530 



resources. However, there are great differences of opinion as to how this can 

 beat he accomplished. One of the bills under con.sideration (H.R. 7556) would 

 establish almost total preservation for all species of ocean mammal.s, while the 

 other (H.R. 10420) proposes .scientific management based upon conditions and 

 needs of individual species. I can enthusiastically support the latter, but must 

 oi»pose the total pre.servation concept. 



Tlie whole philosophy of natural resource conservation is under consideration 

 here, Mr. Chairman. It is a quastion of professional judgment, which I will call 

 management, versus a sincere but emotional crusade which often is caUe<l pres- 

 ervation. Complete protection or preservation is a vital segment of conservation 

 and must be employed at times in the interests of certain vital or threatened 

 resources. But to an alarming and growing number of our nation's conservation 

 converts, preservation is conservation. To them it is eWl to kill any animal, to 

 cut any tree or to utilize any natural resource for man's own welfare or en- 

 joyment. Yet, there is no alternative to careful resource use and management. 

 WitJiout the animal, plant and mineral wealth of our planet, there would be no 

 life for man. 



H.R. 7556 establishes total protection for all ocean mammals without regard 

 to need. It is based upon the false assumption that all are endangered, yet we 

 have seen the population of fur seals, for example, increased more than six times 

 under good management. Are we going' to deny people the use of a resource which 

 is needed and in .surplus supply? Certainly we should insist upon tlie most humane 

 methods of harvest as we do for domestic livestock, but let's not allow our past 

 abuses to rule out any harvest at all. We have found in the management of land 

 mammals that populations must be kept in balance with their environment or else 

 they can destroy both themselves and their environment. Nature's harvest is far 

 more cruel than man's. There is no need for total protection of all ocean mammals 

 and it would be poor conservation to establish it 



H.R. 10420, on the other hand, establishes authority for the Secretary of the 

 Interior to prohibit the taking of ocean mammals where such protection is needed. 

 It provides for scientific evaluation and the issuance of permits where there is a 

 harvestable surplus. Continuous overview by an independent Marine Mammal 

 Commission and the assistance of a committee of expert scientific advisors would 

 assure the safety of these ocean resources. We must utilize our best technical 

 and scientific knowledge to manage resources, whether they be trees or animals, 

 rather than emotional reaction, no matter how sincere it may be. Conservation 

 by its very definition is the wise and rational use of natural resources for man's 

 needs, while recognizing that all must be perpetuated in a healthy environment. 

 In a letter to the Chairman, dated August 16, 1971, I recommended several 



changes in H.R. 10420 which would make it more acceptable and workable in my 

 opinion. They are included as a part of this statement but will not be repeated 



here today. They follow. 



Page 1. — Sec. 2(1) — replace "disappearance" with "depletion." Doubt if any 



species is in danger of extermination. 



Page 2. — Sec. 2(2) — don't like the word "replenish". Sounds like a hatchery 



job. Populations should be "rebuilt" through management and protection. 



Page 3. — Sec. 3(4) — permitting the taking of ocean mammals which occurs 



incident to commercial fishing operations could provide a big loophole. Would 



either limit or eliminate this. 



Page 8. — Sec. 104(a) — why not take violations directly to federal court? I am 



against penalties, even civil, without due process of court review. 

 Page 12. — Sec. 107(a)— another big loophole if we give native Indians, Eskimos 



and Aleuts this much freedom. Look how American Indians have abused or even 



sold native hunting and fishing rights. Give them special but limited permits, if 



necessary, but don't leave the door open this wide. 



Page 13. — Sec. 109 — as I understand present law, these mammals all eome un- 

 der federal jurisdiction. The Secretary should work with the states but retain 



control over all harvest. 

 Page 18. — Sec. 202(6) (b)— can the Secretary change or veto recommendations 



of the Commission ? Should spell this out more clearly. 

 Page 19.— Sec. 203— again, it should be more specific as to the function of the 



Dir^tor of the National Science Foundation, the Chairman of the National 



Academy of Science and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Is the 



cnairman limited to names submitted by these three for appointment to the 



Committee of Scientific Advisors ? 



