508 



sibility, Congress can help keep the program on track and moving 



ahead. . i • , 



In summary, Mr. Chairman, we do not accept the philosophical 

 thrust of H.R. 6544 and similar bills. As biologists, we do not believe 

 that an animal species or population can be aided, when lielp is needed, 

 by ignoring it. Our national wildlife restoration record has too many 

 excellent examples to the contrary. Time and time again, man has 

 demonstrated his capability to aid wildlife through the application 

 of scientific knowledge. This is no time to discard the formula for 

 success. 



The Institute endorses the objectives of H.R. 10420. We urge that the 

 bill be rewritten so as to give it a positive thrust, to bring the in- 

 terested States strongly into the design and implementation of the 

 necessary research, management, and enforcement phases of the pro- 

 gram, and to call upon the Secretary, as necessary, to create and ap- 

 point an expert advisory board and to administer the Federal phases 

 of such a program. 



Mr. Chairman, I am attaching a copy of a Congressional Record, 

 volume 117, dated June 29, 1971, reading "Opiwsition to Ocean Mam- 

 mal Protection Act." 



With your permission I would submit this for the record. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, it will be placed in the record at 

 this point. 



(The material follows :) 



[From the Congressional Record, June 29, 1971] 

 Opposition to Ocean Mammal Protection Act 



Mr. Stevens. Mr. President, in a speech delivered to this body on June 4, 1971, 

 I expressed strong opposition to S. 1315, the Ocean Mammal Protection Act, and 

 similar legislation now pending in the House. In this speech, I contended that the 

 enactment of S. 1315 would be extremely unwise from both an ecological and an 

 economic point of view. 



In my remarks, I also mentioned that my staff had contacted Mr. Tom Kimball, 

 director of the National Wildlife Federation, and Mr. Dan Poole, president of 

 the Wildlife Management Institute, both of whom oppose S. 1315 in that it pro- 

 hibits prudent management on the Pribilofs and requires the termination of the 

 Xorth Pacific Fur Seal Convention. 



This view is also held by the leaders of many other prestigious and knowledge- 

 able conservation groups. In separate letters to President Nixon and to all Mem- 

 bers of the House and Senate, these leaders stated that programs for the protec- 

 tion and scientific management of marine mammals are being threatened by well 

 publicized, but misguided efforts which, if successful, would destroy the operation 

 of biologically sound activities conducted by the State and Federal conservation 

 agencies. The letters made clear that the "hands off" policy proposed in S. 1315 

 and similar House bills would severely jeopardize the efforts of responsible fish 

 and wildlife agencies to manage their marine mammals programs in a scientific 

 manner. Thus, the ability of these mammals to survive and prosper would be 

 adversely affected. 



The conservationists signing the letter to the President were Mr. William E. 

 To well, executive vice president of the American Forestry Association ; Spencer 

 M. Smith, secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources : Chester F. 

 Phelps, president of the International As.sociation of Game, Fish, and Conserva- 

 tion Commissioners ; Joseph W. Penf old, conservation director of the Izaak Wal- 

 ton League of America ; Charles H. Callison, executive vice president of the 

 National Audubon Society; Maxwell E. Rich, executive vice president of the 

 National Rifle Association of America ; C. R. Gutermuth, secretary of the North 

 American Wildlife Foundation ; Richard H. Stroud, executive vice president of 

 the Sport Fishing Institute ; Fred G. Evenden, executive director of the Wild- 

 life Society; Ray A. Kotrla, Washington representative of Trout Unlimited; 



