28 



Section 3 defines the term "marine mammal" in an artificial and undesirably 

 narrow way. Section 3(1) should be more inclusive. The specific reference to an 

 exotic species found only in the waters of Southeastern Asia, the dugong, which 

 is related to the manatee, seems unnecessary. Similarly, there is a redundancy 

 in the listing of whales, porpoises or dolphins since porpoises and whales are 

 both cetaceans, and the term "dolphin" is used either in referring to the bottle- 

 nosed porpoise of North America, or any one of several European species of 

 porpoise — or a game fish of the genus Coryphaena. The definition of marine 

 mammals should be more precise. 



The exception to the meaning of the term "take" in section 3(4; is overly broad, 

 since it would apparently prevent any limitation on incidental catch of mam- 

 mals. If studies, which we believe should be undertaken, indicate that some 

 provisions to control such taking be instituted it would be advisable to have 

 appropriate statutory authority to do so. Accordingly, in our revised bill we 

 have changed the definitions of "marine mammal" and "taking" to accommodate 

 the aforesaid criticisms. See sections 3(a) and 3(e) of the revised bill. 



Section 3(5) (A) would provide for Federal control over marine mammals in 

 territorial waters. The political ramifications of modifying the explicit grant of 

 jurisdiction over living marine resources in the territorial sea granted to the 

 States by the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1301), must be very 

 carefully evaluated. One would have to inquire whether any extension of jurisdic- 

 tion such as this bill contemplates would be politically advisable or would eflS- 

 ciently utilize Federal and State resources. Moreover, section 3(5) (A) appears 

 to be unnecessary. Those States with resident populations of marine mammals 

 already have in effect appropriate regulations governing the utilization and con- 

 servation of those mammals. In addition, they have the resources to implement 

 these regulations on a sound scientific basis. The State of Alaska, for example, 

 has a staff of biologists trained in marine mammal work which is second in size 

 only to that of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 



On the other hand, section 102(a) limits the Secretary's authority to promul- 

 gate regulations by confining the purpose of such regulations to the protection 

 of marine mammals within the jurisdictional waters of the United States. We 

 believe that this limitation is undersirable and that the Secretary should also 

 have authority to issue regulations which would, to the extent feasible, effectuate 

 the conservation and management of marine mammals found in both the con- 

 tiguous fishery zone and the high seas. 



In view of the foregoing, our revised bill has been amended to authorize the 

 Secretary to issue regulations which would promote the conservation and man- 

 agement of marine mammals in both areas either by directly limiting the taking 

 thereof or by regulating the importation into the United States of such mammals 

 as well as dealing in such mammals within the United States. Our revised bill 

 would also authorize regulation of dealings within the United States in, or the 

 importation into the United States of, any other living marine resources the 

 taking of which affects the conservation and management of marine mammals. 

 See section 5 of the revised bill. 



The procedures outlined in the subject bill with respect to the issuance of 

 permits appear to be exceedingly cumbersome, and could lead to unnecessary 

 litigation. From a procedural point of view, the Secretary could be required to 

 hold three different hearings in a single case : 



(a) A hearing under section 102 for the purpose of fact-finding and rule-making 

 within the scope of his delegated authority ; 



(b) A hearing under section 103 in advance of the issuance of permits enabling 

 the permittee to lawfully harvest marine mammals ; and 



(c) An additional hearing in the event of a modification, suspension or revo- 

 cation of an outstanding permit. 



We believe that hearings of the type mentioned in (a) above are appropriate 

 and advisable at this time. However, we submit that hearings of the type referred 

 to in (b) and (c) not be a mandatory requirement and that the Secretary be 

 given discretion to institute such administrative procedures as he deems advis- 

 able under the circumstances to protect individual rights. Our revised bill there- 

 fore retains only the first type of hearing. See section 6(a) of the revised bill. 



Although section 107(a) provides exceptions for aboriginal taking of marine 

 mammals, it contains a requirement that such takings must be non-commercial 

 thus eliminating a cottage industry based on ivory carving and fur sewing which 

 plays a vital economic role in the lives of those people. This is a fragile economy 

 at best and should not be discouraged. Although the Natives of the Bering Sea 



