258 



research and development and for processing a limited quantity of sealskins ; 

 this contract was terminated in 1967. In 1905 a 5-year contract was awarded 

 to the Fouke Fur Company, following an extensive effort to develop competition 

 and following comprehensive evaluations of proposals from four firms. In Febru- 

 ary of 1970 the present contract was negotiated with and awarded to the Fouke 

 Company which covers processing sealskins from the 1968, 1969, and 1970 harvests 

 and six semiannual sales through the spring of 1973. As of this date, to the best 

 of our knowledge and belief, the Fouke Company is the only firm that has the 

 capability to process sealskins in a manner that will bring the highest revenue 

 to the U.S. GovemmeiaL. 



We trust that the foregoing will supply you with the information needed to 

 enlighten the members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee regard- 

 ing this matter. Should you need any additional information we will be pleased 

 to supply it. 



Sincerely, 



John W. Townsend, Jr., 

 Acting Associate Administrator. 



Febbuaby 1, 1971. 

 Mr. John W. Townsend, Jr., 



Acting Associate Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 

 tion, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, B.C. 



Deae Me. Townsend : Thank you for your letter of January 12, 1971, con- 

 cerning administration of the fur seal program. I have a few additional questions 

 which you may be able to assist me with. For ease of response, I am numbering 

 these questions. Your further asistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. 



1. How much money has the United States grossed from the sale of furs 

 during the past decade by year? 



2. How much money has the Fouke Company or other contractors grossed 

 under its agreements w^ith the United States during the same period ? 



3. List the oflScers, directors, and, if known, stockholders of the Fouke 

 Company. 



4. Pursuant to the Fur Seal Convention, what is the value of seal skins trans- 

 ferred to the Soviet Union during the past decade? 



5. Under Article 2 of the Fouke Company agreement, the United States appears 

 to bear all costs of transportation of sealskins to Greenville, South Carolina. 

 What is the cost of this service? 



6. Your letter states a rationale for the contractor's advertising program, and 

 and states that the cost is, in fact, less than one-third of the $750,000 figure quoted 

 by critics. What is the exact sum involved? 



7. Please furnish me the first annual financial statement submitted pursuant 

 to Article 9(e) of the Fouke agreement when availaible. 



8. What is the basis for Article 23 of the Fouke contract? 



9. How many Alaskan natives live on the Pribilof Islands? What is their 

 average family income? Please furnish a census breakdown, if available. 



10. What is the total cost of administering the Pribilof Islands, including the 

 fur seal program? Please furnish a complete breakdown of the cost for the 

 current fiscal year. 



11. Please comment directly on the allegations on page 9 and 10 of the 

 Friends of Animals, Inc., Fall 1970 Report that the harvest is not, in fact, a 

 substitute for natural mortality. 



Sincerely yours, 



Richard N. Sharood, 



Minority Counsel. 



U.S. Department of Commerce, 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administbation, 



Rockville, Md., February 23, 1971. 

 Hon. RicHAED N. Sharood, 



Minority Counsel, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

 House of Representatives, 

 Washington, D.C. 



Dear Mb. Shaeood : This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1971. 

 in which you ask 11 questions regarding the administration of the fur seal 

 program. Answers are provided in the same order that the questions appeared 

 in your letter: 



1-2. Gross receipts and contractor costs : 



