382 



Mr. Hoyt, we have had suggested to us by several witnesses and Dr. 

 Talbot was one of them, the proposition that under some circumstances 

 it is less humane not to kill specified numbers of a given animal popu- 

 lation where that population is reaching the carrying capacity of its 

 environment, and begins to suffer from "environmental resistance." 



As you probably know, articles have been introduced into the record 

 indicating that the British have run into this specific problem where a 

 specific seal stock is running into very serious problems, involving in- 

 creased pup mortality and other difficulties. 



In cases like this, do you believe that it would be appropriate, under 

 rigidly controlled circumstances, to permit the killing of "surplus" 

 members of that community ? 



Mr. Hoyt. Yes. Our primary focus and concern is that any killing 

 that is done be done humanely. 



That really is the burden of our concern. 



We do recognize that there well may be instances where it is neces- 

 sary on behalf of the animals species itself to control and manage 

 them, given the circumstances. 



However, I think as regards the ocean mammals at this point in his- 

 tory, that the great burden of proof is on those who would want to so 

 manage them, for it seems to us from all indications that the extinction 

 and the depletion of these mammals is by far the greater concern at the 

 moment and not how to keep their population down. 



If and when it can be demonstrated with a specific and accurate fig- 

 ures that it would benefit these species to do so and that such could be 

 done in a humane manner, certainly we do not object to that activity. 



Mr. Potter. Well, if the committee were able to develop legislation 

 which could provide this kind of assurance, that is to say, would indi- 

 cate that (1) any killing would have to be demonstrably for the benefit 

 of the stock or of the species, (2) the burden of proof would be on the 

 person who proposed to do the killing to show that it was done for 

 valid biological reasons — although there might be economic fringe 

 benefits, these would, in fact, be fringe benefits and not the primary 

 objective of the program — (3) that this entire program were forced 

 to be done in the full light of public scrutiny and (4) that any killing 

 were done in a humane fashion, would you support such a bill ? 



Mr. Hoyt. Yes ; we would support such a bill. 



May I simply add this point, that we do not at this moment accept 

 the fact that that is the rationale behind the killing of the northern 

 fur seals and the Pribilof as was mentioned earlier in testimony. 



Our testimony is that it is the economic rationale that motivates 

 that and perhaps the controlling of the species is now the rationale to 

 soften the impact of that. 



Mr. Potter. There were certainly some disturbing overtones in the 

 testimony of the Department of Commerce last Monday which sug- 

 gested that in some respects the conservation of the herd which we 

 thought was the primary objective when we reported that bill out of 

 this committee has come to be more of an economic operation. 



Mr. Hoyt. I think it is clear it is of economic value to certain interest 

 groups. 



Now, the Department of Interior which once upon a time controlled 

 this hunt did tell us, in fact, that the value economically to thr Gov- 

 ernment was nil, that the byproduct, the carcass which is ground up 

 for food for ranch mink was an in and out oDerati on. 



