342 



was to end pelagic sealing — that is, seal hunting at sea — which had 

 contributed so greatly to the enormous decrease in Northern fur seals. 

 Should the international agreement which now exists be unilaterally 

 terminated by the United States, it is very likely that at least some 

 of the other parties to the convention would resume large scale pelagic 

 sealing — an eventuality which would be very detrimental to the North- 

 ern fur seal. 



In this regard, I want to refer to the Ocean Mammal Protection 

 Act, as modified, which I have previously discussed. Title IV of that 

 act expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State 

 should immediately notify the other parties to the North Pacific Fur 

 Seal Convention, signed on February 9, 1957, as the latest successor 

 to the 1911 Convention, that the United States does not intend to ex- 

 tend its life beyond 1976. Further, title IV expresses the sense of the 

 Congress that the convention should be permitted to expire in 1976, 

 after its current termination date in 1975. 



In light of the past history of the northern fur seal — that is, the great 

 depradations following upon the pelagic sealing method which used to 

 be employed — I must oppose any tennination of the convention unless 

 we have an international binding agreement that such sealing will not 

 be resumed. While title IV of the Ocean Mammal Protection Act does 

 express the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should im- 

 mediately initiate negotiations with the parties to the convention and 

 other interested nations for the purpose of achieving an international 

 ban on all killing of northern fur seals, I do not believe that we can 

 unilaterally terminate our participation in the convention prior to the 

 obtaining of such a ban. Thus, I particularly stress the importance of 

 section 403 of the modified Ocean Mammal Protection Act, which 

 provides for renewal of the convention if a new treaty cannot be 

 negotiated. 



The Ocean Mammal Protection Act in the interim prior to a new 

 treaty calls for termination of that portion of the harvest — 70 per- 

 cent of the seals killed — ^which is allocable to the United States under 

 the convention. In principle, I am in accord with the step of at least 

 terminating the U.S. percentage of the kill. However, I am fearful 

 that this step might be interpreted — purposefully — by one or more 

 of the parties to the convention as being an abrogation or violation 

 of the convention, justifying their resumption of pelagic sealing, 

 and I stress the importance of this consideration. 



Now I want to return to the thrust of House Concurrent Resolution 

 77, which is not cessation of the seal harvest or even its decrease, but 

 rather, revision of the practices employed in that harvest. 



The Fur Seal Act of 1966, charges the Secretary of the Interior 

 with the management of the fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. His De- 

 partment's Bureau of Commercial Fisheries supervises the harvest. 

 The kill is largely limited to 3- and 4-year old bachelor males that con- 

 gregate on the edge of the seal rookeries. 



The Department of the Interior claims that this harvest serves con- 

 servation ends, stating in a publication entitled "Fur Seals of Alaska's 

 Pribilof Islands," issued by the Department, that : 



The Pribilof rookeries can support only so many seals. The Bureau of Commer- 

 cial Fisheries maintains the seal herd at its maximum level of productivity. 

 Animals surplus to the needs of the herd are harvested each summer. If man 

 does not do it, nature steps in. Some persons, who have the best intentions, have 



