112 



I do not believe we are that type, frankly. 



Miss Herrington. I think even man is a little bit under the gun — 

 maybe that is a good word — in the face of man's modem weapons. 



It is not what you really call fair play. It is not a sport to kill 

 animals with weapons. 



Mr. GooDLiNG. I have a few more questions I would like to ask, but 

 I will yield at this point. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. McCloskey ? 



Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Miss Herrington, there is one problem that bothers me, the morality 

 issue that has been raised by the witnesses. 



Will you comment on the difference between the killing of seals as 

 we have seen in this very impressive film and what is almost a national 

 ethic in this country of having 4-H clubs raising little lambs to be 

 killed at slaughter? 



What is the di ff erence ? 



Miss Herrington. One difference is while we have made captive 

 slaves of livestock for our own survival purposes, I think everyone is 

 probably a meat-eater. 



We do need these animals for our protein diet, at this time. 



You cannot justify the slaughter of a seal. No one can eat it, not 

 even the native Aleuts, with the mercury in their liver. 



These are strictly frivolous products. No one needs the sealskin 

 coat. 



While we can breed at will livestock in a variety of so-called game 

 animals, no one in the world can breed a whale, sea otter, or any of 

 these other creatures. 



Our morality has to do with our own survival, the interrelationship 

 of all lives and the ocean. 



If we want to concede our right to eat fish, no one can say the vi- 

 ability of the oceans is not dependent upon her mammals in sufficient 

 numbers. It is a fact that the salmon follow the seals to their breeding 

 ground, and when the North Koreans fish close to the Russian islands, 

 the Russians complained this should be stopped. They are disturbing 

 the seals. They are undoubtedly taking seals and salmon in their nets. 



The porpoise follow the tuna. 



Mr. MoClosky. I do not think you understand my question. 



Is the killing of animals, or the exercising of domain over them 

 immoral ? And, therefore, does the law need to be changed ? 



Miss Herrington. In this distinction, we are attempting to stick with 

 the ocean mammals. 



Mr. MoClosky. You do not raise the moral issue ? 



Miss Herrington. This is the whole basis of our point, the immor- 

 ality of brutality, the slaughter for frivolous purposes, which is ren- 

 dering these animals extinct. 



Mr. MoCrx>SKEY. That is the true point of your testimony, is it not, 

 the slaughter for the purpose of skins that is not justified? 



Miss Herrington. It is not justifiable ecologically because we do 

 not know enough about the life of the oceans. 



Mr. McCloskey. No further questions. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Potter ? 



Mr. Potter. Two very brief questions, and you do not need to re- 

 spond to them right now. 



