and certain elements of the population seem to be predisposed to brutality-but not all. It would seem to me that we ought to make the point that the Aleuts ought to have more choice of a variety of uses for the resources on their island. It would be helpful if they get men like Howard Rock, a native Alaskan Eskimo, in to discuss the whole aspect of this problem before the Society comes out on issues which they may not understand-by they, I mean the Eskimo. Bill Byler, of the Association on American Indian Affairs, is the person to talk to on this.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10420 would provide the directive and machinery for accomplishing a new look with fresh eyes at the Pacific fur seal program, and also needed investigations of the condition, and opportunities for improved management and protection, of other marine mammals. We endorse H.R. 10420 in principle, although we strongly urge the following amendment concerning the qualifications of individuals to be recommended by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality for appointment by the President to the Marine Mammals Commission:

On page 16, line 3, after the word management, and before the period, insert: "who have not been nor are in a position to profit from the taking, processing or sale of marine mammals, their skins, or other parts."

Unless such an amendment is adopted, there will be great pressure put on the Chairman of CEQ and the President for representation on the Commission of the fur industry or other commercial and industrial interests whose purpose is exploitation, not conservation.

As an alternative to creation of the proposed Commission, H.R. 10420 could be amended to direct the Secretary of the Interior to perform the duties and services spelled out for the Commission. The Secretary should also be directed to establish and utilize a scientific advisory committee as proposed in section 203.

In endorsing the purposes of H.R. 10420, we are aware that it apparently envisions the transfer of responsibility for marine mammals back to the Department of the Interior. It is our opinion that not only marine mammals but the entire Bureau of Commercial Fisheries belongs in a department where the leadership is less likely to say "wait a minute" to efforts to clean up pollution.

Mr. Chairman, we believe H.R. 10420 is much sounder legislation than H.R. 6554 and similar bills. We do not endorse H.R. 6554.

I thank you very much for this opportunity to present our views. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Callison, I want to thank you for a very enlightened and helpful statement. I want to particularly commend you and Miss Wilson.

Mr. Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON. No questions. I want to commend Mr. Callison for a very fine statement.

Mr. CALLISON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Potter?

Mr. POTTER. Mr. Callison, were you here when I spoke with Mr. Hoyt about the nature of the bill that it seemed to me has been increasingly pointed toward in the testimony before us? That is to say, that there needs to be a kind of permit system in which there would be a strong burden of proof on the person who wants to take an animal to show it is going to be to the advantage of the herd or the species and that there would be a considerable amount of public scrutiny in looking over the permit grantor to be sure that everything is on the up and up.

This seems to me to be the thrust of the Anderson bill.

Mr. CALLISON. I am not sure I heard your earlier question. I came in late today, and I did not identify all of the witnesses who preceded me. However, I think I would agree with that principle, Mr. Potter. This is one of the basic provisions of H.R. 10420, a permit system, a system of controlling the harvest or take of marine mammals through permits.

I just think this needs to be done extremely carefully. I think we need to know where we are going and much more about the condition of the herds of sea mammals, the different populations; and what must also be taken into consideration is the fact that these animals move and live in an international environment.

We need to move with some caution in this area so we do not make the situation worse than it is.

By striking a high moral position, the United States should lead the world in conservation and humane purposes. But we could defeat those purposes by loosening the controls we now have, to the detriment of the animals.

Mr. POTTER. In what way?

Mr. CALLISON. If we rather abruptly abrogated the Northern Pacific fur seal treaty.

Mr. POTTER. I take it that is no longer seriously proposed even by the proponents of the Harris-Pryor bill.

They would like to see a treaty in which all countries would say we are not going to kill any more seals; and if we cannot get it, at the very least, you should extend the status quo, at least as far as man's taking.

The committee has also had testimony to the effect of the increasing environmental stresses to which the fur seals are exposed in the sense of the contamination of the system in which they live and the decrease in food supplies.

This is also something that the Department of State should, in its wisdom, explore. We saw very little evidence that the Department of State was doing much in the way of enlightened exploration in that direction.

I have no questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Rountree?

Mr. ROUNTREE. No questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Callison, it's always a pleasure to have you before the committee, and Miss Wilson is also welcome.

That completes the witnesses for this morning.

If there is no further business to come before the subcommittee, the subcommittee will stand adjourned until Thursday, September 23, at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., September 23, 1971.)

MARINE MAMMALS

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,

Washington D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell, chairman.

Mr. LENNON (presiding). Today the subcommittee holds its fourth day of hearings on legislation to protect marine mammals. We have already heard from a wide variety of witnesses, and the hearings today will extent even further the scope of the testimony on this important legislation.

The hearings today will almost certainly continue this afternoon, and I want to say to the other witnesses here that they will be heard today, or possibly tomorrow morning, if it becomes necessary to continue these hearings in order to see that everyone is heard.

Mr. Dingell has asked me to apologize to you all for his inability to be here this morning. There is an important matter coming before another committee with which he is involved, and he did not think that he could fail to be there. He will be here this afternoon.

The first witnesses this morning are scientists who are considered to be among this country's foremost experts on marine mammals. Drs. Ray and Norris and Mr. Schevill have kindly agreed to act as a panel, presenting a statement for the committee and then answering any questions that the committee members may have on the joint statement or on any of the matters raised by witnesses earlier in these proceedings.

Doctors, if you will come forward to the witness stand. I am not advised at this point in time whether there is a prepared statement that you gentlemen have.

I am now advised that you do have a prepared statement.

Would you, gentlemen, for the record, please identify yourselves and give such statement as you choose.

STATEMENT OF DR. G. CARLETON RAY, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, WILLIAM E. SCHEVILL, AND DR. KENNETH S. NORRIS, MARINE MAMMAL COUNCIL

Dr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, we are before you today to aid in the design of strong, constructive legislation on marine mammals. Most of our comment will be directed toward H.R. 10420 which we largely endorse. Rather than give you a detailed critique, we will (399)

present a short statement which outlines matters of principle; then we would be pleased to answer any specific questions you might have. I am Carleton Ray. I have with me two associates on the Marine Mammal Council. To aid you in directing your questions, I will outline our areas of expertise.

Mr. William E. Schevill has studied the ecology and acoustics of marine mammals for about 30 years. His field experience encompasses both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, including Antarctic waters. His primary concern has been the Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). He has long been associated with both Harvard University and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and he was an adviser to the U.S. Commissioner at the 1971 meetings of the International Whaling Commission.

Dr. Kenneth S. Norris is a professor at the University of California (Los Angeles) and chief scientist, Marine Mammal Division of the Oceanic Institute in Hawaii. He was formerly curator at the Marineland of the Pacific, and his research interests primarily concern Cetacea of tropical and temperate waters. In addition, he has been concerned with the California sea otter problem.

I was formerly curator of the New York Aquarium and am now associate professor at the Johns Hopkins University. I was also an adviser to the U.S. Commissioner at the IWC meetings last June. My research interests primarily concern polar (Arctic and Antarctic) Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, and walruses). Another principal interest of mine is marine conservation, and a paper on this subject was introduced into the record of the hearings on ocean dumping by this committee a few months ago.

Together, we represent both our particular fields of science and the marine mammal program of the U.S. international biological program. The IBP theme is "Productivity and Human Welfare" and we recognize the necessity to consider marine mammals as an international resource of both esthetic and economic value. We also recognize the urgency to increase the research effort on marine mammals on an international level and we urge that, from both the biological and humanitarian points of view, marine mammals must be managed-not by turning back the clock toward either protectionism or overexploitation, but by moving forward to an ecological viewpoint which considers both marine mammals and man within ecosystems.

The major concerns of the bill, H.R. 10420, are: (1) determining the status of marine mammal populations; (2) assuring proper management of marine mammals based on ecological considerations; (3) providing for marine mammal research and its adequate funding; (4) establishing jurisdiction among Federal and State agencies; (5) promoting greater international cooperation in marine mammal research, conservation, and management; and (6) establishing a marine mammal commission and its scientific advisory committee.

Before considering these issues, we must observe that the overwhelming thrust of our civilization is still toward the overexploitation of resources. Such overexploitation has led to the rise of the environmental consciousness felt so widely today. One form of this has been protectionism, so easy for the uncritical to endorse in principle, yet so narrow a method. The result is a confrontation between those who believe that animals are to be exploited or managed and