197 



Mr. Potter. I thought Commerce was involved in this. 



Mr. McKernan. Aajain, I am not the person to ask, but I can say 

 that Commerce provides permits for commercial companies to operate 

 whaling stations, and they did give permits for commercial whaling, 

 as I understand it, through the year 1971. But, on the basis of the 

 Endangered Species Act, action by the Department of Interior and 

 by the Government, they indicated that after 1971 they would no 

 longer give any permits for commercial whaling by U.S. companies. 



Mr. Potter. That was as of last December. 



I have here a document entitled, "A Report of a Meeting of Repre- 

 sentatives of the North Pacific Whaling Nations," and attached to 

 that is an annex of agreement on the regulation of North Pacific 

 whaling, executed by representatives of Japan, Russia, and the United 

 States, indicating that the total catch of the baleen and sperm whales 

 (all of which are on this endangered species list) authorized to be 

 taken shall be allocated in 1972 in the following manner, and it gives 

 a list. 



The United States is entitled, according to this list, to take 132 

 whales. How is that consistent with our statement that as of this 

 December we are not going to take any whales? 



Mr. McKernan. Well, the United States, has, of course, been whal- 

 ing in the past. And the action by the Department of Interior is an ad- 

 ministrative action ; and while I was not responsible for this document 

 and this action, although I have seen it as you have, my presumption 

 is that Dr. McHugh, The Commissioner for the United States, felt 

 that the United States, at least, ought to keep its general quota. But 

 this did not mean, of course, that the United States would choose to 

 take that quota. 



There is another element in this, and that is that if the United States 

 kept its quota, at least that particular number of whales in the total 

 quota would not be available for somebody else to take. 



It probably is a desirable thing if, in fact, we want to work toward 

 a reduction in the take. 



Mr. Potter. I think that is the most compelling argument for the 

 dog-in-the-manger theory I have ever heard. 



Is this not essentially what you are saying, even though technically 

 we are not permitted by regulation of the Interior Department 



Mr. McKernan. And only by administrative regulation which can 

 change like the wind, of course. 



Mr. Potter. That is very interesting. I had understood that the 

 Interior Department had stated that this was being done under the 

 Endangered Species Act, which permits a 1-year moratorium from 

 the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act in the cases of hard- 

 ship. Presumably, the Del Monte in Richmond, Calif., pleaded, and 

 managed to get a hardship extension. 



What you are saying now is that Interior, if it wanted to, can come 

 out any minute and say, "OK, you can have a further extension." 



Mr. McKernan. Well, let me go back again. 



In terms of the Endangered Species Act, of course, this is under the 

 authority of the Department of the Interior. In terms of the permit for 

 commercial operation, they are issued by the Department of Commerce. 



Mr. Potter. I do not see that that answers my question. 



