146 



It would appear that clearly we are dealing with an international 

 resource which must be treated and approached on an international 

 rather than a national basis. 



Mr. K-iT^os. Could we trade off some rights we want to the Russians, 

 to engage in the killing of whales as against the bears? Is that 

 possible ? 



Dr. Talbot. This has been suggested in various international forums 

 and the idea has received a great deal of support. 



Mr. Kyros. Thank you very much, sir. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Kyros. 



Mr. Potter. 



Mr. Potter. Dr. Talbot, without getting into the question of where 

 the responsibility should lie, these animals are almost certain to be 

 "managed" in one form or another. Would you not agree that when 

 there is a Department of Natural Resources that it will make sense 

 to treat all marine mammals within one coordinated program ? 



Dr. Talbot. This would appear exceedingly logical and my under- 

 standing is that this "was basically part of the original aim of the pro- 

 posal for the Department of Natural Resources. 



Mr. Potter. In point of view of good management of living re- 

 sources, in what circumstances is it desirable to cull or kill certain 

 members of a given herd or species ? 



Dr. Talbot. Well, Mr. Potter, "desirable" is a slightly loaded word, 

 perhaps. 



Looked at from the standpoint of the survival of the species and 

 the maintenance of the balance of the environment, then it would be 

 desirable or necessary to cull or harvest individuals of that species 

 when the numbers of the species got to the point where they were hav- 

 ing an adverse effect on the environment, particularly when they were, 

 in effect, overgrazing or overusing and they had passed the carrying 

 capacity of the environment for that species. 



Mr. Potter. This ties in to the question that Mr. Kyros asked you 

 having to do with a moratorium. Looking at the Anderson-Pelly bill, 

 it occurs to me that within the context of this kind of legislation it 

 would be quite possible to have what amounts to a de facto morato- 

 rium, particularly when you consider that when there is a doubt as 

 to whether we kno^w enough about a given animal. In this case the 

 burden of proof should be — and you I think will agree — on the person 

 who wants to harvest the animal to show it is not going to do any bad 

 things to the species or the stock. 



Does this not seem to you to be an opportunity for whoever manages 

 these animals to declare what amounts to a de facto moratorium on 

 their taking? 



Dr. Talbot. Yes. My reading of the bill is that a moratorium would 

 be one of the management options that could be recommended and 

 acted upon under the terms of this bill ; and, indeed, in some cases it 

 might very well be one that would be. 



Mr. Potter. Are you suggesting that the criterion by which you 

 establish what harvesting, if any, is going to be permitted, should be 

 not what would make the most money for the harvester, but what 

 w^ould be best for the herd ? 



Dr. Talbot. What -will be best for the herd and the environment. 



