Mrs. Stevens, I represent New Bedford. The history of its interest in whaling and the situation that confronts us today, there is still one firm left in New Bedford that uses the oil from small whales to treat delicate instruments.

It is apparently a very rare oil and one that is quite essential.

Mrs. STEVENS. Well, I am informed that while that oil is very good it is not irreplaceable and, in fact, Secretary Hickel stated at the time he put the last of the commercial species of whales on the endangered species list that, in fact, there was nothing except the meat which is the way he put it, that could not be synthesized or otherwise replaced so that I believe that your firm will find that they can replace it.

Just for example the National Science Teachers Association where we had a booth concerning the saving of whales, one of the teachers said that a friend in Colgate-Palmolive had just told her that I always used to buy ambergris simply because it was on the market and now they could not buy it because of Hickel's ban and they used a synthetic and it was exactly just as good.

I cannot give you the name of what the substitute would be, but I am certain it is not going to do the firm any harm to change.

Mr. KEITH. A different subject, but related to the same problem. I had a phone call from my daughter last night. She is intrigued with these advertisements in the Boston papers. She is looking for some trained seals and will research this matter.

Do you happen to know if in the Boston area, they are using humane care for their inmates?

Mrs. STEVENS. I am sorry to say that I am not familiar with the Boston aquarium but if you would like me to check it out, I would be delighted to.

Mr. KEITH. I would appreciate it. I know the people who have funded the program, the Stone family largely, are very fine people who are interested in education and who have done charitable and educational work. I am sure they would like you to comply.

I believe it is a unique situation, along the entire eastern seaboard at least.

Mrs. STEVENS. I also think you might wish to check with Mr. Horstman of the Sea Mammal Motivational Institute.

I think you missed his testimony but I believe he could be very helpful to you.

Mr. KEITH. Now, I note that you have an amendment which certainly meets with my approval, at least at first glance to section 107 (b), page 12, line 18, method of capture, supervision, and add the fol lowing: care, housing, and treatment.

Have you any "for instances" that have not been put into the record and that would add to our motivation?

Mrs. STEVENS. Yes; there are bad cases of mistreatment.

For example, I have seen a dolphin confined in a pool really not much larger than this little area in front of me just able to swim around and around and he would look out, look at you with such a feeling eye that it was really a very unnerving thing.

That was in Florida, Mr. Keith, and there are examples of that all over the country.

The magazine "Animals" which is edited by Mr. Sidwell is an international magazine and has just come out with an editorial ob

jecting to the capture of any more dolphins or porpoises which are becoming more and more popular. I mean you can go in right in the middle of London and see a dolphin act right now and it is becoming

more and more common.

Of course, they are such marvelous animals. That is the reason why.

Mr. KEITH. I would like to learn more of that.

One final question: You mentioned the population and control by use of utility methods. Do you have some secret you want to share with the committee in this respect?

Mrs. STEVENS. More work needs to be done. That is the recommendation in the proposed amendments that studies be carried out under this legislation to make that possible.

It apparently works very well with pigeons and there has been some use of it for coyotes in the Department of Interior.

I have a paper, not with me, but it has not been tried nearly as much as it should be and I believe there was a demand for it and if there was a little money for the research it could be pushed along quite rapidly now.

Mr. KEITH. Do you recall some 15 years ago that Congress appropriated $65,000 to determine whether or not there were extraordinary means of communication between mammals, in general, and porpoises in particular? Are you aware of this?

Mrs. STEVENS. Would that have been Dr. Lilly?

Mr. KEITH. I do not know. I just wondered if you were aware of it and whether there was any contribution that study might make to your case.

Mrs. STEVENS. I think that I am not sure about that study because I do not know what the results of it were.

I do feel that the Navy has done a great deal of work with porpoises which has not been brought out at these hearings. That is the one place where Federal funds have been spent, I think more generously than in most other agencies.

We have just clippings that tell about some of the porpoises and what they are able to do.

For example, there is a porpoise named Doris that they put rubber suction caps over her eyes so she could not see and she could go and differentiate between I think copper and steel, two types of metal just by using her sonar.

These are remarkable tests and also show the wonderful cooperation of the porpoises with the human being and why it is you can do so much scientific work with them without doing anything either painful to them or certainly not killing them.

In other words, the porpoise will cooperate. They are quite willing to do so and we hope that is the kind of study that will be mainly

carried out under this act.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Keith.

Mr. Kyros.

Mr. KYROS. I would like to add my commendation to the chairman's welcome, Mrs. Stevens. I think your suggestions and recommendations will be most helpful to the committee.

You have testified in behalf of the Tennessee walking horses and you have been instrumental in forming legislation pertaining to the treatment of laboratory animals. You are a marvelous person, and I certainly admire your fine work in behalf of animals.

Mrs. STEVENS. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mrs. Stevens. It is always a pleasure to have you with us.

Our next witness is Mr. Daniel A. Poole of the Wildlife Management Institute.

We are aware of the fact that you have waited so long, Mr. Poole.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. POOLE, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Mr. POOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the mind absorbs what the seat can tolerate and I am not going to subject myself to more brilliance even if it is my own.

Mr. DINGELL. That will be much appreciated.

Mr. POOLE. The institute is one of the older national conservation organizations, and its program has been devoted to the restoration and improved management of renewable natural resources in the public interest since 1911.

As the committee is aware, two different proposals relating to marine mammals are before it. The first of these is exemplified by H.R. 6554 and many identical introductions; the second, H.R. 10420, is by several members, including some from this committee.

Before turning to the bills, I want to make a few brief observations which have a bearing on the subject under consideration. In reality, these observations apply to any species or animal population.

The first of these is that in this day of rapidly expanding human population and the accompanying alienation and impairment of natural habitat, plus the mounting demand resulting from more people, it is necessary and desirable to deliberately manage some animals stocks. Normally, all species do not require equal attention at any one time. Identification of species or population segments of species requiring priority attention depends on factual information gathered and interpreted by specialists. In the normal course of events, species requiring special attention are those whose habitat requirements are very specific or limited, such as the Kirtland warbler in Michigan; those having commercial value such as the American alligator, spotted cats and others; and those likely to be abused because of tradition and economic considerations, such as wolves, coyotes, and birds of prey. Another point that must be kept in mind is that management of a wildlife population runs full scale from the outright prohibition of taking to controlled harvest. Management decisions, that is, whether to prohibit taking or to permit harvest, including the number, time, location, and other pertinent details, of necessity, should be based on the judgment of persons qualified by training and experience to evaluate the many biological factors that must be taken into account. It was this judgment factor, for example, that led wildlife authorities to approve the Massachusetts Audubon Society's request to deliberately kill herring and black-backed gulls on an offshore island of that State. The purpose of the poisoning was to remove gulls so that the island

67-765 O 71 33

once more could be used for nesting by the less numerous common, roseate and Arctic terns, which regularly nested there prior to the gull population increase. In time, it may be necessary to repeat the poisoning if tern nesting is to be encouraged, because few animal populations, contrary to some television programing, remain static in even the most natural of conditions. Gull populations along the east coast have expanded greatly in the last several decades.

Another point I want to make is that preservation is not a substitute for conservation or management. In fact, we much prefer the word "management" to "conservation" in this instance, because the latter is subject to many misinterpretations in the public mind. There is a need to be precise because this is an emotion-charged subject, and the many concerned laymen should not be misled into believing that all marine mammals are threatened by man's excesses or that any threats that may exist will be allayed by any single or simple action.

In this day of expanding population, rapid mobility, and complex technology, we cannot accept the risks inherent in "hands off" preservation. To reject management programs based on scientific fact and professional execution, in our view, would be to expose at least some population segments of some species to possible depletion. To do so would be to ignore the great progress that has been made in restoring many once-depleted populations of native animals. The well-being of a species is a primary goal of wildlife management.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept the thrust and philosophy of H.R. 6554 and identical bills. While I do not criticize the motive of those bills, the plan they offer is negative. The plan holds no constructive program for the better protection and enhancement of marine mammals. It suggests, in fact, termination of the International Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, which, without question is responsible for restoring that once-misused mammal to an abundant and productive population level. Our several objections to the H.R. 6554 kind of approach are detailed in the attached reprint from the Congressional Record, which carries letters to the President and to all Members of Congress signed by the leaders of many of our most important national conservation organizations as well as other supporting information. As the national organizations noted in their letter to the President:

The application of science, not emotion, has brought back the fur seal and the sea otter from the shdows of extinction to their thriving and productive population levels of today.

In the remaining few minutes, I want to discuss the elements of a constructive program for marine mammals. First, I want to make clear that the Institute long has been an advocate of strengthened programs for marine mammals. As the chairman knows, we have discussed this many times. Unfortunately, however, it has not been possible to get administration officials or Appropriations Committees interested in the subject.

A sound program for marine mammals should provide adequate authority, funding, and manpower, should seek active full-partner input by State wildlife agencies in program development, and in research, management, and law-enforcement activities, and should direct appropriate Federal officials to intensify efforts to reach new international agreements and understandings.

It should be fully understood that any marine mammal legislation that may be enacted for the United States will not end misuse of these animals by other nations. Canadian baby seal killings, the use of set guns for polar bears in the Svalbard, procrastination in the International Whaling Commission, and all the other activities will go on. There is a limit to what we can do by ourselves.

Of the legislation before the committee, H.R. 10420 comes the closest to meeting the requirements of a basic marine mammal program. We believe it can be greatly improved, however, and we offer the following comments with the thought of helping the committee to develop the best possible bill.

Section 2(2), the meaning of the word "optimum" is unclear. The goal should not be solely to restore species or stocks so that they may be managed on a sustained yield basis. Rather, action should be taken to restore species or stocks found to be in a depleted status in terms of the capability of their habitat to support them and of society to accept their presence. Once restoration is achieved, then management decisions may be made whether to permit a harvest. If a harvest is permitted, then good management automatically decrees that it be consistent with the long-term population plan for the species.

Section 2(4), line 12, as explained earlier, the word "management" is preferable to the present use of the word "conservation."

Section 3(3), under present Government organization, responsibility for marine mammals is split between the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior. Is it the intent of the committee to vest the entire responsibility in the Secretary of the Interior? Care should be taken to eliminate all obstacles, administrative and otherwise, to a strengthened Federal effort.

Section 3(4), information recently available suggests that large numbers of some species of marine mammals may be killed and wasted as a result of some kinds of commercial fishing operations. The waste is reported to be of such a magnitude as to be unacceptable; and somewhere, either in this legislation or the program that it contemplates, research should begin immediately to determine kinds of gear, fishing techniques, and other steps, including development of markets for the presently wasted resource, to turn these animals to man's benefit. Perhaps impetus could be given for this by writing a requirement into section 102(c), directing the Secretary to issue periodic statements on existing and known impacts on marine mamals from man's activities such as commercial fishing, and steps being taken to overcome them. Further, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the exclusion of commercial fishing in section 3 (4) may not be justified.

In sections 102, 103, and perhaps elsewhere the word "limitations" is used several times. This has essentially a negative connotation, not particularly compatible with the positive thrust of the proposal. We suggest that the words "rules and regulations" would be much more appropriate.

Section 101, "Prohibitions," begins with a clause providing exceptions for sections 102, 107, and 109. Section 101 deals with taking, possession, transport, and importation of marine mammals or their parts. The other three referenced sections deal only with the taking of marine mammals. No provision apparently is made for exceptions to the blanket ban on possession, transport, or entering a harbor or port. As pres