209 



Mr. McKernan. In that case that might, under some circumstances, 

 be an effective lever to push nations toward effective conserv^ation ar- 

 rangements and international agreements. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Do you favor controls of taking of particular popu- 

 lations in an area where the population might be jeopardized or en- 

 dangered, as opposed to j^erhaps a whole species or populations which 

 are not endangered or in jeopardy ? 



Mr. McKerxan. If I understand you correctly, you are asking me 

 A\hether or not there should be particularly stringent regulations 

 where you have small, localized stocks which might be easily depleted 

 or wiped out ? Yes, very much so. 



The gray whale is a good example along the Pacific coast. You 

 may recall, Mr. Chairman, and I recall in past years discussing this 

 with you, at one time they were badly depleted. 



The gray whale migrates up and down the Pacific coast of the 

 United States, even looming in quite close to shore at times. 



The '\Anialing Commission banned the killing of gray whales, and 

 United States, even looming in quite close to the shore at times. 



Mr. DiNGELL. "VAHiat is the level of population which you deem to 

 be appropriate for wise management and wise use ? 



Do you consider it a minimum population ? 



Mr. McKernax. Generally speaking, it is the level where the growth 

 is most rapid and recruitment is the greatest, and where natural mor- 

 tality is at a minimum. 



Mr. Dix^gell. In relation to the total population ? 



Mr. MoKerx'^ax. I have heard some rule-of -thumb estimates by some 

 scientists dealing with marine mammals that this particular level is 

 roughly half of the original stock; that is, where the population is at 

 about half of the level of the undisturbed stock, you get the maximum 

 annual increment each year. 



Now, I think this is a very rough and ready sort, of estimate, but 

 I have heard the scientists use that particular rule for marine 

 mammals. 



Mr. DixGELL. Would you think this should be the definition of this 

 subcommittee with regard to wise use and maximum sustained yield ? 



Mr. McKerx^ax. I have heard the discussion this morning, and I 

 heard Dr. Talbot mention that he felt that other considerations ought 

 to enter into any such definition, and I agree with that. 



From the standpoint of the United States, and from the standix)int 

 of our very broad interests in the environment, I would favor a level 

 somewhat higher than one-half. 



Now, if I can change my hat for a moment, and point out to you 

 that I often times have to negotiate these issues with hard-headed 

 foreign government officials, and a common denominator that is under- 

 stood by almost everybody, and is not subject to much argument inter- 

 nationally, is that particular level and that definition. 



By the way, that is why it occurs in the 1958 convention. The con- 

 vention was discussed this morning briefly. The use of MSY occurs 

 there because this is the kind of measure that anyone, no matter 

 whether he understands or likes the esthetic aspects of whales or not, 

 can at least understand, that is, the maximum sustainable yield, and 

 it can be expressed in a number or at least a range. 



