293 



Mr. Hanna. I understand. 



Dr. Pritchaud. If we are to exist in a compatible situation with the 

 ocean, we have to know its processes and forces and be able to not 

 necessarily master them but to direct them perhaps to avoid such 

 things as destruction and to take advantage of the currents for a more 

 rapid transit and such things as that. 



Mr. Hanna. I hope you gentlemen won't think I was being force- 

 fully critical. I wanted to make a point, and you have helped me make 

 it, and I think it is important that that point be constantly before us 

 so that we do not relive some of the errors of the past and that we 

 have more of the ecological thought in this thing at all times. 



I think that you gentlemen have contributed very substantially to this 

 whole decisionmaking process with what you have said. 



I think, Mr, Chairman, that it is only fair to tell these gentlemen 

 that it is going to be easier for Congress to tell the executive what to 

 do than to face up to what Congress has to do. 



Other than that, I want to commend each of you for your contribu- 

 tions here this morning. 



Mr. Rogers (presiding) . Thank you very much. 



Mr. Keith, 



Mr. Keith, Thank you. 



As I listened to Dr. Calhoun, I thought of him not only as an 

 accomplished oceanographer, but one who might also have earned 

 his doctorate in English or perhaps in management, and then, as it 

 finally has developed, in philosophy. It has been a rare privilege to 

 be here. When I came to Congress, I had quite a financial burden, 

 but I used to think it was compensated for by the educational expe- 

 rience. Today has been a graduate course in that, and I am very grate- 

 ful for your contribution. 



We have an expression in New England, "It is time to fish, cut 

 bait or pull for shore." And I think, from the tenor of this committee 

 and the witnesses before it, that we are going to try to do just that. 



I have one question, and it may be best to develop this if you are 

 going to be in town a few hours. Dr. Paulik. I represent the city of 

 New Bedford, and we are very much concerned not only about lobster, 

 scallops, and many other species of fish, but more particularly had- 

 dock, which hasn't been a big product in our port. 



If the projected plans of the ICNAF materialize, haddock may be 

 in very short supply. This means that Boston fishermen are going to 

 transfer into New Bedford products. You talked at some length in 

 your report or in your prepared statement, as well as afterward, about 

 what was wrong, but you didn't say what you would do about haddock. 



Now. if you have a short answer to that, I would like to have it here. 

 If you have a long answer, I would like to meet you later on. 



Dr. Paulik. Maybe w-e could defer this until the session is finished. 



Mr. Keith. Let's do that, because there is another witness from 

 the private sector. But if you are g^oing to be in town for another 3 

 or 4 hours, I would like to meet with you. 



Dr. Paulik. I will certainly be at your disposal. 



Mr. Keith. That is the only question I have, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Lennon (presiding). The gentleman from Florida. 



Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



