143 



Do I understand that you have a feeling that the proper approach 

 would be to provide authority for protection of all species, and that 

 the appropriate agency of our Government, I should say, would have 

 authority to protect species where needed rather to get into any specihcs 

 as provided in this legislation ? . 



Wliat, in general, do you feel about total protection? ^ ^ tv/t 



Dr Talbot. If I may take the second part of your question hrst, Mr. 

 Pelly total protection is a necessary tool of management when the 

 obiective of management is as we have described it, the broad main- 

 tenance of the balance, the stability of the environment, and the avoid- 

 ance of the depletion or extinction of species. , 



There are a number of situations where total protection lor a time 

 and in some cases perhaps relatively permanently is required, but 

 because environmental conditions are dynamic, it is frequently nec^es- 

 sary to subsequently apply some other form of management m order 

 to assure our original objective. 



We have a number of situations on land where total protection ot 

 some species, for example, of the deer, has resulted m what amounts 

 to a population explosion of that species, which has adversely attected 

 its own environment and that of many of the other organisms, plants, 

 and animals, with the ultimate damage to the species we were trying 



to protect. 



What I am saying is that total protection is a very important man- 

 agement technique, but it is not the only management technique. 



Mr. Pelly. You want a flexible system of protection, is that it ? 



Dr. Talbot. Yes, sir; based on adequate scientific knowledge of the 

 situation and of the principles of management. , ., . , 



Mr. Pelly. How about that flexibility ? Could it be built into the 

 so-called Anderson-Pelly bill approach? • • u -i* 



Dr. Talbot. Yes; it would appear to me that it could ; that it is built 

 into it through the mechanism of assuring a continuing scientific re- 

 view of the status of these marine resources and of the means and 

 method for their management as necessary. 



Mr. Pelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Anderson ? 



Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



First, Dr. Talbot, I want to thank you for your comments. I am 

 almost afraid to ask any questions for fear you might upset the state- 

 ment you made in support of H.R. 10420. 



I was looking at your recommendation on page 6 where you say : 



We would recommend that the act be amended to extend authority, as appro- 

 priate, to the taking of marine mammals by persons under U.S. jurisdiction on 

 the seas beyond the territorial waters of the United States. 



What problems do we have in extending jurisdiction beyond our ter- 

 ritorial waters. 



Dr. Talbot. Mr. Anderson, I am afraid I do not have any training 

 in legal matters, in constitutional and international law. 



I would be very happy, however, to seek the answer to that ques- 

 tion from appropriate authorities and submit it to the committee 

 subsequently. 



Mr. Anderson. That would be all right. I would like to know just 

 where we stand if we do extend it, what our problems would be, and 

 what our jurisdiction actually would be in that area. 



