506 



ently drafted, it appears that an individual may be permitted to take 

 a designated animal, but would be prohibited from possessing, trans- 

 porting, or taking it into a harbor or port. 



Under section 3, "Pennits," no mention is made whether the per- 

 mits are to be granted with or without charge. This, of course, raisas 

 fundamental questions about traditional State rights regarding resi- 

 dent species of wildlife. This whole matter is in legal limbo to say 

 the least, and we would caution the committee that the historic inter- 

 est and rights of the States are involved. Up until now, the States and 

 the sportsmen who purchase licenses and pay other special fees have 

 carried and are carrying most of the burden and responsibility for 

 wildlife. Perhaps accommodation of this is contemplated in section 

 109, but, as I note later, the wording there is so vague as to be unclear. 



Section 108 — our reaction is favorable. International arrangements 

 and agreements, as we spelled out in the beginning, are of utmost 

 necessity for the expanded and improved management of marine mani- 

 mals. Only this area offers any substantial promise for progress. Uni- 

 lateral action by the United States will be relatively meaningless. 



Section 109, "Cooperation with States," in our view requires con- 

 siderable expansion and clarification. Our reaction to this overall sec- 

 tion is that the j^resent draft is unmindful of the interest of some 

 States in marine mammals, and that, as a result, their interest is mini- 

 mized and their rights ignored. California, for example, is rightfully 

 proud of the protection that it has given the sea otter and elephant 

 and fur seals. The agency has forcefully and successfully withstood 

 the pressures of commercial groups. 



Alaska enforcement officers work to prevent misuse of sea otter, 

 polar bears, walrus, and seals. Alaska has pioneered in work with sea 

 otters, among other things perfecting techniques to live trap, trans- 

 port, and release the animals in suitable, but unoccupied, range. The 

 State agency has worked actively to restore the interesting animal 

 to its historic range there. Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia 

 made use of this knowledge, and with Alaska's gift of sea otter, have 

 reestablished and are protecting free-roaming populations of the ani- 

 mals in their coastal waters. Alaska and California wildlife agencies, 

 under State law, are responsible for protecting and managing all 

 marine mammals out to the 3-mile limit. The Washington legislature 

 recently conferred the same responsibility on the wildlife conservation 

 agency there. In Oregon, the responsibility is split between the State 

 game and fish commissions. 



Much of the success of what H.R. 10420 is seeking to do hinges on 

 obtaining the close support and cooperation of the appropriate State 

 wildlife agencies. There is considerable question, I am sure, over the 

 legality of the Federal Government seeking to assert responsibility 

 for some species historically considered property of the States. We 

 believe, and strongly urge, that the Federal Government should grant 

 100-percent financial support for approved State programs of research, 

 management, and law enforcement done as part of a coordinated and 

 cooperatively developed marine mammals management program. This 

 could be patterned after the successful anadromous and Great Lakes 

 fisheries conservation program. The cost would be small, and the re- 

 wards would be great. The few coastal States that would be involved 

 can offer experienced and knowledgeable personnel, established en- 



