517 



application of the Endangered Spwies Act to all manner of creatures, 

 whether game animals or not. In the case of most marine mammals, 

 particularly polar bears and whales, we probalbly should protect the 

 hell out of them. 



The Harris-Pryor bill, however, is something else. It deals with one 

 determinant across an entire range of species, the needs of which vary. 

 Tlie century -old story of the Pribilof fur seals illustrates tliis well, and 

 we are pleased that an amendment has been oifered in recognition of 

 the practical difficulties there. Under a total and absolute ban for all 

 mammals, we wonder how more exceptions will have to be made by 

 specific legislation as marine biologists confront new problems— ^the 

 control of diseases, the unv> anted and unforeseen loss of habitats, 

 breakdowns in international negotiations and so forth. We are not 

 willing to jeopardize the gains that have been made — as slow as they 

 are and as distastefully secured as it may seem to some j^eople— to 

 sentiment. Wliat surgeon, for example, would refuse to take a part 

 to save the whole ? 



The League believes that H.R. 10420, on the whole, deals with these 

 possibilities far more realistically. Specifically, we endorse its findings : 



1. That certain species of marine mammals are, or may be, 

 endangered. 



2. That there is inadequate knowledge about them, precluding ra- 

 tionale use decisions needed for their protection. 



3. That negotiations should begin, as soon as possible, on interna- 

 tional arrangements for research and conservation measures. 



Moreover, the ongoing review which can be provided by the pro- 

 posed Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee on Scien- 

 tific Advisers on Marine Mammals will be most important in deter- 

 mining what should be done on a species by species basis. We endorse 

 the idea suggested by the Audubon Society that membership on the 

 commission should be barred to anyone representing any interest which 

 stands to gain or profit from the taking of marine mammals. 



I should add we question whether the scope of the Commission 

 as articulated in the bill, is broad enough to take in the legitimate 

 interest of several Federal agencies and several States or also whether 

 it is broad enough to consider the kind of management needs which 

 Dr. Ray talked about this morning when he alluded to the need to 

 manage the entire Bering Sea as an ecological whole. 



We would hope that the recommendation for a Marine Mammals 

 Commission would take those factors into account. 



Basically, this is a necessary management approach in contrast to 

 the prohibitions recommended in the Harris-Pryor bill. We would 

 like to suggest that neither can stand alone and that there should 

 be an amalgam of the two concepts. Section 102 of H.R. 10420 — ^the 

 Anderson bill — for example, would require a permit from the Secre- 

 tary of the Interior for the taking of marine mammals under regula- 

 tions promulgated by him. He would be guided by two basic criteria : 



1. Assurance that the species is not threatened with extinction; and 



2. That the sj^ecies can be managed on a sustained yield basis. 

 We think that the Secretary is a fine fellow but we question whether 



this gives him near enough direction, 



Mr. DiNGELL. At that point if you will give us any suggestions for 

 amending the bill we would appreciate it. 



