resolution concerning the IWC. The resolution ex- 
pressed the sense of Congress that: 
“(1) United States policy should promote the 
conservation and protection of whale, dolphin, and 
porpoise populations; 
“(2) toward that goal, the United States should 
work to strengthen and maintain an International 
Whaling Commission moratorium on the commer- 
cial killing of whales, and work toward a similar 
moratorium on the direct commercial harvest of 
dolphins and porpoises; 
“(3) the United States should work to strengthen 
the International Whaling Commission by reaffirm- 
ing its competence to regulate direct commercial 
whaling on all cetaceans, and should encourage the 
Commission to utilize the expertise of its Scientific 
Committee by seriously considering the Committ- 
ee’s recommendations; and 
“(4) in so promoting the conservation and protec- 
tion of the world’s whale populations, the United 
States should make the fullest use of diplomatic 
channels, appropriate domestic and international 
law, and all other means available.” 
Follow-up to the Marine Mammal Commission’s 
Letter of 5 December 1991 — As noted above, in 
1991 the Marine Mammal Commission and its Com- 
mittee of Scientific Advisors undertook a comprehen- 
sive review of the 1946 Whaling Convention and the 
IWC’s Conservation Program and conveyed the 
results of the review to the U.S. Commissioner to the 
IWC on 5 December 1991. To seek the views of 
others on the Commission’s assessments and recom- 
mendations, the U.S. Commissioner published the 
Commission’s letter and related background informa- 
tion in the Federal Register on 6 February 1992. 
Comments were requested by 6 April 1992. 
From some of the comments received, it was 
evident that the intent of and the rationale for some of 
the Commission’s recommendations had not been set 
forth clearly in the Commission’s 5 December 1991 
letter. In particular, there seemed to be confusion as 
to what the Commission meant when it recommended 
(1) that the United States adopt the position that the 
121 
Chapter V — International 
non-consumptive values of whales may be equal to if 
not greater than their consumptive values and that 
“science” alone (e.g., the status of the potentially 
affected whale stocks) should not necessarily dictate 
the resumption of commercial whaling; and (2) that 
consideration be given to revising the 1946 Whaling 
Convention to incorporate more up-to-date principles 
of marine living resource conservation and to resolve 
uncertainties concerning the IWC’s authority to 
overview and regulate taking of small cetaceans. 
Therefore by letter of 9 June 1992 to the U.S. Com- 
missioner, the Commission clarified and expanded 
upon the recommendations set forth in its letter of 5 
December 1991. 
With respect to the point that the status of whale 
stocks alone should not dictate resumption of commer- 
cial whaling, the Commission noted that many scien- 
tists and policy makers seemed to be of the view that 
there was no legitimate basis for the United States to 
oppose resumption of commercial whaling if the 
comprehensive assessment being done by the IWC’s 
Scientific Committee indicated that one or more whale 
stocks were above their maximum net productivity 
level and the means were available to ensure that 
exploitation would not cause the stocks to be reduced 
below that level. 
The Marine Mammal Commission does not believe 
that this view is justified. It pointed out that if factors 
other than the status of stocks — e.g., ecological, 
basic research, educational and/or aesthetic consider- 
ations — have a bearing on the optimal levels and use 
(i.e., conservation) of cetaceans, there is no reason 
why the United States or any other member of the 
IWC necessarily should agree to the resumption of 
commercial whaling even if the comprehensive 
assessment being done by the IWC’s Scientific Com- 
mittee indicates that some level of whaling could be 
allowed without causing the affected stocks to be 
reduced below their maximum net productivity level. 
In this context, the Commission pointed out that 
Section 2(6) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
notes that “marine mammals have proven themselves 
to be resources of great international significance, 
aesthetic and recreational, as well as economic...and 
that the primary objective of their management should 
be to maintain the health and stability of the marine 
