362 OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 



that science must work out these peaceful means of achieving con- 

 servation as against the previous doctrine of nationalism and force? 

 Mr. KivERS. The only way of obtaining the facts for making deter- 

 minations in connection with the part each nation will play in a 

 conserA^ation pi-ogram is through science. Part of the reason our 

 State Department cannot agree with tlie Japanese Government is that 

 there has not been enough tagging of salmon, there is not enough 

 exact knowledge as to how many salmon that spawn in Alaskan 

 sti-eams are feeding in the gi-omids of the North Pticific. We are 

 learning more every day about that. The more clearly the facts are 

 established, the easier it will be for the respective state departments 

 of the nations involved to reach an accord. Certainly, science is 

 going to be the basis for all such aiTangements. 



Mr. Felly. Yesterday in the hearing we discussed radioactive waste 

 and its possible danger to the fishery resources of our oceans. The 

 matter of international treaty arrangements was pointed up. I am 

 sure you would support my statement that with the Japanese current 

 coming over we have great interest in any waste that the Soviet Union 

 or Japan might dispose of in the ocean because it might have effect 

 on not only the migrating fish that come our way but also upon other 

 eventual situations that are purely local to us on the Pacific coast. 



Mr. Rivers. I am heartily in accord with you, Mr. Pelly. 



Mr. Pelly. I do not tliink any record, Mr. Chairman, of oceanog- 

 raphy would be com])lete unless there was in there the strong emphasis 

 that it is the belief of the people who have studied fisheries that 

 abstention for conservation is the one principle to which we can look 

 to preserve the fishery resources of our Pacific Northwest and the 

 Pacific coast. Is that correct? 



Mr. Rivers. That is as I view it. You say abstention. It might be a 

 marked restraint, possibly a little fishing in the high seas can be done, 

 as it is in the tuna and halibut fisheries and othei-s under treaties. 



Mr. Pelly. In other words, that would protect, abstention would 

 protect any nation practicing conservation — I do not mean complete 

 abstention, but it would mean not depleting the resource because one 

 country wlio in lier inland waters and streams and lakes was prac- 

 ticing conservation and disciplining her own fishing interests in pre- 

 serving this resource from depletion must be protected by other nations 

 on the high seas. 



Mr. Rivers. Yes, and with that definition of the word "abstention," 

 I am in full accord with you. 



Mr. Pelly. We cannot have that doctrine really understood until 

 we know more about our oceans, and that is why 1 think the work of 

 this committee is so important. Do you agree ? 



Mr. Rivers. Very much. 



Mr. Pelly. Thank you. 



Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Pelly. JNIr. Oliver. 



Mr. Oliver. One question has occurred to me Avhich is far afield 

 from what the gentlemen have been discussing here, but as long as we 

 have such a distinguished colleague from the great State of Alaska 

 here, I would like to get his reaction to this thought that I think many 

 of us have. 



You were speaking a moment ago about the Soviet fisheries' re- 

 search activity as you know it to be in your i)articular area. 



