The American Commissioner, a State Department appointee, to the International Whaling Commission also spoke at the subcommittee hearing. He was recently elected chairman of the Whaling Commission and little imagination is required to divine his position on a 10 year moratorium on all whaling. He vigorously opposed it.

His opposition to a moratorium, particularly in his oral testimony, centered on three main points. The Japanese and Soviet Whalers agreed that next year they will: First, implement an international observer plan; Two, abolish the blue whale unit and adopt species quotas; Three; reduce the catch below the sustainable yield in order that the stocks of harvested species may increase in number. Those are promises of highly desireable objectives and if they are kept they could obviate the need for a moratorium. But the "if" is there and we must consider the possibility that the promises are hollow. What does the past imply for the future of those promises?

The Russians have for the past fifteen years agreed in principle to the need for international observers on whaling ships. But they have always found excuses at the last minute for not implementing accepted plans. There is much evidence that they have often engaged in illegal whaling and none at all that they intend to change their ways next year. Moreover, the plan that they have promised to implement proposes the exchange of Japanese and Soviet inspectors. Japanese inspectors are as noted for their lack of efficiency as their government is noted for its lack of concern for marine high seas resources. If those two nations ever do exchange inspectors the result will be a meaningless farce and the whales will suffer as much as in the past.

Since the first attempt to regulate whaling all whalers have been opposed to species quotas, and the Japanese and Soviets are no exception. The former have been particularly opposed to species quotas but they just might accept them now that there are so few species left to hunt. Even if they do now accept species quotas the results will be of no value unless rigid inspection is enforced by internow that there are so few species left to hunt. Even if they do now accept species The International Whaling Commission has been meeting since 1949 and during all the intervening years scientists have complained that the catch was for above the sustainable yield. During those same years the whalers kept saying that next year they will object the catchdownward at or below the sustainable yield. Only once did they ever do so, in 1969, after the stocks of all whales had been decimated. But now once again they have promised that next year they will reduce the catch below the sustainable yield that will allow the whale populations to increase. The promised reduction, however, is so small that even if it is made it will take from 180 to 200 years for the stocks of whales to reach a level of optimism sustainable yield. It is sad indeed that an American official will accept such empty promises. For the whales of the world it is tragic.

Mr. GARRETT. I think I had better work my testimony over. I procrastinated until 4 o'clock yesterday before starting on it, and it looks like I should work it over, proof it, and bring it back later, and also bring supplementary papers in at that time.

Mr. POTTER. I am not unfamiliar at all with proscrastination.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair will observe that the record will be open until next week. We will not have the hearings completed by that time, so you do have time, not of our own making.

Mr. POTTER. Since we are winding up the very long extensive hearings, I would say there is a number of documents that may be appropriate for the record that I would like permission to insert them at the close of these hearings.

The Chair observes this completes the list of witnesses for H.R. 6558 and H.R. 1400. The Chair observes the record will remain open as indicated, to afford interested persons to submit statements for the record, to include such additional matters as has been granted.

The Chair observes this completes the hearing.

We certainly thank you for your testimony. We will adjourn until

tomorrow.

(The following material was submitted for inclusion in the record :) Statement of Dr. George L. SMALL, RICHMOND COLLEGE, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.

During the last 25 years the slaughter of the whales of the world has been virtually unrestrained. Year after year the catch exceeded the sustainable yield of all commercially valuable species. As a consequence the great Blue whale is on the verge of biological extinction and the same may be true of the humpback whale. In addition, the stocks of fin, sei, and sperm whales have been reduced to pitifully small remnants of their former populations. Though they have been decimated they are still being killed at a rate above the sustainable yield. If this continues much longer they will face certain commercial extinction, and possibly worse.

Did the whalers responsible for this tragedy operate without restraint? They were subject, theoretically, to the regulations of the International Whaling Commission, but in reality they controlled that organization to such a degree that virtually made their own rules. The International Whaling Commission was a failure. Its annual meetings were a farce that never helped the whales of the world. Those meetings were only served to delude the general public into believing there was effective protection for the whales. Now the truth is known. The greatest mammals of the high seas have been all but wiped out.

What specifically caused the failure of the Whaling Commission?

(1) Each member nation had the right to veto any proposed conservation regulation that it deemed too restrictive. Time and again, for example, Japan vetoed even the slightest respite for species that were struggling for survival.

(2) Each nation was represented by one commissioner. For years, and still today, the Japanese commissioner is appointed not by the Japanese government but by the Japanese whaling companies whom he represents. This blatant mockery of the principles on which the Whaling Commission was founded has never been challenged.

(3) Many whaling nations who do not like even the weak regulations of the Whaling Commission refuse to join it. They make their own ineffective rules and continue the slaughter. I refer to such nations as Chile and Peru.

(4) Many nations have no desire to prevent the extermination of the whales of the world. For example, Japan agreed to stop the killing of blue whales in June, 1967. In October that same year it granted permission to its own whalers to form corporations in Chile where they could kill blue whales under the flag of a nation that had not agreed to stop the killing.

(5) The International Whaling Commission is powerless to enforce its own rules. Each member nation is supposed to police its own whalers but this has rarely ever been done effectively. Today the Soviet Union and Japan are the major whaling nations and there is much evidence that neither of them pays much attention to the regulations. Both have been observed killing whales of species facing biological extinction.

(6) The International Whaling Commission is continuously short of funds. Its budget is miniscule and is wholly inadequate to its research needs.

In summary, the whales of the world have been slaughtered without restraint. If they don't get some protection soon they will go the way of the buffalo and the passenger pigeon. There is only one species of large whale whose population seems to be increasing and which is no longer in danger of extinction. That is the California gray whale. It was saved by the United States Congress that gave it complete protection in 1936. It is my hope and prayer that the Congress will again come to the aid of other cetacean species of the high seas.

STATEMENT OF SIERRA CLUB ON PROTECTION OF MARINE MAMMALS PREPARED BY ROBERT HUGHES, CHAIRMAN, WILDLIFE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES COMMITTEE

The Sierra Club policy on protection of marine mammals is as follows: The Sierra Club favors prohibition of all hunting for and harassment of marine mammals (such as seals, whales, mantees and dugongs (sea cows), sea otters, sea lions, polar bears, porpoises, dolphins, and walruses) with the exception of: (1) occasional specimens captured for scientific research and zoos, (2) hunting by native Americans for the sole use of their families, and (3) carefully managed seal harvests, so long as the exception of these activities does not endanger marine mammal populations.

The spirit and intent of this resolution is much closer to Rep. Pryor's Ocean Mammal Protection Act (as amended, HR 10569), and the committee is urged to give positive consideration to this legislation.

The Sierra Club also commends the efforts of Rep. Anderson in his Marine Mammal Protection Act (H.R. 10420), and we have long recognized the benefits of scientific management practices in certain carefully regulated circumstances. However, we believe that HR 10420 could be improved upon in several respects and is not rigorous enough to meet the problems most marine mammal populations are now faced with.

H.R. 10420 defines the term "marine mammal" to include any seal, whale, walrus, dugong, manatee, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, or dolphin. Only one species, the Alaska fur seal, of these marine mammals is the object of successful management.

The Alaska fur seal population has grown from about 200,000 in 1911 when an international agreement eliminated the taking on the high seas and made sound wildlife management policies possible. Today, according to Howard W. Pollock, Acting Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Alaska seal herds contain a population of about 1.3 million. This year's quota is 40,000 seals to be killed. Across the continent in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the harp seal is the hunter's object and the quota for the year is 245,000 pups. There is considerable concern over the harp seal's ability to withstand the pressure of such a large kill and some evidence of a population decline. The Philippi's fur seal was long assumed extinct until a population of 30 was discovered in 1968 on Masatrierra off Chile. Prior to 1890 over 3 million of these seals were killed in one 7 year period. It is now protected by the Chilean government. The Mediterranean monk seal's declining population is now believed to be less than 500. It is often illegally shot. The Caribbean monk seal was last seen in 1962 off Yucatan. The Hawaiian monk seal numbers about 1,500 but is increasing at about 12% per year. Most of it's habitat is now a refuge. The ribbon seal is bountied in Alaska for 3 dollars per skin. This is not a common seal and is usually taken by the natives. Bounties are not justified.

The Department of Commerce has banned commercial whaling by this country's one whaling firm after December 31. The United States quota as set by the International Whaling Commission is 166 whales. Russia and Japan each have a quota of almost 10,000 whales each. The largest mammal in the earth's history, the blue whale had a world population of 30-40,000 in the mid 1950's and within 10 years was reduced to about 1,000 animals. The cosmopolitan humpback whale is rapidly declining in all waters except the North Atlantic where it is protected. The four species of right whales exist only in relict populations. The Pacific gray whale now stands at about 8,000 and is protected although a major breeding ground, Scammon Lagoon in Baja California, has been rumored to be a site for major resort development and the Mexican government has received requests to allow whaling in the lagoon. Estimates of a one-third reduction in the Antarctic population of the sei whale have been made with 55,000 taken between 1963 and 1967. The fin whale, a target of the U.S. whaling firm has gone from a population of 110,000 in 1955 to about 33,000 in 1963. This whale is still being overfished.

The whales need the protection of new legislation and new treaties. The International Whaling Commission's determinations made at its closed meetings are farcical. Its quotas exceed the reproduction ability of the whales. There are other sources of catfood.

According to the IUCN the walrus is being taken by the native populations at a rate in excess of its replacement capacity in many areas.

The dugong which occurs only on the shores of the Indian and West Pacific Oceans is declining everywhere although in Australia it may now be able to hold

its own because of protection granted by the government including restrictions on hunting by the aboriginals.

The West Indian manatee once occurred throughout the Caribbean. Presently it exists only in relict and fragmented populations. The Florida race is now well protected, but elsewhere it is frequently the hunter's target. The Amazonian manatee has been seriously reduced and is still in a state of decline. The West African manatee declines and is splitting into isolated relict populations.

The sea otter is the object of considerable controversy in California where the abalone fishermen want to be allowed to kill them. The sea otter eats abalone. Once thought to be extinct in California it was rediscovered and the population has increased.

The sea lion is not listed in the various rare and endangered lists. The polar bear has been reduced to an estimated world population of 10,000. In Russia the bear receives absolute protection. In Canada and the United States the polar bear is hunted by the Eskimo for food and for commercial gain and by trophy hunters. Recent estimates are as high as 1250 killed in 1968. Expansion of commercial oil and related operations in the Arctic threaten the polar bear's habitat and increase the hunting pressure. The Eskimo kill increases because of the increase in the Eskimo population.

Charles Jonkel of the Canadian Wildlife Service has reported that the James Bay and southern Hudson Bay bears are abundant and increasing while the high Arctic populations may be declining. The bears do not normally move from one region to another. The bears tend to prefer specific denning areas which can be destroyed by human activities.

Porpoises and dolphins are not currently listed on rare or endangered lists although they are frequently killed. A reported 250,000 porpoises are destroyed yearly by American tuna fishermen who catch them in their nets. The other major tuna fishery countries, do not report the number killed.

In North America we have managed to exterminate two species of marine mammal, the sea mink which was last seen on the Coast of Maine about 1860 and the Steller's sea cow which was last seen at Bering Island about 1768. The IUCN reports a 1962 unconfirmed sighting of 6 near Cape Navarin.

The Sierra Club urges these further modifications of H.R. 10420:

1. The definition of the term "take" should be amended to exclude the phrase, "... but such term does not include the taking of marine mammals which occurs as an incident to commercial fishing operations." Inclusion of this phrase opens the door for the abalone fishermen to legalize their vendetta against sea otter. It permits the tuna fishermen to continue to use methods which result in the loss of over 250,000 porpoises per year.

2. Section 107(a) exempts Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos on the coasts of the North Pacific or Arctic Oceans from the restrictive provisions of this legislation if the taking of marine mammals is does solely in accordance with customary traditions as an adjunct of the native culture. This blanket exemption does not allow for consideration of the fact that some populations cannot withstand the increasing pressure of hunting by these native groups. The restrictions provided in this legislation should apply to all Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos when the Secretary determines that a population is being hunted to a point beyond which it can replace itself.

3. The three member Marine Mammal Commission should be required to have as a condition of membership for two of the members, the stipulation that the individual nominated must not have any interest either directly or indirectly in the commercial exploitation of marine mammals either at time of nomination or in the past. The same stipulation should apply to at least five of the nine members of the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TOWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am William E. Towell, Executive Vice President of The American Forestry Association, one of the nation's oldest and largest conservation organizations with a concern for all of the world's natural resources. I welcome this invitation to comment briefly on legislation so important to the welfare of ocean mammals throughout the world. This legislation under consideration here today goes much deeper than protection of ocean mammals themselves. None of us, I am sure, would favor anything except the best possible management, protection and use of these great

resources. However, there are great differences of opinion as to how this can best be accomplished. One of the bills under consideration (H.R. 7556) would establish almost total preservation for all species of ocean mammals, while the other (H.R. 10420) proposes scientific management based upon conditions and needs of individual species. I can enthusiastically support the latter, but must oppose the total preservation concept.

The whole philosophy of natural resource conservation is under consideration here, Mr. Chairman. It is a question of professional judgment, which I will call management, versus a sincere but emotional crusade which often is called preservation. Complete protection or preservation is a vital segment of conservation and must be employed at times in the interests of certain vital or threatened resources. But to an alarming and growing number of our nation's conservation converts, preservation is conservation. To them it is evil to kill any animal, to cut any tree or to utilize any natural resource for man's own welfare or enjoyment. Yet, there is no alternative to careful resource use and management. Without the animal, plant and mineral wealth of our planet, there would be no life for man.

H.R. 7556 establishes total protection for all ocean mammals without regard to need. It is based upon the false assumption that all are endangered, yet we have seen the population of fur seals, for example, increased more than six times under good management. Are we going to deny people the use of a resource which is needed and in surplus supply? Certainly we should insist upon the most humane methods of harvest as we do for domestic livestock, but let's not allow our past abuses to rule out any harvest at all. We have found in the management of land mammals that populations must be kept in balance with their environment or else they can destroy both themselves and their environment. Nature's harvest is far more cruel than man's. There is no need for total protection of all ocean mammals and it would be poor conservation to establish it.

H.R. 10420, on the other hand, establishes authority for the Secretary of the Interior to prohibit the taking of ocean mammals where such protection is needed. It provides for scientific evaluation and the issuance of permits where there is a harvestable surplus. Continuous overview by an independent Marine Mammal Commission and the assistance of a committee of expert scientific advisors would assure the safety of these ocean resources. We must utilize our best technical and scientific knowledge to manage resources, whether they be trees or animals, rather than emotional reaction, no matter how sincere it may be. Conservation by its very definition is the wise and rational use of natural resources for man's needs, while recognizing that all must be perpetuated in a healthy environment.

In a letter to the Chairman, dated August 16, 1971, I recommended several changes in H.R. 10420 which would make it more acceptable and workable in my opinion. They are included as a part of this statement but will not be repeated here today. They follow.

Page 1.-Sec. 2(1)-replace "disappearance" with "depletion." Doubt if any species is in danger of extermination.

Page 2.-Sec. 2(2)-don't like the word "replenish". Sounds like a hatchery job. Populations should be "rebuilt” through management and protection.

Page 3.-Sec. 3(4)-permitting the taking of ocean mammals which occurs incident to commercial fishing operations could provide a big loophole. Would either limit or eliminate this.

Page 8.-Sec. 104(a)-why not take violations directly to federal court? I am against penalties, even civil, without due process of court review.

Page 12.-Sec. 107(a)—another big loophole if we give native Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts this much freedom. Look how American Indians have abused or even sold native hunting and fishing rights. Give them special but limited permits, if necessary, but don't leave the door open this wide.

Page 13.-Sec. 109-as I understand present law, these mammals all come under federal jurisdiction. The Secretary should work with the states but retain control over all harvest.

Page 18.-Sec. 202(6) (b)—can the Secretary change or veto recommendations of the Commission? Should spell this out more clearly.

Page 19.-Sec. 203-again, it should be more specific as to the function of the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Chairman of the National Academy of Science and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Is the Chairman limited to names submitted by these three for appointment to the Committee of Scientific Advisors?