-14- 



data is developed suffers to an even greater degree 

 from the same negotiating disadvantages. Since a small 

 controlled catch of krill and other species would 

 provide data on size and distribution of stocks which 

 are required for proper management but not presently 

 available, a moratorium would increase the difficulty 

 of determining necessary conservation measures. It 

 would be extremely difficult to determine when sufficient 

 information existed to justify lifting the moratorium. 

 A fixed time period for the moratorium might be 

 considered equally arbitrary. 



An effective conservation regime should include 

 all states engaged in harvesting. This alternative risks 

 losing the participation of such countries, thus leading 

 to a less effective system than that of the proposed 

 federal action. 



F. A Total Ban on Harvesting 



Maintenance of the Antarctic ecosystem in its 

 present state would require a prohibition on all har- 

 vesting of Antarctic marine living resources. From 

 the conceptual point of view, this approach obviously 

 offers the maximum degree of protection to that 

 ecosystem. 



Seeking a ban on harvesting would ultimately 

 represent a judgement that the health of the Antarctic 

 marine ecosystem can be ensured only by its total 

 insulation from human activity. By contrast, the 

 proposed federal action is based upon the assumption 

 that properly controlled harvesting of Antarctic marine 

 living resources is consistent with maintenance of the 

 health of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. 



Further, a total ban on harvesting stands 

 no chance of being negotiated. States interested in 

 commercial harvesting would have no incentive to accept 

 this alternative, and as a practical matter, it would 

 be equivalent to no regulation whatsoever. 



Preservation of the Antarctic marine ecosystem 

 as a sanctuary or a relatively undisturbed natural 

 habitat free from commercial harvesting is an unobtain- 

 able objective. 



