441 



resident and nonresident marine mammal species occur in Alaska waters, and are 

 important for the livelihood of thousands of Alaska residents. H.R. 10420 seems 

 to imply an unwarranted extension of federal jurisdiction over resident species 

 of marine mammals that could jeopardize current federal and state sponsored 

 management programs. According to several knowledgeable informants, H.R. 

 10420, as written, stands a good chance of being approved in the House, if strong 

 opposition to the assertion of federal jurisdiction over resident ocean mammals 

 does not develop. 



Marine mammals as defined in H.R. 10420 include several important species 

 which the State of Alaska acknowledges as presently in need of total protection 

 on an international basis. Conversely, several of the marine mammal species 

 are neither presently, nor in the foreseeable future, in any danger of becoming 

 extinct. In fact, many marine mammal species are being successfully managed 

 on the basis of sound scientific information and responsive regulations. This 

 latter group includes all of the species presently of importance to Ala^a 

 residents, with the exception of the whales. 



Additionally, H.R. 10420 would also apply to several important species that 

 reside within the territorial waters and on the lands of the State of Alaska. 

 Assertion of federal jurisdiction and management over these resident species 

 would be in direct conflict with "The Alaska Statehood Act" and "The Sub- 

 merged Lands Act." 



We fully recognize the present public interest in marine mammal conserva- 

 tion and applaud the response of Congress in proposing legislation to protect 

 these animal species. However, if the marine mammal resources of Alaska and 

 the world are to be peri^etuated, sound resource management principles should 

 not be rejected in favor of an indiscriminate ban. This is particularly true of 

 those species which compete directly with man for resources of the sea (i.e., 

 fur seals and sea lions utilizing fishes of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering 

 Sea). 



We present the following discussion of the State of Alaska's position on the 

 major classes of marine mammals as they would be affected by the "Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act of 1971." 



PORPOISES, DOLPHINS AND WHALES (OTHER THAN BELUGAS) 



The State of Alaska is basically in agreement vnth H.R. 10420 as it pertains 

 to porpoises, dolphins and whales other than belugas. The preservation of whales 

 has been the subject of a resolution by the Alaska State Legislature (see Ap- 

 pendix B ) . Porpoises and dolphins are species which are not utilized or managed 

 at present, and for which there is no apparent potential use in the United 

 States. Should a potential develop for their utilization, H.R. 10420 would as- 

 sure that research was conducted to determine permissible harvest levels, and 

 that harvests were then kept below these levels. 



It is reported that United States tuna fishermen annually kill in excess of 

 2(X),000 porpoises, which are taken incidental to fishing operations and are 

 not utilized. As presently written, H.R. 10420 would allow this wasteful prac- 

 tice to continue. We suggest that H.R. 10420 include provisions for research 

 designed to develop methods of tuna fishing whereby the associated kill of 

 ptorpoises would be greatly reduced. 



Some of the large whales are in fact endangered and most are wide rang- 

 ing. Some spend time within the territorial waters of several states and coun- 

 tries as in the high seas. 



The State of Alaska does not have a whale research or management pro- 

 gram. The federal government, through the Departments of the Interior and 

 Commerce, will prohibit, after December 1971, the import of products frt)m 

 whales and their harvest by U.S. citizens. H.R. 10420 might conflict with these 

 prohibitions by allowing permits to be issued for harvesting whales. However, 

 if the effect of H.R. 10420 is the total prohibition of marine mammal hunting 

 then, in the case of whales, the same thing has already been accomplished by 

 actions of the Department of Interior and Commerce. 



Ala.skan Eskimos annually harvest 15-25 bowhead whales for human con- 

 sumption. Although acculturation is changing many aspects of Eskimo life, 

 bowhead whales have traditionally been hunted and utilized by these peo- 

 ple. Because whale hunting and subsistence use is and will continue to be a 

 significant part of the Eskimo culture, we fully -support the provision in H.R. 

 10420 which provides for the present relatively low Eskimo harvest, and sug- 



