461 



First, I would like to address myself to H.R. 6554 which would pro- 

 hibit any taking of marine mammals. 



The International joins all of the other professional organizations 

 and people that have addressed you on this subject in opposing this 

 measure. 



We consider it biologically unsound. 



It, in effect, would jeopardize rather than benefit marine mammal 

 populations. It would deny positive benefits to the public. It would 

 negate the very effective North Pacific Fur Seal Treaty and place 

 that very important species in jeopardy in our judgment. 



In the case of H.R. 10420 our position is very much as explained 

 by the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Burns. 



We appreciate that there is a place and a need for the Federal 

 Government to assume responsibility for the welfare of cetaceans and 

 other marine mammals that live primarily outside the 3-mile limit. 



We feel rather strongly that those animals that are normally found 

 along the coastline, within the 3-mile limit, the boundaries of the State 

 should be retained under the protection of the respective St_ates. 



Specifically, the cetaceans, other than the beluga whale in Alaska 

 and the killer whale in the State of Washington, we feel do desen^e 

 Federal protection and should be preserved under its national treaties 

 with other nations. 



The species that we consider to be resident are the harbor seals, the 

 sea lion, the sea ott.er, the manatees, and in the case of Alaska and 

 Washington they respectfully request that the beluga whale and the 

 killer whale when they are within the 3-mile limit be subject to State 

 regulation, management, and protection. 



My objective here today is to convince you that the States have the 

 authority, the expertise to maintain coastal marine animal populations 

 at the optimal levels and achieve maximum benefits for the public and 

 that Federal assumption of responsibility for resident wildlife is an 

 unnecessary duplication and invasion of existing State programs. 



In this connection, I would like to point out that the States are 

 rapidly moving into the area of protection and management of non- 

 game wildlife. 



Currently, 34 States have a broad platform of responsibility for all 

 wild mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, including marine mam- 

 mals in the case of many of the coastal States. 



In the case of Oregon and Washington and the point in this last 

 session of our legislature, both States, the game departments were 

 given authority to protect and manage marine mammals and in our 

 case it is all wild mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles except the 

 cetaceans. 



In the State of Washington cetaceans are included in the State game 

 department's responsibility. 



California has historically protected the sea otter, the Guadalupe 

 fur seal and they have protected seals and sea lions from taking by 

 any person other than a commercial fisherman who is suffering dam- 

 age from those species. 



The State of Florida is aggressively protecting the manatee and we 

 fail to see where the provision of H.R. 10420 would significantly add 

 to the protection of that species. 



