367 



the jurisdiction of the United States to take an ocean mammal or use any port, 

 harbor or place in connection with any such taking or to possess, transport, sell 

 or offer for sale any such mammal in interstate commerce or to import any such 

 mammal or part thereof. 



Under Section 102 the prohibition would apply immediately after the Secre- 

 tary had prescribed limitations on the taking of the species, there being no waiting 

 time provided for between the effective date of the limitations prescribed by the 

 Secretary under Section 102 and the application of the prohibitions under Sec- 

 tion 101. This could operate quite unfairly as to anyone with a stock of skins on 

 hand as of the date the Secretary prescribed the limitations. The same problem 

 was considered during the course of the Senate Subcommittee hearings on the 

 Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, Section 668 cc 3 (b) containing a licensing 

 provision as to inventory on hand was adopted to eliminate any economic hard- 

 ship which would otherwise result in a similar situation. A similar relief clause 

 should be incorporated in H.R. 10420 or such other bill as the Committee may 



report out. 



5. Revision of the Forfeiture Provisions. 



The forfeiture provisions are set forth in Section 105 of H.R. 10420. There 

 is considerable question as to whether the section as now written provides ade- 

 quate protection to those whose property is seized. Lengthy consideration of 

 the identical problem was given to the forfeiture provisions of the Endangered 

 Species Act by the Senate Cominierce Committee and its Subcommittee. We be- 

 lieve that Section 105 of H.R. 10420 should be modified to follow the pattern estab- 

 lished by the forfeiture provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This pattern 

 is set out in Section 668-<>c-4(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act (USCA 16 

 Par. 668-cc^(a)(2). 



6. Excessive Administrative Requiremetits. 



As introduced, the Act would be administered largely by the Secretary of 

 Interior. However, under Title II, Section 201. a Marine Mammial Commission 

 would be appointed. Its duties would be (Sec. 202) to conduct studies and miake 

 recommendations to the Secreitary. The Commission is to be aided in its work 

 by a "Oommittee of S<uentific Advisers on Marine Mammals." Under Sec. 203 

 "The Commission shall consult with the Comanittee on all studies and recom- 

 mendations which it may propose to make or has made" and if the Committee "or 

 any of its [nine] members" makes a recommendation not adoirted by tJie Com- 

 mission, the latter must nevertheless provide the appropriate Federal agency 

 and the Congress with a written explanation of its reasons for refusing to 

 adopt the Oommiittee's recommendations. 



In turn, if the Commis.sion makes a recommendation to the Secretary or 

 any other Federal official, the latter must respond to the recommendation within 

 IW days, and if the recommendation is not followed, the Secretary or other 

 Federal official involved mu.st make within the 90 days a "detailed explanation 

 of the reasons why" the recommendation was not followed. 



No competent federal agency should be required to consult with its ad^^s^ory 

 committee on its every move or proposed move and then to constantly justify 

 its decisions, actions and judgment on the basis of a rejected suggestion of a 

 manner which under no circumstances would authorize or permit actions or 

 single member of a nine member "advisory" eommittee. We suggest simplifica- 

 tion of this somewhat time consuming and cumbersome procedure but in a 

 facts to be hidden from public ^^ew or the view of the Secretary or Congress. 



Except for the above, the Fur Conser^'ation Institute of America finds itself 



in full support of the provisions of H.R. 10420. It would, however, appreciate 



being given the opportimity by the Subcommittee staff of revieAving the marked 



up bill in order to permit the Institute's covmsel to comment on any undue 



hardships which niay result from the draft. 



Respectfully submitted, ^ . 



James R. Sharp, Counsel. 



Mr. DiNGBLL. We will be happy to receive such statement as you 

 choose to ^ve us with results of the ultimate disposition of the hides. 

 Tliat would be very useful to this committee. 



Are there any questions ? 



Mr. Pelly? 



Mr. Pelly I just wanted to ask if the organization that you repre- 

 sent deals with the pelts of the harp seals ? 



