314 



beiiifr presently considered. Speaking specifically for the contribution 

 Alaska can make under such a plan, I believe it would do credit to the 

 goals this committee is pursuing. 



The second major area I wish to cover is the effect of this legislation 

 on Alaska's Native population. I am aware of the knowledge the com- 

 mittee and its able staff holds on this subject, and will limit my remarks 

 accordingly. 



As I see it, there are two aspects of this concern. The first relates to 

 the protection of Native subsistence practices as affected by this legis- 

 lation. The second relates specifically to the residents of the Pribilof 

 Islands and the annual harvest of seals in that area. 



Regarding subsistence practices, I think the committee will be in- 

 terested in the following very revealing statement from Alaska- 

 Natives and the Land, prepared by the Federal Field Committee for 

 Development PI amiing in x4laska (1968) : 



Activities of food-gathering (and related subsistence activities) are important 

 to probably more Alaska Natives today than when the U.S. purchased Alaska 

 from Russia 100 years ago. While the extent of dependence varies by region, 

 among communities within a region, and among families within communities, it 

 appears that most village Alaskans subsist in some measure by hunting, fishing, 

 and trapping ; by gathering berries and greens ; and, for some, by using animal 

 skins in garment making; and by gathering driftwood, timber, or willows for 

 fuel. In western and northern Alaska there is generally a greater dependence 

 upon food-gathering activities than in other regions. 



The fact is, that in spite of intervening pressures of great magnitude, 

 a cultural system centering on subsistence still thrives in some regions 

 of Alaska, and ocean mammals play an important role in maintaining 

 the subsistence level. I would make it very clear that it is incumbent 

 on all of us to respect this situation and approach actions which would 

 alter it with great care. 



On the other hand, I think it is clear that no endangered species 

 should be sacrificed in the effort to protect subsistence rights. The goal, 

 obviously, is to strike a proper balance by approaching the entire 

 problem" with great sensitivity. Again, I find that H.R. 10420 contains 

 provisions that most closely approach the desired balance and sensi- 

 tivity. 



The matter of the Pribilof Island seal harvest is, in many respects, 

 the central situation upon which the present legislative action is under- 

 taken. By this time, it has become abundantly clear that the sincere 

 dedication of those who publicized this issue was marked by an excess 

 of zeal over basis in fact. 



By the time these hearings were undertaken, the extreme claims 

 made concerning this seal harvest were resoundingly disproved by a 

 series of objective reports from : the Secretary of Commerce, an admin- 

 istration ])anel of nationally known veterinarians, the residents of the 

 Pribilof Islands, and a coalition of internationally respected environ- 

 mental organizations. I am aware that the committee record includes 

 these reports but wish to cite and endoi^se them at this time. 



The result is that the facts of this situation have begun to stand out 

 in reasonably sharp relief. 



The harvest is the essential element of the economy of 600 Pribilof 

 Island residents. 



The general guidance and control of the harvest is under the North 

 Pacific Fur Seal Convention between the United States, Russia, Japan, 

 and Canada, which is often cited as a model for international conserva- 

 tion agreements. 



