4^1 



Mr. Jackman. I am David Jackman, special assistant to the attorney 

 general, and I think our position certainly is there is ample legal 

 grounds for the Federal Government to assert jurisdiction over mam- 

 mals and over species which do travel into Federal or international 

 waters. 



What we are saying is that there is a sufficient basis for a good 

 distinction to be made by the Federal Government between those species 

 which are primarily in their habitat, resident species. 



In other words, they are linked to a certain land mass ; that is, the 

 State of Alaska. They do not to any great extent migrate away into 

 the high seas. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Well, of course, I appreciate that, and I think that 

 certainly those who are concerned with protection of our resources 

 realize that with such a vast landmass and such a vast coastline, it is 

 impossible for a Federal agency to control or manage all affected 

 marine mammals. 



On the other hand, the State certainly is in no position to protect 

 these marine mammals when they go beyond the 3-mile limit, and it 

 would be verj^ easy for foreign nationals to come in and diminish the 

 stocks. Here the State would be helpless, whereas the Federal Govern- 

 ment can negotiate treaties and work out mutually agreeable control 

 arrangements. 



I do not think I differ with you, but I just did not want to say that 

 the State had jurisdiction over the marine mammals because clearly 

 it is indicated they do not have it. 



While I think the Federal Government would be pretty helpless to 

 try to protect on an exclusive basis the marine mammals in the State 

 of Alaska's territoTiaJl waters, it certainly takes a partnership, and it 

 seems to me that it takes a Federal preemption as far as the protective 

 laws are concerned. 



Mr. Potter. We have been furnished with some material on this 

 point, which I ask be included in the record. 



Mr. DnsTGELL. Without objection, go ordered. 



(The material follows:) 



The Library of Congress, 



CONGKESSIOlSrAL RESEARCH SEBVICE, 



Washington, B.C. 

 To : Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Attention : John Dingell. 

 From : American Law Davison. 

 Subject : Regulation of Marine Mammals in Territorial Waters. 



Reference is made to your request for an analysis of the position of the 

 Federal and State govemments with respect to the constitutional powers of each 

 to regulate marine mammals which pass thrtough or reside within territorial 

 waters. 



By the Submerged Lands Act of May 22. 19.53, 43 U.S.C. 1301 (e), 1311, the 

 United States released and relinquished to the states all right, title, and interest 

 of the United States in the natural resources, including marine animal life, in 

 navigable waters within the boundaries of a state. This Act also permitted each 

 state admitted subsequent to the formattion of the Union to extend its seaward 

 boundaries to a line three geographical miles distant from the coastline. 43 

 U.S.C. 1312. 



Subsequent to the passage of the Submerged Lands Act the Sxipreme Court 

 aflSrmed a lower court decision which, following earlier precedents, held that, 

 in the absence of conflicting federal legislation imder the commerce clause the 

 regulation of coastal fisheries is within the police power of the individual state. 

 Corsa V. Tames, 149 F. Supp. 771 (D.C.D. Maryland 1957) affirmed 355 U.S. 37 

 (1957). 



