245 



The Commission calls attention again to comparisons with the 

 IWC situation. Beginning in the late 1960's, the International Whal- 

 ing Commission tried to set quotas so that stocks would not be further 

 reduced. 



According to the best estimates available to it, sei whales in the 

 Antarctic and North Pacific were well above MSY (maximum sus- 

 tainable yield) levels. Much of the information on these stocks was 

 based on analogy with the better studied fin whale stocks. 



As more information has come to light it has become clear that the 

 levels of the sei whales were lower than believed earlier, that the net 

 productive rates are less, and that the sei whale stocks in the North 

 Pacific and in several areas of the Antarctic are now well below the 

 MSY level, which is taken to be 60 percent of the unexploited level. 



The IWC has been forced to declare these to be protected with zero 

 quotas. 



I would like to go just a bit further with respect to our analogy 

 with the International Whaling Commission. 



As you know, Mr. Chairman, the United States has been in the 

 foreefront of conservation with respect to whales and has pressed 

 veery hard to have other countries, who have been exploiting whales, 

 to reduce those quotas. 



We have been successful in doing this. At the same time, we must 

 recognize that the United States has been killing more cetaceans 

 than all the other countries in the world taken together. The Com- 

 mission believes, therefore, that while we need to consider the possi- 

 bilities of amendment to the act, we must take into consideration a 

 large number of factors, and particularly the position of the United 

 States with respect to the International Whaling Commission, which 

 was, I think, the point brought up by Colonel Kaufmann a little 

 earlier. 



That concludes my statement. We will be glad to try to answer any 

 questions you may have, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Leggett. All right. You indicate we ought to consider amend- 

 ments, but, on the other hand, we ought to consider the effect of those 

 amendments. Has your Commission come down on the conclusion 

 as to whether or not you ought to recommend amendments at this 

 point, or have you not addressed that matter? 



Dr. Chapman. Do you want to speak to that? I will have Mr. 

 Eisenbud speak to that point. 



We have had some discussions, yes. 



Mr. Eisenbud. Mr. Chairman, the Commission is looking very hard 

 at the question of amendments and that look includes many of the 

 elements that were discussed on previous occasions with the Sub- 

 committee and with the staff. 



I do not think a decision has been reached yet, but one is antici- 

 pated shortly. 



Mr. Leggett. All right. 



Now, just one other question. If the level of the spinner today is 

 54 percent of its optimum sustainable population 



Mr. Chapman. The original level, Mr. Chairman; 54 percent of 

 the original pre-exploitation level. 



Mr. Leggett. Okay. And if the optimum sustainable population it 

 arranged between 50 and 70 percent, and if the United States does 



