196 



well. Because of other, more critical factors, 

 it may only hasten that unhappy day. The 

 committee knows them well — the destruction of 

 habitats, the poisoning of environments, 

 manipulation of resources that upset natural 

 balances, over killing ... an effective 

 marine mammals bill must take all of these into 

 account. 41 



Mr. Pankowski stated further: " [w]e must realize that if the 

 marine environment is permitted to deteriorate to a critical 

 point, whether or not marine mammals are deliberately killed 

 may become academic." 42 



Reflecting these concerns, the report accompanying the 

 1971 House bill that became the MMPA noted the threats to 

 marine mammals from ocean dumping, pesticides, heavy metals, 

 reduced levels of herring for food, and high speed boats. The 

 report summarized: "[m]an's taking alone, without these 

 factors, might be tolerated by animal species or populations, 

 but in conjunction with them, it could well prove to be the 

 proverbial straw added to the camel's back." 43 



In this manner, Members of Congress, government officials 

 and representatives of concerned interest groups expressed the 

 common view that successful marine mammal protection required 

 ecosystem protection as well. Now, more than 20 years later, 



41 House Hearings, at 516. 

 42 Id. at 520. 

 ' 43 H.R. Rep. No. 707, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1971) 



[19653-0001/DA94O590.060] -26- 



